Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77

Pronouns for Kiruko

So few days ago I created Kiruko who despite looking a girl, is actually a male character who had his brain transplanted to his sister. As a result, I'm kinda confused with what gender pronoun use with Kiruko. In the first two episodes it is a mystery as Kiruko claims she is a woman but when Maru confesses to her, she claims she is a man in a woman's body. Still, in later episodes, Kiruko claims that she is actually Haruki, a guy as noted by his/her personality or chemistry when interacting with Maru so I'm lost with what to write in the article. Any idea?Tintor2 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I have watched the series, and i think it is better to just mention how she is mentally Haruki in the opening paragraph and use the pronouns she/her elsewhere on the page. Lunar-akaunto／talk 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. The recent manga chapters keep making emphasis on this when the character changes between the Japanese words "watashi", "boku" and "ore" to hide her true identity but when in a casual scene, Maru simply introduces himself as Kiruko's boyfriend to a man who believes that's Kiruko so I'm confused. Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I haven't read that far into the story yet, but I'm glad it's not that big of a spoiler :") Again, it's debatable as we could also use the pronouns he/him instead, but personally, i would lean towards using she/her because most of the characters in the story refer to her as a girl. Also, i doubt any reader would be confused by it, as you have already explained the same in the lead. Lunar-akaunto／talk 05:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated to this, but since you originally added the covers for Where Our Blue Is, do you suggest adding the back cover featuring Geto as well? It is substantially different from the two covers already present in the article, but I'm not sure since it might fall under grounds for deletion due to too many covers. Are you familiar with it? Lunar-akaunto／talk 05:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

English sources

  • Newspapers.com has an extensive archive anime/manga articles including movie reviews.
  • J-Fan was a short lived UK magazine on anime.
  • j-pop.com - Viz media's online magazine for anime reviews/features.

J-Fan was a print magazine only lasting two issues and the creator has made the two issues available for free online. I haven't seen any problems with it. Anime covered include: Patlabor 2, Project A-Ko, Irresponsible Captain Taylor, Madox-01, Ghost in the Shell (1995 film), Ranma, Hayao Miyazaki films, and a Koichi Ohata interview. It actually resolves an issue I had previously where I was searching for English language print sources for Project A-Ko. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of Dani Cavallaro's work. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in joining as her publications are cited in multiple articles related to anime and manga. The relevant thread is at § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has come to a consensus to designate Cavallaro's publications as generally unreliable and phase out all citations of her work. I'd greatly appreciate people's help tagging and cleaning up on the many articles where she's been referenced. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

She is cited heavily on the following articles which will require heavy re-writing:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies

A discussion regarding the plot summary for Grave of the Fireflies is taking place at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot section, revisited. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it "Pretty Cure" or "PreCure"?

It seems some people want to change it from "Pretty Cure" to "PreCure", as shown by recent page name changes of Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure to "Soaring Sky! PreCure" and "Pretty Cure All Stars F to "PreCure All Stars F", with claims it is "misspelled". I have since moved the page names back. Should I start discussions on the talk pages of the affected articles (Talk:Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure and Talk:Pretty Cure All Stars F OR should I start a thread on Talk:Pretty Cure about this? It seems that TWO users are trying to determine the page name changes across ALL Pretty Cure pages on their own, as shown at Talk:Wonderful Pretty Cure!#Requested move 21 May 2024 (there is now a page-name request there). In my opinion, there should be more eyes on this before it gets out of hand. Suggestions on how I should proceed would be appreciated.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't have advice, but there's probably a decent argument to be made that Precure is the common name for the franchise/series. Though, that's not what's being argued at that RM (it's hard to follow). Precure appears more in advertising, used more in the fandom, arguably used more in sources. Of course, I haven't done the legwork to actually verify whether that's true; this is just what I know about being around the anime fandom. Personally, I think it's fine to leave the pages at Pretty Cure until someone makes an argument that touches on some of those points. ― Synpath 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's a good point. I did start a RfC about this, actually, at Talk:Pretty Cure#"Pretty Cure" or "PreCure"?, hoping to get some more eyes on this issue as it doesn't seem like there has been a discussion about it before (unless I missed it). Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the source we have for the name (the Toei Animation website) says the name is PreCure. But it's a little inconsistent: most but not all of the text says the name of both the overall franchise and the individual series is PreCure, but most of the graphics and a few of the text titles use Pretty Cure. Oh, and the URL. (I note that the exceptions where the graphics and the text both agree a series is named PreCure are all very recent series, so this was likely a recent change.) Loki (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, that's what I found too, as it seems inconsistent... And I hope the RfC I created can, possibly, help: Talk:Pretty Cure#"Pretty Cure" or "PreCure"? Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia page for seiyuu Yuko Iida

Hello!

I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to add a translation for the already existing Japanese Wikipedia page of the voice actress Yuko Iida (飯田友子) but since I couldn't directly submit a translation, I made a new page which is currently pending review. I used the same template and content structure as other Wikipedia pages for Japanese voice actresses, as well as many of the resources listed by the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia page, but I wanted to let you guys know in case someone wants to take a look.

