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

Archive 1

The following discussions are archived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess/2006, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess/2007, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess/2008.

Incomplete?

Why does it only show up to letter L? was the rest deleted? Raquel Sama

Incomplete list at the moment. Finish it if you wish. --Squilibob 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A-class nominations

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess

How do I list?

How do I add an article here to be assessed? I've added the project template to the Animania talk page, and I'd say it's probably around B-Class (and may well make it to GA with a picture or two and a little spruce up), but I'd like some consensus and now that the page's been blanked I'm not sure what format I'm supposed to use. Confusing Manifestation 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about changing how this is done. My thinking is that there should be a notice first and then a redirection to this page. Like, you should raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga and then have a link to the section on this page, like a Peer review. --Squilibob 10:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Planetes

Please re-assses to see if it qualifies for A class. Tanabe's portrait disappeared from not being Fair Use-tagged, but I'll get to that a little later since I'll be screencapping a new set of character portraits, so please disregard the missing picture. --TcDohl 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See response on Talk:Planetes --GunnarRene 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Cat (manga)

Please re-assess it.

Thank you,
Samantha Lim88 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussions are preserved as an archive. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

C Class

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved. C Class has been adopted. The template for the project has been updated to include assessment criteria for B class. Assessment page created.

A new C class has been created for article assessments for articles that are not longer starter pieces, but aren't B quality either. I've updated our template to allow C class and properly categorize our articles. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for the descriptions of the redone classes, and the talk page for the lengthy discussion of its creation (I'd recommend grabbing a cup of coffee and a sandwich while you read :P).

This brings up to tasks for us. Going through our 3889 start class articles (and 899 B class articles) to reassess them per the new scale to either upgrade or downgrade them down to C. I'm including B in here because many of our B classes are not really, and were just marked B by an editor in love with the series rather than someone evaluating the article. I also think this would be an excellent time for the project to seriously look at creating a real assessment page, with our class descriptions and examples, a request for assessment section, etc. This page would replace the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess, which is a partial effort in that step, but mostly focused on the completely unused A class. For examples of the sort of page I'm thinking of, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment, TV, Films (which I think is one of the better ones), Biography, etc. Thoughts and volunteers? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a bit, the I believe the technicalities are still being worked out: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment rewrite is not ready yet. The best example of an assessment department, that I am aware of, is WP:MILHIST. Have a look at it, and their B Class template and requirements. G.A.S 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Its already been implemented in the actual assessment template, so I think we need to at least get prepped. And yes, MILHIST is another good example. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

On the template, yes, but I don't think it is transcluded yet. And yes, we should prepare. One idea was that "B class" where 5 "yes" answers are not given, is C class. We should just wait with any assessment drives until the rewrite is done, otherwise we may have to do it over. G.A.S 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Figures they'd create it without actually being ready to implement it. Probably right then on reassessing articles, though we should still get to work on having a "real" assessment page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicken and the egg—Do you first get C class approved, or do you first work out the details? All of the categories for C class has been added, though, and I believe that the bot was also updated. It also seem that the template was in fact updated to show C class, so C class is ready for use. There was also another idea to create a bot that reassess all B class articles within a project to C-class on request, not sure if it has been written yet.

If we do this, we can just as well set guidelines for importance, and assess it that well. Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 for an example assessment drive.

Regarding a the template: Have a look at how Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment handles B class, and see {{Hurricane/Temp}}, {{Hurricane/B check}} and {{Hurricane/B list}} for the relevant template magic. I had a look at their assessment process, and it seems advanced compared to the others. We could look into adopting a similar system.

G.A.S 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can add a B class checklist to ours, if we can hammer out the details of what criteria we want to have. Films template also has a nice checklist. BTW, Biography has also already started using C class :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that WP:ASSESS will probably provide a sample checklist, but I am not sure that how fast that will be ready. The best definition for B class would, at the moment, be "Almost GA".

What do you think of Tropical cyclones Assessment page and process? G.A.S 05:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I like their page layout, per say, but I think it has some good merits. Not sure on the assessment process itself, though, as so far our attempt to do something similar hasn't gone well. I think if we are gonna start using A, we're gonna really need some project members to be willing to devote themselves to participating in any discussions started. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the process, I am willing, but would not like to do it alone. I do not like their page layout either, but the concepts and procedures seems to be a good start. G.A.S 09:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot do that and peer review on the same article, that would be a conflict of interest;) G.A.S 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, not volunteering. :-P (I'm going to devote myself, at least for the time being, to the Cleanup Task Force and creating stubs off the Awards lists.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For interest' sake: The official announcement of C-Class should be on Friday[1]. G.A.S 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: assessment drives

Above we spoke about re-assessing all of the anime articles: Since we are going through all of the articles, I believe we can also look at, and correct, the following (Please list other issues):

• Are the cleanup tags on the articles relevant, or redundant as the problems are common for the specific class of articles? (E.g. {{expand}} on a stub)
• Does stubs have the {{anime-stub}} template applied?
• Are the articles sourced (If not, and higher than start class add {{Unsourced}})?
• Are the articles notable (In the case of fictional characters and episodes, if not, add {{Notability}})?

Would this be possible?

G.A.S 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree that it would be an excellent idea, but considering recent stuff, I'd probably have to pass on that part. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Circumstances are that 3 and 4 will face heavy resistance if the regular editors of such articles are new to wikipedia? MythSearcher^talk 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, circumstances being that some people will remove any tags I add to articles just because it was me adding it, and the heeps of incivility for "daring" to tag an article for having problems (including the lovely suggestion that I go "DIAF." The new editors are not nearly as bad as the "established" ones, and will usually just ask about the tags if they notice them at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If we add the tags our duty is done, it will appear on our cleanup listing. If they remove them, so be it. We made them aware of the problem, we do not need to make an issue out of it. I see no reason to patrol the edits that added the tags.

G.A.S 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem, though, if its removed without being fixed, then when we do a clean out of our lists, the article will be removed and remain in poor shape.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true but (1) the cleanup list will not be clean for a long time, (2) someone would likely have re-added a cleanup template by that time, (3) failing that, it cannot progress past B class, definitely not up to A and FA, so we can just re-look at B-class articles from time to time, (4) we can always list the article on this page manually, and (5), see the option below. G.A.S 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This can be done on the talk page per this example, once an article is "C-class": {{Hurricane/Temp}}, {{Hurricane/B check}} and {{Hurricane/B list}}. G.A.S 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, that is actually really, really nifty! I would support implementing something like that in our own banner once we get the new assessment details worked out and an actual assessment page written up. —Dinoguy1000 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The B class criteria has now been finalised. C-class should be done soon. G.A.S 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment page

We really need to get this up and running while there is still some interest. Some excellent examples has been provided above. Shall we select one and use it, or use the best aspects of each? G.A.S 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The example that will probably be the easiest to implement is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment and it includes automated archival of sections. They only assess from A class and up, their Banner automates B and C class assessments. It seems that this should be the route to go if we implement this. We can work on the layout though. I do not think we need to go as far as assessing B class articles here, considering how many we are, this will probably overload us (hence the reason I propose using their templates). Their B class criteria seems to be a good start as well.

Considering that 25% of their articles are GA or FA, they are obviously doing something right.

G.A.S 09:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...I think we should go with the best aspects of each, to fit our own needs. So the to do list for the page would be something like:

• Get basic layout decided and agreed to - determine which aspects of examples we like to use as guides
• Decide on class criteria and select examples of each class for the chart
• Create rough draft for feedback, once consensus approves, replace current page
• Set up necessary code/bots for allowing for assessment requests to be added and for auto archivals
• Update the project template with the B class check list criteria (and C?)
• Assessment drive to get unassessed articles assessed, and ensure all Bs are actually B and to up starts to C as appropriate

That about right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. If we update the template code as recommended, it will automatically reassess all B's as C, until the missing parameters are completed. Although this is not a problem, we need to do this before upgrading other articles to C class, otherwise we will have to go through them twice.

It will not be needed to update the project template with B class criteria though, this has been done for us: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/B-Class criteria, we can just transclude it here.

Only 9073 articles of B-class or less to go — lovely. This will require a few of these: {{subst:The Working Man's Barnstar|message ~~~~|gender}} ;) G.A.S 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved. C Class has been adopted. The template for the project has been updated to include assessment criteria for B class. Assessment page created.

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With the above now finalised, we should really look into getting a assessment page going, and if needed, reassess all articles. Comment? G.A.S 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a real assessment page. It would be much more organized and easier to pick out B-class articles to work on until GA status. Reassessing articles might take a bit, but many articles, especially B- and Start-class ones, can now be changed to C-class. And there are plenty of stubs that would make it to Start. So I agree with both parts. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the bot is going to go through and reassess all Bs down to Cs, or all Starts up to Cs? Or will it have some sort of selective criteria? Also agree, we need to get a real assessment page going, and I'd love to see a reassessment drive as well. The number of our Bs which are vanity Bs is likely to be rather depressing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope a bot isn't doing that. That would just create a lot more work as bots can not reliably evaluate an article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A bot will be available to reassess all B-class articles to C-class on request(?). If we use the Hurricane templates, the template will reassess all B's as C's until the missing parameters has been completed. I opt for the second option myself. We can then assess them back to B class ourselves. G.A.S 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we'd need to get our template updated first, then go through and set the checks for B class articles we know are B, then let the bot put the rest down to C? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If we use the templates, the bot is not needed;) The template will set all at B's at C class until the parameters have been completed, but this is a temporary problem in either case. G.A.S 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) 1. Are there consensus to update the template per the hurricane example? If so, shall I ask someone to update it, or can someone here update them? 2. Can we start drafting a new assessment page? G.A.S 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Failing any opposes, I will have the templates updated shortly... G.A.S 05:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) I don't think there are any objections, just more of need for someone to take the first step to get started :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested User:Titoxd to make the necessary adjustments. When that has been done, we can take this further. G.A.S 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the necessary changes to use this. All the old B-Class articles will be listed on Category:Anime and manga articles with incomplete B-Class checklists and be temporarily reassessed as C-Class until they're updated to use the checklist. The instructions for the modifications are here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) One thing I am noticing, though, is the show/hide on the check list isn't quite working right. You have to click it twice to get it to show. The first click makes it narrower, but doesn't show anything. See Talk:Wolf's Rain and Talk:Blood+. After the first time, it stays at the narrower width. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's showing fine in my browser, but I think I have a general idea of what is going on... let me try something. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that fixed the double click. Anyway to have it span the full width of the box though to avoid wrapping the "This article has been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria:" line? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine, thank you. Same issue about the wrapping though: Firefox 3 seems fine, but IE6 wraps the text. Full width will look more neat as well. G.A.S 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried expanding it a little bit more by pushing the compliance line all the way to the left. How does it look now? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I need some coaching here. How does one use this checklist? I mean, so I show the review thingie, and I get a bullet list with 6 categories all listed as "Unknown" and no links except to the key to the criteria descriptions -- no instructions or anything that explains how to update anything as part of evaluating the article. (I'm on Opera 8.53 if it makes a difference.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit the talk page and add named parameters to the project banner. The parameters are named B1 - B6 (though I don't see why we couldn't use more intuitive names - any thoughts?), and set each one to "yes" or "no" depending on whether the article meets that particular B-Class criterion. —Dinoguy1000 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- thanks. Where's the instructions for that? Any way to have them linked from the widget? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Our main template docs will need some updating for that :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Docs are here, although they probably need merging to the main template documentation eventually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, Titoxd. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Go go assessment page

(←) We have crossed the rubicon. We should get into gear now with the assessment page, and note its use on the template documentation, before everybody start reassessing the articles to B class. G.A.S 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll work up a basic shell for us to start with so we can then hammer out the details. Will post when its ready to discuss. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is scary to look at some of the previously B-class articles. G.A.S 07:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, believe me I know...I call those vanity Bs :P The mock up is mostly ready for feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment. Let's use its talk page for the discussion, though, just to keep from cluttering up this page much (and so we can section it all off). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we move all related discussions from this page to that one as well. We can leave the section headings here, and leave links to the new location. G.A.S 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And done *grin* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Importance scale

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – The importance scale per final draft below has been adapted. Articles' importance should be discussed on the assessment page if different than those suggested.

