Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Concern regarding usage of ADR acronym

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, I've seen at least two VA articles where the ADR acronym is unnecessarily written out in full in the lead paragraph. There's a stubborn user that insists on writing out "Automatic Dubbing Replacement", so I'm bringing this issue here to achieve a consensus. [1][2] Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example as seen from the Colleen article: Colleen Smith Clinkenbeard is an American voice actress, line producer, Automatic Dubbing Replacement (ADR) director....
I'm advocating that the lead paragraph be written like this instead. Also, I'm of the opinion that the bolded example above makes the article look unnecessarily clunky and it is just plain hideous in terms of formatting. Not to mention that "ADR scriptwriter", "ADR engineer" and "ADR director" are professions; if readers want to learn more about ADR, they could read the following article. Let's also point out that the opposing party is actually wrong regarding ADR's expanded form - it's "Automated Dialog Replacement", not Dubbing. Furthermore, even if the correct expanded form were used, it doesn't tell the reader what it is, hence there is no reason for professions relating to ADR to be expanded in every single lead paragraph in VA articles. It's pointless, if you ask me.
Here are multiple reliable sources that prove the ADR acronym is the industry norm, as opposed to its expanded form. [1][2][3][4]Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the ADR acronym be written out in full in the lead paragraph?

• No - per above. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - As an aside, I thought the 'D' stood for 'dialogue'. I'm not sure that your quest is aided when both parties involved are unsuccessful at writing out the abbreviation. MOS:ACRO is pretty clear on the matter: Unless the abbreviated form is the norm (e.g. CIA) then it should be written out in its first instance. I would expect that you could find some evidence to support your claim that 'ADR Director' is a single term as well as that 'ADR' is the generic form. ogenstein (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want evidence, here you go. This is an Answerman written by an industry professional, proving that just the ADR acronym is the norm. Furthermore, I never claimed what the expanded form is; I just pointed out what the other party wanted the lead paragraphs to look like, which I disagree with. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, I thought ADR stood for "audio dialog replacement" and not "automatic dubbing replacement" or "automated dialog replacement". Is there a source that establishes what ADR stands for? But the fact that reliable sources never expand on ADR should indicate that it is something that is most commonly known by its acronym.

—Farix (t | c) 12:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It stands for "Automated Dialog Replacement" as indicated here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• No It's my understanding that the abbreviation is never written out full, even for written media targeting non-industry laypeople. The abbreviated form is just the standard way I've seen it. Like the nominator said, it's also part of job titles, and those unfamiliar can follow a wikilink. Opencooper (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• No per the reasonings by Opencooper and Sk8erPrince. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, it's a norm for the industry, but why can't she be listed as a "voice director" for the lead and occupation as the more common and general term, so as to not have to explain an acronym for a technical term that she didn't pioneer? Voice director is also more general, in that she could be directing voices on non-anime shows or video games that do not require dialogue replacement. That acronym can also have a {{abbr}} tag on it, like ADR. Similarly, she can be called a "voice director and actress for English dubs of Japanese anime shows". Someone needs to figure out what the official acronym is and add it in if it isn't there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, as others said it is a norm.--Vulphere 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• No - Or should that be 'support'. It doesn't take long when searching for uses of ADR to see that the full version is rarely used and generally only in an offhand manner. I think AngusWOOF's suggestions should be followed. My mistake on who was incorrect with 'dubbing'. ogenstein (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Why use this ADR term in the first place? It's pretty much jargon that's not very well-known outside of American dubbing circles. Why not, per AngusWOOF, simply use an easier to understand term such as "voice [acting] director" or "voice actor"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Huh, this discussion is the first time I've ever come across the term "ADR". That said, I don't mind too much either way. Ahiijny (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - If you're going to use in group, jargony language in an article for a general readership, it needs to be defined when first used. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - As per Cynistrategus. Our articles are not - by any definition of the word - written for experts. As per WP:REMEMBER and WP:TECHNICAL, we use plain language because any reader might be following a link from a peripherally-related topic to the article, who isn't familiar with the acronym. If you write or work on a ton of these articles, good for you (and thanks for that, btw). But don't expect people less devoted than you to understand terms you see every day. It's uncommon, so it should be listed the first time it is used in any article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content dispute on Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia

I'm bringing this here because another user insists that all sources must be archived as well as having their authors and date of publication listed. You can compare our revisions here. As an autocite user, I find that to be unnecessary. Autocite does not include all that extra information; not to mention the formatting looks really untidy until I've reformatted them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Which format is more preferable?

