Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated NA-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page 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.
 Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.

Retailers[edit]

I don't think "major" is needed. Major implies a size issue and there are legitimate small retailers that do pass for FL and FA articles for other items.じんない 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in other discussions it has been specifically noted that "major" retailers should be used, not minor ones. For anime/manga that would be places like RightStuf, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc and not smaller sites like, say, JustManga.com. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably if we're talking release dates, but product's existence does not need a major retailer to verify it. Talking here more about merchandise like action figures, figurines, plushies, etc. Items we usually do not worry about release dates. Specialty retailers such as online hobby stores that deal in such items should be enough to verify that. I do agree mom/pop stores probably shouldn't be used...and defiantly not sites like ebay.じんない 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Publishers?[edit]

Should we list any publisher's websites here? Some of them have rather obtuse URLs, and some (particularly Japanese *looks at Kodansha*) don't make it very obvious where the best place to search is. Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that could be a good idea, especially for the Japanese companies since some those can be a bit daunting to find with them being in Japanese :P (and some, having multiple official sites, with one being catalog, other being general info type thing). Would also probably be good to note how to reference Tokyopop's release dates to their official sites thanks to the screwy new design. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Where should the section be put in, and where will we draw the line (e.g. at some point, a link simply serves to advertise the company, rather than actually helping editors)? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Themanime is dead?[edit]

I just checked the site Themanime to find a bit of reception for Vegeta, but it seems the site is dead or something. Did they change the url or could there be an archived website? Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

works for me Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Guessing a server hiccup as it is also up for me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Another issue is that most GA articles from the wikiproject use themanime. I hope the website will return.Tintor2 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need another reassurance, but it's up for me. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried it again recently? Because it  works for me too. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it returned.Tintor2 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Foriegn language sources[edit]

Should we perhaps group them together with sub-groups for the specific language since most users will be looking for English sources who come here (unable to speak the other language)?じんない 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

iSUGOI[edit]

How about adding iSUGOI to the genaral anime site list. Their reviews are pretty solid and they seem like they're run by some awesome people.Alan Walker22 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You would be better off asking this on WT:ANIME, which gets far more traffic than this page does (that means it's much more likely for your request to be looked at and commented on). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No. There is nothing "solid" about the site, it is a fansite and not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)r

Sites cited by established reliable sources[edit]

Are sites used by an established, reliable source themselves reliable? It would seem to logically follow.

In this article [1] manga.about.com refers to Anime Diet, Anime Almanac, Huffington Post, and Anime News Network as sites whose opinions on the movie Ponyo are worth noting. -moritheilTalk 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If only one reliable source cites them, I'd say no. Some reliable sources have used Wikipedia itself, after all. That said, ANN is already a reliable source for anime news and reviews and the Huffington post is obviously RS as a national paper. Anime Almanac, definitely no. Anime Diet, for now I'd say mostly no, but one to keep an eye on. They are starting to get press passes at convention centers, so they do have some interviews that can be used now, and it looks like they are starting to be considered a valid enough reviewer to get review copies from publishers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"Are sites used by an established, reliable source themselves reliable?" – The simple answer is yes. However, editors need to understand that, for the grand majority of sources, one can't simply put a "reliable"-sticker on it and use it indiscriminately. There are shades of grey. While there are those publishers who only publish things that they are sure of, meaning that these sources are always peer reviewed or have gone through similar quality checks, this isn't the case for most sources that we deal with in anime and manga related articles. With most of our sources, editors will always have to ask themselves whether a source is reliable for the particular statement it is used to cite. For example, if a press release from a publisher of manga states that they will release "volume x of [their] hit manga xxx on" some date, then that press release could be used as a reliable source for the release date, but not for characterizing xxx as a "hit manga", unless the statement is attributed to them, in which case it becomes apparently superfluous. Even more shades of grey come into play when we get to reviews. Whenever someone says that some source "is reliable for reviews", I shudder. It's not a question of reliability, it's a question of giving due weight. When you write an article, you'll write a reception section that is of due length compared to the rest of the article and within that section, you'll summarize the opinions of reviewers and other entities that have commented on the article's subject, again, giving due weight to each of them. For most opinions, giving due weight means not mentioning them at all. In this context, "most opinions" means those opinions published in the hundreds and thousands of anime blogs and membership websites. The blog of blogger xyz is always a reliable source for the opinion of blogger xyz, but that doesn't mean we'll put his or her opinion into all of our articles. On the other hand, if that blogger's opinion is commonly referred to by other entities with noteworthy opinions, then that's a whole different story. In general, when summarizing someone's opinion in an article, one should, right then and there, in the prose, specify what it is that makes that entity's opinion worth mentioning. – I hope this was helpful. In any case, sorry for the wall of text. Perhaps I should write an essay on the subject... Goodraise 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's worth noting that in the past we have added in sites to the RS list based on ANN using them as a source, but usually one can turn up several score (or hundred) such uses by ANN. One-off citations are nice, but far from sufficient. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 1 September 2010 (GMT)

