Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Top 10 C-class

I'm not so sure we're ready for making the top C-class articles into B-class or GA. I think they stayed that way for a reason, but i think we can at least try to see where we stand. Here are the top 10 C-class articles.

• Hayao Miyazaki
• Hentai
• Studio Ghibli
• Sword Art Online
• Pokemon (anime)
• Fairy Tail
• Dragon Ball Z
• Digimon
• Sailor Moon
• Gurren Lagann

Hope nothing but the best. Lucia Black (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be archived for a while either like the previous list. Its motivating to see this here. —KirtZ^Mail 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

i made it so it wont archive until august considering this is a much bigger project. Lucia Black (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding MOS guideline for structure/format

So for a while i thought up of a way to make structure more consistent. This is what i come up with:

• If the article contains mostly information of the original media of a multi-media series, then it is appropriate to separate the adaptations, spin-off, and complimentary media into a "Related media" section while the major aspects of the original media such as "Development" and "Release" or "Broadcast" into their own respected sections. (Note: if multiple sections of the original media are not adequate size individually, combine two into a single section until more information is found. e.g. "Development and Release". If multiple adaptations, spin-offs, and complimentary media are not adequate size to have their own subsection in the "Related media", do not give them a specific subsection)
  • Example: Uzumaki, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, FLCL

==Production==
Production of the anime. Director's note, commentary, and other.

==Broadcast==
Broadcast of the anime. Where and when it broadcasted and for how long. Name all Regions included with English regions in detail.

==Related media==
All related media. 

• If the article contains little to no secondary information such as "Development" or "Production", and the only remaining information is "release" and "reception", have the release information of the original media alongside the adaptations/spin-off/complimentary media in a general "Media" section.(Note: If there is not enough information for both media to have their own section, do not give them a specific-subsection)
  • Example: Blue Submarine No. 6, Bakuman

==Media==

===Manga===
Manga release information. 

===Anime===
Anime release information.

===Light novel===
Light novel release information.

• If the article contains significant amount of secondary information such as "Development" or "Production" for both the original media and the adaptations/spin-offs, have a "Production"/"Development" section cover both the original media and adaptations/spin-off and have both the Release information of the original media and adaptations/spin-offs into a general "Media" section. (Note: If the article is too big, consider splitting the adaptations/spin-off into its own article if it has enough third-party coverage.)
  • Example: School Rumble, Sailor Moon

==Production==
Production of the manga. 
Production of the anime.

==Media==

===Manga===
Release history of the manga.
 
===Anime===
Release history of the anime. 

I believe this is the best format for our articles to have. And will make our articles more consistent and reasonable. Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Lucia Black (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree about not giving complementary media a subsection; for example, Drama CDs/podcasts and OSTs/character singles that clearly support the anime adaptation can be grouped with the anime paragraphs. There may be some crossover where a light novel or manga features a limited edition OVA episode though. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a name for that though. I've seen Oh My Goddess! have that type of setup only in reverse. Lucia Black (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The MoS has been challenged before and consensus was it needs to be updated to be used as enforcement in a debate. Secondly, we should be throwing away the Media heading which is giving equal weight to the original and related media and instead, start adopting the release and adaptions/related media similar to books, Video games, and movies. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Much of the time (especially for newer series), that is not a viable option. To use Witch Craft Works as one of the examples above, the manga's release section is so small, that it makes sense to group it together in a single Media section. That's not to say that it couldn't be spun out into its own section later if more information was found, but much of the time, there is very little information pertaining to the release of any given animanga series. So wouldn't it be at least better to have smaller sections grouped together under one level-2 header (Media), instead of having multiple level-2 headers, one of which will 90% of the time be basically 1 or 2 sentences and maybe a table, like in Witch Craft Works?--十八 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the Mos needs updating and improving. However I'm not convinced equal weight is necessarily a bad thing, sometimes that's just the way a particular work is - sometimes the original media is overshadowed by it's spin offs or they simply have much more information and it's a balance that has to be viewed on a per article basis. A large franchise needs to take a different approach than say a manga with one anime adaption and a couple of games. I'd also argue that especially with older (even just pre 2000, but especially pre 90s) works, there often simply isn't enough information to give more weight to the original material.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X wouldn't be affected by this, I don't think... Tezero (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it was thats a case for down the line. This is unlikely to be agreed on quickly enough to affect that article and even it did you'd be able to make the changes later.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Yes the MOS needs to be updated, this is one of my proposals that will fix it significantly. And although you have been running a campaign to avoid "media" sections in anime/manga articles (to only the articles you have contributed), that does not mean that the articles that do have it are lower in quality then those who use another name or not have it at all. The article Tales of Symphonia that you just linked shows a major issue: The book section in the adaptation subsection contains guidebooks, something that isn't an "adaptation" at all. That could be an issue (which the easiest thing to fix is renaming it "Related media").

Keep in mind, anime and manga are handled very differently than a general film, video game, and books but also have different relationship between the two series. It like comparing Chinese food to fruit: one is defined by culture, the other is probably by region at most. As SephyTheThird has said, the original media may not have adequate information unlike their adaptations. Not only that, but some media are often working concurrently together. Series such as Kagerou Project that although initially began as a series of music videos, the novels and manga began almost around the same time.

@Juhachi: I designed the second part specifically for up-and-coming articles that don't have a lot of information. Although Witch Craft Works has two sentences, there is a table and the article is still too short to split off the manga list or the episode list, so we can't exclude the tables just yet. If hypothetically there is a anime/manga article that has media made up of three sentences or less each (with no tables), than it can just be called "Media".