Sorry for the bother and thank you beforehand. I hope I can further contribute to the WikiProject! Link to the page is right here ->Draft:Yuko Iida MoonsideYasu (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@MoonsideYasu: This isn't necessary, but I like to have a Japanese title and a translated title for such cases. So, if you use text editing, instead of using "title=", you'd use "script-title=ja:" for the original Japanese article names, and then add "trans-title=" for a translation of the title. Especially when it comes to articles like these where a majority (if not all) of the citations are in a separate language or you're transferring it over from a different WikiProject that only has non-English citations. It can be more of a pain to deal with, though, so again it's not a huge deal, but I would personally recommend it. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply @Sarcataclysmal! I really appreciate it
I see how it could be useful as well, I will definitely try to add it to the citations!
Thank you so much for letting me know once again. MoonsideYasu (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello!
Sorry it took longer than expected since I have been very busy working on a draft for Comiket, among other things.. I added the translation for the citation titles as kindly suggested by @Sarcataclysmal. I think it was a great idea and definitely helps someone not familiar with the original language of the source to have a more efficient understanding of it.
Since it has been a while, and I am afraid the number of submitted drafts within Wikipedia keep piling up, I was wondering if someone from the WikiProject could promptly review it and accept the submission if everything is alright. I would definitely be immensely grateful. The draft for the Wikipedia page is right here Draft:Yuko Iida.
Briefly after I submitted the draft for review, @Miraclepine contacted me about the draft but I am unsure if they ended up taking a look or not.
Sorry for the bother and thank you all so much beforehand. If there is anything I could change or improve please let me know as well!
I look forward to keep on working and helping with other pages among this WikiProject. MoonsideYasu (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@MoonsideYasu: I haven't had a chance to look at the draft, but since I was pinged, I would like to note that I didn't contact you about the draft; that was just a welcome message that happened to cite the draft as my reason for said message.
Also, speaking of waiting, Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project, so all editing here is dependent on both volition and free time, AFC decisions included. Since the backlog is at most three months (two times I wanted almost two months for a draft I submitted to be accepted), it would be best to be patient and wait for an AFC reviewer to decide. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Miraclepine Hello! Thanks for the quick reply.
I see, since I wasn't sure I thought it would be a nice idea to ping you but I deeply apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you so much for letting me know, since there is an already existing Japanese Wikipedia page for the voice actress but I couldn't submit a translation, I thought it wouldn't have to go through the process of determining if it's worth an article space. Please forgive me for my lack of knowledge.
Once again, thank you and I apologize for the the trouble caused. MoonsideYasu (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

From Five to Nine: merger discussion

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:5→9 From Five to Nine#Merge proposal over merging From Five to Nine (manga) and 5→9 From Five to Nine. Your input is highly appreciated. lullabying (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Kasane Teto

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Kasane Teto? I don't know how the notability of fictional characters are assessed or whether this is related to anime/manga (it looks like it might be), but I'm not seeing how this meets (at least at the moment) WP:GNG or even WP:NFICTION. Perhaps there something there worth WP:DRAFTIFYing per WP:NEXIST which is why it's probably better for someone who might be more familiar with this type of article to take a look at it. There is a Japanese Wikipedia article about the subject at ja:重音テト which seems much more developed and which might be helpful for additonal sourcing and expansion. FWIW, I came across the article via a recent Wikipedia Teahouse question WP:THQ#Wikipedia:Piccadilly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a stub on ja.wiki as well. But yes, definitely much better than the one present here. I'll try to expand it soon. Lunar-akaunto／talk 14:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus required for new Sanrio page

To compensate for these two sandbox pages of mine that never really went that far, I've been having half a mind these past several days to convert them into redirects for a tentative AFC campaign of mine, Sanrio theatrical filmography (draft), as soon as I set that up. Sanrio--the minds behind Hello Kitty, My Melody, JewelPets, Show by Rock!!, and Beatcats--ran a highly ambitious self-releasing film division between 1977 and 1985, returning to the big screen every now and then (with new distribution partners) between the 1990s and 2010s. WP already has a section on their filmography, but I think I could try to extend that coverage further and improve it thanks to WP:Library et al.; this (metered) March 2024 retrospective at aftermath.site seems like a good starting point.

Bonus points for the Hello Kitty movie they've been developing with New Line since early 2019. (As well as the long-out-of-print/out-of-syndication Don't Cry, It's Only Thunder, the first movie from that label I ever saw back in my youth [during its 1994-95 airings on the original Encore through my island's Marpin cable service].)

The feedback I receive below will determine if we can go ahead in the next 1-3 weeks. Paging @Siawase and @Blackgaia02 (the respective top contributors for the parent topic and JewelPets per XTools) in hope of our first opinion. Until then, see you back! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is agreeable if JP articles are there. But not now as sources for those are somehow lost in time. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of JP sources, this December 1979 relic from Gekkan Animation (collected/translated into English at Pelleas.net) could help us a bit. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Along with this June 2013 retrospective by Fred Patten at Cartoon Research (h/t my Google+ archives). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I've been thinking the Filmography section in the Sanrio article could be improved, and doing a separate list type article where things could be expanded on would be even better. Also seems like it would work well as a parallel to List of Sanrio characters. There is a lot of sprawling Sanrio related information that doesn't always warrant their own articles, and this seems a good way to include it on Wikipedia. Siawase (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see Talk:Crunchyroll#Reception section and give your thoughts. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:YuYu Hakusho (TV series)#Requested move 8 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:YuYu Hakusho (TV series)#Requested move 8 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating Reliability of Sources for "Battle Angel Alita: Mars Chronicle"

I’m currently working on the Wikipedia article for "Battle Angel Alita: Mars Chronicle" thats on review for good article and have come across some sources that are not listed at anime and manga resources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Specifically, these sources are aiptcomics.com, fandompost.com, and animeuknews.net. I’m seeking input on whether these can be considered reliable sources for our purposes. I’m looking to establish whether these sources. If anyone has experience with these sites or can provide further insights, it would be greatly appreciated. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Fandom Post is founded by Chris Beveridge who also founded and wrote for AnimeOnDVD.com (now Mania.com) (see: [1]), another writer for them Darius Washington has wrote for Otaku USA: [2]. At least, anything written by Beveridge or Washington is reliable. --Mika1h (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
fandompost.com is indeed included at WP:A&M/ORS. There is listed as 'The Fandom Post'. Anime UK News has been discussed a couple of times before. From what I've seen (and in my opinion too) comments often consider it a reliable source, but no one has taken the time to add it to the list. I'm not very familiar with AIPT, so I wouldn't know what to say. I don't even know if they have an editorial team, although I tried searching through the site. Xexerss (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification regarding FandomPost.com and Anime UK News. It's helpful to know that FandomPost.com is already included in WP:A&M/ORS under 'The Fandom Post'. As for Anime UK News, while it's been discussed and generally considered reliable in comments, it hasn't been formally added to the list. I understand your concern about AIPT's editorial team and policies. I've searched the site as well and found it challenging to locate detailed information on their editorial practices and team structure. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 04:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
On Anime UK News, they've been referred to on Crunchyroll previously (though I can't see any of the articles still up) and a couple other places like Polygon. Their work has been good as far as I've seen. Posts are relatively frequent. They've managed to get some good interviews showing some influence.
On the downside, they don't appear to have an editorial policy. Their forums aren't particularly busy and their Twitter is so so. Most of their authors go by screen names like 'Darkstorm' and 'NOEMI10' which can be seen as a downside for a 'professional site', but it's not exactly uncommon in the anime area, so I'd not hold it against them generally. Their Editor in Chief 'Teapot' doesn't list any previous experience which isn't a plus though.
Considering the standards of the niche, I'd probably put them in a category of being generally reliable, but not particularly notable. It's the sort of source I'd be confident is as good as any 'professional' one, but I'd choose another if there's a better one. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mr. Stain#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mr. Stain#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Menhera