Online reliable source for anime cast/production info?[edit]

The guidelines for online reliable sources state that Anime News Network's encyclopedia section cannot be considered a reliable source because it is user edited. However, I am having a hard time finding an online reliable source for cast and production information on various anime series - such as who the voice actors were, music and art directors, character design, and so on. Such information is sorely needed to reach Good Article or Featured Article status - heck, even a Featured Article of this project, Madlax, includes references to ANN's encyclopedia section - references 15-20. Can a more experienced member of this project point me to an online reliable source that has this sort of information? Thanks! -BloodDoll (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to specify in English. -BloodDoll (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
ANN Encyclopedia won't do as user edited. Note i found funny to have ANN encyclopedia pointing to the Wikipedia as source for some roles. As much i can tell there is no reliable extended anime database available in English which makes finding sourcing those bits of information even more challenging.
Alternative solutions in Japanese: Official anime website, webpage of the anime in broadcaster website (ex: TV Tokyo), Animax website or Newtype (Bandai Channel) website. Usually any anime series can have most of its cast/production covered this way, "however" you won't find source for the "third tertiaries characters on the left". --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and informative response! Nothing in life is easy, as the saying goes. A somewhat related question, then: how about the Adult Swim website? They broadcast various anime series to North American audiences on the Cartoon Network. Would English cast and production info be credible? I cannot find any mention of it in this Wikiproject article on online reliable sources. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Adult Swim is Ok. TV Channels know about what they are broadcasting. --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hitoshi Doi's website is a RS and for the seiyu. It's not as comprehensive as ANN's encylopedia, but you can look up a series on their encyclopedia and try to confirm it on his website. For English VAs, well that's another story.Jinnai 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for your responses.. much appreciated. :) @KrebMarkt: I will go ahead and use it as a source, then. Thank you! @Jinnai: yeah, seems like English VA credits are hard to find! That's why I asked about the Adult Swim website - it lists the English VA's for the series it shows, but no idea exactly where it got the information from. It is apparently an RS, though, so that's what I'll use. Mayhap it should be added into the list of RS in this resource article? I am not experienced enough to know what the process is for adding such info. -BloodDoll (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you find a Japanese source, let me know and I can translate it for you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a very generous offer to make. Thanks! I may indeed need a translator in the future - if so, I will drop by your talk page and let you know. :) -BloodDoll (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlinking the unreliable sources[edit]

I'd like it if we could take the entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Unreliable and break the hyperlinks.

Currently my CSE grabs every link on the page for its whitelist, and has no way of knowing that some of the outbound links are unreliable. I have manually blacklisted the current links, but I'm not sure whether that will take precedence over the whitelisting.