However i just modified it to say that if there is not enough information for either media, then it shouldn't have a specific section for it and included a more older and stable article for an example. Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else find any other issue? It seems that the suggestion seems to be moving along well. Its close to getting a consensus, but not quite there. and perhaps i'll move this to an RfC to get broader coverage, but for now, i'm asking for more input from the Wikiproject. Again, i personally believe this is the best format to use for general anime/manga articles. Lucia Black (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we are close to a consensus at all. At the moment it's a discussion with a few comments, I find it difficult to see a leaning towards a specific outcome. Really I'd like to see some actual examples in a sandbox for comparison, the phrasing is complicated enough to make it reasonably difficult to clearly visualise (I'm wired for visuals). Context is everything.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The only really strong oppose is DragonZero and for his own agenda and beliefs of how we should handle anime/manga articles in general. Juhachi only really seemed to target one specific issue, but didn't argue with the rest. so it made me feel optimistic about his vote. same as yours. Anyways, i really don't know how to word it any better. what specific words get you confused? I provided specific example such as links to other articles to know the structure. But i just added in another example. let me know what you think. Lucia Black (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You say vote, but I don't see any voting, merely an exchange of opinions. Now that I can see what you mean I'm not really convinced by some of it. The first part, no problem, it's quite logical. However, why would we combine manga and anime production into the same section? Why limit the anime section simply to release history? i'm really not seeing how this will improve pages. You use School Rumble as an example which is fine as it's an FA, but it's layout has everything to do with being an FA, which isn't likely to be an aim for any other article given the demands in doing so. The next example for the same layout is Sailor Moon which barely uses that layout itself and doesn't show any evidence of benefiting from it (the sole paragraph does complement the rest of the section but only because it's directly relevant to the manga production) - they cancel each other out. Rather than change the MOS into something that means changing all our GA's to meet it, maybe we should focus first on making the MOS relevant to what we have actually been doing as a project and bring it up to standard before we start changing it in this way? SephyTheThird (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, i was "optimistic" about his vote. not there is one. But the discussion is moving smoothly. The third option is used for a number of reasons such as an adaptation/spin off not having enough reception (third-party coverage) to have an article of its own. The other reason could be that the anime/manga might end up being half-length articles if separate, that end up being a whole if together. So its not that either one doesn't have production, release, or reception, it just not enough. The broadcast should also be considered as "release" in this example. But that's generally what makes up a notable article, production/development release, and for TV anime: the extra broadcast. A production section is good for any media in similar fashion of how Reception works in the same way. the Media section just carries anything that doesn't have already have a section of its own such as "Production" or "Reception".

I don't see how School Rumble being an FA actually downgrades it as an example. Sailor Moon is a bit of an excuse as the production of the manga correlates to the anime, but then again that can also happen with other more popular and ongoing series. But the examples were provided are just how it can be done, not that they are the most exemplary articles to follow. Most of the articles i provided aren't GA either but they follow the setup that many have practiced. the first option is mainly made up of articles that i have contributed. The second too, but i dont need articles that i contributed to know this is the norm for that particular situation.

I highly doubt this is a huge change. It really just means slight reorganizing. Keep in mind Sephy, the problems people have brought up have wanted to change anime/manga related articles more than just a tiny update. They want to make bigger changes, this isn't that big of a change but it really puts proper weight into what can. This organization isn't that bad, if it involves updating GA articles, so be it (I highly doubt it will be that much of a chore. And if it is, i volunteer to do it all myself).

So whatever small change you're thinking, it wont stop people from wanting more grander changes, so i'm trying to find a medium that allows us to use "Media" sections with the original unilateral to the adaptations when there is no viable option but at the same time offering that viable options exist.I suppose that even plot differences (if they are significant changes named by reliable sources) can be added in these sections as well, but i would like an answer from you if that's a good compromise. Lucia Black (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify that the third option also allows the adaptation/spin-off to be split if the article is already big enough (and has enough third-party sources), so its still promoting splits when appropriate, but when their not, the organization can be done in a way to be done appropriately. Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I will propose this again when more editors are objectively finding more issues and have god responce. Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of Splitting Episode Lists

