Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes/Archive 1

Episode 16: That Which is Lost

destroy vs. check I think that Lust said she wanted to make sure that the Notes did not reveil a certain secret about the stone, not destroy them.

Minor title problem

There is a minor title problem in epsode 22 but in 21 it sez the tittle is heart of steal but when it opens it sez full matal heart

1. Heart of Steel/ full metal heart it sez the title diffrent when the show begains

Bad english above. First sentence is from first paragraph. Second is from episode listing. I wanted to fix it, but first off I need someone to verify the points highlighted here. 202.156.6.54

• The Funimation DVD uses two different titles. The box art, the DVD menu and translation of the Japanese DVD title use "fullmetal heart". The title when the DVD is played is "heart of steel". I would tend to think that "fullmetal heart" is the better one to use because the other title only appears once. - anon

Episode Descriptions

I have no opinion on adding lengthy descriptions of episodes to the page, but if people want them, please put them in a seperate section at the end of the page. The page works better if there is the list of episode titles in the top section followed by a potentially very long section of episode descriptions. I have rearranged the page in that manner today - anon January 16, 2006

Um, there are four seasons.

Okay, FUNimation did a very good job with the presentation of their DVD's. The Bonus material is very satisfying, the subbing is very well written, I don't watch dubs but most people seem to like this one, and those Mr. Stain episodes were very welcome. I'm even considering buying the whole collection of Mr. Stain on Junk Alley. In fact, I urge everyone else to consider it also.

But, let's not start Americanizing all the information on these pages, people. I think it would be easier if we list the episode order as it appears in two places—Japanese television, and on DVD—instead of one place: Cartoon Network. Just list the original order:

•Season 1: Episodes 1-13 •Season 2: Episodes 14-25 •Season 3: Episodes 26-41 •Season 4: Episodes 42-51

… then mention that FUN splits it in two between episodes 26 and 27. I'ma go ahead and do it myself. Let me know if this ruffles your feathers. (Momus 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

please stop making this stuff up. There are not and never have been "four seasons". Not in Japan and not anywhere else. A season break at episode 25 is consistant. Calling the last 10 episodes a season makes absolutely no sense at all. Music changes in anime do not mean the same as seasons. But a break around the halfway point in the series can be considered a season.

Momus isn't making this stuff up. As little sense as it makes, the last ten episodes are the fourth season. The episodes wiki even says that those are the "unofficial" American first and second seasons. Anywhere else on the internet Fullmetal Alchemist has four seasons and it's not as uncommon as you'd think for the last season of an anime to be short. Here are some examples: Shinzo (Last season had 12 episodes), Trigun (Last season (And first season) both had 13 episodes), Initial D (Last season had 14 episodes). So you see, there are more animes than just Fullmetal Alchemist with a short last season. So now I must ask you to please refrain from accusing anyone of something before doing at least a little research into it.

I hate to break it to you, but a bunch of fansite can't create facts just because they want something false to be true. FMA was not broadcast in Japan in four seasons. It did not happen that way no matter how many fan sites on the internet wish it were true and put up false information.

Page name

I've gone ahead and moved this page back to Episodes of Fullmetal Alchemist, since it's not really a list anymore. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Length of synopses

A few days ago, I noticed that while Cartoon Network was broadcasting episode 41 or so, the number of episodes synopsized was only 3, so I began adding synopses. I've added synopses for episodes 4-24 and 26-31. I also edited another person's entry for episode 25.

I cerainly don't mind others pitching in, but I'd like to make a plea for the synopses to be brief. I don't think it is necessary to record every detail of an episode, just the main plot points. One paragraph, a handful of sentences, I think, is enough. The purpose, in my opinion, of a synopsis is to serve as a memory aid, to help folks remember what happened prior to the episode they are watching now. Or perhaps to help folks find which episode has a particular plot developement they want to go back and watch. So please don't be surprised or offended if you see me copy-edit a synopsis you wrote. Thanks.sprocketeer 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, it is more difficult than I initially thought to keep an episode synopsis to a single short-to-medium-length paragraph. Some of the episodes are dense enough that a paragraph is needed for each major thread of the episode. I've had to resort to 3 and even 4 short paragraphs to keep the narrative clear; especially in episodes 1-3, which carry a great deal of exposition to set up the story's premise; episodes with major plot developments (25, 32-34); and the most recent episodes, which are building to the series climax.sprocketeer 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge back in branch

I think the merge can be performed immediately, as there is absolutely no new content in the new article Official Fullmetal Alchemist Episode Guide (see talk page). See the talk page for full diff. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How did the duplicate article get created?