I have removed what I think is an inappropriate image from this article. The matter could use review by more knowledgeable folks, especially if another image could be suggested. Posting here as I suspect manga/anime art is involved. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Gundams/gunpla

Hello everyone, currently trying to update G gundam page by adding list of gundams in the show and the gunplas released for them. I cited gundam fandom website, my edit was deleted unfortunately for the RS reason and I’m looking to see if anyone can point me in the direction of a credible cite for gundams and gunpla for the page. Thank you for the help. ParTripod (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merger

A merger of List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004 and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005–2009 has been proposed. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please add your comments at Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004#Merge proposal. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Term consistency on List of Soul Reapers in Bleach

I recently started editing the above page, mainly little grammar tweaks here and there, and noticed the inconsistent way the various Squads/their members are referred to in the article. There's alternating use of Squad One, Squad 1, squad 1, Gotei 13, Gotei Thirteen, Thirteen Court Guard Squads, 13 Soul Reaper captains etc. Can someone tell me if there is a preferred way to refer to the Squads so that I can implement the change and make the page consistent?

Also, the third paragraph of the lead contains the following sentence: "Eventually, the fifth Squad Captain Sōsuke Aizen, the third Squad Captain Gin Ichimaru, and the ninth Squad Captain Kaname Tosen..." — the divisions are written in lowercase for some reason, giving the impression that Aizen is the fifth captain of an unnamed squad rather than the Captain of the Fifth Squad. To me, these should be capitalized or written as "...the Squad Five Captain Sōsuke Aizen..." for e.g., but I didn't want to change anything just yet without asking first, since I've never been involved with any anime-related pages and ik that the various WikiProjects have specific ways certain things are done (I'm aware of my choice of wording there). Any advice/guidance in the matter would be greatly appreciated! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I have a huge amount of knowledge on Bleach, but I wonder if these terms are different due to there being various official and fan translations that may not match popularizing different terms. In some cases, even an official manga and official anime translation may not be consistent in terms used.
This is just a guess to be clear, but wouldn't be surprising when it comes to writing about an anime. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding lead section for lists

So, I have a question for project members: how long should lists for certain articles like List of Slayers light novels, List of Dragon Ball chapters, List of One Piece chapters or List of High School DxD light novels be? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LGBT themes in speculative fiction

LGBT themes in speculative fiction has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Toshio Suzuki (producer)#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toshio Suzuki (producer)#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Rename discussion on Talk:Yaoi#Requested move 18 August 2024

There is a discussion on Talk:Yaoi#Requested move 18 August 2024 on renaming the article. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Anime licensee categories

There is a proposed deletion discussion about Category:Discotek Media at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_17#Category:Discotek_Media. I'm mentioning it here for two reasons, firstly because it's been a month with little discussion, and secondly because it's been acknowledged that the outcome will have a huge effect on every other anime licensee category, such as Category:Funimation, Category:Crunchyroll, etc. Xfansd (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Akiba Souken end of service

WP Anime and Manga contributors, for your awareness, Akiba Souken, an anime news website operated by Kakaku.com with 22 years' worth of news articles and interviews with anime creators, will cease operations on 30 September 2024 at 15:00 JST. The website will no longer be available after that time, so I recommend an effort to archive links that use this website for references. I'm uncertain at this time if there's any effort to archive the website as a whole on a different platform. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame, but thanks for the heads up. That way there will be time to find material that could be useful later on. Xexerss (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
There are 177 references to this site.
I wonder if there's any automatic way to run Wayback Machine / update links to the archive. I'm not familiar with Internet Archive Bot or similar projects, but might be useful. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I just tried using the Internet Archive for it, but when I try opening an archived link it just redirects to the home page. For any references to it I'd probably suggest using Archive.today instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Or you can use your browser's view-source feature (I tested it on this link on Chrome and it worked). Things will be take more time to read, but it's better than nothing. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kino's gender. Again.

