Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series)

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://sgcafe.com/2013/05/jojos-bizarre-adventure-whats-charm-interview-director-naokatsu-tsuda/
Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part color codes

Phantom Blood: #F05030
Battle Tendency: #DA70D6
Stardust Crusaders: #1E90FF
Diamond Is Not Crash: #32CD32
Vento Aureo: #FFD700
Stone Ocean: #FF7F50
SBR: #40E0D0
JoJolion: #FFA500

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section closed and moved to Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and updated. Ozflashman (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 anime series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109041754/http://jojo-animation.com/contents/onair/index.html to http://jojo-animation.com/contents/onair/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table error

Did something change with the way externally referenced episode lists work? For some reason the episode summaries written on the individual series articles are all appearing on this one instead. Wonchop (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wonchop: I think something broke with this edit to the template, where a part involving page names was removed. I don't know enough about how templates work to fix it.--Alexandra IDV^talk 18:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked on the template's talk page, seems like this is known and will be fixed soon with a bot.--Alexandra IDV^talk 18:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus after over 2 weeks and a relisting. A few things here: as noted in the discussion, the RfC found that "anime" should generally be deprecated in favor of more standard disambiguators. Additionally, the current advice at WP:NCTV would indeed recommend the proposed formats. However, this discussion touched on an item that's been a perennial source of confusion: Original video animation or OVAs, which are not traditional television series although they may be (as in this case) episodic. There was no consensus either here, or in the RfC, on what to do with OVAs. This is not a case like American streaming series which the sources generally consider "TV series". Several options have been discussed here and at the RfC, though none has achieved consensus. It's likely that, one way or another, WP:NCTV will need specific recommendations for OVAs, whether that's sticking with the (TV series) disambiguator, or a different one. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: As per statements below, the TV series had been at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) for several months until two months ago. While it's been moved too much to have a true WP:STABLETITLE, my feeling is that this is the most stable version and the most compliant with WP:NCTV, so I've restored the series there. No further move should happen at either article without a formal move discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– This article was moved from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) on October 6, 2018‎ by Username 57 with the edit summary "there is no need to specify the year since there is no other JoJo's TV series." But, in fact, that is not the case – JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (1993 anime series) also exists, so this article needs to be moved back to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) to provide necessary disambiguation from the 1993 anime TV series article. The latter article is, however, also incorrectly named as the term "anime" was deprecated as a disambiguator by this early 2018 RM, and so it needs to be moved as well, to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (1993 TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's not a TV series. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xezbeth: Care to elaborate your strange oppose?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, is this one of these OVA things?... These are a persistent problem in these discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose. Calling the 1993 anime a "TV series" is incorrect, since it was never aired on TV. They are OVAs (Original Video Animation) and released on VHS and Laserdisc (and later DVD). I suggest it be named JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (OVA) like the following page: Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA). Username 57 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I oppose that suggestion. We need to come up with a systematic naming scheme for these OVA series that everyone agrees with... As it stands, I still think the 2012 TV series should be moved back to "by year" disambiguation, to disambiguate from the 1993 OVA series, and as your October move should now be considered "controversial", that article at least should be moved back to where it was before your move. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, this article doesn't require anymore disambiguation, for being the only TV series named JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. The 1993 anime should definitely be moved, seeing as (anime) isn't suitable anymore, but moving it to (1993 TV series) would just be incorrect. And as you can see, I did suggest a naming scheme for the OVA series, which is something you haven't done yet. I'll wait to hear other people's opinions. Username 57 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It's still a "controversial" move now. I'd also like to see other opinions as well, as regardless of the medium, there's a "1993 series" and a "2012 series", so I strongly feel that "by year" disambiguation for both of these is somewhere between a very good idea and necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First thing though, is that undiscussed move should be restored to the pre-move title as it had no consensus for that change. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "OVA" is not a widely known word. In-fact both dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com don't have an entry for "Original Video Animation", nor does Wikionary. I also don't buy into the need for another modifier here. Most "films" are not shot on "film" anymore yet we still call them that. Cats (1998 film) was released as a straight-to-dvd film, yet we still use the general "film" and not "OVF"; For Lovers Only (film) was released straight-to-iTunes and here too we use "film" and not "OIF"; Daredevil (TV series) and Big Mouth (TV series) were released on Netfilx, which is not television, but we still use "TV series" and not "streaming series". This all shows that the medium is not the deciding method of disambiguation, but what the topic essentially is - a "film" or a "TV series". --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - the 1993 anime, while not aired on TV, was produced on home media (VHS/Laserdisc) clearly intended for display on home television. Much like how modern streaming service shows are still designated as "TV series", the medium isn't the important quality - its about the intended viewing method. This move brings the series in line with MOS:ANIME#Article names and disambiguation (and the wider WP:NCTV it is based upon). OVA is not suitable - it was considered but not adopted in the recent anime naming RFC. -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fairly persuaded at what Gonnym is saying at this Talk page – while "(web series)" does exist as a disambiguator, most of the "streaming" series from Netflix, YouTube, et al. are still disambiguated simply by "TV series". IOW, the "medium" is ignored. There does not seem to be a compelling reason why "OVA" series shouldn't be handled the same way. On my end, I think "OVA" is not nearly a WP:RECOGNIZABLE enough term for our general readership (anime fans will know what "OVA" means, but I don't think anyone else will!), and so we shouldn't be disambiguating using just "OVA". Further, as there appear to be both series put out on OVA and films on OVA, "(OVA)" alone is insufficient disambiguation anyway – it would at least need to be "(OVA series)" to distinguish from "(OVA film)"... But we cannot continue to let "OVA" articles exist in this "twilight no man's land" between WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM – these need to be put under one naming convention or the other, and be done with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, OVA series have never been called TV-series in any kind of discussion, formal or informal, academic or not. It would be very confusing if wikipedia becomes the only place using the term TV-series like that. If OVA is not acceptable as a disambiguator then at least call them film series. Tyrosian (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That, right there, is the point! Right now, "OVA" is covered under neither WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM, which is the problem. One naming convention or the other needs to be picked. You seem to be preferring putting it under WP:NCFILM. If there's consensus for that, that's fine. But the OVA articles need to be permanently placed under one naming convention or the other... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact is the term OVA is an anime industry term that is used by both Japanese and American companies even to this day. American distributors use the term when they release a complete series set (i.e. if a show had 2 traditional TV series and an OVA series the complete collection clarifies and divides the episodes based on this.) Trying to pigeonhole OVAs into either WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM without proper research on how the term is used in relation to the anime industry would cause verifiability concerns and original research. I'm kinda gonna rebuttal several points here:

