Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Project list of manga artists

Over on jawiki, they have lists of manga artists in the project space for those that don't currently meet notability requirements. For example, Manga artists starting with あ. I think such lists could be very helpful here, and it might also give a way to develop individual artist entries until such a time as they are able to be moved to their own pages. Think of it as a project draft space.

To improve on the way they do it there, it might be good to create pages for each artist separately as subpages (say Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/List of manga artists/Yū Aikawa for the creator of Dark Edge, for example) and transclude them into Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/List of manga artists for convenience. Then, when an artist reaches a point of meeting notability, the article can simply be moved to the mainspace. In the meantime, we at least have information about them easily accessible where anyone can work on the article to improve it.

Thoughts? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Would these subpages be considered drafts then? They can be placed in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga#Biography_Requests if there's potential but it's WP:TOOSOON or in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga/Refused Requests Archive if they were clearly refused and don't have another chance of coming back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be considered drafts. Maybe limit it to just those that have the potential to become regular articles. The jawiki project pages I linked to list many that wouldn't necessarily be eligible for articles. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, these wouldn't just be lists of names, but each entry would have some of the same info included in an article. Go look at the example page I linked to see what I mean. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If there's a way of organizing drafts in general for the project, that would be helpful. I've had to push back to Draft a lot of voice actor articles in that situation for being WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest two new articles

What do you think about create a two new articles: Export of manga and anime, Manga and anime in Internet? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? There are already sections for Anime#Globalization, Webcomic and Original net animation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

.hack//GU

Not specifically anime, but I believe it's relevant enough to mention here since it follows after .hack//roots. We need some more people to weigh in at Talk:.hack//G.U.. Me and another editor are kind of in a deadlock of opinions about what this article's about. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Anime seasons, once again

Now, "individual seasons are different from ongoing series like Naruto", hence they deserve their own infobox, even though they are not a real series. The explanation comes from here (if I'm correct, that's the fourth time Wonchop adds the infobox back). The anime official site confirms it's a second season, but I don't want to start an edit war. What's the consensus?--Sakretsu (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• The animanga infoboxes take up way too much space already - sometimes they're even longer than the actual article - so it makes very little sense to me to duplicate information like that. The purpose of an infobox is to allow the reader to quickly find out about the basic facts. Add a "seasons" parameter to the infobox instead.--IDV^talk 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically, the way "seasons" work for on-going anime and how they work on a one-cour basis are a bit different, since one is continually renewed by the same committee (and the way users can even determine what counts as a season is vague until home video releases are available) while the other tends to involve seperate committees that must be started anew each time, and may even involve different studios or staff. I think the best way to describe the difference it is that individual seasons for Naruto don't get their own infobox, but Naruto Shippuden does. Even though Shippuden's first season is pretty much "Naruto season 6", it's still recognised as the start of a seperate series. Seperately produced season productions will often treat themselves as individual series (eg. it has it's own unique title and they'll start off from episode 1), and they're only more specifically referred to as seasons in American releases. There's also the issue of what to put in a single infobox if it has to cover multiple seasons/series that have year-long gaps in between. To imply that New Game! has been continuously airing for over a year would be inaccurate to say the least. At the very least, the template would need a good makeover to properly cover how each season works. Simply put, in terms of Wikipedia's main purpose, explaining details clearly, listing differently titled seasons that air at different points in time in seperate infoboxes makes more sense, at least until the template can be improved upon. The exception to this would be split-cour shows (eg. Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works) where it's designed to be a 2-cour season, just with a one-cour break in the middle. Since there's nothing distinguishing the two parts as seperate productions, a single infobox will suffice for them. Wonchop (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Game!! seems to count episodes from episode 1 as a separate series, however it is released on a seasonal schedule (July 2016, then July 2017), which implies seasons. And if the official website is calling it a second season, that should mean seasons. As there are only two to deal with, it's also not a big deal to leave both in the infobox. Also it's not some logical season numbering like with Teekyu!! (Teekyu!! 3, Teekyu!! 4, etc.) On the flip side, Cardfight!! Vanguard has 8 seasons cluttering up the infobox, and that should be regrouped into two major series (Cardfight!! Vanguard and Cardfight!! Vanguard G) as the episode numbering on MADB suggests this split. But it's a bit complicated as season 8 (or 4th season of G) has a new producer. As for Pokemon, that's got a ridiculous number of seasons and series renames that it was best to make everything one big TV series, and it's got a navbox to help things anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The official site calls it New Game!! (ie. extra exclamation mark), only using season 2 as a more noticeable indicator on the Story page. Also, it's just a coincidence that this ended up airing one year after the previous season (ie. if another season gets announced after this, we can't immediately assume it'll be out in July 2018), so that logic doesn't really hold up. Pokémon kinda falls under the long running category in that (despite the questionability of Ash's age remaining the same) it's a continuous story running one after the other without noticeable breaks in between seasons. Basically, it's not like a lot of American shows where you can say "it ran for X seasons", it follows the more recent anime format of "they made a show, and then they decided to make another one".Wonchop (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've a discussion over on Template talk:Infobox animanga with my suggestions on how to improve the infobox in regards to listing multiple seasons that are not in long-running format. Wonchop (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, about Shippuden, the seasons are divided based on their DVDs which can take about 30 episodes. However, the last 30 episodes have been covered in less episodes to the point that we would have to create articles for 2 or 4 episodes. The same thing happens with the anime of Katekyo Hitman Reborn. Should we instead follow the English release?Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: You can use {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Invite}}. It looks like this:

You are cordially invited to join the anime and manga WikiProject (WP:ANIME), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with anime, manga, and related topics. WP:ANIME hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help improving old and creating new articles in this area. Simply follow the directions here to join!

Hope that helps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks, 日本穣! I wonder how does the project usually recruit or welcome new editors. I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors to contribute. I am not sure if this is something WPAM would be interested. Here is our project detail. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

University? Sometimes, stuff like that can help to improve articles. For example, Naruto Uzumaki became a FA thanks to the studies multiple writers, studios and university professors made about the character. I could only find one for Allen Walker whereas Sasuke Uchiha could become FA too once the copyedit is finished.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are researchers from the university, and we are conducting studies trying to figure out how to help WikiProjects recruit new editors and thrive. We'd like to hear more suggestions or feedback from Wikipedians about our study before we launch it. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think one suggestion could be to make posts of some kind over at some of our sisters WikiProjects, like WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Animation. There could be other users there who would be willing to help, particularly in finding sources (both online and offline), writing articles, and improving existing ones. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! We have contracted a number of projects to see if they are interested in our study. We identified the most active projects in the last calendar year (based on the number of edits on the project and project talk pages). We would definitely like to invite them. If you know anyone who could potentially be interested in our study, please help us spread our study. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of additional voices in anime voice actor articles

AnimeDisneylover95 has complained repeatedly regarding the removal of additional voices in anime voice actor articles, and keeps reverting edits from other editors whenever they do remove them. However, it is commonly known among WP:Anime participants that additional voices are NOT to be added on VA pages. To settle the dispute once and for all, I'm starting a discussion as to whether or not additional voices should be added in VA pages. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Express your stance below

