Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
List milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2006 Featured list candidate Not promoted June 22, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted March 22, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted Current Status: Former featured list

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Remove images or lose featured list status 2 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones 3 Single episodes 4 Episode notability 5 Ishval vs. "Ishbal"

[edit] Remove images or lose featured list status

There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pending the outcome of that discussion, there is no reason to overreact prematurely. It appears that discussion is still far from over, with strong opinions being expressed on all sides of the issue. Fullmetal2887 07:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ali'i 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Undone. These images had rationales and proper tags. I would support reducing their resolution though. Also, removal would break WP:WIAFL criteria 3. --GunnarRene 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create galleries of Wikipedia:Non-free content in general, and especially avoid undoing the cleanup work of other editors. Jkelly 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a gallery. I am familiar with policy and consensus on this matter.--GunnarRene 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no need to protect your preferred version. I am well aware of the 3RR rule. --GunnarRene 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused on some points. You can learn more about Wikipedia's policies on licensing and copyight at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Wikipedia:Administrators are encouraged to block users, protect pages and delete content when copyright and licensing issues are a concern, but your use of "preferred version" is obviously intended to suggest that there is an editorial dispute, which is not the case. Regardless, the administrator who protected the page had not otherwise edited it. Jkelly 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an editorial dispute where lists with significant textual contant have been unilaterally defined as "galleries", but let the record show that there was one more revert that I didn't see, so protection is not so bad - except that this list now lacks any and all images. See below.--GunnarRene 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is only a violation of your disputed reading of the policy. The only consensus that exists about this is that we are not going to change our rules to prohibit images in lists like this. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. - Peregrine Fisher 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please place an image in the lead. Using one of the images already present in Full Metal Alchemist won't increase the proportion of representation.--GunnarRene 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, on the understanding that the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes and the parallel action on other list articles has led to a consensus (at least among those people familiar with foundation policy) that the images should stay out. I would also advise against an image in the lead - what do you need it for? If there isn't any content in the lead that has made support through an image necessary up to now, why would it become necessary at this point? This article contains no critical analysis of the show's visual style or anthing, does it? If you just want it for the page to look nicer, then that's the clearest proof we could possibly have that all the other images weren't genuine fair use either to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus among people familiar with foundation policy. The main change introduced with the new Board Resolution was the removal of by-permission and non-commercial-only media. The resolution calls for narrow limits on fair use in the project. This project's narrow limits are here. There were two proposals to ban non-free content in lists. Both failed. So now some administrators took it upon themselves to go out of process and delete the media anyway, by pretending that list articles are "galleries". --GunnarRene 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones

There is a discussion concerning the images on this list at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single episodes