Since people shouldn't be going to those sites in the first place, they may be causing problems at the CSE, and we may be giving those sites additional traffic or Google juice (who knows whether the NOFOLLOWs really work), there's good reason to unlink them. Thoughts? --Gwern (contribs) 22:52 21 November 2010 (GMT)

Update: no one objected so I removed it a few days ago. --Gwern (contribs) 17:59 17 January 2011 (GMT)

Reliability of the Voice Actor DataBase[edit]

Can the database be used for citing a voice actor's psuedonym(s)? I ask because this source is being contested. The page appears to have been on this listing since its inception. How was its reliability established anyway? Thanks. --生け 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"How was its reliability established anyway?" -- That a source is listed here does not mean that its reliability has been established. Perhaps we should note that in the lead somehow... I'm sorry. I'm sure you were hoping for a more helpful reply. Goodraise 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no big deal. I just assumed that if a link was here that it would be valid for citation purposes. Since that isn't the case then this should be noted somewhere as you suggested. It might be worth following the checklist format used by WP:VG/RS#Checklist as sources become approved as being "reliable". Thanks for the info. --生け 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We must use the high quality sources for a living person per WP:BLP. The caretaker of Voice Artist DataBase warns the information of another name is based on the supposition ("複数の名前を使い分けている声優さんをイコールで結んでおりますが、これに関してはあくまでも聞き耳を元にした推測ですので「恐らくそうだろう」程度の物だとお考えください。"). And another name for eroge isn't mostly official and verifiable by the source such as book and magazine; Therefore, Voice Artist DataBase is not reliabile for another name of voice actor.
Incidentally, another names without reliable source such as "タレント名鑑" and official source are rejected under discussion on the project in jawp.--Mujaki (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the Comics Buyer's Guide web site RS for reviews?[edit]

I have noted that Billy Aguiar (former contributing writer for Newtype USA) has written manga reviews for CBGXtra.com and I like to know if the reviews are RS and should they be given any weight. – Allen4names 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Commercial establishment bias much?[edit]

I find it really, really sad that the powers that be have decreed that ANN is unreliable and must be purged, while retailer promo pages are considered reliable and are extensively used to prove "notability." They're very reliable for flogging their own product, but not much else.
The really sad part? I learned years ago that ANN is a lot more reliable than Wikipedia about anime. What's that old line about taking the beam out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of someone else's? 98.237.211.114 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ANN is reliable with news, not with their own pages.they just like wiki but they don't have much freedom.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They are also reliable for their own reviews and editorials.Jinnai 03:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If you had ever tried to report an error in ANN's encyclopedia, you would know that it can take literally years for even obvious errors to be corrected. Even blatantly false information in the encyclopedia often stays for years. For example, ANN's encyclopedia has said for quite some time that Cartoon Network showed AIKa R-16: Virgin Mission, despite that being obviously rediculous and several people having reported it as erroneous. While ANN's encyclopedia may be right most of the time, it is false information like that which show why it can't be considered reliable. Anyway, as people have pointed out above, ANN's news, columns, and reviews are all reliable sources, so if for some reason you thought they weren't reliable, you are mistaken. Calathan (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll put your single instance of ANN's encyclopedia being wrong up against Wikipedia's being riddled with the bias of whichever editor last edited a page any day. The very thing you complain about, that you were unable to correct one error on your own, destroys the argument that was made against it: "They're not reliable because anyone can edit it." Which one is it? I'll take "An error here and there made by a few people who know what they're talking about" (ANN) over "Rampant errors, but they can theoretically be corrected by anyone" (WP) any day.
I'll grant you that ANN's encyclopedia isn't "reliable" by the definition of "has a source that meets the approval of a nepotistic bureaucracy", even though that's circular as hell. ("They're not reliable because we say they aren't reliable.") But if you define reliability as "percentage of the time a subject is thoroughly and accurately covered", they stomp WP into the ground. Heck, they win by default simply by their extensive cross-referencing and the fact they cover every work, compared to primarily covering the commercially notable ones because the retailers who sell them have promo pages that are "reliable". 76.22.25.75 (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (better known as 98.237.211.114, but apparently my ISP dynamically addresses now.)
They have odd naming conventions, and really there news is always accurate. despite there news being accurate and reliable enough to use, there pages aren't. There are various ways to getting away with a certain vandal and there is a significant number of pages they have that are off. So we only cite the news they have. Plus, it's practically another wiki.
And if you grant they aren't reliable through the standards of wikipedia, than why bother arguing about it? Just by going by a different definition? We add them into the external links, and we have their news and there reviews as reliable info we can add in, so that shows some credit to the site. Anymore of this argument is pointless and it shows you're not really arguing for the sake of improving wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear editor with the dynamically changing IP address,

