Talk:Noitamina

Categories

Is there a more accurate category this could be in? Shojo and Josei may have made sense when it was only doing those demographics, but the slot never intended to only target a female audience, so they seem a little irrelevant now... Doceirias (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Time?

The article says it's a programming block, so presumably there's a specific broadcast day/time for it -- so, when? Seems to be a fairly major piece of info missing here. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why it wasn't mentioned previously, but I've updated it accordingly with the correct information. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. Useful and concise, too. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaps

There are a lot of gaps here of more than one week in-between series. This is atypical; I've never heard of an 11-episode anime outside this block. What does Fuji TV show at 00:45 on Thursday nights during those gaps? --Shay Guy (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Day and time format

• The day and time are written as "Thursday night from 24:45 to 25:15". While writing things like this in Japanese is quite common, does anyone ever use the system in English? Wouldn't it be better to instead translate it into "Friday night from 0.45 to 1.15 AM"? This is English Wikipedia, so in my opinion English date & time formats should be used. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
• I have to admit, the 24+ hour clock does seem like an innovative (if not entirely logical) way of dealing with the paradox of TV listings showing midnight to 6 AM as part of the previous day. Worth discussion in its own right, maybe. Lee M (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Friday early morning from 0.45 to 1.15 AM" would avoid ambiguity: here in England "Friday night" tends to mean "the night after Friday". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Move? (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Noitamina → NoitaminA –

• Bot prevented ability to move page back to the title by which it is referred to almost exclusively on the project (with assistance from {{lowercase title}}). —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it me or is User:BOTijo just causing unnecessary work for page movers? When it adds the sorting templates to redirects left over from bad page moves, it forces us to waste everyone's time here requesting moves back to the correct titles. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • AGF is called for. Those redirect sorting templates are perfectly standard. In this particular case, the template was placed three months after the move, and it all happened three years ago! Only now is doubt being cast on the page move. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
      • AGF isn't really an issue here. I think UK is just noting an unintended side effect of BOTijo. Really, though, I don't think these uncontroversial move requests are that much of a time waste. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It would really help if BOTijo did not act at all when it comes to redirects made from page moves, but that is certainly a discussion for another page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose—MOS:TM says: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"". I think it should be written as Noitamina in the text of the article, also. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support as original requester. This is an "eBay" and "iPod" situation, even if the capital letter is all the way at the end of the name. Reliable sources call it "noitaminA" so there is no reason we should not either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Had a similar discussion recently and MOS:TM is pretty clear on the issue – we only stray from standard English formatting in titles when it is the first letter. If we're going to change that, then MOS:TM should be changed. As a side note, I agree that BOTijo and similar redirect-tagging bots make moving pages unnecessarily difficult for non-admins. 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Noitamina → NoitaminA – Revisiting this properly after some time, because I have seen across the project people just using "noitamina" because of the way this page is formatted. Per WP:MOSTM, we use variations in use rather than make ones up ourselves. All reliable sources format the title of this in English as "noitaminA", as well as being featured in their logotype as the English language form, as the stylization has an implicit meaning. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC) —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the 2011 discussion. Many articles have stylistic considerations, which is why the redirect exists. If they are not styling it properly, inform them of their error. This page clearly shows how to style it on the first sentence, so if they actually read the article, they'll know how to style it and whether they are even linking to the correct article or not. If you remove {{lowercase}} styling from the title line, it should make it appear as a generic page title instead of a stylistic consideration. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  Consensus can change in 3 years. And also, people have been just linking to [[noitamina]] rather than the redirect for whatever reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

noitaminA as a "brand" for artistic and quality anime

Isn't noitaminA a "brand" for Anime with a certain (high) artistic Value/Quality than typical "for-the-Masses"-Anime? I mean, most of the Series shown on noitaminA are somewhere betweeen weird and borderline insane (in a positive manner) and most Networks would probably not bother produce and air them because of the high risk of low ratings (Although admittedly, many noitaminA shows got really popular). Well, I think that point deserves to be researched. --104.243.243.29 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I remember watching an interesting analysis on Youtube on this topic, which got me interested in the network in the first place. I agree that Noitamina has a great amount of high quality animation. Maybe it "deserves to be researched", but Wikipedia is hardly the place to suggest that. We don't have researchers here, just people compiling an encyclopedia of existing research. Do you know any professionally published works talking about the general value or quality of works released through Noitamina? ~Mable (chat) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is there a North American license column?

Why is there a column for North American licensees? This article is about a Japanese programming block; how is having North American licensee even relevant to a Japanese block? In addition, the column is susceptible to factual errors because determining a licensee for a series is a lot more vague and arbitrary than it seems (eg: Are exclusive streaming services licensees? How did the original author know whether something was a master license?). Furthermore, other articles, like Animeism, +Ultra, Noise (TV programming block) do NOT have a North American licensee column at all. I propose that the column should be removed. Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Alex Tenshi: I agree we should get rid of it. Having the North American licensor has nothing to do with the television block and should remain in the individual articles only. lullabying (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)