Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Should character voices for commercials be listed under the anime works for a voice actor?

Particularly with the 2017 and 2018 commercials for Rent-A-Girlfriend where Kazuya Kinoshita and Chizuru Mizuhara have different voice actors for the commercials than the serialized anime. I don't think I've ever seen voice acting for commercials listed in the anime works for a voice actor, so I'm curious as to what the rules around those are. — MidMag (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally don’t think they are needed. In a case like this I think it may best to simply remove them explain why in a edit summary and see if anyone objects in which case a discussion would be necessary.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's really important to note, then on the list of characters, you can make it a footnote, since the commercial is not even the same weight as a pilot episode/OVA or audiobook. For the voice actor filmography this would either be under miscellaneous media or anime. If the actor voices in the regular anime show but voiced multiple ones in the commercial/pilot, then make that a footnote. It's kind of like when a voice actor does a voice match for the main actor in terms of weight, which is hardly above the non-notable loop group or additional voices. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Request some comments on a peer review

I have put Your Lie in April on peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Your Lie in April/archive1). If you could leave a comment or 2, it will be much appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of move requests

There are move requests on List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes, List of KonoSuba episodes, List of Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World episodes, and List of Overlord episodes. Please give thoughts. Link20XX (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I will note that these are less move requests than they are merge/split/rescope discussions. — Goszei (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

• 73 Vivy: Fluorite Eye's Song 96,693 3,119 Stub Low
• 140 Rurouni Kenshin: The Final 65,822 2,123 Stub Low
• 150 Koikimo 63,615 2,052 Stub Low
• 176 Pokémon Master Journeys: The Series 57,641 1,859 Stub Low
• 249 Yoshitsugu Matsuoka 46,240 1,491 Stub Low
• 250 How Do You Live? (film) 46,199 1,490 Stub Mid
• 253 MiHoYo 45,891 1,480 Stub Low
• 303 Nobunaga Shimazaki 40,471 1,305 Stub Low
• 347 Seven Knights 36,670 1,182 Stub Low
• 392 Kum-Kum 34,290 1,106 Stub Low

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sublist

A fellow user suggested splitting List of Boruto: Naruto Next Generations episodes due to its length. Although we reached a consensus, there has not been too much activivity and I have no idea how to create sublists well. Could anybody give me a hand? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The proposal I made was for an article split due to the excessive length of the page and having no official way to divide it for 4 years now (usually a season, which there is none listed by official outlets).--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Akudama Drive

I've been searching everywhere but there aren't too many reviews of Akudama Drive but I couldn't find many with the exceptions of episodic reviews that only FandomPost and ANN used to post. You guys think it needs more coverage in regards to such section? Also, I'm kinda confused with whether the episode list or the plot summary should center around the narrative based on the highly detailed GA Devilman Crybaby which doesn't use episode summaries.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a major expansion but I have no idea if an episode list article is necessary. Should the plot be expanded in a plot section and split the list or a premise is enough?Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

I brought it up at Template talk:Infobox animanga#Automated categories, but with more media mix projects and adaptations appearing, some automated categories generated from the infobox may not apply to certain series. lullabying (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Atashin'chi

There are multiple issues with the article Atashin'chi. Please improve it. Peter Ormond 💬 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tokusatsu

I'm noticing on several voice actor pages that "tokusatsu" is listed as a separate category in filmography (i.e. Miyu Irino, Kensho Ono, etc.). I honestly don't believe this is necessary and have been relisting them under "live-action television dramas") instead, since tokusatsu is a genre and not a separate medium (not to mention they're also advertised as television dramas). lullabying (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga § Print parameter order proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga § Print parameter order proposal. — Goszei (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bumping some title discussions

Hello. I am bumping some discussions I started about certain anime companies, so that they can have closure on discussion sooner rather than later. Please discuss at Talk:Funimation#Merge/redirect proposal of FunimationNow and Talk:Crunchyroll SAS#Requested move 19 June 2021. Thanks. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 13:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Vertical and Kodansha USA

Since Vertical (publisher) was consolidated into Kodansha USA, in the article it is called an imprint of Kodansha USA (I don't know if this accurate), and Vertical titles currently figure on the Kodansha USA website, e.g. [1][2][3][4], I was wondering if the English publisher in the infoboxes should be switched from Vertical to Kodansha USA or if it simply should be kept as it is. - Xexerss (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Xexerss: I would use whatever it was first published under. lullabying (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Killing the People Reincarnated into the Other World -Cheat Slayer- DYK? nomination

I nominated Killing the People Reincarnated into the Other World -Cheat Slayer- for DYK? around two weeks ago but I've not had a review of it yet. Is anyone interested in checking this? If so it is listed here. Thanks. ISD (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I reviewed it. lullabying (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Black Contractor and Gemini of the Meteor

In the past weeks, User:Xexerss and me have been working in the article Darker than Black. The anime spawned a sequel with some changes within the staff but they also altered the subtitle. Should the episode lists be renamed to (season 1) or Darker than Black: Gemini of the Meteor? It's something I saw in the Psycho-Pass articles while the FL Code Geass used the "List" title. Any idea? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this help?

I completely forgot I made this this archive of polls that might improve notability. Feel free to use.Tintor2 (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

These look useful. Nice job. Opencooper (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Clamp task force

I was wondering if I were to create a task force covering Clamp and their works, would anyone be interested in joining it? There are Good Articles related to them which perhaps with some effort could be promoted to FA status (e.g., X (manga)_, and some series they have worked on like Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion have their episode lists already up to FL status, so some series directed more to them could also get promotion if work is put into them. Thanks. ISD (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I think pages like Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card could possibly use some work (I recently updated the reception section of that article) and considering how many CLAMP works there are, as noted on List of Clamp works, I think having a task force would be a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice. I'll see if anyone else is interested before creating a task force, although I can think one minor point of debate in that List of Clamp works - are there 18, 19 or 18.5 volumes of X? ISD (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

task forces are created by how many individuals are interested, not how much content they have. Considering how low interactivity there is in the main WP:ANIME talkpage, its better not to create taskforce that shift productivity.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@ISD: I edited some of those Clamp articles but I'm not familiar with all of the author's works so be bold. I also have scanned the Spanish editions of Clamp's guides so it could help improving creation sections.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I agree with Blue Pumpkin Pie. This project isn't very active to begin with and almost all of our current task forces are completely inactive. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think there is no actual project active in general in regards to manga and anime.Tintor2 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm happy to scrap the idea. ISD (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have opened a discussion to merge media mix with multimedia franchise at Talk:Multimedia franchise#Merger proposal. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Quality articles outside of English Wikipedia

I was wondering if we should highlight quality articles in other versions of Wikipedia outside of the English one. I mention this as I just noticed that the Spanish version of xxxHolic is an FA, where as the English xxxHolic is just a C. ISD (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, that article claims to feature a translation of the article in English according to the talk page. Link20XX (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your Lie in April

I know I already asked this here once, but recently I have been focusing again on a peer review of Your Lie in April with the hopes of bringing it to FAC. Any input will be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I love that one! I'll make some suggestions if I can, but probably not much. FelipeFritschF (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Publisher links

Editor @Drmies: removed the Kodansha links from the volume list sections of Harem Marriage and Sweat and Soap, calling them "spam links". Although secondary sources are preferable, I don't think that it is a reason to have them automatically removed, especially when they are used for a simply basic fact like dates of publication. Most of anime and manga articles use the own publisher links for the publication dates and I don't see how suddenly that is wrong. - Xexerss (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Drmies has done this. See New Game! and its talk page for a discussion about it. Link20XX (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

in list situations, although secondary sources are preferred, that doesn't mean they should be deleted altogether. Primary and retail sites are accepted in Wikipedia. @Drmies:, if you're against primary sources, why not replace them with secondary or other third-party sources? Usually, the primary source has the most information. release date, ISBN, author, writer (if they vary between).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion, it seems that everybody agreed that there is nothing wrong with citing these primary source links (except Drmies), so why is Drmies so insistent in having them removed? - Xexerss (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Xexerss, if a thing is notable, then secondary sources report on them. It's really simple--and in an article like that Harem thing, there are almost no secondary sources. You may say they're used only to verify basic things, but the net effect in this version is that of 31 "sources", 25 were commercial links. That is out of all proportion. Yes, Link20XX, it's not the first time--but as is actually suggested in the comments above, most anime and manga articles are full of spam. So it isn't "suddenly wrong"--it was always wrong, or at the very least highly questionable. And it is not my job to replace them with secondary sources: you, Xexerss, whose claim is to improve articles' credibility by adding reliable sources, surely you can do that, in a subject area that you know more about than me. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

So if there's no secondary sources, why are you just deleting the primary sources instead of nominating the article for deletion?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I can replace them, sure, that's not a problem, the problem is that seeing the New Game! discussion, everybody, except you, agreed, based on the own Wikipedia rules, that the primary sources used for the volume list sections, are fine, their use was never wrong, and, nevertheless, you're still insistent in having them removed, thinking that your point of view is correct, even if it was discussed and you were the only one who disagree. - Xexerss (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but you can't say "it was always fine"--we have millions of articles, and many have things wrong with them. And I am well aware of the guidelines, and of Wikipedia practice. The goal here is not "how much can we get away with"--the goal is to make better articles. Blue Pumpkin Pie, I'm not going to nominate every poorly verified article for deletion, especially not if I think that better sourcing is likely available. And you're totally missing the point: notability may be questionable if there's very few secondary sources, but that is a separate issue from an article having ... what was it, 5/6 of the "references" being commercial links. There is no way that that should be acceptable. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm hanging by your word on what your point is. I agree we need to make better articles. I disagree with removing sources and not replacing them with better sources is the right course of action.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Because the article needs more secondary sources, it doesn't mean that you can just remove the primary sources based on your own way of thinking. It was discussed and the consensus was that the use of primary sources for that basic fact is appropriate. - Xexerss (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection that has been raised to the relative proportion of publisher links to other references. I can't help but think that if all of the publication dates were at a single URL, cited once in a table header, that we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think readers particularly care about the relative proportion of "commercial links" to other references, but they do care about having access to verifiable information.

That is my second point of contention: I don't understand the logic behind removing the admittedly less-desirable publisher links and leaving information in the article that is unverified. I will note that ANN and Natalie.mu (especially the latter) often record individual manga volume releases, and in many cases the publisher links can be replaced with those. But simply removing the publisher links serves nobody. It certainly does a disservice to our readers. — Goszei (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

To speak to a broader point, I think the contention regarding the relative proportion of references is in response to the unfortunate fact that many of our project's articles are indeed underdeveloped, which is a function of our limited manpower (and limited ability to read Japanese-language reliable sources, in my estimation). The "barebones" structure of a manga article prominently features a publication table because they are the lowest-effort to verify and create. As other important but more-difficult parts of the article develop (Development, Reception), the table inevitably shrinks to a smaller proportion of the article, both in relative prominence and reference proportion. However, the tables remain as an article improves because they represent a key piece of encyclopedic information for any work of print media (I think we can all agree on this point).

All of us here want the same thing: well-referenced and informative articles on notable topics, including on manga. I feel regret when seeing an undeveloped article as much as any editor here, but I see the barebones structure as just that – an often-lopsided barebones that will be filled out, in time. Until then, we should serve our readers with information verified to a source, even if that has to be the publisher's website. — Goszei (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies You need to stop this. You can see above there is a clear consensus against what you are doing. Your continuous actions against that consensus are disruptive almost to the point I can no longer assume good faith. Link20XX (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Link20XX, sorry, but I don't give a flying fuck about what you assume about me. What I do know is that "consensus" is not achieved in half a day by three editors who are all admitted enthusiasts. By all means, bring me up on the board--in the meantime, I note that you again instated two dozen commercial links in an encyclopedic article. I might as well wonder whether you are getting paid by these publishers. BTW don't bother pinging me again: I muted you. If you want to drag me to some noticeboard because of my supposed bad faith, you can notify me on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are at least two previous discussions (made some months ago) before this one stating a consensus that there is nothing wrong in citing primary sources for basic facts. Yet, here you are, insisting that you're right and must act according to your own way of thinking. - Xexerss (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Something else. Citing a commentary I found in this discussion: "I wonder what a true secondary source (remember, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent) about a release date would look like. How does one combine multiple, previously published primary sources into a novel analysis of a release date?" – If we are not supposed to use primary sources (or retailers) for a simply basic fact like publication dates, where else can we find that kind of information? Like Goszei said, Anime News Network or Natalie can be used for that purpose, but what about other parameters that are required for the Template:Graphic novel list like the ISBN? (to be honest, I don't know if that particular parameter needs sources, but should it need one, I don't know how many secondary sources would help to fill it) If there are reliable secondary sources that can provide all that information, I would gladly accept a replacement, but if there are none, a simply "I will remove this thing you added and now go and find something better" doesn't seem very constructive. - Xexerss (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Xexerss, what is not constructive is adding commercial links to a project that is supposed to be free of commercial interests. You need to ask yourself where the balance lies. How important is an ISBN or whatever for a comic book when the price for that information is yet another commercial link? And when you say "parameters that are required"--no, none of these things are really "required". They are there in the template, but that doesn't mean they are somehow "required". But you see, this is how it goes in anime: a couple of fans with more zeal than sense gang up and fabricate a consensus that in all practical aspects goes directly against the very spirit of Wikipedia. It's not surprising. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'd argue the spirit of Wikipedia would be to at least look for secondary or third-party sources to replace the primary sources, not remove them and leave the article. If you can't find them, you're better off nominating the article for deleting if none exist to prove notability. But no WikiProject supports deleting acceptable refs without replacing them with higher quality ones, so I don't understand this "couple of fans with more zeal". List of Kingdom Hearts media (a featured article) also links to retail sites and also links the media itself for the ISBN and release date.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing things. Removing spam links (and questioning notability) is not necessarily followed by a nomination for deletion. The article you mention has 132 references; surely it's not 2/3 of them (or even 5/6) that are retail sites. If that were the case, it would have never passed FA. It's about balance. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Naruto volumes is also a featured topic, and almost all of the lists in it rely a lot on primary sources. Link20XX (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Drmies: if they were spam links, they'd be blacklisted a long time ago. There's a reason why Amazon is still a valid source. Also, if it's about balance, you need to do your due diligence, not make disruptive edits and expect other editors to clean up after you. If it's about balance, look for the secondary sources yourself before deleting the ones available that according to Wikipedia are acceptable. If you want to talk about the spirit of Wikipedia, we all agree. We just don't agree with your methods.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