Last year we had a wide discussion about the sexuality of characters and, as I recall, we came to the conclusion that only either the text itself or the author can be a sufficient source for determining the sexuality of characters in non-obvious cases. Does this also extend to characters' gender identities? The thing is, as I noted a few months ago, Kino included a number of lists of transsexual and non-binary characters on the basis that there was a fairly clear consensus among Western anime reviewers and bloggers about her genderqueerness. At the same time, as far as I remember, neither the author nor the text itself ever stated or implied that the character in any way identified herself as other than a woman (in particular, the author describes the original concept of the character as "a girl living like a boy"). In particular, an article about the show itself describes her as an androgynous girl. I don’t really like this kind of confusion, so I propose to discuss this somehow and develop one general approach to Kino and in the future in potential similar cases in the future. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Might be helpful to link the previous discussion for reference if you know where to find it, but I would generally agree that only either the text itself or the author can be a sufficient source for determining the sexuality of characters in non-obvious cases.
This isn't ideal as usually we would be using secondary sources. Unfortunately, my opinion at least is that many anime reviewers and bloggers who'd otherwise be considered reliable, wouldn't be for this sensitive topic, if just from seeing a number of definitive statements with no backing on these topics. There's also often a lot of implied elements when it comes to characters sexuality or identity in certain anime, but it's often for comedic purposes and never defined.
In addition, for most series, we just don't have many reliable sources. If someone from ANN suggests a character is trans for example, that might be one of the only two detailed articles in English from listed reliable sources about a series. And with that comes a lot of potential for misinformation and a lack of other articles to correct it. For example, the Anime Feminist episode 1 review of Onimai (a series which has had a ton of headcanon by fans about Mahiro being trans) says Mahiro doesn't use gendered pronouns (then goes on to say he uses "boku" which is masculine but sometimes used by girls) but he actually uses the much more strictly male gendered pronoun "ore" in the episode.
Another reason it's not ideal is that many authors like to leave it up to the reader's interpretation so we may never get an actual definitive statement.
If we're not looking at strictly determining it, I think it might in certain cases (such as analysis sections) be suitable to reference how various bloggers/reviewers interpret it this way or ways that it is implied. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
In such cases, I always remember Princess Principal, which was described on many resources as a significant queer show with “explicit” coding, but the authors subsequently stated that they had no intentions of writing romance and generally invite people to read things as they want. So I'm not opposed to describing how the media sees the show, but with the caveat that these are secondary sources that do not always know or understand the author's intentions behind this or that element of the show. For example, how about starting by creating a topic section in the article about the show itself? Something like "Kino's Gender Identity discussion"? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop!! Hibari-kun!

In continuation of the topic about Kino above, may I ask for temporary protection of the article Stop!! Hibari-kun!? This title has similar nuances to the Kino, or even more, given that the manga and anime directly play with the gender identity of the central character. So given that the English localization officially identifies character as a trans woman and this has already begun to cause some controversy, in the future this could lead to vandalism and a war of edits in the article. As a last resort, I would like to ask one of the experienced users to follow it. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, page protection as preemptive measure is not allowed. The article should be frequently vandalized before requesting protection at WP:RFPP. Xexerss (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
In that case, can you just add the page to your watchlist just in case? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, although as far as I can see the article has not been edited regularly. If there come to be disruptive edits, it would be good to start a discussion in the article then. Personally, I haven't watch or read the series, so it would be preferable to refer to some prior discussion (or invite to start a new one) when that happens. Xexerss (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pokémon Heroes § Recent changes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about Pokémon Anime Series

I've been going through and cleaning out some articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon recently, and I've stumbled upon a bit of a strange situation with the anime series that I feel I am not entirely sure how to deal with. Currently, for our anime episodes list, it is split into two: List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 1–13) and List of Pokémon episodes (seasons 14–present), with a corresponding Lists of Pokémon episodes being used to link to individual seasons. Both the individual split lists are reaching size concerns, but I feel like rather than another size split, the use of these lists should be re-evaluated. These split lists I feel are practically useless, since all they do is list episode name and release date for a given episode. When only two episodes of the series actually have individual articles, and both are from the original series, there's little to no navigational benefit gained from listing the episodes out here separate from their given season article like this. Given the fact there is also no information on plot, development, etc, it furthers the fact of the redundancy and lack of aid these lists provide. All of the information for a given season is impossible to slot into these lists without creating further size concerns, but it is better contained at a given season article. My main concern is this: If these split lists offer literally no practical benefit outside of directing users to a specific season's articles, where all of the information on these split lists already exists, then what is the point of keeping these lists? This is especially the case given the Lists of Pokémon episodes article already acts as a directory to specific seasons anyway, just without the redundant information and fluff.

Given the iconicity of this series, I felt taking action directly would be controversial. Given you guys cover this stuff in much more rigorous depth and have far more experience with these kinds of lists, I wished to check this with you all first. I'm not sure if these split lists have a reason to exist, and I'm curious if there is one or not that justifies this branch, or whether these lists should just be outright removed in favor of the series articles and the current directory article that already exist. Please let me know yall's thoughts, since I'm admittedly unsure of how to go about tackling this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anime and manga set in Japan

Japan is often the default setting for both anime and manga, since both are from there. I don't see why this category can't be a container category for all the future categories about prefectures within Japan. This, in my opinion, should be moved to Category:Anime and manga set in Japan by prefecture. SimonLagann (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion surrounding the evaluation of Lycoris Recoil

Good afternoon I would like to ask other users to help us in my dispute with Nguyen280405 around Lycoris Recoil. The user insists that the text "mixed rating" in the professional criticism section should be changed to "mixed-positive" because their own calculating the verage number of ANN's editorial reviews for the premiere episode showed 3.2 and since they considers this rating to be above average, the user believes that we have to change the description. I considered this to be original research, since the resource does not determine the average number in the premiere review scores, not to mention that the figure of 3.2 seems too average for such conclusions. But the users did not agree with me and, as you can see, further discussion simply stalled. In particular, they believe that with this approach, the "mixed score" can also be considered original research. So I ask third-party users to leave their opinions and, if possible, somehow resolve our dispute, I will not mind if some other more experienced user thinks that I was completely or partially wrong. The article was already at risk of starting an edit war, so I want to refrain from acting alone after the last compromise edit. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The user would also like to ask more experienced users to add a general summary of the review of the ANN show to the critical section, since at the moment the section only covers the premiere collective review and the review of the first 3-4 episodes of ANN and AF. So, I'm posting their request here. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Here's some I found:
Also, the series was listed in poll results by ANN viewers, and nominated for awards held by Crunchyroll (I think the series won). Also, the series influenced the name of a "modern entropy coder" (whatever that is), as noted on page 40 of this article, mentioned on page 2 of the Bulletin of the Tohoku University of Art and Design (published in March of this year), mentioned on page 76 of a doctoral thesis by a Italian student and mentioned on page 25 of a German-language thesis (the translation I got of those pages is: "...to establish a more direct connection to amae, upbringing and individualism, the protagonist of the anime Lycoris Recoil...Chisato Nishikigi is a good example. The world in Lycoris Recoil resembles a utopia in which crime and terror in Japan seem to have disappeared. Although criminal structures still exist, a secret organization uses so-called Lycoris to create the impression that crime and terror have been completely defeated.") [the analysis goes on to page 26]
I did search on Anime Feminist, but only found nothing beyond the existing ones already in the reception section (there is a "2022 Summer Premiere Digest" post, but that just pulls from the episode 1 review...). Here's the page for all the ANN episode reviews for the series.
There's probably more out there, but all of this is enough to improve the reception section. Historyday01 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your promptness, I think this will serve as an excellent list for further work on the section. I apologize for the request if you had other plans, but could you duplicate this list in the future on the article's talk page as “additional links”? I don’t know if you want to finish the section yourself and I don’t want to be impudent and directly ask you to do this, so I think that duplicating your comment would simply make it easier for any users to organize further work on the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll definitely do that. Historyday01 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, there are 3 English language sources. I think we should add those. Nguyen280405 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Isn't there a bluray box that contains all Lycoris Recoil episodes and has been reviewed? That would help to make more general overviews of the series rather than relying of one episode reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this, but I think it could be a great solution. Now all that remains is to find an experienced user who will make a summary of this that suits everyone and add text to the section. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe in a Japanese publication? I didn't see any review of the Blu-ray box from my search but... there are enough links which I mentioned above, so I think its fine. Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find these in a Japanese publication. Most Japanese reviews will be on review aggregator sites but as far as "critics" go, it's difficult to find any mainstream publication featuring them (possibly due to how they can be interpreted as defamatory and rude towards creators). lullabying (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I see. Well, in any case, there's enough links I provided above, that I think it will be fine. Historyday01 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi - are there any Japanese sources?

