Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Panini Video

They also releasing DVDs in Germany (with german dub) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.189.236 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

question

is there a fma movie 2 or is that a rumor? ~~ from Ilovedark

Hagane no Renkinjutsu

Maybe this isn't that important, who knows. But someone keeps changing Hagane no Renkinjutsu to Hagane no Renkinjutsutra or Hagane no Renkinjutsushi. Hagane no Renkinjutsu translates (literally) to Steel no(a possesive article) Alchemist. Renkinjutsushi and Renkinjutsutra aren't even words as far as I know, just someone adding extra letters to the end of Renkinjutsu. Whoever it is, please stop. Glotnot 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese dictionaries disagree: 錬金術 (renkinjutsu) versus 錬金術師 (renkinjutsushi). This one even has it written in kana: れんきんじゅつ. —TangentCube /c /t  15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for saying Renkinjutsushi wasn't a word. Also, upon searching further into the internet I found that adding the 'shi' means that the person practices alchemy though for some reason even your sources say that Renkinjutsu means alchemist.Glotnot 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what the dictionaries say is that 錬金術 is alchemy and that 錬金術師 is an alchemist, a practitioner of alchemy, although it seems you realize that now. —TangentCube /c /t  03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I studied in Japan and used Fullmetal Alchemist as a study aid. The Kanji for the title are clearly 錬金術師, meaning (renkinjutsushi), talking about Edward Elric as the Fullmetal Alchemist. If you listen to how the Japanese track says it, you can clearly and distinctly hear the "shi" at the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.74.107 (talk • contribs).

Hagane no Renkinjutsushi

Fine... if you want to be the ignorant mass, fine by me. This is the proper spelling, and if you change it, damned be ye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.74.50 (talk • contribs).

What? Nobody's changing the title. —TangentCube /c /t  01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology needs rewrite!

First of all, it contains MAJOR spoilers... I know there is a warning about spoilers on top, but these pretty much spoil the end. Secondly, most of the stuff refer only to the ANIME version and most of the stuff is different in the manga. For example:

"the Elric brothers discover that to create the stone requires many human sacrifices, as seen in the final episodes."

This obviously refers to the anime, and has nothing to do with the manga... If the terminology is going to be anime only, maybe it should be moved in the anime part below and make a new one for the manga. AcidArrow 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, in addition, I believe its drifting towards an in-universe perspective in some instances. akuyume^T_C 02:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it AutoMALE not Automail? I could be wrong but I thought that automale made more sense then automail :\ DC2600 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. —TangentCube, Dialogues 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Manga Chapter List?

Anyone else think that a manga chapter list would be a good idea? I realize that there is one on the main page, but after looking at the fantastic list of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, I think it would be great if the manga got the same. It would be awesome if it was in the same format as the episode list, with the volume covers in the same place as the DVD boxes. Anyone else agree?--Nitman99 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. We don't keep lists of chapters for books. Episodes are different. --Kunzite 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't? --tjstrf 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: this was proposed 6 months ago, yet nobody did something about it. And on that matter, I would support moving that ugly list to a new article and fleshing it out. Not me, though; I'm better at copyediting than content. —TangentCube /c /t  05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it really difficult to find information on the manga. Creating a manga page for it will be very much appreciated. --Cpryd001 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i think we should have a chapter list then if you go to the library and its not avviable at least you can find out what happened Ilovedark

Suggestion about Terminology

Let's split it in 3. Have one area that all the terms are common for both the anime and manga, have one only for the anime, and one only for the manga... AcidArrow 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GameBoy Advance Games Missing?

I noticed that even though someone previously wrote that there were two Fullmetal Alchemist titles for the Gameboy Advance, no mention in the article had been made about the titles. Anyway, I just thought that to be strange. I added them in myself; the first is Stray Rondo, and the second is Sonata of Memories (Omoide no Soumeikyoku, or just Omoide no Sonata, depending on who you ask)

I have Omoide no Soumeikyoku, so I think I'll write the article on that when I get the time. However, I know very little about Stray Rondo, and would appreciate it if someone who knows anything about the game or, even better, if someone who has the game would like to contribute to that.

Thanks! Discussion of the Gameboy Advance Games can take place here as well. =)

Stephie Chan 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible original research in trivia section

I recently removed the following sentence in the trivia section which I think constituted original research:

* The English dub is one of the few to feature actors who primarily dub in all four major areas, California (Johnny Yong Bosch), Vancouver (Scott McNeil), New York (Michael Sinterniklaas), as well as numerous voice actors from Texas.

The above sentence is original research, as it does not appear to cite any authentic reference. No resource whatsoever cites this claim, and it seems to have originated from this article instead, thus constituting original research. In order to improve the quality of this article in order to bring it up to featured status, all unsourced statements which may constitute original research should be removed immediately. Ganryuu (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Manga Volumes

I think it would be wise to sepperate the chapters in to what volumes they belong to, not only to organize things more, but because I see people constantly searching for this info online. I only have the volumes to chapters through Vol.10 anyone want to add the rest before editing anything?

• Volume 01 - Chapters 1-4
• Volume 02 - Chapters 5-8
• Volume 03 - Chapters 9-12
• Volume 04 - Chapters 13-16
• Volume 05 - Chapters 17-21
• Volume 06 - Chapters 22-25
• Volume 07 - Chapters 26-29
• Volume 08 - Chapters 30-33
• Volume 09 - Chapters 34-37
• Volume 10 - Chapters 38-41
• Volume 11 - Chapters 42-??
• Volume 12 - Chapters
• Volume 13 - Chapters
• Volume 14 - Chapters

Is anyone able to finish that and then edit the page, or if it can be completed I will edit it gladly. --Midusunknown 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the last 4 Volumes might go like this

• Volume 11 - Chapters 42-45
• Volume 12 - Chapters 46-49
• Volume 13 - Chapters 50-53
• Volume 14 - Chapters 54-57

this is just speculation though so don't take my word on it Jstraley420 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

anyone else think its worth editing the page with this speculation, presuming its more than likely right? --Midusunknown 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation does not really have a place on Wikipedia, as that would violate the rule of no original research. So, no. Otherwise, a volume listing would be fine. —TangentCube /c /t  06:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have all of those volumes in Japanese, and that is how they are compiled. Chibi Gohan 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i think u are right ~~fromIlovedark

What If???

What if shortly after Ed and al's travels in this world the noticed someone that looked strikingly like Dante, in near Japan. Ed tells Al about there is everyone's double on the other side of the gate then remember that he already seen Dante's double. Looking for answers he runs around the town looking for her only to smell her scent on a peace of clothing he finds. So he run's back to Germany to look for answer to see was it really her and find the other girl still there without that scent. Ed knowing something is up go's to the building where they held envy to find him gone and something strange written on the stone's kill Hohenhim even tho his father is dead. He then run up stairs to the spot where he found the incomplete circle and tried to use it again to open it but didn't work. After that he and al both worry about there world and what is going on. Al tries to make him feel better about it telling him gluttony killed Dante, and his worrying for nothing. As he passes a man of African decent the man noticed Ed's automail, and approached him. They where from the same world but different time periods he was what could have been and Ed and Al was what was. He traveled back a forward between words learning magic of this world and of his world for over 700 years. He maintained his youth only because his father attached his soul to the body of three Homunculi combine through alchemy. And letter revealing that his father was there fathers teacher and that's where he went when he left home for his research. And Hohenhim was not willing to do as his father did with the fussing of homunculi because the homunculi have to be emotionally linked to the soul of the one that will be attached. And he explain that his body is made up of this fallen brothers and sister. Because the emotional attachment the body will not reject the soul since it is made of homunculi it will not die. But in the war on ishbal his father attached his brother's and sister's remains to the gate and he could not cross back over. Then he said something about a sweet smelling woman named Dante came to him asking a lot of questions and demanded the secret's of alchemy from him since his father just about knew them all expect one. And with that she flow away on what seemed to be a dragon(envy). So Ed and al were ready to try to find away to cross the gate to stop Dante but the man reviled that his father has been trying for years to deceiver the ultimate foam of alchemy and that is to truly become a God a living deity. And control both worlds. And he was trapped here because he tried to stop his father from making another mistake and started to talk about how he wished could have stopped his father from murdering his family, and doing what he did, etc. So he introduces them to his son from this side of the gate and started to teach them everything he knows and showed them how to return. And when they returned it was in the middle of the mountains over what was ishbal. They made the journey home to find that there house had been rebuilt, and as good as knew. When they seen this they knew it could only mean one thing. So they rushed in the house to find there father. There explained after he opened the other gate he found himself inside the gate once again and found his body that he started out with 400 years ago. The gate attached them together and then he found himself laying on there mother's grave. So they go in this big thing about how and why it happened because be returned all he gained and got back what he lost. The 400 years of memories, the stone, life and a homunculi son from the gate. Since Homunculi are from the other side of the gate, and his son returned to the other side of the gate where he came from and the stone was all used up when he opened the gate on the other side, and he also buried his feelings for his lost son and satisfied the homunculi revenge, and gave up the 400 plus years of memories he got his one wish to be able to become a father to his children. So then they tell him about Dante and Father and everything that's going on. All of a sudden he sees Winry out the window and step's outside to greet her, her eye's water, his water, he run's screaming her name, she do the same, etc., etc. So all 5 (Ed, Al, Hohenhim, Winrey, and the new dude) set out on the greatest journey of all time to stop father and Dante (and Winry learn alchemy that she apply to making her automail only and learn more along the way the new dude got a thing for rose) so how is that for a story line hit me up at Corey_giles2003@yahoo.com and tell me what you think make changes where you think there needed and maybe we can come up with a good enough story line to send to them and make them start a new season

dude you suck, no matter how much i would love to see another season of FMA you suck...

Wtf? Wikipedia is not a fan-written fiction community. Please peddle your community-written script projects elsewhere. Maybe you could start a wiki dedicated to this pursuit of yours. -FrostyBytes 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er. . . I'm sorry to say, that basing an article on a "what if" wouldn't be a good thing.

Wikipedia is a research site, basing on the actual events of something, not a fan's hopes. Sorry, but that's the way things go sometimes. HagaRen016 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)HagaRen016

The Humming Alchemist: Kimbly

In episode 38, the Crimson Alchemist known as Kimbly hums a familiar tune that anyone would just sign off as Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". The voice actor on the English track just sort of hums out some dissonant notes, but on the Japanese track it is clearly Ode to Joy. However, this is where it gets interesting. Kimbly lives in the world where Alchemy prevailed over Physics, this world is called "Amestris". The world where Beethoven lived is our world, where Physics and Mechanics prevailed over Alchemy. The name used for Earth is Terra. Those worlds never cross paths. I wonder how Kimbly knew that song to hum it? Everybody in each world has a theoretical opposite in the other world. Did the Beethoven in Amestris write the same pieces as the Beethoven in Terra? I wonder if the creators of FMA caught this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.74.107 (talk • contribs).

Nice catch --Midusunknown 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Near the end of the series, Hohenheim says that the two worlds (Amestris and Earth) diverged from each other with the success of alchemy, and share the same common history before that point. So, the two worlds are not completely separate. Although this diverging point was definitely before Beethoven's lifetime, it's possible that he existed in both worlds, and wrote the same song in both. --Wikivader 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I noticed the song too- Though, it didn't really connect til' now. . . I agree that there may have been a Beethoven in both worlds. HagaRen016 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)HagaRen016

The symbol on Ed's jacket and Al's shoulders

Is the meaning behind this symbol explained at any point during the series? I haven't seen the entire series, so if its meaning was given I may have missed it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Nevermind, I did some more looking and found the references. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

what is it i forgot??? Ilovedark

The symbol is known ad Flamel's Cross, named for the great alchemist Nicholas Flamel, who was rumored to have created the Philosipher's Stone24.81.59.101 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific backing section

Although there is chemistry involved in the alchemy presented in FMA, the process still appears to be in some way magical or paranormal, and thus I'm not certain that any extensive scientific backing can be given for what happens in the anime. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the section; while theories such as this are nice, they are also original research, and are thus outside Wikipedia's scope. —TangentCube /c /t  23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Running Gags Section

I strongly suggest we add a Running Gags or Rinning Jokes section to this page. First of all, we should write about how Alphonse is mistaken for the Fullmetal Alchemist b/ people think he is wearing armor and Edward always gets pissed off at this. Second, a good note would be characters constantly poking fun at Ed's height. Another may be Alphonse's unhealthy obsession with cats as well as well as Mustangs' constantly wanting to be more manly. I've only read the manga up to voulme ten and have not watched the anime, so I don't know if these themes are only used in the ten volumes that I have read, or if they are also featured on the show/later manga. If no one has a qualm with this, I will put up the section in about one week. Thank you! The Hero of Time 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure why we would need such a section. If it's just going to be a list, perhaps it's better not to put it into the article; if it's to help with a summary of the manga's plot, perhaps it's better to draw up a full summary. There is also the matter of whether it would fall in Wikipedia's scope to have such a section; be mindful of WP:OR... —TangentCube /c /t  05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not original research (the in-jokes the author puts in to each graphic novel are obvious to long time readers), but I see your concern. If I have enough time, I may just start a "Fullmetal Alchemist (manga)" page and, if it doesn't have enough information itself, it could just be merged to the existing FMA page (seeing as there is already a mildly long section relating to the anime, I don't see why the manga doesn't also have one). Anyway, I will begin compiling research right away, and will probably start the new article in a few weeks. Thanks again! The Hero of Time 22:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapter guide

I tried giving the guide a more "professional" look. Questions, conserns? FullMetal Falcon 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For now, it has been placed in my sandbox. FullMetal Falcon 23:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have no opinion either way concerning the look of the final product, I think we should hold off on "prettying it up" until after the manga finishes (whenever that is), as the current format seems a fair pain to update; instead of merely shifting the <td> tags to extend the list horizontally, one would have to create a new wikitable section and move (almost) all the chapter names around. —TangentCube /c /t  22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks great FullMetal Falcon, It definitely sounds a lot less fan-ish, and a lot more professional. Great job.