As I point out in my longer comment above, reference balance (which I am not convinced is a goal in it of itself) is achieved through growth of other parts of the article, which takes time and effort. The table itself is just a barebones component that is easy to create first. Removing references that verify material, which are our duty as editors to always include, does not improve the article, and on the contrary damages it. Perhaps the best way to resolve the current dispute peaceably would be seeking more opinions? There is a clear consensus at this venue, at least. — Goszei (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"a couple of fans with more zeal than sense gang up and fabricate a consensus that in all practical aspects goes directly against the very spirit of Wikipedia." This sounds like an unnecessary ad hominem. And no one fabricated anything, all these arguments were made considering the very own Wikipedia guidelines and rules, but your actions are clearly against WP:IARxC. By the way, if you don't mind, could you please give me a link to this specific policy or guideline making reference to the proportion or balance between the number of secondary and primary sources? - Xexerss (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Xexers, I think y'all have made it abundantly clear why the manga/anime articles are so plagued by promotional links and fancruft. Wikia is just a much better place for this. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, but anyway, I would like to know about this specific guideline or policy about proportion/balance between the number of secondary and primary sources. That way, at least I will understand if articles like these or this are featured articles because they were reviewed by a group of editors that knew perfectly well what they were doing or if it was the negligent work of "a couple of fans with more zeal than sense gang up and fabricate a consensus that in all practical aspects goes directly against the very spirit of Wikipedia". - Xexerss (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add, but just as a point of reference, for an example outside this project, see List of The New 52 imprint publications. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We reached a consensus so there is no need to keep this going. if Drmies wants to have thoughts on WP:ANIME and/or the articles under its scopes, that's fine. Let's keep improving articles by expanding them and finding reliable secondary and third-party sources. Drmies if you're reading this, take it from someone who has contributed to 10 GAs and potentially a featured article outside of this wiki project, it is HARD to add and improve WP:ANIME articles, and it's not the editors in the Wikiproject making it hard. And deleting acceptable sources, is easy and unhelpful.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry Blue Pumpkin, but you just totally don't get it, do you. What you all are doing is not hard at all: you just hit Amazon and the publishing company and dump all those links in there. As for consensus--well, on this page that's easy to come by, though there is no other place on Wikipedia where you can get this so quickly and pretend it counts. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is tempting to respond to these types of comments, but I'm going to encourage everyone here to not even respond and move on. I acknowledge the hard work everyone does. I know you don't all just list primary links, and I know the challenge it is to find reviews, interviews, development. I acknowledge the challenges even if Drmies doesn't. And most importantly, consensus is reached and there is nothing left to say.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey all! I have started a requested move at Talk:Mangaka on renaming the article to Manga artist. Since this article is of top-importance to this project, any input members of it can give will be much appreciated. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

VRMMORPG and isekai

As far as I know, or at least that's what I've seen when the genre or category is usually removed, virtual reality massively multiplayer online role-playing game are not considered isekai and that's why series like .hack//Sign and Sword Art Online are not considered as such, but the own isekai article says that they "may also take place in the virtual world of a massively multiplayer online". This is kinda confusing, so should these series be considered isekai in their articles or not? - Xexerss (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say this should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If a reliable source calls it an Isekai, it can and should be included. However if no source calls it such, it should be excluded. Link20XX (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, but SAO, for example, has been called an isekai by Anime News Network (rather BookWalker via ANN)[5] and yet the source was later removed due to the aforementioned reason. - Xexerss (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Anybody knows Japanes

While working in the Darker than Black articles I keep finding that the official website has a links below "最近のトラックバック" involving analysis of episodes. However, I am unable to find who is the author of such analysis. If the creator happens to be associated with Bones or Aniplex then it might help a lot to expand the production section of the two television series and the OVA. Could somebody give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: 最近のトラックバック means recent trackbacks, so it seems that the official site keeps track of whatever sites mention the page in question. The analysis appears to be from a blog written by AlfLaylawaLayla, so I have doubts about its reliability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Chiaki Konaka

Just leaving it out there that Chiaki J. Konaka has been heavily edited by anonymous IP addresses in regards to certain political ideologies being referenced in his latest work. lullabying (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's currently an WP:EDITWAR over Chiaki J. Konaka. Any input would be heavily appreciated. lullabying (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  Lullabying, I gave him a policy violation warning for edit warring and it seems like it's cooled off a bit for now. Use your best judgment and be smart; if things devolve again just take it to either WP:DRN or WP:ANI. Curbon7 (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Next Manga Award#Requested move 9 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Next Manga Award#Requested move 9 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

ANN Reviews as Canonical Information

This list is currently undergoing an edit war launched by the main author, as the user persists in pushing the idea that episode reviews and the heading "this week in anime" are authoritative proof of canon information about the sexuality of characters. For example, a user refers to ANN's article "Top queer anime characters of 2020", where one of the authors claims that two canonically straight characters who are the canon love interests of a male MC in the game are canon lesbians in anime just because that one of them was tsundere and the other hugged her and said daisuki. They also demand proof that the joke claim from one "this week in anime" reviews that show's girl is another's girlfriend is a joke and cannot be used to prove that the characters are a couple. Although this is obvious to anyone who has watched anime or read manga at all. In general, I got the impression that the user does not quite correctly understand the purpose of Wikipedia, literally supplementing the list based on any statements or interpretations that this or that character is gay. For example, in the past, a member stubbornly returned to the list the statement that Kumiko and Reina are in love with each other. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to raise the question of whether author reviews of such resources can be considered a sufficient source to confirm such questions, especially if the resource is known to be overly fixed on the sexual and gender identity of the characters. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the further discussion, the user sincerely believes that even a partial recognition of ANN useful makes literally any opinion posted in it authoritative and that the opinion of the ANN authors about the sexuality of characters can be considered authoritative due to the fact that there are quite a few such sources in general. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is typical of you to post here without mentioning me. Anyway, there is enough evidence that ANN articles are reliable sources, as anyone with sense would know, also noted here, here, here, here, and here, to give a few examples of previous discussions. As such, t has been discussed over and over in the past, so this discussion is silly, moot, and worthless, a waste of time if you ask me, which could imperil many pages and make Wikipedia much weaker than it already has been. As I said in my edits on that page, fixing that page is your responsibility now, since you claim to know so much about Wikipedia, Solaire the knight. Your standards for saying characters are canon are too high for anyone to fulfill. Historyday01 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere that reviews and articles on ANN can be used to confirm the interpretation of the plot. Perhaps ANN is authoritative for the news or the genre, but that doesn't make their reviews a Wor of God/Gay. I have already told you about this many times, but by continuing to insist on it, you are engaged in a purposeful game with the rules. Also, I do not understand such passive-aggressive behavior, in the discussion I directly warned you that I will open a topic on the anime project forum. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I'd say reviews and articles in ANN are fine sources, as they have been shown in the past. If you want to add Japanese-language sources instead, feel free, but as a person who does NOT know Japanese, I went with what was available in the English language and more accessible to users of en.wikipedia. Historyday01 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to fiction, it's important to distinguish interpretation from confirmation. If none of the characters are confirmed LGBT, but they are heavily reviewed as such, i believe it's important to make that indication. If there is any in-universe confirmation, then that is all we need.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the contributor adds this even if the actual plot directly contradicts this. For example, they insists that Kumiko and Reina are a lesbian couple just because some old IGN review suggested that their couple had obvious romantic overtones. At the same time, the fact that both girls have canon male love interests and the latest film directly confirms Kumiko's straight romance is simply ignored by them Solaire the knight (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, you make a valid point here. As for Solaire, these seem like issues that should be discussed on the talk page and not here. I don't know why you are acting like this is some big deal, because it is not, and the discussion should be restricted to that page rather than here. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened the thread here because you started an edit war by repeating "ANN authoritative source" along the way on the talk page. It's better to talk about these things with the community than end up with stubborn conflicts and blockages. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Solaire, I'm not familiar with the franchise so I can't argue based on the plot alone, but neither should you, we need to cite some sort of reliable source and demonstrate that it is a consensus, otherwise it's WP:OR. Conversely, if all that can be find to support them being queer is some journalist's opinion, it might go into their articles as reception - as long as it has sufficient weight and doesn't break WP:NPOV. If there are no author statements or any sort of official information supporting it either and it's just a couple of articles expressing that opinion, I'd argue it is not notable enough for the character articles or that list article, which should reflect certainty, not opinions, or debate, (perceived) implications or fanon, no matter how popular it might be (and I wager it could be just shipping, since I personally can't find anything that goes beyond that. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What kind of franchise are you talking about? If about Princess Connect, then you can find on YouTube the development of "bonds" with both characters and watch the MC x girl events. You can also go to the fandom wiki and read at least a general description of the interactions of characters in the game. This is a waifu game where the characters are MC's love interests.

Going to YT and watching it would be literally original research. Fandom wiki isn't reliable either, (or Wikipedia itself), though if Fandom includes sources that you can refer to here, please do so. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I could advise you to install the game yourself (it's free) and develop your "friendship" with the girls mentioned to the necessary limits, but I don't think you have the time and desire for that. But season 2 premieres in January, maybe that will clarify things as anime adaptations may ultimately change something (ooh, Azur Lane, ooh). Solaire the knight (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with FelipeFritschF. Solaire, you need to cite some "sort of reliable source and demonstrate that it is a consensus" and talk about that on the talk page of the relevant article, specifically Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime. I again, encourage discussion to continue there instead of on this forum, as I think that is a better avenue for this discussion. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You can't add original research and then expect users to spend their time and energy to disprove it. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. WP:BURDEN FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say what I'm adding is "original research" though, it is a summary of existing sources. I welcome any users spending time and energy to contest entries, if they see fit, and I'd be willing to discuss it further on Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime.Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

In your case, I generally agree - you could argue that that the ANN article could at best be described in the character/series pages as a critical reception as that is not official information from the authors, or any sort of authoritative guidebook on the franchise or something (and even those have their peculiarities), but I imagine you can also argue it is not significant enough and falls under WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't say ANN is biased by itself, nor is it partisan, though I'm not familiar enough with the work to say if it is being sensationalist though, or making an excessive claim, so you should restrict your criticism to the article itself and balance it out with other sources. If it is just some random clickbaity article with a opinion, yeah, it's not enough evidence for it to be on a list article. It's just some guy's opinion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't know why they are expanding their criticism more broadly and not keeping it restricted to that article. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't he is. I don't think we're debating ANN itself, but rather the applicability of that source for this list article, and whether it is authoritative. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the user quite often used the shipping thing from the side of ANN reviews (for which the resource is quite famous) as a direct statement that the characters are canonical lesbians. This is especially evident in Princess Connect anime, where the pure speculation of the author of the article on ANN is used by them as proof that the love story found by the author in the plot is the actual content. That is, now it is enough for ANN to write about any anime BFF that they are "in love" and this can be added here as a canon romantic line. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

FelipeFritschF, I think you are right that the user is talking about "applicability of that source for this list article, and whether it is authoritative" which means that this should be discussed on Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime rather than here. It is because, Solaire, what you are discussing is most relevant to that page, rather than more generally, so it should be discussed in the talk page I mentioned rather than on this talk page. Historyday01 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's better it remain here since it gets more attention and community input rather than just 2 editors with diametrically opposed views talking out alone. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess? But, a discussion on the specific page would be better than here and more productive. Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Next try

Again. I don't mind the attributed description that the reviewers read things that way. But at this stage, this is just misleading due to the use of not the most objective sources to confirm information that can only be confirmed by the authors. And the fact that the author takes this too personally, quite seriously using "this is convenient because it is difficult to find good sources" and "I swear you are clearly not LGBTQ" as an argument suggests that they does not quite understand how Wikipedia works. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. Not going to address any of your other statements here, I would appreciate if you discuss this on Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime instead of on this talk page. That would be more beneficial to all involved. Historyday01 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If you invite everyone anyway, what's the difference? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if they want to join in, that's their prerogative. I just think this discussion would be more productive there than here. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll use Tokyo Alice as an example. There's a difference between a reviewer saying the character is gay "Fuu starts dating her colleague, Odagiri Shun, a queer asexual guy who is disgusted by sex." [6] , the English translated book series character profile saying the character is gay "Kirio Iioka, an employee at Planning Arts. He's actually gay" [7], and whether the Japanese version character profile say the character is gay. (sorry I don't have a ready example there) So I would attribute any descriptions to their source, like (reviewer) at (website). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing something like that to be honest, that seems like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see a problem in writing "such an author considered the relationship of the characters to be an obvious romantic story" and so on. But don't label the characters as canon lesbians based on that. And only in articles about characters or shows. Otherwise, the list will not only become excessive, but will also lose its original goals. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it seems to be a significant opinion. I don't think it is in this case, it seems to be mostly fanon. And either way, it doesn't go on a list article that should cite something authoritative about the character. It could go into a dedicated page for Kumiko, for instance, but Sound! Euphonium only has its franchise page, and something so specific is undue there. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, ANN is notorious for their writers bias for shipping and woke things, so when it comes to all-female or all-male shows, this happens quite often. For example, they claimed that Promare and Appare Ranman are the queer show due to the fact that it is about two male characters with deep bonds. That being said, neither of these two anime has ever been positioned as romance. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles. There is no need to question ANN itself or what they're notorious for or not. What matters is if this specific article is reliable enough to make this claim. I think it isn't. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This week I will not make any more edits so as not to provoke a conflict further, but if I understand correctly, in the future I can delete cases if they are confirmed only based on the interpretations of the reviewer? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

In principle yes, but the other editor has the right to reinsert it too, but both of you have to prove your claim. If you can't come to an agreement, you can ask for a request for comment, which is actually binding. This is fairly simple point of contention so you could get it resolved fairly quickly, I believe. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'll try to avoid difficult or overly ambiguous cases, since shipping wars are fun, but wikipedia is clearly not the place for that. 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Solaire the knight (talk)

FelipeFritschF makes a good point here. I would have appreciated it if Solaire had begun the discussion on the talk page rather than with removals of content, but that's just my view here and yes, this can be resolved relatively quickly from my observation. Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent example, thank you. In the fandoms I'm in there are similar troubles.

