Talk:Madlax

Genres

While updating the infobox, I noticed that there are six genres: Action, Heroic bloodshed, Mystery, Psychological thriller, War, and Drama. This should be reduced to the three most relevant genres in accordance with WP:MOS-AM. --Farix (Talk) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Heroic bloodshed" should be the first to go. 1) It's not really a genre; 2) it is commonly associated with Hong Kong action films, specifically those directed by John Woo; and 3) beyond the gun-play, Madlax has nothing in common with the heroic bloodshed films. Those films are basically wuxia films set in modern times, with guns in place of swords.--Nohansen (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest leaving action, mystery, and war drama (it's supposed to be one genre, hence no comma, but there is not such entry on the Pedia...). --Koveras ^☭ 05:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pending FAR

I've tagged this article for having multiple issues. Many of the "references" are not references at all, but unsourced notes, while others are not reliable sources, including wikis, fansites, and other self-published sources. The article is not in proper compliance with WP:MOS-AM, and I can see no valid reason for it to be an exception to following it. There are also general MoS issues, such as a mix of American and International date formats, when should all be American. There are many refs in the lead when the lead should be a proper summation of the article, not an introducer of new information. The see also is unnecessary when the series has a template. Additionally, the article has an excessive amount of non-free images, which violates WP:NONFREE. The anime box set image belongs in the ep list and isn't needed here at all. The image of the bible adds nothing to the article and is not critically discussed in its section. The two character images are excessive when there is already a single character image containing the major characters.

If these issues are not adequately addressed, particularly the referencing and non-free image issues, this article will be taken to Featured Article Review for delisting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's go in order...

• Unless you list all the references that you consider unreliable here, you are not being constructive.
• "Not in proper compliance" is not something I can work upon. If you can't be bold, at least help me find the non-compliant parts. I'll fix all dates for now. Btw, where does it say in MOS that it should be American date format?
• I'll rewrite the lead in the near future.
• I'll remove the See also section. It's a legacy from the time when there was no template yet.
• Removing the images is also no problem.
• I also have trouble understanding the "plot summary too long" notice: three paragraphs were considered OK back when the article was first nominated, and complex plot is one of the highlights of the series, as noted in the reception section.

I hope that constitutes being "adequately addressed" for the moment. --Koveras ^☭ 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave a general list, which are pretty obvious to spot. If you honestly can't see them, though, I will go through and mark all questionable ones with {{verify credibility}}. The Date MoS notes the article should use consistent format. Since American was the first used in the article, it should be used throughout (except, of course, the refs which use ISO). Why can't you work on proper compliance? WP:MOS-AM is fairly straight forward, but if you aren't seeing what's off, I can point out or fix. The character section counts as plot, and the character here is extremely long when there is already a full character list, and it seems to repeat some stuff already in the plot section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not like I can't see them at all, just that you've given me one heck of a job so I'm trying to sort it out a bit. ^^ Anyhow, I'm gonna do the date formatting in the next few hours. And about MOS, it's just too huge. :-/ I generally work by the "best practice" rules which usually stick close enough to MOS. About the characters section: we can merge it with plot summary (adding the character list link as see also and the collage picture to the top) but it'd require some tweaking because right now characters section is like a synopsis of the show, containing some details necessary to understand the summary. --Koveras ^☭ 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think merging would be good, but I do understand your delima there. Trying to deal with it is an issue we're facing on Tokyo Mew Mew and the stumbling block to sending it for FA. The copyeditor pointed it out, which is why I spotted it here :P Our MoS suggests a bullet list, but more and more our we're finding that moving to paragraphs is preferred when the article heads to peer review. If you want, I can do the basic WP:MOS-AM MoS adjustments then have you tweak as needed? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you know, I've gone through the dates in the article and discovered that they are formatted consistently (international style AFAIU)... Can it be that you have an automatic date formatting preference set? In that case, it automatically transforms all wikilinked dates to your preferred format but leaves the rest of them as they are in the source code...

Actually, the characters section was as bulleted list when we passed the article for GA but during the peer review, we were told to convert it to prose... The merging part is not that difficult, I think, e.g. Excel Saga doesn't draw any clear line between plot and characters sections. Serial Experiments Lain, on the other hand, uses a list, go figure.