Catgaard 05:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Catgaard

GA Fail

• Images need fair use rationale
• References go after a full-stop
• References aren't formated properly, please check {{cite web}}

Basically aside from the lead and story, the rest of the article is just lists, turn it into prose. Before you re-nominate for GA i strongly advise you to take a peer review. M3tal H3ad 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Point

Added a trivia section and the one very, very obscure fact I recall. I have personally and repeatedly confirmed this, though have never heard it mentioned by another source and would appreciate verification. --72.150.206.24 04:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is original research and is therefore not allowed. We are not reliable sources. —TangentCube /c /t  02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters of FMA Template

Does THIS have any significance? RecklessFire 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal navigation and the decluttering of the main FMA template. --tjstrf talk 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not that so much–the main template has all the same links, minus one–but it's a useful replacement for Template:Main in this instance. Even if it is kinda scrunched up. —TangentCube /c /t  00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the Manga Translations?

In the paragraphs before the chapter list, it says that Viz is up to Vol. 11 and the project is ongoing, but right before the list, it says that they stopped at Vol. 10. Which is right and which needs to be removed? --RockMaster 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It says the listed translations are up to volume ten. Once someone gets ahold of volume eleven, the list will be updated accordingly. —TangentCube /c /t  07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spoiler - Opening and End Themes

I was browsing through the article, and thought that the reference to Maes Hughes' funeral replacing the end theme of ep. 25 warrants a spoiler tag. If I hadn't seen the series before, I'd be pretty peeved at that little secret being revealed! Indja 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Paracelsus?

Great guy and all, but why is he in the see also section? Not even alchemy (real world version) is linked, XD... Jaimeastorga2000 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alchemy is linked in the Plot section. Paracelsus isn't anywhere else. —TangentCube /c /t  06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How advanced Amestris' military really is?

Please excuse me, a new fan to the series, but I would like to know few things about Amestris' military. Just how advanced it really is? Do they have tanks or any armored vehicles, aircraft and warships? What kind of small arms (the small arms I have seen so far are all straight from history books) the military uses? Only few episodes have been aired here in Finland so far, but I am eager to know more about the series. *cough*addicted*cough (just kidding :D).

With warm regards, --Kurt Leyman 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

- This is what we do know, Kurt. Amestris' military is comprised of several technological implications similar to what Terra (our world) had in the early 20th century. Yes, they did have tanks, and yes, their firearms took the shape of anything from Colts to Muskets. I believe I saw someone use a submachine gun in one of the episodes, but I'm not completely certain. There are no flying implications (i.e. no planes or what have you), because the citizens of Amestris developed Alchemy over Physics and Mechanics, thereby rendering them flightless (flight requires the latter two). If you have any more questions, Kurt, just post them and I'll respond forthwith.

The information that you've given Kurt pertains only to the Anime, where we know about Amestris and our world being related. Nothing in the manga states that Alchemy developed over Physics. As for Mechanics, certainly not! Take a look at automail, for example. As far as we know, the technology in Fullmetal Alchemist is similar to the early 20th century, with some exceptions and fantasy-tweaks (such as the automail) --HayashiKun 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You must not study physics and mechanics, because there is more to mechanics than metal and machines. It also takes dynamics, the study of forces and reactions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.111.161 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Wow, I just reread my input. I'm pretty stuck-up, huh? Yes, there are differences between the manga and anime, and I should have pointed that out before I just ran off talking about the anime. As for the automail, it takes quite a bit of science to put it together, so why didn't they implement that technology (or that scale of technology) into flying machines? Pardon me, but I'm only a soon-to-be junior in high school, and I'm still getting my bearings in the fields of science and mathematics. In conclusion, you shouldn't let yourself get too caught up with fabricated concepts in cartoons. Anime is better than American cartoons (because it is more serious, with more serious/mature concepts), but we shouldn't get to high and dry on fictional things like this. I was wrong, I understand that. Forgive me.

I am sure automail is powered by alchemy and not science or anything 210.49.21.150 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anime copyright on images?

An image (Image:Lust.JPG) is being removed from the Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist anime article due to lack of appropriate copyright, source, and fair-use information. I know of several companies associated with Fullmetal Alchemist, so I am wondering who actually owns the copyright on what? Especially, I would like to know what information should go onto images from the Fullmetal Alchemist anime to be sufficient to prevent those images from being removed. -- Lilwik 10:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Screencaps are legally owned by the company that owns copyright over the anime. There's also associated copyrights on derivative works, specifically, the person who took the screencap. Ideally speaking, we would claim fair-use with regards to the first copyright, and have the second copyright waived through some open license or public domain-ing of the work, which may not be the case if the screencap was ripped from a random fan website. (Of course, I am not a lawyer.) — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the company that owns copyright over the anime is Bones. What is an associated copyright? You either own the image or you don't own it. I can't imagine what an 'associated' ownership would mean. I really hope that I don't need to discover who took the screenshots for all our Fullmetal Alchemist images because I am sure that is impossible.

Copyrights are usually attached to dates. If Bones owns the copyright, then what date should go with that? The original airdate of the episode? -- Lilwik 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Original air date is good. However, I think you'll have to find out who took the screen-cap, because there is a certain amount of "work" involved with taking a screen-shot, even though the majority of the work is copyrighted by the company. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

pod casts

ther is a podcast caled The Annotated Alchemist search full mittle alchamist (not as i spelled it)Tdk jon 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Volume 12 released

Changed the text within the Manga section to reflect that volume 12 has already been released. I don't know the date for V. 13 though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veridicum (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Surely it's not too much trouble to wait for the official release dates? —TangentCube /c /t  02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OVAs

According to Anime News Network, Fullmetal Alchemist has 3 or 4 OVAs (depending on whether you count the live action one). Perhaps this should be mentioned in the summary in the top-right corner of the article. Heihachi 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

also, what are the titles of the OVA's 84.130.158.217 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Manga

¿In the manga has Ed returned Al and himself back to normal yet?

No, and it is a loooooooooooooooooooooong way from happening!

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

list of people of the anim ?

I think this article should include a list of people as in the french version.

Doublehp 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shonen Demographic?

I noticed that the demographic of FMA in the article is listed as Shonen, grouped together with animes like DBZ and InuYasha. I find that this is incorrect because if you look at the plot and structure of other shonen, it's completely different. Plus, there's the fact that in America, FMA is shown on Adult Swim, which is geared towards the 18-24 year old male audience. It seems to fit in more with the Cowboy Bebop and Trigun genre(s) and audience. Furthermore, the issues, philosophies, and violence portrayed in the anime and manga are quite mature for a young audience. Shonen tend to portray simple action violence (i.e. InuYasha, DBZ, One Piece, Bleach), while FMA talks about death and destruction in a less fantastical form. Like when Hughes dies (manga and anime). Think about how real it was. How his daughter cried "They can't bury Daddy! Daddy! DADDY!" and feeling your heart being torn out. I only saw that part in the manga, and people have told me that it was even more emotional in the anime. Do you think that the shonen demographic would be able to handle that? ForestAngel 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Just because other titles marketed as shōnen have certain conventions does not mean that all shōnen titles must slavishly conform to those conventions. The term, as a demographic, only describes the intended audience; since Fullmetal Alchemist is serialized in a shōnen magazine, it is a shōnen title. Death Note, anyone? —TangentCube, Dialogues 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that FMA belongs more in the Seinen demographic. I think that any 12 year old would be traumatized by a lot of the blood and gore shown in FMA. Like Scar getting his arm blown off? ForestAngel 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be incredibly tame by seinen standards. And how would "any 12 year old"—meaning, by expansion, "every 12 year old"—be traumatized by the level of violence in FMA? An argument based on a generalized assumption better have a fair amount of sourcing behind it—I'd be willing to bet there's some people who've played Manhunt at 12 and not come out traumatized. —TangentCube, Dialogues 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the title of the magazine it's published in? Monthly Shonen Gangan. It isn't Seinen by a long shot. For blood, have you seen Naruto, Bleach, or even Magic Knight Rayearth? Even Shaman King has appendages being cut off in later volumes. My little brother was playing Resident Evil 4 when he was 12/13, and he didn't even have a nightmare. Case in point, FMA is shonen. Jezebel Parks 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

American standards are not the same as Asian standards. People in America try to shield children from violence and sex. A 12year old in America isn't exposed to as much violence and sex in games, and television as a 12year old in Japan. Watching an anime with someone getting cut to pieces in Japan is normal, over here, parents would throw a fit to find something like that on day time TV. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ForestAngel was saying "the plot and structure" of FMA it's completely different from other shounen titles, but I actually think it's the same. They're all about being the best you can be: Naruto wants to be the Hokage, Yoh wants to be the Shaman King and Goku wants to be stronger than everybody else.

FMA is made in the same mold: the Elric Brothers want to be the best alchemists in Amestris. How? By finding the Philosopher's Stone. It's allegory.--Nohansen 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The FMA style is shōnen, simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see as a serious problem

If "manga" is a Japanese word for comic book or print cartoon and this is a English version article, then it should say "comic" and not "manga". I'm sure 99% of people will disagree with me, but there is obviously a case of english-language-mutilatation-for-the-sake-of-wanting-to-make-a-japanese-word-a-english-one. This should really be changed. 71.82.98.241 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Manga is not just a word for comic, but a differnt style of drawing. Compare FMA style to X-men style drawings, there's a difference. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

?????¿¿¿¿¿

Is Full Metal Alchemist Shōnen Jump?¿ Uzumaki Dude 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can read the article, right? —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost religion?

I do recall hearing about a religion in FMA that was lost many years before. It was mentioned in episode Hohenheim of Light. Lyra was talking about a religion lost a long time before, because it was a taboo. This said religion only had one god. Could this lost religion be Christianity? -Yancyfry 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -Yancyfry 02:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely missed Rosé on the Character listing

I noticed, Rosé isn't even mentioned on the minor characters page, but shes referenced in Noah's little discription, also with her the Baby should be mentioned. R.L. Nieman 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC) R.L. Nieman.

She is located on the Minor characters of Fullmetal Alchemist page, as she is a minor character and not notable enough to be in the major character listing. Jezebel Parks 06:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What is he name of the track used in the ending of the episode Soul of the guardian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.131.178 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tobira no Mukō e" ("To the Other Side of the Door") by Yellow Generation. -Yancyfry 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.But what I meant was the name of the track played in the background when Barry the chopper brainwashes Alphonse.Could you please tell that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.76.124 (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, uh. I wish I knew. Sorry. -Yancyfry 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anime versus Manga Specifics

It seems that we are faced with a bit of an interesting dilemma. As the manga progresses further and further, it also diverges further and further from the ending fabricated by the creators of the anime series. The nature of the philosopher's stone, the homunculi, their creator, Hoenheim, the gate, and even the world itself is very different. It may in fact be prudent to split this article (which is getting rather long anyway) into two separate articles, Fullmetal Alchemist (Manga) and Fullmetal Alchemist (Anime), with a short disambiguation page taking the place of the main page. Since many of the pages linked to on the main page are specific to manga and anime anyway, this would simply allow us to present a cleaner overall summary. Any thoughts?

70.65.53.168 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping things together as much as possible, giving precedence to the manga and simply explaining the differences in the anime series in the subsidiary articles. This, especially since the manga length is now dwarfing that of the anime, will be the best option in the long run. Atomizing the pages simply because of some differences won't help much, we'd hardly benefit by having a seperate Pride (Fullmetal alchemist manga) and Pride (Fullmetal alchemist anime). --tjstrf talk 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an insanely ridiculous idea. Your point on the different lengths and content of the two forms of FMA merely underscore the necessity of separating the article. The majority of people who have experienced FMA and link to it at Wikipedia for the first time have no idea that an FMA manga even exists, apart from the general knowledge that most successful animes have a manga form. The majority of people who would consider themselves fans of FMA have never read a single FMA manga. This also underscores the vast difference between the two subjects. For they are just that. Two entirely different subjects.

I can see that there might be a need to consolidate minor linked pages. I am all for this. But trying to write a combined article for both the manag and anime is impossible. And by this I mean that the current article utterly fails the public. It needs to be separated.

Most important of all perhaps, is that the subjects need be treated VERY differently. All information about FMA (anime) is currently either known or obtainable. The community needs to focus on improving this article to reflect that knowledge.

All of the information regarding FMA (manga) is not known. Because it does not exist yet. The manga is not finished. The community needs to focus on ordering information efficiently to account for the addition of future information, and reflecting what is currently not known concerning the series.

In fact there are numerous reasons why the two articles subjects should be given separate article. But as they are all obvious I will not needlessly list them.

St.York 09:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like no one has commented on this again in a while, but the fact of the matter is that while over the years, the manga has become increasingly discrete from the anime, it has lately become so separate that this article merely adds to the confusion. This is hardly something that could be appreciated w/n an encyclopedia, and requires serious revision. I plan to attempt this, but I would probably drown in my procrastination w/o help. The general opinion of others I've talked to seems to be that every time people try to correct something, it is edited out again, presumably by fans of the anime. Then again, 'gneral opinion' was stated by one person on a forum I visit, and I've yet to figure out whether others consent to this b/c they agree or b/c they don't want to argue w/ that person. Frankly, I admire and fear this person about as much as you can someone you've only met in cyberspace, but other opinions and support would be helpful. Very.