1) Format A: Simple citations generated by autocite
2) Format B: All sources are archived; authors and date of publication are listed

• Format A - per above. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• It's not a binary choice, if that's what you want to present, B is unequivocally better. As for archiving, we do so preemptively to prevent link rot; you should too. --Izno (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• For the record I am in agreement with Izno, Prince this is a wide scale issue that would have to be addressed at the WP:VPR if you seriously want to implement or enforce it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• That guy isn't royalty. Masum Reza^📞 03:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that my username is just that - a username? Stop trying to derail the discussion if you have nothing better to add, Reza. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I remember that you've told me this. But Knowledgeablekid probably doesn't know. So I thought I should tell him. He did address you with "Prince". Masum Reza^📞 04:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Knowledge and I have known each other for a while. He can address me with any part of my username if he so desires. I've had this username since 2012 and I'm obviously not royalty. Stop stating the obvious and learn to read the room, please. It's embarrassing. So if a user has "Dog" in their username, does that make them an actual dog? Please try to have some common sense. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the link. Can I address you with only Sk? Masum Reza^📞 07:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored the article to status quo per WP:BRD as the "cleanup" was disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have always preferred to archive links to citations since it prevents link rot. Masum Reza^📞 03:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear on this: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Note, the proper place for consensus would have been that article's talk page first, with a neutral notice posted here to solicit participation. Not every minor dispute needs a heavy-handed RFC, and you also have to inform those you are in a dispute with (User:PanagiotisZois) if you're taking it to another venue. As for my personal preferred style, more information is always good to combat linkrot. By all means add new citations using autocite and let others add to them, but don't make manual citations contain less info because they don't conform to your automatic tool. Opencooper (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Format B is better, but whether the citations get listed at the bottom in the References section or in-paragraph doesn't really matter. Also you can use tools such as ProveIt to pretty format the spacing and ordering of parameters within the citation. Articles that are active and not likely to require archiving don't need to archive-url stuff filled out, but if someone did that anyway and then did dead-url=no, then that's fine. Unnecessary parameters such as language=en or language=en-US or work=Anime News Network followed by publisher=Anime News Network are redundant and should be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer citation with archive but I still abide the WP:CITEVAR.--Vulphere 09:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate pages for anime and manga?

Naruto has a single page for both the manga and the anime series, whereas Fullmetal Alchemist has separate pages. I am confused with the directions and consistency here. Can anyone explain why these are treated differently? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Well you can always split big articles to small articles and develop each of them further as long as the former has enough content to split. Masum Reza^📞 12:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? They all cover the franchises that first start with the manga for basic plot and characters. The Anime shows and films are in spinoff articles. The manga volume lists are in spinoff articles. Same with Attack on Titan and other franchise articles. If the origin is a video game as with Fate/stay night, then the franchise article will discuss mostly the video game first and then spinoff the other media items. If the origin is the franchise itself as with Pokemon then it is explained like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Not all of them have their own spinoffs similar to Pokémon (anime) and Attack on Titan (TV series). I am surprised that Naruto Shippuden has 500 episodes, yet it is only redirected to the original manga page. As I've said, it doesn't feel systematic and consistent. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, so you're basically asking if Naruto (TV series) and Naruto Shippuden should be split off from the franchise article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF:Pretty much. I don't see a point of not doing that. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You can start a split request thread at Talk:Naruto regarding that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess so, but I also think it would be much better to reach a consensus here and set up a threshold to when to a split is appropriate in general. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It really depends on the series and the size split. Most anime shows based on manga are fairly self-contained within the franchise so they don't really warrant a separate TV series page, and thus just get a list of (series) episodes spinoff article. Others have enough information on its own to have a (TV series) article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that some consistency would be ideal, but also understand that some manga/anime articles as so short that one page is absolutely sufficient I would suggest that this forum is best used to develop a consistent rather than an ad hoc (article by article) approach, even if it means pointing to exemplary (or example-ary) articles, say short, medium and large. There are enough bad examples (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series)). I would suggest that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles page could use some expanded guidelines for editors, for example additional headings (eg. Setting) and a list of good examples. I might even go so far as to suggest a consistent color scheme for series episodes, but that might be too much. Ozflashman (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If both anime and manga meet WP:GNG separately, then they can be split. An example is One Piece. There's enough information to split the anime apart from the manga.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