Anyone up for a third article assessment discussion? I figure we might as well get all this done with at once (at least, as done as we can get done while so much is still up in the air over at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). ;) Could anyone tell me why the animanga project doesn't make use of article importance ratings, and what is the current opinion on implementing them? —Dinoguy1000 08:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to set guidelines up for these, but it would have been of more use if the cleanup listing incorporated this. G.A.S 08:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Though importance seems to be contentious in some areas, I think that should also be a part of the proposed full assessment page (versus the A we have now). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before, and from what I remember it was never instituted since we couldn't agree to the importance of an importance rating.--十八 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory this should be easy to define: If we have two articles of equal quality (or lack thereof), with the same issues: which one should be fixed first? In practice, we should probably look at other projects' criteria, and adopt it for our use. (Usually this is concepts = high, articles = normal, specialised articles = low). G.A.S 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Or adapted: Fundamental concepts = high // anime and manga articles, voice actors, companies = mid // episode and character lists = low (since they are detailed/specialised). G.A.S 11:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's as easy as that, why include it in a template at all? Also, not all anime and manga really have the same importance. Compare Cutie Honey with Lassie. --Masamage ♫ 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is only a start, obviously popularity, international distribution, etc. will affect this:) G.A.S 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While fundamental seems good, Masamage brings up a good point. I would say high would normally be the big companies (Tokyopop, ADV Films, Shueisha, Geneon etc), bigger anime/manga series (level of Bleach, Naruto, Kenshin, Sailor Moon, etc), notable industry people, and the big magazines (like Weekly Shonen Jump, Shonen Jump, NewType), and of course the core articles of anime, manga, etc. Mid could include most other licensed anime/manga series with reliable souceing available, smaller companies, and lesser industry people. Low for lists is fine, and for unlicensed series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian's breakdown of a possible importance scale, though I forsee some problems determining what constitutes "bigger" anime/manga series, or at least convincing editors that their pet article isn't as important as they would like it to be/think it is. —Dinoguy1000 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actively being edited (assuming they're following guidelines, and not just padding with fancruft) seems like a pretty good reason to let them bump up the importance scale if they really want to. Not really something worth arguing about. Doceirias (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Except, the ones most likely to bump up the importance will be the ones padding with fancruft, from what I've seen (and the ones who will put an article at B class when its barely even Start). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Collectonian and Dinoguy. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, in agreement with Collectonian and Dinoguy. One possible way to define a "big" anime would be to say that a show with international TV syndication or cinematic release is "bigger" than one that went straight to DVD, which is "bigger" than one that's only ever been fansubbed. I'm sure somebody will now come and show me an obviously "big" series that never got distributed outside of Japan, but perhaps it's a starting point. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I was thinking "big" in terms of top sellers and "revolutionary/ground breaking/controversial" (for leack of a better world", often held up as the top of their genres (or conversely, so hideous its famous for it LOL), tons of reliably sourceable information available (meaning high potential to be FA with the appropriate work), and/or with multiple adaptations off them (i.e. what some call metaseries) (any mix there). The examples I gave earlier are big in size, meet pretty much all of those. For some others, I would call Death Note high for the high controversy and its frequent news mentions. Now, Ceres, Celestial Legend isn't big in size, and doesn't have a lot of adaptations, but I'd still call it high because it is generally considered one of the top shojo series, and is regularly mentioned in various books looking at Japanese culture in manga series due to the ties to the hagoromo legends. All that said, are there some high series that are not licensed? Yes, a few...Doreamon would have been one if it hadn't been licensed (insane). The "longest" series of any of the genres is likely to be high as well, even if unlicensed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Doraemon and Ceres have both seen the light of day elsewhere in Asia, which is why I specified "outside of Japan" (to avoid Western-centric bias in only picking those licensed in the West). My idea for the criterion, flawed as it is, is that it's objective - a series is either on TV or it's not. Like others have said above, any attempt to define "big" as "influential" is likely to see people rush to find 1,000 mentions of their favourite series in random mentions in newspapers to build their case. I think you'll find that there is generally (though admittedly not always) a connection between the series that get a wider market, and that have a bigger influence. I see the importance rating as a way of setting priorities - High importance articles *should* be pushed towards FA first, but there's nothing stopping you from doing the same for a Mid or Low importance one too, so it's better to have a system of very quickly setting up the importances so that we can get on with the real work of actually improving the article. Like I said, though, my criterion has several weaknesses, including (a) the likelihood that there are still anime that "should" be more or less important than how it rates them, and (b) it only covers anime and doesn't begin to look at manga, or more general concepts like anime or fansub. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Collectonian's suggestion sounds fine. The top sellers sounds pretty important. The top 25 rankings of all times TV anime best seller per disc (TVアニメ歷代売上累計平均ランキング最新版TOP25) is:

(only includes official VHS, LD, VHD, DVD, LD-Box, DVD-Box and excludes movie, compiled version and fan discs.)

1. Neon Genesis Evangelion, each disc average sold 173458 copies(Yes, I did not type in the wrong number)
2. Mobile Suit Gundam, each disc average sold 80928 copies
3. Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny, each disc average sold 69247 copies
4. Mobile Suit Gundam Seed, each disc average sold 58563 copies
5. Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam, each disc average sold 54994 copies
6. Code Geass, each disc average sold 44657 copies
7. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime), each disc average sold 41037 copies
8. Cowboy Bebop, each disc average sold 40212 copies
9. Dragon Ball Z, each disc average sold 40065 copies
10. Martian Successor Nadesico, each disc average sold 37897 copies
11. Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, each disc average sold 36821 copies
12. Full Metal Alchemist, each disc average sold 36519 copies
13. Lupin III first series, each disc average sold 35331 copies
14. Dragon Ball GT, each disc average sold 31696 copies
15. Future Boy Conan, each disc average sold 31158 copies
16. Initial D Fourth Stage, each disc average sold 29508 copies
17. Patlabor, each disc average sold 28514 copies
18. Mobile Suit Gundam Wing, each disc average sold 28469 copies
19. Fate/stay night anime, each disc average sold 26047 copies
20. Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ, each disc average sold 26028 copies
21. Love Hina, each disc average sold 24013 copies
22. Air (anime), each disc average sold 23903 copies
23. Azumanga Daioh, each disc average sold 23725 copies
24. Card Captor Sakura, each disc average sold 20192 copies
25. Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG, each disc average sold 19641 copies

That is it. MythSearcher^talk 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance - Arbitrary break 1

Need	The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top	Subject is a must-have for a good encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

We completely forgot that there are 4 importance categories;) Per WP:1.0/Criteria this constitutes importance to us.

Can we maybe work out a scheme that reserves "low" for character and episode articles (and maybe series not licensed outside Japan)? That would mean that we need to push the above mentioned classes up in the grand scheme of importance. G.A.S 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It may also be a good idea to say that Top (and maybe high) priority should be determined at a central forum, e.g. the proposed assessment page. G.A.S 06:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Those both sound good to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And me. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the final decision about lists of characters and episodes. I meant that they are also mid, but am not sure whether that was everybody else understood? G.A.S 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understood top = core concepts; high = most important series / creators / publishers; mid = all other series / creators + lists; low = individual characters / episodes / concepts.

I'm not sure why you are trying to jam everything into "mid-importance" because most topics will actually be "low-importances". The importance scale is our judgment on how important an article is towards a "complete encyclopedia" instead of the articles importance to the project. So here is my view of how the importance scale should be applied:

• Top: Core topics, such as Anime and Manga, along with biographies of highly influential individuals, such as Hayao Miyazaki and Osamu Tezuka.
• High: Sub-articles of the core topics, such as History of anime and History of manga, along with common vocabulary terms and influential individuals in the industry. Also any anime and manga series that has a lasting impact decades after it was initially released. (Astro Boy, Star Blazers, Gundam)
• Mid: Most vocabulary terms; Anime and manga series that has archived wide commercial success outside of Japan or has received critical exclaimed outside of Japan; Large conventions; Characters that have become cultural icons; Most well known voice actors and directors
• Low: Everything else, but especially articles on characters, episode lists, character lists, volume/chapter lists, and very obscure vocabulary terms.

--Farix (Talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment N/A I disagree on the last part, as WP1.0 specifically mentions importance is project specific. (WP:ANIMEfalls under WP:JAPAN which falls under ... -- given this hierarchy, it is clear that our articles are typically of low importance.) Problem is, if everything else is rated as low, we will never have an indication of articles vs subarticles. The reason for putting the articles per above in low/mid is to limit the use of low to subarticles, and series not available outside Japan. I.e. mid=normal, unless specified otherwise, being up or down. If there was a "very low importance" class, this would not have been a problem. I expect that about 70% of our articles will still fall under "low"; depending how we rate voice actors. (70%/23%/5%/2%?) G.A.S 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the makeup of a few Wikiprojects importance scale (From top to low): 89, 190, 287, 201//37, 250, 1114, 1201// 18, 83, 482, 1907// 225, 576, 1376, 1631//13, 451, 1982, 10893//4, 13, 24, 20//142, 559, 1238, 16991//. Some of these projects may be on average just as specialised as we are, yet use a wide importance scale. Bottom line: if the importance scale is only going to list 5% of our articles above low, there is no use in implimenting it. A more "normal" devision will be of higher value. I assume that pages not part of the quality scale (of start, a, b, c, list, FL, FA) do not have importance, or NA importance? G.A.S 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it would be fine to list these lists as low. G.A.S 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that these guidelines are not intended to be absolute: e.g. Character articles of highly notable /iconic characters can, and should, be rated higher than low -- but the validity thereoff can only be determined via discussion here. This would also be the case with the examples you mentioned for "high" and "top". G.A.S 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance - Arbitrary break 2

As can be seen above, we still need to finalise the criteria above. The articles under our scope is usually one of the following:

1. Articles about series, which covers the following:
   1. Anime, including OVAs and animated films;
   2. Manga and light novels, including serials, such as Young King OURs, and collected volumes;
   3. Media belonging to the same franchises as the above, including video games, visual novels, live action versions, audio dramas, soundtracks, and stage shows and musicals (such as Bleach (musical) or Tenimyu);
2. Articles about video games (Note that this is where the primary focus is the video game, not the anime/manga franchise.
   1. Video games related to anime or manga are under a shared scope with WikiProject Video games;
   2. Visual novels related to anime or manga are under a shared scope with the Visual novels task force;
3. Articles about details of the above.
   1. Individual characters, episodes, issues, and merchandise of the above media;
   2. Lists of characters, media (episodes and or chapters, etc.)
4. Production related topics
   1. Directors (e.g. Hayao Miyazaki) and mangaka (such as Rumiko Takahashi) and other notable production staff;
   2. Voice actors, Japanese or international, whose principal work is in anime and whose roles are generally notable (such as Takehito Koyasu or Jessica Calvello); and
   3. Japanese publishers and production studios (e.g., Shonen Gahosha and Gainax) and international distributors (such as ADV Films and Funimation);
   4. Notable Japanese or international publications and websites meant for review and commentary of anime or manga (such as Newtype or Anime News Network);
5. Other, including major aspects of fandom: including conventions (e.g., Comiket or Otakon), terminology and concepts such as otaku, and other practices; and core topics.