I plan on redirecting the single episodes to this article fairly soon. They cannot have anything more than a plot summary and some small notes, so they cannot comply with WP:EPISODE. They would need outside (second and third party) information such as reception and development to stay as articles. Being an anime, this is very unlikely for single episodes. TTN 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, all the episodes should be merged back to this page. I just picked an episode at random (Death (Fullmetal Alchemist)). Not only does this not come close to the guidelines set forth by WP:EPISODE, but it are clear violation of copyrights. The screenshot, and the plot, are both non-free, and thus must provide a fair-use rationale for their existence. When it comes to images, FU rationales are on the image page (which the image has, but does not fulfill). For plot summaries, you need realworld context on the page to justify their use. That means production information, or reception information, or something that isn't "in-universe". This page has nothing but a plot (one that is overly long at that), thus it not only doesn't meet the criteria for an episode article, but it meets the criteria to considered a copyright violation. Remember, all shows are copyrighted by their networks, as the only reason we are allowed to give any kind of detail is because we are supposed to be provided critical commentary on the subject. This isn't IMDb, or TV.com, this is an encyclopedia. The only way we can justify encyclopedic fair use is to provide critical commentary, which goes for the image as well. Just putting a generic fair use rationale on the image isn't enough. There needs to be critical commentary in the article to justify needing an image to illustrate something. This is why all those images were pulled from the "list of episodes" articles. Because do not justify image use, and detailed plots (like what is in the article that I linked) can cause legal problems. And studios have successfully sued over this type of infringement. Being a "non-profit" business doesn't exclude us from lawsuits and copyright infringements, especially when we don't provide a justifiable reason for their use. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching an episode, a film, or reading a book. Plot summaries should be included on these articles..but to add context to the real world information. Plot summaries should never be their own articles. I decided to go through more episodes and what I came across was almost every single article contained literally nothing but a plot and an image. I saw less than a handful with a trivia section (which also contained original research on possible "foreshadowing" that had not source to back it up). The amount of "trivia" from all those articles could easily be brought here. Since you don't want to be in danger of losing FA status, I suggest putting it on this talk page until people can find revelvant sections for it, with reliable sources to back it up. Be Thou for the People contains a 1400 word plot and nothing else. Come on people, we are asking to have a lawsuit with that. They all need to be merged until real world content can be found to justify a split to a separate article. This isn't simply about "trimming plots". Any article that has absolutely nothing but a plot and an image should not be an article. If you can expand it, with reliable sources (psst, IMDb trivia sections don't meet that criteria), prove it. Otherwise, lets all be rationale adults here and merge this information back into this article, and since they are nothing but plots, and we don't want to lose FA status here, simply redirecting will suffice for the time being.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The FA status of this article is not in jeopardy over the status of the individual episodes' articles. In the coming days I (and most likely other editors) will attempt to resolve the issue by adding reliable sources to the articles. In the meantime, there is no reason to take an action as drastic as redirecting them all back to this article. Fullmetal2887 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of what you'll be adding? You need real, non-trivial information to really count towards anything. That is pretty impossible with an anime. TTN 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I said if you merged all the trivia then the FA status of this article would be in question, not the way it currently is. Your biggest problem right now though is the fact that you have 51 articles, and 73% of them are nothing but plots. Of those, 5 are way too long. Of the 27% (or 14 for those counting) that have more than a plot, what they have is unsourced, original research, (glancing over a coupe there were purely irrelevant) trivia sections. Merge them now, and unredirect them as you go, as you expand them to be more than just a plot. It isn't like you are "losing" anything. The page isn't being deleted. Once you have production information (in the least), or reception for an episode, then start unredirecting and working on the page. This whole "leave them be, I'll get to them soon" has been the excuse laid down for months on these pages and the similar ones on other series. Let them be redirected, because right now, all 51 violation fair use criteria, and that is a bigger problem. Writing up a summary with spoilers of an episode, without provide encyclopedic critical commentary to justify its use, violations the copyright established by that network. Just redirect them back and open when you can. They aren't going anywhere, and redirecting them doesn't hurt anything. When 73% are nothing but plots, you definitely aren't losing anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode notability

Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected or merged. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. TTN 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, these will be redirected in a while per the above. TTN 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ishval vs. "Ishbal"