I don't think it should be called an "official" list of episodes. That's probably a term for the show's production company to use in some venue.sprocketeer 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. User:Mushrambo hasn't responded to my inquiries. Oh well... — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Official" Seasons

I just want to know who think this article should be organized by the official four seasons versus the unofficial two seasons. I, personally would prefer it to be the official four seasons. The only things that go by the unofficial seasons are the video games. The DVDs, TV, the internet and just about everywhere else goes by the official four seasons. The official seasons can be viewed here: Fullmetal Alchemist Seasons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mushrambo (talk • contribs) .

THERE ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUR SEASONS OF THE SHOW. Japanese TV did not feature four seasons. No DVD features four seasons. As far as fans on the internet and the fan-product certain people inserted at tv.com, ITS WRONG. You and the others are confusing changes in opening credits with seasons. A second season can be somewhat justified by Funimation's releases in america but there is no basis whatsoever for four seasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't shout, but I'm also fairly certain that FMA was not split into four seasons. Regarding the assertion that the only reason TV.com marks it as four seasons is the change in the opening credits, we can verify this based on its treatment of other anime series. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The show ran over the course of one year. There were no gaps in the broadcast schedule indicating seasons when it ran in Japan. TV.com indicates that the so-called "fourth season" started with an episode that was premire broadcast the same day back-to-back as the premiere broadast of the so-called final episode of the "third season" in Japan. There are no facts to support a third or a fourth season ever existing. TV.com and other american websites are not trustworthy sources of information on this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't reveal the title of the final episode

Someone changed the title of the final episode from "No Title" to...something else. It's a major spoiler I'm sure many folks wish to avoid. Please don't reveal it. --sprocketeer 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the whole list guarded by spoiler tags? So spoiler issues are irrelevant, I would think. --maru (talk) contribs 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode titles are duplicated as links at the top of the page. Someone wanting to refresh his memory about, say, episode 20 might inadvertantly see the title of episode 51 near the top of the page. It's a humongous spoiler.sprocketeer 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And the links themsleves are still below the spoiler. We don't do "degrees of spoiler"- either it is spoiler or not. --maru (talk) contribs 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are you speaking for with "we"? Some of us here are already holding off writing up entries for episodes until they are broadcast in the US. Its only a few weeks left and its not like the page is never going to be updated again. Besides which the so-called spoiler title isn't going on the page anyway because by the rules, it would be Funimation's official release English title that would go on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia. It is long standing practice that there aren't "nested" spoilers or "degrees" of spoilage. It is either a spoiler or not. --maru (talk) contribs 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The last episode has no official title. There was no title broadcast with the episode. One of the made-up titles (the most dubious one) is a major spoiler and should not be used at least for the next few weeks. If anyone is in panic to see it, its in the page with the explaination. Funimation (and by extension Adult Swim) have made up a title for the episode that isn't a spoiler, but its completely their invention. I wish people could just accept that an episode can not have a title and leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs) .

Are you listening? I'm arguing that your spoiler argument is invalid. I don't know head from toes as to whether the last episode has an official title. --maru (talk) contribs 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers are not the issue. The issue is that the title with the spoiler isn't official and thus should not appear on the page. 168.127.0.51 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I will verify. The final Japanese broadcast does not have the "Standard" episode title screen. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Death pt.2?" Well, at least it's not a spoiler. But I've seen a fansub of episode 51, and it did not have a title card after the opening credits.sprocketeer 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a reasonable compromise. If it really is that important, we can add a disclaimer or something to the article. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If there has to be title, it should be "Laws and Promises" which though it is utterly wrong is the official title as per Funimation which is used for every other title on the page. It also isn't really a spoiler. 69.144.103.34 10:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The official site states that the final episode has no title. It is esentually the series title: FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST. -- Jason Palpatine 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave it listed as "untitled," since there is no "official" title for the episode. But I still think we should at least add a note under it saying that Adult Swim lists the episode as "Laws and Promises." It's more official than fansub titles, at least...

What's the big hurry?