114.124.xxx.xx IP hopper vandalism

Recently, there has been a wave of vandalism from an IP block starting with 114.124 whose M.O. is changing dates on biography articles of Japanese people, mainly voice actors and musicians. The IP range that I could find includes:

• 114.124.137.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.142.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.143.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.174.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.175.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.174.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.175.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.142.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.143.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.173.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.172.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.174.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.175.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.207.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.246.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.124.204.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is there something that can be done about this?--十八 20:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably forward this on WP:ANI and request a range block. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be reported to WP:AIV, not WP:ANI. It will likely get handled faster that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If the anon vandalizes the usual places I would request blocking such article at least.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles don't get blocked. I think you mean they should be protected? That is one way to go about it, but we're talking about multiple articles here. A range block would be more efficient, since it's clear that the vandal in question is playing us for fools by using multiple similar IP. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty Rhythm

I've been trying to expand Pretty Rhythm, but my main issue is how to organize it. It's a little hard to explain but here goes:

This is a series of arcade games, with the first one being released in 2010 under the name Pretty Rhythm: Mini Skirt. Throughout the years of release, the updated expansions of the name subsequently were renamed into Aurora Dream, Dear My Future, Rainbow Live, Rainbow Live Duo, and All-Star Legend Coord. What makes it even more confusing is that they all of anime adaptations of the same name but have storylines separate from the arcade games since they're tie-ins.

Then after the games ended and was succeeded by PriPara, Takara Tomy made a new umbrella title called the Pretty Series, which consists of Pretty Rhythm, PriPara, and Kiratto Pri Chan.

How would I organize the articles? I could mimic the style of Fate/stay night or Persona (series) but I'm not sure what to do. In a similar vein, this is similar to Pretty Cure VS Futari wa Pretty Cure even though they had the same market name overseas. lullabying (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• So I think I have several options: 1) Make Pretty Series and transfer info about the Pretty Rhythm franchise over there, and keep Pretty Rhythm related to the arcade games, or 2) Make Pretty Rhythm (video game) and move game information to that article. What do you think? lullabying (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The article seems to be fine as is - it sufficiently details info regarding the games and the anime. The anime articles also include info about the games they were based on. I don't think a large scale change is necessary at the moment. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sk8erPrince: The thing is Mini Skirt, Aurora Dream, and Dear My Future are all the same games, just different branding. If you look at List of Pretty Rhythm characters, their updates are cumulative and count as the same game, whereas the anime that's based on the games are all different. Also, one notable thing is that the current image on Pretty Rhythm: Aurora Dream is the manga adaptation of Mini Skirt and was released before the anime was announced, so I'm not sure what to do with that. lullabying (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Images can be easily changed and uploaded when you give proper non-free rationales (that's something I've been doing recently for many anime/video game articles). As for the article splits, they are completely justified since Pretty Rhythm has a total number of three anime series. Again, I fail to see what's so confusing about the articles as is. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Sk8erPrince: Sorry! It's hard for me to explain. I'm still kind of sorting my thoughts together and checking how the Japanese Wikipedia organized their information but here's what I have:
  • Pretty Series: umbrella name for Pretty Rhythm, PriPara, and Kiratto Pri Chan. Does not include King of Prism.
  • Pretty Rhythm: umbrella name for all Pretty Rhythm games/anime.
    • Main arcade games are Mini Skirt, Aurora Dream, Dear My Future. They are all the same game because their updates are cumulative; they just rebrand upon some of the expansions. Anime series based on them have the same title but are treated as different properties, not the same like the arcade games. (Rainbow Live gives me less of a headache because by then, the series was rebooted.)
    • Manga image used on Pretty Rhythm: Aurora Dream is titled Pretty Rhythm, but it's an adaptation of Mini Skirt.
    • King of Prism is included in this franchise.
    • Infobox on Pretty Rhythm: Aurora Dream also lists a movie, but the movie features all characters from Aurora Dream, Dear My Future and Rainbow Live. It's the all-stars series.
• I guess what I'm trying to say is if I wonder if I should make a page dedicated to the game since they're different from the anime. lullabying (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But there aren't enough sources for the games to justify another split. It simply isn't necessary. The JP wiki can organize the info however they see fit; we are not obligated to mirror their format. For the record, I oppose splitting. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Sk8erPrince: Do you think I should at least separate Pretty Rhythm from other Pretty Series info? PriPara and Kiratto Pri Chan are part of the Pretty Series but the arcade games are different from Pretty Rhythm in that they don't use Prism Stones. lullabying (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this, further, maybe I could try this instead? I could just replace the manga image and redirect info from Mini Skirt and Dear My Future to the Aurora Dream page? lullabying (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bingo Morihashi