This is a translation of my article about Japanese manga, one of the very few that concern Poland, that I wrote on pl wiki. I nominated in for GA as I based this on a comprehensive analysis of Polish sources (the manga got some reviews in Poland, and even some mentions in academic works). However, it has no ja wiki article, and I am not fluent enough in Japanese to even confirm whether there are any RS about it in that language. If anyone would care to help on this, I'd appreciate it. Oh, and to make this cooler, I'll mention that this is a side-story to much better known The Rose of Versailles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Crunchyroll

I was analyzing many sources and news coverage about more than 200 pages of anime series and movies that for the first time are currently or previously streamed on Crunchyroll, well I just realized that all the time that I make those edits was change the term of "licensed the series" to "streamed the series" both in the anime infobox and in the section below where exactly it said what the media streaming company acquires the distribution rights from Japanese studios and companies for streaming in select countries worldwide outside of Asia (but includes East Asia and the Indian subcontinent) for the seasons that would be premiered this year, but there is a user called Xexerss who denies the reality of what that the blocked user Imperial meter (which is a sockpuppet of the user Silence of Lambs) made was altering the article by repeatedly linking with the parent company of the same name as if it had no relevance here, if it had relevance here is because no one pays attention to the introduction of the initial paragraph of the original article before and after making those unnecessary changes because its parent company does not have the right to licensing anime series for a release on home video directly but currently operates the streaming service after its merger with Funimation since 2022. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about the sixth time I will repeat the same thing. This has nothing to do with the edits of Imperial meter. The problem is that you keep changing indiscriminately in every article the links from Crunchyroll LLC (the company) to Crunchyroll (the streaming service) even in cases where the series have clearly not been licensed only to be streamed and are sources supporting the fact that they were released on home video by them. I am not "denying reality", I'm just telling you to find out on a case by case basis how Crunchyroll handles the licensing of each series. I personally don't see the problem of using terms like "license" or "streaming rights" when Crunchyroll is the only company that distributes a series in English-speaking territories, because logically to have the permission to stream it they had to have licensed it in the first place, but I understand leaving just "streaming" when there is another company that handles the distribution of a series in other formats. The latter is debatable, and I will not object if it is simply left as "streaming", as you have been doing, if it is decided that we should stick to using that term. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to start a discussion regarding this. Xexerss (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That is not the case, first we are going to solve this problem quickly by following the steps of the banned user, using the Efn template as an explanatory note or a quote depending on the reference that was used both from the infobox and the section below at the end of references and followed of external links about the fact that Crunchyroll's parent company has managed to license anime series and movies for release on home video directly all the time since its merger with Funimation in 2022. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Why should we follow the steps of a banned user whose notes didn't include any reference anyway? If Crunchyroll has released the series in home video format, it clearly indicates that the licensee extends beyond streaming and it would make sense to link the article of the company instead of the streaming service. Indicating in the infobox that Crunchyroll (streaming service) has the license of a series, along with an explanatory note indicating that Crunchyroll (the company) has the home distribution rights as well, is just ridiculous, and it is simpler to indicate that the company has the license for the series (without superfluous notes), which wouldn't be false anyway, so I still don't understand your insistence on changing this in every article. I'm getting tired of trying to reason with you, and it's not just me who's getting fed up with this, as I've seen other editors constantly reverting similar edits on your part in various anime and manga articles, so it's obvious that you are doing whatever you want on some whim without giving a reasonable argument. Just like the issue regarding date templates addressed at your talk page, it seems to me that you're not understanding what is being said to you here. My point is, if the large company has the distribution rights to the series in home video format, then why should we limit to indicate that the streaming service owned by the large company is streaming the series instead of directly stating that the company has licensed it? By your logic, does a streaming service carry more weight than a company whose license extends beyond streaming, even if said streaming service is operated by the very own company that also distributes it in home video format? Xexerss (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know and I don't understand what you mean, I was just trying to tell you nicely that don't you repeatedly link to the article from a streaming service with the namesake parent company instead of adding the efn template so that you can better explain to the users who used to see and edit anime and manga series' article to avoid from many getting confused by compairing with another topic related to media company or an entertainment enterprise, I give you an example here, an IP indicates that Crunchyroll (streaming service) acquires video distribution rights and streams a series, and adds a note along indicating that Crunchyroll LLC (a parent company which also operates this service) licensed an anime series for a home video release directly for North America, followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland through its division Crunchyroll UK and Ireland and in Australia through its division Crunchyroll Pty. Ltd. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems excessive to me to add so many notes with sources that do not even mention the series in question. I wouldn't be surprised if those notes were added anonymously by Imperial meter, given that it's same kind of notes that they used to add in several anime articles. In any case, I suggest you to get familiarized with WP:OTHERCONTENT and note that not all articles have to structure this kind of information in the same way. What I'm saying is very simple: if Crunchyroll only has the rights to stream the series, let's leave the link to the article of the streaming service. If Crunchyroll has the rights for both streaming and home video release, let's leave the link to the company (company that owns the namesake streaming service), what's so complicated to understand? Xexerss (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
