Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Retailers

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?

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? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(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)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Themanime is dead?

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. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it returned.Tintor2 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Foriegn language sources

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

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

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. -moritheil^Talk 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?

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.陣内_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

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

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. --生け花 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. --生け花 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?

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?

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.陣内_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)

Another that site from Chris Beveridge

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)