About the MoS adjustments, I don't mind, as long as you have time. I've already admitted that I'm not fit with the official policies. ^^ And while you are on it, you can also pinpoint the unreliable sources. ;) --Koveras ^☭ 10:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looking closer, your right, though some partial dates are improperly wikified when they shouldn't be. I've fixed those along with making the MoS changes and will mark the sources momentarily. Excel Saga isn't a good example to use right now, as it is already at FAR and seems well on its way to delisting :P I think, if nothing else, a list is fine, its just prose seems to becoming more popular. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Heck, that's some load of tags... *scratches head* I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I think we should place a tag that the article is being revamped at the moment, or something... --Koveras ^☭ 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a UC tag :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delays but I've suddenly got a lot of stuff to do IRL. :( I've copied the article to my home wiki and am tweaking it there, I'll post the end result here when it's done... --Koveras ^☭ 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Second stage

Well, I did what I could on my own so here is a couple of thoughts:

• First off: I'm still working on rewriting the lead. And merging plot and characters section.
• Erica Friedman's reviews can be considered reliable IMO, especially when the topic is yuri, since she is a published author in the anime field (and the president of Yuricon, to boot).
• Why is AnimeOnDVD wikilinked although there is no article for it? I thought red links are frowned upon in FAs.
• I've took the liberty of removing "verify" tag from the Staff Talk reference. For verification, see these scans: [1] and [2].
• I do not see why IMDb cannot be considered reliable in the question of the series age rating. I can name several other sources that support the same statement (ANN, IGN) but none that wouldn't require posting links to each DVD volume instead of just summarizing the whole.
• The Otaku.com link in Artbook section looks quite alive to me. Must have been a temporary downtime.
• About the reference for the resin model: would eBay be more reliable? %) Even so, it's not as stable, I guess.
• Lastly (and I foresee this to be the main sticking point), there is an issue of citing episodes in the Themes section. Back in my days (I mean, when this FAC came to be), it was OK to cite the original material, as long as it didn't constitute the main mass of refs and concerned the story. I think that in this case, citing episodes is tolerable (and I've reduced them even more).
• Btw, doesn't the article feel a little deserted with only two images? I think it is best practice to have at least one screenshot to demonstrate the visual style of a series...

Well, that's it from me for the moment. --Koveras ^☭ 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a consensus for the project on the AoD link. Redlinks are only frowned on if they are unlikely to have an article. AoD meets all WP:WEB notability requirements, its just no one has made an article yet (I debated it, but alas Chris doesn't really have much about the history of the site available). IMDB is not a reliable source, this is per massive consensus by multiple projects and the RS noticeboard. It is user edit, same as a wiki. If other sources make the same statement, use other sources which meet WP:RS. It is not, however, a good source for the artbook. It would be better to just source the book itself, or maybe the official site? No, on the ebay link. Is there anything on the official site? Amazon.co.jp? A more well known retailer? Citing episodes is fine for character stuff and straight statements of facts (i.e. something explicitly said in the series), but themes is interprative and must be sourced apart from the series. Otherwise, its basically the editing editors view of what the series themes are, not what reliable sources consider the themes to be. And no on the screenshot, per WP:NONFREE. Unnecessary images will quickly get pounced on in FAs, and such a screenshot, without actual analytic discussion about it, will be considered decorative. The image in the infobox is sufficient for giving an idea of the visual style of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to excuse me, but I prefer bulleted lists, after all. %)

• I removed the rating information altogether because, qoute, age ratings are irrelevant, unquote, anyway.
• I've changed the ref for the artbook but what you said about citing it itself got me wondering: do we even need an inline citation for the fact that the book has been published if we have the ISBN number which anyone can verify via integrated book search?
• I've commented out the resin kit statement, just for the clean record. If I don't find any sources, I'll remove it altogether. This is why I sometimes hat Wikipedia: if something obviously exists (and I've seen that figure with my own eyes) but none of the sources are "reliable", it doesn't exist. Talk about consensus reality...
• I removed everything that referenced episodes in the Themes section. It got rather slim but I have an idea how to expand it a bit again.
• About the images: shouldn't we remove the OST cover, too? After all, we are not discussing the cover itself in the article... =) --Koveras ^☭ 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullets are fine, does make it easy to reference stuff :P I've wondered the same on #2, but I'll usually put it in anyway just to avoid the issue at FAC (and except for things like manga lists, I think we don't usually put ISBNs in the text itself, but I could be wrong). For #3, yes, it can be frustrating, I know, but on Wikipedia the sky is not blue unless a reliable source says so ;) For the image, probably on the OST, though my personal preference is to have one representative cover in the section. It would probably get a ping in a FAR though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this craze about the images kinda reminds me of German Wikipedia already, where no non-free images are allowed whatsoever. In case of anime articles, the users have to create SVGs of series' logos, just to be able to place some image into the infobox... Oh, and another cool thing is German Wikiquote which allows three quotes per series because a fourth would be copyright violation. %) PS: Sorry, it was off the topic, but I had to say it out loud somewhere.. :( --Koveras ^☭ 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, seriously...isn't that like more illegal? The quote thing is just plain odd... :-P It is always kinda interesting to see how different the various language wikis are. The Japan one, for example, seems to not care abouts refs at all. I've yet to hit one of their articles and find a reference (or even a section for them). Also kind of sad that some of our articles on their manga/anime series kick their butt :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, over here we can always explain our obsession with anime by pretending we are interested in foreign (that is, Japanese) culture. Japanese otakus have no such excuse. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would have removed the boxset, OST and "Bible" images, and kept the "Madlax and Vanessa" and "Three personae" images. The last two just needed better, more descriptive WP:CAPTIONS; while the first three really didn't add much to the article (I found them more decorative than informative). So, Koveras, if you saved the images (and can come up with some good captions), I think you can bring the images back.--Nohansen (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have them on the hard drive but I'm afraid I cannot come up with "descriptive captions" on my own. :( I need inspiration and perhaps some starting suggestions... *wink, wink* --Koveras ^☭ 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The two-line paragraph ("Madlax has gained fame among the shōjo-ai fandom...") in the "Themes" section can be used as the caption for the "Madlax and Vanessa" image. Likewise, the information on "Margaret and Madlax's connection to each other" can be used with the "Three personae" image.