Just because the term isn't included in a dictionary or even Wikionary isn't a good indicator that a term is widely known or not.
Just because something was produced on VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray etc. does not automatically mean its a "TV series" because you can watch it on a TV set. If this were true then film franchises like Star Wars, Halloween, etc. can be moved to TV series using that logic despite what their sources call them.
Calling a web series that airs on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, etc. a "TV series" is generally acceptable because most people see them as TV series irregardless of the medium. Also streaming services are becoming viable rivals to traditional pay-TV broadcasters and distributors who themselves are launching similar services to complete thus blurring the lines. This has no relation to what an OVA is or how they are released.

Instead of focusing on keeping just the bland (OVA) disambig tag or straight Support/Oppose since this is a debated topic try reaching a compromise IJBall has already presented one compromise here that hasn't really been discussed. One proposal would be to use (OVA series) and (OVA film) which is actually a good compromise. If no consensus is reached or if the titles are not moved I do agree with Gonnym's comment from 10:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC). ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think putting OVA stuff under either WP:NCFILM or WP:NCTV is the best way to go here – Tyrosian's suggestion is that these best go under NCFILM, and as "direct-to-video films" are already covered under NCFILM anyway, this makes sense to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - This makes no sense. the 1993 iteration was not a Television series, but an OVA. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks: Care to suggest an alternative proposal?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just pointing out that regardless if you agree with the proposal or not, the use of "anime" as a disambiguator was decided against in a RfC at the Village pump, so there is absolutely no valid argument to keep it there and bypass community consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The other point is that at least 3 of us agree that the move to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) was "controversial", and thus it should be moved back to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series), the last stable title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm sure we had an RfC which determined that "(anime)" was not suitable as a disambiguator. In any case, WP:NCTV is the go-to naming convention here as this is episodic programming. --wooden superman 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We did - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? --Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue isn't the word anime (which I personally don't care for), but that we don't want to call OVAs TV-series because it is factually incorrect, confusing and goes against decades of usage. I propose OVAs should fall under NCFILM in general, 1 episode called 'films' and series just 'series' or 'video series' for further disambiguation. In this case the 2012 series is JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) and the 90's OVA is JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (Video series). Tyrosian (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a bad potential solution, though "video series" is not "standard disambiguation" (under WP:NCFILM) currently, so it either needs to be at "film series", or an RfC should be held on the OVA titles to determine whether there is consensus support for "video series" as the disambiguator for them... Another point that Gonnym made elsewhere is that if we do come up with a new standard disambiguator for the OVA titles, it may involve changing/revising the language used in them if they fall under WP:NCFILM (e.g. there are no "seasons" in film series, just in TV series...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like Alucard 16's suggestion to use (OVA series) and (OVA film) the most, my idea is more like a 'back-up'. In the WVP many comments are using contorted logic to argue that OVAs are TV-shows even if that goes against WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and even WP:COMMON. The discussion was also weirdly contentious and hostile. OVAs mostly fit under the the film category, the biggest exception is that individual series installments are called episodes rather than films, of course there is a precedent for that (Star Wars). Tyrosian (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The "hostility" probably comes from the fact that a number of us consider "OVA" to be an esoteric term (if not an outright WP:NEOLOGISM) that only means something to the anime fandom. I'm in that camp as well, and agree that OVA should not be the chosen disambiguator for these, because the general readership will have no idea what that means. Either "film series" or even "video series" would be a much better choice for a disambiguator here. Also, the 1993 series and the 2012 series should probably be disambiguated "by year" as well in this case, regardless of the final solution to the "OVA" issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term OVA has been around for decades in both the Japanese and American industries and is used by companies not the fandom. If this was a pure fandom term I would agree with you but its not. The thing is here policy overrides guidelines in the case of "OVA" the applicable policy would be WP:V which would then override the guidelines WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM. When it comes to the term OVA we here at English Wikipedia need to take into account how the term is used by both the Japanese and American anime companies. (American anime companies typically serve as the de facto model for other Western anime companies like Madman Entertainment in Australia and Anime Limited in the UK.) There are Japanese studios that will include the term in the title in some properties while American licencors will use the term to indicate what is part of a complete set (i.e. OVA + TV series). If an American company is releasing the TV series and OVA as separate releases they will use the term OVA to distinguish the release from the TV series. The term is used by reliable sources and press releases from American companies when a property is licensed. An OVA can have episodes like a TV series or be released in parts like a film series this is why OVAs don't just easily fall into either WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't – as per WP:ONUS. The point is that "OVA" is not a generally understood term, so it should not be used for article title disambiguation purposes. We shouldn't be using narrow, area-specific terms for that, as much as possible. Either "film series" or "video series" are much better choices for disambiguation purposes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Messed up page transclusions

