This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 18:25, July 7, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
That definition doesn't exactly work. For example, if Silver Link, the company who made the anime Baka and Test moved to the U.S., and made another season, would it not be considered anime anymore. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this whole "anime definition" thing has been in contention for a long time now. A scenario like that has been mentioned numerous times. Looking at Wiktionary, the definition there covers all bases. So, if the definition section models itself covering the now-different aspects to anime, then the definition itself improves its standing. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Anime is just the Japanese equivalent to the English word cartoon. Therefore, the word is used to refer to any cartoon. Products marked Anime or when an American refers to Anime then they're usually referring to cartoons made in japan, but not always. The reality is that any cartoon from anywhere in the world can be legally referred to as Anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think anime industry should be merged into this article. That article is short and its content could (and should) be in this one. If there's no objections I'll do the merger.--Cattustalk 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, unless someone can go through the article and clean it up. More than half the "references" are a joke, not being real references. It looks like it was copied and pasted for part of it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, it was only because a user copied the content of this page on it. I just fixed it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I support this merger. I don't see why an industry page was needed in the first place if it was just going to be copy-pasted from this article. —KirtMessage 12:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge. Incomplete data tables in the separate article. The licensing section is essentially covered under the main anime article. So, the anime industry article is pointless. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The extensive archives here attest to the active involvement on this page; their content attest to the active desire to "correct" or "improve" people's usage of the term, rather than accepting WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Animé currently continues to redirect to the Brazilian sap used in varnish described by the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., which is insane. Google pulls in a lot of French responses but 'tree sap' doesn't show up in the first 100 replies. (Granted, Wiktionary should have that sap definition and I'll add that in a minute.) It doesn't show until around result 250 and continues to be overwhelmed by references to Japanese animation.
So a the redirect should obviously point here (easy-peasy) and b there needs to be a hatnote dab or link to an animé (disambiguation) page for the other sense (some people here seem overly protective of article space, as seen by the reply to the user wanting the Japanese text box that—afaik—MOSrequires) and c the article should mention animé as a common alternative English spelling of the Japanese word officially romanized as anime. Which is where I expect for there to be pushback. Still, per the discussion in Archive 5, users Prosfilaes and Thnom were right and Xaliqen and None Error were wrong. We're not a proscriptivist dictionary. We should simply be noting and explaining what other people are doing, not calling it "wrong", "substandard", or omitting it. — LlywelynII 12:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)