This looks like a community worthy discussion. What should be the criteria to warrant the split of an anime episode list with multiple seasons. Pros and Cons. Go! On going debate started here has relatively ended with no consensus other than adopting a method which seems somewhat outdated. That is just an example though. I'm more looking at reasons as to why both seasons of something like the Railgun episodes should be in one list while Code Geass has two (plus) pages: this, this along with this. Is it because of series notability or the length that such seasons span—episode count and time period? I have actually seen the combined method used in other series pages on the WikiProject and would like to know if this was actually discussed or just one of those "this-page-has-it-already-so-why-not-this-one" chain reactions. —KirtZ^Message 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think having one episode list or splitting it into multiple lists is just a matter of page size. If all the episodes from all the seasons can be summarized on one page without it being too long, then it should be on one page. If the list gets too long, then it should be split into multiple lists. When the episode list is split into multiple sub-lists, there is usually a summary page providing a shorter list of all the episodes with less detailed information, and with links to the more detailed lists (e.g., List of Code Geass episodes or List of Bleach episodes.) That seems to be the way things have been done in the past, and I think that is a good way of handling episode lists. As for when to split, WP:Article size provides some guidelines on when a page is too big and should be split. Basically, if a list seems too long to read easily in one sitting, it should probably be split into multiple pages. Calathan (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it go by page size. But this is Wikipedia, so we have to get into whether the individual seasons are "notable". Tezero (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists are always split up into seasons to avoid having massive pages. I don't think that "notability" is really an issue here because there wouldn't be that much information on the page if notability was not established. Railgun should definitely be split up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Course, trying to settle on a definition of 'massive' is the tricky part. I don't think Railgun really warrants a split as two two-cour seasons is roughly the same as one four-cour season (by comparison, a single season of One Piece is about 70 episodes).Wonchop (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, One Piece is a 70ep season because it's an entire story arc, it has a beginning and an end. It's also how the series is divided up by the makers. Railgun/Index sounds like two separate arcs/stories (I've not seen Rail/Index so may need educating).SephyTheThird (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking Index has several arcs per season, since it's adapted from a light novel, whilst Railgun tends to have two main arcs per season; one adapted from the manga and an anime original one. The same sorta goes with early One Piece seasons, as they weren't all focused on one particular event but rather several smaller adventures.Wonchop (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also the fact that, unlike a season listing for a long running show, series with multiple smaller seasons can be easily jumped to with the ToC (obviously not in the 'stick a heading for each episode' manner), so that dampens the impact of being 'too long to read easily in one sitting' compared to other listings. Basically as long as you don't go overkill with the summaries it should be fine.Wonchop (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with size. If the series only has two 12/13-episode seasons worth and some OVAs, it can be kept together in one article. Railgun can be split since the first season was 24 episodes; and definitely spilt from Index. Something like Space Dandy or Attack on Titan shouldn't require two articles just because there's a "second season" for episodes 14-26. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my thinking based on those articles. But these are easy to deal with as series go.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"One sitting" varies and is subjective. It's not a reliable barometer of attention span.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically seperate lists for on-going seasons tend to be kept for the long-running series such as Naruto and One Piece, whilst adaptations that get a new one/two-cour season every one or two years can simply be listed with the previous season(s). When you try and use a seperate season listing for the one-cour series, particularly ones that distinguish themselves with subtitles such as Free! - Eternal Summer, it gets confusing to readers about which order they need to be read in if they're not given some roman numeral or something. Seperate articles do tend to get used for spin-off series (for example, Railgun's episode listing is kept seperate from Index's) or alternate adaptations (eg. Dragonball Z Kai, Persona 4 the Golden Animation), though only rarely do they get a main article seperate from its main inspiration (generally if it's notably different from the source material, such as an alternate universe, or spawns a mini-franchise of its own). Simply put, you should generally try and keep things to as few articles as neccessary. There are some articles, such as Code Geass, that seem to do otherwise, though this seems to be more related to how old the anime is and how Wikipedia has become more streamlined in later years (as well as some users anxiousness to fiddle with something and incur a fanboy's wrath). Wonchop (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors involved. Firstly a lot of our lists are without summaries, in which case article size (be it visual or in raw bytes) shouldn't be much of an issue. It's no different from subst'ing separate lists into a "main list", a practise that's been used for years on long shows - you still get a longish page with every episode. Secondly, increasing amounts of series are now deliberately shortened into 13ep seasons that then get a second set of episodes a few seasons later (something that never used to happen very often, if at all). Thirdly, even the longer series in Japan have started to be officially split into seasons (i.e. Naruto, Bleach and One Piece). There are some articles which have been arbitrarily split by users into 25/26/50 episodes (List of Lupin III Part II episodes comes to mind) by opening and ending themes, which is original research in my book to call them seasons. In the case of a series being 2x13 episodes, they should be on a single page, divided into two with relevant information for each season being under the relevant heading. If a english language release has divided a show up into seasons for convenience (i.e. Ranma) then that should probably take priority over any Japanese separation. However this should be decided on a per series case. With pretty much all english-language releases in the last few years being box sets, we could also split shows by those if the series is big enough (i.e. not splitting 26 episodes just because they were released as 2x13ep boxes for public convenience)- useful in the cases of old shows being released in large sets. Ultimately this is the type of thing it's better to provide several suggestions for rather than a hard and fast rule. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, if an anime adaption of something is only one-cour, or has just started airing, it can generally be kept on the main article until there's over 13 episodes or an announcement for a second season, unless that article is already a bit heavy with information as it is. Wonchop (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, per series basis. If the series is finished or close to finishing, I would consider spinning it out. A 13 ep series with summaries can easily become undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Get some prose in there instead. Then again, I would say that as I'm developing manga release date lists into proper chapter lists (because no one else is).SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would again probably be down to how long the episode summaries get. Slice-of-life anime or short-form anime don't tend to go beyond a few sentences so they don't cause much of a problem.Wonchop (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Eyeshield and Toriko come to mind. They're 145 and 147-episode series (over 100kb) respectively but there's no official division into seasons. What to do? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at Toriko's list, it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue at this point since the episode summaries aren't that long. I can't think of any particular way you could split it up either.Wonchop (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the need to split call them List of x episodes 1-50 etc. To call them seasons would be OR. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Who cares how many cours it is? The Railgun list is too long. It should be split into two separate lists like any other god damn TV show page. Anime isn't special in this regard.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Get a faster scroll wheel then. I see no issue with the article's size and splitting it up would just result in too many extra articles (since it would effectively have to be done to Index too by that logic) that just make it less convenient for users to read what they want.Wonchop (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And to counter your 'any other god damn TV show page' argument, there are quite a few shows with multiple seasons that don't feel the need to split into seperate articles, such as various Spider-Man animated series. Wonchop (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think taking into consideration the use of the ToC quick links, it's fine for a single article to have multiple season listings of 13/26 episodes each, as well as sections for OVAs/TV specials, without the need to be split into seperate articles. Splitting should be more used for continuous anime (One Piece, etc) or series that run all year round and change to a new 'series' each year (eg. the way Yes Precure 5 and Yes Precure 5 GoGo lists are kept seperate since they're roughly 50 eps each), and again, this can be give or take depending on how much information the summaries get. Like I said, it's less inconvenient to scroll through a kinda long article to get all the information than to have to go through about three seperate ones. In general, new articles probably don't need to be used for most sequel series, unless they are notably different from the original, such as a remake. Wonchop (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with convenience. It's about defining separation of related content. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Often times list of episodes will contain broadcast history, ratings, opening/ending songs and other information that could easily be divided into seasons. If there is multiple related list-article (such as seasons or direct sequels) that do not have sufficient information to separate them, then they could be merged together. Lucia Black (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists only need basic details, the important thing is the list, not the prose before it, which can be any size really unless you are aiming for FL. As we know, lists don't need to show notability or the need to be spun out in this case. The core argument is should we split lists by episode count or "seasons". Now I'm going to outdent so see that.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My brief POV/suggestion:
- Lets drop the "cours" term, while it is indeed a measure of seasonal(calendar) blocks there just as many shows that don't make use of it than do.
- Series with 2x13 ep "seasons" for example should stick to one article unless a reasonable argument can be made for them being separate series (not separate seasons but two different series). That would be a per series argument but should "default" to sharing an article. Prose should be combined at the start of the article, but as separate paragraphs.
- Franchises with multiple 26+ seasons or 24+ and 13+ (for example Railgun/index) should be split per story season, regardless of sub arcs. So one article for Railgun episodes, another for Index. Note: a series being released as Part A/1 and Part B/2 are not reasons to split a series into seasons.
- Long running shows should default to official japanese seasons where they exist but with priority going to english-language seasons if they also exist. If no official split exists it should be tackled on a per series basis but titled as List of x episodes 1-x etc and not list as Seasons - that would be O/R. This split may involve theme songs but shouldn't be labelled as seasons based on them.
-Series with any unlisted complications should be discussed on that page, or brought to the project as and when.