Please. Enough w/ my rambling, but as a fan of the manga and the wonderful mangaka, I hate to see this article suffering.

senerikfred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.160.150 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of corrections you feel were reverted without a good reason? (Oh, and if you're anonymously editing, use the anonymous signature, please.) —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what that person meant the specific changes were. I just know that they/other fans seem to cite this as reason that it's futile. (Oops. Might've helped if I'd logged in and figured out to sign comments properly.)-Senerikfred 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only repeated edits I've seen to the article recently have to do with inaccuracies (stating that Ed lost both limbs when he and Al transmuted his mother, when it was just the leg; or that Bradley is Pride, which would be true if the next three words weren't "in the manga") or character details, which should be handled one one of the various character pages, so I don't really see a problem with respect to people overriding truth with opinion. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should split them! For one, I have heard about the anime ending and I think it sucks! However, I don't no very much about were it left off in the manga, or if the manga even adapted the anime's ending or details (anything past episode 24) so I'm thinking "Should I even read the manga? Were did it leave off?" now, for anyone that dosen't no about the anime and manga not being the same after episode 24, or is thinking about doing one but not the other, or watever, it needs to be crystal clear to them that the anime is one way and the manga is another, and were the anime leaves us volume wise in the manga, and wat was and wasn't adapted, so yes, they should be split! -CaptinAsagi —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinAsagi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a split...

I have an few suggestions:

Manga--> Split into List of Fullmetal Alchemist manga

Music, Anime Details, Broadcast Info & Video Games--> Split into Fullmetal Alchemist media and materials

Just a suggestion... RedEyesMetal 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the manga information should be split last, as it is the original work. It needs to be fleshed out, too. —TangentCube /c /t  19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to split and merge all the media information — the manga chapter guide, the episode list, the music and drama CD lists in the main article — into a single article; for example, List of RahXephon media. I don't think there's enough material yet to split Fullmetal Alchemist into manga and anime articles. —TangentCube /c /t  10:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everything from the section Opening and ending themes onward could be put into a media page. As for the manga chapter guide and the episode list, those could still be kept on separate pages with links to them from the main and media articles (like what Bleach has). --Eruhildo 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been working on one off-wiki for a while, but wording lead sections makes me lazy, as does finding sources. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Transmutation Circles

There are a large number of transmutation circles used in the anime, but the science behind them is never explained. How does the shape of the circle affect the transmutation? Does the manga ever touch on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.97.213 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.161.254 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have all the English volumes that have been released so far, and none go into specifics about the circles themselves, at least not as far as I can remember. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Alphonse Elric(historical)

Nothing found on Google to show this was a real person. Until evidence appears, let's keep fact & fiction separate, please. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this historical Alphonse Elric does exist, they should have separate articles. -Yancyfry 04:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

anime and manga

i'm sombody who just wached the videos and movie and the diffrences arn't that clear. Just saying that a plot out-line should be added if sombody haddent see or read FMA before it could be confusing like when talking about when the plot lines split it says it happens when they encounter greed (also this is the first time he is even mentioned. which time? when we meat greed or when the brothers do? might even need two diffrent sections i.e MANGA PLOT and ANIME PLOT because anyone who isnt a fan would be lost oh one more thing name the humiclious would do it myself but i cant spell and have poor grammer(220.237.202.87 07:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Spoilers perhaps?

Im on episode 43 of the english anime series, plan to have them all watched sometime... One surprise was ruined for me, now that i know dante is the leader of the homunculi... No spoilers there? other than that, great article, nice work :) Tresmius (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for spoilers; in the past, there used to be spoiler warnings, but after very lengthy, heated discussions on the matter, these were deprecated and removed. The archives of the following are heavy with tl;dr, but may provide some insight: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, Template talk:Spoiler. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FMA Novels

Is it okay if I add pages on them? I've read four of them so far and I'm reading the 5th as I type this out. Ominae (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual novels do not need articles. However, table list for them with summaries would be quite welcome. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper Names in FMA

At List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, an issue arose over the use of Ishbal vs. Ishval, that got contentious enough the list is currently under full protection while we discuss the issue. User:Egan Loo (who claims to be a former Viz employee who worked on earlier volumes) insists that we should use Ishval because it is the "correct" spelling and what the creator uses. Ishbal, however, is the English spelling used in the anime series, and appears to be in use now in the Viz manga translations. In a general Google search, Ishbal is also the most common spelling. During the discussion, it came up that not only are we being inconsistent with the spellings of this term, but with many proper names. An RfC was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC on FMA issue. That discussion also brought up the broader issues and the wide sweeping implications for all FMA articles that such discussion could have, so it was felt that this needed to be a wider discussion, centered here in the main talk page. For the Ishbal vs Ishval, for example, if we feel Ishbal is the spelling to use then many other articles need to be checked and corrected, and Ishval would need to be renamed. I'm going to point both of the other discussions here to centralize. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we use "Ishbal" for the anime and "Ishval" for the manga since the manga clearly uses the v and the anime clearly doesn't. Thats my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem there, is that in later volumes of the manga, it has been changed to Ishbal. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

FMA manga has now sold over 30 million volumes in Japan. Here is the ref if someone would like to note accordingly: [1] AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. --MahaPanta (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Retry

The reason it failed:

GA Fail
* Images need fair use rationale
* References go after a full-stop
* References aren't formated properly, please check {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
Basically aside from the lead and story, the rest of the article is just lists, turn it into prose. Before you re-nominate for GA i strongly advise you to take a peer review. M3tal H3ad 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the fair use rationales and put the references after full stops. --MahaPanta (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article failed GA for many reasons. It is lacking references (not just an issue of formating). Also, the article does not conform well to the Anime and manga MOS nor the general Wikipedia MOS' and needs clean up in that regard. It also suffers from excessive plot and in-universe information. It is not even at B class yet, in part because of these many issues. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm making my changes one step at a time, starting with addressing the issues brought up in the last GA nomination. --MahaPanta (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release image

"This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, 22 February 2008."

Does this still apply? The image seems fine to me. --MahaPanta (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is. I don't see any warning templates on the image. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no problem with the image.MKguy42192 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre Thriller ?

Is this really a thriller, ? I have heard it called "steampunk" "Action", "Adventure", "Comedy", "Magic"(if that's even a genre) , "Drama", "fantasy" and even " War" , but never a thriller. I have not seen enough of this to be sure, but I think it's not a thriller. If it is a thriller, we should get more specific. An Action thriller? Drama thriller? Horror thriller ? Political thriller? See thriller is very broad and vague. The other genres up there are correct though, in my opinion. Comments? Any other suggestions? Take anything up there down? I think it's good the way it is currently, minus the "thriller" genre. - Prede (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scary ... I was just about to begin a genre discussion ... oh well! As fate would have it, here's pretty much what I had in mind:

[[Adventure (genre)|Adventure]], [[Science fantasy]]

Thoughts? Perhaps the inclusion of action or comedy-drama would be too much? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, drama would fit to the anime, but comedy-drama would fit to the manga. Im fine with anyone.Tintor2 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adventure , Action, and Science Fiction I would be fine with. Not so much on the comedy-drama though. I am fine with just drama there. Also we should probally just remove the thriller part, unless there is a reason it should be there.- Prede (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Newer proposal below:

[[Adventure (genre)|Adventure]], [[Comedy-drama]], [[Science fantasy]]

Looks about right, and science fantasy is a sub-genre of sci-fi so that would be the best choice. Just can't figure out if action should replace comedy-drama (note that the guideline says two or three genres would be sufficient). But what about steampunk? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Steampunk instead of Science fantasy, it seems more specific to me at least. It is a sub genre of Fantasy(with prominent elements of science fiction/fantasy in it )I am happy with just Science fantasy there though, although perhaps Steampunk is better. I think it may be . - Prede (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Adventure" and "Science fantasy" are just perfect, exactly what I had in mind. "Action", "Drama" and "Comedy-drama" (even steampunk) are just excessive and don't adequately represent what the series is about.--Nohansen (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So the first proposal was best? Well I can't argue that, since it does seem to be more beneficial than considering action, comedy-drama or steampunk. Everyone agrees? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like i said I feel that Steampunk may be more specific then Science fantasy, and that Drama or Action being up there would be fine as well. But I am alright with just those two added there. They seem fine. I just think a possible drama or action might be good still, and steampunk seems to be a specific part of Science fantasy. (So steampunk in place of Science Fantasy) - Prede (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the first one is the best, as comedy and drama would be minor.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do the edit per this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Perhaps something about it being a "Steampunk" could be written into the artcile, or something. Just a suggestion though , I am happy with the genres as of now. - Prede (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean as a genre, category or something else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly just a snin-bit about how the technolgy there comes from the "Steampunk Genre" or something. Written better of course . like example:

"Full Metal Alchemist features an abundance of steampunk technolgy..." 

something small but informative, similur to that. - Prede (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Tintor2 if there is an appropiate place it can be cited. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Anyone else have any comments on this? - Prede (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Think we're pretty much done here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant for the "Steampunk" part written in the artcile. If we are going to add it, where may we do that? - Prede (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that we're reducing genre clutter, but is it really necessary to overkill with the editorial comment about it? If someone can't read it the first time, there's no need to say exactly the same thing five words on, and it only serves as clutter in the editing window. (And no, having this type of overcommenting in other articles isn't a reason to do it.) —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is to keep away ppl from editing the genres, as this seems to be a BIG problem with these articles. And the other reason why it is repeated is because it could easily be missed the first time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a constant threat on this article, however, and I can't see how someone could miss the comment when it's the first thing on the line and it's longer than the genre list itself. People changing "Wrath" to "Pride" were more persistant here, but that's what "undo" is for. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Article Cleanups & References

I've just spent the last 2 hours cleaning and giving reference to the Alphonse & Roy pages, so if anyone would like to take a look and maybe improve it a little that would ne nice. We still need to work on:

• Dante
• Izumi
• Winry
• Father
• Scar
• Hughes
• Hohenheim

RedEyesMetal (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Now Im sure those two now pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What these character article require is a in-universe clean up, but it confuses me that some characters like have different characteristics in the manga and anime, so I do not know how arrange the sections. What is hard to find is conception information. All the conception I know is fan-sourced. When I made the production section in the main fma article I could find some reliable sources. In all those interviews there werent any mention about the character, at least not explicit.

Other thing: there are many character lists and need to be merged, any idea? (I was thinking some things but I couldnt get anything, all I thought was merge all homunculi article in one and all military articles and merge them in one) Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: SakuraCon - Travis Willingham seems a fansite, something which is not reliable source, although Im not sure if that is a fansite.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your question about why there are so many character lists, it was done because the manga not only differs greatly from the anime, but also because of WP:SIZE. Even if we did merge. trimming down everything would look messy and horrible. If you wanna read it, it's in one of the archives. RedEyesMetal (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they differ a lot, but its confusing there are 5 king bradley articles. The info of manga and anime could be merged in the same part without confusing anybody. Since he has two different homunculus names, he could be simply called king bradley. Those lists are also overdetailed and thats why they fail WP:SIZE.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. we'll have to think this through. I'm gonna try a "trial and error" scheme by seeing what I could do with a merge of a few lists....RedEyesMetal (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Any doubt of the merge ask me, I have also been thinking in several merges but I couldnt get to anything. I think tthat if there are two homuculi with the same name we could add something like this: sloth (manga) and sloth (anime), so we dont need to misk them. However, characters like Envy and others that have the same appearance need to be misked.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I had started on improving Winry's article but had to stop at around 35%. Once summer rolls in and it still needs work up I'll finish it but feel free to go ahead if anyone has the time. In terms of the characters lists, I go with the merging of three Minor lists, which are completely unnecessary to have so many. A number of the characters in the Minor-Anime list can be cut out. Some only appear in one episode and the information is too detailed for such. The voice tables add small unneeded byte size when you can use the anime voice temps. A lot of cruft can be cut out so that all the notable characters can be merged into one. We can section off the Manga-only on one list than placing them in a single article. At least we'd be presenting all the info of all the characters on one page instead of having people navigate between three. Fox816 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The FMA character seriously needs more clean up. There seems to be double lists of darn near everything to have one for the anime and one for the manga, when one version is barely needed, much less two. Why is there not a single List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters that a bunch of these bad lists/character articles can be merged into? As for the differences, that's not really relevant. The character lists should focus on the manga (primary work) and note the differences in the anime. Excessive details for either version is unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Notes

For those who are not following the current peer review, there are two items I can't really take care of myself. The first is a suggestion of adding a summary of the Ishval war in the plot section, since its mentioned several times in the article. The second questions the need for the terminology section, which may cause problems in an FA run. Now, as I recall, this section was a merge from a deleted list? So ideas on tackling this? Also, a question of my own that came up...the plot section seems to be missing the rest of the plot and seems to end in a teaser-style sentence. Can someone finish it up? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the manga is still going on. Also, I have no idea how to move every terminology section to the list (except for some that could be easily done).--Tintor2 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that when they are first mentioned in the plot section, give a short def, like I did with state alchemist, if its likely to be confusing. And link off to the full articles (though that's another clean up to deal with later :P). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, I think those articles need to be deleted or redirected since they fail natability.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they do. Some can be shortened up and merged into the future character list to start sections, but they all pretty much fail WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how to move Ishb/val to plot? I cant figure it out.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the article need more changes? I dont remember any other thing from the peer reviewer. I will add more about the manga plot later, but, does it require more changes to go through a GA review?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that was it, but may want to post on the PR to see if there is any more feedback after the changes. Also, still need to get a copyeditor to come help out as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mendelssohn?

From the article:

"Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3, released on May 18, 2005 contained twenty-seven tracks, including Song of Parting, a classical piece written by Felix Mendelssohn, as is Symphony no. 5 by Ludwig van Beethoven."