• Exclude with few exceptions: They're unneeded in VA articles. Only notable/named roles should be listed, unless notability could be ascertained (which is mostly unlikely). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Case by case basis, but generally exclude - They could probably be mentioned in certain instances; for example, if it was their first role, or it was mentioned in a reliable source. For example, Anime News Network had a news report on voice actress Aya Suzaki after she was cast as Tamako in Tamako Market; at the time, Tamako was her first named role as Suzaki's previous roles were all unnamed background roles. For certain celebrities who make vocal cameos in anime and movies, perhaps a brief mention could be included, again, if it's mentioned in a reliable source. Otherwise, these roles probably shouldn't be listed, especially if the voice actor has several non-background roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Case by case basis, but generally exclude - As I said below there should be two main criteria: A: Are the "additional voices" notable? If these additional voices are mentioned in reliable sources then they should be included. B. Did these "additional voices" roles have a big impact on the person doing the voices? I think a handful of editors can agree in general though that nobody is going to care who voiced "Girl #2" so usually it is just excess fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Case by case basis as long as this detail can be properly sourced, it's fine to include, but inserting actual character names when known is preferable. There's no good reason to cherry-pick among verifiable roles, and "notable roles" is a POV description. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Notability to me is inclusion in reliable sources. Some roles might be so minor that the actor/actress goes uncredited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Include but summarize named credited roles with relative notability For example, in Tom Kenny filmography for SpongeBob SquarePants obviously SpongeBob and Gary the Snail are his major characters he voiced, but he also does a bunch of minor recurring ones that would be summarized as "others" or "various characters". A voice actor who does like 50 World of Warcraft characters would definitely fit under Various characters instead of listing Orc #2, Dwarf #7, Archer, etc down to the last listed credit in the game. Dee Bradley Baker does a bunch of monsters in Ben 10 all sourced by BTVA check-marked closing credits, so definitely "Various characters" for his role there. "Additional voices" would be okay for films. I don't know about Wallas or loop groups as they are sometimes listed apart from the main credits of a film so they are almost always non-notable, or the uncredited voice substitutions and voice matchers which usually come from self-published sources, which run like "I was the voice match for Jodi Benson in The Little Mermaid. I wasn't listed in the credits, but I was there to voice (whatever quotes) they missed". Those would need some independent secondary source to indicate they are important. But some people like to know that Tara Strong was in feature films such as Sing (2016 American film) and The Secret Life of Pets as an additional voice and if the film credits her so, then she can be listed with that credit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include as long as there is reliable source. TranquilHope (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include I generally don't understand why "minor" voice roles shouldn't be included if we want our articles to contain complete information. After all, Wikipedia is not bound by the limits of print. If a filmography is included at all, it should be a complete to the extent that WP:Verifiability allows. There is no reason to limit it to so-called "notable" roles, and doing so will create too much drama around what roles are or are not "notable". If you look at the filmogrpahies of John Wayne, Kevin Bacon, and Samuel L. Jackson, you will see that all the filmographies included small, sometimes unnamed roles. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include I am changing my opinion based on the argument of "notability" criteria. As long as there is a reliable source then the part should be included, it isn't going to change something like an AfD discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include I would like to have the minor roles included for the voice actors (especially the anime voice actors) as long as they are credited by a reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think this is needed as each case is unique. What are "additional voices" anyways, and what would fall under the scope? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a unique case. Most anime VA articles have this tag attached to their templates (as in the EXCLUSION of additional voices). Also, examples of additional voices are "Girl A", "Girl B", "Boy A", etc. Basically, unnamed roles with very little to no significance to the main plot in an anime. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see that but feel that the editor in question should have the chance to explain themselves on the talk-page before edit warring takes place. You cant deter an editor by the use of edit summaries alone as the back and forth reverts can become too heated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we're having a discussion here. We're letting the community decide whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary, true to the code of conduct on Wikipedia in that it operates on consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking the other Wikiprojects such as the WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:TELEVISION, and WP:VG, the last one is important as some video games such as the Skylanders series and Lightning Returns have hundreds of Additional Voices. As for my stance, I recommend looking at Talk:Yuri Lowenthal#Far_too_many_non-noteworthy_examples_and_excessive_detail and Talk:Ryōtarō Okiayu#Filmography is excessive for some earlier debates on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would go with the notability criteria here. This can be determined by if x role is notable, or if x role had an impact on the person's life (this would add biography info). I agree with Angus though that more input is needed before this can be made as a general thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, yes the Additional voices from the vast majority of you is considered to be redundant, but let's be real most animated shows, movies, video games, will contain an portion dedicated to additional voices, and does it feel it is the right thing to do by removing every role that is considered an additional voice? On top of that it would feel odd just removing additional voices on every voice actor page because usually some voice actor's websites, resumes and convention bios will more often will feature "this actor has provided background voices in this film, show, game etc....", lastly we do not have to mention it as additional voices it could be various or others so that it will only list the major roles the character is associated with, honestly I feel that removing additional voices on every voice actor page will not only make the page feel "plain" but it just seems unusual to just leave in ONLY the notable roles and nothing else.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And why would the exclusion of them make the article plain? I can't comprehend your logic. We don't need to include Johnny Yong Bosch's additional voice credits to know that he is the voice of Vash, Ichigo, Hajime, and Renton. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I know it feels unusual but we cant promote a minor role she or he might have played just because she/he played it. We can however provide an external link (provided it meets WP:EL) that shows each role x has played. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I hate to be the one to tell you this & how I don't like to choose sides, but I have to agree with @AnimeDisneylover95: on this whole Additional Voices & many Reliable sources/credibility situation, cause he's right & the way our Voice actor's articles are being provided with the sources that we're retrieving from, it's not even enough to meet the Admin's expectations, & then the next thing you know, the VA article's could get a Speedy Deletion AKA WP:CSD because of it, ya know? :( Norozco1 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)'