First off, let me thank you for your concern about the Wikipedia. I can certainly understand why you would label it a "commercial establishment bias", when a decent source of information, such as ANN's encyclopedia, is apparently marked unusable, while commercial sites are allowed. There are, however, some aspects of this issue that I think you are missing. For one, the term "reliable" (much like the term "notable") is rarely used in the plain dictionary sense among Wikipedians. Rather, in most cases, when we say a source is "reliable", what we actually mean is that the source is "reliable for the intents and purposes of Wikipedia". That we don't want to use ANN's encyclopedia as source for our articles doesn't mean that we think our encyclopedia is better than theirs. We know that the opposite is the case. And we know that Wikipedia will never be reliable as per our own standards. We can't expect our readers to trust anything written in any of our articles. I certainly never will. The best we can do is to provide top notch sources to our readers to verify the information for themselves. And that's where the problem lies. ANN's encyclopedia may be good, but it's not good enough.

As for the other side of your argument, commercial sites and their conflict of interest: True. Commercial sites tend to be biased towards their own products. But the solution to biased statements and sources in Wikipedia is not to introduce statements and sources with an opposing bias, it's to get rid of the original bias. Note that "reliability" is not like a certificate that is handed out to a source, which then can be used indiscriminately. After all, you don't call your physician, when you want to have your car repaired. It's the same with sources. When you want to know if a certain manga is any good, you visit a review website, not the website of that manga's retailer. On the other hand, if you're interested in how many volumes of that manga have been release and when, the retailer's website is the better choice. Lastly, I'd like to point out to you that such sources cannot be used to establish a subject's notability, because they don't qualify as "independent". See WP:GNG for details.

Hope this was of help. Goodraise 08:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it does. (For reference, the regretfully-ambiguous dynamic addressing is my ISP's doing. If I could change it, I gladly would.)
I would only post one quibble in response, though otherwise I understand and agree with the entirety of your post. I would replace "such sources cannot be used to establish a subject's notability" with "such sources should not be used to establish a subject's notability". I've seen it done more than once to prove why someone's favorite character is notable, since they're mentioned by name on a retailer promo page. I've also seen those references taken and quoted verbatim as if they were reviews, or even synthesized into new conclusions.
Whether or not an editor should do XYZ, they always can - and until an editor with enough stubbornness, spare time, and knowledge of how to work the system repeatedly argues them down, that edit will stand. 98.225.34.157 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, for most editors it will be enough to explain it to them once, maybe twice. Those who are refusing to "get the point" (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) can be considered "disruptive" and dealt with accordingly. WP:DDE explains how. By the way, registering to Wikipedia is a lot quicker and less painful than one might expect. You probably spent more time in this thread, explaining who you are, than it would have taken you to sign up. Goodraise 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It sounds as though we've had different overall experiences with Wikipedia, for which I'm glad. For all I know, yours is probably the truer one, and it's much easier now to deal with borderline disruptives who've learned how to lawyer and how to nominally apologize once in awhile as a get-out-of-trouble-free card (just before resuming the same behavior), those who make you-scratch-my-back allies to always be on the right side of consensus, and their ilk. I strongly hope so, because I would hate for you and others to be experiencing the same "Why am I even bothering?" frustrations. From my outsider's POV, I've seen it still going strong as recently as six months ago - but hopefully, what I saw was an emergent phenomenon that was quickly dealt with afterward.
However, were I to spend the time creating a new "name" account instead of reactivating my old one, it would probably take significantly longer than typing a couple of sentences. And for me, at least, it wouldn't really be worth it. But I thank you for your time and courtesy with a grumpy old man. (^_^) 98.225.34.157 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: After looking around, I see I was wrong - time flies as you get older. It was actually over a year ago. But I also see that the same people are still around and happily OWNing their favorite pages. 98.225.34.157 (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you give an example? I'd like to see for myself what you're talking about. Goodraise 05:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's all the same, I'd rather not keep trying to disillusion you with stories from the past that may now represent a small minority of cases. Between my last response and now, I spent some time looking through abuse-of-process cases I was personally familiar with in the past, and I see that a large majority of them eventually were banned for those abuses or have quit of their own accord. Things may be better now for the most part - I hope so.
I genuinely don't know whether the present example I have in mind is an isolated instance, and I wouldn't wish trying to root out a mutual-support group on anyone who's not a dedicated admin with the power to do so directly. Especially not an editor of goodwill who's giving me reason to doubt that Wikipedia isn't worth it. That would be a sorry way to repay a good deed. 98.225.34.157 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another that site from Chris Beveridge[edit]