So the reason why I marked the page with that template is because, for some reason, the entirety (or very nearly) of the season 1 page is transcluded here, including the external links section. This is most obvious if you look at the table of contents. The reason I added the template is because I can't figure out how to fix it. — Gestrid (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. the problem was on season one page. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I figured as much. But since the problem didn't affect the season 1 page, I decided it would be best to post here, where the issue showed itself. I may have mentioned that I don't have the expertise to know how to fix it myself.

Anyway, thanks again for fixing it. — Gestrid (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and WP:PURGEd the article page (the 2012 series one) to make sure it displays the correct version immediately to our logged out viewers as well. — Gestrid (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Page

I propose that either this page JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1) page be renamed as they duplicate content and are misleading. One page (eg. JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series)) should contain the overarching information of the TV series, and the other page should only contain the information for the 2012-2013 season. The formatting problems on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) can then be properly fixed. Comments please. Ozflashman (talk)

Personally, I don't know enough about the show to say whether the page should be renamed or not. Just a note that the formatting problems here seem to be stemming from some incorrect transclusion markup on the season 1 page, but I don't know enough about it to fix it.

To be honest, this is the first time I've seen a page in the mainspace (which is what some people call the part of Wikipedia where articles reside) transclude another page like this. Usually, transclusions in the mainspace are limited to just templates (like {{copy edit}}, etc.) and the like.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and post a link to this discussion on one of the WikiProjects' talk pages to attract discussion if you haven't already done that. — Gestrid (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) be gut and redirected to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1). The Season 1 article will then inherit the "2012 TV series" title. The former article is just a dump of copy and pasted info from the other Jojo TV series articles. It also does not have enough original content to justify keeping it as a standalone article. No sense in keeping it around. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as nominator. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can leave the page, I think, to not have multiple links on main manga page. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any point having a separate one. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. To gut article A, redirect to article B, and then rename B to A, doesn't make sense. You might as well merge B to A instead. But in this case, (2012 TV series) covers the entire TV series and all its seasons, while (season 1) could be retained. It could be renamed to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: The Animation if "The Animation" is used only on the first season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have created a draft page for the provisionally titled JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) as the renamed JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) page for assessment and comment. It substantially uses the content on the existing page. For this to work, the "Infobox animanga/Header" for each season will need to be moved to the relevant pages. Ozflashman (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Years back, I worked on the Swedish Wikipedia's article on this show, and added a bunch of production info (sourced to RSs), which I could translate for enwp if there's interest. I definitely think there's a possibility of having a page for the series as a whole that stands on its own.--Alexandra IDV^talk 10:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't watched the first two seasons animated but I think the title should be similar to the way its marketed. If the marketing uses your proposal, I fully support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed and internal links updated. Ozflashman (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

Response I have updated the draft JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) page (the image was deleted because it is on a user page) with additional content from the season pages for further assessment. I think that JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: The Animation cannot be used because the complete series it's not known or referred to by that name. If there are no strong objections I propose to make the move from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) on Wednesday 3 July to resolve the content and formatting issue. Ozflashman (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this sounds like a resonable proposal and I could see it working. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very late to this, but I oppose moving this from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series) which has been its stable title for a long time (so, should be kept as per WP:TITLECHANGES), and because it still needs disambiguation from the 1993 series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]