Could someone please explain why they're posting episode synopses a week or more in advance of the Cartoon Network broadcast, presumably spoiling the episodes for folks who have not yet seen them?sprocketeer 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Most people are choosing deliberately not to. But there are always a few people who want to do something else. Some people add junk synopses that are little more than whatever they got from them seeing the preview or using a tiny bit of information from another source to write two sentences of spoilers. There is an informal system in place to fix the problem and most people are doing the right thing. Any kind of discussion about an official policy is going to turn into a Wikipedia political correctness debate. That said, I would stay away from the page for the next couple weeks unless you want to get hit by big spoilers. 205.188.117.8 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a spoiler warning at the start of the article. This is not a fan site -- it is an information archive. The article should be as complete as possible. If you don't wnat to be spoiled -- you should heed the warning and not read further. -- Jason Palpatine 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The schedule of episodes is irrelevant to us except insofar as it might aid writing the articles. --maru (talk) contribs 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sowing Life Alchemist?

Someone recently changed the spelling of Shou Tucker's title from "Sewing" to "Sowing," but if you pause episode 6 near the beginning as Mustang hands Edward a clipboard, you can clearly see that it is spelled "Sewing."sprocketeer 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the word "sewing" is more appropriate than "sowing" in this context. We really don't need proof anyway; it's common sense. If someone else wants it spelled as "sowing" they can argue about it here. --Wikivader 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. "Sewing" not only evokes the mental image of different life forms being "stitched" together, it is remniscent of the H.G. Wells novel The Island of Dr. Moreau. As DNA and genetic engineering were unknown in Wells' time, his explanation for Dr. Moreau's creations was vivisection.sprocketeer 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor vs. Accuracy when making edits

In episode 3, Mother, I found and described a bit of humor in a grim scene:

"After apprenticing themselves to a master alchemist, the brothers use her training, a precise collection of the chemicals that make up a human body, and their own blood in an attempt to resurrect Tricia Elric. The results are catastrophic; Edward loses his left leg, Alphonse loses his entire body. Ed gives his right arm, literally, to attach Al’s soul to a nearby suit of armor." [emphasis mine]

One can argue whether the humor was inappropriate (e.g., "I'd give my right arm for that!"), but the edit someone made was both inaccurate and redundant:

"The results are catastrophic; Edward loses his left leg, Alphonse loses his entire body. Ed gives an arm and a leg, literally, to attach Al’s soul to a nearby suit of armor." [emphasis mine]

As the previous sentence stated, "Edward loses his left leg." He doesn't lose another leg; the edit was redundant. Moreover, the word "literally" should then have been removed as it was part of the excised humor. A better edit, sans humor, would have been "Ed then gives up his right arm to attach Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor." I have restored the original edit.sprocketeer 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed's Dead, Baby...Ed's Dead.

When I wrote my synopsis for episode 50, "Death," I concluded: "Ed is so shocked, Envy has time to transform his arm into a spike and he viciously impales Ed through the heart. The Fullmetal Alchemist is dead."

Another person changed this to: "Ed is so shocked, Envy has time to transform his arm into a spike and he viciously impales Ed through the heart. The episode ends with Edward Elric bleeding from his massive wound on the floor.

I changed it back, another person changed it again, with the following comment in the history list: "removed wrong information. Ed is not dead at the end of episode 50...etc"

I beg that person's pardon, but getting impaled through the heart with something the size of a human arm tends to make one...dead. I'm tempted to do a riff on that Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot at this point. It would not matter if the victim were impaled in the lobby of the finest trauma center, the doctors would not be able to put him on a heart-lung machine fast enough to prevent brain asphyxia. Ed is dead.

Alphonse's remarks notwithstanding in episode 51 (insert title of the week here), Al is not being rational when he says Ed isn't really dead. Al is preparing to lay down his own life for his brother. "He's not really dead" is something that would be said by the person who's hoping against hope that this particular attempt at human transmutation will actually work (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary when the attempt with their mother failed disastrously); it isn't a clinical diagnosis. Put a finger against Ed's carotid artery, and you would not find a pulse. He's dead.