-Size should only be an issue with large unbroken lists. "The big three" have legitimate reasons for having 70eps per article and follow the release patterns of the Japanese and English-language adaptions. They shouldn't be used as a reason to combine multiple 26+ episodes seasons into one list. Convenience in reading shouldn't be a factor in most cases as this is why we have templates and in-line wikilinks. The likes of Toriko, with no seasonal divide can follow the eps1-x example if they have summaries, but really this should be down to the people likely to monitor and work on the list. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC) My lists have rejected in the past for not meeting a specific notability, but really spun-out list is a good option. i'm only saying that multiple list articles are usually because the lists are too big to be a single one. Lucia Black (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Still gets a little confusing when it comes to what should be split into seperate articles or what can just be divided into different sections in a single article (not helped by the fact noone seems to have a consensus on what is 'too big'). To use an example that kind of incorporates both methods, Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal is divided up into two series Zexal and Zexal II, which are each split up into three seasons of roughly 25 episodes each, as opposed to six seperates articles titled Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal (season one), Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal II (season one), and so forth. Same kinda thing with Index and Railgun. One article for Index episodes, one article for Railgun episodes, each with subsections dedication to its seasons and bonus episodes. It keeps things neatly together and easily retraceable to its source media. I'm not sure why convenience is deemed irrelevant when there's so many guidelines formed around it (avoiding in-universe terms, keeping summaries simple, etc.). Simply put, a franchise should try to keep to as few articles as neccessary.Wonchop (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Zexal series doesn't have all that much coverage for the broadcast history for each individual episode. some list articles get more coverage than others to warrant multiple lists. Its really all that simple. if you see a list article that's not that long (we're talking about article size, not just number of episodes, please include plot summaries along with it) then they can be merged with the previous season or series list episode (but again, depends on the length). Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Everyone > Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that you're all assuming that everyone uses Wikipedia on a large display with mice (trackpad) and keyboard. An increasing number or people access Wikipedia from mobile devices and have you tried scrolling a ridiculously lengthy list article from the average 4-inch mobile device? It is utterly atrocious.