I believe that we can provide better guidelines for the importance of topics if we present it in the same format as is currently done for the quality assessment. Do you agree that we should present the information in a similar way, and if so, what guidelines do we provide? G.A.S 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by G.A.S

Adapted yet again, see below. Description removed not to confuse people.

Support. G.A.S 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you rearrange this based on Top, High, Mid, and Low instead? The format you've proposed above is difficult to understand. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition (Borrowed from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Assessment)	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Series (Main article)	N/A	Lasting impact decades after it was initially released.	Achieved wide commercial success or critical exclaimed outside of Japan	Other
Video games (Main article)	N/A	N/A	N/A	All video games (Shared scope)
Primary lists (List of Smallville episodes)	N/A	Main series has a lasting impact decades after it was initially released.	Main series achieved wide commercial success or critical exclaimed outside of Japan	Other
Secondary lists (Smallville (season 1))	N/A	N/A	Main series has a lasting impact decades after it was initially released.	Other
Characters	N/A	Characters that have become cultural icons, outside of the series (Superman)	Well known characters.	Other
Episodes and movies	N/A	Individually significant episodes* (e.g. Goodbye, Farewell and Amen—Those you would list on the Navigation template)	N/A	Other
Persons	Highly influential persons	N/A	Well known persons	Other
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies	N/A	Well known companies	Other
Other	Core topics	N/A	Large conventions	All other, unless discussed

* I do not think any of our episode articles will fall in this category. Some movies may.

---

• First, this should not be based on what is important to the project. Instead, redefine it as being on what the project assess as important towards a complete encyclopedia
• If the series article was ranked High I do not think a list article (such as an episode list) should be ranked any higher then low. That is because episode lists is mainly of specialist interest, which is the definition of low importance.
• I am not sure if a character article should rank any higher then Mid-importance. Can you provide an example of one that may be ranked of high-importance?

--Farix (Talk) 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still disagree with the first comment; I will have a discussion with someone on the WP1.0 team to clarify the issue (He will be back tomorrow).
• I am fine with that comment. See also my comment below regarding a type parameter, and comment thereon. This will serve a more useful purpose.
• Within our project, I cannot say. Superman is rated as high importance, and Mickey Mouse is rated as top priority, though.

Regards, G.A.S 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to individual episode articles, one possibility for mid- or (more likely) high-importance that I can think of would be Electric Soldier Porygon. —Dinoguy1000 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For High importance Character, I would suggest Char Aznable, which is in a pretty sad state right now. I suggest this character is because it is a main Cultural icon in Japan and surrounding Asia area that got influenced by Japanese anime. To an extent where he got the post office to issue a stamp with him on it, a foreign company(Sharp) made a cell phone and the head of the iconic mobile suit he uses as the charger, got a bank credit card with his portrait and name like Yoda and Darth Vader (in which even the main hero Amuro Ray got none) etc. and the 3 times faster references in a lot of places and even within the Gundam franchise, he was claimed to have became a brand name instead of a simple character. And maybe Gundam (mobile suit) and Zaku are kinda similar(with even less cultural significance than Char outside of the franchise if you ask me.) Other characters I could think of in my head is Rei Ayanami and maybe Belldandy (this one is pretty weakly sourced though.) MythSearcher^talk 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree on Belldandy as a character who is heavily written about in books, discussed in college courses, etc, should be given higher status than some others, though I'd go mid-class as she still is mostly known to folks already familiar with anime and manga. Hello Kitty, I would think would be one to possibly warrant a high class. Despite the sad shape of the article, it is a character with world-wide recognition and fame, even to those who have never heard of manga or anime. Still, as a whole I'd agree that most characters are mostly low class, with a few mid class and the very rare high class. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree on Hello Kitty, I didn't even thought of it as an anime character. I guess the American comic characters are not our concern(like Snoopy or Garfield) but is Moomin within our scoop? It is, after all, animated in Japan. I have no objection in having Belldandy as mid class, although the other two characters I have proposed are quite largely known outside of anime and manga. MythSearcher^talk 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The series – definately in our scope. The original books/non Japanese adaptations – no. The main article, I would say yes, as the Japanese series have a bit more than a passing mention, but low importance due to the shared scope. G.A.S 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. MythSearcher^talk 06:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Final draft

---

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Series (Main article)	N/A	Lasting impact decades after it was initially released e.g. Gundam.	Achieved wide commercial success or critical exclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Sailor Moon.	Other
Video games (Main article)	N/A	N/A	N/A	All video games
Lists of episodes, characters and other media	N/A	N/A	N/A	All lists
Characters	N/A	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series e.g. Char Aznable.	Well known characters e.g. Belldandy.	Other
Episodes and movies	N/A	Individually significant episodes e.g. Electric Soldier Porygon.	N/A	Other
Individuals	Highly influential individuals e.g. Hayao Miyazaki.	N/A	Well known individuals e.g. Hideaki Anno.	Other
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese companies involved in manga and/or anime production, e.g. Bones, Sunrise, Shueisha, Shogakukan.	Top licensors and distributors of manga/anime in English language countries, e.g. Viz Media], Tokyopop, A.D. Vision]	Most other well-known licensors in the industry, e.g. Seven Seas Entertainment, CMX, Central Park Media, Go! Comi	Other, including websites, e.g. Anime News Network
Other	Core topics e.g. anime, manga.	Sub-articles of core topics e.g. History of anime, History of manga.	Large conventions e.g. Anime Expo.	All other (unless discussed here).

---

I am proposing the above table as the final draft, what do you think? If everybody agrees, it can be inserted into the main page with minor adjustments. G.A.S 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can agree, maybe it needs a clear guideline, and I would also suggest movies like Rebuild of Evangelion should have a mid, if not high, importance. The first movie got a staggering 2 billion yen box office income just in Japan and it also got a lot of famous people as staff. It seems to be almost an honour just to be listed in the staff and cast list after the movie. MythSearcher^talk 06:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think if we are going to have the biggest companies as top, it would make sense to have the big players in the US at high. Viz Media, for example, which owns one of the only truly successfully manga anthology, the company itself is owned by two of the three biggest manga companies in Japan, and sole licensor of some of the biggest series out there. Tokyopop, one of the pioneers of manga in North America, also has some of the top titles, and despite the controversy and their recent actions, they are still one of the top licensors. I also think ADV would fit the high end. For mid, the rest, like Seven Seas (though they are doing groundbreaking things with light novels), CMX, CPM, etc. I also think we need to find a better wording than "well known" as that seems kind of subjective rather than objective. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the America licensors, I put up Sunrise there just because it's series are quite culturally influential (probably just because it got so many series) Instead of well known, we can go for top ranked(which needs to be sourced) for the characters and for real people and companies, we should use have sources that specially mention the person or company for several acclaimed series. MythSearcher^talk 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to update the above table if you come up with better wording (instead of "well known"), and examples. G.A.S 11:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the to the project from the description. I still believe that the importance assessments should be based on what the project evaluates as being important towards an encyclopedia instead of how important the topic is to the project. But instead of fussing over the specific language, simply remove that piece as not having consensus. --Farix (Talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)I do not mind your removing the sentence — but refer to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Yet another importance question:

We have always maintained that importance should be judged WITHIN the WikiProject. It's very difficult to judge the importance of a specialised topic for an entire encyclopedia. What we want to know in this case is, "Which are the more important Anime articles? Our bot corrects for the importance rating based on the scope of the WikiProject - a "High" in a broader scope project (such as "History") will count higher than a "High" within a narrower scope project like "History of Poland".

— Walkerma (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Yet another importance question

Regards, G.A.S 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Made some adjustments to the companies per my comments, feel free to adjust as needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Examples by Class

Starting a separate discussion to start looking for our good examples to use for each class. Per above, we'd like to get 3 examples for each, from a range of importance. Please list articles you think would be a good example for each criteria (and why) in the class section below. To keep it simple, let's not include any FAC/FLC/GANs as they may be changing class soon :P-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather 3 examples, not by importance, but by quality, eg Low quality Start, below which it is a stub, mid quality Start, High quality Start, above which it is C-class. This should help with the vagueness in the scale. G.A.S 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that works even better :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

Okay, really we don't have that much choice here. We only have four FA articles, one of which is at FAR. So please evaluate these remaining three to see if you still think they they are good FA examples:

• Madlax
• Mana (series)
• Serial Experiments Lain

Of these, I myself would only be comfortable calling Mana a good example, as it is a recent FA. Madlax is tagged for issues, most notably some referencing problems, though its being worked on by some project folks now. Lain doesn't follow to MoS at all, nor the "alternative" proposed one. It has no media information in the main article at all beyond what is in the infobox, with it summarized in a short paragraph at the bottom linking off to a "List of media" type page that has too many non-free images, none of the Japanese episode info, and no references. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have a real issue with Mana, and have been meaning to bring it up for awhile. It has been previously pointed out (numerous times) that the article only has one paragraph discussing anime or manga (in this case only manga), so many of us (myself included) disagree with us claiming that it falls within our scope. Yes, if we remove it, we're losing an FA, but if we keep it, we're going against our own scope (which clearly states that we do *not* cover articles with only passing mentions of anime or manga), and potentially sending a message to contributors that we're perfectly fine covering those types of articles. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good point and something I totally forgot about . It really isn't an article that belongs in our project, despite it being the best FA "we" have right now. I think it would be best to remove it from the project all together. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've removed our banner from the article, but I haven't gotten around to removing mentions of it from our project pages... I'll probably get to that in a second. —Dinoguy1000 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Our best bet would be to get one the former FA or FAC up to FA class, and then use it. G.A.S 07:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or get ne of our GAs up to FA. :) (I got my one, but so far just a few comments and no supports nor opposes *sigh*) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FL

33 to choose from, though I think it best if we go with more recent FLs (last year or so), to ensure we choose ones that are still FL compliant by the current guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend at least one each volume and episode list. There's only a couple of the former. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed there and meant to note that (as well as one character list if one of the two possibles passes). :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, my suggestions: For a chapter list, List of Naruto chapters (Part I). List of Myself ; Yourself episodes for an episode list with no English release, and I guess List of Bleach episodes (season 1) for one that does have an English air date. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A

This one is easy as we have no A class articles at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quickly put Tokyo Mew Mew through A class assessment, and voilà. G.A.S 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

~grin~ May have to, since its FAC seems to be soliciting a few comments but not a single support (or even object). Doh. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is make or break now: TMM having failed FA status due to no interest leaves us to decide what to do with A class: My proposal:

• Change the icon for A-class from to . (Or is there another possibility?)
• GA should be a requirement for A class assessments: as you have seen yourself, not all GA reviews are "up to specs", this allows us to identify the best of the GA class articles. As WP:ASSESS require 2 reviewers for A class, this will provide a total of 3 reviewers for A class: 1 at GA and 2 for A class.
• {{ArticleHistory}} stays as is. (I.e. for external purposes, still GA class.)
• A class reviews are recorded in the articlehistory: Refer to Talk:USS Siboney (ID-2999) for an example, and to Template:ArticleHistory for the documentation. (That reminds me: there are quite a few of those functions we should use, but currently do not use.)
• List A class articles separately on the project page, or mark them with .
• It is crucial to add prestige to the process.

G.A.S 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me, and I agree if we are going to have an A class, it needs to be a good process. It might be good to add something to the template to have a second option to note that a GA is also an A so it puts in both cats? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to this version of talk USS Siboney, specifically the categories of which it is a member. Note also the large GA-class milestone above.

I am not sure about adding it to both categories, though: the WP:1.0 bot expects that each article is listed as only one of them. I am also not sure whether it will be useful to list it under both categories: under the proposed process, all A class articles should also be GA class, i.e. if you need a list of all "Good articles", thus will be provided in Category:GA-Class anime and manga articles + Category:A-Class anime and manga articles.