Of course, you can always upload new images (and come up with new captions) that complement the current text. Also, you could move the infobox image to "Characters", and upload a DVD cover for the infobox, so the article won't feel as "deserted".--Nohansen (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry, it's been two weeks since the last update but I've finally finished rewriting the lead. I hope it's OK like this. Now all that's left is trimming the story sections. I still say that we need to merge the characters into plot because if we trim the latter any more, it'll stop making any sense whatsoever.

There is also the matter with images: I think the idea for the caption of Vanessa and Madlax's image in the Themes is very good, but I still have trouble formulating a good caption for the three personae screenshot. :( Could someone please take over this task for me?.. --Koveras ^☭ 10:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to raise the question of wikilinking AnimeOnDVD.com again: is it still reasonable to have it, now that... whatever happened to it? ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...probably not at this point. The site was sold to mania.com so technically "AnimeOnDVD.com" doesn't truly exist anymore, its the anime/manga section of mania.com. All links will also need to be updated to either use archive versions from the Web Archive or find the new URL on the new site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have checked all the AoD.com links in the article and all seem to be redirecting to the corresponding articles on Mania. Should I update the refs, then? --Koveras ^☭ 08:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be good to go ahead and update as you go through them. Some older links aren't working, and there is no telling how long mania.com will keep the redirects up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that should be it. --Koveras ^☭ 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Third stage

Well, I've rewritten the story section and captions for the two screenshots, so the warning box can be removed now... right? --Koveras ^☭ 10:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've tagged the album list for merging back here. Really, this article already seems to cover all of the pertinent album information, and the list is basically an excuse to give track listings and excessive (and policy violating) non-free images. It adds nothing to the article and is unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you put it this way, there is actually no point in keeping the albums list at all, right? --Koveras ^☭ 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. If this page is missing any of the release dates, they should be added, but from what I saw all the soundtracks are already here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not like I have anything against that but we better ask the primary contributor (OgasawaraSachiko (talk · contribs)) for their opinion first... --Koveras ^☭ 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you keep the list intact then I do not see a problem with the merge. If not then I vote for a separate article. If you do do a merge but eliminate the track listings then I think the following should be mentioned:

The OST's contain only the TV versions of the opening and ending credit songs.

The song "I'm here" -- used in several important scenes in the series -- is only available on the "Inside Your Heart" single (i.e. there is no version of it on either OST).

Argel1200 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, track listings are available at the Victor Entertainment website (which is cited as reference in the main article), so technically, it'd be a copyright violation to copy-paste them onto here. And the fact that "I'm here" was only published on the single should be mentioned in the Music section. --Koveras ^☭ 21:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, according to the very article we are discussing merging the two OSTs were released in the US by the now defunct Geneon. Argel1200 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums gives guidelines for track listings. To quote TUF-KAT in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_2: "A list of songs in the order they appear and a list of performers in alphabetical order (or any other basic order) is not copyrightable." Argel1200 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing my opinion to Oppose. I think putting the track listings within the article would make it too long and be too distracting and I see no reason why we cannot have a summary of the music in the main article and link to the track listings in a separate article. There is a lot of additional information about the albums that would be lost unless the contents of the track listing article are kept intact (e.g. the contents in the InfoBoxes). Argel1200 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, we also need other information except the dates and the tracklistings for that article. Like the composition history and critical opinion. --Koveras ^☭ 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The track listings would not be put in here, nor do they belong in the album article. The infoboxes add nothing that can't be more quickly said in prose. Albums is not the guideline here, but the Discography project. Per their style guidelines, track listings do not go in discography pages either. Also, as Koveras notes, for the albums to be kept separate, history and critical reviews (from reliable sites, not fansites), must be addable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this discussion be happening on Talk:List_of_Madlax_albums instead of here? Argel1200 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, merge discussions generally take place on the target page. If the consensus is no merge, then discussion must happen on the album list to remove all tracklists and properly comply with a discography list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I mean, the real problem from this article's standpoint is we are linking to something that doesn't meet FAR status so it affects this article's status, correct? Argel1200 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't the problem. The problem is, should it have been split out. The articles this one links to does not, generally, affect its FAR status. Its an issue of MoS compliance and unnecessary splits. Would this article benefit more to have the page merged back? Could the list survive an AfD, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted on the discography project's talk page asking for some guidenance -- e.g. it appears to more geared towards artists right now and I don't think they have an official MOS yet. I noticed that the .hack//Sign Original Soundtracks article is listed as a starter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums though I get the impression there should be one album per article. Actually, I get the impression that maybe there should be something a bit more specific for Anime/J-POP. Side comment: I find it ironic that some of you want to remove some of the information about the music in an Anime series where the music is such an intergral part of the show. Argel1200 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I did get some useful responses from the WP:Albums project here that support using the WP:Albums MOS. Argel1200 (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yuri content