Chris Beveridge from Animeondvd and Mania move to thefandompost. Shouldn't it be added here? I guess it's pretty obvious it should, but I don't know where it could be. Tintor2 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AnimeVice[edit]

After checking a few links to AnimeVice.com, I've noticed that most of the links are to their wiki, which contains user generated content. It also appears that a lot of their other content is also user generated, but a more through investigation should be conducted before it is explicitly listed as a unreliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't like AnimeVice either - I blacklisted them months ago in my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 15:34 25 August 2011 (GMT)

This is what I'm about to add for AnimeVice under situational:

  • Anime Vice - Reviews and cometaries by Gia Manry are considered reliable as she has reviews published by other reliable sources, namely Anime News Network. Other staff members (Matt Kessler, Matt Lopez, Tom Pinchuk, and Chris Schmitt) have yet to be verified. Care should be taken when using Anime Vice as much of the website's content is user submitted/generated and would not be considered a reliable source.

Farix (t | c) 11:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Manry sounds good, but after poking around on AV for a bit, I couldn't see how to get any set of URLs that was only her reviews; so unless anyone has ideas on how I can include only her material, I'm going to have to leave AV on the blacklist (it would show up in a lot of queries otherwise). --Gwern (contribs) 00:04 27 August 2011 (GMT)
Just to note: Gia Manry not only has reviews published by ANN, she has been employed as Associate Editor there since June 2010 - although ironically her field is the "interest" articles which are currently excluded as a reliable source. She left Anime Vice when she joined ANN (IIRC part of her contract with ANN was that she couldn't write on the subject of anime for any other site so she also shut her blog). She lists testimonials on her site. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think AnimeView should not be listed here since its just 1 author and just Manry (similar to about.com).Jinnai 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and @Gwern: Gia's reviews for AV are all listed here: http://www.animevice.com/profile/gia/reviews/ Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

LupinEncyclopedia.com[edit]

Hello, I would like to submit that http://www.lupinencyclopedia.com/ be considered a reliable and accurate source. While a fan site, like Nausicaa.net, all the information provided on the site are accurate. The value of this site is great, as it provides cast information and production staff information for all specials and TV series, as well as information on games, manga, music, and recent news. The reviews section may be the only section that may not qualify as usable for sources, but everything else is accurate and reliable. Reed Nelson, who provided audio commentaries and detailed notes for Lupin III DVD releases by Diskotek Media (see here and here), sources the site on his website lupinthethird.com --AutoGyro (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already a reliable source often used as source in the Lupin III main article. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Im not sure its so reliable it was used in one of the Lupin the III articles which is now being delisted and having it has a source is one of the reasons. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates "I have no idea why "www.lupinencyclopedia.com" would be considered a reliable source." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and asked over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#LupinEncyclopedia.com - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well based on the chat so far I have an opinion that it looks like a fansite. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The conversation is not yet over :P I've responded on the noticeboard. --AutoGyro (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As usual & as espected, there was a discution back then about that subject. Bother from time to time to look inside the archive, re-inventing the wheel is a bother. --KrebMarkt (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If the source is deemed reliable I will list it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources so the wheel doesnt have to spin again *Sweatdrop* - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

insidescanlation.com[edit]

I would like to hear a discussion on whether insidescanlation.com is a reliable site or not. It was created by a fan named "gum" regarding the US scanalation community.