G.A.S 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

We have 50 GAs right now. As with FLs, I think it best if we stick with passes from within the last year rather than older ones that might fail a GAR or Sweeps review. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion of FA articles, I'm wondering: Should we remove the banner from GA articles such as Chrono (series) as well, that mostly focus on a video game or other media? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unless Dimensional Adventure Numa Monjar becomes its own article, it shouldn't be considered in our scope. I just wish VG and Films would follow suit and stop tagging articles as being in their scope because of a two sentence video game mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this such an issue? G.A.S 05:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a major issue, but there is no reason to tag an article as being in the project if it really isn't in our scope. Wikipedia:WikiProject reform is only an essay, but quite a few editors do get annoyed with "over tagging." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why not to tag it if it is not in our scope, but why the other way around? (If it is not ours, it is not ours to clean up, but help is always appreciated:) I usually remove irrelevant projects from anime articles, though with FA and GA this may be a sensitive issue. G.A.S 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

B

Right now, with the auto assessed Bs based on the checklist, we have 8 B articles to consider -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain and Trinity Blood, the latter being the lower B class article. G.A.S 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

C

Big one here, as due to the auto assess, any Bs with no check list are automatically considered Cs. So there are 908 articles we can consider, and I suspect this will be the hardest one to come up with examples for. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh My Goddess! is right at the upper limit of C class, the issues being fixed, and reception being added, a good B class article. G.A.S 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Shaman King is in the middle of C class. G.A.S 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• This version of Tokyo Mew Mew would be the lower limit of C class. G.A.S 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Dragon Ball, in its current state, would be a low to middle C as well, and Star Ocean: The Second Story (manga) is a low C that will likely be there for awhile yet :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Start

Without a doubt, our largest segment at the moment, with a whopping 4004 articles! As with C, this one will take awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub

This is our second largest segment of articles, with 3483 stubs for consideration. I don't think it will be as hard to pick examples, though we may find ourselves doing reassessments while dealing with these last three classes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tokyopop (magazine) would be one stub that is likely to be a stub awhile -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• PiQ is another one currently marked stub, but it may be borderline start if someone wants to reevaluate it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• My Dear Marie and Enoki Films are borderline stubs. G.A.S 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List

We currently have 65 lists marked as list class, though some of those need to be fixed to start or the like. Most, however, seem to be proper "pure" lists, so just a matter of picking ones that don't look a mess :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• List of films based on manga, List of video games based on anime or manga, List of programs broadcast by Animax. May need some cleanup, but these lists can never be anything more. G.A.S 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unassessed

Number of unassessed articles is 598. (Duane543 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes...but we don't need to give examples of those as there is nothing consistent about them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We need not give examples of them as they should be assessed as one of the other classes. G.A.S 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was stating that there are still unassessed arctices, which has become alot fewer then two months ago when it was over 2000. I also don't see the point in discussing what an example of a class looks like. It would be better to start reassessment of the articles and add in the Importance scale (which in my opinion is a waste of time) then they become said examples. (Duane543 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Ah, I see. The only use of the importance parameter is to help classify the type of article (e.g. series, "list of", or in depth discussion of a character/episode). The guidelines for this one is quite clear though, and only takes a few seconds to add. G.A.S 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is so that we can then customize the class box so that it has examples of each class that are from within our project, rather than just the general examples from other projects. Dealing with the unassessed articles is on the clean up task for project list already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the examples are the articles in a certain moment in time (History tab), use real articles as examples are pointless. The main reason is that all articles on wiki do not remain the same. (Duane543 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Actually, we will link to specific instances, just as is done with the Film project, noting that they are of that class "as of X". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment drive

I have asked the user who helped WP:MILHIST to set up the appropriate pages for an assessment drive to do the same for us, but failing that we can probably work through the existing categories alphabetically, and use a simplified page to track progress. (Eg. Split it up Aa-Am, An-Az, Ba-Bm, etc.), with each of us doing one range at a time). We need to check for the following:

• Does the article fall within our scope?
• Assign importance
• (Re)Assess quality, and if B or near B complete the B class checklist
• Check if cleanup templates are relevant
• Mark articles that require critical cleanup for urgent attention ({{anime}} is to be updated for this), remove "Need expert attention banner)
• If the article is a stub, check if the correct stub templates have been applied (Only Anime related stub templates).

This also represents us with an opportunity to add a "type" parameter to the template, e.g. to mark articles by type for future use, e.g. "Series", "List of episodes", "episode", "voice actor", "company" etc. This would also provide us with the ability to have a cleanup list by type, and/or assessment statistics by type. I would like your input regarding this. (See Template:WPMILHIST's use of taskforces)

G.A.S 09:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do an assessment drive to re-assess all of the articles?

I should be able to prepare a list of articles in an easy to use format. What do you think?

Quality	Importance	Article
B	Mid	Tokyo Mew Mew (edit talk links history)	Update assessment

G.A.S 07:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. To avoid conflicts, maybe anyone joining in should take on a specific letter at a time, depending on how many we have? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured I would split it into sections with 50-100 articles each, the idea being that the person only indicate {{done}} ~~~~ or {{doing}} ~~~~ at the top of the section to avoid conflicts, or overlap of work. I can do this once I have finished categorising the outstanding redirects by adding appropriate redirect templates (See my contributions:) — About 100, or 1-2 hours work left). G.A.S 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up—I will try to add the tables within the next few days, as I have completed my current cleanup work. Any further suggestions? G.A.S 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a preview – what do you think? How much entries should the individual sections have? How many should be on a sub-page? (I noticed that there may be some bugs to iron out:) G.A.S 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe 50-100? I know I've comfortably done 50 assessments for the TV project in one day. Particularly for Stub/Starts, its relatively quick (though with the new C, it may be slightly more difficult). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created the main assessment page. Feel free to add items which I have omitted. Which format do you think will work best for the sub pages? The example I gave earlier, or a more simple version?

Quality	Importance	Article
B	Mid	Tokyo Mew Mew (edit talk links history)	Update assessment

—OR—

• (Mid B) Tokyo Mew Mew (Talk | Update)

I believe the latter version might be better, the other one will result in very long pages. I can also split the latter into sections of 10 articles to cross out. Or do you have other ideas/examples? G.A.S 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...while the table looks nicer and is easier to visually scan, the list will faster loading and easier to mark off completeds so probably the latter. Other than that, it looks great! Very clean and we can quickly see who is doing what. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created a draft at Page 001. I think it combines the best aspects of both. If you think it is acceptable, I can upload the others tomorrow (I have already prepared the complete list, but have to separate the list into separate pages). Then all we need to do is finalise the rewards, instructions, headers, and start with the drive (Feel free to have a go at them). Regards, G.A.S 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except the section headers. Not sure how to clean it up, though. If its just 1, 2, 3, etc, the TOC looks odd. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We can combine those into a horizontal TOC, as used on some categories by incorporating it into the header. ([[#1|1]] | [[#2|2]] | ... with __NOTOC__ ) That should give a much cleaner appearance. G.A.S 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That works for me! And since I'm without TV for the next 21 days, I'm ready to go! :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to claim and start with the first one:). I will sort out the headers and other items soon. Now all we need is volunteers. Any idea what we shall do about the rewards? I beliebe {{subst:The Working Man's Barnstar|message ~~~~|gender}} is the correct one. G.A.S 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created the page header; see the example page. I just need to add the instructions below the TOC and then we should be ready to go. Your thoughts? G.A.S 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man barnstar sunds good to me for rewards. The header looks fine, though maybe mention its an assessment drive? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have added the instructions as I see them on the header. Please comment? G.A.S 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get the B class examples, but the rest looks fine to me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is almost B class, assess it as such and say what is wrong or right. If it is B class, assess it as such. G.A.S 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The final one says "After B class" but the criteria selected shows it failed B? (and what about C?) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. It originally read "After tagging and assessing (B-Class)" G.A.S 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes, what do you think? The biography workgroup is not operative at the moment, but I think it will be useful if to know what amount of articles are voice actors, directors, etc. related. (We can then always add Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography at a later stage).

What shall the conditions be for the Barnstar? Should we also have another reward?

G.A.S 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For C class, if it fails all B, shouldn't we set to C so its not thrown in the category of articles needing reassessment? Other than that, I think its looking good. For rewards, maybe the working man barnstar for doing one group, the anime project one for doing multiple? (the indent insanity continues! ) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is a valid point—There is no use setting it as B if it fails all criteria. I would say assess as start if it looks like a start class article, otherwise as C class if is better than that (i.e. at a those minimum follows the MOS, with a few sentences under each heading). WP:MILHIST gave the Working Man's Barnstar based on 3000 articles, but that is maybe too much. Maybe 600? And the Anime Barnstar for say 1000? (Lets see how much more indenting this page can take:) ). I have now uploaded the rest of the worklists. G.A.S 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me for the counts for barnstar. For C, agree on that description. Can also add if passes maybe 4 of the 6 B criteria? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the reviewer, actually—assessing in terms of each of the criteria would slow their progress, but would give a better view of the work that is required on the page. This is only worth the trouble if it is nearly B-class, and only one or two factors needs to be addressed to up it to B-class. I will update the instructions accordingly.

G.A.S 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions and the rewards. I have intentionally left the fact that rewards may be cumulative out, as I have not decided on this yet. Nor have I decided about something for the first three places as WP:MILHIST did, your thoughts please? G.A.S 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Wonder if anyone else is gonna chime in? *squeeze* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked the rewards a bit. What do you think? Mind adding yourself as co-coordinator? Then we can announce the drive on the WT:ANIME, add it to the navigation template, maybe on the news feed, remove the banner and officially open the drive. G.A.S 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Added, so lets announce and go! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! G.A.S 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tips, Discussion, et all

My first tip from doing my first batch - if you have your preferences set to auto watch list all articles you edit, turn it off before you start! :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the option of exporting the raw watchlist to text, with the intention to overwrite it when I am done. G.A.S 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question. If we come across one of "our" articles that we think may be B class, should we get a second opinion to avoid bias? I tend to not like to up articles I've worked on heavily past C myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just list them on the assessment page and mark them as completed:) G.A.S 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where to put assessments?

Might it be worthwhile to put the requested assessments/reassessments, when done, on the talk page of the article in question, with a link back to the main assessment page? -Malkinann (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually note the assessment was done per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment, and invite anyone wanting a deeper review than the short comments left here to leave a note on my talk page. It would be good to clarify here that discussion shouldn't occur on the main page, but either a note left on the assessor's talk page, on the article talk page, or here (for conflicts) if someone wants a more detailed breakdown/explanation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief reasoning of an assessment should always be provided here.

For the most part, I would argue that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, but it should be noted here if there is as this is an ongoing discussion at that page re the assessment, as this is ideal central forum to gain further input.

G.A.S 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge FAC, GAC, A, and possibly Peer Review project subpages here?

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

• The result was merge, except for the peer review subpage.
• GA candidates should be listed here, not transcluded. GA candidates should be transcluded in the archive

---

Would there be any objections to merging the FAC, GAC, and A (and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review) project subpages here? Now that we have a dedicated assessment page set up, it seems overly redundant to keep these seperate pages any longer. —Dinoguy1000 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, quit reading my mind! :P And no objection at all :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC may be transcluded here under appropriate headings (Note: the candidates' pages, not the pages liked to above). Former candidates and demotions should be listed on WP:ANIME/CLEANUP instead. A class review may be redirected, GA candidates may be listed here. Not sure about the log on the GA page... The news feed on the main project page already serves this purpose for GA listings. Peer review:- same as with FAC - transclude here. I thought about suggesting this a while ago, but felt this page was not ready yet.