Having listened to said OST I daresay that the said "Song of Parting" ("Wakare no Kyoku" in the track listing) is not a piece by Mendelssohn, but rather one built around the theme of Fryderyk Chopin's etude in E major Op.10-3, also known as "Chanson de l'adieu" (French; translates roughly to the Japanese title) or "Tristesse" (French; translates to "Sorrow"). I'm not an unquestionable authority on classical music and therefore may be wrong, so is anyone up for verifying that?

Compare:
http://www.imeem.com/shadowqueen/music/oZOS7mHK/chopin_la_chanson_de_ladieu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo5TZn5E7EE&feature=related
80.53.38.130 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?! OMG

President Minami tells ANN: Fullmetal Alchemist 2, Darker than BLACK 2 are "not decided yet" would be necessary to add to the article?Tintor2 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor edit the other day with said case and provided the links of the website and the yahoo page where the document was purportedly presented. A couple of users said my references were insufficient, my edit undone. I support posting such information, not only as speculation, but as a high potential for the series's sequel. And yes, I cross my fingers for the development of such sequel.--DarkKunai (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Transilvania is not a country

Hey, I just wanted to point out that in the article there was this sentance: "Determined to return with Alphonse, Edward becomes involved in rocketry research in the country of Transylvania(...)" Transilvania is not a country. During the first world war, it belonged to hungary, and after its end it belonged to romania. Unlike the other two regions in romania, transilvania was never an independent region. Just wanted to clear that up. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.21.209 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a fictional series. In Fullmetal Alchemist, I believe Transylvania is referred to as a country. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it?? Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hohenheim

The alchemist Hohenheim from Full Metal Alchemist is based on a 16th century alchemist that goes by the same name (Paracelsus). It is a highly useful insight for wikipedians to know the origins of most anime characters, these insights themselves might be consider references, if you may. I highly encourage anyone who wishes to support this edit googling for references, as I was advised my references were not too reliable. --DarkKunai (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To do list

I got started on the to do list. Edited some grammer and stuff. Still working on it. I will work on expanding the article later. Please feel free to join me. Hyakurei (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

Why this edit was reverted. I would like to learn more about your policies here, what does "not a directory" mean? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The list is unnecessary. All pertinent info is in the prose. If there is an album missing, please provide a source for it and it can be added. My edit summary was off, but basically meant no need for a redundant table. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well someone redirected TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, and TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3 here, so the track listings no longer exist. Should not this page have such a list in the absence of the pages? If I provide a source of the table can I add it? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Track listings are not appropriate in non-album articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in your policy does it say that? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A Discography of Full Metal Alchemist article could easily be created though. Then the tracklists could go there. Kariteh (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Per the discography guidelines, discography lists also should not contain tracklistings. Only single, standalone album articles can have tracklists. With only three soundtracks, and little additional information about them, having a discography wouldn't be very useful nor an appropriate split. The individual albums fail WP:MUSIC, hence their being merged here. People searching for tracklistings should check the official sites or store sites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in your policy does it say that? So that I may read and learn how things are done here. Please use # to link to the specific section. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there are no discography guidelines or manuals of style. The whole discography area is like a terra incognita and there's no clear standard yet. Kariteh (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a valid discography guideline, it just hasn't been made "official" yet. That does not make it any less valid and usable now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but do you have any other discussion or statements from another user to make your statement more or less valid? For all we know this could be your personal opinion. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The links have already been given above and multiple editors have told you no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I want you to quote the exact phrase on WP:MUSIC that says I cannot post that chart here, an no, I have not been told no by multiple editors. I have only been told by you. Kariteh thinks we should add the table here too. I am going to add the table again because I finished adding Kanji. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM. This is NOT a discography, nor is this an album article (which is the only place WP:MUSIC applies, this is an article about the series. And stop adding that overgrown, ugly table. It doesn't do anything but seriously bloat the article. Kariteh did NOT say add a big ugly table here. He said creating a discography article was a possibility. If such an article is created, however, it will be properly formatted per WP:DISCOGRAPHY and not that ugly table thing. Also note that you were told specifically that if an album were missing, provide a source and add it as PROSE. You didn't source any of that stuff at all, just made up a table and tried to shove it in here. Thing doesn't even make any sense. No one could look at that and tell what it was even supposed to be about. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please use the # to direct me to the section that you are citing, and quote the line that says such a table cannot exist here, not in your own words. You seem to be an accomplished editor here and you keep going on about citing in the case of the table, yet you do not cite your own sources in talking about Wikipedia policy and you do not use the simple # function. No offense but someone would have to be an idiot to not know how to read the table. Personally, though I did not create the table, I believe that it has good order to it, all three albums in one place. I think we should ask Kariteh his opinion before talking about him again, my fault for putting words in his mouth but you have too now. I will message him. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So then, if you didn't create the table, you are stealing it from somewhere else? Interesting. And no, someone would not have to be an idiot to be unable to read that table. Its confusing and makes no sense to anyone, certainly not to people unfamiliar with the series. And is there a specific line that says that IP 76.16.191.46 can't put a useless, ugly table of SONGS not albums into an article when no one else wants it there? No. Its called common sense, experience, and a proper reading of various Wikipedia guidelines and policies that you seem to not want to do. Some of those applicable guidelines: WP:NOT - not a sales catalog nor a directory for provide in-depth, minute details of every soundtrack. The three soundtracks are properly covered, in prose, as per WP:MOS-AM and established consensus in all our other articles. MOS:DISCOG - "What should not be included: Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release." The same applies to an article about the series as a whole. This isn't an article about the specific album, which is the ONLY place tracklistings are appropriate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD: "Lists are not appropriate content in and of themselves (i.e., an article that is mostly lists is a poor article). Small lists may be useful in music-related articles." Now, please find one guideline that actually supports your attempted addition. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I used Wikipedia to fill in the tracklistings from the three albums when my computer could not read parts of the disc, or when the CD was in all Japanese. I searched the history, found the table, and put it here.

I am not looking for a line that says I specifically cannot put a table on the page, I am looking for the line that says no one can put such a table on the Wikipedia page; there is a big table in the novels section, why don't you delete that?

Why would I read through pages of Wikipedia policy that may not exist, and be only your opinion?

Is the table saying "and as the crescendo progresses the listener finds him/herself in another world"? The table does not have in-depth by-minute details about the album, it only has tracks.

I disagree that MOS:DISCOG applies at all to the article, it applies to discographies, not normal articles, or is Fullmetal Alchemist "a discography not a sonography"?

But I am not trying to add a list, I am trying to add a table. That rule you mentioned is made for articles made up of primarily lists.

Find one guideline that supports my attempted addition? "Welcome to Wikipedia! The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" And you are the one telling me I cannot add the table, so it is your job and your job alone to quote the policy that says I cannot add this table. I thank you for using quotations as they such a discussion necessitates quotes, otherwise proving points invalid. On an expanded note, is "not a sales catalog nor a directory for provide in-depth, minute details of every soundtrack" a quote or your own words? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with AnmaFinotera on this, if for no other reason that the table really is clunky and hard to follow and adds nothing of real significance to the article. WP:DISCOGRAPHY does specifically mention "no tracklistings"; also, if the three previous soundtrack albums didn't merit their own articles, then putting their tracklists in this article is equally pointless. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I used CTRL+F on WP:DISCOGRAPHY and it came up red after "no tr". You should have given the link that AnmaFinotera gave me, MUSTARD I believe it was called. I do not know anything as to the deletion of the table from the album pages, if you know how to find that be my guest. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, that table has no place here. Two editors have told you no, and none have agreed with your addition at all. We do NOT put tracklistings in main articles, period. You don't want to read and follow the guidelines nor follow consensus, fine. Don't. But don't complain if you end up blocked for being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(outdent) Folks, this argument is starting to look rather silly. I think Kariteh had the best idea when they suggested splitting off the soundtrack info into a separate article. I suggest that all of you try this option instead of edit-warring and dragging poor admins (like myself) into the fray. As I mentioned at WP:RPP, I think that a content split is appropriate here, moving the track listings and some of the soundtrack section over to Fullmetal Alchemist soundtracks. (I prefer this title to Kariteh's suggestion above.) Let me know if you have any concerns or questions. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 14:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A soundtrack album is unnecessary with only 3 soundtracks. They are all already well covered. Nor would that solve the real problem: the IP wanting to add a down right hideous, useless table of tracklistings that scrolls even my browser. Tracklists do NOT go in main articles. Tracklists do not go in discographies either, which is all that would be. A tracklist is completely unnecessary. We aren't a catalog. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we were going to split the 5 albums out, it would be named List of Fullmetal Alchemist soundtracks, because that is all it would be, a list of the soundtracks, without a tracklisting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically there are five albums, OSTs 1, 2, 3, Complete Best, and the movie soundtrack. And no, they are not well covered, each album has one sentence to describe itself and that is it. Furthermore I would like you to point out the line in policy AnmaFinotera that says tracklistings cannot go on main articles when the individual album pages have been deleted. I am all for the page, at it would not be a discography, discographies are "comprehensive lists of the recordings made by a particular performer or of a particular composer's works," for which these are soundtracks with multiple performers. Tracklists are completely necessary for an encyclopedia that wants to have all relevant information, and the tracks to albums or soundtracks are quite relevant as shown here. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out umpteen times. The only place a tracklist is allowed is an album page. Project consensus agrees, we don't waste space in a main article with tracklists. It also WOULD be a discography, as it is all the albums for an individual series. And no, a tracklist has no relevance at all to anything, which is why they are only allowed on album articles, and even then they aren't heavily encouraged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Project consensus"? As far as I see there is nothing here but your consensus. None of the links you gave umpteen times apply to this situation. There are plenty bigger tables on this page, why do you keep them? No it would not be a discography, look up the definition in the dictionary. Without tracklistings album pages would not exist, only discography pages would, I beg to differ that tracklistings are the heart of album pages. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they are appropriate tables per our MoS, while your thing is not. And no, a tracklisting is nothing but a list of songs found in any catalog listing. We don't list the section breaks of DVDs either. You are also the only one who wants that ugly table shoved in here, so you have no consensus to keep readding it. And yes, all of those links apply, whether you like it or not. And yes, project consensus. Look at any FA or GA anime and manga article and you will not find such trash cluttering it up. We have a manual of style for determining the organization and content of an article and that isn't part of it. I've posted at the project for more folks to weigh in, so perhaps we can stop this useless back and forth. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue how they are appropriate tables, but the original question of why you would not delete those tables was half-rhetorical. I already proved that a number of those links did not apply, go continue to argue your specific points there. Find another very popular anime article that does not have album pages. Once again you cite pages like the manual of style, yet you can never find a very good quote to justify what you are suggesting, hmmm I wonder why? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that discussion? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To which discussion? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, per WP:LISTS: "A Discography page presents a listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features. Additionally, discographies may be compiled based on a particular musical genre or record label, etc." easy to see that can also apply to a series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will give you that point, but the reason discography pages exist are for links to the album pages, find one discography page that does not have a link to an album. But now, because these albums do not exist, we would have to put the normal content on the suggested page. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my voice, I agree with AnmaFinotera. And no, you don't have to cite a policy to say you can't do something. I don't specifically remember which policy states, this but on Wikipedia "This is a terrible idea" is a good enough reason not to do something. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do, other wise it is vandalism. For instance if a random IP came onto this page and deleted this entire discussion what would you say? If you want to remove something from an article it has to correspond with policy. 76.16.191.46 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to follow your own point. To everyone here you're "just" an IP address. I'm following this on the "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga" page, and it would help your case if you went ahead and signed up.Westrim (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is edited based on consensus. If the page is edited to reflect that consensus, by definition it would the complete opposite of vandalism. No one is saying that you don't have to follow policy, but policy doesn't have to be evoked to make a decision about inclusion of certain information.

Keep in mind that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability and verifiability. The track information isn't coming from a reliable source; no source is even being referenced. These soundtracks haven't been demonstrated to be notable, because the real-world implications have not be explained as to its significance and more importantly, it has not been demonstrated to have significant coverage by third-party sources. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There were actually four sources listed just under the table. The soundtracks are also mentioned, with two more sources, at the bottom of the reception section.Westrim (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Links from amazon.com and notes about release dates and a concert are nice, but they do not constitute significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I'm don't any of that information really adds to the series article. However, were the notability to be established, a List of Fullmetal Alchemist Soundtracks might be in order. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Format: The tables can be reformatted. The format of the tables should be ignored for now. Content is not removed because it's ugly to look at, at least not without a chance of reformatting. Insulting the quality of an edit is not helpful.

Policy: If you want to delete something and you say that it's policy, then you have to show it's policy. If you want to save something and you say that it follows policy, then you have to show the policy as well. For example, where does it say in the policy that anything which isn't explicitly condoned by policy is vandalism? If there are no recommendations about it in the Wikipedia namespace (pages about Wikipedia), then it's up to the editors to agree. Of course, this doesn't mean majority rule.

Anonymous IP: Being an IP doesn't make his/her opinion any less valid, so he/she shouldn't need to join just to win an argument.

Notability: Notability doesn't apply to in-page content. Neutrality does, but that only says that you shouldn't make a large portion of the article about something which doesn't add a lot of information relevant to the article topic's notability.

Reliable sources: You would need reliable sources for the tracklisting. You wouldn't need reliable sources to prove notability of content unless you're making a new article for it.