I'll restart. I do not think it should be included, because it seems to me to be just some isolate journalist's opinion, the problem is not with being on ANN, but rather with not being notable or authoritative enough. I can't find anything from the authors or any sort of canon source. From what I could tell one of the characters does end up with the opposite-sex MC so that'd already. Unless someone can find a Japanese authoritative source proving the claim, it's not valid. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about Eupho, then this show is considered a classic yuri bait due to the fact that the author portrayed the relationship of the characters as "ideal spiritual friendship", deliberately abandoning any romance (she wanted to show that platonic ties can be stronger than any romance) so the studio decided to make the perfect queerbaiting out of it. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm having flashbacks of Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 7 AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are reasons why this show has become a memetic symbol for yuri bait in general. In the first season, they even used the red thread of fate for platonic things, which was so blatant that the director even had to officially deny the romantic intent in an interview. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You might be right, but you need to prove it with reliable sources. However, that is not even what we're discussing. Historyday1 also needs to prove their claim, and I don't think they have. I support your removal. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with FelipeFritschF again and Solaire, I hope you provide reliable sources to show your claims. I have to disagree with FelipeFritschF because I'd have to say that the page is already adequately sourced enough and I do not feel it is necessary to find more sources. I'd even support the removal if Solaire can provide reliable sources to prove the claims. Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I think there are no sources supporting that they should be included in the list. Solaire made a different argument and I think that was unfortunate but either way the burden of proof is on the person adding something. See WP:BURDEN. I already said I don't agree with their inclusion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. In any case, I've totally lost which entry we are talking about here... which is why I think this would be better be discussed on the talk page of the original article, because these things tend to happen. Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll also example Zoe Hange (Attack on Titan) where it documents how Hange was originally female, then the author made a statement saying Hange's "gender is better left unstated", and that the English manga later revised their manga volumes to use non-binary pronouns/references. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, I know what you mean. In that case, only the author's original statements should be sourced. And in this case, there doesn't seem to be any author statements confirming it all. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Look Back (manga)#Requested move 20 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Look Back (manga)#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Science SARU#Requested move 15 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Science SARU#Requested move 15 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super manga count towards original Dragon Ball manga?

Since the original Dragon Ball manga is followed up with the Dragon Ball Super manga somewhat canonically, given the fact that its anime counterpart shares the same plot outline, but both the manga and the anime each have their own interpretations of the events featured in that same plot outline, would the Super manga's ongoing number of volumes add to the original manga's completed set of volumes? Or does it not count because Toyotaro is the author and illustrator, instead of Akira Toriyama like in the original?

Uuruuseiyo (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC) @Uuruuseiyo: I would say per separated but most importantly because of how it is marketed. For example, Shaman King Flowers and Super Star have the same main characters and plot but were split due to Hiroyuki Takei's change of publisher.Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't count it, no. It's a narrative sequel in both anime and manga versions, but that's where the similarity ends. Haleth (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Super are two different series, with their own respective titles (not counting the Viz Media edition, which separated the former in "Dragon Ball" and "Dragon Ball Z"). The Dragon Ball case is not like the Kinnikuman case, for example, which continued its publication 24 year later and its volumes follow the numeration of the first run. IMO the DBS volumes shouldn't be counted as DB volumes. - Xexerss (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose but JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Parts 7 & 8 (possibly Part 9 if JOJOLANDS is explicitly confirmed as the next part as Hirohiko Araki only stated that his next work is JOJOLANDS, which may end up being a spinoff of JoJo or something else entirely) that were serialized on Ultra Jump instead of Weekly Shonen Jump ended up not continuing off of the overall numbering of all the volumes complied so far and Part 6 Stone Ocean also reset the volume count too but at least the overall volume count was in parenthesis next to that part's own volume count. Maybe because of the fact Toriyama is only contributing to the Super manga with the plot outlines drafted for the manga and not actually the one responsible for illustrating and writing everything else not found it the story manuscripts as Toyotaro takes credit for that role. Toriyama is more of a creative supervisor overseeing the plot development of Super, both anime and manga.

Uuruuseiyo (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Doujinshi convention: move discussion in progress

See Talk:Doujinshi convention#Requested move 20 October 2021. --Thibaut (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminology sections

I'm aware it's fairly common for Japanese Wikipedia articles to have terminology sections, but it's rare for English Wikipedia articles to have one. On that note, Ikki Tousen, Aria (manga), and Ga-Rei have one of these sections, and I wanted some thoughts on what to do with them, whether keep, modify, or remove entirely? Link20XX (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

JAWP's endless lists of plot elements are unencyclopedic writing that go against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and are something you would expect to find on fan sites and in game guides. They are in most (all?) circumstances at best a sub-optimal way of presenting information, and can be replaced with or integrated into a prose-based setting section, or mentioned in the plot summary as the terms become important to the story.--Alexandra^IDV 00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about wether or not we need an article

I question whether or not we need List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters since as a reboot of the original Digimon Adventure most of the characters, with the exceptions of the antagonists are alternative versions of characters already covered in List of Digimon Adventure characters. Do we need the two or should the 2020 list be merged with the original with relevant info regarding the rebooted characters added?--67.70.100.169 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted personally. Not only is it a copy of most of the characters, but it's lacking in sources and extremely crufty. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

From what I remember, the discussion has been brought up on Talk:Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series)#Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters and Talk:List of Digimon Adventure characters#Split proposal 2. It was rejected as a draft at one point but the article seems to have been made anyway. Personally, I don't believe that they should be split into two different articles, as the characters are generally the same. lullabying (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, the article should be deleted. - Xexerss (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a deletion discussion for the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters. lullabying (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Voice actors who also make television appearances outside of anime

I brought this up at Talk:Aya Hirano#Voice acting and television appearances but how should we go about voice actors who also appear in dramas and regular appearances in variety shows? This is particularly notable for people like Aya Hirano, Mamoru Miyano, Yukika Teramoto, Ryunosuke Kamiki, and Toshiyuki Toyonaga (who started out with on-screen/stage acting before voice acting) and Subaru Kimura (who started out with voice acting but is appearing on Oha Suta and other commercials?

1. What would their roles be per MOS:ROLEBIO? This discussion suggests to avoid a distinction between "voice actor" and "actor" unless one role strongly defines the person more, such as Rumi Shishido being a voice actress instead of an actress (as her roles as an actress were minor). But what about a figure that does both regularly?
2. How would you separate that on the Filmography page? What about TV animation VS drama roles VS variety show hosting? And there's also the case with people like Haruka Tomatsu has both provided a voice to a monster form of a character and appeared as her human form. I see there's a distinction between "Theatrical animation" and "Film" to separate roles, but they're still both movies in the end.

lullabying (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

lullabying, I would remove variety show guest appearances and radio / television shows that are designed to just promote their anime shows. For the most part, the live-action roles can be separated from the voice roles. If the person has a significant career in both, as with Mao Ichimichi, you can call them actor. For Aya Hirano, her voice roles have already been split up among regular Anime (includes episodic OVAs); Feature films, Drama CDs/Radio; dubbing of foreign films; video games. I would split out the theater (plays and musicals) to a different section since that's live-action, and also add live-action television dramas/shows. For the mixed one, if it's tokusatsu or power rangers-like, the live-action takes precedence and voice-overs are implied after they transform. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: By variety show appearances, I mean regular appearances, like being part of a panel or even being a host (i.e. Natsuki Hanae hosted Oha Suta for several years). lullabying (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lullabying, yeah those are OK to list. I just didn't want to have the specific tie-in promotions like with all those K-pop idols on music variety shows. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks. I guess what I've been doing is going for MOS:ROLEBIO where in the lead, I list occupations they're well-known for (i.e. Natsuki Hanae hosted Oha Suta for several years but that's been one of his only live-action roles and he's better known as a voice actor) or just listing "actor" if they're known for both (i.e. Aya Hirano, who has largely tried to move away from voice acting full-time). lullabying (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Dororo episode list

Originally the article Dororo (2019 TV series) was just an episode list with brief comments about the staff and the table with summaries. After finding sources that explained its creation and reception the article became quite big. Should the episodes be moved to an actual list? I was wondering since the FL List of Banana Fish episodes has the same weight (I once thought about giving Akudama Drive its own list but the anime was quite smaller). Then again the GA Devil Survivor 2: The Animation also has only 12 episodes. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I moved the episode list to another article. - Xexerss (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Belle Delphine for WikiProject

Is this article one that should be part of WikiProject Anime? I ask because a forthcoming DYK? mentions her in connection to ahegao. ISD (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say no, as that's the only notable thing that she did that is related to anime. It's like saying Hillary Clinton is a memer because she did a "Here come dat boi" short. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure. ISD (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobuhiro Watsuki

There's a discussion taking place at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#The arrest section should be removed and I'm requesting an editor to take over any concerns an anonymous user has had, as the topic seems to have derailed to something I feel someone more suitable than myself should handle. Your contributions are appreciated. lullabying (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tsubasa OVAs

When working on the Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle article, I noticed there was a lot of commentary in regards to its two OVAs. However, Funimation collected both of them together for the English release in contrast to Kodansha's separate release. I've been working in this sandbox and I wonder if we could split the OVAs with this content. However, I have no idea what title could be used if it's possible. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's enough content for both OVAs (based on the original Japanese releases) to warrant a separation, then I think that would be fine with a note in both articles somewhere saying that the western release included them both in the same thing. And if you do separate them, you'd just use whatever the separate OVA's titles are. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt I can give each OVA their own article considering I found only one interview. Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hunter × Hunter (2011 TV series) episode list

If nobody opposes, I'm planning to split the Hunter × Hunter (2011 TV series) into seven "season" articles, based on the Viz Media release.[8] My main issue, however, is how each article should be titled. I've got three ideas: "Hunter × Hunter (2011 TV series) (season 1)"; "Hunter × Hunter (2011) (season 1)"; or simply "Hunter × Hunter (season 1)" (since the 1999 series was not separate into seasons, and I, personally, don't see a reason to). If someone has any suggestions or a better idea, please, let me know. Cheers. - Xexerss (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there any point in splitting it in seven instead of keeping it all together? The list isn't unreasonably long as is, and I think it would be more useful to readers as a single page than seven short lists of thirteen items each. Are those Viz releases even seasons? They just call them "sets".-Alexandra^IDV 21:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: I've seen other articles with less episodes, like List of D.Gray-man episodes or List of Rurouni Kenshin episodes, separate into sub articles, so I suppose that it had something to do with the length of those series, (to be honest, I just realized that the North American distributors actually separate them into "seasons"). - Xexerss (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the conventional title for the first two options would be "Hunter × Hunter (2011 TV series, season 1)", based on [9]. — Goszei (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on a peer review! (Embodiment of Scarlet Devil)

Hi! Recently I have tried to improve the quality of the page of the 2002 game Embodiment of Scarlet Devil (from Touhou Project), and have put it on peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Embodiment of Scarlet Devil/archive2). If you could give me any feedback for improvement, it would be very much appreciated! Thank you Kettleonwater (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Assassination Classroom articles

I've opened a merger proposal at Talk:Assassination Classroom#Merger proposal to merge 3-nen E-gumi Utatan into that article. Feedback is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Erotic romance anime and manga