So it doesn't help you if you leave it linked like this because I explained it wrong without thinking and repeatedly about the same topic in asking you to first find well out the news coverage indicating that if the streaming media company acquires those video distribution rights of a Japanese animated television series and stream it in select territories globally outside of Asia and East Asia; before making this change because I'm tell you that an entertainment company which currently operates the service would not be dedicated to managing the licensing for the home video release of some selected titles internally. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The streaming service is operated by one company. It doesn't matter if it releases a series on home video in one or more territories, it is already inferred that they are the ones who have the license for the series in the English-speaking territories where it operates. Your logic is simply "Crunchyroll released the series on home video here, but not there, therefore Crunchyroll doesn't have the license, it's just streaming it", which simply ridiculous and you're the only one I've seen that is so insistent on defending this stance. In any case, perhaps in particular cases of which I'm not aware at the moment, most of the series that are distributed on home video in North America are also released in other English-speaking territories where the company operates (since 2022 at least). My Home Hero for example: NA, UK, and AUS; considering that these are the three main English-speaking regions where the company operates, I think it's safe to say that Crunchyroll has effectively licensed the series and is not simply available for streaming. The 'licensee' parameter of the infobox is for English licensees (per Template:Infobox animanga), so it doesn't matter if the company just streams the series in other non-English speaking territories where it operates. When the parameter simply shows "Crunchyroll" without specifying the territory (AUS, NA, UK (or BI)) is not necessarily to indicate that Crunchyroll has licensed the series worldwide, but that it has licensed it in those main three territories, and therefore there is no need to include in the infobox something like "AUS = Crunchyroll; NA = Crunchyroll; UK = Crunchyroll". If the company has not acquired a series just for streaming, why would we state otherwise? Xexerss (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Did you reverse my edit on Shangri-La Frontier's article without anyone else noticing about the rumours that Crunchyroll would launch the series on home video and do you have any evidence that the anime series which Crunchyroll would select for some type of release in physical format on internal home video apart from its distribution partners? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
And that explains your logic very well, why several of the series that are currently available on the streaming platform are included the name in what credited to Crunchyroll as a distribution studio which appears in its Blu-Ray specifications list in its store, as if they were distributing internally to home video. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I left the link to the streaming service article, although I'm sure they will release the series in home video format at some point. By the way, note that I was not the one who added the link to the company this time. Xexerss (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but if it wasn't you who sent you to add the link to the company, who was? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
because the articles that I was edited about Crunchyroll anime were not like this since Funimation's anime titles that was listing as now available on Crunchyroll for download in home video format from the beginning of June 2022, or am I wrong. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite know what you mean. I've only been adding links to the the article about the company in articles of series that I've verified that have been released on home video by them. Xexerss (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
You can check the edit history of the article yourself. Personally, I would not object if someone changed it back to the company's article, since I don't see much reason to think that the series has not been effectively licensed by Crunchyroll, but I'm not planning to start an edit warring over this. I would prefer to know more points of view regarding this matter instead of the two of us continuing to argue. Xexerss (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's see, I'm thinking of moving a bit of history to the end of the initial paragraph of the original article when it began to be introduced and do it to the article of an entertainment company so that it looks better, but I don't know how to improve the topic on releasing titles on home video directly or ever selected titles released through its distribution partners first things first, I need you to move the page from Crunchyroll LLC to Crunchyroll (company) because I would be worried if I saw the description within or through Google search. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a different matter from what we are discussing here, and I cannot move the article just like that; that should be discussed in the specific article and requires the participation of more editors to reach a consensus. Xexerss (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
OK! Where do I start? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Apart from unlinking several articles from manga series and light novels that will always receive anime in the year in which it will premiere in Japan and then transmit it on multiple streaming services depending on each country and region globally. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
And don't mention the same issue of home video that Crunchyroll (the company) does all the time so that no more edits are reversed. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
" that doesn't help you link for each article in which you modify it between a streaming company and an entertainment company which focuses on licensing, mercandising and home video in one more than once." What is this supposed to mean? I mean that seriously, because I'm having trouble trying to decipher what your reasoning is. Why don't you think it is appropriate to link the article of Crunchyroll LLC when the series is licensed for home video release? Excuse me, but I'm clearly reading here "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC", so what's the damn problem with linking the company instead of the streaming service? If I keep repeating the "not just for streaming" thing, it's because I have yet to see a single coherent or minimally reasonable argument from you explaining why it would be wrong to link the company article instead of the streaming service article when the series is released on home video. Take the time to search on Crunchyroll Store the series that have been released on home video by it. If you check the images of the back covers you will read "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC" (just like in Planetes). And now I am puzzled by what you did here. What part of the article or which source suggests that Nier: Automata Ver1.1a is licensed by Aniplex of America through Crunchyroll LLC? I'm getting more and more confused with your edits. In other words, it seems illogical to you that a series that has been acquired to be released in physical format includes the link of a company, which is precisely in charge of the license and distribution of a series in physical format, but it does seem logical to you to link the very same company when it has nothing to do with the license of a series and there is no evidence to support such a statement in the article? Xexerss (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
You know what, you're right, the foto links that you previous showed me about the upcoming home video release of multiple anime series that are licensed by Crunchyroll LLC and the Crunchyroll logo are registered trademarks, all rights reserved, but look, the problem is that you prefer to link to an article from a streaming service instead of an entertainment company to multiple articles selected for the aforementioned launch in which you want, I mean, I was trying to compare many anime series outside of Crunchyroll and its parent company with Netflix and Amazon, which also streamed the series globally by acquiring all anime distribution rights from Japanese animation studios and companies that produce it, but it is not about companies that are dedicated to the distribution and licensing of the same and would release it internally on home videos for the United States and Canada, and the truth is that I am quite confused about the same issue as I don't know anything else about this orange distributor or distribution company that acts as the streaming service.
By the way, actually about the anime series Nier: Automata Ver1.1a, it's not me who put the Efn template as a note to the article that indicates that it was through Crunchyroll LLC that used to share licenses which made me a little curious, it was the banned user who allegedly placed that Efn template in the article that I modified long ago, is for the consolidation of its international anime streaming businesses that Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex did years ago under the creation of a joint company, Funimation Global Group, LLC., which allowed the acquisition and distribution of many of the titles with Aniplex subsidiaries Wakanim, Madman Anime and AnimeLab, and well, you know the whole story. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Amber Lee Connors in Zom 100