Carry on. --Raijinili (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To Railinili: On format, thank you for saying that. I'm not sure why it was considered a major issue to begin with. I know the user status of someone shouldn't affect their standing, but it does. As an IP before I signed up, far more of my edits were deleted offhand, and with far less explanation than I get now. The bias is there, although I don't know if it's active in this case. A new page for the soundtracks is precisely what I'm trying to create, after settling any disputes on it, so notability does matter. Links 72 and 79 are also applicable sources, but as I don't know where to find music info I'll leave sourcing to the section creator.Westrim (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think necessarily that people without usernames are discriminated against, but that people who haven't signed up for a username are likely editing without the context of the applicable policies and project consensus. There are a lot of really common editing mistakes that usually have to be reverted immediately. BTW, as far as I know reference 79 hasn't been established as a reliable source; 72 is fine because ANN reviews are for the most part considered reliable. But in all honesty, the reason significant coverage is required is because without it, there really isn't any content to put in a soundtrack article. I think the section is fine as it is. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a safe assumption to make, nor is it safe to assume that people with usernames are significantly more knowledgeable about policy. You can assume that all IP users are just users who are too lazy to sign in (as I did for a few months), and of course users with accounts range from newbies to veterans. Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal is somewhat relevant. --Raijinili (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I didn't make an assumption. It's completely logical. Users that edit under their IP are more likely to be newer users, thus more likely to be less familiar with applicable policy. This was my explanation of why their edits were more likely to be reverted and my argument against alleged discrimination against IP users. You should actually read what I was saying rather than jumping to conclusions. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew I should've quoted or something. This is the assumption that I was referring to: "but that people who haven't signed up for a username are likely editing without the context of the applicable policies and project consensus." --Raijinili (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. You're claiming that people are discriminating against IP users and that's why their edits are being reverted. When my explanation states that IP users, whom a large percentage are likely to be new editors or at least are not regular wikipedia editors. Therefore they are less likely to be familiar with policy and more likely to make edits that are questionable (or not useful). Therefore, while their edits might be more likely to be reverted, it does not necessarily mean that their edits are being reverted because they are not signed up as and IP, but because of the content of their edits.

My statement doesn't not include any encouragement of intentional discrimination against IP users as strongly discouraged by WP policies WP:NEWBIES and Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal, and you indicated that I was saying that it was a good assumption to assume things about IP users. Like I said, this was merely an alternate explanation of what you construed as discrimination. I'm done talking about this and will not answer any more replies to this thread, as this has gone on for much too long. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you were the one that brought up reversion. My original comment was about opinion. I did not mean to say anything about content edits. --Raijinili (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing...

I edited this sentence out of the intro: "The world of Fullmetal Alchemist is based in Europe during the Industrial Revolution and in several experiences from the author's life." Anyone that has read the series knows that the FMA universe is completely fictional, and it does not have anything to do with our world (except in the case of the anime, but there is def. a distinction between the real world and the FMA world). FMA is based mostly in amestris, which doesn't exist in Europe. Just thought I'd completely explain myself :) --Taylert123 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that removal and had been meaning to do it myself since I finally got to read all of the currently released volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, that information is taken from the production section, the author created the cities of amestris basing it from countries from Europe during that period. Why should that be deleted?Tintor2 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that wouldn't mean it was "based in" though. It could be said that it was "styled after Industrial Revolution Europe" but not that it was actually based or set in that period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of editing of the plot - not sure if it made it better or worse since a review of the previous has been done, so feel free to revert any/all of it if it makes it worse. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better.Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through up to and including the Novels section so far, and have noted the following:

• The article mentions the manga is being released in Brazil, but does not mention how many volumes have been released.
• The last lines of the summary (before plot) need to be referenced or removed.
• An ambiguous line states: Most of them are noted to have little to no plot continuity. I have not seen the OVAs, so I don't know what is meant here by plot continuity. As in they do not relate to the plot? I've left it in there as I am unsure, but if this is so, please someone edit it to The majority of these OVAs are side stories and do not expand on the plot. or something along these lines.
• There are several occasions where Hiromu Arakawa's name is written in full and wikified. My understanding is that it only needs to be in full and wikified in the first instance, but left as just the last name in the remaining instances. Thus, I've removed the linking and the first name in most occasions, except for those that I believe needs to be in full. If this is wrong, please change them back.

I will continue with this soon. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what lines of plot do need reference?Tintor2 (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Update, as far as I know per WP: Lead, the lead does not need reference and those sentences are just a short overview of those sections.Tintor2 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. The less-subjective one looks ok, but ideally I probably want to remove the last sentence. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Below, GAS recommends major copyedit for the production, but it reads pretty good to me. Do you know what needs to be done there? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently since the last assessment, some users have been editing that section improving it.I guess its better now.Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Project peer review

Per request at WP:ANIME/ASSESS, here is some comments to improve the article. NB. Please list the article for A class as soon as it has been approved for GA class. Regards, G.A.S 05:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Y The lead provides a good overview of the article.
• Y All images have proper fair use rationales.
• YInfobox is good.

• Maybe expand the description to the image: It seems to be illustrating Edward and Alphonse—I had to browse to the individual articles to confirm this, as it was not clear. G.A.S 06:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done.Tintor2 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Y Who are "they" — "They are named after the seven deadly sins and act as primary villains in the series."

• Removed since its a bit trivial.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Plot, third paragraph — please clarify this paragraph (As well as the second paragraph from "The brothers eventually learn of..."). It is too technical for the average reader.
• Plot — does not seem to cover the conclusion of the series?

• Done some expansion. The manga still did not end in Japan.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Differences in adaptations — most of the second paragraph is too technical for readers unfamiliar with the series,
• Y The characters section seems to be redundant to the plot section, the plot section covers most of them quite well already. I recommend removing this section, and integrating Roy, Winry and Scar into the plot section, unless they are minor characters, in which case they should be removed.

• Done.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Production — major copy edit needed.
• Further issues: Most other items are minor of nature, see user talk:G.A.S#Sandbox - FA cleanup checklist and the A-class guidelines for some pointers.

Copy edit suggestions

At the request of Tintor2, here are some copy edit suggestions from an outside view to improve the article's prose.

Plot

• The section goes right into describing the story, but doesn't provide an introductory statement. Such a statement can act as a segue from the previous section and give the reader the basic information needed to understand the section. The lead had a good statement about the plot and I would include something similar.
  • AnmaFinotera doesn't seem to agree, since my edit got reverted... -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • All anime, manga, television, and film article plot sections go straight to the plot. None have an introduction statement except for lower end start class ones. If you check the various FA and GA class articles, you will not find such "introductory statements" unless its specifically necessary to note the work starts with a flashback or the like (such as The Green Mile). Per all relevant MoS, the plot section should be a plot summary, and does not require an introduction. Nor do any other sections have such statements, they go straight into their content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess we can leave this particular suggestion alone then. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It is only a suggestion and how I think is best to convey the information to a general reader unfamiliar with the topic or even anime. If it is not the general practice of WP:ANIME, then no need to do it. Though I don't recall any MoS guideline forbidding such a practice. I would like to add that it is a practice that has worked well in video game articles to improve the flow of reading and reduce choppiness, and has not been rejected at numerous FACs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

• This is a run-on sentence and uses too many commas. It should be broken up to improve the reader's comprehension. "Throughout their journey, they meet many enemies; those who are willing to do anything to obtain the Philosopher's Stone, Scar, one of the few surviving Ishbalans, who seeks vengeance on the State Alchemists for the destruction of his race, and the homunculi, a group of human-like creatures that carry pieces of the Philosopher's Stone inside themselves."
  • A semicolon is not meant to be used like this. The prose following it generally shouldn't be too long.
    • I would switch the comma after "Stone" to a period and.
      "...obtain the Philosopher's Stone,. Scar..."
    • I would remove the semicolon and trim the following section.
      "...meet many enemies; those who are willing to do anything to obtainalso seek the Philosopher's..."
  • Minor tweaks to improve the flow with the above changes.
    "Examples include Scar, one of the fewa surviving Ishbalans, who seeks vengeance on the State Alchemists for the destruction of his race, and the homunculi, a group of human-like creatures that carry pieces of the Philosopher's Stone inside themselveswithin their bodies."
  • Is Scar one of the main antagonists, or just an example of the "many enemies"? This was not that clear to me.

Differences in anime adaptation

• Trimming for redundancy and tweaks for grammar (either a semicolon or an emdash will work) and flow:
  "The first half of the anime's plot of the manga and anime are very similar for the beginning of the seriesclosely follows that of the manga, but diverges greatly near the middle of the anime series,story; when the Elric brothers and..."
• It should be stated that Dante is a character created for the anime series.

Production

• I would put in an introductory sentence here too. Reiterate the who the creator is to improve the understanding of the proceeding sentences.
• Trimming, tweaking and switching:
  "After reading about the Philosopher's stoneIn an interview, Arakawa said that she became attracted byto the idea of using alchemy in the manga after reading about the Philosopher's stone."
• Reduce the use of "she", and semicolon or emdash would connect these two sentences well:
  "...complicated due to the fact that some books contradicted others. She; Arakawa was attracted more by the philosophical aspects than the practical aspects."
• Rearrange and tweak:
  "Arakawa wanted to integratedSeveral social problems were integrated into the story, and gathered information by Arakawa after watching news programs and talking to peoplewho had suffered them, such as refugees, war veterans and former yakuza, or simply by watching news about those issues."
• Minor tweak:
  "She was especially interested in England during thatis period..."
• Another minor tweak (sounds more professional to me):
  "When the manga started being serializedbegan serialization..."
• More tweaking and rearranging:
  "However, aAs the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were growing upmaturing and so she decided to change some scenes. Therefore,; resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters were improvised."
• Minor changes (again, just sounds better to me):
  "In makingcreating the characters' designs, she comments that the manga authors Suihō Tagawa and Hiroyuki Eto are her main inspirations, and mentionsdescribes her artwork is a mix of both of them."
• This sentence's structure is a bit off. But I don't have any suggestions. "When drawing the series characters, Alex Louis Armstrong as well as the little animals are the easiest for her to draw; due to the fact she likes dogs, Arakawa added several of them in the story."

I've reworded it to The easiest of the series characters for her to draw was Alex Louis Armstrong, as well as little animals. Due to the fact she likes dogs, Arakawa added several of them in the story. Not sure it improves it by much... -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Minor tweaks and rewrite to sound more professional:
  "Arakawa made comedy central in the manga because she thinks the mangait is madeintended for entertainment, so sheand tried not to minimalize focus on sad scenes.
• More tweaking. Don't know if this is the intended meaning of the source material, feel free to ignore:
  "...Arakawa letallowed the anime staff to work by themselvesindependently from her, and also requested that it should have a different ending from the one in the manga."

Manga

• The word "released" is used a lot. I would switch it out in some cases with "published" to reduce repetition.

Anime

• Another run-on. Split up and tweak:
  "The animation studio Bones adapted the manga into a 51-episode anime series,. It was directed by Seiji Mizushima and co-produced by Bones, Mainichi Broadcasting System and Aniplex. Ccharacter designs were handled by Yoshiyuki Ito and the scripts by Sho Aikawa."
• Minor tweaks that sound more professional to me:
  "The English dubversion of the anime was madeproduced by Funimation and..."
• The last two paragraphs seem too small and unbalanced compared to the first. I would combine them together.

Novels

• The three paragraphs seem very short compared to the rest of the article. I would combine them into one larger paragraph.

Drama CDs

• Minor grammar tweak:
  "There hasve been two series of Fullmetal Alchemist audio dramas.
• Another tweak and less wordy:
  "...the Tringham brothers worked laterreprised their roles in the anime with the same characters..."

Soundtracks

• Same thing with the paragraph length; 1–2 sentences can't stand as a paragraph. It looks unbalanced compared to other sections. I'd combine paragraphs on related topics.
• Trim redundancy
  "All of tThe music for the Fullmetal Alchemist soundtrack was..."
• This sentence lost me a first, and I think could be reworded:
  "TAn English version of the Russian track "Brothers" (Russian: Братья, Bratja; Japanese: Burācha) was also included, and was recorded in English by Vic Mignogna..."
• Tweak (just sounds better to me). Also, what was the bonus DVD included in; which compilation?:
  "A bonus DVD, included only onexclusive to the U.S. release, contains..."
• Trimming:
  "All of them are tracks used in the featured film..."
• More trimming and break up lengthy sentence (it's a lot to take in in a single sentence). I would also clarify that this is a concert earlier in the sentence.
  "During the month of December 2004, a concert titled "Tales of Another Festival" was staged in Tokyo and Osaka,. It featuringed performances by several of the musical artists from the television series as well as narrations by the voice actors and actresses."

Video games

• Minor trimming:
  "Video games based on the Fullmetal Alchemist world have also been released."
• Two "also"s in consecutive sentences is overuse:
  "...the anime and manga and also feature new characters.
• The sentence that lists the developers and their video games is structured a bit weird. The first section uses emdashes (Square Enix RPGs) while the following sections don't. And they are all connected with semicolons, which is fine, but I think it's overuse in this case and makes the sentence needlessly long. I would break the sentence up.
• Minor trimming, repetitive use of "games".
  "For the RPG games, Arakawa oversaw the story of the game and designed..."

Art and guidebooks

• I assume the two companies were responsible for the release in different regions. This should specified. "...were released by Square Enix and later by Viz Media."
• Same thing. Specify where Viz released the book: US, Canada, North America, US and Canada, etc. "...in Japan, while only the first was released by Viz Media."
• Minor tweak, just sounds better to me.
  "...three guidebooks; each of them containing timelines, guides to..."
• Should "gaiden" be in italics? I've always been a bit fuzzy on some of the Japanese MoS.
• Again, released where? "Only the first guidebook has been released by Viz Media..."
• I would tweak the order of the info in this sentence:
  "A series of five fanbooks have also been released with the name oftitled TV Anime Fullmetal Alchemist Official Fanbooks (TVアニメ 鋼の錬金術師 オフィシャルファンブック, TV Anime Hagane no Renkinjutsushi Ofisharu Fan Bukku?) have been released, and containing each one information ofabout the anime as well as several interviews with the staff of the series."