Is there a reason why we have Category:Erotic romance anime and manga? By definition Eroticism is subject to ones personal feelings about the subject matter: "Erotic literature comprises fictional and factual stories and accounts of eros (passionate, romantic or sexual relationships) intended to arouse similar feelings in readers." Just by going by example Nozo × Kimi is on the list, but there is nothing in the article supporting that the definition as used is a mainstream view of the work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Imo it shouldnt be a thing, especially considering this is a very incomplete list even taking into account subjectivism. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, since there is already a category for ecchi, I don't even think the "Erotic romance anime and manga" category nor Category:Erotic thriller anime and manga is needed, as that category faces the same problems. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one who created both categories. I don't oppose their deletion, but I don't agree with adding the series to Category:Ecchi anime and manga if the specific term is never mentioned and cited by reliable sources in the articles. Wouldn't that be subjective too? On the other hand, since we have categories like Category:Erotic thrillers, Category:Erotic romance novels or Category:Erotic romance films I don't get why there is a problem when we're talking about anime and manga, but nevermind. - Xexerss (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that any series should not be added to the ecchi category unless it is is explicitly mentioned and it seems like a specific enough category that someone would mention it. I did look at those in the Category:Erotic romance anime and manga category and B Gata H Kei, Futari Ecchi, Sakura Diaries, and Sundome, and Why the Hell are You Here, Teacher!? are in the Sex comedy genre (and are also in Category:Sex comedy anime and manga), while Futari no Ouchi, Nana & Kaoru, Nozoki Ana, and Shiori's Diary are considered an Erotic romance, all using reliable sources. So, I suppose the category is actually fine as reliable sources do show them all falling into the erotic romance section, as Sex comedy can also be called "erotic comedy". But maybe it would be better if a definition of erotic romance was noted on the category page, and the same for Category:Erotic thriller anime and manga as those in that category do have reliable sources which put them in that category. I suppose this means that I can't agree with my previous comment on here, but as always, my views are opem to change. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll add definitions for both categories. By the way, since someone pointed out that they are "very incomplete" lists, what is the bare minimum of articles necessary in a category to warrant its existence? - Xexerss (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I said something a bit confusing. I didn't mean anything in regard to it needed an number of articles to warrant existence. I believe adding definitions to the categories will help it to be more understandable and, hopefully, get more articles listed in those categories. Thanks. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

help with NPP review

@AngusWOOF, Bensci54, Juhachi, Narutolovehinata5, Roniius, Yogwi21, and ZappaOMatic: you all appear to be members of the WikiProject Anime and manga, and you all have the New page reviewers user right. Would you be able to help review Welcome_to_Japan,_Ms._Elf!, Night_World_(web_series), Studio_Blanc,List_of_Waccha_PriMagi!_episodes, List_of_The_Heroic_Legend_of_Arslan_chapters, Takashi_Nagasaki, Laid-Back_Camp:_Movie, Hitomi-chan_is_Shy_With_Strangers, Laid-Back_Camp_(2018_soundtrack), Gaishū_Isshoku!, Violet_Evergarden:_The_Movie, Blood-Club_Dolls_-_Part_1, Sanji_(One_Piece),Isekai_Shōkan_wa_Nidome_Desu, Wolfsbane_(animation_studio), Technoroid, Andrew_Hodgson_(translator), Delicious_Party_Pretty_Cure, List_of_Digimon_Ghost_Game_episodes, The_Girl_I_Like_Forgot_Her_Glasses,Akina_Houmoto, Migi_to_Dali, Kōkyū_no_Karasu, List_of_Crayon_Shin-chan_films, Seiichi_Hayashi KonoSuba:_God's_Blessing_on_this_Wonderful_World!_Legend_of_Crimson_Original_Soundtrack, Mikaela_Krantz. Thanks! Vexations (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Vexations, are you asking for assessment? You can do so at WP:ANIME/ASSESS. Otherwise any of the NPP/AFC reviewers can do so. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Just looking to see if people would be willing to help, I didn't mean to coerce anyone into doing something they don't want to do, or are already doing. I'm one of the New Page reviewers, and I do a lot of visual arts articles and artists' biographies. I've got some tools that I use to help my find unreviewed articles on topics I know well, but I find myself a bit out of my comfort/competence zone with Manga artists. I'm not sure if there are reviewers who would be interested in reviewing articles that fall within projects they're members of. The newPagesFeed isn't much help if you're looking for specific topics. There is User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Visual arts/Comics and Anime, but I don't know if people are looking there, it has fewer than 30 watchers. Anyway, no pressure. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Yuri on Ice episodes FLC

Hi there. My nomination of List of Yuri on Ice episodes for FL has been hanging around since August. On the FLC talk page they said: "The only way to fix this is [current backlog of FLC nominations] to increase the total amount of reviews being done, either by reviewing other people's nominations, getting wikiproject members to review your own list, or ideally both." I though I should appeal to everyone in the WikiProject to see if they would be interested in reviewing the list. Thanks. ISD (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TMS/Telecom

Notice: A redirect from Telecom Animation Film to TMS Entertainment was recently converted to an article in September 2021. I am making a thread here to discuss whether it should be restored as a redirect, or if not, for someone to fix various piped links that go to the TMS page, but display as Telecom. Even if restored as a redirect, it may be worth it to change the piped links anyway in case an suitable article is ever made again (an {{R with possibilities}}). — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Telecom Animation Film having an article is fine simply as a WP:SIZESPLIT. I also support converting all the piped links, regardless if it is redirected or not. Link20XX (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sex Ed 120% end date

Does anyone have any reliable sources showing when Sex Ed 120% officially ended? The closest I can find is sources saying it ended in 2021, but I can't find an exact date. Thanks. ISD (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ISD: I don't have the time to go through this right now, but the artist and writer are both on Twitter - I would not be surprised if they've made a post about the series ending that you could cite if you have no other options.--Alexandra^IDV 09:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: It looks like it was February 9, 2021, but does Twitter count as a reliable source that I can reference? ISD (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ISD: Yes, this is fine in this case - see WP:ABOUTSELF for the relevant WP policy page. Twitter posts are as reliable as the person or organization behind the post is, so basically, you can cite a tweet for uncontroversial information from the creators/publisher/distributor/etc of SE120 about themselves and the series, if you can't find it anywhere else - but you couldn't cite any random person's posts, and you couldn't cite a post for "unduly self-serving" or controversial information. I did this exact same thing myself with the ending date for Golden Sakura the other day.--Alexandra^IDV 15:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: Very useful to know. Thanks very much for your help. ISD (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:BLP to individual VTubers

Hello, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy talk as to the applicability of the BLP policy to virtual YouTubers. Input would be much appreciated. Thanks. 9³ (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Truck-kun DYK and Wikipe-tan

I created and nominated an article on Truck-kun for DYK (see nomination). It has been approved, and looks like it might make the April Fool's main page. One thing I'm trying to sort out is an image, and I was wondering if we might be able to create an picture depicting Wikipe-tan with Truck-kun. However, I believe the artist who originally created Wikipe-tan is no longer active. Is there anyone else here who would be interested in making an image to go with the article and nomination? ISD (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguating between multiple manga with the same title

Hey all! I would like to get some thoughts on how to disambiguate between multiple manga with the same title, since MOS:MANGA is not clear on this and I have seen differing styles of disambiguation. Specifically, I have seen the year of debut used (Hana ni Arashi (2017 manga)) and the author used (Clover (Clamp manga)). Which would be a better method? Link20XX (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the year of debut is more concise and simple. I would use the author's name if two series with the same title started in the same year (I don't know any case though). - Xexerss (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

At least for me, for cases where two manga start in the same year with the same title, I would prefer "Foo (2020 manga by John Doe)" as a method of disambiguation. As for two manga with the same year and title, the aforementioned Clamp manga and Clover (Toriko Chiya manga) both claim to have started in 1997 (at least according to their articles). Though there is also a third manga with the title, Clover (Tetsuhiro Hirakawa), which should probably be moved to the year. Link20XX (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If we wanted to follow what WikiProject Albums do; they go by the musical act first, then by year if a single act has two or more albums of the same title. But, if the single act released two or more of the same title in the same year, then "they can be disambiguated by some commonly accepted convention". However, plenty of manga have multiple authors and/or artists and it would be wrong to single out just one of them over the other(s), so we'd have to use year in those cases. Xfansd (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there are Switch (manga) and Switch (2018 manga), but shouldn't the title of the former be changed or we should just leave it as it is because the article was created first? - Xexerss (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would change the title of the former. While we are also looking at other systems of disambiguating, WP:BOOKDAB uses the author's surname and WP:NCCOMICS uses the publisher, then the year. Link20XX (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comics creator - proposal to change coding

There is a proposal at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Proposal to simplify the coding re images when template is used outside of article space that members of this WikiProject may be interested in. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Crunchyroll Anime Awards

Hello all! Just leaving a note here that I started a conversation on Talk:Crunchyroll Anime Awards about a possible split. Any thoughts will be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

IP address making changes to voice actor infoboxes

So for those unaware, various IP address (likely the same person) have been making a few changes to mostly Japanese voice actor infoboxes, and I am not sure I agree with some of them. For instance, on Hiromu Mineta they changed the occupation from "voice actor" to "actor • voice artist". For me at least, I prefer just "voice actor" as Mineta (along with most of the other people they did this change on) haven't done much stage acting at all. "Voice artist" is also very vague, and almost promotional in tone. They also added the person's height, which I also oppose. The documentation of the infobox states that the height parameter should only be used if someone is notable for their height or if their height is relevant to their occupation, neither of which I believe is the case here. I would like some quick thoughts on their edits because they've done this to several articles. Link20XX (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Height and stuff like that shouldnt be added, no: it is useless trivia information that has nothing to do with their profession/career. "actor • voice artist" is also completely redundant. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think height should be added if the voice actor is also a model. "Voice artist" is a more obscure term compared to "voice actor" (and it also sounds WP:FLOWERY IMO), so I think "voice actor" should be the way to go. For people such as Aya Hirano, Mao Ichimichi, etc. I would remove "voice actor" completely because they are also active in live-action media and having "voice actor" in addition is redundant, with the caveat being that these people have to be in more than one lead/recurring role in television and stage plays per WP:ROLEBIO. lullabying (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly an argument to be made for height being added to models, and I can get behind that. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, maybe I have exceeded too much by massively changing or removing the occupations of several articles created by the user related to Japanese voice actors, it is that I wanted to fix some infoboxes by only adding a height for each of them is because I forgot to add a certain web reference to people who belong to talent agencies (see my review for example), where a certain actor is about 172 cm tall, and as for these two articles that you mention, I also wanted to separate a role from voice actor to actor (see here) because most of the articles had two different professions and other IPs and new users persisted on adding two occupations at the same time if they did not comply with what they said WP:BLPs and the notable works of the infoboxes, I am not sure that some well-known roles in anime are added (see here), I was going to remove it without thinking because as Link20XX reversed my six editions if I tried to separate several voice actor roles if I understand that I incorrectly changed voice actor back to voice artist it really was irrelevant here as well. 179.52.198.168 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Most voice actors have also had some live-action credits. The only case I would use "actor" over "voice actor" is if at least one of their live-action roles was significant or noteworthy. As for height, the infobox documentation states that it should only be added if a person is notable for their height or if it is otherwise relevant to their occupation. For the voice actors whom have worked as models, it makes sense to add. However, for others, I don't believe it should be, even it is sourced. As for the rest of your comment, I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Can you clarify? Link20XX (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that when you create an article about an anime voice actor, you should cover the actor's work, as I did for example[10], I was reading the manual of style and it was not saying anything about the need to describe of neutral way to a person in context for a biographical article and I thought that having incorrectly changed the term "voice actor" to "voice artist" to infoboxes related to them did not help, I simply suggested the idea of ​​writing the opening sentence to articles covering all the main work in some professions that they did, but apparently several users rejected my proposal, the height if there is relevance with only you add the web references of the talent agency as well as directories to infoboxes of articles that I edited recently to back this up. 179.52.198.168 (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Actors typically list their heights along with eye color on their profiles, but just because they post it doesn't mean it should go in the infobox. The height is not relevant for most actors, unless it's a main aspect such as with Peter Dinklage or Richard Kiel. Also a lot of Japanese voice actors do voice-overs for overseas films and TV series; that still counts as voice acting. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 07:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• If this is a question about what roles to list the person under, there was a similar discussion about listing actors and voice actors as separate roles. As previously stated, "voice actor" is redundant if the person is already an actor in live-action media. This is because "voice actor" is only referring to a specific field in acting while "actor" encompasses all kinds of acting already. You should only list a person as simply an "actor" if they had notable live-action acting credits (at least one role that is widely covered in media, such as a lead role). For example, you would list Aya Hirano as an actress because she's starred in several television dramas and stage plays, and even though she also had a notable voice acting career, it's redundant to mention. For many other voice actors, they have had acting roles, but only as minor roles or not widely known. For that, keep WP:ROLEBIO in mind, and only list roles that the person is notable for. For example, Rumi Shishido states on her official website that she's also a camerawoman and an illustrator but she's only known to the public for being a voice actress and singer. lullabying (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lullabying:: Do you really think that eliminating that term "voice actor" from the infobox would be redundant for the same profession if all this details the definition here, I mean the height that I placed before the infoboxes of the 6 articles that the user created about that such documentation of the infobox that he describes but I tell you something, I added the web references obtained from VIP times and talent agency that belong to the Japanese voice actors, but what happens? Link20XX reversed 6 of my editions saying in edition summaries that height should only be used if the person has done modeling or other work where height is relevant, which is not the case here. The problem here is that I was trying to improve said occupation to the opening sentence. 148.0.118.153 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you're saying. Are you saying that mentioning details like height is relevant to voice actors? Even Template:Infobox person states the following description for its parameter: f person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant. If used, this should also include the year of the measurement if the person had not reached full adulthood when this stat was published. Listing heights is discouraged unless the voice actor was known for it (i.e. the only one I can think of maybe might be notable for height is Takuya Eguchi) or had a notable modeling career (i.e. Yukika Teramoto, Toshiyuki Someya). lullabying (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What I am trying to say when understanding my way of writing is that I was trying to add height references to the infoboxes of the articles created so that they look relevant according to such mentioned documentation[11][12][13][14][15], but as I told you, the user reverted my edits 6 times before I knew it and if I knew this now, I would have already correctly separated the term voice actor by covering the work of actors all over the world (including Japanese voice actors) who have done countless of notable works in both live-action and voice dubbing, so I assume that putting the term voice artist to infoboxes didn't do much good. 148.0.115.165 (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

148.0.115.165, your six edits were to Chiharu Sawashiro and Shion Wakayama, both of whom are primarily known as voice actors and whose articles don't show a large body of work concerning live-action acting to warrant the separate actress occupation, or extensive modeling career to warrant the height. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AngusWOOF Yeah, just imagine one of them has more than 15 or 16 appearances in Japanese television and cinema apart from the theater, which should expand the section below of Chiharu Sawashiro's filmography since I can't clearly define if Shion Wakayama has made some appearances of TV when she made her debut as a child or not, with news references can obviously be obtained from Japanese Wikipedia. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Voice actor discographies are inconsistent

The artist discographies for the voice actors are inconsistent, with some of them directly translated from their JP wiki articles and some having song/album titles that don't follow WP:JAPAN#Titles of media (i.e. Maaya Uchida, Sumire Uesaka, Mamoru Miyano, etc.). While I'm the most familiar with the types of discographies shown on BTS singles discography and BTS albums discography (which is widely used), it seems that WP:ALBUMS themselves state that there is no consistent format. What would be the best course of action? lullabying (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

lullabying, which part are you concerned about with regards to the format? It seems like if the song title is in Japanese then the track would be like: "Hemurokku (ヘムロック, Hemlock)" as with Music (Mika Nakashima album). Any of those all-caps titles can be redone to be regular English, although weird stylizations like "CHE.R.RY" can be noted. I would separate some of their character singles/albums from their regular studio live-action albums as with Aya Hirano. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

BTS is rather different in that almost all of their song and album titles seem to be in English first. I don't see where they have a Korean title for a song that would need to be listed as "romanization (kanji/hangul, translation)" But you can check some of the other Japanese artists albums and see how they fare. Prosperosity has reviewed a lot of Japanese discographies so they can help with favored table formats. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the standard discography style instead of the multitude of versions used on seiyu pages. There are many aspects that I think are hard to justify, such as over-emphasising ordinals for singles (does it really matter if a single is the 34th?) or a column for catalogue, when in 2021 a release might not even have one (like a digital single) or might have 7 (especially idol group singles).

