Jump to content

Talk:List of programs broadcast by Toonami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trigun WASN'T a April Fools Days Exclusive

[edit]

If I remember correctly it aired back in 03/04 alongside Cowboy Bebop and Case Closed. Thankx

It was originally aired on Adult Swim alongside Case Closed and Bebop, yes, but it was only aired on Toonami during the April Fool's Day airing. --Toonipedia (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Protection

[edit]

Please be advised: This section was edited by Knighthammer to maintain consistent format throughout this discussion page. The original conversation can be viewed at 2007-08-03T12:30:19 when the last admin, Bobblehead commented on this discussion page. This information can be compared and collaborated for authenticity.

History User Description
68.202.26.33 Deleted Page
71.235.175.147 Added TV-MA Shows that never aired
2007-08-02T17:43:21 128.107.28.142 Added bias information in Trivia Section that was unrelated to article.
2007-08-02T17:32:54 69.138.203.159 Changed Titles without Discussion, Discussion Page explicitly requests discussion before such changes
2007-08-02T16:50:06 BlackJexus Added non-animated content Bewitched and ridiculed content on page
2007-08-02T22:45:04 76.17.234.168 Changed Toonami Schedule
2007-08-02T22:45:27 71.243.50.208 Changed Toonami Schedule
2007-08-02T22:42:23 76.17.234.168 Changed Toonami Schedule
2007-08-02T22:57:35 69.138.203.159 Removed Sections
2007-08-02T23:06:32 71.243.50.208 Undoing work by other users.
2007-08-02T23:07:49 BlackJexus COMPLETE Vandalization of Page!
2007-08-04T23:41:39 Silverbladesting Vandalization of page adding inappropriate images on entire page.
2007-08-04T23:43:20 Andolivera4 Added intentionally derogatory information Toonami
2007-08-04T23:48:29 Silverbladesting Vandalized Classic Carton Section
2007-08-04T23:50:52 Andolivera4 Vandalized Info Box
2007-08-04T23:52:12 Silverbladesting Destroyed tables and added "You Suck" in tables.
2007-08-04T23:55:03 Andolivera4 Added "Joey" in Toonami DCAU section along with other vandalism

Vandalism spree

[edit]

Okay, if y'all come under this level of attack again, just skip going to WP:RFP and go directly to WP:AIV and ask for someone to semi-protect the page. Also, y'all have been under attack for 2 hours, why didn't you put some warning templates on the vandals' talk pages? Take a look at WP:VANDAL. Any time that a vandal hits the page and you revert, you should be throwing a warning template on their talk page. It only takes a minute or so and if you get enough warnings on their talk page, you can report them to WP:AIV and get the account blocked after at most 4 vandalisms. All you have to do is after you revert them, go to their talk page and take a look at what is currently on their page. If it is clean, start at {{uw-vandal1}} and work your way up one at a time. Every time they vandalize, roll up to the next vandalism template until you reach vandal4, if they vandalize again, report them to WP:AIV immediately. On the other hand, if they have a lot of warning templates on their talk page, skip directly to {{uw-vandal4}}. Bobblehead (rants) 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Truth be told, honeslty, most of us are pretty new to Wiki editing and community Politics. I was sadly using all the avenues suggested on the help files =(. Thanks very much for your efforts =) Knighthammer 05:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look out for Captain Zechs once he becomes an "established" user. 71.126.192.8 13:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that Captain Zechs (talk · contribs) has intentions to vandalize Wikipedia, please feel free to report them on WP:AIV or WP:AN/I and they'll get blocked before they get the chance to vandalize the article. If they persist in returning, file a checkuser report so we can figure out their IP address and give the IP address a lengthy block as well. Also, please remind them that it is a violation of their ISPs user agreement to vandalize Wikipedia and their ISP accounts will get shutdown if they persist in their vandalism. Bobblehead (rants) 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure he's going to. I mean, if you look at his contributions, so far, all he's done is vandalize the Toon Zone article by claiming that he is one of the best posters on the board. I can't imagine someone who makes edits like that turning out to be a good user. 71.126.192.8 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the thread on Toon Zone where he declared his intentions? It would be even better if he also gloated about his one edit so far. But that's just to confirm the identity. Bobblehead (rants) 17:17, 3 August 2007 --(UTC)
I have investigated the warnings from 71.126.192.8 and there is *NO* supporting evidence to this end.
If 71.126.192.8 would like to log in and give concrete proof to this insinuation, it will be treated as a valid threat, otherwise, I suggest it be ignored until further evidence indicts a specific party. Knighthammer 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the preview button