Until, of course, Al resurrects him. A far more impressive feat, since...he's dead.sprocketeer 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Ed did not die. Alphonse did not perform a successful human transmutation. Episode 51 is clear on the subject. Ed was not dead. His soul was at the gate and his body was fatally wounded. Alphonse healed his body and reattached Edward's soul to it before it entered the gate. Without the use of the philosopher's stone he certainly would have died, but death in FMA is when the soul goes into the gate. It has nothing to do with rushing people to hospitals or if they could be revived through medical treatment or the level of injuries in this case. Tucker showed with Nina that even with the power of the stone, the best that could be done is to create a human body but there is no way to bring back a soul after death in FMA.

The title of the episode is "Death." Not "Comatose," not "Done For," not "Bleeding Profusely," not "Hang an I.V. of Lactated Ringer's Stat!" It's "Death." Come to think of hit, having a hydrogen- and bomb-filled dirigible fall upon oneself tends to make one equally dead: immolation or impalation, Amestris-Ed and Earth-Ed are dead as proverbial doornails.sprocketeer 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So far you have offered an episode title and your own interpretations with contradict the story itself. Everything in the story disagrees with you. Please either discuss this in a serious manner or don't bother at all.

One version of Ed is impaled by an entire forearm. He dies. His brother Al resurrects him via human transmutation in the next episode. He's alive. It's right there on the screen in front of me, no interpretation necessary. Another version of Ed, whose body was temporarily occupied by the first version of Ed, is immolated and crushed twice by a crashing dirigible. As the Ed we see in the very last part of the next episode doesn't resemble, say, The English Patient (paralyzed with burn scars head-to-toe), it is safe to say it isn't the same body that was under the crashing dirigible. Presuming that the Ed who was crushed by the dirigible is dead is perfectly reasonable. Having hundreds of pounds of aluminum, burning dirigible skin and burning aviation fuel land atop oneself has a tendancy to make one very dead.sprocketeer 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In the final episode, Alphonse clearly says that Edward is not dead. Alphonse talks about doing a soul attachment. The multi-circle alchemy he does is consistant with a soul attachment. Ressurection through alchemy in FMA is not possible in the story. At no point in the final episode does anything suggest otherwise. We do not see Edward's soul come out of the gate. Edward's soul is standing AT the gate when Alphonse performs the soul attachment. You offer no explaination as to why what is clearly stated in the episodes is wrong and you are right. The only other explaination you have offered is the title of the episode which does not change what the characters themselves say in the final episode. As to the rest, please keep on one topic at a time. You are changing the subject. The topic is your claim that Edward is dead at the end of episode 50. If you want to discuss something else, create a seperate topic for it.

I am not changing the subject. I maintain Ed was killed when Envy impaled him. Alphonse then performed a successful human transmutation. In the fansub of episode 51, Alphonse says “Ni-san (brother) isn’t dead yet. Look, he’s still warm…his soul is still inside the Gate. I just have to get it back.” I imagine the dialog will be somewhat different in the dubbed episode this week, but I see absolutely nothing there that is contradicted when I write that Ed dies at the end of episode 50. Dead bodies don't cool off immediately, of course he would still be warm. Ed's soul being in the Gate does not contradict the fact that he's dead. There is a body on the floor with a ruined heart, no circulation, complete exsanguination, and even his pupils are beginning to dilate at the end of episode 50, indicating that his brain is asphyxiating. That's death. His brother brings him back to life. Why are you trying to reduce the enormity of the feat Al pulls off?sprocketeer 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ni-san (brother) isn’t dead yet. Look, he’s still warm". You present that which definitively proves you wrong. The reason that this is important is that the series from beginning to end is about how it is NOT possible to raise people from the death by alchemy because the soul of someone who is really dead can't be brought back. One or more lives for a life is not an equivlent exchange. There is no equivlent exchange for a soul. Fixing brain asphixiation or any other sort of physical condition isn't exactly a problem in a fictional world where there are souls seperate from bodies and whole arms, legs and a destroyed heart can be reconstructed by alchemy.

Funny, I don't recall any mention in the story of dead bodies turning instantly cold in this fictional world. So that which I present does not prove me wrong. I guess I'll just have to revert it, again.

sprocketeer 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one more time with emphisis and fewer words "Ni-san (brother) isn’t dead yet." What part of "isn't dead yet" don't you understand?

Just throwing a thought out there you might want to consider, but Al's a piece of armor, and it's stated throughout the series that doesn't have any senses other than hearing and vision. Why would he suddenly be able to know if Ed was warm or not? He's being delusionally hopeful.