The correct way of dealing with information on Wikipedia you perceive as erroneous is to find a source that claims the opposite and add it to the article with a write-up along the lines of "However, other critics have found the shoujo-ai content of the series weak to non-existent, compared to other Bee Train series such as Noir and El Cazador." Removing paragraphs, images, and screwing up refs just counts as vandalism. --Koveras ^☭ 12:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Review(s)

Madlax Complete Collection (2009 Edition) --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

References: ANN encyclopedia not considered a reliable source

Per WP:ANIME's list of online reliable sources, the encyclopedia portion of Anime News Network is not considered a reliable source because it is user edited. This ANN encyclopedia section is cited for references #15-20 concerning the voice actors. Is there some other reliable internet source that can be used for production and cast information? -BloodDoll (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable source are the credits at the end of the episodes, but Wikipedia seems strangely prejudiced against it... Otherwise, an official website should have a list of main characters with voice actors, but the official site gives me a 404. I also imagine some volume reviews containing the list of actors. I could look for it, but the more important issue here is IMO that the ANN references are used to show that the same actor played a role in both Madlax and Noir. No single series actor list contains the same information. And as for unreliability, falsifying main cast credits is extremely uncommon even on user-edited sites, so I don't see how it is a concern in this particular case. Considering the above-mentioned advantage of a compiled roles list, I am tempted to perceive the above criticism as following the letter of the reference reliability guidelines more than their spirit. --Koveras ^☭ 09:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I raise this issue for two reasons, the first being surprise at the discovery of unreliable sources in a Featured Article. How were such references overlooked by the reviewer(s) who classified this as a Featured Article, when WP Anime and Manga's own guidelines say not to use ANN's encyclopedia section for such information? The second reason being that I also used ANN's encyclopedia as a cited reference for voice actors and other information, but when I requested a reassessment of an article using ANN encyclopedia references, I was told that was one of the major problems that had to be addressed before it could be reassessed upwards. In any case, given that the policy is so clear, and very sensible as well (user edited content is by definition not reliable), I would suggest finding alternative references for the voice actors if at all possible. -BloodDoll (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Is end of episode credits reliable enough? :3

UPDATE: The shows are pretty old, so I can't find any official sites listing the cast in English. However, I did find something on the Japanese sites. Are these any good: Madlax, Noir ? --Koveras ^☭ 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Those look good in terms of RS. TV Tokyo was the first to broadcast Madlax, so I assume they do have correct staff credits. Same for Victor Entertainment's page on Noir. Also, I hope you don't take my comments as some sort of attack on the hard work you put into this article! Just trying to make sure it doesn't get delisted as a FA because of the questionable accuracy of ANN's encyclopedia. In fact, I am going through the same thing trying to find credible sources for voice actors etc. It is a lot of work tracking down RS for animes. As for the English VA's, did a dubbed version of Madlax air on any North American channels? If so, try searching the channel's official website to see if you can find a credits page with the English VAs. -BloodDoll (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Madlax aired on Anime Network, here's the page, but it doesn't list the voice actors... --Koveras ^☭ 14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madlax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EFK0Rjut?url=http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/-/Discography/A018153/VICL-35646.html to http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/-/Discography/A018153/VICL-35646.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5w4ALtY4Z?url=http://www.hobbyjapan.co.jp/madlax/ to http://www.hobbyjapan.co.jp/madlax/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Raising concerns

Reading through this article has me thinking that this does not meet FA standards. Just skimming through it comes off as it being bare and not well-researched on the anime. Just thinking this needs a complete overhaul. GamerPro64 02:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It was reviewed for FA back in 2007, and the FA requirements have risen a lot since then. If you want to nominate it for for a new review, now is as good a time as any... --Koveras (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of FAR rules is that you have to raise concerns about it before nominating it for review. GamerPro64 18:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)