Other merchandise

• Tweak and trim:
  "...been created by leading toy companies. The; primaryly of these companies are Medicom and Southern Island."
• UK should be United Kingdom
  • Also, I missed one of those above in the "Anime" section. If you change "UK" in the anime section to United Kingdom (UK), then you can leave the one in this section as "UK"
• Minor tweak and trim: "Since then, six expansions have been released since."

Reception

• Once again, I feel an introductory statement of some kind will improve the flow here.
• Trim redundancy. The first part of the sentence already specified this:
  "...March 2008, the number increased to more than 30 million volumes in Japan."
• What type of polls are "several polls"? Are these the same polls mentioned in the third paragraph? If so this mention is disjointed from the rest of the information.
• Also, mentioning "best sellers" and "polls" in the same sentence like this is contradictory. Polls implies that it was voted onto the list, while best sellers implies it sold its way on the list.
• Minor trim. Repetitive use of "also"
  "The manga also appeared several..."
• Tweaking to improve flow:
  "In 2005, Japanese television network TV Asahi, a television network in Japan, conducted..."
• The quote by Vic Mignogna seems out of place. I would either remove it or place it in a table aligned to the right.
• This sentence states "reviews", but is cited by only a single review. Also, its wording make it stand out too much in my opinion. Try this:
  "However, theCriticism towards the anime has also had negative reviews in whichfocused on the large number of sentimental scenes in the series have been criticized, considering them an abuse ..."
• I would tweak this sentence to briefly describe how the soundtracks have been received rather than mentioning they've been reviewed. They wouldn't be mentioned here if they hadn't been. "The soundtracks of the series have also been reviewed."
• Trim and tweak. The first part is not necessary to understand the point. The second part ("...noted that are...") sounds off grammatically.:
  "...to never distract anybody who listen to it from the story and that areo always be pleaseant to hear."
• Who is "remarking"? "...the series remarking that they make a good combination..."
• The verb tense shifts in the last paragraph. This section was primarily past tense, but switches a few times here to present tense. I would keep it past tense because the reviewers commented on the work in the past.
• The "but" here is not needed because of the "while":
  "He notes that while the lack of backstory makes it geared more towards fans of the franchise than new readers, but he still felt it was an impressive..."
• Missing a few things. Also the commas aren't necessary:
  "Charles Solomon, of the Los Angeles Times, noted that the novel has a different focus than the anime series..."

I hope you forgive the partial review, but that's all I have time for right now. I'll come back and finish the rest at another time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks again. I did the changes you commented.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's part two. Once again, sorry for the disjointed review. I'll finish the last three sections another day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's part three. Hope it helps. Once again, sorry for the disjointed review. It was a good read and I'll definitely have to check out the series. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article has had a lot of work by several users to clean it up. It is modeled after the latest FA manga/anime article (Tokyo Mew Mew), it has been copyedited and it has all the sources needed as well as a good length. So I ll nominate it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed! -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 06:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we still need the to-do list?

Since the article's been granted GA status (excellent work everyone!), should the to-do list at the top be removed, or update it to go for FA? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend updating it, it is a good place to do centralised planning. Even Tokyo Mew Mew still uses one. G.A.S^talk 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated it a bit. As far as I checked most sources are reliable, but I have some doubts about ref 76 (dvdvisionjapan). I think we could get a better source for "An English version of the Russian track "Brothers" (Russian: Братья, Bratja; Japanese: Burācha) was also included, and was recorded in English by Vic Mignogna, the voice actor who played Edward Elric in the series" rather than a ANN trivia section. I also think the manga could get a better format; I have been adding summaries to List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters, which also needs some lead clean up. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We also need to remove the citations to Anime News Network's encyclopedia articles, as they are not reliable sources. (Cites to news articles are fine.) Since there's only two now, one for readily available broadcast dates, this ought to be relatively easy. "Ought." —Quasirandom (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First anime?

This is based on a recent edit I saw, in which "differences in the anime..." was changed to "differences in the first anime...." with a note "there are two now" from an anonymous editer. Is this verifiable? Can someone with an expertise on this please check and change it back if this is not true? Thanks. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's verifiable here andis in the end of the anime section already. Amusingly it was removed as unsourced rumour in another part of the article even though it was fully sourced already in the anime section. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New Wii game

According to the Japanese page, there's a new Wii game called Hagane no Renkinjutsushi Fullmetal Alchemist Akatsuki no Ōji (鋼の錬金術師 FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST 暁の王子, lit. Fullmetal Alchemist Prince of Dawn). It's subtitled as "Fullmetal Alchemist: Prince of the Dawn", and it's produced/made by Square Enix. Ref moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood

Is there any information on what the new series will be about? 69.179.157.123 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

all I heard was from vic, laura, and travis that the animation style would be more like the manga and aslo follow the manga's stroyline more than the fist series. =^-^=--I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs)

Well, I watched the first episode of the new series and noticed some pretty glaring continuity errors (for example, Hughes introducing his daughter to Ed and Al... when they were the stand-in midwives for her birth O_o). It's said this series is going to follow the manga's plot more closely. Are we to assume whatever we saw in the first series doesn't apply in this one? If so, I'd suggest a new section dealing with the second anime series as soon as there are enough episodes to warrant it. Joshua Bennett (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the first series doesn't apply since you have a lot of the same events rehappening differently now. It's completely separate from the first series plot-wise. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Whens the english translation going to come out? King of all Kai's (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

my guess is around 4 to 5 months later is when they will start the english release =^-^=--I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs)

Where does this "Brotherhood" subtitle come from? Seems to just be a fan name that started appearing after an episode or two had already been fansubbed. I haven't been able to find any official source of that title. The official Japanese site, http://www.hagaren.jp, just calls it 鋼の錬金術師 FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST (Hagaren no Renkinjutsushi: Fullmetal Alchemist) no sign of "brotherhood". --91.151.155.211 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

it comes from the title FUNimation.com, on their Fullmetal Alchemist section of the website--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any idea how many episodes this series is going to be? 7 are out to date, and I've seen a site claim to have titles for up to 13 episodes... but how many have been commissioned thus far? only 13? 26? 50? 68.55.51.24 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

it is unknown since the manga seems to be reaching the end--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The redirect page needs to be fixed, a new page needs to be made, or a new section needs to be added. It is a different and distinct product from the original animated a series and the movie Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa, the latter of which directly follows and ties into/concludes the former. By my current estimations, having read most of the manga and watched the first 7 episodes, Brotherhood seems to remain truer to the events which takes place in the manga. This changes the characters, events and the timeline significantly. Also the subs are being officially released on FUNimations website as well as others, such as hulu.com, albeit with a two week delay. Offical press release from the FUNimation website here: http://www.funimation.com/f_index.cfm?page=news&id=553 Darqcyde (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Transmutation Circles

I've looked through the arcive and seen nothing about making a list of all the transmutation circles used in the anime and the manga. I have also looked through the current FMA pages and seen nothing like this, though the could be, i just isnt linked to very well for such an importaint part of the series. i am actualy suprised that no one has thought of this before! Unfortunatly I do not have the time or experience to create a page but if one is created I do have a bit of infomation to contribute to the page.Jangofett287 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is content for a fan site, not an encyclopedic article. In any case, transmutation circles themselves are never discussed or documented sufficiently in the anime or (what I have read of) the manga to make such a list feasible. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, neither in the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering, afterall there are quite a lot of circles and they do form a big part of the series. Jangofett287 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose we include a short list of Transmutation Circles (at least a few of them - like the basic one, the human transmutation circle, Roy's circle, etc.), what they do and how the are made in a sub-section (look at my post below). OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Science of Fullmetal Alchemist Section

It has been suggested that the article may be hard to understand for readers unfamiliar with the series. It is my belief that it would be beneficial if the Plot section was expanded to include basic information concerning science in the series. Alternatively, a new section could be added (I'm not personally sure where it would fit, though). A section like that could explain concepts like Alchemy, Transmutation Circle, Philosopher's Stone and The Law of Equivalent Exchange from the point of view of the franchise. It's an extremely interesting topic and links to classic definitions of - for instance Philosopher's Stone - are of little value. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation is definitely needed, but not in a separate section. Each of these terms should be defined when it is first used (and not just here; it's something that needs to be done on the various lists as well). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

When does this article talk about transmutation circles? The concept of alchemy in FMA is basically the same of the original, but exaggerated.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention the term Law of Equivalent Exchange apart from a minor note concerning production. This has no sense. We talk about trivia but don't provide basic info on the fictional universe of the franchise. I request we include a new section. I thought of an appropriate title and I propose Fullmetal Alchemist universe or Science of Fullmetal Alchemist. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A new section just to explain Law of Equivalent Exchange? A short explanation in the plot section would be enough.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a large number of ideas there - not only "Law of Equivalent Exchange" - read my post above for just a few examples. I assume as an editor here, you are an expert on the series? Can't you think of anything else? OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this problem one more time. We currently have absolutely no explanation of how the FMA universe works. It's not about one or two concepts, it's about a large number of very original ideas. Random people that want to learn something about the series should find a basic resource on this subject. I do not understand the amount of negativity towards my idea. Don't you want to expand and improve this article? It's great that it has a Good Article status but we can do better. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a junior member and I'm talking to advanced users. It is for that reason that I'm asking for your expertise on this subject. I'd like to write a passage covering the FMA-universe-related info (I'll do everything I can to make it a high quality work) and submit it to your review. Can you at least consider making it a sub-section in the Plot Section? OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you mean is a setting section just like the ones from Naruto and One Piece. However, these types of section need to be fully sourced. However, some concepts such as the homunculi's creation, weakness are explained in the character list.Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I have in mind. Following your advice, I will take the two articles you mentioned as a model and do my best to include appropriate sources. You'll be notified about my progress. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the references should be from the manga since that's the primary media like in th character list.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have encountered unexpected hostility from some users while trying to expand the FMA articles. Unfortunately, I have not come up with a solution to this problem yet. I will notify the community if the situation changes. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted excessive page blanking in 4 articles covering FMA universe for a start. I hope everyone will participate in what was once to be the source of knowledge for everyone interested in the series. In addition, I've added them to the template as Universe (good choice?). Here's the list:

• Alchemy (Fullmetal Alchemist)
• Equivalent Exchange
• Philosopher's Stone (Fullmetal Alchemist)
• Transmutation circle OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your inappropriate changes have been reverted. You are acting against consensus and against Wikipedia policy. Those are NOT notable topics and your reasons for restoring them are ridiculous. Your "unexpected hostility" is from your own refusal to accept consensus and to continue to try to act based on your personal desires rather than Wikipedia guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I acted upon my personal desire to provide the public with additional information regarding the topic they're interested in. I made my humble attempt to expand Wikipedia... but failed. I believed that the only thing that differentiates WIkipedia from encyclopedias like Britannica is the amount of knowledge it contains. It is less accurate, less reliable and will never be cited in academic papers. However, as long as it gives access to fairly accurate information in considerable quantities, everything is just fine. Unfortunately, many people disagree with me. It is very likely that this kind of attitude will harm this project in the long run or simply decrease its growth over time. That's the future. For now, however, you'll have to look for appropriate information somewhere else. If one day you decide Wikipedia should include more data, my advice is to gather more fire power than I did, because the battle for knowledge may prove to be a real challenge. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If your ultimate goal is to see Wikipedia accepted as a source for academic papers, you are hopelessly misguided. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias - tertiary sources - are unacceptable sources for academic papers (they make excellent subjects for such papers, though, and indeed, Wikipedia is becoming more and more an accepted subject of scholarly study and debate). This is true regardless of the source, and is just as true for Britannica as it is for Wikipedia. For your concerns on reliability and accuracy, please see the relevant article - you are hardly the first to level these accusations at Wikipedia. Personally, though, I find all this hand-wringing on the future of Wikipedia, or its accuracy, or bias, or whatever, to be utterly pointless, and find my time far better spent actually contributing. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Your post should be aimed at AnmaFinotera and his friends. It is me who argued for quantity and neglected quality as there was room for improvement in the future. My ultimate goal is expansion. What I love about Wikipedia is the amount of useful information. Unfortunately, my contributions are called vandalism. In fact, AnmaFinotera searched my whole account history recently and reverted all edits he didn't like. I'm not the first newcomer who got tired of this kind of treatment. So no, my time is certainly not better spent contributing. If you want new articles written, ask somebody else. I'll focus my attention on other areas of Wikipedia. It was nice meeting you, people. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't second-guess my intentions; I know exactly what I wrote, and I understand perfectly well what I'm talking about. The information you're wanting to add and the manner you're wanting to add it in is nothing but excessive, trivial, and largely original research. As has been stated before, each term should be defined on its first mention in each article, but it should not have its own section and certainly not its own article. If you really want to make such contributions, Wikia would gladly accept them. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?

"The series has become one of the top properties of Square Enix along with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.[89] It was named the 95th best animated series by IGN. They commented that although it's mostly upbeat with amazing action scenes, it also touches on the human condition. They described it as "more than a mere anime, it was a powerful weekly drama."[90] The designs of the characters have been praised remarking they are almost unique. Flashbacks have been criticized to be annoying as they are repeated several times.[91][92] Other reviewers compared the series with an Odyssey as part tragic, part coming of age story. The plot and the music have been celebrated to be almost rich.[91] The anime has also been praised for having a good balance between action, comedy and deep moments and remarked the emotional core of the development of the two main characters.[93] Criticism towards the anime focused on the large number of sentimental scenes in the series abused to evoke kneejerk emotional responses from the viewers. The ending also had a negative review noting that the Edward's beliefs did not change at all as he tried once again to bring somebody back to life.[94] Soundtracks received praise for its varying styles of music as well as a large number of artists that make every song enjoyable. The music of the backgrounds has been noted to never distract to it from the story and to always be pleasant to hear.[89] DVDvisionjapan.com considered the first opening theme and the first ending theme as the best tracks of the series remarking that they made a good combination of anime and song.[95]"

Emphasis mine. But what does almost rich and almost unique mean? EvangelionTesttype (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tried to fix it. Try also to be bold if there are little changes needed.Tintor2 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fullmetal Brotherhood

I'm not entirely sure what the second series is about. Having not read the manga at all or seen the new0 series what is it about? The paragraph that's written doesn't mention what the second series's basic storyline is. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It follows the manga, but I'm not very sure how to add it without original research.Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I said it follows the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that, "original research"? NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP: Original research: We can't add these types of things without sources.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

kay, now I'm even more confused. Aren't manga sources? NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, original research is anything that doesn't have a source. This often doesn't mean that a source doesn't exist, but the term is usually used more specifically in reference to unsourced statements that may suffer from personal interpretation or unpublished synthesis. It's all a bit abstract, so don't feel bad if you don't really understand it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to recommend that FullMetal Alchemist: Brotherhood be its own page.