For titles, you can generally follow WP:MJ. If a title includes words based on a non-Japanese language, this romanisation is prioritised (and if the work has a common English title, this is the preferred version too). Typically I list Japanese-language titles in a discography like this: "Single Title" ([Kanji title], pronunciation, "Translation"). I typically don't use both the pronunciation and translation fields since it takes up a lot of space, and often doesn't add a lot. Here is what I'd personally do for Maaya Uchida's first three singles:

List of singles, with selected chart positions

Title	Year	Peak chart positions		Album
		JPN Oricon [1]	JPN Hot [2]
"Sōshō Innocence" (創傷イノセンス, "Wound Innocence")	2014	14	17	Penki
"Gimme! Revolution" (ギミー!レボリューション, Gimī! Reboryūshon)		12	18
"Karappo Capsule" (からっぽカプセル, "Empty Capsule")	2015	14	31

The major differences for a seiyu discography that I can think of are the image songs and how important it is when a single is chosen as an anime OP/ED/insert song. I'd personally put the image songs in their own separate table (like we do for "promotional singles" in typical discographies) and possibly add a row with the information about what anime the song was a theme song for. A good example that I can think of that could be used as a template for seiyu pages is Mami Kawada discography (although if I made this today I'd remove sales and replace this with her RIAJ certifications, if she has any currently). --Prosperosity (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: This was mainly as a notification to help fix discographies. I have tried doing so with Shouta Aoi discography and Junta Terashima, but there are many more articles that don't follow the format and do things such as list the catalog number. I remember trying to fix up Rei Yasuda but an editor continued to insist putting the release month and day as well as the tie-in (also stating that digital singles deserve its own category). lullabying (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Print Newspaper reviews

I have a newspapers dot com account, and I'm willing to look up any newspaper sources. The most useful would be film reviews, and if it was screened in America it would have gotten at least some reviews. You can find professional film reviewers reviewing some pretty obscure anime film and OVA if it was screened. Some of these reviews are archived online but many are not.

For example, I recently looked up reviews of the obscure film Golgo 13: The Professional and found 8 reviews from mainstream print newspapers that were mostly negative. But then I looked up Project A-Ko, since it was a much more well known film, and I could only find one review because apparently it wasn't given a release in American theaters. So whether the film was widely reviewed or not is a bit of a crapshoot, and depends on whether it was released in theaters, not it's quality or prominence. Obscure OVA or films might get tons of reviews, and a very major important film might not get a single one.

Other reviews I've searched for:

• Macross 2: Lover's Again
• Cowboy Bebop: The Movie
• Legend of Overfiend

Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo

Hi. I've ended up doing extensive expansions and edits on three articles: the main article, the episode list, and the music article (the latter still needs work on its reception). I'm planning to take them to GA, FL and GA respectively. I haven't done that many projects in the anime space, and this turned into something much larger than planned, so I'd really appreciate extra eyes from the project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

They look good. In case anybody nominates it we could exchange reviews as I recently nominated Jujutsu Kaisen 0.Tintor2 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

About the anime television series categories

Recently, someone did a speedy to the Anime television series categories and changed them into "Anime television series debuts" without acknowledging that those categories were automatic and red links are appearing in the articles' categories section.SimonLagann (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox animanga for Template:Infobox animanga/Video to be updated with the renamed categories. Might as well tag User:Goszei since they're the recent editor of the template. Harushiga (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Doujinshi convention

Hi,

Does everyone agree with these changes?

Since September 2021, a Japanese IP address has been trying to push their POV that dōjinshi conventions should not be called "conventions" in English (see Talk:Doujinshi convention and [16][17] [18]).

The discussion is going on here.

PS: their other edits ([19][20]) might be worth a check. --Thibaut (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently everyone seem to agree with these changes, duly noted.

About the same article, the IP made a new proposal: Talk:Doujinshi convention#"How it works" section, your input would be appreciated. Thibaut (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sugoi Lite+ (Twitter)

Hello. I need to help. Some of anime fans (probably outside Wikipedia) prefers Sugoi Lite, that comes from Twitter, as the only sources they trusted and even claimed to be "actual" news. Although it's full of leaks that mostly real. I want to ask, is it a reliable sources if someone (I worried this is happening) added it on articles that related to anime (mostly on Light Novel adaptations)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CricketXP (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CricketXP: No, we cannot use anonymous leakers on social media as sources of information, even if their leaks tend to be real. Wait until the information is confirmed and is reported on by established outlets with editorial staff. There's some information on this here: Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Alexandra^IDV 14:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on English voice actor notability

Please help participate in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Biography#Notability for English dub voice actors AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on peer review of Doraemon

Hi there, fellow Wikipedians! I have put Doraemon on peer review pre-FAC here, but it's not getting much attention for two weeks, so I'm asking for your help. Any input will be appreciated. Thanks, Thuyhung2112 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Astolfo

I made Draft:Astolfo (Fate/Apocrypha character) and I've been working on it, but I'm struggling to find enough sources to demonstrate notability. To me it seems very clear that Astolfo is notable, but I'm wondering whether that just because of my bias as an LBGT anime fan, or whether he would genuinely be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. What are your thoughts and what advice do you have on finding sources for this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You would need articles/editorials from news sources that review and assess Astolfo's role, character, and/or popularity in the franchise. Good articles for fictional characters include Shinji Ikari, Rei Ayanami, Asuka Langley Soryu, Kaworu Nagisa, and Gendo Ikari. Tintor2 also works on articles for fictional characters frequently so you can look at his works. lullabying (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking the Fate Wiki. They tend to have creation sources for some characters.Tintor2 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Revising Nana

I may do a copy-edit of Nana (manga) soon, but one thing I would like to ask is what name should be used for Nana Komatsu (Hachi)? Viz's official summaries start out with using "Nana K." but eventually resorts to her nickname, "Hachi." In Japanese media, Nana Osaki and Nana Komatsu have different characters for their first names, so they're just "Nana" and "Nana." lullabying (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Hachi" might be fine as long as it's established in the article, considering Viz's usage of it. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Viz uses Hachi for volumes 8-17, which is like most of the English manga series. If you use it for before volume 8, you should probably explain first use at the appropriate volume. You can also opt to use their last names Komatsu and Osaki, although that might get confusing regarding the other characters on using their last names as well. Nana O. is okay to use if everyone's going by first names. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Doraemon (second request for PR)

The peer review for Doraemon has received little attention so far (it's been over a month), so I'm asking for your assistance. Every comment will be appreciated, as usual. Thanks, Thuyhung2112 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime Triple Crown

Would anyone be interested in the creation of a WikiProject Anime Triple Crown? The idea is that this award would go to anyone who have been responsible for creating at least one anime/manga related FC, GA and DYK?. There are already a few such Triple Crowns for particular WikiProjects so I thought it would be good to add one for us. I've already designed a custom image for it, but if anyone can design a better one, feel free. ISD (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that will attract that many more participants. We could use a lot of help in getting articles to B and higher. Do you think that will motivate more GA attempts? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It might be of help. ISD (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It might also help encourage people to take articles to FA, which this project has very few of. AryKun (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ISD, any update on this? AryKun (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I was wanting to here more opinions on this before I went ahead with it. ISD (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it isn't really a high maintenance kind of thing for the Wikiproject, so you might as well go ahead. AryKun (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's now created. ISD (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Anime Triple Crown created

For those who have not been following, a anime and manga triple crown award has now been made, which is achieved by creating at least one anime and/or manga-related DYK, GA and FC - FC covers articles, lists, images etc. You can nominate yourself by going to Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations. Good luck. ISD (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Confusion on writing protagonist roles

Is it allowed to wrote roles or not? Because some anime pages have the roles like, “Luffy is the main protagonist”, etc., but some other’s don’t. It isn’t consistent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROTAGONIST

^ Is the rule for films and movies, it should be applied here too? Kai7176 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Main protagonist sounds redundant. Protagonist alone already adresses the focus of the character. There is also main character Tintor2 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes i understand that sounds fine too, i agree it sounds redundant. But I am asking whether the roles are allowed in synopsis and character pages or not Kai7176 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is allowed, don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. The inconsistency is 100% due to different authors/editors going around writing articles differently and that no actual method of description is enforced (which it shouldn't be imo). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The page I linked above is for films where the rule is that it shouldn’t be there. That’s why im confused. Kai7176 (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This depends on where the word is used. If it's for a character single article, then it gives context to its importance in the work. If it's from a list of characters, then it is redundant since there are already sections that indicate who the main characters (protagonists) are. WP:PROTAGONIST is in the context of a cast list, and says "Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Managing Funimation licenses

So, for those unaware, Funimation and Crunchyroll have been announced to be merging, and all the titles on Funimation will be moved to Crunchyroll. However, what will happen to the articles for all the series that Funimation licensed? Should we change them all to Crunchyroll or perhaps add a note that they're now on Crunchyroll? Link20XX (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Does no one have an opinion on this? I have already seen some anonymous users changing the licensee on Love After World Domination and Dragon Ball GT, so I think it best that this issue be discussed. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For upcoming shows, switching the licensee to Crunchyroll is probably the right call. However, the announcement also says this:

Moving forward, Funimation will only add new episodes of continuing series, which means Funimation users will want to move to a Crunchyroll account as soon as possible.

This ANN article says that Funimation (the streaming service) will continue "with no current end date", so do we add both of them as licensees for continuing series? Harushiga (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think every single Funimation series has been moved over to Crunchyroll yet, though. I know because there were some anime I wanted to watch recently and I looked for it on CR and it wasn't there, even though it was on Funimation. But, ultimately, all the titles on Funimation will be moved to Crunchyroll, and I would think that the licenses would change as a result of the merger. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! The ABB article linked by Harushiga states that "the "overwhelming majority" of [Funimation] titles will make it to Crunchyroll eventually", however not all of them. Thus, I would say it would be best to change the licensor for the series that have already been added to Crunchyroll (as listed here) as it would be WP:OR to assume that everything will be moved over. Link20XX (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Historyday01 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, since there seems to be no opposition to this approach, I will start working on it shortly. Link20XX (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This would only be for current licenses. For shows where they used to license it as Funimation but no longer hold it, then keep as it was, as with Pioneer / Geneon or ADV / Sentai. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Like I stated above, only series that were actually added to Crunchyroll (thus assuring that Funimation has the rights to the series) will be changed. Link20XX (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama

1992 Indian-Japanese co-production, which is finally receiving a 4K remaster. Looking to see if anyone can find anymore reviews, possibly in anime magazines or film trade publications. I found two critical reviews in Variety from 1993 and 2001, which is when it was screened in cinemas in America. Presumably there's more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super manga count towards original Dragon Ball manga? Discussion Revisited?

I apologize if this isn't the way to reopen discussion for this topic as I don't edit on Wikipedia as frequently as I used to. I tried discussing this on the talk page for List of manga series by volume count but I don't think anybody checked that talk page in over a year.

Here's the original discussion:

Since the original Dragon Ball manga is followed up with the Dragon Ball Super manga somewhat canonically, given the fact that its anime counterpart shares the same plot outline, but both the manga and the anime each have their own interpretations of the events featured in that same plot outline, would the Super manga's ongoing number of volumes add to the original manga's completed set of volumes? Or does it not count because Toyotaro is the author and illustrator, instead of Akira Toriyama like in the original?

Uuruuseiyo (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC) @Uuruuseiyo: I would say per separated but most importantly because of how it is marketed. For example, Shaman King Flowers and Super Star have the same main characters and plot but were split due to Hiroyuki Takei's change of publisher.Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't count it, no. It's a narrative sequel in both anime and manga versions, but that's where the similarity ends. Haleth (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Super are two different series, with their own respective titles (not counting the Viz Media edition, which separated the former in "Dragon Ball" and "Dragon Ball Z"). The Dragon Ball case is not like the Kinnikuman case, for example, which continued its publication 24 year later and its volumes follow the numeration of the first run. IMO the DBS volumes shouldn't be counted as DB volumes. - Xexerss (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose but JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Parts 7 & 8 (possibly Part 9 if JOJOLANDS is explicitly confirmed as the next part as Hirohiko Araki only stated that his next work is JOJOLANDS, which may end up being a spinoff of JoJo or something else entirely) that were serialized on Ultra Jump instead of Weekly Shonen Jump ended up not continuing off of the overall numbering of all the volumes complied so far and Part 6 Stone Ocean also reset the volume count too but at least the overall volume count was in parenthesis next to that part's own volume count. Maybe because of the fact Toriyama is only contributing to the Super manga with the plot outlines drafted for the manga and not actually the one responsible for illustrating and writing everything else not found it the story manuscripts as Toyotaro takes credit for that role. Toriyama is more of a creative supervisor overseeing the plot development of Super, both anime and manga.

