Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, of which editors may have an interest. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comic Natalie

This source is cited multiple times by ANN, and seems to be reliable when it comes to upcoming announcements. [1] Could we add it to WP:A&M/ORS? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded, I use it all the time for citing publication dates for manga. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comic Natalie is a very reliable source. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also support, it's great for comics news and I've seen it cited many times by sources. Some instances: ANN, Scott Green, Fandom post, Otaku USA, Manga-News, and more. Note that there's a Wikipedia article for it here: Natalie (website). Looking on the site, I don't think they have bylines for authors and I can't find anything on their editorial staff, though that's more likely due to the language barrier and regardless, I think being cited frequently by many of our reliable sources should be a good indicator of reliability. Opencooper (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

They've also been cited by Yahoo Japan.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not being able to read Japanese, does anyone have any idea what the background of its staff is? ~Mable (chat) 22:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If they are being quoted by major sources then I would say that what they have to say is legit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it more, Natasha's website says (machine-translated): "dedicated reporters have been the original writing of its own coverage of the news article". Its WIkipedia pages notes that Gen Karaki is the editor-in-chief, and looking at the source interview itself, he says that the editing unit includes three other people. So we at least know they have staff. Though if anyone has the language skills, I would also like to know more about the background of the writing staff. I highly doubt they are crowdsourcing writers, but considering I couldn't find bylines I wonder where they are being sourced from. Opencooper (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Translated episode titles

Someone more familiar than me with the sources usually used for English translations of anime episode titles may want to take a look whether this is appropriate. Thanks in advance. Huon (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Naruto, but personal attacks by User:CitroenLover should be sanctioned. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

For the English title, I would use and cite Crunchyroll's translation until it is officially translated by Viz. The literal (or Google) translation should not be used in place of an official one. The literal one can be footnoted if it has a particularly interesting or different translation. Then in the table header, add a footnote saying that the title translations are taken from Crunchyroll until the episode is officially released/broadcast on Adult Swim or Viz. Attempts to translate on their own would constitute original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about translations, so it's not like I could help with that. As for the release, it's already released (we're talking about an episode released many years ago....) and all but Crunchyroll use the title of "Writhe", yet Crunchyroll is using some other title. I thought the point was to make mention of clear differences between official sources (as Crunchyroll is an official way of watching the anime).

Also, I like how people who have no interest in the series are giving their unwanted opinion on this topic. Only people who actually watch the series should be giving their opinion on this, as it skews the discussion otherwise. --CitroenLover (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can give their opinion on a subject, this is an open encyclopaedia and contributions are not ranked based on a user's involvement with a subject. If anything the problem is your attempt to control peoples edits and contributions based on them meeting your own requirements. That is not how Wikipedia works. It certainly does not skew the discussion to ask the wider community for their input, it's actually what is supposed to happen in cases like this. What does skew the discussion is people displaying obvious bias towards who can edit and what their involvement is. The problem here is not other editors but your own poor attitude. If that is seen as not assuming good faith, well I think your own edits have made the case for me.

Getting back to the topic, who are all these people giving this other title? You should give examples. Crunchyroll are the official English licensor for streaming, therefore their title is legitimate.If there are other legitimate translations provided by the companies involved then I encourage you to provide these examples rather than just state them without anything to back it up. Note that fansubbers, fans translating the titles themselves and user contributed databases (MAL, ANN Encyclopedia) are not valid sources. I've changed the title and removed the note for now, and yes I do watch the series so I pass your little "test". Given the argument here, we clearly need sources for alternate titles.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I watched the episode on Crunchyroll and it looks like Crunchyroll's site editors have made a mistake, because their own subtitles say "Writhe". I think that ends the discussion on this topic. --CitroenLover (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On Viz Media website episode 56 says "Squirming": [2] It is using the Hulu stream though. TV Guide shows "Writhe" [3] So does Futon Critic [4] It's not a big deal to list both or keep a footnote to clarify this. What does the Viz DVD say? Which one's the literal subtitle translation and which one is the one as marketed in the media? See List of Suzuka episodes for other examples of dual titles where one is based off the subtitle translation and one is what the DVD and English produced media is publicizing it to be. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC) updated 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in the Futon Critic and TV Guide refs. Those are most likely the actual title as presented in broadcast, and they are secondary source. The titles as presented by the DVD still need to be confirmed. The Crunchyroll and Hulu ones are still partly legit because they are referred to directly by the online website. But this affects more than just that one episode. The episode right after "Squirming/Writhe" says "Deprived of Eternal Sleep" and has the alternative title "Robbed of Sleep" on the Viz online media website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Apply TNT to Universal Century

This Universal Century article is just awful. I was hoping it would either have a timeline and some decent recap of the major events in the period, but instead I get huge lists of manga, novels, video games that are subsets of the larger Gundam franchise's lists of manga, novels, and video games. Any suggestions on how to TNT this so that it serves some purpose? Make it like Timeline of Star Trek or History of Arda? Note some of the other Gundam eras don't even have their own articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the first problem is what the content should be. The problem with a timeline or recap is that we will swap one problem for a different one, and arguably it will cause a worse issue because finding a fan who can do it objectively for length, style and content is Mission Impossible. Unless you are volunteering :p Really the big question is do we need an article here? Covering the greater story lends itself too much to cruft. Using it as a central hub to works that fall under UC is going to be easier and I know for a fact there are sources to bring them under the UC banner.