I already mentioned this in the video games project but I think it might help here too. Some time ago I created the article Bingo Morihashi, a writer who has done some light novels, and various stuff involving Devil May Cry including its anime and three related light novels. Sadly, I don't have material enough to include what else did he I do. I checked the Japanese Wikipedia and it has far more content about his works. Then again, it mentions his age and might include his real name. Still, I'm not sure ift there are sources to back up those claims. If somebody knows Japanese, it might help to expand the writer's article. I used a Devil May Cry artbook in order to cover some information about his works but his twitter account suggests he made more works. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Leaving a note here that there is a page move discussion going on at Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) which also affects JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1). The talk page there seems somewhat dead, so I'm commenting here to generate some discussion there. — Gestrid (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

LGBTQ expirience in anime and manga.

Good day! I wanted to ask, can I use some kind of LGBTQ templates if one of the important topics of work is the experience of teenage homosexuality? I mean not just school work with a good yuri subplot, but precisely a detailed and realistic image of the search or awareness of one’s qeer identity. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, are you talking about navboxes, categories, or adding to Wikiproject? As long as it's not Sailor Moon, see Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_7#RfC:_Is_it_relevant_to_include_LGBT_as_a_main_theme? and Talk:Sailor_Moon#Citations_Needed/_LGBT_expansion See also Talk:Yuri_on_Ice/Archive_1#Put_it_under_Category:Japanese_LGBT-related_television_programs AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean the genre column in the article O Maidens in Your Savage Season. The work is devoted to youth female romantic experience and one of the main girls is gradually aware of her lesbian sexuality. Therefore, I wondered if it could somehow be displayed in the template. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen the shojo ai or yuri labels on the reviews. Anime genre says Romance and Comedy in RightStuf [1] Coming of age seems okay. Rebecca Silverman of ANN listed a negative as "Strictly heterosexual thus far, Momoko largely undeveloped" for volume 1 [2] Penguin volume 2 says "Legendary anime creator Mari Okada (anohana, Maquia) makes her manga debut with a moving, funny, so-true-it's-sometimes-embarrassing story of high school girls coming of age together. Perfect for those looking for a manga reminiscent of Noelle Stevenson or Jillian Tamaki." so it's coming of age for sure [3] Barnes & Noble review doesn't call it LGBT [4]. Neither does The Verge [5] Maybe it can be added to WP sexuality or women's issues. Also note that Sex and the City doesn't have those genre tags, and those are a lot more explicit in discussing sexuality. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the topic of LGBT is really not “very important” or the most important one in this work, its main plot devoted to the relationship between girls and boys. Another question is that this subplot is quite well developed and one of the main characters participates in it. Perhaps even two, but this is my speculation. So, anything similar could be added only after describing it in authoritative sources? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As with WP:CATDEF, it needs to be the defining characteristic of the media, MOS:ANIME and MOS:TVGENRE, it should be described in a majority of mainstream reliable sources. There are multiple ones that describe the coming of age part, some officially classify as Romance and Comedy, although not Romantic Comedy. None show Shojo Ai or Yuri or describe it as LGBT. Sex comedy is questionable, as the manga publisher says "Far from a typical sex comedy". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Soul Reapers and Hollows

