Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all

Back in October, I started a discussion on how broadcast dates in articles should be presented, particularly if the show airs past midnight but official materials state that the show aired on a different date (i.e. a show aired on July 15 but official materials state its airdate was July 14). The consensus (albeit very weakly, as I'll explain in further detail below) was to use a format which presents the "official" broadcast date with a footnote explaining the actual airdate (for an example of this format, see the article Attack on Titan). However, the consensus was never fully implemented by the project, which I believe is because the discussion petered out in October but was closed in January of this year, meaning when the discussion was closed the discussion was already in the archives, so it's unlikely that many users saw the consensus. Another possible factor is that this format's proponent, Ryulong, is currently banned as a result of the Gamergate arbitration case, which means that he was unable to change many articles to the consensus format.

Since the closure of the discussion in January (although the last comment was made in late October), a number of developments have occurred. First, as stated at a similar discussion on Juhachi's user talkpage, the Japanese Wikipedia, which previously showed official airdates in articles, is now switching to the listing of actual/technical airdates in articles, while at least two (not affiliated with any anime, but still large) Japanese webpages, such as these two, also list the actual airdate (by comparison, Tokyo Broadcasting System's official website uses official airdates: examples are [1] and [2])

Now the question: given the lack of publicity for the original discussion's closure (as I mentioned, it was closed when it was already in the archives: indeed, I wasn't even aware that it was closed until I just happened to look at the archives when searching for older discussions), should the original consensus nevertheless stand and be implemented, or is a new discussion with a stronger consensus necessary? And afterwards, which airdate (official or actual) should be presented in the article, and in what format?