We have this infobox— {{Infobox television season |season_name = |image = |caption = |country = |network = |first_aired = |last_aired = |num_episodes = |next_season = |}} —that can be used and makes it incredibly easy to navigate between multiple lists because it shows up right in a user's face the second they access a page from any device. I hate to say this but some of the above discussion fails to cater for the average user. I think Lucia's suggestions may be the best compromise here. —KirtZ^Message 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As much as I dislike being sent to the mobile version of Wikipedia, it's actually one of the better mobile sites in presenting information. Having just tested the mobile site on my iPhone (so not an increasingly common giant Android), episode lists are very readable in landscape mode and momentum based scrolling makes it relatively easy to scroll down to latter parts of the list. Mobile browsing has always been a compromise (and near impossible to edit a page for anything beyond a typo) and I don't think we need to specifically cater for mobile users when Wikipedia already presents the information in a readable manner. Although adding the infobox seems like a perfectly sensible idea that I can fully agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephyTheThird (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think as far as multiple 26ep lists go, multiple lists could potentially be used on a single article to a certain point, like up to about three main seasons. At that point, it'd be more reasonable to spread out into multiple articles with an index page to link them all (with additional lists for OVAs and/or specials listed on the index, unless they are tied to a particular season). In the case of Railgun, I don't think seperate articles are particularly worth considering at this point until the series gets a third season (which judging by its previous schedule with Index seasons won't be for a good few years). This is probably more debateable for longer 52ep lists, but that'll be more down to summary size and notability (for example, Puchimas, which has two seasons of about 130 altogether, should be fine for now since the summaries are only a single sentence each). Other than that, it's just a matter of seeing what you can do to make articles shorter without the need for splitting (streamlining episode summaries, removing unneccessary trivia, etc.). Wonchop (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC) In other words, it's not so much about how large the episode lists are, but rather how large the franchise intends to be, as it's not particularly worth using multiple articles for series that only get one or two seasons.Wonchop (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Making any attempt to assume how large a series intends to be is a bit of a stretch and constitutes to WP:CRYSTAL. Series with at least 25 episodes per season (such as Phi Brain and Bakuman should definitely be split so that we can have some consistency in our project lists. With this being said series that have two seasons with 12 or 13+ episodes each (in addition to OVAs) could potentially be kept on one page to average out the 25 episode list per page. Of course this would only apply to the normal television seasons as such as High School DxD for example, as big series like Naruto and One Piece already have their own format. Frankly, combining lists have been more popular on older pages and we never make use of the infobox and it helps with page navigation, which you cant really deny. Also, we dont exactly have a tonne of people to help maintain lists which tend to fall by the wayside over time due to fancruft. They really only ever get the treatment you suggest when say, someone decides to FLC. —KirtZ^Message 13:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least in terms of the present, i.e. what we know rather than what's yet to be announced, an episode list article consisting of two 26 ep seasons (with occassional sub-listings for OVAs, films, etc) should be a reasonable size if no further seasons are currently planned, whilst stuff consisting of three or more seasons of that sort of length can be divided up accordingly. Course, there can be factors in dividing things up outside of episode counts and page size, such as timeskips or a focus on different characters. Again, it's very much per series basis. Wonchop (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on some of the suggestions by other Project contributors, I only see it being on a "per series basis" in very rare instances such as with Eyeshield and Toriko as Gabriel Yuji mentioned. Throwing factors like timeskips and different character arcs aren't exactly high priority here and should only being given thus as something SephyTheThird touched upon initially. 25/26 episodes (+OVAs) per page should be the minimum starting point and just go from there. This covers, as I said, series with 2 seasons each of 12/13 episodes and can fit nicely on one page. It also makes things easier when looking at this from an FLC standpoint. Also, there is no harm in using the infobox between pages. —KirtZ^Message 18:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be safe to split things up in accordance to how the broadcasting is dealt with like on the scale of theme song changes or title changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So basically, there's a lot of conflicting and confusing factors in play here. What is deemed to long or short for a single article. How detailed summaries can get. How certain shows are split/merged on a series basis. What distinguishes a season from a series. What goes where when managing multiple articles. How such changes affect the way main pages are prosed. How splitting articles may end up warranting the creation of additional articles. When there's a show with multiple series that have their own individual seasons. Whether a series is relevant or notable enough to even bother with splits. And that's before we get to whole argy bargy involving users who are particular to their certain fandoms. As far as basic series (ie. ignoring the typical long running shows) are concerned, here's my view on how things can be split (based on average sizes).

• 13ep seasons - multiple can be used in a single article, single season may optionally be implimented into main article if said page isn't too detailed itself
• 26ep seasons - for series with up to two seasons + OVAs, a single article can suffice. for 3+ seasons, split into seperate articles and use an index page to link them together
• 50ep seasons - one season per page