In short: this page may supercede all of those listed, but a simple "cut and paste" merger is out of the question.

G.A.S 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested a cut'n'paste merger... ;) In any case, your proposal looks better (or at least, more focused) than mine does. —Dinoguy1000 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a closer look at those pages, (I did not visit them before the previous reply), my conclusions are as follow:

• YWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Featured article candidates#Failed or demoted should be merged to WP:ANIME#Articles that require attention.
• YWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Featured article candidates#Current candidates should be merged here.
• YRedirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Good article candidates. It serves no purpose. I see little use in having a separate log for GA, as the information is available here.
• YRedirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess (A class review page). It serves no purpose.
• Y Done Use one archive box with two headings for the respective archives of FAC, A class.
• N Not done Leave peer review separate. The instructions and long reviews on that page are significantly different to those on this page. Given that they are usually quite long, they will clutter this page.
• Y Done Remove pages from navigation template. Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation to be updated iro Good articles.
• YFix redirects.

G.A.S 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comments regarding the actions to be taken about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Good article candidates?

• I regard it as redundant, but we can transclude previous reviews (e.g. Talk:Belldandy/GA1) into future GA archives in the same way as is done with FA reviews. Comment please?
• I do not think we need to list current GA candidates here, as GA reviews should be performed by external parties only.

G.A.S 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• On second thought, even if we should not review the pages, having a single page to maintain will be much easier. G.A.S 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It might still be good to have the instructions on their own subpage, possibly transcluded onto another page as to give the same visual result that is being proposed here. I can think of a few situations where one might want to link to just the instructions. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, GAC does not have any instructions. The instructions for A class is usually provided on this page, and has indeed been written, though commented out. Peer review should not be merged here. G.A.S 05:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A Class reviews

Following the discussion in the above section, I realised that this will not be helpful if we were to do A class reviews. As such I recommend:

• Create a section called "Current A-Class reviews" on WP:ANIME/ASSESS.
• Using a system similar to Peer review iro reviews:
  • Use subpages called {article}/{ArchiveXX} where XX is the number of the review for such reviews.
  • Transpose that page onto WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Current A-Class reviews.
  • Closing and archiving such discussions when done.

Your thoughts?

G.A.S 05:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. That is similar to what some of the other projects that do A reviews are doing, right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST follows a similar system, for one, although they combined it with the peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#A-Class_review), I feel it makes more sense on the assessment page, per our original reasoning. G.A.S 06:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a process for now, in comment, what do you think? G.A.S 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

C-class?

I think that once Tag and Assess '08 is done and dusted, (don't want to cheat anyone out of their barnstars, do we?) it would be good if assessors could periodically check the incomplete B-class checklists category - if an article's currently rated as C, it'd be helpful to know what's lacking to make it a B, right? Sometimes people forget to complete the B-class checklists if they've got it in their heads that an article's a C. Thanks! -Malkinann (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already taken up that task;) G.A.S 06:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance disagreement

I've discovered that Shinichirō Watanabe is rated as being of Top-importance to the project and I disagree. I think he should be rated as Mid or High importance, but I'm not sure which. Can anyone please help me decide which importance he should be? -Malkinann (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Going by the guidelines, I'd go with Mid, since we don't really have any High criteria for individuals. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should examine Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale and retool it for our purposes. -Malkinann (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can come up with good wording, we are happy to examine, and incorporate, it. I accept that there may be flaws in the current schema, but it is quite difficult coming up with a schema if you don't have good examples at hand. G.A.S 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it realistic to expect that someone of Top or High importance to the project would have had influence outside of Japan? (been an inspiration to other professionals in a closely-related field outside of Japan) -Malkinann (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, and I am unfortunately not familiar enough with the individuals to provide a conclusive answer: If someone had a major impact on anime, did he/she have an influence on other professionals - yes; outside Japan - ? (probably not??)

Also consider the following regarding an individual's importance. Are professionals:

• regularly commenting on his/her work?
• being inspired by his/her work?
• Inside Japan? Outside Japan?

G.A.S 06:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had to suggest a rule of thumb for directors and mangaka, I'd say their importance level is by default one below the importance of their most significant work, and bumped to be equal to it if they have a career's-worth of such works. (People who are influential for other reasons than just their authorship could be judged case by case.)

So by this guideline, the author of a single mid-priority manga, like Masashi Kishimoto, would be low priority, while the author of two or three mid-priority manga like Rumiko Takahashi, could earn a mid on that basis. Buronson is classed as mid-importance because of his highly influential work Fist of the North Star (and could arguably go up to high for other reasons). Top stays reserved for those with significant historical importance to the medium, with the classical case of course being Osamu Tezuka.

On the influence outside Japan question, that would be a relevant importance boosting factor for a few individuals whose work was an international breakthrough for the medium, such as Masami Kurumada, Ryoichi Ikegami, and Akira Toriyama, but for the purposes of this page can probably be grouped under the general "historical influence" umbrella. --erachima talk 06:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The biography importance list also considers "influence across generations" to be a factor in conferring high importance, so under this consideration, all of the Year 24 Group would probably be considered as High. -Malkinann (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So then, if we're trying to get something to put in the little summary boxes, could I suggest the following?

Top: Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium. (e.g. Osamu Tezuka, Hayao Miyazaki)

High: Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments. (e.g. Ryoichi Ikegami, Reiji Matsumoto)

Mid: Individuals with a career of multiple internationally successful or critically acclaimed works. (e.g. Ken Akamatsu, Masakazu Katsura)

Low: Other notable individuals. (e.g. Tite Kubo, Hiroyuki Imaishi)

I realize I'm not mentioning things like seiyu in this, but I figure any seiyu who needs more than a Low is going to be an exceptional case. --erachima talk 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Other notable individuals": Reading this, and WP:NN, "Low" is applicable for everybody notable enough to have an article. (I.e. should not have an article otherwise. But that is a discussion for another day.) G.A.S (talk · contribs) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that. The purpose of including the word "notable" was to point out that not every author or director is necessarily important enough for us to need one on them. In other words, what I described above as the rule of thumb for low-importance individuals, creators of single internationally/critically successful series or those with a career of lower profile stuff, is effectively the minimum hurdle for inclusion in the project. --erachima talk 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're also not mentioning women, either. :P I'm afraid that I don't understand the importance ratings you've accorded to Ikegami and Katsura, and so am having difficulty distinguishing between who you'd consider mid or high importance. I would suggest that prolific seiyuu such as Kikuko Inoue could be considered at a higher importance than low. I don't like the idea of assessing creator importance by the importance of their series article - judging solely by "one tier lower" importances given to her series, Moto Hagio's article might even be proposed for deletion! -Malkinann (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why we're having this discussion, so we can hammer out what we think makes an exceptionally significant individual. Remember though, I'm only proposing the "one lower than highest series" thing as a rule of thumb. Unique accomplishments will obviously push an individual higher on the list. Your example of Moto Hagio is a rather poor one by the way, because while her stuff has little international presence, and hence little representation on Wikipedia via series articles, she has like 6 major awards spanning a long period of time, which by itself puts her in the mid-priority categorization for "a career of critically acclaimed works", and her membership in the Year 24 Group and the quote about her being the most loved shojo mangaka of all time would by my reckoning push her past that into the high-priority category. I'll admit that it does highlight the problem of older series and authors, which usually are the ones who deserve the higher importance rankings, being underrepresented, however. But that's due to systemic bias, since most of their stuff isn't available in English, and there's not much we can do about that right now.

On the examples I picked, I'm sorry about the lack of women, but I was choosing from authors that I personally knew of, and I don't read much shojo, so I'm unfamiliar with the notable names there. Of the particularly notable female mangaka I'm aware of, I already mentioned Takahashi earlier, and considered listing Naoko Takeuchi as an example as well, but she's kind of riding the line between medium and high and I already had a full complement of names.

Regarding the unclear ones, Ryoichi Ikegami was the first mangaka to be successfully published in English. His works Mai, the Psychic Girl and Sanctuary (manga) were both breakthrough titles for the industry, so he's a good example of an individual with a historically significant career but who doesn't really count as essential to encyclopedic coverage of anime and manga the way a guy like Tezuka would be. Finally, Katsura's just exactly what the mid priority criteria I described states: a mangaka with a number of commercially and critically successful series. Nothing too exceptional, certainly not a household name, but with a solid body of work and a career that's unlikely to suddenly jump off into either obscurity or extraordinary fame.

To my mind, that is essentially the difference between medium and high: a medium importance individual is successful, but didn't make any particular historical contribution to the field. A high importance individual, just like a high importance series, has to have had lasting impact on the medium. --erachima talk 09:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As I groused last week on Wikipedia_talk:ANIME#Importance_assessments (and was ignored to boot, lol), I think that a lot of our biographies suffer from WP:HOLE. They're likely to be assessed as low simply because their article (or the article on the series, to which the person is redirected - e.g. Kazuma Kodaka) does not do the person justice... :( I had to boldly reassess Riyoko Ikeda to mid (the highest I feel comfortable assessing alone), as previously she was rated as low, due to that problem. I've WP:BOLDly put in the main assessment page that notable individuals are of low importance, as that gels with the biography wikiproject's definition of low importance. I propose that a high-importance person is influential in their field, but a mid-importance person is important to their field. Mind you, as we are talking about the "yarts" here, "influential" is a bit of a loaded word... -Malkinann (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is the case. Currently we are tagging all of the biography articles with |bwg=yes, so we could at a later stage revisit category:Anime and manga biography work group articles. (And by cross referencing this with Category:Japanese voice actors, it is possible to identify all non-seiyū articlels.) G.A.S 10:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical influence

To branch off from the above discussion slightly, you'll notice that most of the higher importance criteria, as they should be, are based on a historical view of things. Is there any consensus on what an appropriate age at which a series' or author's historical influence can be suitably weighed is? From the "decades" comment in the current evaluation guideline I'm guessing it's ~20 years, which makes sense from a generational standpoint, since by that time if it really was influential you should be seeing newer people in the industry who cite the series as an influence. --erachima talk 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List class

(This discussion moved from the project page)

...

All right, thanks. IMHO, an episode list shouldn't be sent off to FLC until it has proper, appropriately detailed plot summaries for each episode, but I'm not very familiar with the process, and that's just my opinion. ;) Also my opinion, if an episode list has *no* summaries, it should be Stub-class, not List-class. —Dinoguy1000 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the first point, though not quite on the second; refer to List of YuYu Hakusho episodes and List of Lupin III Part II episodes for instance, though those do have sublists for the summaries. G.A.S^talk 17:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I never meant to include those lists which have sublists; they should always be assessed as List-class IMHO since they are essentially regurgitations of the major information from their sublists. —Dinoguy1000 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a guideline for list articles above? G.A.S^talk 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll see what I can do (should it be in a new subsection of the Assessment guidelines section?). —Dinoguy1000 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, how's it look so far? —Dinoguy1000 21:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good, this should help quite a bit. The idea was adapted from here, so I have just a adapted the formatting to match. The following changes were made as well

• Specified that it is applicable to episode and chapter lists.
• Added more examples of list class.
• Removed "such as chapter lists" — this would have caused confusion;)
• I would like to link "Coherent structure" to an applicable guideline, but I am unsure whether one exists (Definitely not at WP:ANIME, but I believe WP:TV or someone proposed something similar at some point?)