Uuruuseiyo (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I just want to know if there's anything to proceed further with this and a response to the last comment I posted months ago for this discussion Uuruuseiyo (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit messy, but Super manga and anime are different enough. Super Manga is not officially in-canon with the previous manga/anime series, and it is not until those stories are turned into anime that it's in continuity. Super is also written by someone else, with only Toriyama superivsing it. It's its own thing. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Super manga would only be included in the overall volume count for the original Dragon Ball manga (Z portion included) if Toriyama was still the author and illustrator for the Super manga?

Wait, so the Galactic Patrol Prisoner Saga and Granolah the Survivor Saga from the Super manga are non-canon unless both sagas are animated for whenever the anime resumes production at some point? Uuruuseiyo (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

FAC for Kaze to Ki no Uta

I recently summitted Kaze to Ki no Uta as a featured article nominee. If anyone would be interested in reviewing the article at FAC and offering further suggestions to improve it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nominations alive!

The project became more active with nominations. I've just reviewed Samurai Champloo but there are still some articles that need review:

• Yuta Okkotsu
• Kaze to Ki no Uta (FAN)
• Josei manga
• The End of Evangelion

Posting this here like news in order to make any interested reviewer check this. I reviewed Samurai Champloo a bit late too. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

One Piece character

See Talk:List of One Piece characters#NPOV & Notability: Several Characters Need their Own Pages. A user wants to give most One Piece characters articles based on the series' popularity. I told him about the actual sources but he instead copypasted the sections into stub articles lacking any reception information. I reverted his edits and tried talking with him again. Please join in if possible.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing escalated. Please visit the talk page to stop it. I already commented like four times there and one in another user's talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The above user is currently engaged in an edit war, but the proposal is an interesting one which merits discussion. --Plumber (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Meiji Tokyo Renka

There's a discussion at Talk:Gekijōban Meiji Tokyo Renka: Yumihari no Serenade regarding renaming the articles Gekijōban Meiji Tokyo Renka: Yumihari no Serenade and Talk:Gekijōban Meiji Tokyo Renka: Hana Kagami no Fantasia. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Free!

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Free! (TV series)#Removal of information regarding including information in the lead. Your feedback is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Shirō Sasaki

Goody day, as pointed out on Talk:Shirō Sasaki, the anime producer was confused with another film producer and now the wiki falsely claims that the anime producer is deceased. If someone with more wiki expertise than me could correct this, that would be nice. 37.201.144.177 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Done Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone else needs to link them through Wikidata, though, as I keep getting an error. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed the Wikidata situation. Link20XX (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Shikkoku no Hana

I recently created Darker than Black: Shikkoku no Hana. While never released in English regions, I managed to create a reception section with sources from other countries. I'm still not sure if it's okay but I heard it was also released in Italy as "Darker than Black: Un fiore nero pece" but haven't been able to find reviews to expand it. If anybody finds a source I'll be grateful. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

So, I'm thinking about contributing a bit to the page Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga), and I have a few questions about what sources I can use. Basically, I could add details about the plot, and it would be understood that I'm citing the manga itself, right? Like, for example, MOS:BOOKPLOT mentions that "Even articles with the strictest adherence to a real-world perspective still source the original work." What about describing characters' personalities, and the differences between their personalities in the anime and the manga? Would that stray into the realm of interpretation, which is OR unless I'm citing secondary sources?

Also, the Evangelion manga includes some supplementary commentary by Carl Gustav Horn. Could I cite that as a secondary source? Or would it not be considered suitable since it's like affiliated with (included inside) the manga inside? What about commentaries by people involved with the series included in the manga, would those be considered primary sources? And I'd just cite the supplementary materials like they're chapters of the manga book, right? Like I'd use a {{Cite book}} template, with "chapter" being the name of the commentary or whatever? Thanks in advance. Erinius (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, I think that just describing the character's personality is fine if just sourced to the manga. That being said, differences between the anime and manga would need a secondary source to verify them. As for the commentary, I would say that is fine to be cited as a primary source since it was included in the book. Citing it with cite book would be fine in my opinion. Link20XX (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Erinius (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist parameters

Hey, everyone, this is a heads-up that parameters for Template:Infobox musical artist recently got changed, particularly the "associated acts" parameter, which has now been divided to "current_member_of", "past_member_of", "spinoff_of", and "spinoffs." This will be pertinent for anime song bands or voice actor idol groups. lullabying (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Japanese voice actors of foreign descent

Regarding List of Japanese voice actors of foreign descent, I attempted to work on expanding the list. I could work in information of how the voice actor boom of the late 2000s affected industry growth and probably tangentially relate to mixed Japanese people working in the industry. However, an issue I've been running into is that the article creator intended this as a list of voice actors of non-Japanese ethnic descent and also intended on excluding ethnic Japanese voice actors born/raised in a different country. What makes non-Japanese ethnic descent notable (if any) and should we expand it to include ethnic Japanese voice actors who were raised in other countries? lullabying (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think including Japanese people raised in a different country could potentially be worth adding, but the issue that comes to mind is the title of the article and what it denotes-- so it's like, I had a friend once whose parents were in the US military, and he was born in Japan due to them being stationed there, but is he now of foreign descent due to being in Japan? Probably not. Now, he wasn't raised there, but imagine if he was-- at that point, would he be worth including in a list like this due to being somewhat culturally disconnected from the land that his 'ethnicity' comes from? Perhaps. In other words, in order to expand on this idea, I think it would be wise to remove 'foreign descent' from the article, as such cases don't have to do with non-Japanese lineage or ethnicity. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the article should be renamed or change its scope, because the current scope in itself is not notable. Semantics-wise it also doesn't make sense because several "non-Japanese" voice actors are born with Japanese nationality, while others appear in anime series but don't have permanent Japanese citizenship. For example, Liyuu is not Japanese (and there's no note of her having Japanese citizenship) but she's an active voice actress and performer in Japan. Sally Amaki and Tetsuya Kakihara were neither born nor raised in Japan, but they "don't count" because both are ethnically Japanese. Is the non-Japanese ethnicity even notable to mention? Why are diaspora removed from the scope? lullabying (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an issue to be had with the article's creator. I'm not supportive of the way they created it, and unless they have good reason to keep it that way, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed to fit a more broad and 'notable' scope. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I'll see if I can change the scope. In the worst case I may nominate it for deletion. lullabying (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#category:Anime and manga articles with missing B-Class checklists

I've been trying to get some of the WP:ANIME B-class checklists completed, and realized I needed a new template parameter for it [21], which I've since tested in the sandbox[22]. Kindly provide input at the above talk page. G.A.S^talk 09:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of the "notable_works" parameter in the infobox

I notice that there is no guideline on what to include in this parameter, causing Japanese voice actors' articles to have a long list in their infoboxes (like Nobunaga Shimazaki, which has 17 notable works). Template:Infobox person only has a vague explanation of how this parameter is being described. I have a suggestion to only include a notable work in this parameter if they have won an award for it. Centcom08 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I would restrict the "notable_works" parameter that much. That being said, 17 is way too many roles in the infobox (in my opinion it should be no more than 5). As for which five to list, that should be decided on a case-by-case basis; in any case, the roles chosen should be significant to their career and/or notability. Link20XX (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Link20XX I agree with you on limiting the list to five (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). On the matter of what to list, yeah I also agree with you on a case-by-case basis. For now, I think we can agree on the five-limit list in the parameter and editors can do a discussion in an article in question to know what to list. Centcom08 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should limit "notable works" as well. A good criteria to limit it would maybe be for leading roles that the voice actor has won an award for, or characters that have their own Wikipedia articles (as it shows the character's notability). lullabying (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lullabying I agree with you. Editors can still initiate a discussion in an article in question if a voice actor, for example, has won more than five awards from different works or other circumstances. At the end of the day, we have established groundwork on how to use this parameter better with your and Link20XX's suggestions. That is a good start. Centcom08 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Manga photo

Hello. Can someone tell me why when putting manga cover images, for most you chose first volume cover like "Golgo 13", "Dragon ball" or "naruto", but for some you chose others like "One piece" which is 61, "detective conan" which is 36 or "Oishinbo" which is 102? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I answered your question above; please don't spam. Link20XX (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello. Can someone tell me why when putting manga cover images, for most you chose first volume cover like "Golgo 13", "Dragon ball" or "naruto", but for some you chose others like "One piece" which is 61, "detective conan" which is 36 or "Oishinbo" which is 102? Wolfp5 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Manga cover images are generally the first image because for many series that provides the best visual identification in one image. That being said, for long-running series like One Piece or Oishinbo, many of the major characters aren't introduced until later volumes. In these cases, the later volumes may provide better visual identification because they will most likely contain more of the major characters. As for Case Closed, that image is used over the image for the first volume because the story arc in that volume has an article. So, this image is used to provide visual identification for that story arc. Since free use images should be kept to a minimum, that image is also reused as the main image. Most of the time, one of these two cases is the reason the first volumes cover is not the image. Link20XX (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

When I advised Wolfp5 to ask here, this was the kind of reply I was hoping for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Manga Plus licenses in the infobox

So, for the series that are only published in English via Manga Plus (Diamond in the Rough (manga), Excuse Me Dentist, It's Touching Me!, Hokkaido Gals Are Super Adorable!, Marriagetoxin, Ron Kamonohashi, Soloist in a Cage, Takopi's Original Sin, Tis Time for Torture, Princess, and Oshi no Ko), I notice that none of them display Manga Plus as an English licensor, which is different than every other official English publisher; even digital only publishers like Comikey are listed in the infobox. So, for the series that Manga Plus is the only official English publisher, should we add them to the infobox, and if so, how? Link20XX (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Manga Plus is owned by Shueisha, I suppose that we could list Shueisha as the English publisher if X series is published in English on the platform, and we could list Manga Plus as the English magazine, just like series that have Weekly Shonen Jump as the English magazine. I don't know, however, if in case that series like Oshi no Ko or Takopi's Original Sin eventually be acquired by publishers like Viz Media or Seven Seas Entertainment, Shueisha (and Manga Plus) should be removed from the infobox as English licensor or kept as well. Xexerss (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite that it's very likely that many of them will eventually be acquired by another publisher (i.e. Viz Media), it is still a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume that they will be acquired, so that shouldn't prevent Manga Plus from being in the infobox. As for removing it when other publishers acquire it, I would say that makes sense since almost every series in Weekly Shōnen Jump is published by both Viz Media and Manga Plus, yet they only lists the former in the infobox. Anyway, your method of putting Shueisha as the English publisher and Manga Plus as the magazine does make sense and I have no opposition to that idea for the above titles. Link20XX (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Link20XX Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Manga Plus a webcomic like Comic Fuz (since they are both publishing online and through an app and are not available in print)? I suggested at Template talk:Infobox animanga#Suggesting a parameter for webcomics to include a parameter for webcomics where we can place the likes of Manga Plus and Comic Fuz instead on the "magazine" parameter (in your case, an addition of "English webcomic" parameter). What do you think? Centcom08 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that is necessary; many of these big manga websites are getting to the point where they could be considered an online magazine. Link20XX (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Music article

After finding that the film Jujutsu Kaisen 0 (film) had too much commentary about its main theme songs I created Ichizu/Sakayume. However, there appears to be a typo and I can't fix. Anybody who could fix this? Thanks. Tintor2 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What typo are you talking about? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sarcataclysmal: Nevermind. I meant the title after an accident. I went to technical moves from requested moves and now it is correctly titled like the actual CD is.Tintor2 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode lists and TOOSOON

So, I noticed a user just created List of Trigun Stampede episodes, even though the series has yet to air a single episode and does not plan to for at least 6 months. I think this certainly constitutes WP:TOOSOON, especially since List of Trigun episodes already exists. While there is no policy as to when to create an episode list split, I've seen 24 episodes (or 2 cours) been used as a precedent at AfD. Link20XX (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. We should wait until the series has some episodes effectively aired before creating an entire article. Currently, we just know that it will premiere in 2023, so yeah, this is too hasty. Xexerss (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Too soon for an article for sure. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Still I wonder what's the correct choice for title. Anime Expo had some commentaries about the making of this anime to the point there might be room for a production section.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to notice this issue when it comes to anime, but not other animated series, with people creating lists of episodes even when it is less than 24. Link20XX, I have to differ when it comes to "no policy as to when to create an episode list split" as I'd argue that MOS:TVSPLIT is an effective policy, but doesn't give an exact number except to say that if an episode list is less than 15 episodes, it can't be split, but if it is more than that, it should be split, from what I understand. Article splitting (television) may also give some guidance on this as well, even though that is only an essay.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox animanga#"Creator" parameter is not really applicable

The "created by" parameter in Template:Infobox animanga is frequently not used due to its redundancy in many contexts in which the template is employed, and doesn't really apply to the context of an anime series most of the time as most anime do not have a showrunner in the same sense that television produced in the US and UK often does. I've created a talk page discussion at the above link detailing the problem with this term, more appropriate and oft-used terms in English-translated credits of anime series, and proposals for revised data fields in this template based on said terms. Input on this discussion would be appreciated. Joyce-stick (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Crunchyroll#Fixing the Crunchyroll/Funimation article situation

 Courtesy link: Talk:Crunchyroll § Fixing the Crunchyroll/Funimation article situation
The Crunchyroll article has been seen to currently lack focus, as it has been edited to inappropriately conflate Crunchyroll (the streaming service), Crunchyroll, LLC (formerly Funimation), and Crunchyroll, Inc (LLC's subsidiary, currently operating the streaming service). A discussion is taking place at the above link; more participation for a more thorough consensus would be ideal. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

