From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Anime was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-class on the assessment scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Animation / Asian (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Asian animation work group (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Japan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:27, August 31, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.
This article has an assessment summary page.

News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Reliable References List[edit] I'm adding this one... Professor of Cultural anthropology focusing on Anime, you can't really go wrong... plus cited before and has a PDF.

Work in progress[edit]

I slapped a construction tag on this while I am working on it. Did a few major changes, the biggest being the rewriting and re-ordering of distribution.

Distribution old:

Distribution new:

This is probably the first of many major changes to come, while I do not think the new section is perfect, it is a big improvement over the wordy, rambling, and quasi-industry distribution section that was previously there. Is the production cost of anime even relevant to the distribution mediums? I'd disagree for something as broad as this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lots of hidden text and definitely a manga source erroneously applied to anime here:

Removed for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I have removed much of the OR and Synth in the "Influence on world culture" section, which involved a near-complete rewrite in order to fix it.[1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Every section except for the lede has been rewritten or worked on in some form, the result has been a major shift in tone, sourcing and word choice. Many dubious elements including an over-emphasis on Disney's 12 steps of animation has been addressed. I've removed the book on anime simply because it does more harm than good at this point, it will need to be done from scratch with careful attention given to its pieces. This should be done after both anime and manga reach GA status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is moving along now, I'll continue to tweak and expand as necessary, but the page is likely nearing GA quality for an overview. However, much of the information that should be split off to be covered in detail is currently poorly utilized and covered including the ailing Anime industry page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • With a bunch more citations and work I have decided to nominate it because it is more broad and detailed than ever before while retaining the same functional size. It should meet the criteria now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RWBY is declared as anime[edit]

RWBY is not listed as an anime on ANN, anidb, myanimelist or anime-planet. Verdict: the general Western audience that care about anime don't see it as an anime. You might as well remove or modify "The web-based series RWBY is produced using an anime art style and has been declared to be anime." to "The web-based series RWBY is produced using an anime art style and has been declared to be anime by some." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We cannot state "by some" because it will prove it's lack of confirmation. --(B)~(ー.ー)~(Z) (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of the text says "declared" and numerous places including its own creators bill it as such. Both its placement and accuracy is properly reflected in the section about geographical origin versus the stylistic art form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Then use "declared by its creators and others". The way it is now worded makes it seem as if this is an undisputed fact, when this is clearly not the case. Even RBWBY's own page on Wikipedia states it is "anime-styled". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Fix the anime pronunciation template, don't conceal it in a ref instead Kwamikagami. Also WP:BRD does not mean edit war. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS-JA, the Japanese language text should be included in the lede. It is not footnote material. There are too many pronunciation guides though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks ridiculous in addition to being gibberish. You might start by at least fixing what you restore. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I got rid of all of them except the IPA one so I don't know what else there is that you say needs fixing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We should keep the IPA, not delete it, as long as it can be confirmed. — kwami (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I kept the Japanese IPA and got rid of the English one, my mistake.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:



  • Many of the references are incomplete and need to be moved into citation templates for uniformity. The ideal would be to have shortened book refs and everything else under a References section, and a Bibliography section below with the more complete book citations in alphabetical order.
This is not a GA requirement. I may or may not do this within the week.
  • Many of the book refs lack page numbers where the cited information can be found.
Poitras' and Brenners' books are cited with the rp template for pages. These are found in-line. Is that what you were concerned with?
These aren't the only books used, and in spot checking other books the page numbers are not cited in-line.
  • Some of the references used are not as authoritative as they can be - lots of web pages when a book could be preferable.
Is there a problem with the sources? If so please, list the ones you have issues with and why they should not be cited.
Well, most of them are passable but not as strong as a book would be. It's not something to keep this from passing GA. The bigger issues with citations are below.
  • refs 2 and 9 are the same
  • refs 3 and 10 are the same
  • refs 15 and 20 have page in the citation, not in-line, and lack isbn. There are many other examples where the refs have the page number in the citation, not in-line, and/or don't have the isbn, that you will find when you look through the references section. The placement of the page number needs to be consistent for all refs.
  • ref 17 is Manichi News, not HDR Japan
  • imprinttalk ref link doesn't work
  • remove comment from ref 33
  • refs 34, 42, others - location of publication? Check all book references and add the publication location if it's missing
  • * Link for ref 35 is dead.
  • Refs 43, 50, 63, 64, others - lack basic information (who where when etc). Check for other examples of this issue
  • Ref 49 - substitute a more permanent and authoritative source than youtube
  • I've found some examples of over-linking. Terms should only be linked on the first usage in the lead, body, image caption and infobox.
Overlink is not a issue of the GA criteria, but I'll check for any duplicates that are not helpful.
It is, under 2a in the layout criteria. But I see that I misstated this - items can be linked as frequently as once per section, typically on the first occurrence.
  • Make sure all dates use the same format (day month year, or month day year); spell out the name of the month for consistency between the article content and references.
Not a GA criteria either... but I'll try and get this done.
  • In general, there is a lot here that is not as developed as it could be, so it currently does not meet GA standards for comprehensiveness or detail. There are examples of very well developed (GA/FA) articles on anime in Italian and Catalan. If you run them thru Google translate, you'll have a lot more content to add. As a bonus, many of the sources used in those articles are actually in English. They also incorporated some good images, which I've added to the article now.
This doesn't help me address your issues; it is too vague. What issues in particular do you find lacking for this article?
I'd really recommend that you look at the Italian and Catalan versions above (especially the Italian one, in my opinion), run through so you can see. They're both FA and this article doesn't need to have that level of detail, but they will help you see what this article could/should be in terms of scope, as well as critical detail elements that are missing here. For example, in the history of anime, the article does not identify the first anime serial - basic information that needs to be here. It also doesn't offer a balanced overview, focusing too much on particular individuals - the result of over-reliance on too few sources. When developments are discussed, dates are often left off, leaving the reader struggling to follow the chronology. The emergence of key genres is not adequately discussed either, with the sole focus on mecha. The history section is a great opportunity to identify groundbreaking creators and examples of anime. In addition, there could be a discussion of thematic characteristics of the genre. In the Italian version, there is an excellent discussion of the prevalence of certain types of themes and how these reflect Japanese cultural influences and references, including things like Shinto and Buddhism, bushido, post-apocalyptic/nuclear themes etc. In this article it might possibly fit under "attributes". The Cultural Impact section and the Production section are both underdeveloped as well, skimming over or omitting major aspects of each. See below at the bottom for a translated version of the table of contents from the Italian version.
Hello Lemur, my name's Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever. I wish Chris should continue and quicken this process of getting "Anime" to good article status, but can I take care of the parts you want him to improve here? —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


  • The references and more detailed aspects of the content in the first paragraph need to be moved into the body. The lead should only summarize later content, not introduce anything that is not more fully addressed in the body. Shorten the first paragraph to better summarize the meaning and usage of the term, and move the refs into the body.
References do not need to be moved in, but I did try to address the first paragraph better.
The MoS states,
"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."
Nothing in the lead is about a living person, there are no quotations, and I don't believe the material is likely to be challenged (but maybe you would disagree - what do you think?). To the extent that content is cited in the body and is unlikely to be challenged, citations in the lead are redundant. Since leads are meant to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects," the content in the lead needs to be covered in the body, and that's where the citations go (not the lead) unless the information is likely to be challenged or covers a living person. This is part of the GA criteria under 1b (lead) and 2b (citations). If you do believe certain material is likely to be challenged, let's discuss it here so we can reach that editorial consensus.
  • The second paragraph, beginning "The earliest commercial Japanese animation...", has several sentences beginning with the word Anime. To avoid repetition, would you please revise these sentences for greater variety in structure?
Did some tweaking.
  • In the last paragraph, the sentence beginning "Despite having a fraction of the domestic film market..." is confusing because it seems to mix film and television. Be more specific; were dubbed Japanese cartoon serials popular overseas before dubbed animated films? Which markets did Japanese animation expand to first, and where did it enjoy the greatest popularity?
The domestic film market was listed as 55% from documentaries. The source did not expand on it. Also the first media to enter America were pre-War Japanese films... not the Tezuka-style art associated with the media, but purely animation based on geographical origins. Though Astro Boy was a major breakthrough for America.
Expand on the lead with this kind of information. But please try to revise the wording in the lead for clarity and organization. Right now there are ideas combined in sentences when each idea really should be separated out and expanded upon. More careful word choice and sentence structure will make the entire article easier for readers to understand. My comment below is another way of saying the same thing.
  • In general, the lead is a little confusing because it attempts to summarize too much in too few words, and because the words chosen are sometimes vague. This is a long article so it's okay if each of the paragraphs in the lead are twice as long. Take the words you need to adequately summarize and express the ideas in the body, and take the time to choose those words with precision. Approach it from the perspective of a person who has never heard of anime before or ever seen any Japanese manga or anime in their life. This is the article they're going to come to, so it needs to be accessible to them and not make assumptions about prior knowledge.
Will do.