I'm notifying all participants of the older discussion, as well as the original discussion's closer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The actual air dates should have always been listed in the first place. That is because when secondary sources—such as the Agency for Cultural Affairs' Media Arts Database—lists these dates, they are almost always going to use the actual dates instead of the "media dates". And Wikipedia should always with secondary sources per WP:PSTS. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree here, makes the most sense to use the actual airdates when possible. The problem I suspect is that there are tons of sources out there giving like xyz for the airdates as there are in English sources (ex: List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes). In that example you have sources like MSN, IMDB, Tv guide, ect... so many IPs and new users see a source and my guess assume its right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that Media Arts Database is around (it wasn't back in October for the previous discussion), the airdates can be shifted and referenced to the actuals. In the cases where the Media Arts DB may be incorrect in the citing of individual episodes that were aired out of order or postponed, the footnotes can be added to explain (it has to be done anyway). The Media Arts DB might not choose the initial network airdates as with [3] compared to [4], so blanket removal of the existing broadcast info citations is not suggested. Footnotes should be sprinkled in where there is any confusion anyway, at the minimum on the Airdate header in List of episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I still believe they should be listed with the same date that is advertised by their respective official sources, even if it is at 26:00 or something. eg. A late night show that is listed by official sources to air on July 16, 2015 at 24:00, despite technically being 2am on July 17, 2015, should be listed at July 16, as opposed to an early morning show that airs at 7am or something that is actually scheduled as part of the next day's broadcasting. It also helps lessen confusion in terms of series that have simulcasts that would take place in earlier timezones. If the need occurs, players can add a footnote alluding to the technical date. Wonchop (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the simulcasts since the airdates are typically for the first official regular broadcast and not the broadband on-demand content that might be placed shortly before or after the cast. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the actual date is preferrable; however, what to do when the only source you have is the official site (which gives the media date)? With Akagi (manga) it was the case until I knew about Media Arts DB. In other cases, such as Mushishi, even secondary sources (e.g. ANN, [5], animeanime.jp, and even Oricon [6]) gave the media date, so what to do? It would be right to give the actual date without a source or even contradicting the sources? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the header in the episode list can be changed from "Original airdate" to "Broadcast airdate" or "Broadcast night airdate" if it is expected that the sources are consistently going by the media advertised scheme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree: we should use the actual airdate, not the marketing airdate. I don't think we need to give any further explanation in the infobox, or change "Original airdate" to be more specific (since it's already pretty specific). In the text of the article, it would be fine to include a brief parenthetical explanation of some sort, similar to how we list converted Julian dates with Gregorian dates, or old lunar dates compared to the Western calendar dates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree; but, as I said above, what we should when all sources give the media date instead of the actual date? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: That's where the footnotes would come into place, assuming that consensus determines that they be used. A possible format could be something like this: the actual airdate would be presented, but a footnote would be added which would explain that officially it aired the day before. For example: Foo Bar premiered on Station X on January 1, 2015.[footnote: the series' official website states that the show premiered on December 31, 2014 at 25:00 AM (1:00 AM)] or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, ok. I guess it solves the problem. I did something like that on List of Hozuki's Coolheadedness episodes but I've wondered if this could be considered OR... It's good to know others think it's okay. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is simple math, literally the equivalent of 26-24=2. This would not be original research. —Farix (t | c) 03:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I closed the previous discussion-- the late closure was probably because of a listing over at WP:ANRFC when it had been archived already. (Next time, I will make a note in the talk page to better alert editors when it's archived like that.) I think Narutolovehinata5 has a compelling argument here for switching actual date rather than the broadcast date when it is available. In fact, I'm just going to put on my involved hat and argue that we should provide the actual broadcast date on the basis of accuracy. Otherwise, if only the broadcast date is available, even on secondary sources like Gabriel Yuji mentions, it will have to suffice, and I think the footnotes idea above works well. Though this affects a lot of articles, in general, I don't think an official RfC is necessary unless the participation is really limited. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as an addendum to this, I notice Farix has been pretty vocal against me for including dates for future episodes, which often strikes me as odd considering, with a few exceptions like Sailor Moon Crystal which air in irregular schedules, these are weekly shows. To this, I'd like to point out that if you look at the 'On Air' page of an anime's official website, it will generally list each participating channel with the phrase (translated to) "From (ep 1 date) airing every (xx)day at XX:XX", which tells us that from that date onwards until the series' end that each episode will air on that day of the week at that time (for example, the On Air page for School-Live! reads that the show airs on AT-X "Every Thursday from July 9 at 21:30" [7]). Although not providing specific dates, it is still something of a "word of god" kinda thing, so referencing these pages in episode tables should provide the basis for these further dates, as well as better provide sourcing for previously aired episodes, which seemingly don't need them. Titles are probably little rockier since, much like character info and episode summaries, this is stuff that is only verifiable by watching the show itself, but I do believe that if an upcoming episode's title is provided by the series, it should be included, at least for that upcoming week. Tagging these with actual sources seems to be tricky since official broadcasting sites often use automated schedules, many of the sites that report on the next episode's title probably aren't considered reliable sources, and none of us wants to be the guy to put down "Episode 3 Title"<ref>The end of episode 2</ref>. Thoughts? Wonchop (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would concur with Wonchop. For example, since List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes have used Toei Animation's website as a reliable source for airdates and Fuji TV's own website for future airdates, I have been doing the same with Dragon Ball Super. And given that it's a weekly show, we should update the sources when the next airdate is confirmed by Fuji TV. Otherwise, if there is no source, episodes must remain hidden until the date is officially confirmed by the network or on the company's official website. Any comments or objections to it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wonchop: @Sjones23: This discussion is not about whether or not an airdate should be displayed for episodes without a confirmed airdate, but rather, how the airdate should be presented (i.e. if the show airs past midnight at 1:00 AM but officially airs at "25:00 AM", which airtime/airdate should be presented in the article, the official airdate or the actual airdate?). As for Sjones23's suggestion, he has a point, but it would generally apply to week-long shows: it might not be much of a problem for one-cour (12-14 episodes long) since usually their airdates are already fixed and postponements/cancellations are rare. Still, I think that suggestion should be tackled in a different discussion, not this one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion started below. Please comment there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When a similar discussion came up on the ANN forums about how dates should be entered in the ANN encyclopedia, an ANN staff member decided that they should always be entered as listed in the primary sources even if that wasn't the real date (i.e., they went with the media date, not the actual date). While we shouldn't be using their encyclopedia as a source, and they have said not to use Wikipedia as a source, I'm a little worried that having the two sites disagree will cause confusion (i.e., lead to a lot of people trying to change one or the other so that they agree). Also, I would expect most secondary sources to list the media dates rather than the actual dates, since I would expect most to just report the date given by the primary sources and not try to convert them (I think the Media Arts Database might be an exception . . . a database like that is probably trying to standardize things like dates, but a general news story would be more likely to just report what the sources say without any converting). I think going with either date is alright as long as we have a footnote explaining why the date might differ from some sources, but I think I have a slight preference with going with the media dates. I would expect going with the media dates will better match most available sources (both primary and secondary sources), and lead to less confusion. Regardless though, I definitely think the footnote is needed whenever a show was listed as airing at 24:00 or later. Calathan (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't ANN's encyclopedia, and they can use whatever method they like. What we have to do come down with is with the format that is most accurate, natural, and verifiable for the English reader. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• How about actually having them as appropriately defined with their normal native listings with the proper notation and a note to explain it as it applies to the the 24 hour notation? When we have a performance show or event we list the times in the appropriate native listings for our guests. This results in confusion for English guests, but saying 26:00 is not unusual because it notes "a continued activity" and doesn't result in confusion with the 12 hour/24 hour cycle. If I were to state that the show is "2:00 Tuesday", it could either be 2 a.m. or 2 p.m. but if I say "26:00 Monday" the intention and meaning is clear. By altering and "converting" the times it only causes confusion for both parties. Confusion without conversion can be handled by a note explaining the native usage whilst retaining natural accuracy of the original sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think going with a "26:00 Monday" format is anything but "having a clear intention and meaning". As you said, English readers will be confused and think "how come the article says that the show claims to have aired on Monday but actually aired on Tuesday" and "26:00?". I regret to say it, but since this is the English Wikipedia, it would probably be best to go with a more common (and common sense) format. In my personal experience, outside of anime I've never encountered these "wrong" times used in other applications. Let's say there is an anime which claims to have aired on "25:00 AM on December 31, 2015" (meaning it actually aired at 1 AM on January 1, 2016). What category will be used in the article: 2015 anime television series, or 2016 anime television series? And if we go with the latter, even if let's say a footnote exists, if the broadcast date presented in the article is the media date, there could be confusion at least initially from readers ("this aired on 2015, but didn't?"). This is why I prefer using the footnotes, but instead of Ryulong's proposal of showing the media date first and the actual airdate in the footnote, I prefer a format with the actual airdate first and the media date in the footnote. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with differences between AM and PM. We are dealing with is the air date to be listed on an episode list. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that, while a number of stations (notably TBS) uses post-midnight airdates in their shows, not all channels use them. At least one channel (Fuji TV if I recall correctly) uses the actual dates for broadcast times. Whatever consensus this discussion ends in, the articles should probably reflect that.