"FMA: Reflections" states Ed was dead (spoken by the character himself) and brought back by Alphonse's sacrifice. It may mean the difference between fansubbers or between the two media. I do know that people don't need to start acting like condescending jerks to muddle matters further. Al being able to "feel" Edward's temperature is confusing as it is. Voice of Treason 13:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To 64.12.116.198, 152.163.100.5, 168.127.0.52 et al

I hadn't realized until I took a closer look that I appear to be arguing with 3 or more people. If you're going to spend this much time re-re-re-editing a Wikipedia article, you really ought to register.

Apart from that which we have been explicitly arguing about, whether a man who has been impaled through the heart is really dead, let me point out another flaw I perceive in the version of episode 50's synopsis you keep reverting it to: it's longer than mine. Mine is 466 words, yours is 528.

Why is this important? When I began watching this show, I was aghast to find that the Fullmetal Alchemist episode synopses here at Wikipedia only covered the first 3 episodes, and were very amateurish. That is, each synopsis was a single paragraph about 1-2 pages long, riddled with spelling errors and tortured grammar. They were unreadable. Unreadability is one thing when one is creating one's own fan site, free to indulge in every "put-in-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" whim, where the enthusiasm somehow flags before the typist makes it to "spellcheck" and "grammarcheck." I tried wading through a synopsis and gave up. Unreadable. Clearly, Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia, deserves better than that.

So I took it upon myself to correct this. Dig through this page's history, and you'll find that I have written most of the synopses here, and edited the few remaining. Where possible, the synposis is short and sweet, but even I have had to write longer synopses for the episodes that are densely-packed with plot. Where people have edited me prior to your arrival at episode 50, I have, instead of rejecting changes to my text out-of-hand, either 1) left the edit alone where someone corrected a spelling or grammar error on my part; 2) left the edit alone where someone improved upon my writing without drastically padding the length, or adding errors; 3) left the edit alone where someone included a bit of detail that was more important (than I originally thought) to understanding the plot without adding errors; or 4) re-edited to include the new material but remove the newly-introduced mistakes. Sometimes, if the edit was without merit or just full of mistakes, I would revert it. I'm on a crusade to make these synopses as tightly-written as possible, so the reader can get the information he needs and get back to watching the show.

Which brings us back to your reversion vs. mine. Mine has fewer words and is more tightly-written, avoids redudancies where possible, reports what we see rather than what yours assumes, and captures the drama better, re: "The Fullmetal Alchemist is dead." Synopses are supposed to be short, because life is too short and why write a synopsis that will cause the reader to throw up his hands in despair and choose to scan through the episode instead, because it's more fun? Synopses are supposed to leave out details not absolutely essential to providing the reader with a précis of what happened in an episode, either to refresh the reader's memory or to find the episode he wants to re-watch. Synopses are supposed to be easily readable instead of a chore. In which case, my synopsis is superior to yours. Should someone rewrite my synopsis and make it even shorter, still retaining only the essential information, I'll be happy to leave it alone. Quite simply, yours does not. Time to revert again.sprocketeer 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this mini-edit war, and the main bone of contention appears to be whether Ed's dead or not.

Why can't we simply leave it at he appears dead, and that we have no way of knowing whether he was or not, and probably never will, as he doesn't face this same situation in the manga, where we could get an answer. Heck, the writers may never have even thought about it one way or the other; they just wanted as decent a close to the series as they could get without Haruki's help. --maru (talk) contribs 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On tonight's broadcast of episode 51, Alphonse says "Brother hasn't been dead for long," which acknowledges that Ed is dead. As this is an english-language synopsis for an english-language dub, I vote for "dead."sprocketeer 09:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubwork shouldn't count as FACT, but fan-sub translations are not wholly reliable either. Someone who's comfortable with their grasp of speaking Japanese needs to weigh in on this. And if it helps any (probably not) the Reflections recap - maybe by the same group - says Edward was killed. Again, going off fansubs. Voice of Treason 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with sprocketeer. At the very beginning of Episode 51 (just after the mini-flashback to the previous episode), Al says that Ed has not been dead for long. This should settle the issue once and for all. Mistamagic28 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

((sorry dont know how to start a new line - I'm new to this)) Can someone explain to me why Edward was writing funny at the end - with his left arm alone and letting his right just sit there. Was it not working in this new world. And also was it me or did it look like it wasn't made of metal? and also when i tuned in the middle of an episode there was a girl with the same automail as ed and she and ed were practicing fighting. Im not sure if this was the movie or what. But if its a new-er episode then wouldnt that make there be a 3rd or possibly a fourth season, because Episode 51 was a corny way to end it.