Thanks for your help. Please let me know where we can improve this further as well. G.A.S^talk 05:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Aah, those were some pretty good changes... However, it should be noted that it's not hard to find chapter lists in particular which use the old, hardcoded table layout (see for example [2]), one that (while obsolete) is definitely far more than just a "simple table" (this is what I was angling at when I wrote about stub lists using an "older format"). I'm not sure about the best way to say it, though, so I didn't add it back in when I made a few grammar edits to your changes. Other than that, it actually looks pretty good to me (though Sephiroth BCR or Collectonian might have something to add or comment on). —Dinoguy1000 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Re the format: Do I think that the older format should limit an article to stub class? No. If the example had summaries, a longer lead, etc); I would say it can be anything up to C class (b3=n). It just means that some cleanup is needed. I will ask for comments (later). Regards, G.A.S^talk 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Aah, of course. I actually had a similar thought as I wrote out my above comment, but it didn't really affect what I wrote (obviously). —Dinoguy1000 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

~pops in~ Took a look and I'd say it works pretty well to me. Its about how I've been assessing lists as well. About the only change I would make a lack of release info as start class as that is fairly basic info that should be in any list. For character lists, I'd be inclined to say there should never be one that is a list class. Even if a series somehow has ever character notable, the list should still have a proper lead out to each main article. Otherwise, basic guidelines already pointed out would seem to fit. Something like this maybe:

• Stub class — Little structure; severely lacking content, such as full character names, English and Japanese names, basic summaries of role in series. Does not use appropriate formatting, ssuch as appropriate headers for character names with unindented descriptions below and using {{main}} template to link to any individual articles. ), but uses a simple table, bullet list, or no formatting at all
• Start class — Some structure, basic overview of the topic present; uses basic formatting, but severely lacks content and may have inappropriate "profile" tables. Basic lead is present.
• C class — Decent structure; may be information such as creation/conception and reception sections; has excessive plot and/or in-universe focus and/or is inappropriately focused on a secondary work over a primary work; lacking sufficient real world content; lacking references, particularly third party references.
• B class — Coherent structure, proper lead, well-referenced with no missing information.
• FL class — Passes WP:FLC. See also the Featured list criteria.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for assessment of bot rating system

(This discussion moved from the project page)

...

Sample edit here, sample lists here, here, here, and here (for starters).

User:Legoktm (talk/contribs) has been operating bots both under his main account and under the account User:Legobot (talk/contribs) which are rating a wide swath of anime/manga articles, all as "Low importance." I've asked him to clarify what criteria the bot is using to make this determination, but he hasn't responded yet.

1. Was any consensus was reached on the bot's specific criteria before it was put into operation? By this I mean the exact pattern-matching behavior, not the general "per WP:ANIME/ASSESS" the bot asserts. If so, please ignore the next question.
2. Once he does make public what the bot's criteria are for rating anime articles, could I ask that the anime group as a whole review the criteria it's using? I'm no expert, but I believe it's not being particularly discriminating.
3. Given how many ratings it's handing out, I don't believe it's fair to assume that exceptions to its choices will all be re-rated. Nor do I believe it's necessarily true that the net result of its operation will be to save time for the whole community of editors. arimareiji (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Legoktm was approached by User:G.A.S for the purpose of assessing all unknown importance articles in our project, in order to speed up GAS's work on Tag & Assess 2008. The bot is not using any criteria, it is merely reassessing everything as low importance, and as GAS comes through doing the T&A work, he will manually reassess as necessary. —Dinoguy1000 18:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That helps explain the context. But while I could understand if it were a one-time event, he's gone through and done it at least twice now on separate occasions, reverting other editors' input.

(I thought it was silly, and had to be a mistake, that the bot had rated Urusei Yatsura as low-importance when by the standards quoted it's either mid or high. It was wildly successful in Japan, and has had a decades-long impact on anime. So I reverted and posted a question on Legobot. Legoktm came in and re-rated it as low shortly after. This is only one example - I saw others that seemed equally silly. Vegeta, Kodocha, etc - and I've only glanced at the whole list.)

I understand that WP:BRD is an important aspect of Wikipedia editing, but Bold is only one of the three steps in that process. I don't believe it's a good precedent to functionally prohibit Revert and Discuss by repeatedly paving over the whole genre. Nor do I think it's particularly reasonable to overwrite literally thousands of articles as "low importance" if only a single editor is going over them. Overwrite dozens, maybe - within a few weeks of when they'll be re-rated.

Aside from the lack of feasibility, it's not good for quality of decisionmaking if one or two editors are making all the decisions. No one could be qualified to unilaterally decide the importance of every work in the entire genre - there are way too many works out there for that to be reasonable. I've watched and read months of hours' worth of anime and manga and reviews thereof, but that barely scratches the surface. arimareiji (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not trying to subvert you or anyone else, nor is he trying to "unilaterally decide the importance of every" anime/manga article. When you reverted his assessment of Urusei, that added the article back into Category:Unknown-importance anime and manga articles, which is what Lego is using for this. And as I previously said, the scope of Lego's run is only to assess everything as Low importance - he's not a member of the project, and AFAIK he's not qualified to make any actual judgment calls on the importance to the project of any given article. There are only 2-3 thousand articles being reassessed like this, and GAS is working through them quite quickly for T&A. And if you disagree with one of Lego's assessments, don't revert it, just reassess the importance yourself (or list it here for someone else to reassess it). —Dinoguy1000 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of them, or you, has bad intent. But IMO it's against consensus for less than a significant minority of the community to make a decision affecting thousands of articles and say "you can just change them if you disagree." arimareiji (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is merely a technicality. Less than 1% of all the articles in our scope are of higher importance than "low". Picking out those which are higer is simpler than looking at every article and having to assess 99% of them as "low". It's a tiresome work. It can be avoided. What's wrong about that? - I also don't see how this goes against consensus. One way of making consensus is by changing what others have done. An article not rated on the importance scale has no consensus on that matter. If you overrule the bot and rate an article higher, and the bot doesn't revert you, then a new consensus is made. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. "One way of making consensus is by changing what others have done." Fair enough if you're doing it yourself and can show reasoning. Somewhat less fair if you're enforcing your opinion with a bot without showing reasoning - on hundreds of contributors and thousands of contributions.
2. If something is a low priority to you as an individual, say so. That won't offend anyone. But say that it's "low importance" and you've converted it to a POV value judgment, no matter what disclaimers you frame it with. However you slice it, calling someone else's work "low importance" without even taking the time to look at it is a slight.
3. Having a bot do the dirty work en masse based on the opinions of a few people is not "convenient" except to the few people. It overwhelms the ability of anyone besides those few people to respond. arimareiji (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anyone to accept the assessments made by the bot. What are you talking about? And you say it's POV? Of course it is. It's in the Talk namespace, so we are not bound by WP:NPOV. We are bound by the importance scale (see above). If the bot rates an article as "low", that should be rated as "mid", then it's a mistake, and not a slight. And the bot certainly isn't overwhelming anyone. It isn't edit warring or anything. It merely replaces "so far nobody cared to rate this article" with "this article is of low importance, unless you disagree". -- Goodraise (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. G.A.S^talk 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, for the fourth time) While I see your point, I need to point out a few things:

1. I am currently the only one working through the tag and assess.
2. It is very time consuming and tiresome work:

1. Of the outstanding articles, ~1,800 articles does not have an importance rating (i.e. your example).
2. Assessing 100 articles takes about 60 - 90 minutes if one has to add |importance=low to 95% of them.
3. This time is reduced to 30 - 40 minutes if it need only be corrected, and no further edits are required.
4. The bot assigned an low-importance rating to about 1,400 of them.
5. I am working through the 2,900 remaining articles in a systematic manner (including those assessed by the bot). It takes time.

1. Only articles which have not been assessed for importance yet, have been assigned a low importance rating.
2. The bot went through on two occasions as it missed some of the articles first time around. It was not reverting your reversions, merely trying to get those it did not get on the first time. It took the bot nearly four hours to work through all of the articles, your revision merely put the article back on the to-do list.
3. As such, I fail to see any editor being overwhelmed by the bot edits: No existing assessments have been changed.
4. Calling it low importance is the wording used by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is not intended as an insult, it was merely the name of the parameter. It was not intended as a POV statement. (Though the description have intentionally been worded to read assess importance as low (i.e. set parameter value as ...) and not assessing as low importance)
5. If you disagree with the rating, correct it, do not revert it. I will not change an importance rating without cause.

I hope that clears things up, otherwise, please let me know.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

By your own account of relative timeframes, it's going to take months to go through all of the mass edits you requested if you plan to eat and sleep. I still say it's vastly disproportionate to pre-assign "low importance" to every edit you haven't looked at, unless you're going to replace that with reasoned judgment in short order.
You assert a lack of rating says "nobody cares about this article." I don't doubt you feel that way. But to editors who don't approach every article from a rating standpoint, a lack of rating says... nothing. That's not true of "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale," which is untrue as worded.
Last and least - I did take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and took note of the fact that it says "unimportant" is not an insult. But I have to say, it reminded me a great deal of the good J. Evans Pritchard, PhD in its wording all around. arimareiji (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I plan to be done with all of the remaining articles by December, i.e. 100 - 200 every weekday. You can monitor the progress on WP:ANIME/TA. G.A.S^talk 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The importance rating is part of a Wikipedia internal process, that is meant to guide a wikiproject's focus, nothing more. You should not have to justify or apologize for trying to find ways to get done with the increadible amount of work you've taken upon yourself a little bit faster. You should be thanked, not criticized. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(I love spurious edit conflicts.)

That would resolve my objections if you're able to squeeze that many half-hours into a week. You have a lot more spare time than I can fathom, for which I congratulate you.

But I still say that any single editor rating all of them allows for a lot of error if the criteria are as laid out in ANIME/ASSESS rather than wikilinks, hitcount, etc. That's a lot of anime history and familiarity required, more than I would think any single person has (myself definitely included). I'd like to help and I think the project would benefit from soliciting others' help, but the appearance given by this page could lead people to believe it's exclusive to "official" raters who have to be petitioned. arimareiji (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c - I agree with the move proposal.) Everybody is welcome to do help, it has always been that way. I would like to focus your athe FAQ above: Who can assess articles? Any member of the Anime and manga WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles

As you rightfully say, hits and wikilinks should play a role. In fact, it does. The WP1.0 bot, which is used to do the initial selections for the offline Wikipedia takes multiple criteria into account: class, importance, hits, wikilinks, and the wikiproject.

Hence the reason we are updating the article assessments. The 0.7 selection has already been made, thus, now is a safe time to (automatically) update the assessments. They will be long corrected by the next selection run.

Spare time... not quite. This is done between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM typically.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion should really be moved to the talk page. Beyond that, I fully agree with the bot's work. It has done good work and is only assessing unassessed articles. Almost all of which are actually low anyway per the priority scale. Arimareiji, if you dislike the use of the word "Low" in the assessment scale, that's really something to take up with the entire community, as we are only using the same scale as the overall Wikipedia scale, including wording. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance criteria

Has the notion of putting numbers to importance criteria been broached yet?
I realize that there's already a community consensus on the general feel of importance within each subject area, and the table is extremely helpful. But the last thing I want to do is step on any more toes, and that would seem inevitable if I rate something differently on arguably-subjective criteria. For that matter, I believe numerical criteria would be good to help keep everyone "on the same page" in the future.
What I'm hoping to see (or see created by consensus) aren't "minimum standards" criteria to disqualify articles. That would be begging for trouble - something may be extremely influential but not commercially successful, or vice versa, etc. As the table shows, there are many ways a subject may be important.
What I'm hoping to see are "qualifying standards" that establish that a subject is at least of X importance (for Mid or High only) if it meets one or more of the criteria. But it should always be explicit that a subject can have higher importance than indicated by these criteria, and common sense would have to override when there are compelling reasons that a criterion doesn't apply.
Just as a theoretical example, for an anime series...

• Mid: >=100 episodes; licensed and has been "in print" >= 5 years in English; article has cites showing influence on >= 3 creators or >= 5 series.
• High: >=250 episodes; licensed and has been "in print" >=10 years in English or >=5 years in three languages (in addition to Japanese); article has cites showing influence on >= 6 creators or >= 10 series.
  