The "Ishval" is a mistake made in the Funimation adaptaton, as seen in the actual Japanese pronunciation and later in the Perfect Guide Book 2, which was written by the creator herself. Funimation acknowledged it when we (Viz) were working on manga version. Egan Loo (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source for FUNimation "acknowledging" this was a mistake? If not, it needs to remain as Ishbal. Also, you note "we" for Viz...which means you work for Viz and worked on the manga? If so, please see WP:COI before doing any more edits to any of the FMA articles related to the manga adaptation. Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lance Heiskell at Funimation. Yes, I worked on the first volumes of the Viz adaptation, but I am no longer involved on the project — hence the reason why I can contribute here. Egan Loo (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, you still have a COI. For source, I mean an actual, verifiable, reliable source. Not, he told you personally, but something published somewhere that others can confirm. Collectonian (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have something better. I added a reference from Hiromu Arakawa in the Ishval page. Egan Loo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a source for the manga, and for the original Japanese spelling. A source is needed to declare the English spelling is an acknowledge mistake of FUNimation, otherwise, this list must use the English spelling from the anime adaptation. Collectonian (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is listed in English in that book as well. This "needed" declaration between anime and manga wasn't necessary for Sheska, Tringum, Mugwar, and several other names. Egan Loo (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather telling that Viz has reverted to using "Ishbal" and "Ishbalans" in later volumes; for example, "When the Ishbalan civil war was at its bloodiest..." (volume 12, page 45) and "...when I first became involved in the Ishbalan campaign" (volume 15, page 21). True, people can make mistakes, but if translations into English of both media have adopted one spelling other the other, it seems better to me that we should use that spelling. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had the creator's spelling trump the English adaptation spellings before. See the above examples. Egan Loo (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As this is specifically the list of anime episdes, I would think it should use the anime spellings no matter what is used in the manga. This is similar to what is done with other articles where the manga and anime have different spellings. At best, it would seem a footnote should be added here to note that the correct spelling per the manga is Ishval per the creator. If Viz has also taken to using Ishbal, then that should indeed be the spelling used throughout, with footnotes on the first mention regarding the Ishval issue, and Ishval should be renamed to Ishbal. The official English adaptation is the spelling that should be used per the MOS. Pointing out that other articles have issues is not a good example. Collectonian (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It boils down to "what will most readers be familiar with?" Not everyone has the original Japanese works and their included romanizations, whereas the translations are readily available. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we have other articles that follow different guidelines. For example, notice that Wikipedia uses Mugwar (not "Mugear") for this anime-specific character, and Roronoa Zoro for One Piece (not "Zolo"). There are the official English adaptation's spellings, but then the creators' own spelling trumps them. The solution seems to be to use the creators' spellings, while adding a note about the differences in the English adaptations. Egan Loo (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, problems in other articles is not a reason to keep them here. Also, notice that Zolo has had some insanely lengthy "discussions" (aka, arguments) about the issue. Collectonian (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What you call "problems," some would consider consensus. WP:MOS-JP says to "honor the current romanization used officially by that party" — if so, then the creator's own romanization trumps the secondary parties, which in this case are the English adaptations. Egan Loo (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-ANIME, the MOS that applies here, says to use the official English name. Collectonian (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-ANIME references WP:MOS-JP, but that's a small quibble. The thing is, both are official English names. The difference is, one is used by the creator. Egan Loo (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mugear/Mugwar seems like a contradiction between Japanese sources, then, and should be brought up seperately. There's also Minor characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga#Mei Chan, which matches neither Viz's volume 15 or the scan of the Japanese volume 17 I'm looking at, which tells me that all the character articles need a good, hard review. Zolo/Zoro is its own hard-fought consensus, and is an exception to the guideline.