'Promotion' section

I noticed that @Hijk910: has been adding a 'Promotion' section to some articles. Although I'm not necessarily against this, since the articles follow the standard form dictated by WP:MOS-AM (with reasonable variations from case to case), I'm not sure if it's warranted to include a section of this type, when the content (from what I see) could be perfectly placed somewhere in the 'Media' section or an 'Other media' subsection perhaps. Any idea about this? Xexerss (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• The arrangement like Frieren#Publication looks fine to me. I prefer not to put it in an 'Other media' section. By the way, I have a special case that I don't know how to handle: how about Chitose Is in the Ramune Bottle? It seems not something to be put in the 'Media' section. -Hijk910 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Hijk910: To me it would be perfectly fine to include that kind of content in an 'Other media' or 'Related media' section. In the 'Chitose' case, since the content is precisely about a media campaign, it does make sense to include it in a subsection like that. It think that an 'Other' or 'Related media' section is useful to include all kind of miscellaneous media that is not an adaptation like manga, anime, films, video games or similar, considering that the term implies the means of communicating the work to the public. Xexerss (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is pop-culture tourism considered as a kind of media? -Hijk910 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Hijk910: The campaign collaboration to promote the activity at least it is. Xexerss (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  One of the reasons I don't know how to handle it is that pop-culture tourism normally is not for promoting the work itself but the location. -Hijk910 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please don't ping me btw. I will check the watchlist from time to time. -Hijk910 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the content was added to the article of the own work, I don't see the issue. The work is being used to promote something. I don't think the 'Media' section necessarily must have the own work as the main attraction as long as is it involved in some way. Xexerss (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Like this? -Hijk910 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would add the content in a different section, like the Case Closed, Bleach (manga) or YuYu Hakusho articles, but I guess that way is fine too. Xexerss (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment at shōnen manga

Input is requested from editors over a dispute regarding a definition of the age range of shōnen manga. Comments can be provided on the article's talk page. Morgan695 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Naming of Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters

I thought that the guidelines were to generally use the English title of an anime. Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!_Duel_Monsters/Archive_1#Article_Title reflects the Japanese title, while both the U.S. and Singapore English dubs just call it Yu-Gi-Oh!. The last discussion was at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!_Duel_Monsters/Archive_1#Article_Title but it didn't seem to have a resolution. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think calling it Duel Monsters is as decent a way as any to disambiguate it from the page on the franchise as a whole. We could call it Yu-Gi-Oh! (anime) but that wouldn't be better or worse. That being said, I have no real stake in it being called one way or the other, and if community consensus is to call it Yu-Gi-Oh! (anime) or Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 anime series) or the like, then I've no intent to oppose such a decision. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? it would have to be renamed Yu-Gi-Oh! (TV series) or Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series). lullabying (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) would be the best option; I don't think I've ever seen the series referred to as "Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters" in English common use. Morgan695 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I second the idea of "2000 TV series" for the reason Morgan stated. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"People" subcategory at Template:Anime and manga

I've started a discussion regarding bloat in the "People" section of Template:Anime and manga on the template's talk page, and would welcome additional thoughts/opinions on the matter. Morgan695 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tesshō Genda#Requested move 12 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tesshō Genda#Requested move 12 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for 80s/90s OVAs/films

Hello, thought this might be a good place to ask this. I'm looking to add some older OVAs and films to Sanrio related articles (examples: [23][24]) but I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for just basic info like original release year. I looked at WP:A&M/RS but the only source I found that had anything was oricon, and they just listed release year of DVD re-releases, not the original releases. Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Siawase (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Bunch of divisions

I just flicked through multiple articles of animation studio, and found the contents in the infoboxes are problematic, specifically the Division parameter. (e.g. A-1 Pictures, CloverWorks, J.C.Staff, White Fox, etc.) Something like Animation Department or Art Department is a Division??? I would say Siemens Industry Software is the division of Siemens AG, but I would not say Siemens Industry Software Tech Office is the division of Siemens Industry Software. Such department is indeed under its organization and never is the division. Department is department. Just because a credit at the ending of a particular TV series does not assure such position.

It would be very appreciate if a third user can comment on this. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing potentially ambiguous words from a Lycoris Recoil article

I ask users to consider and help resolve the conflict that has arisen in the Lycoris Recoil article. Since, given the nature of the show, it is a potential target for various shipping and queer speculations, I created a thread asking for a more detailed description of such things, especially if they come from publications with a well-known leftist reputation like ANN. At the same time, user Joyce-stick has accused me of a conflict of interest, as removing passages that "may hint at queer-coded interpretations" of the show allegedly violates NPOV and that by asking to be more considerate of the neutral style I am allegedly arguing about ships. I found this rather strange, because firstly, I myself literally urge to follow a neutral, potentially speculative topic, and secondly, to me personally, this nature of the complaints seems extremely strange, since the NPOV rules obviously prohibit any hint of "possible interpretations" other than quoting the opinion of authoritative sources about it. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

...But the prior revision of the plot summaries didn't imply any queer relationship in the first place. It said,

"Takina decides to return to the DA to help Chisato, and arranges for a day off to be with her. After their date, she thanks Takina..."

Which, if you've seen the episode, is a fairly neutral description of what happened? Friends can go on dates. And your change of it to

"Takina decides to return to the DA to help Chisato, and arranges for a day off to spend together her possibly last day with her. After their walk through the same places as last time..."

Is just confusingly and poorly written, and overcomplicates the text in the aim of removing any hint of lesbian coding? But, whatever, I changed it to,

"arranges for a day off to spend time with her. After visiting the park,"

Which should be perfectly neutral and fine, and hopefully satisfy your "no homo" demands.

Anyway, uh, ANN isn't inherently leftist? I have not heard anything about them being leftist. Them sometimes having leftists as contributors does not make them leftist. I'll bite that Anime Feminist is arguably a liberal-leaning publication, but they've not made any grave factual errors that would disqualify them from being used as a source? Again, both are listed as reliable sources by the WikiProject.

Anyway, your edit history strongly suggests you're here to push an anti-yuri shipping POV, which is counter to the site's purposes. I believe you're being uncivil and unconstructive. But I'm not going to go out of my way to challenge you on this, mainly cause I don't feel like it. I made a compromise edit; hopefully that's good enough and we can get on with our day. Joyce-stick (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

With the same logic, I can state that as a highly engaged in the LGBTQ topics user and openly proclaiming your love for yuri, you in turn have a pro-yuri shipping POV. Such speculations on motives and attempts to discuss edits based on this will not bring anything useful and will only make the dispute even deeper and more confusing. As well as your attempts to argue with my definition of resources instead of discussing why I brought it up (I also highly doubt that a non-left resource ever allowed their reviewer to give a show a low rating based on "whether you support ACAB or not") or abusing rule references, implying that I have to constantly refute various accusations instead of arguing on the merits. If grammar is your only concern, then just help fix it. But if your goal is to use the article to promote different interpretations and you're being openly passive-aggressive towards those who disagree, then I'm sorry, this is a gross conflict of interest and a violation of NPOV. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I came off as openly passive aggressive, that was not my intention. If you have a problem with the article content you can discuss it with other editors. I intend to ignore any further outcome of this discussion and remove the article from my watchlist for the time being; this isn't worth the drama to me. Cheers. Joyce-stick (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first (and I don't think it will be the last) article of this kind, so all I wanted was for potentially hot topics to be treated more carefully. Past attempts to add LGBTQ categories to the article without any reasoning or your claims that by removing ambiguous words I supposedly "remove hints of queer interpretation from the article" only confirm this. But I'm not going to remove any sources (I suggested to be more attentive to these sources, not to delete them) or opinions that contradict mine, so you can be calm.Solaire the knight (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to butt in, I heard the light novel implies (heavily?) that Takina has a (romantic, presumably) crush on Chisato. I haven't verified that. I don't know if that clears the bar set by the text at the top of Category:LGBT speculative fiction television series, but I think a safe assumption is no. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This LN was never promoted as yuri or romance and even the japanese wikipedia doesn't contain anything about it, although the japanese are pretty quick about it. This LN is a SoL spin-off and mostly contains pure cute girl doing cute thigs fanservice. Even if one takes it seriously, I don't think the traditional fanboy "heavenly implied" can be any sort of authoritative opinion. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(As one of the two users who was initially involved in this dispute) I'd have to know what the text says to be certain, but I'm assuming the same. The only appropriate place at this time to acknowledge the queer subtext of the show is in the "Reception" section of the article, where it may be stated that it is discussed by reviewers (which it is). I am of the opinion however that this does not mean we need to set about removing any phrasing from the plot summary that anyone could possibly see as implying that the protagonists have romantic interest in each other. I cannot imagine this degree of scrutiny would come towards any article on a similar fictional work featuring such ambiguous tensions between a pair of of the opposite sex.

Articles about hetero romance usually do not include any space for speculation and interpretation. Moreover, we describe things in a neutral way, as they are mentioned in authoritative sources. We are not critics or writers of the show, we should not care how people may or will interpret it. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That being said, last I checked the article in its current state was just fine, and while I think the word changes were unnecessary, I also don't think they're worth disputing or discussing further. It's a month out from this, so I'd say it's best to just leave the status quo as is unless further information arises such as an explicit depiction of a relationship or any Word of God suggesting such. As for myself, I've refrained from editing the article for the time being to avoid stoking any further conflict and plan to continue doing so. It's probably safe to say everyone else involved has moved on as well. silvia ASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I already commented onTalk:Lycoris Recoil, and I do agree that any interpretations of gender or sexual identity should be limited to the reception section only and separate from the main body of the article unless there is a statement from the creators mentioning such. With that said, I am concerned about Solaire the knight's edits. Not only is this editor using wording that invalidates the reviewers' interpretations of the characters being queer (seen in this edit here where Solaire is insistent on keeping the text as "possible queer subtext" when the Reception section is all about interpretation anyway) but Solaire was also involved in a dispute regarding List of lesbian characters in anime that resulted in one of the editors quitting on contributing to this article. lullabying (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

First, don't try to use my personality or past controversy as an argument in this discussion. Secondly, that article was a huge dump, at least a third of the content of which was original research, such as erroneous information, the use of non-authoritative sources, or just your own speculation. For example, the old version contained an apparently false statement that Kumiko and Reina from Euphonium are a romantic couple based on an old review of the first season of the anime. And the user's refusal, among other things, was caused by the rejection of the system of rules, according to which they could not write their own interpretations in situations where there were no copyright statements. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm still kind of seeing based on your edits and perception about Anime News Network in general that there's a particular push to invalidate certain interpretations. I think it's justifiable on the main body of the article, but like I said, for something like the Reception section, which is supposed to contain opinions and interpretations anyway, there's an extra effort/scrutiny insisting that the reviewers' point of view is invalid. I think the best approach is to rewrite the sentence. lullabying (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am opposed to speculation and the depiction of shiping as actual content, which is one of the things this resource is notorious for. Other than that, I don't have any problems with yuri, if that's what you mean. And I have repeatedly said that I am not going to delete or censor any reviews just because I do not agree with some interpretation or its possibility. I even added to some pages about the shows that I knew about. As I said on the talk page, I'm not opposed to reformulation, the issue of form is not an issue. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Jujutsu Kaisen 0 (film) English actors

So after expanding Jujutsu Kaisen 0 (film) I was confused about where to put the comments from the English voice actors since this pretty much the first time I find so many interviews with English actors from a Japanese film. Should they be placed alongside the Japanese actors in Jujutsu_Kaisen_0_(film)#Casting? Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How about creating a separate section about the progress of work on localization and leaving quotes that interest you, etc.? The franchise is quite popular, so if you have a lot of material, it will be really interesting and complement the article well, in my opinion.Solaire the knight (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How notable does an anime or manga need to be to be added?

Can only manga that have anime adaptations be added? And for anime, how much of an audience do they need to have in order to be included? RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's all simply about our General notability guidelines. Real facts about an anime or manga are not relevant for its notability in the context of Wikipedia. What matters is whether the work has been subject to independently written reliable sources, from established publications of recognized experts in the field. What qualifies for such publications can vary, but magazines are generally pretty great for example. Various websites with proper editorial control are also considered reliable sources. If such magazines or websites write about a manga, you can make an article about that manga! Preferably using those sources to cite all the information in said article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Would something like the Anime News Network be notable? RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  They are a good source but they can't be the only source you'd use, because then it would not qualify as WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  So as long as I have at least 3-4 distinct sources for an anime or manga, then it qualifies? RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Final question, am I allowed to use anime databases (MyAnimeList, AniList, etc.) as sources or do they have to be backed up by another source? I assume it's fine to use them as a source but it can't be what a majority of the article is sourced from. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  For your first question, GNG and WP:NBOOK just state "multiple", so two is sufficient, though having three or four good sources is good practice. For your second question, most databases are not reliable as they are user-generated (see WP:ANIME/ORS). Link20XX (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can think of a few examples. 1. If the work wins a notable award (e.g. Frieren - the 14th Manga Taishō), it will be notable enough even if it doesn't receive an anime adaption. 2. If it is controversial to a certain extent (e.g. Cheat Slayer), it will be notable enough to have an article. -Hijk910 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Controversy is measured in coverage by reliable sources, I would say. Awards are a good type of source to establish notability. You still can't really write an article about something if no independent party has written about it, though. There would be nothing to write except "x won y in 20zz" if all you have is a single award :p -- But that situation is rare anyway. There's usually plenty written about award-winners. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sure it is. My reply is for the question "Can only manga that have anime adaptations be added?". -Hijk910 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

As other users have stated, it depends on how much coverage they get on reliable sources (see WP:ANIME/RS for helpful sources). I've written articles about manga that didn't get anime or live-action adaptations, such as Awkward Silence, Therapy Game, Stardust Wink, Idol Dreams, and Neko to Watashi no Kinyōbi. lullabying (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources in that list and it looks like I'm going to have to learn some Japanese or at least the correct Googling skills if I want to work on smaller manga then. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Japanese sources definitely will help. Oricon, Animate News, and Natalie are good sources I use frequently. I also worked on It's All About the Looks which had literally no English-language coverage despite having a live-action television adaptation. lullabying (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Criteria for separate "Character" pages