Amber Lee Connors appears in episode 10-12 in the dub for the anime Zom 100: Bucket List Of The Dead. But this has not been added into the Amber's list of anime's she played in

Amber plays the character Ayumi, The episode 10-12 were released in December 25th 2023 to December 26th 2023 Speedrunningkfc (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Bleach season 1 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Light novel as a Level 5 Vital Article

I have nominated Light novel to be included as a level 5 vital article on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society. I believe that they are important as a broad concept as they heavily influence Japanese media, which is increasingly popular globally. Please join the discussion if interested. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sensational" description of new events of ending titles

Are there any rules regarding the description of close endings of actual manga or anime? Especially if the title is in its final stages and the article subjectively becomes a place for too sensational details from recent chapters/episodes? The fact is that the original Oshi no Ko is one step away from a full-fledged ending and I feel that other users are in too much of a hurry to describe every hot detail from the new chapters (SPOILERS WARNING), although personally, again subjectively, I feel that this could be bait and in the last chapter something will happen that will change things dramatically and we will have to rewrite it again. This has already resulted in some pages on the fandom wiki being protected due to an edit war over this, so I want to know how the rules talk about this to avoid issues like this in the future. I truly believe that we should wait for the final chapter due to the obvious conflicts of the last 2-3 chapters with the previous ones, but I also don't want to break the rules due to my potential original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight: The relevant guideline here is WP:SPOIL, which means that edits to an article should not be deleted solely on the basis of being spoilers (indeed, I don't even think your spoiler warning would be allowed here given they're forbidden on articles). Even if they happened in new chapters, if they actually happened, then they should go in the article, especially if they're important plot details. I don't read the manga, but I just read the chapters in question to check, and they happened as described in the edits, so they must go in the article. We are not Fandom: we do not use spoiler warnings, and we do not hide information just because they're spoilers. What goes on at the Fandom wiki is none of our business, as it's their own community with their own rules. If things change for the final chapter, the article can be edited to reflect that, but events that have already taken place should be presented as-is.
Had it been information from manga leaks rather than the official release, the information could have been deleted for that reason since from what I remember (at least for similar cases like video game leaks), information based on leaks is not considered verifiable and thus can't be included. However, once the chapter has been released, it's fair game.
To cut a long story short, Wikipedia articles include spoilers and does not put warnings on them. If a section is titled "Plot" or "Characters", expect information about them, including endings. That's how comprehensive descriptions are supposed to work. Yes, that includes characters dying; if anything, all the more that they should be mentioned in the relevant parts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer! Spoilers were definitely part of my question, but overall I was more interested in whether it was worth writing about if it could potentially change or be different than it seems. Of course, we shouldn't care what happens on the fandom wiki, I used this as an example of how potentially hot and sensational this information is at the moment. That's why I called it sensational, since such edits usually have more of a desire to attract a potential reader with hot news than to describe the development of the plot. It’s enough to remember the G-Witch I already mentioned, when people were in a hurry to put a fresh development almost at the very beginning of the description of the characters or identify their sexuality long before the romance in the show really began to work. This is exactly what worries me. The fact that this is a spoiler is a more minor question. But one way or another, I understand that I did the right thing by canceling my edit? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with what Narutolovehinata5 said above. Although I feel it would be better to wait to until the manga is effectively finished, it is not wrong to write according to the most recent events of the story, but as stated above, it would be better to write once the chapters have been officially released rather than when leaks appear. Xexerss (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no problem with that, the English version of the manga is officially published online in the MangaPLUS app. Well, since I see the consensus of the project concluded that I was wrong, so as a result, I will not return my edit and will leave the text in the article. Thank you for the prompt resolution of the issue! Solaire the knight (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Love Live! School Idol Project (TV series)#Requested move 4 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Love Live! School Idol Project (TV series)#Requested move 4 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Using Niche/Japanese Sources?

I recently submitted a draft for a page that which was unfortunately declined. It may need some more work or perhaps not be suitable. But one of the parts of the feedback was that because it uses Japanese sources and is an enthusiast/niche area, it may need another look by someone more experienced in the sources available.

Is there any way to direct a draft to someone experienced in the more anime-related/Japanese-language sources? If it is up to standard, it'd be a shame to get it declined due to unfamiliarity with the sources by the reviewing editor, while if it isn't up to standard, it'd be good to clear away any doubt that it was rejected due to the editor's unfamiliarity with the sources and expecting it to be more in-line with an international game.

The draft in question related to a Visual Novel, which is named as falling under the Anime Project. It has coverage in physical magazines released by publishers (not self-published), a manga adaption, and more.

This isn't just really an issue for this one article, but potentially a lot of them in our area, since anime-related coverage and reputable English sources aren't exactly plentiful, particularly for certain areas. It's been said before on anime reviews in particular, 'go find a Japanese one', but it doesn't work if people reviewing the article turn it down due to not knowing whether it's a good source or not DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Episode list created too soon again

This seems to be a reoccurring issue since it has happened at least once before, but I noticed a user created List of Gachiakuta episodes, even though the series has not aired any episodes and has no confirmed premiere date sometime beyond next year. Is there any opposition to moving the article to draft space? Link20XX (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It definitely does not deserve an article now. It is not even known how many episodes it will have and the article only has one citation. Xexerss (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Limits of using anime reviews as a source

I was comfortable with the explanation that reviews of a show can provide basic information or be used to write acceptance of the show, but not to confirm non-obvious or controversial information. But more and more often I see people refer to reviews as confirmation of the canonicity of certain things or their interpretation. Can someone explain this point to me, including the limits of using anime reviews as a source? This is especially sensitive, since often the other option in the absence of direct words from the author can only be some chapters or scenes, but as you understand, in non-obvious cases, none of us can give any assessments of the things happening in them.