re officiality: WP:MOS-AM's "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)" cuts both ways. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ishbal isn't a character, so that section is not relevant. :) Might as well quote: "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." Egan Loo (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to play "letter of the law", then I'll note that that quote applies to format as in media, not format as in language. —TangentCube, Dialogues 09:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was my point — neither applies well. (That's why I prefaced that with "Might as well quote:…"). The MOS only goes so far when we're dealing with multiple "official" spellings. Everything beyond that is consensus. Egan Loo (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The MOSs are clear on this, we use the most commonly recodnized name among English readers since both are official romonizations and Ishbala is used in both the English langauge anime and manga. The author's prefered rominization doesn't always trumps other romonizations of names. --Farix (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the MOS is open to discussion, as the above examples indicate. Like Mugwar, it's a typo. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) notes, exceptions can reflect recent scholarship as long as the article title represents common usage. That's why the episode is still listed as "The Ishbal Massacre" (per FUNimation), even though the article itself will reflect the accurate information. Egan Loo (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a type. Its obvious, indeed, from the title of that episode that FUNimation deliberately spelled it Ishbal. That is the official spelling within the English anime, so it will be the spelling used here. Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a typo, as it is more obvious from the official Japanese pronunciation within the anime and the creator's own English spelling that the creator's spelling is deliberately Ishval. As mentioned above, the Wikipedia allows for the articles themselves to reflect accurate naming as long as the article title represents common usage. Listing the episode as "The Ishbal Massacre" and noting the Ishval spelling in the article text would seem to be the best solution. That's been done in other Wikipedia articles, so that would seem to work here. Egan Loo (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A typo is one a time event, not a consistent one. FUNimation obviously intended it to be Ishbal, and as the English licensor of the anime series, they are well within their rights to change the spelling, regardless of what the creator notes. As Ishbal is what is used in the anime, that is the is the most common usage and the appropriate one for use her. A quick google search confirms that Ishbal is the most commonly used spelling as well, with over 50k hits versus just over 2k for Ishval. Collectonian (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A typo can be consistently used more than once, as in the case of Mugwar. FUNimation can accidentally misspell the name and stick with it (making it "common"), but Wikipedia, as per guidelines, can both acknowledge this spelling and reflect the accurate naming. The compromise, as in other Wikipedia articles, is to have the common name in the title and the accurate name in the article text. Egan Loo (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because that is inconsistent and still incorrect. At most, a footnote could be added to note that it is spelled differently by the creator, but otherwise the article should use the same spelling throughout. This is consistent with other higher quality articles (rather than the ones needing work pointed to earlier). Collectonian (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be correct, and consistency does not take precedence over accuracy. Wikipedia cannot impose consistency on a topic that has differences. There are many high quality articles that use more than one spelling, such as one common spelling and one accurate spelling, and this is mentioned in the guidelines. Egan Loo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(← unindent for space and readability) Any further objections to including both names in the manner described above? Egan Loo (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, again, we will use Ishbal per all the reasons given above. Your reasoning seems to amount to OR, as you have yet to provide a source, as requested, showing that FUNimation has claimed their spelling is a mistake, or to refute the fact that now Viz is also using Ishbal, which only firms up the official English spelling. As a note, I've posted a note at the project talk page requesting additional comments, as prescribed by the dispute resolution process. Collectonian (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:MOS-AM cuts both ways. The point here is not that it is an offical English spelling, it's that it is the most common spelling. As a side note, I would like to see a reference picture from Perfect Guidebook 2 that shows the naming of places and peoples. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they're both official English spellings, and both should be included. The rationale for using the most common spelling is to make it easier for unfamiliar users to find information, but the guidelines allows and encourages the inclusion of more than one spelling, rather than imposing only one. Egan Loo (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a source for Hiromu Arakawa's use of the spelling, which is why we should use both spellings. I'm not sure why you insist that I "refute" the fact that Viz has used both spellings, since I was the one who updated the Ishval article to note that Viz uses the Ishbal spelling. As for FUNimation, it sounds like nothing short of the notarized statement from FUNimation's brand manager at the time will do, but that is possible. That would strengthen the case to downplay the "Ishbal" spelling even more, but not having that statement yet is not a rationale for not including Arakawa's own official English spelling at all. Egan Loo (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You claiming someone said something doesn't make it a reliable source. Your method of wanting to replace all versions of Ishbal with Ishval is not just mentioning the creator's preference, its completely ignoring what the official English spelling is, particular for the anime which is the focus of this article. That spelling is Ishbal. A footnote on the spelling would be fine, but not replacing all of the spellings with Ishval. Despite your claims Ishval is more accurate, when the English version of the anime uses Ishbal, replacing it with Ishval would be less inaccurate. Collectonian (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that alone is not a reliable source, but it is not the only source. You will note that I do not replace all versions of Ishbal, as I have pointed out before. My method includes both. Egan Loo (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As per the recommendation from the RfC, please do all further discussion here: Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist#Proper Names in FMA Collectonian (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)