Also, I've raised this in the previous discussion but this little bit of information seems to have been missed then (except by Ryulong in a very early discussion back in 2013): we may already have a solution for this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time of day has this quote (emphasis mine): 24-hour clock times have no a.m., p.m., noon or midnight suffix. Hours under 10 should have a leading zero (e.g. 08:15). 00:00 refers to midnight at the start of a date, 12:00 to noon, and 24:00 to midnight at the end of a date, but "24" should not be used for the first hour of the next day (e.g. use 00:10 for ten minutes after midnight, not 24:10). But here's the problem: Calathan raises an interesting point that going with this format may cause a conflict with what reliable sources say: while some sources (such as the database) use the actual date, others may use the media date. Essentially, this means that the consensus here is more on how to resolve this apparent conflict between between a policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and a guideline (our Manual of Style), and while WP:V is a policy and MOS is just a guideline and thus in theory the former has precedence, the guideline template says ("occasional exceptions may apply"), and potentially using a technically "wrong" media date (which technically violates MOS:DATE) for hundreds of articles doesn't seem to be "occasional". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: You intend to convert the actual given dates and times to your preferred "format" as a foreigner because it makes more sense to you? An explanation is required in either case, but a conversion is not. The MOS applies to Angelo-centic times and not one of used by Asian cultures. Take "週三深夜1時" for example. Literally read as "Wednesday Late Night 1:00" it is really Thursday 1:00 a.m. to "Angelos". I'll translate "10月16日深夜1時" as "October 17 1:00 a.m." for English documents, but to natives - it is October 16 still. This is why you get the flipping back and forth on dates - the date hasn't changed to the native population yet! Without the context and precision of the time notation the true "date" is ambiguous. For Japan, Monday 25:00 is precise and not the same as Tuesday 1:00 because you are still not certain of whether or not its the 12 hour or 24 hour notation. And I doubt you going to notate all the lists with the proper precision and time format context. After all that's only how the issue arose in the first place - a lack of precision and context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Being Filipino I can attest that the practice of these "post-midnight airtimes" is not widespread in Asia and in fact is rare outside of Japan, and those that do use it outside of Japan (such as Adult Swim) usually use it because of the Japanese practice and not because of independent developments. Also, nothing in the MOS states that it only applies to Anglo-centric articles, it does not state that media of non-English origin are excluded (otherwise MOS:JAPAN would have implied this). Also, it is clear from the context that "Monday 25:00" is referring to "Tuesday 1:00 AM". There's no ambiguity there, only confusion. And even if the problem here is the use of the 24-hour clock, MOS:TIME states that, for disambiguation purposes, a leading zero should be added to hours that are less than twelve (e.g. "Monday 25:00" = "Tuesday 01:00"). So while the statement that "Monday 25:00" and "Tuesday 1:00" are not the same is correct, saying that "Monday 25:00" and "Tuesday 01:00" are not the same isn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously stating that your nationality makes you an authority on the matter? Now...the practice to which we are discussing is Japanese and the fact people are not providing the hour of the air times is the root of the problem. When you write "Japanese date" it does not state "Japanese post-midnight showings are converted for a 24 hour clock, i.e. shows airing at Sunday 25:00 are written as airing on Monday despite the TV station and book listing the calendar date as the day prior". With that you have just confused the native sources, the Angelo sources and clarified nothing in the sake of "correcting" a calendar date which was never in error in the first place. Perhaps it is not logical for you to deal with "(Date) 26:00", but no one ever puts the "26:00" in the lists its either "(Date) or (Date+1)" and the latter is dishonest and confusing with respect to both precision and accuracy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're lucky you'll get the announcement like "次回第3話 7月22日(水) 深夜2時 34分放送" which has the "深夜" late night designation. But some programs will list "7月22日(水) 02:34" or "7月22日(水) 2:34" and while 深夜 is implied, it still confuses AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - I understand. Implied cases doesn't always make it clear, but its got be to clearer than alteration without explanation. Until I mentioned it though, it seems as if this designation was unknown and that's what concerns me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: @ChrisGualtieri: The consensus of the discussions for the past two years was always leaning towards using footnotes of some sort. The topic which could never reach a consensus is the question on which airdate should be presented in the article text and which airdate should be in the footnote: should it be that the actual airdate is presented, with a footnote explaining the media date (as seen on List of Hozuki's Coolheadedness episodes), or should it be that the media date is presented, with a footnote explaining the actual date (as seen on Charlotte (anime))? As stated in the discussion, the first option is more accurate but it can, depending on the show and the sources, contradict what official sources say, while the second option is closer to official sources (at least those for shows which actually use the post-midnight format), but is technically inaccurate, contradictory, and technically does not follow the Manual of Style. Whatever consensus is formed here, it will have to involve footnotes of some sort. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't need foot notes. Even in newspapers when the schedule is a long bar, it covers up to like 2 am of the next day, but no one would say Wednesday 3 am of Thursday or something bizarre like that. Stick with normal dates, it's how the Agency for Cultural Affairs wants it done as well. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, the use of media dates by some Japanese networks is what is dishonest. It also sows confusion between networks that use these media dates vs those that uses actual dates. Then you have the Media Arts Database, that uses the actual dates (or at least attempts to). This is why I believe that all dates given on Wikipedia should be the actual dates for internal consistency. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason that no-one has bothered to ask at WT:MOSDATE about the best way to take care of this? This seems to be rather divisive and people divorced from the specific case of anime might have some interesting or useful input. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Back when I first raised this issue back in 2013, after some discussion here, I started a discussion on the Village Pump. Unfortunately, there were very few responses there. Anway, I've left a message at WT:MOSDATE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Most people probably don't have opinions or expertise in the area... it is a very esoteric subject even amongst Wikipedians. I wouldn't be heavily invested into MOS - because it arose from solutions to problems rather than the other way around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since editors like Farix and DragonZero are unable to recognize valid time notations I feel that this Wikiproject is not capable of resolving the issue. DragonZero advocates conversion without explanation and Farix believes the official listings are "dishonest". Stop creating your own reality and refusing to explain "date-only" alterations because of your cultural blindness. This is an encyclopedia and the act of informing readers to such issues is part of our mission. Wikipedia editors should not be actively compounding the problem and going against official listings and ignoring the existence and validity of alternate time notations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris, you can't seem to discuss anything here without finding some way to put down other editors in this WikiProject. First off, my comment was a direct counter to you statement that converting media dates to actual dates was "dishonest". If you find my counter in any way offensive, then it was because your own comment was just as offensive. Second, you are insinuating that editors who are arguing in favor of using the actual air dates must be racist. This attitude is patently offensive give the very nature of this WikiProject. —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Chris if you dislike WP:ANIME so much then why are you here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Farix has accused me of racism in response to dismissing an editor's argument as an authority based on their own nationality... That's not racism, that's stating that your place of residence does not make you an expert. For this problem and all others, an explanation in prose or in notes is required because said listings are in conflict and conflicting sources require explanations. Wikipedia is an evolving system and best practices for one page do not always apply to another - common sense and enhancing reader comprehension are primary goals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, YOU were the one that tried to insinuated that those supporting the conversion of media dates to the actual dates were racist. "recognize valid time notations", "Stop creating your own reality", "your cultural blindness". These are all code words to cast anyone who disagrees with you as racist. Then like a smooth politician, you turn yourself into the victim when you get called out on it. —Farix (t | c) 11:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've explained twice that someone claiming authority based on their nationality is not a valid or compelling argument. Somehow you twist and distort this to racism. You insult me and are pulling out all the rhetoric to shamelessly attack an editor who has explained their indifference to the form used so long as the valid notation is explained. I don't care what social background you have, but you do not understand the culture and it is patently clear that conversion without explanation is a bad idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Although I'm on the opposite side of the debate as ChrisGualtieri, he has a point. His comments were not racist, but rather, he was lamenting the apparent lack of cultural relativism in this discussion. It's not creating a reality, but rather, learning to respect the differences in Western and Asian (in this case, Japanese) media cultures. Systemic bias, folks. Perhaps this is partly my fault, since I brought up my nationality when he said that the MOS may not apply to non-Anglo-centric matters (although no MOS has ever implied this), although my point was that the practice of post-midnight airdates being shown in such a format is rare outside of Japan (indeed, I'm not even sure if it's widely used within Japan, since even the Japanese stations and websites are inconsistent with it), and I was saying that I know that through experience. With that said, the question on whether or not we should use these media dates based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines is separate from the question on whether or not they are valid from a Japanese perspective. MOS:TIME though seems to be clear that any "25:00" times and the like should be avoided in articles, which is why I prefer a compromise where the actual broadcast date is presented, but with a footnote explaining the official airdate. In theory, this should please both sides, as compared to not having the footnote (and thus any mention of the media date) at all. It would be interesting if a Japanese user could give an input to this discussion. What do Japanese feel about the use of these media dates?