Already notable voice actors with clearly notable roles (like how Stephanie Sheh is synonymous to Orihime and Hinata and Cristina Vee with Homura, etc.) won't suddenly get their own articles deleted just because we exclude their additional voices credits, as they're already known for something else. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A VAs article could still get speedied with all the "additional voices" because notability is based on the existence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (WP:ACTORBIO). So, actually, having forty "additional voices" roles and no significant voice roles would not prevent an article from getting speedied. Because a plethora of "additional voices" doesn't actually establish notability. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. That's why Wikipedia isn't IMDB. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Precisely. That's why Wikipedia isn't IMDB." And this is one of the biggest pet peeves I have from the vast majority of you naysayers who constantly continue bringing back on this darn issue over and over again until they "beat the dead horse", I did not got MOST of the info from IMDB, and Wikipedia will NEVER be like IMDB they are credited with sources from the end credits of the film, tv show and video game!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that you got your info from IMDB? You're missing the point here - what I'm trying to say is that we're not IMDB in the sense that we do not list every single thing that a voice actor voices in, especially if they're not notable, which is, as I have noted before, 90% of additional voice roles. You need to keep your temper in check and conform to the general consensus within this project. Also, it should be noted that we're not trying to "bring back an old issue"; we're here to settle on a consensus so that we won't have a similar issue like this ever again. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am calm, I just don't like that the majority of you do not want additional voices all because it feels like "IMDB" and the majority of you are still missing the point that - The majority of the articles need to have a a reliable source and most pages DO NOT have to be reserved for just the major and notable roles here!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So the inclusion of non-notable elements is acceptable, when what we should really be doing is listing notable material instead? Sorry, but that logic doesn't sit well with me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add that generally IMDB isn't even a reliable source. There are very few exceptions which include: "1. The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable)." and "2. The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America." Most of the stuff on IMDB is user edited which means that right now I can also edit that page to exclude all of the non notable roles. (WP:CITEIMDB, WP:EL/P#User-submitted contents) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not. We aim to be different by inserting verifiable citations. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry your logic doesn't make sense" You know what Sk8erPrince, you are being so unreasonable it is YOU who isn't making sense besides I have been citing all sources that are reliable, and if you are going to go on with this issue, then that's the last straw!!'--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For someone that claims to be very calm, you sure don't look like it. Look dude, if you can't accept the fact that Wikipedia operates on consensus (as you can see, one is emerging right above us), you might want to reconsider if contributing to our encyclopedia is the right job for you. Seriously, raging like this isn't helping your case. And at the rate you're going, you're going to get sanctioned for being an interference with the progression of this project. I know so because I speak from first hand experience.

PS: I will gladly report you on ANI if you keep obstructing progress. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion as editors are from all over the world on Wikipedia, you have to give time for editors to weigh in before implementing something. Maybe it is just me but I have noticed that you have been very hostile towards User:AnimeDisneylover95 which isn't going to help our project in the long run. Please remember to focus on content, not on the contributor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, and I'll close it the discussion in a week since opening it. I would like to clarify that the aforementioned user can't keep his temper in check, which is why I reported him on ANI. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your temper is also of issue here. You both need to calm down. Now. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion involves apparently involves a large number of articles, and is apparently pulling from four total WikiProjects (I notice Nihonjoe notified WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:TELEVISION, and WP:VG per AngusWoof's suggestion earlier), I think the discussion closing after 24 hours is too soon. I'd give it a few days at least. I also echo Knowledgekid's statement. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion topic, we need to assume the filmography roles in question are already reliably sourced, as it's harder to argue whether a role should be listed if it's uncredited or only supported by the actor's self-published tweet/blog/resume like "check it out, I voice Girl #2". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sk8erPrince and AnimeDisneylover95: regarding both of your edits at Christine Marie Cabanos, I advise BOTH of you to stop editing voice actor articles with regard to additional voices roles. Leave articles as they are right now. Do not add or restore additional voices. Do not remove them. Leave it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)