As an example of the consequences of this, I can point to the infamous "anti-capitalist" G-Witch debates (one of many debates surrounding an article about this show), where users spent several years arguing over rating a show as anti-capitalist based on reviews without the author directly using such language, or the current low-intensity debates surrounding Kanoujo mo Kanoujo, where users try to describe one of the characters as bisexual based on a fan theory that was supported by reviewers. As you can see, this all very quickly turns into a fan debate where people argue about the interpretation or assessment of certain things while we lack both a primary source (the word of God) and essentially a secondary one (reviews cannot be a source about author's intentions) Solaire the knight (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I have always been a firm believer in "if a creator has not said it, then it should never be treated as a fact". It doesn't matter if the most reliable reviewer of all time wrote something as if it were a fact, or if a college professor wrote a paper on it, if it's not obvious in the work or outright stated by a creator, then it is nothing but one opinion and opinions must be attributed in the text; "John Doe of AnimeisCool.com found G-Witch to have an anti-capitalist message". This lets the reader know it is not a fact. Like you said, this is for things that can be considered controversial, or "likely to be challenged" as Wikipedia likes to use. Xfansd (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
That is, even if one opinion is dominant or widely held (for example, the view about misogyny in the original UC Gundam), we still have to describe it as a critical opinion to make it clear to the reader that this is an assessment and not something objective and directly recognized? Solaire the knight (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
In that specific Gundam example, I say yes. I am personally unfamiliar with all of the examples you have cited (after a quick search on Wikipedia I saw no current mention of anything like that about Gundam), but we're talking about controversial views here, and I don't see how labeling something "misogynistic" could not be seen as controversial. WP:INTEXT provides a warning about how poorly worded in-text attribution could fail to give due weight to the majority view, but that just means it has to be worded properly. Xfansd (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This is a common criticism of the first UC titles, as Tomino often "abused" female characters in order to show the cruelty of war and its hostility to women. Of course, Tomino has explained this more than once in interviews and has never shown a negative attitude towards women (for example, he has always been positive about the influence of fujoshi on the popularity of the franchise), but many people still try to attribute this to his potential misogyny. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I've only seen passing reference to this before, but I'd think it'd be best to include both the sources suggesting misogyny (making clear that it's opinion) along with the sources referring to Tomino's explanations of it. That is assuming that there are significant and multiple reliable sources suggesting there is misogyny and it's not a lot of fans but only a single reliable article to support.
Speaking more generally on the topic, I would suggest that reviews could be used to confirm basic facts, but only to show opinion on anything more controversial (and even then, only if it's clear that it's significant and not just a couple of reviewers).
To give an example that caused some complaints online, a reviewer from Anime News Network said two authors were "clearly attracted to kids". I don't believe we could use this as a 'fact' about the authors. Even if it's written as a statement, it's more a fairly loaded opinion. We could however use that source for the basic fact that there are nude transformation scenes which were mentioned. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Like “such and such a scene was criticized by ANN, whose journalist even assumed that the authors were attracted too...” etc.? Solaire the knight (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd probably err a bit more on the side of caution, and go with something along the lines of sources criticizing the series for a paedophilic nature along with the author for creating it (if various sources supported this) to avoid any BLP issues.
But main point it to avoid the controversial mentions from review sources, unless they're strongly backed up, and even then to make clear it's opinion even if the review may be presenting it as fact. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
And the same applies to other non-obvious points, even if they are not so controversial? For example, when does a journalist engage in a fan debates, or when does a journalist promote some non-obvious reading of the show? In particular, when ANN at the beginning of the broadcast described high expectations about yuri in Aquatope, citing a popular fan meme that visiting an aquarium in female-focused stories is unambiguous yuri symbolism. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd also handle that similarly, only when backed by multiple sources and making clear that it's opinion, since those sort of things are an 'extraordinary claim' / non-obvious interpretation. With that particular example, aquariums are common in anime, with Iruma-kun, Oregairu, and Rent a Girlfriend being a few non-yuri examples that immediately spring to mind (and Zom100 though not a date).
The way I think of it is that while these are considered journalists, it's worth keeping in mind that quite a few people who work for anime or gaming outlets are often just fans who started writing and got hired, and typically don't have any special expertise other than knowing the medium well and writing well enough to get approved by the outlet, sometimes hired before even graduating university. It's typically not going to be by someone who has published studies on yuri or a particularly rigorous analysis, so I'd consider one journalist saying something like this to not be particularly noteworthy for article inclusion or reliable on its own. Even if a more reputable outlet, I'd not find one opinion particularly noteworthy either. As a more general example, we can't infer that something was received poorly because one review was negative. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, aquariums are indeed common in yuri. But for a very simple reason - it is one of the most popular places for Japanese youth dates. Therefore, since yuri readers often tend to read mostly only yuri, they think that when other manga have non-romantic scenes with an aquarium, or even just a plot related to an aquarium, then they think that this is yuri aesthetics. In general, this is a kind of survivor’s mistake. As for the fans, I understand what you mean. This has been one of my main complaints about ANN, as when I was an avid reader of it, I often felt that many of their reviews were describing things too much from perspective of a person of culture, if you know what I mean. Therefore, in my opinion, reviews of moe shows have often been somewhat narrowly focused. For example, they included one Great Race-inspired steampunk anime on their year's "best LGBTQ anime" list simply because of the shipping of its two female leads. It’s clear that I couldn’t refuse a source just because I didn’t like it personally. But I made sure that people did not use this as confirmation of any non-obvious interpretations like in that case. At least without the reservation that this is the opinion of a journalist. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_77&oldid=1264584467"