@ChrisGualtieri: With that said, at least in my case, "conversion without explanation" was never going to be an option. That's where the footnotes will come in place. The date presented should probably be the actual time of broadcast (say "Monday 01:00"), but with a footnote that explains that (if applicable), official sites states that the show aired on the previous day (say "Sunday 25:00"). One way to do this is to use two citations for the airdates, one citation for the actual time (perhaps using the Media Arts Database as a source), and one citation for the media date (perhaps using official websites as a source). Of course, for shows that premiere before midnight, this discussion would be moot since the media and actual brodcast dates will be the same. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

DragonZero advocated conversion without explanation. I'm fine with the Attack on Titan listings. An explanation is required and preferably with one that recognizes the post-midnight dates for the illustrative purpose. The Attack on Titan note does this and "going by the MOS" seems to be an argument for preventing even the illustrative example. How the situation is resolved doesn't really matter to me so long as an explanation exists and the validity of the time notation (for illustrative or descriptive purposes). I'll leave a note on your page explaining it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with TheFarix: Use reliable secondary sources, which usually provide us with the actual release date. The "official" "media" date is primary sourcing and counterfactual. It's exactly the same as WP repeating something stated in someone's press release when multiple independent reliable sources show that it's not true. That said, it would be good to put the "media" date in a footnote, to explain why some source may contradict what the others are saying and what WP is saying.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping more news articles will do things like this: "The anime will premiere on September 26 at 24:30 (effectively, September 27 at 12:30 a.m.) and Crunchyroll will stream the series as it airs." But that's more the exception when announcing premieres. As for Adult Swim's late night broadcasting, doing a search by date will indicate a Saturday post-midnight listing, while search by show name will indicate a Sunday morning date on the same episode. Also if the snapshot of the day's full programming guide clearly shows they use a post-midnight format, then using actual date should be fine. Then there may be a wishy-washy case where they move the program across the 24:00 border a few times, which the airdates would no longer follow +7 from the previous episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise?