Wonchop (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it again, this is really simple, dependson the coverage of each list. Some seasons are more independent or get more coverage than other series. It just take it one list at a time, no need to really establish a specific format. There will always be specific situations and exceptions that can be made. I don't know why this has turned to a big discussion. This doesn't just involve anime/manga, other series such as Justice League and Justice League Unlimited and others such as The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2). We really dont need to be so specific for lists, just apply common sense. Lucia Black (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the common sense I was trying to convey at least is that lists should be kept to as few articles as neccessary if possible. Like I said, my suggestions only pertain to average 13/26ep adaptations that only has a few seasons and/or only get additional ones every two years or so and is not a catch all for all series. At the least, if something is only presently two seasons long, it shouldn't need to be split into seperate articles. Wonchop (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Except episode lists are split into sublists on a seasonal basis anyway. There's no reason not to do that for an anime unless people just write 3 sentence summaries for each episode.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sublists, yes. Not full blown articles. Wonchop (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Having separate list articles per season is normal practice. There's no reason for anime to be different. Still.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several American shows that keep all their seasons (and summaries) to a single article, so that argument is kinda moot. Besides, the whole prior argument has pretty much taught us there's no 'normal practise' when it comes to different types of anime series. Wonchop (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And the kinds of TV shows that do have the one page for all episodes thing generally do not have a bunch of nerds who really like it and write enough about it to have more than one page anyway. If there's an explicit divide in an anime's broadcast then we can use that to make new episode list pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'can' and 'should'. No point in creating additional articles and complicating things for the sake of it if it's not absolutely neccessary. Also, noone cares that you're a nerd, particularly since articles tend to aim to tone down nerdiness anyway. If the underlying problem is overly long summaries, just don't make them overly long. Wonchop (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said we were complicating anything. *facepalm* Tonnes of shows (not just anime) have articles per season. Make use of the infobox. You have not even mentioned it. I think everyone else pretty much agrees that sticking to one list is fairly outdated a format. —KirtZ^Message 21:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, why fix it? I don't 'hate' the infobox. I just think seperate articles for shows with only two seasons to speak of is like having two shops which sell milk and eggs respectively instead of just one shop that sells both. Sure, you eventually get your milk and eggs, but it takes twice as long. Yeah, seperate season lists work for a lot of series, but not all of them. Wonchop (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So far it's consistent with how WP:Television episodes is handling it, which is mainly on whether the individual season has notability. I don't see a problem with keeping multiple seasons on a single article either when all they did was change the name and theme song for the new season. If they did some notable seasonal changes, then make the second article or the branch articles. As for the geek writing, I don't see it as much on episode summaries, and those can be easily shortened per MOS:TV#Episode_listing which recommends about 100-350 words and branching the seasons when there are 80+ episodes. The problem with the geek writing is with those character lists with extremely long entries that are unreferenced (e.g. Toriko character list) and with extremely short entries of non-notable support characters like "Joe's Father" (e.g. List of Freezing characters). -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC), updated 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like an ideal way to sum it up. Keep summaries short and try to avoid splitting into multiple articles when possible. Also, avoid doing that 'subsection per episode' thing Ryulong likes to do with the Stardust Crusaders episode list. It just makes things look cumbersome. Wonchop (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW Ryulong I am quite miffed that you went and split Railgun up despite all the logical arguments I made and without checking with the article's talk page first. I suggest either putting it back the way it was, matching up with what AngusWoof said, or at the least, sort Index's episode list to match. Wonchop (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, Index only had one season. And no one's talking here. There's no reason to keep to the format that you've been proscribing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty pathetic excuse. Reverting things back to the way they were because likewise, there's no reason to go with the format you keep insisting on. Wonchop (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think AngusWoof's summary of events is the best way to go about things. As far as I can gather, the only reasons one should absolutely need to split episode listings into seperate articles are:

• if the series contains, or is looking to contain, more than 80+ episodes overall
• if a series is significantly different to a preceding series (eg. different tone, spin-off, remake/reboot, etc), and is easily distinguishable as a result
• if summaries require an intricate level of detail that would make episode lists particularly long even when summarised to basic elements (this would probably only apply to TV series with lengthy episodes, eg. hour long)

Additionally, there should be an agreement in said article's talk page that the article be split. Otherwise, just using subsections in the same articles is perfectly fine and keeps things tidy and less confusing for the user. Wonchop (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

80 episode is way too much for a single episode list, especially with episode summaries of any decent length (~150 words). More than 20 is a much better point to split, but the exact split should be based on how the seasons are defined. Two seasons of 11 to 13 episodes each may not need to be split, however, two 22 to 26 episode seasons or three 11 to 13 episode seasons should have separate lists. This is especially true if both seasons have separate storylines (or arcs). There is no benefit in cramming two or more 22 to 26 episode seasons into one list as it makes the list harder to manage and browse through. —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, just use common sense. Its not that hard. there really isn't any need to make such a discussion about what format we use unless the way we split them off is heavily inconsistent (which it isn't). Theres no need for this long discussion. Lucia Black (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't that hard, but apparently a certain editor wants to make it hard by setting some sort of bright-line "rules". The size and detail of the lists should determine when they may be split, not some arbitrary set of rules. If there is a dispute about a specific split, request a third opinion. —Farix (t | c) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there's the case of 'not all anime', but in particular regards to a lot of 12-26ep anime that only have two seasons, such as a lot of ones airing this season, it's generally unneccessary to create seperate articles until we're at least three seasons in. Noone was saying there should be a straight list of 80 episodes, just that there needs to be around that amount in the entire series to warrant splitting into multiple articles. It's kinda like being sent to a seperate library just to read the second volume of a book. It's less frustrating to scroll a little while longer than to have to go seperate places to get the full picture, particularly if the picture ain't that big to begin with. Wonchop (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Break

If we leave this this discussion with one thing, it should be that we unanimously agree upon Move Discussions before merging / splitting lists. Noone is even taking into account the effect that merging pages has on page quality such as FLCs. Pages should be spilt by television seasons if a single season is nominated for an FLC. This makes that process much easier. Also, Farix, your last comment about combining smaller seasons of 11-13 episodes and splitting larger 22-26 episode seasons is what I've been getting at. Someone explain why the Code Geass featured lists would be better as a single list. (This isn't Winterfell. Our way cannot be the old way - because Wikipedia is dynamic which is why I started this discussion).

Wonchop you can not convert a page to the way you want it to be and then throw an edit-fit when someone disagrees. This is why we have talk pages and move discussions. The usual process would be to leave an article(s) in its original state then start a discussion as Lucia Black suggests. If no consensus is reached this only means that the page is left as it was prior to the discussion as happens on numerous occasions. We are not mind readers, this is the internet. Nor will everyone agree. So what? Just accept it and move on. Letting oneself get riled up only clouds one's judgement. I would greatly appreciate if you read this entire thing.

