Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (TV series)

Note that this article is a split from Fullmetal Alchemist, per a GAR recommendation to remove almost all anime-related text. This will also allow the proper and unrestricted expansion of this article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: it has been noted that the idea was purely subjective and was voted to make a GAN to prove if it was. Either way, we can't have both Brother hood and the original here. both are completely different series, both dependent on the original manga, not on eachother.Lucia Black (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Regarding splitting the anime(s)

The following discussion 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.

---

So this is a discussion onto whether the anime(s) should be compiled into one article or be merged back to the main article. Now at first glance, the article looks well supported but the article compiles two completely different series: Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Both are in attempts to adapt the original manga (one more than the other). So either one isn't connected to the other in any way.Lucia Black (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• My preference would be to cover the material with three articles. I think the main Fullmetal Alchemist should be kept basically as it is now, covering both the manga and the franchise as a whole, with the details of the anime separate. However, I don't think it makes sense to combine the first anime and Brotherhood into one article, as they are separate series with divergent plots, different reception, different production staff, etc. So my preference would be to have a separate article on each of them. I think there would be enough to write about that there could be separate articles about each of the two anime series. Calathan (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Brotherhood is only a shortened version of the original manga, and the original anime covered faithfully up until the last season more or less. However....I personally think they should be merged back. It seems like 2 short articles, when you put them separately in sandbox. And their not so diverse. Also note, that "Sacred Star of Milos" film (although teased in FMA Brotherhood website) isn't officially confirmed to be part of the second anime. Their both really weak articles.Lucia Black (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

While I think that having separate articles for the first anime and for Brotherhood would mean that each of those articles is fairly short, I don't think articles being short is a problem if that is the best way to present the content. I think merging the content back to the main article would make it too heavily weighted towards the anime (and rather long), but that this anime content is still good content that should be retained somewhere. Also, about Sacred Star of Milos, it is clearly associated with Brotherhood in that it was announced on the Brotherhood site. Whether it is officially "canon" to the Brotherhood continuity isn't really relevant in saying that it goes with the Brotherhood anime. It definitely can't go with the first TV series since Alphonse can transmute without a transmutation circle while still being a suit of armor, which didn't happen in the first series as far as I remember. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be so big...just look at Rozen Maiden, the Anime reception has more than the manga, but that's because theres more anime than manga. Same here only people are dividing it by awards and critical. Also note that the Broadcast can be summarized. Looking at the information, i'm content with the original anime forking out. But not the Brotherhood anime as there's simply not enough information to merit its own article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think information about Brotherhood can be covered solely in the manga article because it is (like Lucia said) a shortened version while the first anime starts off similarly but deviates completely from the original storyline after 10,20 episodes. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that only considering the plot, and not the production and reception of the Brotherhood anime? I think combining it with the main article is reasonable if we haven't found enough sources to write a whole article on Brotherhood, but I don't think it should be combined just because it has the same plot. The plot should ideally only be a relatively small portion of the article, with the article instead focusing on things like production and reception. Calathan (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not really much of Brotherhood compared to the original anime when it comes to anime and production. Heck, even the broadcast history can be summarized better. And look at the production section, that's even too small to be on its own section.Lucia Black (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seperate articles for the manga, first season of anime and Brotherhood - the main reason is that there is sufficient information about Brotherhood alone to allow further splitting. I agree that the plot of Brotherhood is very similar to the manga, however that alone doesn't justify Brotherhood to be merged back into the main article. And if only Brotherhood is merged back into the main article, with the first anime season split, it would make it a very confusing read for readers. Extremepro (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The article already looks odd covering the anime separately from the novels even though the novel have their own reception. I don't see any "sufficient" information. all there is is broadcasting information and reception. there is hardly any production information at all. Personally i'd merge them right back...

Reception looks "lengthy" i admit, but doesn't affect the article so much. I'm only content to have them split "if" theres a large significant ammount of production to keep them separate. this is why reception is only "part" of the issue regarding notability but not the only one. When it comes to adaptations, the reception can very well be mixed with the original if intended to be faithful. Since the original made a huge departure from the original within the least season, its best to look for more information regarding the production and reception based on such. But if no information can be found (regardless if their drastically different) i can't really suggest to split both of them.Lucia Black (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's going to boil down to if an editor can and will make the content in a single page work. Right now, it doesn't seem there is an active editor of the series who cares whether they stay in a single page or stay split DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment' @DragonZero: I think it worked form the start. but i'm also pretty dedicated considering the turn of events shows even more lacking articles.Lucia Black (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the second anime here? The two anime are not related at at all. They are as connected as Gundam 0079=Gundam Wing.Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fullmetal Alchemist (anime). 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://web.archive.org/web/20090405170132/http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/Animation/hagaren/onair/index.html to http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/Animation/hagaren/onair/index.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5g3Ze6V93?url=http://www.aniplex.co.jp/hagaren/box/history/index.html to http://www.aniplex.co.jp/hagaren/box/history/index.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20071209123210/http://books.yahoo.co.jp/interview/detail/08249604/01.html to http://books.yahoo.co.jp/interview/detail/08249604/01.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uk-anime.net/news.asp?IntID=331
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130103854/http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-set-1_article_79579.html to http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-set-1_article_79579.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. No opposition after a week. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) → Fullmetal Alchemist (TV series) – For the same reason listed at Talk:Free! (anime) and here: (anime) should not be used as a default. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support and speedy close - consensus for this is already established in the linked RFC. The destination is a red link, so there is no apparent naming conflict. -- Netoholic @ 04:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The 2009 FMA series is subtitled Brotherhood, possibly to avoid confusion with this. Does that also warrant this article's renaming? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. If there was no confusion while at (anime), should be no confusion at (TV series). Hatnotes seem to be handling any doubts. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Acquired by Aniplex of America? Source?

I was looking at article this and there appears to be no source that confirms that Aniplex of America (AoA) has licensed this show in North America. I tried searching for articles confirming AoA licensing the series, but I could only find info on Brotherhood and not the 2003 series. Looking at previous edits, this info was also tagged as citation needed, but was removed for some reason.

I'm not sure whether to keep this info or not. It can't automatically be assumed that AoA has acquired the series immediately just because the license has expired. Alex Tenshi (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)