First FMA anime series only followed the manga midway, then got a fictionalized with its' ending plus a movie - while manga was still ongoing. Hiromu Arakawa already made it known that manga is going to end soon and the new FMA anime series was created to stay true to manga throughout the series. She claimed that manga is scheduled to end before the anime series as well. Funny how FMA brotherhood section contains all the useless information BUT why it was created and the difference between the first FMA series. Who f'ing cares about time slots in JAPAN??!?!?!

More reviews for reception

ANN reviewed volume 19 of the manga. Noted for use as the manga reception is pretty thin at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried adding a few Mania's reviews instead of the ann just to balance a bit the use of ANN.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brotherhood name

So the Brotherhood part comes from the FUNimation planned released of the anime. Is it the Japanese name for the anime as well? Form every episode all the say is (鋼の錬金術師, Fullmetal Alchemist) "Hagane no Renkinjutsushi, Fullmetal Alchemist". If the orignal name for the series is not Brotherhood then shouldn't the Japanese name be included somewhere in the artcile? at the leaset a single entry once?. 138.163.160.42 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically translated it just says "Fullmetal Alchemist: Fullmetal Alchemist" but I see what you mean. It should be noted that the original Japanese title is not brotherhood. StryyderG (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you check?Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New images

Hello, I want to tell you there are some new images for Fullmetal Alchemist on Commons. See Commons:Category:Fullmetal Alchemist and Commons:Category:Alchemic_circles. Enjoy! (This in my first post on en.wiki afer SUL.) :-) --Gig (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I think one of them could be used in Alphonse Elric, could't it be used?Tintor2 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

When we found it, we used it on it.wiki... ^_^ --151.81.171.198 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikias?...

Does anyone know if there are any Wikias for Fullmetal Alchemist anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.45.24 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean another than http://fma.wikia.org ? Hey... This site is nice, but it is not a Wiki... --Gig (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

About This Edit

Which term is sanctioned by the community?

• Ishbal?
  

or

• Ishval?

<br. />--NBahn (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The first one "Ishbal" is that uses the English manga.Tintor2 (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While early editions of the manga used Ishval, it was later changed to Ishbal. The anime has always used Ishbal. You can see the previous discussions at Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes#Ishval vs. "Ishbal", Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 27#RFC on FMA issue and Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/Archive 4#Proper Names in FMA —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the closed captioning (it's not as easy to tell in the pronunciation), the dub of Brotherhood now uses Ishval. Geg (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I confuse you, but in the german translation (referring to published manga editions, did not check the dub) they even use "Ishbar" (please note the R instead of L). In other cases (Bleach for example) the mangaka provided a romanisation for certain terms... why not here? --80.141.162.160 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it goes against guidelines. We use the official English name per WP:Common Name, while a sourced note about the official Japanese spelling can be pointed.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding differences between manga and anime section

i believe it would be best if we moved some of that information to the characters sections and summarize the second half plot of the anime a bit more and move it to the anime section. Also the plot is pretty long, is there anyway we can summarize that too?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protection?

There has been some vandalism and removal of sections as you see in the revision history of the article. I have removed some vandalism and undid a change that deleted almost an entire section of the article.

I was wondering if we could put the page on protection for a while?

Also someone keeps trying to add the last episode date and number and saying Brotherhood will end at a certain time when it hasn't been confirmed yet.

Any suggestions guys?

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Agree with that. A semi-protection should be good.Tintor2 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tintor. Sadly I don't know how to properly add the semi-protection to the article >_<

How is it done, by the way?

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Just add a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. A temporary semi-protection should be acceptable.Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

sounds good, thanks dude ^^

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

No prob. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey looks like the article is semi-protected for 3 days. After that it will be automatically unprotected.

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Hajiru

Cartoon Network

Do not put Cartoon Network cause Fullmetal airs on Adult Swim and CN and AS are now different channels since 2005 Matthew Cantrell (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember this same discussion happening in Talk:Blood+#Network: "Per actual reliable 2009 articles, not 2005 ones, Adult Swim is still a programming block on Cartoon network.".Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Adult Swim" is on Cartoon Network, Matthew Cantrell. It's just a block of shows on late night. 38.97.1.253 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)jbradddock@rocketmail.com

Per Wikipedia's own adult swim article, "On March 28, 2005, Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting split Adult Swim from Cartoon Network so Nielsen Media Research could treat it as a separate channel for ratings purposes." So... somebody is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.164.13 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Isn't the series still going? It says june 2010 but i think thats just the season.

Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.9.46 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If the sources say it's just a programming block, then that's what we have to go with. There might be a way to mention Adult Swim (Cartoon Network) or some other combination, as long as it doesn't look cluttered. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Review(s)

• ANN right turn only vol. 23 ANN Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood Part 2 ANN Shelf Life Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood part 2 ANN Brotherhood DVD part 2 ANN Shelf Life Brotherhood DVD part 3 ANN Shelf Life Brotherhood DVD part 4 Shelf Life Brotherhood BR #3 Brotherhood BR #4
• Mania.com: Brotherhood BR Part 2 Brotherhood BR part 4 Brotherhood DVD part 2 Brotherhood UK DVD part 2 Brotherhood UK DVD part 3 Mania.com Brotherhood DVD part 2 Brotherhood DVD part 3 Brotherhood DVD part 4
• CBB manga vol. 24
• Sequential Tart vol. 24
• Active Anime: anime Brotherhood part 3 manga #24

--KrebMarkt (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Early 20th century, not Industrial Revolution

In FMA: Brotherhood, dates for character deaths indicate the current year to be 1916. Usages of automobiles and the radio (an anachronism) all place FMA in this time period. The Industrial Revolution did not progress into the 20th century, as defined as a period of time. Someone correct this, please. 24.42.93.217 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not say it takes place during that period, but that was designed after the European Industrial Revolution as noted in the lead in the production section.Tintor2 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Interview

This interview struck me as containing several interesting claims and descriptions; but I'll leave it to FMA editors to see how to integrate it. Hopefully you will do a better job than the FLCL editors did...

Ani.me: Another very important TV series for American fans, people are very passionate about it. I was wondering (as) the series came from the comic, if you felt a lot of pressure while adapting the comic for Television.
Seiji Mizushima: Unlike in America, FMA’s original manga was very niche in Japan, only the real hardcore fans were like really into it. So in that sense I really didn’t feel it was just converting another manga series into an anime series. When I first got the project, only two volumes were actually printed of the manga, but in the middle of production a third came out, so I was … when we were planning the project at the beginning it was a one-year long show so it was about 50+ episodes, and we figured maybe about half of the series could be based on the original source and maybe half would probably have to plan for original content, because there was nothing original to plan it for. So in that sense I really didn’t feel pressure because there was nothing to base it on in the first place.
(Note: While speaking in Japanese, Mizushima also stated that it wasn’t a manga series that was as popular as your average Shonen Jump title)
Ani.me: When Hughes died in episode 25 I was depressed for a week. I was wondering if that was a common response or if I’m just strange.
(He hears the number of the episode out loud and laughs. His assistants laugh too.)
Seiji Mizushima: So up until the part where Hughes dies… that had already been released in the manga, so most Japanese fans were prepared for it and I feel that episode 7, which is the episode where the little girl Nina gets turned into the chimera and gets involved in the whole kind of alchemy politics and business, was more shocking and I put a lot of effort into that. I felt that even though the fans were more prepared for that one, because it had been out for awhile, it was even more traumatic because of the situation. So I feel that episode 7 has more impact as an episode.
Ani.me: In Japan specifically?

Seiji Mizushima: In Japan.

http://www.ani.me/zine/home/article/1052/ --Gwern (contribs) 01:15 27 June 2011 (GMT)

Thanks, but I fail to see how is ani.me reliable considering the writer does not even state his name.Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't think so. --Gwern (contribs) 21:36 27 June 2011 (GMT)

TVS

The anime [second series, Brotherhood] is currently being broadcast on TVS in Australia. I'm not sure when it began as I seem to be located in a black spot for that station. On Saturday [when it airs] I'll stream it online via their website and see what episode they're up to and work backwards to find the premiere date. 122.149.146.20 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It requires a reliable source per WP:Verifiability.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk?

I've noticed in the infobox that the series has "steampunk" as one of the genres. Aside from automail, I don't see how this is steampunk, per se, especially since it doesn't even have a Victorian-style setting and there's nothing typical of the genre (e.g. airships, brassy steam contraptions, etc). See Steampunk. Someone explain this to me? Pride the Arrogant (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that genre has also already been removed once for these reasons in the past but readded by anons.Tintor2 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha-yahoo

This article should mention that the removable robot limb idea, on which the entire FMA story is based, was invented by Hayao Miyazaki for his 1984 movie anime hit Nausicaa of the valley of the wind. There the tolmekian warrior-princess Kushana has one full leg plus arm long lost to giant earthworms and those got replaced by removable, fully functional metal limbs.

This detail has a role in her escape from captivity and the subjective re-evaluation of her intents / role as a psychopath versus a noble leader. Apparently Miyazaki-sensei is such a grand master even one of the more minor detail ideas in that movie was enough to inspire a story for dozens of TV anime episodes and volumes of FMA manga tankobon. 82.131.129.52 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Prosthetic limbs predate recorded history. Your argument is invalid. 24.186.30.227 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Differences

Has anyone already stated the differences between the 2003 and 2009 anime altogether within this page or is the 2009 anime put on a seperate page? Can someone also care to do me a favor and encourage this anime to be a featured article, it has a lot of good things in it including references, sources, and it should be a good idea to encourage someone to feature this article. Thanks.

Limexialia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Have Viz really made no other edits?

I’ve added a {{cn}} flag to the following claim under #Manga:

As of October 2011, the only edits that have been made were…

Specifically, the claim that these were the only edits, and that Viz made absolutely no other changes throughout the run. Neither of the two cited sources made this claim that I could see, and they were both five years out of date by 2011 anyway. Has anyone seen evidence? —Frungi (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of the Plot Section May Need Rewriting

Does this make as little sense to anyone else as it did to me?

As the forces collide, each of the remaining homunculi are defeated and Central city's troops are enlightened about the truth of the situation. Though Father succeeds in his plan to Amestris to consume the entity within the Gate to become god-like, Hohenheim undoes the damages with Father's body become unstable with "god". After Alphonse sacrifices himself to restore Edward's arm, Father is defeated. Alphonse is subsequently removed from reality and trapped within the Gate. Refusing to accept this, Edward sacrifices his ability to use alchemy to bring Alphonse back in his original body. Two years after their return to Resembool, Alphonse leaves for Xing while Edward goes west of Ametris so the two can gather alchemic knowledge in order to repay the people who helped in their journey.

Perhaps it needs rewriting? Or re-translating? Deus Ex Logica (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not that it doesn't make sense, just vague and indirect with the plot description. It definitely merits elaboration.Lucia Black (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It’s a little of both, I think. I’ll do a bit of c/e, but I don’t feel too comfortable editing it without direct knowledge of/access to the source material (I’ve only seen the anime, and haven’t re-watched it), so if anyone could vet my changes, that’d be great. —Frungi (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It was actually a much simpler fix than that. I just restored the Plot section that was overwritten in this edit. No reason was given for it, and I can’t see how that new version would possibly be preferable. —Frungi (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Manga in Poland

Japonica Polonica Fantastica published all 27 manga volumes in Poland, last in April 2012, see: [2] [3]. Please update. --Daveed93 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Anime text moved to its own article

During the copy-edit in December 2013, I moved the bulk of the text about the anime series and films to its own article, Fullmetal Alchemist (anime). This is per Adam Cuerden's recommendations at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2. This article can now concentrate upon the manga. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This seems to fail several criteria. First of all, it's ostensibly an article on the manga. The lead makes this very clear. However, the article, in fact, appears to attempt to cover everything even remotely connected with Full Metal Alchemist. It does a very poor job at the first animé series, where the point, as I understand it, was to create a different take on the idea; indeed, I pity the person who wants to use Wikipedia to learn about the first anime series, and who, not only won't have any indication the anime series is covered in the article, but won't have the first half of the anime covered beyond "this roughly follows the plot of the manga up to this point..."

There's a reason Wikipedia generally has different articles for books and films. It avoids borderline original research/synthesis attempts to mash two plots together.

I think this fails the following GA criteria:

• Point 1b requires the article to follow WP:LEAD. This utterly fails WP:LEAD, as the lead doesn't summarise the article in the slightest, instead acting as if it's the lead to an article on the manga alone.
• Point 2. This has a tag. I'll let the borderline original research issues raised above pass for now.
• Point 3: This somehow fails both sides: It fails to address major aspects of the broader topic it sets itsself outside the lead, but fails to remain focused on its ostensible topic as well.