I propose we rename "List of Soul Reapers in Bleach" to just "Soul Reapers" and "List of Hollows in Bleach" to just "Hollows (Bleach)". Although they have a list inside the article its not entirely a list. They have an overview, powers and abilities, and reception sections.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Bleach articles in a while but isn't there a chance to make a single section while cutting undue weight? I mean, sure the series has a lot of characters like the Espada's underlings, but some could be simply placed in the notable character. I mean, even One Piece arranged all their characters in one list even though the story has various, resulting in discussions in the talk page in regards to what characters should be kept.Tintor2 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with One Piece, but I think there are enough reasons to keep them separately. They just need to be written better.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The current article hierarchy has been good enough for about five years, it'll keep for another five if necessary. A grand reassessment of what is and is not useful to understanding the series now that it's over might be productive, but if you're not doing that I'd leave the page divisions alone. --erachima talk 10:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Evangelion project and episode list

I've just done a revamp of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion page with the addition of relevant guidelines. Also, there's a discussion regarding a possible home media section at the Neon Genesis Evangelion episode pages at Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#Home media?; input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anime adaptations

So I've noticed many anime lists have been retitled to "Title (tv series)". How does it work? I think the FL List of D.Gray-man episodes might need to be moved too but how does the top image work? Do we put the logo, the first dvd or a collection of the home media?Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Its fine the way it is, otherwise we are going to have alphabet soup titles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I was thinking about splitting the seasons from Bungo Stray Dogs considering I found some coverage by the makers and reviews. I mean I noted Attack on Titan (TV series) was changed from an episode list to an article with reception and other stuff. Is this something new about the manual of style?Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's describing the series as a whole with development, production, reception sections, then it can go in (TV series). If it's just the episode list as with live-action seasons, and the only additional details are the lists of opening and closing songs, and related home media, then it's the episodes list. D. Gray-man should be a list of episodes. If the list of episodes can be removed, and it still reads like a decent article, then (TV series) is okay. Redirects can go to either one regardless. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Concern regarding IP hopping anon repeatedly slamming Citation Needed tags

Hello, I have a concern regarding an anon that literally does nothing but slam Citation Needed tags on List of Sailor Moon characters. The IP user in question almost never writes down any edit summaries to justify why refbombing the article would ultimately benefit it. The anon also constantly switches their IP; perhaps it's a sad attempt at avoiding detection, even though it's painfully obvious that they're all one and the same based on their unconstructive editing patterns. I'm sick of having to revert them over and over again (mainly because having to cite every 2 sentences is 100% ridiculous), so I'm bringing this issue here so that we could discuss what to do with this. I'm really at my wit's end. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I would ask for page protection at WP:RFPP for persistent and pointless WP:OVERTAG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Does anyone else concur? I'm going to file a Protection report if the IP continues to spam the same tags. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If it wasn't an IP hopping anon, I would ask an admin to block them for their disruptive edits but in this case, page protection seems reasonable. Masum Reza^📞 00:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ginban Kaleidoscope

According to the article, the anime was produced by Actas. However, according to the show's credits and ANN, it was actually produced by a studio called Karaku (a now-defunct subsidiary of Actas that appears to have only produced one other anime, with the rest of their work being outsourcing to their parent company and elsewhere). Thus,should the series continue to be listed as an Actas show and remain on the Actas template, or should the references be changed to Karaku with a note explaining the Actas connection? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)