Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters

Inactive talk page over at List of Pokémon anime characters, so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below)

Creating a page for "Genjitsu no Yohane: Sunshine in the Mirror" spinoff?

I posted about this a while ago, back in April, on here, but I'd like your thoughts on whether I should create a page for this spinoff from Love Live! Sunshine!! or if I should just incorporate it into the Love Live! Sunshine!! page. I came up with a draft page back in April, but was planning to add a bit more to the page to add in some more current information sometime soon. I look forward to hearing from you. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01: It's premiered already and has reviews at ANN and Fandom Post ([1] [2]), and it's getting a video game in November ([3], [4]). So, feel free to improve it and move it to mainspace. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Great! I will do that when I have some time. Historyday01 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Just created it, at long last, at Yohane of the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror. I copied the text over from that draft, as its a sandbox, and I might use it in the future for some other series. Not sure who the directors, writers, or storyboarders are for each episode, though, and IMDB was no help in that (unsurprisingly).Historyday01 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01: I've added the episode staff. Also, the official English title doesn't contain "of", so the article title should be Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror. Harushiga (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks for the tip. It does call it "YOHANE THE PARHELION -SUNSHINE in the MIRROR" on Crunchyroll, so I'll move it to "Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror" that right away. Historyday01 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please upload for anime key visual for Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror okay. Lovemuhcko (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lovemuhcko:  Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done at File:Yohane the Parhelion anime key visual.jpg. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving Draft:Ayaka: A Story of Bonds and Wounds to the mainspace.

Since Ayaka was moved into the draftspace, there has been numerous news articles about the anime, from those mentioning the removal of one Takahiro Sakurai from the cast to those revealing to when it premieres. I think it's now appropriate to move it into the mainspace. SimonLagann (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend renaming the article as Ayaka (TV series) due to MOS:SUBTITLE and the fact that the original Japanese title doesn't have the subtitle. I also think this article still needs some work such as plot and reception because currently it looks like a press release where it just lists the cast and staff who worked on the film. lullabying (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Reception could come after the first episode premieres and ANN, as per usual, covers it during their preview columns. SimonLagann (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The plot is mentioned in some of the articles cited in the draft, but I'm not good with paraphrasing. SimonLagann (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the full title will be fine as a title; MOS:SUBTITLE states When the most commonly used name is ambiguous, the full title and subtitle might be suitable to be used as a form of natural disambiguation (see WP:NATURALDIS) and gives the example to use Orlando: A Biography over Orlando (book). Link20XX (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I request for the creation of the "List of manga" article containing all of the manga that has ever been done (translated and not) which is lacking because there isn't one yet. I have already asked for this at the talk page of the article of manga but no one did that. Please reply! Thanks! 186.109.170.149 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's no wonder no one has planning on creating such article, because it would be absurdly and needlessly long. It's like asking for a single list of every film released or book published. Xexerss (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well. It could be done, alongside the supposed "list of books", "list of comics", "list of films", "List of series", "List of music", "list of video games", "list of anime" and "list of documentary films"

They could remain incomplete, for all I care, but at least they are created because they are necessary 190.31.233.2 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The article was created before, but it was decided to be deleted because it seems that it was not really as necessary as you think it is. There are lists of comics, list of films and list of video games articles, but they don't have the unreasonable kind of content that you're requesting. Xexerss (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you can just turn this category article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manga into an actual article of "list of manga" containing all of these manga. I imagine neither of the ones that I mentioned (list of books, list of films and so on) have ALL of the content that has ever been done. That's why I think that the supposed "List of manga" can be done even though it could remain incomplete. What do you think? 190.31.233.2 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just see this discussion and you will see why the article was deleted in the first place. I doubt that any editor with enough experience in Wikipedia will find your request plausible. Xexerss (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga. Link20XX (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Utena

There is a request for Utena to be moved to Utena (city) at Talk:Utena. Thought this WikiProject might be interested. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Split discussion at Bakugan Battle Brawlers