Insidescanalation lists three interviews conducted with figures from the industry. I was only able to barely verify one of them, the one with Simon Jones from Icarus Publishing: [2]. Though it's hard to tell really. AngelFire3423 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can it be deemed anything other than an SPS, given that the only name connected to the site is "gum"? It says "If you wish to contact the staff of the site and are having trouble, please post a request on the bulletin board", however said BBS is read-only. There is no information on who these "staff" are, since it looks like the only staff member who ever posted on the forums was "gum". Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Leavitt, a Internet and media researcher of USC Annenberg, indicates in his review of the site that "gum" would be more of a publisher and the site to be encyclopedic in the nature the content was authored. The afterword details proofreaders and contributors and states that the information on the site was made possible as a culmination of the efforts of several. According to the afterword, it was a project started people ComiPress, link to InsideScanlation from ComiPress. ComiPress is a spiritual successor to and branched of the site Manga Jouhou; a quick google search shows references to Manga Jouhou from two English-language manga publishers Dark Horse and Icarus Publishing; Manga Jouhou was a hub of the scanlation community according to the InsideScanlation page on it. ComiPress has it's own editorial team, of which some of the editors are notable experts in the field, information for which can be found on their about page
Also in regards to "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", The site deals with scanlations a community that's entirely fan-based, so naturally a fan involved in the scanlation community or a scanlator would probably be the best you're going to get as an expert in the field. While gum appears to only be the publisher and likely compiler of the work, it seems that the majority of the content is contributed by the scanlators themselves. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Started a discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard over here since there doesn't seem to be too much action here. AngelFire3423 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Kanzenshuu (Daizex and Kanzentai merger)[edit]

Why exactly is this not on the list of realiable source? It may be Dragon Ball Z/Akira Toriyama specific, but it'd always been an accurate source for information. I saw someone revert an edit because of it was used, saying blogs are not reliable sources, etc, and they replaced it with an ANN source. Both Daizenshuu EX and Kanzentai, before the merger and after to become Kanzenshuu, were very reliable sources to fans. They always double check their information, and even ask and look for proof when they hear a rumor. It's probably one of the best news site that is DBZ-specific. Is it the fact that it's a *fan* site that's the issue? || Tako (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is a work in progress, and it will never be comprehensive. If you would like to have that source added, you need but provide us with a convincing rationale for why that source is good enough for our readers. If you don't know how to do that, read WP:V, WP:RS, and consider starting a discussion at WP:RS/N. Goodraise 03:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a special search like the video game project has[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion Anything nominated for deletion in the video game Wikiproject, has a link to the custom Google search that goes through only what they agree are reliable sources. [3] Very helpful. The anime and manga project need this as well. The current custom search I'm aware of doesn't include all approved reliable sources, and keeps having a lot of unreliable ones show up in it. Anyone know how to set this up? Everyone agree it'd be a good thing to have? Dream Focus 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the Japanese sources and how this goes into that, commonsense should be applied when looking for sources. I think the guideline we have for RS as defined by the Anime/Manga project and the RS noticeboard is good enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I want to find all the reliable sources that consensus agrees are suitable for manga and anime, and then enter them into a Google custom search, to search all of them at once. It'll take too long to go through one at a time for all of the things listed. Dream Focus 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh okay then sorry sure this sounds like a great idea =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds like a great idea.Lucia Black (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: http:// www.google.com /cse/home?cx=013801785810201869189:p_x-xy222d0 (Still needs to be white-listed.) It's not perfect yet, but it should do for the moment. Goodraise 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. And that includes every website listed on as a reliable source for anime and manga? Dream Focus 23:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless I've screwed up somewhere, it should search every website listed here except for Manga Life. If there's a way to make it search inside Wayback pages, I'm not aware of it. Let me know if the engine misses something or catches useless sub pages I might be able to filter out. Goodraise 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