I came across a short article about Yumeria, which has both the episode summaries and character summaries on separate equally small pages. What is the criteria for splitting off pages like this? I would ask the editr who did it but they have retired. 50.35.82.58 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS-AM, it is recommended when the character section grows too long, but that alone is not enough, the list should have references as well, especially secondary or tertiary for the voice actors or actors (if the series has received an adaptation) or primary for description (if required). Regarding the article that you mentioned (this), I have no idea why it still exists and has not been merged yet, it definitely doesn't warrant a split, same goes for this other one. Xexerss (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

May I take a crack at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.82.58 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on List of KochiKame characters

Could someone familiar with the anime and manga series KochiKame: Tokyo Beat Cops please take a look at List of KochiKame characters? I was doing some gnomish terminology clean-up, and came across the entry on the list for Ai Asato. The text was changed in 2020 to its current state, but when comparing the text before and after it looks possibly like vandalism. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the series to determine accurately whether or not it is, I suspect it is as I've seen similar vandalism on works I am familiar with. However if it is not, I also don't know enough to try and re-write it in a more neutral and sensitive way. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I just looked on the Japanese Wikipedia page and it says the same thing; the Pixiv encyclopedia article states that she was assigned male at birth but changed her sexual characteristics to female through magic. I hope that answers your question. lullabying (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That helps with some of it, but are the sentences Initially Ryotsu wanted to marry Maria desperately but started to like her more like a female best friend after knowing her past. Since Maria is no more a man rather a pre-op transwoman , she is occasionally reminded by Ryotsu that she is a man accurate? This seems somewhat typical of vandalism I've seen in other articles about trans characters. The jawiki article doesn't mention anything about specific transition steps (at least via machine translation, I don't read Japanese unfortunately), so I'm also unsure about the sentence while she remained a transgender in the anime who had undergone hormone replacement therapy and breast augmentation surgery. She is yet to undergone sex-reassignment surgery by removing her male genital for becoming a legit woman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC for {{Infobox animanga}}

Hi,

I have started an RfC at Template talk:Infobox animanga#RfC for removal of "licensee" and "network_en" parameters, concerning specific parameters of the animanga infobox. Input from members here is sought.

Thanks.

Gotitbro (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Narrative in episode summaries or plot

While working on Tekken: Bloodline, I ended with the doubt about whether or not the plot of the story should be given in the plot section or the episode list. I already had this same issue with Akudama Drive but I never thought of how to solve it. Still, Bloodline only has six episodes with no next season announced yet. Same when I wrote Darker than Black: Gaiden which only has 4 episodes. Any suggestion?Tintor2 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

AnimaniA magazine help

Hi! I have learned that the German magazine AnimaniA covered Crossplay Love: Otaku x Punk (known in German as Anziehend anders) in issue 3/2022. If anyone here in possession of the issue, and able to send me a scan/photo of the relevant page(s), I would be very grateful for your help. If you don't want to post the scan publicly, you can reach me through Special:EmailUser/Alexandra_IDV. Thanks! Alexandra^IDV 18:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Updating to let you all know that I got hold of the review through WP:REREQ.--Alexandra^IDV 11:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hunter × Hunter pronunciation

Request for comments on the Hunter × Hunter's talk page to reach a consensus about its pronunciation. Xexerss (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no debate to be had. This is a copyrighted work with a single correct pronunciation and we have both primary and secondary sources proving it. We do not need consensus to list the pronunciation. Any edits changing it should be reverted. Xfansd (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Xfansd: I agree with you and I also think is silly to continue with the discussion, but it seems that we still need to reach a consensus. I requested protection before, but the request was declined because, apparently, the user who keeps making the edits did not make "any vandalism". That's why I'm requesting more input. Xexerss (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Your Lie In April help

Help is needed over at Your Lie In April, some guy keeps making ridiculous edits, is extremely persistent. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the involved parties go to the dispute resolution board and find a third opinion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Got it. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Free image?

After creating Saitama (One-Punch Man), I found that One's article had this image. I'm not that of an expert but I think fictional characters count as nonfree images. Tintor2 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That image is a copyright violation; I tagged it for deletion. Link20XX (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I could not find any indication that the image of One (manga artist) is freely licensed either. Link20XX (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies

There's a discussion regarding the plot summary of Grave of the Fireflies at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot summary format. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Voice actor replacements

In anticipation of the replacement of a voice actor in a television series due to their retirement from the franchise, I would like to prepare to credit the new voice actor — which hasn't been announced — using Template:Voiced by. How would I do so? Otemaci 12:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming the VAs also portray the characters outside of the main anime series? If that's that case, you could just put a year range:

:{{voiced by|[[Tomori Kusunoki]]<ref name="PDP Cast" /> (2017–2023), [[ new voice actor here ]] (2023–present)|[[Laura Stahl]]<ref name="Dub"/>}} Harushiga (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, in addition, where would I put the explanation? Would I put it as a note or inside the character box itself? Otemaci 13:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You could add it under the "Music" section, since it's part of the history of the Nijigasaki group. Harushiga (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Megumin merge?

The article of Megumin was nominated for deleted and close with merge due to lack of content. While the reception section is quite notable, I really don't know a thing about the light novels to properly expand it as well as the prequel. Should the appearances section be expanded, do you think a merge could be avoided? I think the guideline was fork and the reception section is divided in different themes of appearances rather than abusing references. Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

anonymous manga artists?

Should we have a category for manga artists whose real name is unknown? There are quite a few: Kaiu Shirai, Gege Akutami, Tsugumi Ohba, Coolkyousinnjya, Nisio Isin, Naoko Hayashiba, Kian84 just to name a couple. I was thinking somethings along the lines of Category:Pseudonymous manga authors or Category:Anonymous manga writers or Category:Anonymous manga artists, you get the idea. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The majority of manga artists don't use their real name, so I don't think it's necessary. lullabying (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Placing a source in a draft I'm making

Hello! I'm the maker of Draft:Jolyne Cujoh and I found a source of Yugo Kanno discussing his struggles on creating Jolyne's theme. Is to put it alright to put it in her page as not only because I feel it's very important since Kanno is discussing of how her theme was made and the source I feel is correct, especially the fact Comic Book is linking the YouTube video, but also how the themes of the each Joestar is important to their character as a whole. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lovelyquirks1: Nice, I recommend using this source since it's kinda GNG for Jolyne.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot, here is also the source in question. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC) @Lovelyquirks1: If it is an primary source uploading the video or tweet, they are okay to use. If it is a tweet you gotta use the cite tweet format.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Also, it is alright to use this source for her Creation section since quiet admittedly, Stone Ocean volumes haven't released yet in English what with the Golden Wind final volume still having to be released and even if I bought the Stone Ocean volumes, I can't read Japanese. I want to use more sources that detail exactly why Araki wants to create Jolyne, but I still just have to find them. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lovelyquirks1: Third party sources are okay but if they are mentioning the original source material, then you can also cite it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

One Piece task force?

Hello. I've been thinking about creating a potential task force for One Piece as a collaborative effort between this project, along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. This task force will maintain and improve coverage of the One Piece franchise. If there are any other ideas, please post here. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you search for character article, I suggest asking User:Haleth. He is pretty good at making them.Tintor2 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Political identification of shows or its elements

It's not the first time I've noticed that people add the "feminist anime and manga" category just because the show has a strong female protagonist or portrays the female characters in a vaguely progressive way. From shoujo with pop girl power to action shows with cool female protagonists. Is this normal? Should I keep or delete things like this as original research? In my opinion, such things should be added only on the basis of primary authoritative sources that directly confirm the political intentions of the authors (for example, producers and writers of G-Witch confirmed their intention to criticize capitalism and corporate abuse even before the premiere). Of course, for any political identification. I have seen similar attempts to identify as right Spy x Family and One Piece Red, though not on wikipedia. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Feminism in anime and manga only has 8 pages and the Saint Tail category, so I don't think this is a very widespread problem. In my opinion it's fine to add an article to that category as long as it's sourced and mentioned elsewhere in the article. And second-hand sources (ie the opinion of reviewers, feminist readings/analyses of a show) are good enough - you don't need the author to say "this is what I meant with my work." Erinius (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we add shows based on just feminist reading into the category, we'll have to drag half of the shoujo and well-written all-female shows into the category. So, what is next? Call LGBTQ anything that has a queer reading? Nationalist everything that is interpreted as alt-right and incel (for example, Mahouka is often accused of promoting militarism and Japanese nationalism, although the work has never been positioned as such and Sato-sensei has never commented on this)? This will lead to us very much politicizing articles about anime without any real appeal to the authors. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Basically, it isn't OR if there's a source somewhere in the article that mentions feminism. Erinius (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I wold recommend only tagging articles with this category if they mention "feminism" or "women's right movement" or such in the text of the article. Utena is probably a good example of this. A few of the articles listed here have citations that talk about feminism, but the articles themselves don't describe the subject through this lens. That being said, I'm not too concerned about the current use of the category either. It is indeed a decently defining aspect of these anime, and all of these articles do have relevant content. Definitely be careful not to add anime about strong female protagonists willy-nilly, I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Erinius (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ikuhara's work is so progressive and he's so vocal about it that I think you can put any of his work into those categories without being present. On many issues like yuri bait, he is often the only one who speaks openly. Even considering his "weird artist" public gimmick. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Inspired by this, I just added the main Sailor Moon article to the category. We could add the whole Sailor Moon category to the feminism category? I have no clue if this would be at all useful for any of the category use cases. Anyway, this sounds like an opportunity to expand our articles on Penguindrum, Yurikuma Arashi, and Sarazanmai with feminist analysis. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop, what do you mean added? I literally learned about this category thanks to the Sailor Moon article. This is one of the best choices for this category. Did someone manage to remove it during this time? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it seems an IP removed the category from the Sailor Moon category: [25]. I didn't notice this when I added the category to the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(I suggest removing the Saint Tail category as its main article doesn't mention anything related to feminism at all) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And done Erinius (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing media franchises cleanup

I've started a discussion at here for this if anyone is interested. Timur9008 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Is my book about CLAMP a reliable source?

I've tried asking this elsewhere but I'm not getting any response, so I thought I would ask here as it relates to anime and manga. I wrote a book about Clamp, which I crowdfunded via Kickstarter and had published by a company local to me (Also listed on Amazon). I don't know if my book counts as a reliable source as it might fall under the banner of self-published works, and even then I don't know if I myself am allowed to use my own book as a source, rather than somneone else referencing my book. What exactly is the situation? Can I or someone else use my book as a source on Wikipedia? ISD (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on writing a book, that is amazing! I don't particularly know the publisher or the amount of editorial oversight there has been on your writing. I can imagine it being used as a reliable source, but I really don't know. I do know that you really should not cite your own book when writing on Wikipedia. This would be a specific type of conflict of interest where you can push your own narrative and back it up with your own writing. I recognize that this would be annoying if you're an active editor; if the book is considered a reliable source the best I could recommend is that you suggest it as a citation on talkpages of relevant articles, preferably making clear that you are the original author. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, that seems to make sense. ISD (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@ISD the book looks self-published, but per WP:SPS it could be used as a source if your "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". There are some caveats, most importantly that it cannot be used for material about living people (WP:BLP). For the guideline on citing material you have written yourself, see WP:SELFCITE. Siawase (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Siawase: OK, so I could not use my book as source in the article about CLAMP themsleves, but I might be able to use it in article about their work? Some of what I wrote was taken from "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" so I think that is OK. Please correct me if I am wrong. ISD (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ISD That's basically it, although it's content about living people anywhere, not just in dedicated biographical articles. Siawase (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Siawase: Understood. ISD (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Policy on spoilers

I saw this edit, and while this is true, it is a spoiler. What's the policy on those? RPI2026F1 (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER Harushiga (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

War edits in Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury

A certain user staged an anonymous edit war in the article with a full range of sophistry accompanying such things, such as shifting the burden of proof to opponents and discussing the dispute solely through comments on retractions. I ask neutral users to look at the question and, if possible, protect the article from anonymous edits. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous continues the edit war, this time with dynamic IPs or proxies. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that this dispute has been resolved, after I went and looked up the correct spelling of the disputed word which was the initial subject of the edit war. It doesn't seem as if any further action is necessary. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anonymous attackers continue to attack the article, this time removing a short summary of the show's topics from the preamble. Some of this is already unambiguously demonstrated in the show, some is quite openly stated in interviews with the creators (some of which can already be found in the description of the development of the show in the article itself), which has already been reported to the anonymous person. But they continue the classic "communication through comments on cancellations" that I have already mentioned more than once. In general, if there are administrators on the project, I ask them to protect the page from anonymous edits. This is the second conflict in a row with anonymous people who are starting a rough edit war for pushing their changes into the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotected 1 month. -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Even if you haven't read the interviews with the producers, the prologue and first episodes are quite clear about topics mentioned (the issue of revenge, abuse of power by corporations and the arms race are not only stated directly, but are also the premise of the show as a whole). So I don't understand why anonymous decided to take it so personally. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It started again. On the page again there is a war of edits. But now from the side of the registered users and bypassing the topic dedicated to the dispute on the article's talk page. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Creating a table for Daisuke Ono's filmography and finding sources

Hello everyone! I'm currently going to make a filmography table for Daisuke Ono, which might take a while but I'm up for the task. Say, if I couldn't find any possible sources relating to the roles that don't have aby references to it, do I have to truly delete them until there is such a time for me to find them? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For roles that have no references, I would use Template:Citation needed. You can also use a primary source and place Template:Better source needed next to it. lullabying (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)