I don't see how this can be a GA. This article is a mess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Can you be more specific about the lead? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarise the article. This doesn't do that, it instead serves as an introduction to the manga alone, when the article is more general. I'm also not entirely sure everything in the lead appears later, thus meaning it may require citations.

Quite simply, the lead is, if anything, actively misleading as to the article contents. Over half the article is about other Full Metal Alchemist media, but the lead gives no hint of this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Some sections need to be entirely re-written to be useful to readers, a single sentence about the plot of the first anime is wholly insufficent and doesn't meet the broad scope for a GA. Brotherhood (the second series) is also vague, the manga itself is the main focus of this page despite the anime being more well received and notable. Either way this will lead to the organizational dispute. Salvaging this or will be difficult if not impossible without splitting off the contents to their own pages per WP:SS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, there's more than a sentence on the plot of the first anime - it gets a paragraph at the end of the plot summary. Perhaps you meant the second anime? There is a lot missing, though. That said, whilst checking this, I note that OVAs are mentioned as existing, but not discussed as to content and plot, although, admittedly, not all OVAs will have a plot. It seems like they should be discussed, at least a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The plots of the OVAs are where they belong, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes#OVAs. There's no need to add in unnecessary plot summary to this article when a sufficient summary is found on the list article. The same goes for any additional plot from the two anime series; that is partially what the episode lists are for.--十八 20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I would also like to comment that the article should be weighed against WP:WIAGA and assessed accordingly. If nothing else, if the issue with the lead is dealt with, as outlined in criterion 1(b), and the issue with referencing is dealt with as outlined in criterion 2, then I assume the only other issue would be criterion 3, since criteria 4-6 do not appear to have been called into question. If the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", I don't see why this shouldn't be a GA.

The way I see the article now, it certainly does both. The main aspects of the topic deal with its plot, production, different media types, and reception, and it discusses the different media versions without going into unnecessary detail, nor should it. Are there main aspects of the topic that are not currently addressed? WP:SS is already in effect with the various branch articles linked in the plot and media sections so that the topic stays focused. Furthermore, a concise plot summary is used, and a brief overview of its differences with the first anime adaptation is offered, while a more detailed plot summary is already found in the chapter and episode lists; WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM would seem to apply.--十八 05:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Point 3 is a big one. I can't see how it merits either basic comprehensiveness with its wider scope, or focus on the manga. It's not a very good overview article, and leaves out key things I'd expect, such as analysis. I also worry that by glossing over differences in the animé, it may actively mislead as to the anime's plot. Further, the List of episodes is terrible way to present plot, and - as it lacks any other information about the animé, probably violates WP:NOTPLOT Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Episode lists have been used across Wikipedia for ages, and it's standard to give each episode a short summary. And as a list of episodes, obviously the main scope of such an article would be the episode list. To say the episode lists lack any other information is pretty disingenuous when they also include all of the information in their leads about the anime and their airing. An episode list isn't supposed to go into excessive details relating to the production of a series anyway, since it's a list, not a normal article. I would also like to add that much of the series analysis in this article is currently in its reception section.

Furthermore, I don't see how the article is "glossing over differences in the anime" as it's meant to only be a brief summary. WP:CMOS#PLOT, WP:NOVSTY and WP:TVPLOT recommend writing brief summaries that cover the major events without going into unnecessary detail. Like I said, a more detailed summary is also available on the chapter and episode lists, so beefing up this article's plot section would go against CMOS, NOVSTY and TVPLOT regarding concise plot summaries.--十八 08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the lead, could you review it again and specify points. It's the lead style I've used for all my articles including Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Graces, and Case Closed. If there is a problem with it, could you show how it is related in Symphonia? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It mentions some adaptations, but it's still highly misleading about the article's content. That needs to be clear from the first sentence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's standard to introduce a topic based on what it was originally, so it would go against standard convention to introduce the topic with anything other than "Fullmetal Alchemist is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Hiromu Arakawa." This has been a standard on Wikipedia for as long as I've been here, and examples of which can be found in featured articles. For example, The Adventures of Tintin has an extensive adaptations section, but it still introduces the topic as "a series of comic albums".--十八 08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin has a brief summary of the adaptations, linking to articles on the adaptations. It doesn't attempt to replace articles on the adaptations. This article has as roughly as much on the anime as it does on the manga. If the anime material was spun out, and the anime was briefly discussed here, that would be quite a different thing, but when this article is apparently meant to serve as the article on both the manga and the anime, that won't fly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Two paragraphs for each anime in the media section is what I would call a brief summary. WP:SS encourages you to write a brief summary, while more details are spun out into other articles, which is already what this article does with the various list articles. If this article covered more details related to the production of the anime, I might agree, but as of now, I believe you're splitting hairs. The article stays focused on the manga, and offers a summary of its adaptations; how is that in violation of the third criterion in the GA criteria? Criterion 3(a) even has a caveat that states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." This article essentially has a focus on the manga, while also providing an overview of the broader topic in relation to its adaptations. Furthermore, criterion 3(b) says to not go into "unnecessary detail", which I do not believe this article does. The sections on the anime detail, briefly, who produced them, when they aired in Japan and North America, and also their media releases on DVD and BD. The section on the films is even smaller, and the only other sections that are larger are the two on CDs and video games, both of which do not go into "unnecessary detail" i.e. the films nor the video games go into specific detail relating to their production and/or development. If you end up failing the article because of that, be prepared to defend your side at a community reassessment. I do not believe you are accurately applying the GA criteria.--十八 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You realise there's a second, much larger section on the reception of the anime, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, this is meant to have a focus on the manga, but also acts an a general overview for the series. And I wouldn't call one more paragraph than what the manga's reception section has as "much larger" by any stretch of the imagination. If the manga had like a sentence or two of reception, and the rest of the section was on the anime, I might agree, but again, I believe you're splitting hairs and are intentionally trying to find fault in this article when there is none, at least when it comes to the GA criteria.--十八 07:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your argument hinged on there being very little on the anime. "Two paragraphs for each anime in the media section is what I would call a brief summary."

But, let's ignore that. You say that the article is meant to focus on the manga, but also provide an overview for the series. It doesn't focus on the manga. And that's the primary problem with this article: It doesn't know what it wants to be. It has the lead of an article that focuses on the manga, and the body of a mediocre overview article, which lacks appropriate spinoff articles. If the article actually focused on the manga, and all but a brief summary of the anime stuff was spun off to its own article, it would be a far better article.

Alternatively, the lead could be rewritten to be about the Fullmetal Alchemist franchise, and the manga and anime both given their own articles, thus getting it down to a trim overview.

But, as it is now, a user looking for material on the animé won't even realise we have an article on the animé, because the lead actively misleads. And should the reader realise there is material on the animé, there are three different sections on the animé, and none of them are anywhere near each other. That sort of basic failure of organization is a clear failure of WP:WIAGA criterion 1, as it could never be considered well-written. A similar issue, on a small scale, exists for the light novels, which are seperated over two sections, though this is somewhat more forgiveable as the coverage of them is summarised far more - that's not to say that their spinoff article is any good, it both lacks any depth and is terribly written: The plot summary for "Fullmetal Alchemist: The Land of Sand" is rambling as anything, for example. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There are other issues with writing. For example, the section "Anime reception" is very unclear which anime it's talking about most of the time. There are two very different anime, clarity is necessary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

✗ Fail

The more I look into this, the worse it looks. Here's a summary of the issues:

Criterion 1, Well-written

The organization of this article is a mess. WP:LEAD is ignored completely; the lead does not reflect the article's content in the least; noone would ever expect that this was the only article on Wikipedia where the first anime's reception was covered, for example (And, whilst GA may not look at the overall structure of groups of articles, suffice to say: the article tree around Fullmetal Alchemist is appalling; instead of actually attempting to discuss any spinoff, it's just bad, half-hearted lists of incomplete plot summaries.) Trying to follow any thread in this article is made very difficult due to poor structure. For example, discussion of the animé takes place over four different sections ("Differences in the first anime adaptation", "Production", "Anime series", "Anime reception", and, particularly in "Anime reception", does a terrible job specifying which animé is being discussed. If the article is meant to be on the manga, all but a paragraph or two on the animé should be spun off to Fullmetal Alchemist (anime); and that article should have a {{for}} template at the top directing people to the article on the second anime. It is insane to try to cover the anime in full in the article on the manga. Alternatively, if an overview article is preferred, both the manga and anime should be spun off, and this article trimmed down into a concise overview. As it is, the structure is terrible, it's confusing, and nowhere near GA level.

More simply, it's just not very well-written. Impenetratble sentences like "As the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were maturing and decided to change some scenes, resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters being improvised." or weird sentence structures such as "as commented by Viz to avoid references to Christianity." abound. A complete copyedit is necessary.

Criterion 2, Verifiability

It has a citation needed tag; there seems to be no rush to fix this. I'm also not entirely convinced every sentence in the lead appears later, but it's hard to be sure on that.

Going more in-depth, several references are to the various branches of Amazon.com, and one is to this page on About.com, which is, at the very least, a dubious source.

Finally, the plot summary section seems dubious from the view of original research, since it makes statements about the anime following the manga up to a certain point, then diverging, which seems like it should need a citation.

Criterion 3a, It addresses the main points of the topic

If this is meant to be an article on the manga, this is not a very good article on the manga. One would expect to find at least a bit of critical analysis in a good article on the manga, a bit of discussion of themes, and so on. Perhaps it would seem a bit more in depth if it didn't have all the other material in.

If this is meant to be an overview article, it fails to present itself as such. The lead fails to set up the structure of the article, so, while main points may be there, they aren't particularly accessible by users.

Criterion 3b, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

WP:SS is in the GA criteria, so let's review against. It fails to use appropriate spinoff articles, instead somehow making horribly inappropriate subarticles: A list of episodes of the anime is not a substitute for an article on the anime when it means you have to leave lengthy reception section on the anime, amongst others, standing completely inappropriately in the manga article. A sane spinoff would let you move most of the anime discussion to the article on the anime, giving a good, tight overview article on the manga.

This article fails far too comprehensively to be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised it hasn't been a week or I wasn't even told about it. Furthermore, the discussion hasn't even reached an agreement.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did post about this on the relevant Wikiproject; I apologise if I missed a major contributor.

As I understand it, if the GAN is unlikely to finish in a week, it's considered better to fail it, and let it be renominated after the problems are fixed. This isn't meant to stop discussion, I just don't think that this can be brought into agreement within any reasonable timescale.

I am, of course, quite willing to be proven wrong - I recently reverted a failure of a GA, because, whilst the problems seemed like they would take quite some time, quick and very good work by the nominator surprised me by fixing it. However, little relevant editing is happening. The lead is shorter and tighter, but it's still a lead for a fundamentally different article. And that's the only change that has been made. I don't think the Citation Needed tag is particularly hard to fix if you have any resources, but it's not been fixed. And I got the strong feeling that noone was even interested in discussing solutions to the Criterion 3 problems, instead denying there were any. (I do think there are solutions, but they need people willing to put in some work to either turn this into a franchise article, or to tighten it up to focus on the manga, moving material as needed to subarticles (probably reworkings of the existing subarticles, renamed to reflect a more appropriate scope. For example, there's no reason why the list of episodes of the anime couldn't have the anime production, reception and such moved to it, an introduction added, the plot summaries tweaked to tell the story a bit more coherently - and then be renamed to Fullmetal Alchemist (first anime). This would let this article become a lot tighter and focused, since it wouldn't need to cover everything about the anime; it could just briefly touch on relevant parts). But I don't get the impression that any will exists to even try. Further, the more I dig, the more problems I find. I checked the references, and found highly questionable sources (Amazon). I reread the sentences, and find several that are highly unclear, etc, etc, etc. This article appears to be very far from GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From the very beginning this GA re-assessment is a waste of time because what you wanted from the start is a discussion whatever to spin-out or not anime adaptations related articles. Personally, i don't care the result of a such discussion as consensus change or evolve. What i find back-handed is using this GA re-assessment as a proxy to criticize how are done or used to be done in wp:anime which echo the discussion in WP:VPP. I very willing to handling the keys of wp:anime to those who know better and can do better but be warned wp:anime is very much like a two fronts trench warfare being caught between those who think anime/manga is crap generator in Wikipedia (even unworthy of mainpage) and extreme fans whose logic can be summarized to "more article = better coverage". --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It would help if the reviewer were more clear with his criticism rather than just generalizing. The fact that the anime's reception is bigger than the manga's makes a lot of sense once you realize there are two animes and only one manga. In fact, thanks to my previous contributions to the project I understood we write more about anime reception than manga reception because anime reviews focus on many things (presentation, animation, design, plot, voice acting, dub vs original cast, music, etc) while manga reviews aren't that big (art, organization, plot). Maybe it would be better asking for a third opinion because I don't know what to edit based on what the reviewer says and it some things are against common guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm presuming everyone's seen the community reassessment, Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Fullmetal_Alchemist/1, by now. I don't intend to fight on two fronts, so will be responding to commentary there. Since there's general agreement there this doesn't rise to the standards of a GA, however... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comedy-drama classification

This manga has a fair amount of comedy in it, not denying that, but it is very serious most of the time. I would say it should be considered a comedy-drama instead. Action is also a major focus of the series so I would also suggest that you consider making the "Adventure" category "Action-Adventure". You may want to consider a removal of "Romance" as well - it was never a major focus of the series.--74.110.141.60 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

if romance isn't a main focus, neither was comedy, so we should leave it as action.Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: anime splits

there's currently an RfC in the anime page. you can find it here:Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)#RfC: Regarding splitting the anime(s). More opinions would be nice.Lucia Black (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

There is a quite dramatic difference between the categories for this article and those for the Category:Full Metal Alchemist. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note about Hohenheim

I'm pretty sure Hohenheim is a reference to "Philippus Areolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim". Should I add it somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.240.18 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)