Unfortunately Gundam is one of those monsters. There are a lot of articles, a lot of fans are likely to get involved and take personal objections to anything that tries to downplay the volume of content and despite it being easier to bin the lot and start again in order to improve it in the long run, it's just less hassle to accept it's an issue which will never get solved. I really think we would need a team of experienced editors who are Gundam fans to tackle this. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Video game section should be binned, just stick a small paragraph in there as the list is essentially redundant to the existing article. Many of the manga/novels are directly from animated works, so do these need to be listed? Again a spin off might just be the easy way. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not volunteering. I leave that to the experts. I'm just trying to clear the list cleanup tag. A chronology article and perhaps a timeline article would be nice as that is what is used on those other major franchises. They could use the table rows of Gundam#Eras_Featured There's a matter of canonicity as well; is it based mainly on the shows? Then the manga, novels, drama CD, video games and merchandise can be excluded unless they have specifically influenced the chronology. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me, I would WP:BLOWITUP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say delete everything but the "Chronology" and "Analysis" sections. The rest is just an indiscriminate and unsourced list of Gundam titles. Possible sources that could be used: ANN Kotaku. Though to be honest it all feels very fancrufty to me and might not warrant a standalone article considering it is only one of many Gundam universes. Also the Gundam Wikia has a timeline, but it is likely too granular for our purposes and unsourced. Opencooper (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I just redirected the page to Gundam under the timeline section, please feel free to move over any references that can be salvaged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Anybody interested in making a character article for Hei from Darker Than Black? I keep finding some sources about his creation and reception but I don't feel interested probably because I don't remember much about the series. If so, I'll try to send you all the reviews I find. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Update I found about 11 sources for Hei without even counting the Newtype poll or his cosplay. Also, I've been wondering if anybody has sources for Tai Kamiya considering it's the only Digimon character article and his reception is too small. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial Wikipedia Discord server

There is now an unofficial server for Wikipedians on Discord, useful for a centralised means of communication between Discord users who are also Wikipedians. The server can be used to communicate with other editors more conveniently.

https://discord.gg/khvrRXV

 Speeditor talk  12:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Love interests in harem anime content dispute

Seems I'm in a content dispute (I guess?) with User:Anthony Duran and I don't want to edit war, so I'll just post a summary here. A quick tl;dr for any neutral parties:

• Anthony Duran objects to Moka Akashiya and Rias Gremory being listed as the primary love interest of their respective protagonists, as he argues that harem (genre) anime have more than one love interest. He instead repeatedly changed it to "one of the love interests".
• I believe the sentences are fine as they are since it is clear to anyone who's watched the shows that Moka and Rias are the primary love interests for their shows, and there is clear difference between *primary* love interest and *only* love interest. Additionally, I believe that my viewpoints are also supported by RS coverage.
• After some back-and-forth he has now removed any references to love interests for both articles.

Discussion is difficult as Anthony Duran either doesn't respond to concerns or just blanks his talkpage after responding. This has been going on for a while now and obviously isn't going anywhere so I'm coming here to hopefully find some consensus. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well remarks such as that talk page argument are a pretty clear indication that they are not editing with an objective approach. I won't claim to be an expert on Harem shows and it's quite likely that they vary on a per title basis. The example I would use is Love Hina. yes it's a harem show but the focus is clearly on one character above the others from an early stage. I've undone the removals as vandalism, because thats how I see it. Especially as one of them is removing material supported by an official ref. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If it continues, give out the relevant warnings then send to AIV. If they want to continue then they've only themselves to blame.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there no sources describing any of the characters as a primary love interest? ~Mable (chat) 12:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote Rias' page and author Ichiei Ishibumi has outright stated that Rias was developed into the second lead character (first lead being the protagonist); see #Conception and creation. As for Moka, User:AngusWOOF posted on my talkpage that Theron Martin of ANN noted "Central characters Tsukune is a cookie-cutter harem male lead, an unfailingly kind-hearted, indecisive wimp who primarily has a thing for Moka but still treasures the other girls as friends". Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In both the anime, and manga series Moka ends up being Tsukune's love interest. Harem series usually have three different options which I will put into categories:

• A: The main character ends up with all of the girls/boys with no particular love interest. (This is common) (Noucome)
• B: The main character ends up with one of the girls/boys, the rest become friends. (This is usually standard) (Love Hina, Nakaimo - My Sister Is Among Them!)
• C: The main character ends up with none of the girls/boys. (I haven't seen this too often)

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In List of Rosario + Vampire characters there were two statements that were being disputed. The first in the Moka description said Moka was Tsukune's love interest. In the manga, I would tend to agree with Anthony Duran as their relationship as lovers in the manga is ambiguous, but in the anime, they look at each other with loving eyes and there's romantic situations (usually interrupted by another girl) in every episode. So the anime she is his love interest. But that was stricken from Moka's description. The second was that Anthony Duran was changing the wording of the RS-quoted reviewer "who primarily has a thing for Moka" to "who seems to have a thing for Moka (not 100%)"[5] which changes the context of the quote, violating MOS:QUOTE and adds original research. Here's another review that affirms Moka as a "primary romantic interest". [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually at the end of the manga series, Moka ends up with Tsukune more so than the anime series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that you can't change a quote like that. Seems that in this case, it is pretty straight-forward that Moka is the primary love interest, at least in the anime adaption. Feel free to add something along the lines of "in an anime review" or "as the character appeared in the anime" to the disputed line. ~Mable (chat) 15:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are not lovers in both the anime and the manga, Besides there are other girls in his life. Can we please put a stop to this conflict. It really bugs me.