Does anyone have similar or contrasting suggestions? Or for that matter, if this has already been discussed and I missed seeing it, could I ask for a link? arimareiji (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of trying to apply importance ratings based on arbitrary criteria in this form. If a non-notable work inspires 5 other non notable work, does this make them mid class? I don't think so. Even if something is high in ep count and licensed, it could still be of low importance to the medium at large. Let's just leave the current bot work as it is, and handle "upgrades" on a case by case basis. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The system as it is now is designed to be imperfect. We have thousands of articles. Thats why every little change in the importance scale can cause a huge amount of additional work. The importance rating is exclusively meant to guide project efforts. If you can't handle, that it's called "importance", try to think of it as "priority". The higer the rating the bigger the share of attention the article should recieve from this project. Importance ratings aren't the most controversial topic and in most cases completely ignored (which is one of the reasons why we needed a bot to rate them). Just keep that in mind and go rate articles. Spreading your personal bias in the importance ratings is perfectly fine until someone disagrees. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dandy Sephy - there are thousands of articles. Is it practical to handle all of them on a case-by-case basis? I asked the questions exactly as I hoped for them to be answered, and threw those examples out as "theoretical." If lasting 10 seasons or influencing 5 series isn't sufficient, what do you consider sufficient? It doesn't make sense that there should be NO upper limit beyond which something becomes of interest to more than "specialists."

Goodraise - I have no intent of "spreading personal bias," only of contributing in a manner that matches community consensus. I had hoped that asking this question would have made that self-evident. Dandy Sephy provides a perfect example of why I asked: All it takes is one person with an animus against the subject or the editor for something to turn into a petty conflict that could have been easily avoided. "Non-notable" is too often a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. arimareiji (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(For reference - I do not mean in any way to suggest that Dandy Sephy is motivated by animus. I have no reason whatsoever to think this is the case, nor do I. But his words provide a perfect example of how easily a "[non-]controversial" topic can turn adversarial.) arimareiji (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I wonder if I should feel offended or not, I've simply offered my opinion with the context of the discussion, and for whatever reason you are accusing me of all sorts. My manner of phrasing does not suggest to me the same thing it suggests to you. If you don't like such opinions, you should think before suggesting things that are asking for opinions. Nor do I see how proposing to change how ratings are done is "non controversial". Any suggestion of changing set ways of doing things is likely to be controversial, and given the discussion concerning the bot, this should be apparent to you. Your comments are ironically more likely to give me a reason for any potential "animus" then what you perceive to already exist (which is none at all). Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

which is why we have the bot, because as was mentioned, most of the articles ARE Low importance. I don't see how these suggestions will give any less conflicts. I realise that they were just examples, but such suggestions live and die by having good examples, and I didn't see those given as good examples. I'm not dismissing the idea entirely, but I don't see how this is an improvement personally. Non notable was the wrong word to use, I should of course had said "low importance". Instead I look like I was mixing my topics of discussion, sorry Dandy Sephy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

The improvement would be in needing community consensus for the exceptions, rather than the rule. If every difference of opinion requires a formal debate, nothing gets done. To use an extreme example, say that I rate an anime that ran for ten years "Low" right after you rate it "Medium." Should resolving this require a community debate? arimareiji (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If the aim of your idea is to avoid superflous community debates, then I suggest stopping this one. Generating more instruction creep is not helpful, assessing articles is. Just look at the project's talk page. It's not overflowing with importance rating discussions. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodraise, I'm not asking only you, and you've already made clear your objections. Per mainspace:

• "if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!"
• "If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask"
• "The peer review process is one that results in a more thorough examination of articles"

My question was asked with good-faith intent, and I would like to hear from others if they're willing to speak up. This question does not need to be voted up or down immediately. In fact, I had no intention of spurring a vote at all. If you wish to avoid superfluous community debates, then I suggest not trying to shout down a discussion you've made clear that you don't wish to participate in. arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll stop my non-constructive criticism right away and will let others explain why this is a waste of time. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Per constructive criticism from Dandy Sephy, I'd like to revise my question and leave it open to anyone who wants to discuss it:

• I realize that there's already a community consensus on the general feel of importance within each subject area, and the table is extremely helpful. But I believe numerical criteria would be good to help keep everyone on the same page... or at least in the same ball park. They shouldn't be rules, just good examples.
  
• IMO, "minimum standards" criteria used to disqualify articles would be a horrible idea. There's more than one way a subject can be important, as the table illustrates.
  
• What I would hope for are "qualifying standards" that establish that a subject is at least of X importance (for Mid or High only) if it meets one or more of the criteria. A subject above these criteria should be unquestionably more than "only important to a specialist," so that low-importance articles can't be easily forced in against common sense. But it should always be explicit that a subject can have higher importance than indicated by these criteria.
  
• As a simple example (not a proposal for voting), "A run of five years qualifies an anime or manga for Mid." Does anyone have similar or contrasting suggestions? arimareiji (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The importance rating of an anime or manga is based on a work's critical reception, influences on other notable works, and worldwide commercial success. Using episode counts or years in print as a metric in determining importance ratings is wholly inappropriate and inconsistent with the guidelines. The only thing that such numbers generally indicate is that the work is commercially successful in Japan. But that shouldn't automatically qualify the work for a Mid or higher rating.

On a related note, I think that any more articles that are going to receive an importance rating higher then Mid should be reviewed by the community first. Which articles are of High and Top ranks should be built on consensus instead of the whims of an individual editor who reviewed the subject of the article. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the last part, as well as for Mid - that's the reason I'm asking whether there's any community consensus on what makes something objectively notable. I think there's a lot more room for getting multiple opinions involved.

The current contents of the High category may serve as an illustration of the systemic bias that can be unintentionally introduced when multiple opinions don't come into play. Do you recognize even half, beyond having heard of it once or twice? Anime is much too broad a field for any one person to be familiar with all of it. arimareiji (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Farix on that: We have so few articles that are actually of high or mid top importance, that it should be possible for multiple editors to discuss and agree on their importance. I also agree that there is some bias involved in the current high importance category. However, there is/was somewhat a lack of manpower to address these concerns at the moment; hence we are trying to the best we can with the limited available resources.

As for anime being to broad a field, I totally agree: The article is usually the only indicator of the subjects importance, notably the reception section, the infobox, and whatever miscellaneous sections there might be (i.e. influence). In the same breath, a lot of our articles suffers from WP:HOLE.

Thus, if any of us rate an article as, say, "High" and you, or anybody else decides that it is "Mid" or "Low", we will leave it as such. However, if you were to take articles like Kinnikuman extraterrestrials or Kinpei Azusa and rate it as "Top", we will most surely ask questions. Revert it? Edit war about it? Now that would be WP:LAME, don't you agree?

G.A.S^talk

Thank you for the response. This might seem like a quibble, but I wanted to make sure because I do intend to follow your lead: In your first sentence, was "high or mid" a typo for "high or top"?

A while back (archive 1) you said something along the lines that the categories are meaningless if only 5% are above low. Would you still agree, even after seeing how much cruft there is? (I've been astonished myself, just from dipping my toe in.) And on a gut level, what theoretical mix would you say to aim for? (Previously you'd speculated 70/23/5/2, but that might well have dropped.)

I couldn't agree with you more about avoiding edit wars - that was my only intent in trying to get rough numbers as a guideline, for commercial success if nothing else. But I can also see that there's a legitimate POV that trying to head off disputes before they happen verges on WP:BEANS. arimareiji (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember saying that. It really does not seem to be the case, having assessed 3,200 articles myself. (Of which 1,000 should be merged (mostly non-notable subjects), and 1,600 is biography articles (mostly voice actors). It happens quite often that a single series have 50 upwards articles; Gundam has at least 500 articles.) As for the theoretical split, I just cannot say at this time, but I think that about 5% to 15% would have a rating higher than Low at the end of the day.

I would also say that, for all practical purposes, you could split it "Low" and "Not Low" at the moment, the exact rating is a mere technicality. Few editors really take the rating into account, and it seems like it has a low weight in the WP1.0 selection, which prefers Wikilinks, Hits, and most importantly, the Class of the article. Furthermore, that selection is only preliminary, and we have a say on the selection.

We will have, in the next run of Wolterbot's cleanup listing, have an additional cleanup list prepared that excludes Low-importance start-class and Low-importance stub-class articles. This should give us a more manageable cleanup listing. I am unsure whether anybody will actually use it, but this will probably be the first use of the importance-rating to guide work.

Regards, and awaiting your response. G.A.S^talk 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From what your experience, would it be more possible to guess at a good ratio of Low / Not Low ratings for subjects rather than articles? I.e. if the anime Haipposeitikaaru has been running for ten years and has massive critical acclaim, then the main topic deserves a Not Low - but not necessarily the twenty different character pages, episode lists, plot concepts, etc that it spawns. How many Haipposeitikaarus would you guess there are compared to every eminently-low Yawnworthy and its associated ten articles?

Thank you again for the responses - right now I'm really hesitant to apply Not Low to anything but a subject with absolutely unimpeachable importance. I'm trying to find a relative measuring stick appropriate to the middle-ground subjects, and I appreciate the time you've taken to explain in an inclusive way. arimareiji (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot say as to an exact split. There a a lot of articles which were not licensed outside Japan (Hardly ever higher than low), Hentai, (Hardly ever higher than low), not licensed in the USA, but licensed in Europe and elsewhere (Very difficult to say what % is not low), Licensed in the US, but not known/recent (usually low, but watch for influence), Licensed across the world (likely mid) won awards (mid if major award), etc, etc. If I would have to guess, maybe 10% to 25%?

Hope that helps, G.A.S^talk 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does help, a lot. You've helped me narrow my focus considerably - I was looking much too hard at the forest to see the trees initially. Seeing a lot of the utter crap articles with unique challenges that you've had to deal with did a lot to put it in perspective. I hope I'm on the right track now to help instead of getting in your way - but please feel free at any time to poke suggestions at me for how I can help better, including "step aside" if it ever comes down to it.

I have to agree about hentai, and I'm glad to know it's not just my personal prejudice. It might be important to the pornography category, but IMO it's rarely important to anime aside from being fodder for stereotypes and bad jokes. arimareiji (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I skip out for a day and look at what awaits my return... =P Anyways, let's see if I can get a word in edgewise here... First off, I'd like to point out that you're not *supposed* to rate articles as High- or Top-importance without community discussion/consensus, and my understanding is that such discussion can take place either here or on the project talk page. The fact that we have so many articles rated high importance and so little discussion on the matter is IMO rather telling, we're eventually going to have to have a discussion on all this stuff. Second, the importance scale has no bearing on the value of the work put into any given article... just like with a deletion discussion (and this is, in fact, an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). Similarly, arbitrary importance decisions based on counts are also to be avoided. And now that I've said that, I find I don't have much else to say ATM. —Dinoguy1000 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short, having exhausted all my hot air on GAS. ^_^

• Agree, belatedly.
• Agree that there are too many for the small amount of discussion and that discussion is much-needed, but I think more could be added if properly discussed.
• Agree completely wrt past and present; mostly wrt future though it's unfortunate.
• Disagree in extreme cases. IMO a 20-year run or VA'ing in 50 series will rarely coincide with low importance; a one-year run or VA'ing in one series will rarely coincide with high/top importance. But this disagreement is mostly immaterial in light of GAS' advice. arimareiji (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to point 4 of your reply, of course, the guidelines I linked to should always be taken with a grain of salt, and in extreme cases, the length of a given series or the length of time it's run for can certainly contribute to that series' notability, but I would be hesitant to say it would have any direct influence on its importance as rated by the project. That being said, the longer a series is/runs for, the better the chance it's going to have an impact on other notable works and on the industry as a whole, both inside and outside of Japan, and so in that way, a series [run] length can indirectly influence the article's importance. —Dinoguy1000 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If it clarifies, I'm speaking to logistic distribution now - asserting the probability of an outcome based on the numbers, not an on/off threshhold. So I think maybe we're agreeing with different words? arimareiji (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that sounds about right... Agreeing with different words and some such. ;) —Dinoguy1000 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment archives?