As seen in the discussion above, one problem is that reliable sources themselves can be inconsistent with airdates for a series. Online and possibly offline, for many series, both "media" dates and actual airdates may be widely circulated. For some however, only the "media" date is reported (although this is less of a possibility now given that the Media Arts Database exists). What about we settle for a compromise of sorts? By default, when presenting a show's airdates, as long as there are reliable sources that confirm the "actual" date, we present that (i.e. actual date with the media date explained in the footnote), but if no reliable sources can be found confirming the actual date (even secondary ones), then the date that would be presented should be the media date (i.e. media date with the actual date explained in the footnote). Then again, as I mentioned, with the Database existing, this would be less of a problem now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It still sounds the same as actual dates over broadcast schedules, since I haven't seen the database lacking in any anime series. Since I was already on the side of actual dates, I don't oppose this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a good middle ground. (Just a side note: DragonZero, the database is missing Hozuki no Reitetsu, for example; that may indicate that there is some delay on its updating.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: My suggestion is kind of a temporary solution though, only for shows where reliable sources do not cover its actual airdate, only its media airdate. Once a source (or sources) can be located that confirm the actual airdate, the airdate presented should be changed to that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think the actual dates should always be used. It's not productive to use media dates only to switch to the actual dates later on when the Media Arts Database and other secondary sources catch up. As for whether the dates should be footnoted, that should depend on the sources used. If the source gives actual dates, there is no need to footnote. If not, then a footnote may be helpful. I do wonder if providing the time slot information in the anime section/episode list be a good idea to clarify the situation. I've attempted this on several articles in the past, but had them removed by other editors. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

An explanation is required when valid sources are in conflict - I'm not sure why you do not understand why this is important. This is by far one of the most simple and easily resolved types of conflicts yet this debate continues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Japanese newspapers

By coincidence, I'm currently in Nagoya, Japan on holiday. I happened to look at some Japanese newspapers, and interestingly, the two I read (a Japanese language paper whose name I forgot, and the English language The Japan Times) use the actual times for their broadcast times (for example, a show is shown to air at 2:00 [AM] as opposed to "26:00") in their television airing schedules. It seems the use of media dates is rarer than I thought. I'll see if there will see anything else. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it show as 2:00 AM for the next day or under the same day? Heh, could use that as cite news ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