You start a new line by using a semi-colon. You can start a new topic too; it's at the top of the page.

There is an FMA movie coming out in a few months. If you don't want to be spoiled, then wait for it.

it's good

it's a great story line but it's very bloddy and bad language.

you mean by 4th season? there was only 2? it have all the full alchemist episode and there are only 2 seasons.

Episodes

Article is too large. I am breaking it up to 51 peices. This will finaly be an actual list. --Cat out 18:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work

Thanks for splitting up this article. It's about time someone did so - now I feel lazy for not doing it myself ;-). Mistamagic28 13:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you compensated for that by mass rewriting descriptions. :) --Cat out 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Last time I saw this page, it was just a list of episode titles, and some other stuff. Now it's separated by volume, and we have separate pages for every single episode? That's insane! (In a good way.) The FMA pages were once kind of half-assed and disorganized, but they're getting much better. --Wikivader 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was pointed out to the episode guides that Buffy the Vampire Slayer have..now THAT's insane! O____O OK guys, let's not get beaten! we need more work! XD --itakoaya 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode 51

Episode 51 has both a Japanese and an English title, and that should be reflected on this list. Any explanation of the timeframe surrounding the titles should be on the page for that episode, not here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the English dub names AND the translated Japanese names be included on the list and/or in each episode's own page? Many of the episode titles are drastically different in Japanese, such as episode five, called The Man with the Mechanical Arm in English, while called"Shissou! Ōtomeiru," or "Dash! Automail" in Japanese. Another example would be episode 9, Be Thou for the People, called "Gun no Inu no Gin Dokei" in Japanese, meaning "The Dog of the Military's Silver Watch."

Episode 51 has no Japanese title and has an English title that was the invention of the dub company (Funimation). The fan-inspired Japanese title "Munich 1921" is simply a caption that appears late in the episode. There is no basis for considering that a Japanese title. 168.127.0.51 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode article titles

Do we really need to add "(Fullmetal Alchemist episode)" to the end of every article? I know some like Teacher (Fullmetal Alchemist episode) need it, but with most of them, there are no other articles on Wikipedia that have that title. Most episode articles only do that if there is another article on WP with the same name. Matty-chan 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we just keep all of them the way they are. It makes everything more uniform, instead of having some articles with "(Fullmetal Alchemist episode)" in the title and some without. Besides, moving pages around just to make the titles shorter isn't worth the time, in my opinion. --Wikivader 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television):

For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name:

* Bart the Genius (no other article with that name exists)
* The Sting (Futurama) (to differentiate the episode article from the 1973 film of the same name

Matty-chan 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OVA

The OVA has been removed from anidb.net after it was initially listed there; has it been cancelled, was it a hoax, ...? —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

The images are wasting a lot room, they have big blank spots above and below them. I know this was chosen as a FA, but any ideas? - Peregrinefisher 05:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reason the image cells are so large is because they are meant to encompass multiple episodes. I don't think that the whitespace detracts from the actual list content. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added screen shots for episodes 1-28, and I think they look alright--Salvax ^{T - C}--01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the only error

the page is well done but it have a error and the error is: why, why fma have to have 51 episodes why? if only can be a little long more like 120 chapters why it have to be short? dont you think tha FMA deserve more episodes and more movies? --Sins se7en 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add new topics to the bottom of discussion pages.

As for your question, this page has some answers: Fullmetal Alchemist#Production broadcast history

"As there was a limited amount of manga material available to adapt at the time of production, the storyline of the anime diverges from that of the manga around the middle of the series (around the end of book 6/start of book 7). The anime's later story and conclusion by BONES is different from the manga, which is still ongoing."

–Gunslinger47 06:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. For more questions of this type, please use the WP:HD. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Episode Ratings

Would it be suitable to add limitted information on the high praise given to certain episodes? For example, in 2004 Animage magazine held a reader's poll to determine to best TV anime episodes of the year, and a number of FMA episodes were named, including for the top spot. If the consensus was that this sort of information would be worthwhile here, I could provide it as well as individual episode IMDb ratings. This could serve as a guide to the 'best' episodes of the series. Any thoughts?