About.com[edit]

Serdar Yegulalp is the new(?) About.com anime/manga Guide. [4] Should we add him to the list or assume by his title his articles are fine? He is a media writer for all sorts of technology publications like Information Week. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Manga Maniac Cafe[edit]

About.com links to their review. Go to the third series and click review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fan blogs and sites that translate Japanese articles[edit]

This appears a lot more for the J-pop and K-pop media rather than anime, but should there be mention of referencing blog sites that translate or source Japanese articles? Example: A Tokyohive article that announces the release of a Japanese single will typically contain translated information from a Japanese reliable source like Eiga, Natalie, or Oricon. While the English authors are buried in anonymity (I never put in their usernames as authors), I have been making two cite webs with the first pointing to the English article with a footnote to the second site, and then the Japanese cite web right afterwards. Is this useful? Should I combine them into one cite web? -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful unless that translated site is considered reliable; else its accuracy can not be confirmed. Best to stick with the original source only. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I found a compromise. Cite the original article and then add a lay summary (layurl, laysource) that points to the translated article. This assumes the lay article is reliable and would further facilitate the understanding of the original. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As a followup, Tokyohive (and Allkpop) are legitimized now with work=Tokyohive, publisher=6Theory Media. The authors still go by anonymous names, so I exclude those, and use sparingly just for announcements or where their translation of the article helps explain things. I am using the <ref>{{cite web | url = ... }} references {{cite web | url = ... }} </ref> format. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors[edit]

Is the Behind the Voice Actors website considered a reliable source? I saw some additions to the Jamie Marchi article where someone insisted on adding their voice acting awards from their website without references (I relented and had to go in and dig up the actual references), and have found a Funimation blog that recognizes the site. I only considered the Staff Choice picks as legit; there was a People's Choice category which just polls their subscribers, but it is difficult to say whether the actor gets a physical award or just nice online press. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider it reliable and would like to add it onto the list. It isn't open-edited, its research is shown with pictures at times, and has received some third party coverage (assuming that Funimation blog is by someone with an inch of reputability). The take back is that BTVA can only confirm English voices (from my research) and should only be a secondary source to the Japanese voice actors. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, the Funimation blog is from Justin Rojas. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Can BTVA be used to confirm birthdates? Someone posted that to source Vic Mignogna's birthday. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
After looking through BTVA some more, I recommend that only the green-checkmarked roles can be considered for references when they point to actual screenshots of closing credits and cast announcements, but not when they point to the VA's website since that is self-claimed. VAs listed in their awards section can be considered as that's an actual nomination by the staff. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VideoVista reviews[edit]

videovista.net movie reviews - reliable website? It does list its reviewers [5] and seems to be backed by a magazine site Pigasus Press which publishes magazines like Premonitions. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about examples like this as they are outside my usual area. Pigasus Press seem to be publishing what are essentially short story collections, so i'm not sure being part of that association is really helpful for reviews. I guesss really it comes down to the individual reviewers of each possible review that might be used and then go from there. I looked at a couple of random anime reviews and the reviewers didn't seem to have any established credibility for reviews based on their blurbs. A lot of the reviewers seem to be authors who happen to write reviews rather than established reviewers contributing to the site. I'm not convinced, but if we narrow down a list of reviewers that have written several anime reviews, it would be a place to start. Given the UK centric focus the site appears to have, I can skim through my copies of NEO if I had a list to work through (Manga Mania would probably be stretching it).SephyTheThird (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
urgh I only just noticed the time stamp (the section above brought me here). SephyTheThird (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)