Definition and usage

  • ref name="ae" it is claimed that a range of over 100 pages explains the point made in that sentence. Surely the point can be found on one page, and if not, this is original research.
This is your error. Every citation includes the page number, inline.
Unfortunately in this style of citation the page number isn't immediately evident, particularly as it is difficult to distinguish from the superscript ref number. I won't ask you to change the cite style, although a clearer format would improve the article - but please do remove the page range from that reference to improve clarity.
  • The first sentence is typical of the prose challenges in this article: "Anime is an art form, specifically animation, that includes all genres found in cinema, but it can be mistakenly classified as a genre." This is confusing and I had to read it twice to guess what was intended here. Reword the first part. The second part, "but it can be mistakenly classified as a genre", is a separate idea that needs its own sentence, and it also needs to be reworded. Remove "mistakenly" (non-neutral) and discuss the elements of the anime genre, because it clearly *is* a genre of animation, if not a dramatic genre. The problems in this sentence could be fixed if you use some word other than "genre", like maybe "style".
I'll tweak this tomorrow.
It's not just this but the entire article that needs to be tweaked for clarity per the suggestion above.
  • "Some sources claim that anime... but others believe..." Who? (this is vague)
You got two major sites and Schodt's book containing the essays.. do we really need to attribute a specific individual when it is widespread?
Then I'd remove the discussion on sources and state it another way. Maybe something like "The origins of the term anime are uncertain. Proposed sources of the term include X and Y"


  • First sentence - were Japanese animators pioneering animation alongside contemporaries in the other listed countries, or experimenting based on earlier work in other countries?
This would tread into OR and is poorly documented. Even the first works to be shown are highly contentious still and is the subject of research. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Then remove the bit about pioneered in other countries, because the way it's worded now implies option A (Japanese animators pioneering animation alongside contemporaries) when you're not sure.
  • Second paragraph - first two sentences are unclear. Is the first sentence about Japanese cel animation only? Without this clarification, the second sentence describing competition from another form of animation doesn't make sense.
Most of these works are not extant; but it was not just cel animation that was present. Is this a problem?
Yes, the second sentence doesn't make sense unless the first sentence is only talking about cel animation, which you would need to make explicit. So reword this section to be more precise.
  • Could you expand on what exactly was the influence of Snow White on Japanese animators, as well as the relevance of Tezuka's adaptations of the Disney animation technique? Why do either of these things matter?
Aside from making a feature length animation be viable and being a subject of inspiration? That is all that is in the source.
State it. Make it explicit. And if you can, find other sources that can expand on it.
  • Was the growth of manga popularity in the 1970s in Japan or internationally?
International, with France. Poorly documented it seems.
I'm raising these questions for you to address in the article. Could you add the info there, not here?
  • Who called Tezuka a legend and god of manga?
  • Last paragraph of the history section - everything after "His work – and that of other pioneers in the field..." is unreferenced but needs to be supported with citations.


  • Last paragraph, I invented "Anime have been available for home distribution since the 1980s" as a place holder for the real information. We should know when home releases were popularized in Japan, and which countries were the next to catch on, in approximately what time period. Would you expand this and add the necessary references?


  • "includes important historical works like Tezuka's Astro Boy" - why are these important historical works? Can you find other adjectives that are more objective?
  • Explain what the Mecha subgenre is
  • This entire section needs to present all the major subgenres with links to their respective articles, including a short summary of what "defines" each of these sub-genres. What defines the harem sub-genre, for example? Right now, from an outside perspective, some of these come across more as themes than genres ("sports", "martial arts"?).
  • "While originally pornographic in terminology..." - this is unclear. When was the term in use to describe pornography, and when/how did it change?
  • Explain what happened post-2000 in regard to the use of homosexual characters, for comedic effect and otherwise


  • The first paragraph is vague and contradictory. Is anime distinctive or not? Does it have defining/unifying features or not?