Taking the above about FLC into account, and per Wonchop recent edits, I welcome comments by everyone at the ongoing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Encouragement of Climb episodes (season 1)/archive1 if you feel that the seasons should be merged and or improvements etc. —KirtZ^Message 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all seasons do, like i said, it all depends on the situation, but i guess we should take account on how much attention the series is getting by our fellow editors. So if an editor is confident in splitting in order to get a season as FLC, then their should be confidence that there is coverage for the next season or soon to be. List of Encouragement of Climb episodes seems to be well covered, season 2 isn't complete, but it looks like it has decent enough of information to look like it can be separated from the previous season. So it really depends on the editors and how much attention. Hence, common sense. lets not put a number on anything. I will say any series with over 13 episodes merits a list article of their own regardless if they have all the seasons merged into one or not. Lucia Black (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I've kinda been doing things is keep a single season on the main article's page until it's big or notable enough to grow into an episode list article (such as when it grows over 13 episodes or spawns an additional list of OVA episodes), then use that article for multiple seasons, only further splitting that up when it's notably too large (which kinda varies depending on the series, but it's not something I particularly consider for series consisting of two 25ep seasons). I don't think Encouragement really needs two articles since the episodes for both seasons are short compared to usual seasons, with summaries possibly in need of a streamlining. I will try and avoid jumping the gun on merges in the future though, t'was just my own common sense getting the best of me.

One thing I'm not particularly keen on is how some editors seem to title episode lists for secondary seasons with just that title (eg. a list consisting of Sword Art Online's season season episodes being called Sword Art Online II instead of List of Sword Art Online II episodes). Much like how a voice actor's credit in a sequel series would link to the franchise's main article, articles with just the sequel's title on its own should ideally be a redirect to its corresponding franchise article, where the main information of the anime and its source material is detailed, as opposed to specifically for an episode list. Additionally, for a lot of sequel series that use subtitles instead of numbers or numerals, in can be confusing which order these articles should be read, particularly when using the search bar. In the case of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, there was a fair bit of back and forth about how that should be titled since there are multiple pieces of media the title can refer to than just the TV anime, such as the story arc or the OVA (this particular case has been settled btw). Considering a lot of American licensors will often forego the Japanese versions subtitle altogether and just refer to them as another season, it may be worth considering referring to subsequent episode lists as Anime (season x) or whatever's consistent with the previous entries. Wonchop (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That will only cause confusion. We have Sailor Moon, Sailor Moon R, Sailor Moon S, Sailor Moon SuperS and Sailor Moon Sailor Stars. all seasons. it would be confusing if we did "Sailor Moon R (season 2)" because people will think Sailor Moon R has a season 1. The disambiguator is there for seasons that aren't explicitly named differently. If both seasons are named the same, then we use disambiguation to separate them. This does not apply if another season has a name of its own. Lucia Black (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously I didn't meant it that way. A correct example would be, say, if there was a need to split Working!! up into seperate season lists, the second season's list would be called "Working!! (season 2)" as opposed to its given Japanese title Working'!!. Again, this is not a catch all thing and is more applicable to occassional series that are referred to differently in licensed releases. The Sailor Moon lists you mentioned currently retain the "List of X episodes" format, so there's no real confusion in that regard since you can tell these are episode lists. It's more an issue of when it drops the 'List of' moniker and is similarly titled to the main article, becoming less obvious as an episode list article as a result, hence the confusion. Wonchop (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IF their listed like that its probably a little more than just a list. Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in some of the cases I've stumbled across, it's just being used for a generic second season episode list. I think notability plays a key part (for example: Stardust Crusaders feels more like its own show as opposed to just a second season, and is just about uniquely titled enough to distinguish itself from the manga article), but if it's just a standard continuation of a previous season, it probably should either follow the List of X episodes naming format or at the least remain consistent with its previous season listings. It basically just needs to be more recognisable as an episode list. Wonchop (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or they choose to add more than just episodes such as reception, casting, and production. It goes a little more than a typical episode list. it doesn't need to, but some choose to do it that way. Lucia Black (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jojo's is a mess because they have mixed links to the manga articles as subsection headers in the episode list, rather than discussing in prose how the season correlates with the similarly-named manga series or light novels. As long as the master list can keep track of these, then you can have branch articles like "Sword Art Online II" or "Sword Art Online II (anime)" (assuming there's a "Sword Art Online II (manga)") which would contain the episode list as if it were "Sword Art Online (season 2)". If the disambiguator is too subtle like that apostrophe in working, then I agree about using (season 2), although for Working!!, fortunately each season is only 13 episodes, so they'd all be lumped together. I've seen a similar case for Seitokai Yakuindomo where the second anime season has an asterisk, and the OAV's are numbered straight after the first anime season. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal episode list

As Sailor Moon Crystal is going to be airing a few days from now, I've created an episode list for the series in my sandbox. If anyone wants to help work on it, please feel free to do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and create the page. It looks good to me. —KirtZ^Message 03:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved it, since the userspace treatment is already finished, and nominated it for a DYK. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the Did you know nomination is here if anyone is interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Eren Yeager

I need suggestions in Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Rework regarding the draft of a character article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Filmographies of voice actors - argh

I’ve got an IP editor who’s driving me nuts in the filmography sections for Michelle Ruff and Stephanie Sheh with his reverting so I need advice on two things:

bolding of lead roles - this violates MOS:BOLD which says "Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text”. I’ve asked for this years ago but it was decided not to bold.

I’ve tagged the filmographies (and others) with "{{BLP sources|list}}" where I split the sourced roles into sourced and unsourced/insufficiently sourced roles. This is because of the recent wave of AFDs and notability tagging where voice actors are being deleted because they lack bios and have filmographies with no sources, or have a sprinkle of sources that are from their official website/resume. However the IP insists on keeping the lists mixed, and does not even try to fill in the sources or put in any decent biography, rather reverting the sources I do put in. As a result the voice actor articles continue to have a bunch of roles that are likely uncredited.