Thought I might post here to attract some attention to the topic at Talk:Bakugan Battle Brawlers regarding splitting the information about the larger Bakugan franchise into its own article at Bakugan, which is currently a redirect at RfD. ― Synpath 23:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

An interesting situation with the source

The situation is this. We have a reputable source that confirms that the anime character was the first queer protagonist in the franchise, and it's easy to verify even without a source if you have even a smattering of knowledge. But the source was quick to announce this even before the character was canonically confirmed as a queer. So the question is, can the source be used to claim, if they were actually right, but wrote about it at the time of speculation, before actual confirming the sexuality of the character by the author? As I said, this is a pretty obvious point and most sources are talking about it, but adding this I was met with accusations that I was supposedly "appeal to woke people" and that the status of the first queer protagonist in a cult major franchise was supposedly not significant, so I have to look formal sources, many of which, to put it mildly, are too hasty with conclusions even before the initial development of romance between the characters. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just say it as it is. "[Whatever source] observed that [whatever] before this was confirmed by [the thing]." small jars tc 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So, just to point out that even before it was successfully confirmed directly, a number of media outlets had already named the character as the first queer protagonist in the history of the franchise? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that their claim that the character is queer before any canonical confirmation suggests that they're not reliable. And just from the name, you can assume Pride.com is going to be a biased source when it comes to LGBTQ+ topics, which is certainly acceptable in some matters, but doesn't lend them credit when we've seen them make a claim that isn't backed up.

They also list Kanji Tatsumi from Persona 4 as an LGBTQ+ character, though they do concede it's up for debate - it isn't confirmed in the source material. Their article on Sailor Moon and some other characters include some stretches too.

Some of their articles feel more like a tabloid than a reputable source, with posts like '14 Disney Channel Hotties Who Made Our Hearts Throb As Teens and 10 Times Celebs Talked About What They're Packing. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The attempt is to source the phrase "first such protagonist in the franchise" specifically? I think it's fine to do that, because you (you general) are not using this source to back up that the character is queer (that's a separate source), you're using it to source "first". As I understand it, the intent is to go "Before [character] was confirmed queer by blah blah blah,[ref] X observed that [character] would have been the first queer protagonist in the franchise[ref]" (which is what SmallJars is saying). Whatever perceived bias of the source is, it isn't being used to cite that the character is queer, it's being used to cite that they are the first such protagonist in the franchise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a good source for that, at least in my opinion.

It notes that 'The Witch From Mercury (which is streaming now on Crunchyroll) is the only franchise show led by a female character and after watching the first episode, fans now know it’s the first queer one as well' under the headline 'Gundam’s First Female & Queer Protagonist is Here in The Witch From Mercury'.

The source doesn't claim they would be the first queer protagonist, but makes a definitive statement that they are and claims that the first episode proves as such, which is not the case as Solaire implied above about them being too hasty with the claim. So we've seen that part of their statement is inaccurate (based on the first episode) and another part was correct but actually based on no evidence so not reputable. That she's the first female protagonist has been repeated quite often, but 'only franchise show led by a female character' is also iffy when considering Mobile Suit Gundam SEED C.E. 73: Stargazer (as the Witch from Mercury page currently mentions) is an earlier show this could apply to. So as a whole, it seems like trying to use a bad source to evidence a point. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is fine to use the source for that phrase. Not sure why people are trying to say it is a "bad" source. Historyday01 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to explain my POV on why it's not a good source for this situation:

1) The intent is to confirm a character is queer. As I understand it, this is correct, and I don't dispute that. But sadly Wikipedia policy doesn't actually care whether something is correct, but whether something is backed up.

2) The source listed 'confirms it', but as has been observed, could not back up that claim at the time of publishing. As such, this source is not reliable - it's making statements based on no/flimsy evidence. It goes directly against Wikipedia's outline of "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As a comparison, they could say 'Naruto's father is the 4th Hokage' when only the first chapter of Naruto had come out, and they'd be right... but they'd have no evidence of it aside from the face on the mountain looking similar to Naruto and tropes of orphan protagonists being of a noble line. If they said 'We suspect that Naruto's father is the 4th Hokage', that would be very different.