LainEverliving LainEverloving 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add something to the opening paragraph saying such and such episode was chosen for the top spot of the 2004 Animage poll. Add a citation with a link to the poll, if you have one. I don't think Imdb scores are appropriate, though, because they have no editorial oversight. - Peregrine Fisher 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

By the opening paragraph, do you mean of the whole (list) page, or on the individual episode pages, or simply at the beginning of the summary of each episode in the list? Sorry if this questions seems a bit unnecessary, but if I'm going to make the edit, I want to do it right the first time. - LainEverliving LainEverloving 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question, since I hadn't actually thought about it. I think the best place would be after "A 105 minute movie titled Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa, which told a new story beyond the end of the anime, was released in Japan on July 23, 2005 and in the U.S. on September 12, 2006." on this page. I wouldn't try and mix it into the episode entries.

Then, each episode that was chosen should have its spot mentioned at the end of its own lead paragraph. If To Challenge the Sun was one of the eps, I would say put it after 'This episode was known as "To Challenge the Sun" on Adult Swim's edited version, but on the un-edited version the title was "Those Who Challenge the Sun."' - Peregrine Fisher 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll get on with the edits. - LainEverliving LainEverloving 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so, how does this look?

Due to the incredible popularity of the series, a number of the early episodes were recognised as some of the finest of all TV anime released in the 2003 period in the 26th Annual Animage Magazine Readers Poll. Episode 7, "Night of the Chimera's Cry" was the top rated episode, and five other episodes were also honored. Those episodes included: Episode 3, "Mother" (3rd Place), Episode 6, "The Alchemy Exam" (4th Place), Episode 5, "The Man with the Mechanical Arm" (5th Place), Episode 1, "To Challenge the Sun" (7th Place), and Episode 9, "Be Thou for the People" (10th Place).

(Note: I will remove this once it is approved or revoked)LainEverliving LainEverloving 06:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my stab at that paragraph. I don't really have a reason for taking out the ep#, other than it's shorter, so you can put it back in if you want. I added "six of the first nine" to kind of make up for it.

Due to the popularity of the series, the 26th Annual Animage Magazine Readers Poll recognized six of the first nine episodes as being among the best TV anime released in 2003. "Night of the Chimera's Cry" was the top rated episode, and five other episodes were also honored. The episodes were: "Mother" (3rd Place), "The Alchemy Exam" (4th Place), "The Man with the Mechanical Arm" (5th Place), "To Challenge the Sun" (7th Place) and "Be Thou for the People" (10th Place).

Talk pages are not for discussing the anime, I know, but I have to say that "Night of the Chimera's Cry" was when I realized this really was a special anime. I couldn't believe they did that to Nina. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your rewrite without the episode numbers better, so I'm going to use that. The "six of the first nine" basically tells the reader what is needed, and it's always best to be brief. Thanks for the assistance! - LainEverliving LainEverloving 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. It's rare that one can improve on a featured article or list, but I think we've done it. - Peregrine Fisher 07:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the final draft is live. I changed the final sentance slightly so that it blends with the "Night of the Chimera's Cry" section. Personally, I think it reads better, and baring any issues from you, I'll leave it as such.

If we're done with this, I suppose I'll delete the earlier drafts we posted from the Talk page to avoid clutter. Again, thanks! - LainEverliving LainEverloving 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the whole discussion, just in case someone has any questions. It will all get archived eventually, anyways. Cheers. - Peregrine Fisher 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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). AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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 AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New Series

As the new series is going to be premiered in April, what is going to be done with this episode list? It may be better to split it into two separate lists, in fact, for each season. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is still no episode still, what are we going to split? More important, the episode list can only be splitted once the series premiers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No no, I'm saying in the future... NOCTURNENOIR^talk 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It does raise the related question of why the second series seems to be all but unmentioned in the main article, though... —Dinoguy1000 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's there at the very bottom of the "Anime" section under "Media". NOCTURNENOIR^talk 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood be a separate article because it is a different series with a alternate storyline from the original anime. 74.65.247.254 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Until it is much longer (20+ episodes), it isnt necesary.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood has now reached 20 episodes, and it is clear that it is departing to a considerable extent from Full Metal Alchemist. I think it no longer makes sense to club them together. In fact i think that seperate pages for both series should be created(not just for episodes but containing the overview as well) and the main manga page should contrast the two adaptations. Apoorv020 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, this needs to be discussed in a proper split discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Important News