Any ideas? Or is this a losing battle? -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Roger Craig Smith has it worse, since people are actually preventing his voice roles from actually being listed on the grounds of there being no references outside of IMDB or ANN, resulting in only a few of his notable video game roles being listed in prose. Wonchop (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. His official website list his resume. [1] And you can click on the wikilinks to the things he has been in and see his name there. Common sense, you can just use the credits of the anime or whatnot to prove they were there. Dream Focus 15:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense here since unless someone is arguing that he is faking roles to make himself more important I think that he is a much better authority regarding his body of work than random people registering on ANN or IMDB. It should not even be a dispute.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As a followup on this discussion Talk:Michelle Ruff, I've undone the tags for BLP sources list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion on genre dispute

A Mexican IP has attempted to add Yuri (genre) as a genre to Is the Order a Rabbit? multiple times, however, the genre has been disputed by another editor and I informed the Mexican IP that a reliable source is required. The discussion is being held at Talk:Is the Order a Rabbit?#'Yuri' Genre. —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Like a lot of Kirara manga series, it's particularly heavy in subtext, but not straight up yuri at this point in time. There is a female character who has a crush on another girl, but it's not the focus. Wonchop (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon characters FL

There's an important discussion about a possible FLC for List of Sailor Moon characters. The discussion can be found at Talk:List_of_Sailor_Moon_characters#FL_status.3F. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Evangelion Genre Dispute

Discussion is at Talk:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#Disputes_to_include_genres if anyone is interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Voice actor bios

I need some help to keep Bridget Hoffman from being deleted over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Hoffman. I've written up her biography section where I reference numerous reviews that critique her dubbing and directing performances on some of her most important roles, however the AFD'er is questioning the sources as too SERP-ish. So I wanted to know if this is sensible or whether I'm just wasting my time as fancruft. This will likely impact all anime voice actor articles if it is the latter. Unfortunately she isn't the type of voice actor who frequents anime conventions or has a website. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold split of Sailor Moon anime

I made a bold split of the anime adaptation. Hopefully if someone disagrees with the split, it can be discussed. So if anyone has a problem with the split, please discuss it here. Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

List of anime selected for the Cannes Film Festival

Someone want to take this on? It seems redundant, like creating a sublist of Detective Conan films which were nominated at Japan Academy Prize for Animation of the Year. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth an AFD. There isn't a suitable redirect, and three entries doesn't seem worthy of a page, regardless of any coverage that may exist. If their selection is worthy and can be better sourced/discussed, it can be noted on their individual pages.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian IP strikes again

Once again, our Brazilian friend is changing the importance ratings of articles without any discussion or explanation to articles Tomoharu Katsumata and Shinichirō Watanabe. Given that the person did not participate in the previous discussion about their ratings, I suggest a revert on sight for disruptive behavior and possibly requesting page protection of their respective talk pages. —Farix (t | c) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ao Haru" Ride

Many of you here would have read the manga already and saw what the mangaka wrote about the title. I'm just wondering why an extremely reliable source of knowledge like Wikipedia still has the name mistranslated? I apologise in advance if something has been done about it already, because it is just me getting a bit uneasy when I see the title being Blue Spring Ride. If I remember correctly the two kanji characters do indeed read separately as Blue and Spring respectively. However as a combined word the Kanji means "youth". Aoharaido is just what the mangaka finds easy to call for a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokamoka (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Blue Spring Ride" is the official English translation of the title and per WP:USEENGLISH, that is the title of the article. Whether you agree with the translation of the title or not is irrelevant. —Farix (t | c) 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Aggred, the offical English title may be translated wrong (I don't know Japanese so I can't judge that) but correcting the official English translation is not Wikipedia's job.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode count for currently airing series without total

I have a question regarding Tokyo Ghoul and other series currently airing that don't have a projected total episode count. Per Template:Infobox television/doc, it's "The number of episodes released. In case of cancellation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired." Should it list the number that have broadcast so far (as with manga volumes released), with it being updated as more episodes are added to the official websites, labelled as TBA, or have a blank entry, keeping (List of episodes) intact? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would use "TBC or TBA" for newer series that are only a few weeks old (i.e. this season), and either "Ongoing" for longer series (that have passed 26eps for example) or "x as of *insert date*". Although to be honest, I think it's really editor preference unless you want to make it a MOS discussion.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

For an ongoing series, it should be the total number of announced episodes (episodes for which have both titles and broadcast dates). Typically, these dates and titles are announced on a monthly bases. —Farix (t | c) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I bought it up mainly because TBA rings a bit like WP:HAMMER. I know folks like to put that in for recently announced seasons. I certainly don't want to see something like 30+, which is totally annoying when applied to discographies. Ongoing doesn't sound like a bad option though, especially for ones that don't really have a season break. Today (U.S. TV program) has a number (as of date) format, but that's a news program. That could work for a large series where they celebrate every hundred episodes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like blanking out the number of episodes makes it not show the volume list as shown in this latest correction. [2] -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The |episodes= should not be left blank for an ongoing series. Since two episodes have already aired and a third one is already announced with a specific title and date, then the value of the parameter should reflect it. P.S. I've request that the Tokyo Ghoul page be protected do to repeated vandalism involving the number of episodes. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)