Animation techniques

  • "Artists like Noburō Ōfuji pioneered..." I revised this sentence. Would you verify that the content is still correct?
  • When did Fuji announce an end to cel production?

Animation technique

  • "mainstream anime as using fewer expressive key frames and more in-between animation." - what does this mean, in non-technical terms?
  • The sentence beginning "Unlike Disney animation where the emphasis is on the movement" is awkward and unclear - please reword. Also, why point out Disney? Not Western animation in general? How do we tease this apart?
  • "Oppliger stated that anime is one of the rare mediums..." this doesn't seem to fit here. The focus of the paragraph is on animation and settings, not casting.
  • "The cinematic effects of anime differentiates itself from the stage plays found in American animation. Anime is cinematically shot as if by camera, including panning, zooming, distance and angle shots to more complex dynamic shots that would be difficult to produce in reality." This is a significant claim, and one that doesn't ring true. I also skimmed and didn't find this claim stated in the piece referenced. If this is true, there would need to be several sources to back it up, and ones that are more academic than the source used, which is the opinion of a non-specialist. I would also like to see more references to back up the claim about whether voice acting is done before or after the animation.
  • In the discussion on super deformed characters, include a link to an anime illustrating this type of character. Also add citations to support the information contained in this section.
  • " Poitras traces hairstyle color to cover illustrations on manga" - unclear, reword


  • "Body proportions of human anime characters tend to accurately reflect the proportions of the human body in reality." - Although this is cited, the citation link is 1) dead, and 2) when looking at the cache of the site linked, doesn't seem very credible--it's a basic how-to page for drawing what seems to me as a specific form of it. This statement seems to be contradicted later on in the same paragraph, too, when it speaks of the "occasional" many variations on body proportions. Instead of speaking of Anime generally when it comes to animation styles, perhaps it would be better to consider combining this with the Genre section of Anime?


  • "In 2001, animation accounted for 7% of the Japanese film market, above the 4.6% market share for live-action works." What accounts for the other 89% of the Japanese film market??
  • "As the internet gained more widespread use..." how does this relate to anime?
  • "The anime market for the United States alone was worth..." can you find more recent data than 2007?
  • "Dubbed animation began airing in the United States in 2000..." - this overlooks Japanese anime series that aired earlier, like Speed Racer in the 1960s, and joint US-Japan productions in the 80s with Japanese character design and animation like Transformers.
  • This section should discuss the most profitable anime television series and movies, both in Japan and in overseas markets.
  • " top ten anime titles having previously aired" - previous to what?

Influence on world culture

  • This section needs to be significantly developed. There is much that can be said here. The section also needs references to reliable sources.

Fan response

  • When did anime clubs arise, and what is the anime boom?
  • Explain what cosplay is.

"Anime style"

  • The organization of this section is unclear. It would be best to title this section "Anime-influenced animation" with a link to the Main Article beneath it. Introduce the concept with examples, then describe the challenges (is all animation anime? What about satire?).
That concludes my review for now. This article does need a bit of work, but I think it can reach GA this time around if you're willing to take some time to do a full copy edit for clarity, organization, word choice and grammar/spelling, fix the formatting of references and improve their quality and frequency of use, and expand the content in the places indicated. The extent of issues above kept me from being able to focus on the article as a whole in terms of comprehensiveness and organization, and I would want to do a second go-around after the above issues have been addressed. We can get this article over the GA hump and I hope this review helps motivate and focus the effort. Keep up the great work on anime topics! This is a huge one to tackle and you're a champ for taking it on. - Lemurbaby (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll do my best, this is a very important article and I didn't want to make it overly long. Much of the information is very easy to put up and add. I used page citations for Poitras' and Brenner's books, did you have a problem with them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's an important one, and it's okay for it to be as long as it needs to be to summarize and provide context for the other main articles that stem from it. Take the time you need and if there are comments here that are really not clear please let me know so we can discuss them further.