After vigourously trying to find how this sham of an article got to this way (no offence but its rated as C-Class) and having looked erroneously I have finally found the revision history when at its earliest the article was FA List Class. I could re-write the whole page, meaning this article, and we can make it all FA status again. What does everyone think? This is what I propose サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC

If you want to get this back up to FA, then you're going to have to add more information. An FA of the past might not be an FA of today. Just take a look at the Yu Yu Hakusho seasons. All of which have been FA for a while now, and would hardly be above start now. If you want FA, you need to add DVD information, release info for the OVA's, possibly soundtrack info for the music. All of the information in the lead needs to be supported later in the article, with sources. Getting it up to FA wouldn't be hard, just maybe a bit time consuming and a lot of edits. I suggest using a sandbox, it would allow you to make major changes without disrupting the actual article. Also, if you do follow that revision, don't have the "DVD box" section, that is an automatic FAIL at FLC. Rau J (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's just that it got delisted because some silly IP thought about deleting massive amounts of data for no apparent reason. That's why it was delisted, not because of it's content. But I'll add the rest of the info and hopefully get to FA List Class. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Try checking for refs in the main article. I remember that User:Sephiroth BCR was making a rewrite of the summaries, but he stopped it. Try asking him for a few summaries.Tintor2 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I recommend having a look at some of {[WP:ANIME/NEWs]]'s newer featured episode lists. At least some information can be provided in the lead alone, and sourced directly. (IMO, the lead seems fine). The main problem is the episode summaries, which should preferably be of equal lengths (100-250 words, applied consistently). Sources seems good now. G.A.S^talk 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix the lead earlier and I can get some of the summaries done, but I'm currently caught up doing other work and getting swamped by outside of Wikipedia work. I can move this to the top of my to-do list, but you'll have to wait a bit for the summaries. My only fear is that this page will turn into a colossal mess when the new series comes out. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(What new series?) Hey I can amalgamate the OVAs here and then combine it with the list. When complete I can safely claim that the article will look at least GA. If teh new series is released we shouldn't put info here but create a separate article with teh title List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (new series) if and when it comes out. This is how it won't get swamped with edits. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A list cant be GA. It can be FL.Tintor2 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right I have edited the lead slightly in the version on one of my user pages. I combined both the old lead and the new lead. I have also added in the OVA section. This ensures that it has been updated as far as possible. Also I'm just waiting for some feedback now. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made the final edits to the article on my userpage. I need some feedback. I want to make this FA-List class as soon as possible. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the article with the version on userpage. I chasing after FA status now. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh, there are too many images. Summaries from some episodes were trimmed. I recommend to have a look in the Bleach seasons or the D.Gray-man episodes.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Some are concise than others, I've just been looking at the Bleach episodes and the Naruto ones. Having read them I think this does fit in okay. I can get rid of the image in the refs bit (personally I think it doesn't look well in the article). サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a few concerns. First, is it just me, or does it look like crap now that the English titles are smushed into a tiny column? Second, are the episode summaries going to be expanded? That is a ton of data removal right there and I'm pretty sure that you can use parts of the previous episode summaries to build the ones we need for FL. Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized that several (if not all) of these episodes had individual pages written for them at one point. While I agree that these pages were correctly merged into this list, would an admin be able to retrieve the deleted plot summaries for use on this page? I would be very willing to help cut down on each summary as this would be far quicker than having me rewrite each summary from scratch. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR^talk 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the episode summaries! This may take a few days (or weeks, depending on how busy I am) to do, so bear with me! NOCTURNENOIR^talk 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference between series?

Okay, can some explane the differace between fullmetal Alchemist: the main show and the Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood? I am not getting the plot line... cause isn't Elisa borning as Ed getting his Alchemist certificate? Belleberly (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

They're two separate series. The original FMA anime series followed the manga's plotline only for a couple dozen episodes or so, and then diverged after it caught up with the manga and attempted to tie everything up in 52 episodes and a film. FMA: Brotherhood is supposed to follow the manga's plotline much more closely (I haven't seen any of it, though, so I can't judge, but from the sounds of reviews I've read, it seems it doesn't start with the beginning of the series), and basically completely ignores the first anime series beyond allowing it to explain some concepts (once again, from what I understand). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)