Template talk:Infobox animanga

Publishing label -> Imprint

I've been thinking of chaining the filed "Publishing label" to "Imprint" for the following reasons. First, imprint is the actual term for the brand name under which a work is published. An example is that Del Rey Manga is an imprint of Random House. Second, the term "Imprint" takes up less room in the infobox than "Publishing label". Next to "English publisher" and "English magazine", which I hope will be deprecated sooner or later, it is one of the longest field names in the infobox. In addition to using "Imprint" as the field name, |imprint= will be added as an alternative to the existing |label= parameter. —Farix (t | c) 19:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the label/imprint really that relevant? Most of the time, its not mentioned in the article either. The publisher is just listed as Del Rey Manga not, the Del Rey Manga imprint of Random House. And I'd hope the English fields are never deprecated. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The imprint field is used more for Japanese novels and light novels than for manga, the former sometimes is mentioned in the lead section. The Del Rey Manga example was simply used to illustrate what imprints are using an imprint that most English editors would be familiar with. —Farix (t | c) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also issues for items released without an imprint, like Dark Horse Comics.陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of changing it to imprint (as I have been doing this in articles for some time now), and would be opposed to removing the field, simply because most Japanese novel/light novel imprints do not have articles, so you'd still need to list the original publisher anyway. For example, ASCII Media Works has six imprints, but only three have articles.--十八 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this as well, but am curious to know if there is any difference at all between "[publishing] label" and "imprint". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 10:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there isn't. This is backed up by the fact that publishing label is a redirect of imprint. —Farix (t | c) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how this will work with items like Dark Horse Comics. The current format still works for Imprints, but the change will not work for non-imprint publications.陣内_Jinnai 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The "imprint" filed is for Japanese imprints. It has nothing to do with Dark Horse Comics. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but what happens in the future if we have Japanese printed material released by non-imprint?陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean when a publication is published under the publishing company's name? Then leave it blank. —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Another question though, do we just list the first imprint? I will use Viz as an example. A lot of their titles have been printed for some time under their Shonen Jump imprint. However a lot of them are now reprinted (sometimes changed mid-series) to Shonen Sunday or Shonen Jump Advance. Since the publisher is still the same, do we put all version for the imprint or just the first?陣内_Jinnai 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an actual case? —Farix (t | c) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball.陣内_Jinnai 16:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only see one imprint mentioned in the article, and that is for a couple of art books (which we don't list in an infobox). —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball, not Dragonball Z (as far as i know), was originally printed under Viz Media directly with a whiteback. They were later reprinted under the Shonen Jump imprint with the redback.陣内_Jinnai 16:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, did you miss where I said that the "imprint" filed is for Japanese imprints? —Farix (t | c) 17:11, 024 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, yea i missed that. However, even given that there are still exceptions such as Kyō Kara Ore Wa!! which was originally published under Shonen Sunday Super and later moved to Shonen Sunday. There is also School Rumble which was simultantiously in 3 magazines.

If this is meant only for the tankōbon volumes, then I will admit I cannot think of any and ifso that's fine.陣内_Jinnai 17:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Shonen Sunday Super and Shonen Sunday are magazines. They are not imprints. —Farix (t | c) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, regarding Jinnai's point, I'll bring up Hayate X Blade which used to be published under the Dengeki Comics imprint by ASCII Media Works, but is now published under the Young Jump Comics imprint by Shueisha.--十八 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Other_XXX parameters after effect

Hi,

I happened to find editors moving the contents of others_XXX parameter into the XXX parameter like here. I think a possible solution is to tweak the infobox to state that it's the Japanese publisher, magazine, network, etc... The parameters themselves don't need to be renamed just the rendered results need to be refined to not let any loose end for infobox stuffing. --KrebMarkt 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the fields altogether. The problem with add "Japanese" to the field is that it will wrap, causing the field to take up more space. The best course of action is to remove non-Japanese info from these fields when you see them. If an editor precises with re-adding the information, point them to the documentation. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Serial novel param problem

In articles like Da Capo II that use the serial novel parameter, the novel box is seemingly merged with the box immediately preceding it (in this case, the game box and one of the manga boxes). Can someone please fix this?--十八 11:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, but it's protected for some reason. Goodraise 11:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

About the protection, I just read this related discussion. Maybe it's time to think about renaming the template. Goodraise 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