3) No source has been given above for the statement of them being queer aside from this, only stating that it's 'easy to verify even without a source'... but Wikipedia doesn't deal in unsourced statements.

4) While the statement mentioned was along the lines of "Before [character] was confirmed queer by blah blah blah,[ref A] X observed that [character] would have been the first queer protagonist in the franchise[ref B]", it could potentially be used for [ref B] alongside a number of other sources, but they've not sourced the [ref A] "confirmed queer" part with a reference.

5) Just generally, looking at that website it seems like a tabloid from several of the headlines more than a factual source...

6) There's a lack of staff listing or noted qualifications, editorial policy, or common factors that could point to reliability.

6a) While it doesn't list author bios or who works there aside from on the individual articles, looking into it a little by checking the first three writers I found, one only works there and at The Daily Dot, which notes here that "Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated", another only works at Pride.com and the final one only works there and at a site no-one has ever discussed on Wikipedia at least, so it doesn't seem like it has much professional clout behind it in terms of journalism. And if there is, they've not made it clear. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that 4 is the situation going on. That the intent IS to use a ref A to confirm queer, and that THIS is ref B. Hence, why I don't see an issue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding from the initial post is that this is being taken as a 'reputable source that confirms that the anime character was the first queer protagonist in the franchise' and they want to use it as a source. Admittedly, it's a rather long five clause question, so I could be misinterpreting:

>So the question is, can the source be used to claim, if they were actually right, but wrote about it at the time of speculation, before actual confirming the sexuality of the character by the author?

If Solaire has a reputable and solid Ref A, then it seems it would be simpler just to use that to state they're the first queer protagonist - saying that *and* saying there was speculation beforehand doesn't seem too important to the article IMO at least. But the initial issue was needing a 'formal source' for sourcing the 'the status of the first queer protagonist' judging from the first post, due to disagreements on various aspects of including it.

I'd still say that Pride.com isn't a great source, generally for the reasons outlined above making it not seem to meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards generally, but also because the source does not observe that they would be the first queer protagonist or post speculations, but they make a definitive and unfounded statement that they are. This article by Gizmodo would be a better source for it I believe, which is considered generally reliable and speculates rather than makes claims without evidence. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't want to use Gizmodo because of its sensationalism and buzzfeed approach to news reporting. For example, in the past they, like Pride.com, have relied on fan twitter to support conclusions from new episodes of the show that hasn't ended yet. At this point, I've added a third source to the article that looks at the show's ending from a cultural politics point of view, with its own issues, but still in a more "scientific" style than trying to hype social media clicks out of it. But thanks for the example with Naruto, you perfectly understood the essence of the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the list of yuri works

Is it just me, or is this list gradually more and more duplicating the yuri category? The article was originally created by me to move a work's list from the original article about yuri as a genre, but since then it has simply become a potentially endless list like any list about an active and popular genre. The section about yuri as an extra element still contains some original information, but it's basically any anime that has queer female characters without affiliation with the genre (of course, mostly with links to episode reviews on anime resources). For example, Ika Musume is only listed due to the occasional mention that the show has a running gag with a minor character obsessed with an MC. In general, is it possible to somehow rewrite this? Because now it looks like a duplicate of the category and a more localized version of the list of lesbian characters in animation. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Questions

1. Does anyone know anything about the MangaLife and MangaSee sites? Who created them? How and when? What's their history? 2. Could someone please ask the 9Anime site to upload the complete series of Dragon Ball (the first saga) with its corresponding opening theme which is lacking? 3. Does the wco.tv site of cartoons have all cartoons from Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney Channel and so on? Old and new alike? 4. Could someone please ask Editorial Ivrea (argentine manga editorial) if they could please publish Detective Conan which is not published in Argentina? 5. Could someone please ask Viz Media to release digital volumes of Slam Dunk? 6. Could someone please ask the playretrogames.net site to fix all of their video games which don't work? 7. Could someone please ask the Mr. History YouTube channel to upload a video about the history of Spain? Please reply! Thanks! 190.31.233.2 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)