Are we keeping an archive of assessment discussions somewhere to refer back too? This is especially important when auditing anything with an importance rating of High or Top. --Farix (Talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Like this? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What fulfills B2

An assessment question: for a manga or anime article, how much publication/broadcast information is needed to as part of passing the completeness requirement of B2? I suspect the consensus is that at minimum, a list of volumes/pub dates for manga and episodes/titles/show dates for anime. But are volume or episode summaries needed for B? This last strikes me as the sort of info that makes the difference between B and GA, but I don't know that it's ever been discussed explicitly -- or at least, I can't find it. Any thoughts? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The only guidelines currently available can be found at WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment guidelines. I believe that all of the current B-class articles have seperate lists for this purpose.

For the purpose of the main article's checklist the actual content of the list is ignored, other than the lead and a overview of the series as a whole. I.e. B2 should be relatively easy to pass with regards to volumes/episodes.

The difference between B and GA is usually a proper copyedit, and maybe minor content issues, as identified by a peer review/GA review.

For some examples refer to Love Hina, Fullmetal Alchemist, and Tokyo Mew Mew (Anime, Manga; the Plot section contains sufficient plot information, there is no need to elaborate in the main article.).

Hope that helps,

G.A.S^talk 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this relates to my assessment of Nodame Cantabile as C class. I felt that if the manga list is going to be left in the main article, then the lack of summaries means it is not complete, same as it would not be B class if the list was in a stand alone article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a tricky one: on the one side we have a list which would bloat the article if summaries are added (b3=n/b6=n), but on the other side is obviously incomplete (b2=n). I would say the best option would be to move this information to a list of article. G.A.S^talk 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

At 21+ volumes, I'm actually surprised it's not already in its own "List of" article. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this would easily pass WP:SS:). G.A.S^talk 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, our guidelines are creating pressure to spin out, instead of acknowledging it may sometimes be necessary to, eh? Well, okay. The reason I haven't spun that list was I hadn't gotten to writing up volume summaries and am not yet ready to, making it a pretty meager standalone list. But the question also applies to a series of a couple volumes long. I note that the GA criteria don't require the article to be fully complete, just substantially. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There will always be exceptions:) If there are only a few volumes, it should also be quite easy to add the summaries. Normally the completeness factor focusses on out-of-universe information though, esp. having a comprehensive reception section, production, etc. For the purpose of this question, I would say that at least a short summary would be required for each episode/volume for B-class if there is no stand alone list, though they would not yet have to be in the 100-250 words range yet. G.A.S^talk 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Archive 1#Examples by Class -- reviving from archive

(Copied from archive -- G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)) Starting a separate discussion to start looking for our good examples to use for each class. Per above, we'd like to get 3 examples for each, from a range of importance. Please list articles you think would be a good example for each criteria (and why) in the class section below. To keep it simple, let's not include any FAC/FLC/GANs as they may be changing class soon :P-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather 3 examples, not by importance, but by quality, eg Low quality Start, below which it is a stub, mid quality Start, High quality Start, above which it is C-class. This should help with the vagueness in the scale. G.A.S 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that works even better :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) OK, I think we have enough examples below now (though new ones are welcome)... Now to work them into the assessment table. G.A.S^talk 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FA

• Madlax
• Tokyo Mew Mew
• Serial Experiments Lain

We have three examples available, so this one is easy. G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have chosen Tokyo Mew Mew here, since it has the least amount of changes since its promotion. G.A.S^talk 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FL

• List of Naruto characters
• List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters
• List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters
• List of Bleach episodes (season 9)
• List of Yozakura Quartet episodes
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes

50 to choose from, and we require a recent episode list, chapter list, and character list (if available). G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions: List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters (chapter list of two set series with longer summaries), List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters (chapter list of single series with medium length summaries) List of Bleach episodes (season 9) (season episode list), List of Yozakura Quartet episodes (regular episode list) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is List of YuYu Hakusho episodes or List of Bleach episodes better when it comes to formatting for a transcluded-type list? List of YuYu Hakusho episodes is a featured list, but List of Bleach episodes has a more up-to-date lead style combined with information on DVD lists. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The YuYu Hakusho list isn't actually a transcluded-type list; other than that, I thought of it too. The Bleach list isn't actually FL yet; since I don't work with FLs that much, I have no idea how close it is to an FLC or whether (or how easily) it would pass. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't officially, but how hard would it be to convert it? Fairly simple, I believe? It's effectively a transcluded-type list for all intents and purposes; they look identical. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have a true FL transcluded-type list, it would not quite help here. Maybe when it has been converted? G.A.S^talk 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's more work to a conversion than you might expect. You have to compare the episode info on the main list with that on the season sublists and resolve any inconsistencies, and then ensure that you aren't going to break or remove any refs when replacing the tables with transclusions. This is why List of Naruto episodes hasn't been updated to use true transclusion yet (well, that and User:Sephiroth BCR has been procrastinating hasn't gotten around to it yet, considering he's already claimed that particular workload). If you feel up to it, you may want to ask him if he's got any objections to changing the YuYu Hakusho episode list to transclude, since he was the one who originally got them all to FL. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not going to do so on the basis that I don't feel the page would be improved if I did so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAAAT?! How can you say that? Wikiphilosophy is all about fixing stuff that's not broke! *suddenly remembers a software developer's version of the ain't broke saying: "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features"* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for alphabet soup, WP:BROKE. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, what an idiot I am. List of D.Gray-man episodes is a transcluded Featured List. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA

• Strawberry Panic!
• Shonen Jump
• Air
• Fullmetal Alchemist
• Rock Lee

We have 56 GAs to choose from. I believe we require at least a "main" article, VG shared scope article, and Visual novel article (which are in our scope). G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Shonen Jump as I think there should also be a magazine article to show it can be done! :-P SP meets the VG shared scope, and Air meets both as well. Fullmetal Alchemist fairly recent main article. Rock Lee for a character GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

B

• List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 2) (High B)
• List of Excel Saga episodes (Low B)
• Fruits Basket
• Hayao Miyazaki
• History of manga
• Naruto Uzumaki
• Dragon Ball
• Edward Elric

We have 60 B articles to consider. I believe we require at least a "main" article, VG shared scope article, and Visual novel article (which are in our scope). G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...Wolf's Rain is B, but lacks production info (because none could be found). Maybe Dragon Ball which seems like an idea B in terms of being near GA ready. Though it doesn't quite follow the MoS, Fruits Basket is another good possibility. Hayao Miyazaki one of our rare decent biographies :-P List of Excel Saga episodes for a B list. Naruto Uzumaki for a character B. History of manga is a top level topic that is B class. I don't see any VN articles in the B group. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have one example episode, chapter, or character list here as well (and also for C, Start, and Stub), since we do assess them, and they work quite differently from our other article types. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. G.A.S^talk 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

C

• List of Da Capo episodes
• Free Collars Kingdom
• The Rose of Versailles (high)

There 506 articles we can consider, and I suspect this will be the hardest one to come up with examples for. It might be worthwhile to select a High C, Mid C, and Low C from our recent assessments. G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Start

• The Tale of the White Serpent (mid)
• Until Death Do Us Part (low)
• Shikabane Hime
• Hyakko (high)

This is our second largest segment of articles, with a whopping 4163 articles! It will probably be a good idea to select one that has been downgraded from C class (per the log, as an upper limit), one that has been upped from stub, and a general start class example. G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stub

• Tokyopop (magazine) would be one stub that is likely to be a stub awhile -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Animerica Extra
• My Dear Marie and Enoki Films are borderline stubs. G.A.S 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Without a doubt, our largest segment at the moment, with 4556 stubs for consideration. I have re-selected our original examples here.

Removed PiQ since its now C class. Blech...half the stubs I am seeing should be deleted or merged somewhere...maybe Animerica Extra for one. Selfish Love is another. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List

• List of films based on manga
• List of video games based on anime or manga
• List of programs broadcast by Animax
• List of Bleach episodes

We currently have 106 lists marked as list class. I have selected a few examples, but we need a few transcluded-type lists. G.A.S^talk 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach episodes and List of Dragon Ball episodes are two transcluded-type list (though neither is featured level). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is for "list class", that should not be a problem:) G.A.S^talk 04:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of One Piece manga volumes is a pseudo-transcluded-type chapter list, since {{Graphic novel list}} doesn't (yet) support true list transclusion the way {{Japanese episode list}} does (a problem I've been meaning to see rectified, just haven't started the necessary discussion on it). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's rather go with the one where transclusion is obvious in the code. G.A.S^talk 04:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples added

I have added and dated the examples. What do you think? Can we improve on them/on the layout? G.A.S^talk 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

B5 and lists

Chapter, episode, and character lists typically (not always) have one image in the top right corner and no supporting materials otherwise. These are in practically all cases rather easy to procure non-free images (cover art or screenshots). Thus far, I have assessed lists totally lacking any kind of supporting materials as B5=N. However, the criteria text says:

The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

Note the "Illustrations are encouraged, ... not required." So, my question is: Should bare lists be rated as B5=Y? My gut feeling says, no. My eyes say, yes. Opinions? Goodraise 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to go with the interpretation of the more strict WP:FL? on this one: (Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic...). Adding an image of the first volume/characters/... is clearly appropriate since all of our featured lists have at least one image. B5 have a similar wording: "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate" — I would rather we be consistent.

As such, and since it is relatively easy to add an appropriate image, I would say that bare lists be rated as B5=N.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 05:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for external assessment

It doesn't look like that is coming back anytime soon. Should we remove it as all the items on their are no longer valid?陣内_Jinnai 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Change wording on C-class

Change the first section to read:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have a significant number of references to reliable sources - especially secondary sources., but However, it may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias, over reliance on primary or related sources or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from anin-universe perspective.

This reflects the current practice of requiring secondary sources to not only flesh out material, specifically in reception and impact sections which are generally seen as a requirement to have something there. Also relying too heavily on the primary source material (or press releases and the like) has generally been seen as a sign of lower-quality start-level article.陣内_Jinnai 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however, it is not quite so easy. We are using the standard assessment template ({{Grading scheme}}). As such, you will thus have to propose the change here, they usually reply within a day or so. G.A.S^talk 04:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Grading examples are outdated

Several of the examples are either outdated because they have since been promoted or worse, have been demoted and are no longer good examples of anything. Therefore we should decide on a updated set of examples. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the grading examples are time stamped so they show the assessment at that time. Are there any that were missed or not reflective of the current standards? Should better examples be used? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is standards change all the time, what was considered suitable at the time might not pass now in the same state. If we are using articles as examples for each grade of people to aim for, they should reflect that grade now. I think 5 years is more than enough time to review the examples. I'm not saying we need to review all of them but at the very least review the ones that have changed rating and no longer fit the grade they are suggested with. They are enough newer articles to consider as replacements that would make better examples of current standards. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm yes. I think I'll slap on new examples when I can, without an archive unless they are in poor condition. The newest FA was school rumble, FL was Code Geass. GA's will be more difficult to choose from, but I'm hoping to choose 3 to exemplify an article/character/film. I would suggest Rozen Maiden, Lelouch Lamperouge (After some easy fix up), and the last to be either Spirited Away or Summer Wars. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)