/Prose ? Doceirias (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

/Book, I think, makes a certain amount of sense... Also note that, while it doesn't resolve the underlying issue, if you have a version to replace the template with, you can drop a message on my main talk page for me to log in and make the edit, since I check that page with some regularity. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help with making edits to protected templates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

important people fields

When I was updating Popotan to add Akio Watanabe as the lead animator for the original and director for the remake of the visual novels, I realized that we do not have a way of adding him nor other key indivsuals like similar templates do {FE: Dragon Quest).陣内_Jinnai 03:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database

It seems to me that {{Infobox animanga/Video}} could use an optional IMDB parameter to expand into an invocation of {{IMDB title}}.

It's not completely trivial, because you need the ability to pass a hand-coded title (and optional suffix). (You can't always infer the title of the page at imdb.com will match either {{Infobox animanga/Header}}'s name= parameter, or Video's title= parameter). I don't know whether you'd prefer three separate IMDB[_id]=, IMDB_title= and IMDB_description= parameters, or a single IMDB= parameter with a composite argument.

Thanks, hope this helps. AHMartin (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a standing guideline against links in infobox except for first-party links. And exactly what benefit is there in adding such a link in the infobox instead of in the external link section. Template:Infobox film doesn't link to IMDb, even though film articles have more reasons to link to IMDb than an anime/manga article. (discussion) Neither does Template:Infobox television. If there are any "third-party" links that could go into the infobox, it should be to Anime News Network's encyclopedia, which is far more complete and more accurate than IMDb. But ultimately, we shouldn't promote a particular website in the infoboxes. —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Essential parameters

I'm adding in some checks for the presents of certain parameters that are deemed "essential". What this means is that the parameter must be defined even if it is empty. So far I have checks for the following parameters

• {{Infobox animanga/Print}}
  • |author=
  • |publisher=
  • |first= or |published=
• {{Infobox animanga/Video}}
  • |director=
  • |studio=
  • |network= (if |type= is defined as "tv series", "tv film", "drama", or "special")
  • |runtime= (if |type= is defined as "tv film", "special", "ova", "ona", "live video", "film", or "live film")

Infoboxes missing one or more of these parameters will be added to Category:Anime and manga articles with missing infobox parameters. Are there any other parameters that should be checked as well? —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please attach the italicization template.

Several TV series such as Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob SquarePants has its italicized title so please try to put an italics on it. See Template:Infobox television for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3oWh pF0wHz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Apply italics to what, exactly? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think an infobox template should be altering any aspect of how a page displays. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it has become common usage. Many other infobox templates are adding this. The VG template just implimented. As to what, I'd say series titles and all specific media titles.陣内_Jinnai 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I don't see a problem with doing that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Code to add

Looks like this is the code which would need to be added:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{italic title|¬}}}}}
 |¬|no       = <!-- no italic title -->
 ||force|yes = {{italic title|force={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{italic title|}}}}}|force|true}}}}

As well as this:

| italic title= {{{italic_title|}}}

The first part is in Template:Infobox, but we don't call that template, instead using Template:Infobox/row. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Y Done I have modified the code in Template:Infobox animanga/Header. See the difference. Should there be any problem, please discuss here. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Serial novel category now exists

I created Category:Japanese serial novels, so we can update the serial novel template tag, which now defaults to Category:Japanese novels. Since the template is protected, I can't do it myself. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it's better to phase out the auto-categorization of the templates in place of manual categorization. I've already did that with some of the smaller categorize, though I haven't removed the code form the template yet. —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that. I think the manga novels should be a separate subcat of "Japanese novels", and manual categorization would make that distinction easier. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Has the auto-categorization been phased out yet? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not has of yet, and probably won't for a while. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Runtime

Why is runtime disabled for TV anime? For long-running series 22min vs 26min is a huge difference. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it is extremely trivial when compared to the other fields in the infobox and most TV episodes are no more then their half-hour time slot anyways. The only reason to note a runtime is when the episode lengths are more then a half-hour, and those are extremely rare cases. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lavender field shadings

Hey folks,

Most infobox templates did away with providing background shading on their label fields several years ago: it gives an incongruous striped effect to one side of the template, and the bold on the labels themselves already makes them distinct from the text. This should be trivial to remove from the various sub-templates: are there any particular objections to doing so? This won't effect the headers, just the labels on the left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now pushed this change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)