Italian version (FA)

1 Definition
2 Format
3 History
3.1 The origins
3.2 The post-war
3.3 Manga and television : the birth of the anime industry
3.4 Anime boom
3.5 The new animation serial
3.6 Industry and current market
4 Cultural references
4.1 Shinto and Buddhism
4.2 Bushido
4.3 Senpai and Kohai
4.4 Sense of duty
4.5 Man, nature and technology
5 The production process
5.1 Planning
5.2 Screenplay and ekonte
5.3 Animation
5.4 Sound
6 The language of anime
6.1 Animation Limited
6.2 Directed film
6.3 Time Dilation
6.4 The signs of anime
7 Main Authors
8 Key animation studios
9 Genres and subgenres
10 Anime overseas
10.1 Asia
10.2 North America
10.3 Europe
10.4 Latin America
10.5 Africa
10.6 Australia
11 Notes
12 Bibliography
13 See also
14 External links

Not sure if it was covered it[edit]

But I just took a look an there's a lot of stuff to work on. For example:

  • "Typical anime girl" illustration that I removed.
  • "According to Ke Jiang, a Japanese animator for Disney, told Anime News Network that animators in Japan, like everywhere else, study the techniques of Disney in school, anime has a distinct set of conventions that Japanese animators must learn and apply." - could it be any more awkwardly worded?

The whole article needs a basic copyedit. --Niemti (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy edited. --Niemti (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, yes the need for copy edit was covered. I reviewed six of Chris's nominations simultaneously so we are working our way through them one at a time. Just finished the process for Neon Genesis Evangelion, which is happily now at GA. Watch this space. :) - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

This edit broke a lot of the referencing so I have undone it.[2] With that being said, I am going to be expanding and conducting the copyedit afterwards. I've asked for some help in checking this article as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hey Chris, since it's been almost two months since the initial reviews and other editors have contacted me to close them, I've gone ahead and done that. But you've got all the suggestions you can work from to improve these, and I'm still here to help clarify what I identified as issues to fix. When you've finished revisions, renominate the article(s) and I will be able to review and pass them faster. This way the pressure is off you to work fast on all of them at once. - Lemurbaby (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To be fair I wondered why they were still open. I simply do not have the language skills to get and read the Japanese sources required to make them GA. I've exhausted everything in English and questioned remained. While GA can have a gaps or be very broad in coverage, I suppose it needs more detail. Most of these sources are not in English and I didn't feel like puffing it up with what should be three different article's worth of text. Though the real reason could just simply be that I don't want any more conflict in this editing space and I nominated all these before the problems got bad - and I simply do not like editing it as a result now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean[edit]

"As the internet gained more widespread use in Japan, online advertising revenues grew from 1.6 billion yen to over 180 billion yen between 1995 and 2005." How is this related to this article? Kuwaity26 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Kuwaity26 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source seems to be saying that as advertisement revenue goes up, so does the amount of content being consumed, but that is not directly related to anime, as the source itself indicates, it applies to all content industries.--Cattus talk 23:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Anime is dangerous?[edit]

I have read a newspaper said that anime is dangerous in Malaysia. I like to put this info into article. So these is the local net newspapers I got from the internet

  1. English translated form Kosmo!
  2. English translated from mStar Online
  3. Forum with newspaper said about the dangerous of anime in Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNN95 (talkcontribs) 05:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting sources[edit]

The source in the article says the anime market in the U.S. was worth $4.35 billion in 2007, but this source says it was US$2.829 billion.--Cattus talk 00:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I just found more recent data, so I'll just replace the older data in the article.--Cattus talk 00:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Should remove that bullshit example of an expressive template[edit]

It looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old weeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Where Is It?[edit]

The anime sections on Wikipedia used to provide a wealth of information about anime/manga related art and drawing styles (and how to do it). Where the fork is that information now? If it's still there, it would be cool to have some links in the "anime" or "manga" pages. Otherwise, external links to such information would be good. (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When was this? It might have been deleted over time as wikipedia was never meant to be a guide to project. It has always been an encyclopedia. One that gives general information about the subject, with some details here and there. NathanWubs (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Most likely it wad deleted per WP:NOTHOW.-- (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

À (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)