2:00 AM of the same day. Though apparently the Japanese broadcast day begins at 6 AM. I guess in this case, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a lot happened while I was away. Skimming through most of the above since it is quite tl;dr, I'm not opposed to the use of actual airdates. However, I would say we should use the media advertised dates since those are what the actual broadcasters make available albeit in their strange time slot divisions. Media Arts Database is really just an archive that chooses to use a 24 hour based system to give the actual broadcast dates and hence is good for that purpose, as an archive. I've made it a practice to include a footnote to compensate for the actual airdates. I do understand that it is by no means a solution but it doesn't seem like the community has reached a definitive verdict either. The advertised and actual airdates both have their merits, but if we're going to have a unified source for all anime dates across the Project like Narutolovehinata5 is hinting at then we should definitely be using the Media Arts Database. Maybe we should just vote on it? —Kirt^Message 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: The last time this was discussed the proposal was put into a vote (as mentioned above), with Ryulong's proposal (advertised airdates with the actual airdate in the footnote) winning out, although this was never implemented for reasons mentioned in my original comment above. This time the discussion seems to be leaning towards the use of actual times with footnotes to explain if there's a discrepancy between the actual times and the advertised time (i.e. present the actual date with the media date in the footnote), as long as a reliable source (preferably secondary sources/non-affiliated sources such as the Media Arts Database and newspaper/magazine television schedules) can be found. I don't think a vote is necessary this time given the consensus this time appears to be clearer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Having a reliable source would be the key for this method to work, but wouldn't we still have to wait for secondary sources to play catch up? Broadcasters almost always make their advertised schedules available long before actual airing begins making them the go-to places for initial premiere dates. In addition. unlike the Media Arts Database, digging around for other secondary sources such as magazines/newspapers would be alot tougher for some people provided the schedules aren't available online. This ties to the future airdates trend that has been going around lately (see the discussion below) wherein unsourced dates are being removed until the episodes air despite the dates remaining unsourced, which could either attributed to the fact that secondary sources are now more difficult to come by, or that editors still arent willing to play the sourcing game. My money is on the latter. —Kirt^Message 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: That would depend on a number of factors, such as the show itself and the station that airs it. For example, as far as I know, not all Japanese TV stations used the weird 24+ hour dates at all and just simply use the actual airdates (I can't remember which ones don't use the media dates, it could be Fuji TV or NHK, correct me on that if I'm wrong); in fact, I'm not even sure if the practice is commonly used outside of anime. As I mentioned above, I did suggest a compromise above where, should reliable sources not exist (yet), especially if the Media Arts Database does not have the show (yet), the media dates could be presented in the interim, although they should be changed to the actual dates as soon as a reliable source that confirms that airdate can be found (i.e. the Database), and while DragonZero and Gabriel Yuji were in favor of this proposal, TheFarix opposes it. Though to be fair, the same could be said for using the media dates: for any airdate to be in the article, a source should confirm it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My beef is with using the advertised dates in said interim until a secondary source becomes available. Frankly. it's pointless effort to update a reference (which not everyone is willing to do) and really all it does is highlight the severity of the astronomical amount of unsourced lists that the Project has to deal with. My point is, if the average editor is unwilling to spend an extra five minutes to source an airdate in the first place, what makes you think they would update the date from advertised to actual with a secondary source? That's why I've been saying we should just pick a standard and be done with it. Anything along the lines of compromise only works for lists people are actually willing to commit to enhancing. —Kirt^Message 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: For accuracy's sake, if anything else, it will probably be best to stick to the actual airdates, with footnotes if necessary explaining the advertised date, as the standard. Primary sources may or may not use the advertised dates, but Japanese secondary sources seem to stick to the actual airdates, and WP:PRIMARY states that secondary sources should be preferred whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have slowed down

Well discussion seems to have slowed down now. Has a consensus been reached? Should it be time to close the discussion, or should it be kept open? This issue really needs to be resolved so that a standard may be implemented. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have come to a natural end. Any more debating would probably result in everyone needlessly repeating their arguments. What we need here is a fresh perspective. —Kirt^Message 01:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not just draw a straw vote now? The prose in this discussion was too soft to suggest anything here was binding. I've already started on my next project in the format of real airdates, no notes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DragonZero: If only for this to be done once and for all, then maybe it would be time to have a strawpoll. It would be easier though if you could create the section and the wordings rather than me, as I'm currently busy with school work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's my proposal:

• Use actual date with footnote when:
  • Media publishes the broadcast night and uses those dates to refer to the program throughout its first run. Example: [8]
  • Media publishes the broadcast night but uses 0:00-3:59 times where they may be contention or confusion.
• Use actual date with optional footnote when:
  • Media publishes broadcast night for just its first episode, or when publishing the weekly episodes, lists with broadcast time in 24+ range or with "深夜" (after-midnight) designation. (A footnote helps, but when the schedule snapshot clearly shows it occurring after-midnight, it is self-explanatory). Example: [9], [10]
• Use media date with optional footnote when:
  • Media uses broadcast night with lack of any other detail. Applies to old archived programs where no one can dig up the actual broadcast time or for upcoming shows that have not been scheduled in a time slot yet. This is also for the rare and weird case where the show's start time flops back and forth between 23:55 and 24:05. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you think? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much variety. It's better if something simple is enforced. "Does MediaDB have the airdates? Use those, otherwise use what other sources say" is much more simple. Then there's the footnote issue. I'd just drop the footnotes altogether. From the English airdates perspective, even though adult swim schedules it oddly, sources like The Click of ANN and Tv Guide just do automatic conversions without mentioning how it looks on schedule. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just detailing the possible cases, not the verbiage that will go in the MOS, which should be a lot simpler. How's this: "For shows that are broadcast after midnight, list the actual airdate instead of the media date. For example, Thursday night, April 2, 2015 at 24:30, is technically Friday morning, April 3, 2015, at 12:30am. If the sources insist on using the media date, add footnotes to clarify the after-midnight scheduling." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"

The usage and primary topic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is under discussion, see talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Little help

I tried adding the Seventh Hokage ref to List of Naruto characters but regardless of what I change it looks like it doesn't work. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done You were trying to add the reference under the manga volumes for the regular series when it should have been at top minus the numbers (which are chapters). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :DTintor2 (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Anime films and production company parameter in the film infobox

I asked this first in the talk page of WikiProject Film, but I want to ask it here too, because I think this is relevant and may help to come to a conclusion:

There was a long discussion about the name of the 'studio' parameter (studio or production company) back in 2014 that resulted in a name change. Now I have a related question: Which companies exactly are we going to mention in the infobox of film articles? Especially animated films?
My main concern here are Japanese animated films. In almost all cases there is a アニメーション制作 (animation production) or 制作 (production) in the credits of these films which lists the animation studio who made the film. In many cases there is also a 製作 (production [financing]) in the credits which mentions a production committee and also specifically lists all the companies who financed the film. The common practice in English Wikipedia until now was to only mention the animation studio in the infobox, like all Studio Ghibli films, Ghost in the Shell, Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, or Steamboy. Now that the parameter name has changed from studio to production company, some users feel they should add all the companies that finance these animated films to the infobox, like here. The problem is that the list of companies that are credited under 製作 is generally long. A film like Steamboy has 9 companies listed under 製作, or a film like The Wind Rises has 8 different companies under this credit. This would make anime film infoboxes bloated and result in a long list of companies after the 'production company' parameter. The other problem is that if we decide to list all these companies, how do we differentiate them. A simple list in the infobox doesn't show the reader which company animated the film and which company financed it.
In Japanese Wikipedia they have two different parameters in their film infobox, a 制作会社 parameter for animation studios (or in live action cases companies that make the film) and a 製作会社 parameter for companies that finance the film. They also generally don't list the individual financing companies in the infobox, especially when their list is large. Instead they simply mention the name of the production committe that represents these companies. A production committee is a special entity created by a group of different companies partnering for a specific film project to finance and manage the copyrights of said film and is very common in Japanese film industry. I try to explain this further with The Eternal Zero: In Japanese Wikipedia you will see that in the infobox, the parameter 制作会社 lists 'ROBOT' as the single production company that made the film and the parameter 製作会社 lists '「永遠の0」製作委員会' as the single production entity that financed the film. 「永遠の0」製作委員会 (“The Eternal Zero” Production Committee in English) is the name of the production committee of this film, and it actually represents 19 different companies.
The vague definition of the 'studio' parameter here in English Wikipedia has resulted in a confusing situation. Should we mention financing companies of (Japanese) animated films? Should we ignore them in the infobox? Are they needed at all? If yes, how do we show the reader which company actually animated the film? Make it clear in parentheses? Is mentioning the production committee instead a list of financing companies (like in Japanese Wikipedia) sufficient? Is it needed at all? If there is no need to mention the financing companies, isn't it better to clarify it in the template's documentation? It would be very appreciated if we could come to some kind of consensus regarding this matter. --Raamin (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gangsta.#Requested move 19 August 2015

Another move discussion has been initiated. Please comment by clicking the heading above. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding animate vs inanimate pronouns for fictional characters

There is an RfC under way at WT:MoS about whether or not it's acceptable to use "who" to refer to characters, as if they were real people. The consensus is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "Yes, in fact that's standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions are still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character, who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)