[edit]

Not that there is anything technically wrong with the edit method y'all are using, but you may wish to consider using the preview button. It allows you to see how your edits will display without actually saving the change to the database. One reason for this is that Wikipedia has a cadre of users that patrol the recent changes log and keep an eye out for vandalism. Having a lot of little edits on a single page makes it difficult for someone to wade through and try and figure out if there has been vandalism or not on the page. Bobblehead (rants) 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout Discussion

[edit]

Ok, I have two topics I wanna flesh out on the page.

First is layout

For each of the columns, I picked things that I felt this community in particular would be most interested in. However, many of the columns are spilling over to not only 2 lines but in some cases 5 or 6 lines. As far as overall presentation, it's probably bulking the page up more so then needed.

There are four solutions we could do.

  1. Ditch the Toonami Images - I personally feel it adds a lot of flavor to the page but we could easily just get rid of them and change the tables from 70% to 100%
  2. Move the Toonami Images - We could move them to the header instead of being off to the side.
  3. Kill a column or three
  4. Live with it
Misc Info

I'm thinking that the Misc information should be simply combined into the respective section it effects.

I think having all the mini headers is making the TOC bigger then it needs to be (all be it easy to update) but it also feels "disorganized".

Thoughts? Knighthammer 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm CONSIDERING --- CONSIDERING making the shows all one huge table and killing the images on the right (or shrinking them more) so that one more column can be added in place of the headers for all the animated SHOWS (not movies ATM) so that you can COMPLETELY sort the entire list based on the division of headers we have now.
Regarldess if we do this, the dates need to be formated differently going forward. The format must be YYYY-MM-DD (Y=Year, M=Month, D=Day) for sorting purposes.
As far as sorting goes, let me suggest the script doesn't currently allow for default sorting (god that would make things easier) so for now, please don't get lazy when adding shows to keep them in ABC Order.
At some point, I'm gonna figure out a way to make it so that the numbers on the left hand side don't move while sorting (IF the script supports that). Heck, I am half tempted to go work on writing the script myself to add some of these features.
Anywhoo, thats all for now. Knighthammer 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backup and new table usage

[edit]

I'm going to start setting up the new tables. The new setup utilizes hidden fields to state what is being looked for for each field as well as to (hopefully) quickly find the section you wish to update.

I'll be using the following template to indicate what section I am working on:

I've backed up the CURRENT version Here and will be looking for a template to indicate which section I am working on so everyone knows NOT to update that section in the duration. Knighthammer 06:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, YES, I realize the sorts are broken in all the columns except the first one. It was working in the test page and then stopped working somewhere along the line. I don't know but I suspect its simply a syntax error.
In order for the show/hide script to work, I need to use header rows thus it makes all text on the table in bold. This can't be helped.
I would have made the table MUCH easier to read and manipulate like I did with the hidden information (Licensor, Voice Studio, Animation Studio and additional information) but again the script isn't nice, it wont allow for white space.
In all sections with information that should be edited I've left comment boxes (ex: <'!-- COMMENT -->) Each comment box describes what information we're looking to put in those respective areas. Please read them and obey them. If you feel differently, talk about it here or on the dicussion page. Generally speaking, you can simply search for comment boxes (Ctrl+F -> type <'!--). HOPEFULLY it will save many people headaches editing it.
Most SIMPLE HTML Editors allow you to color code text. What you may consider doing (at least what I do) is cut and paste the section you're working on to such an editor, edit there and paste it back.
Towards the end transferring the Toonami Premier section, I got lazy and didn't internally link EVERYTHING. I started doing that about at MAR. If someone wants to help with that area, that would be awesome.
For the studios and licensors, I hope I made those sections MUCH more clear. We're looking for who markets it in the US, who dubed it and who animated it. The titles should make that much more understandable (I hope). While doing those sections *I* didn't properly place them. They are all placed under licensor which is obviously incorrect in many cases. It's not much better then what we had though. I'll look at this AFTER I am done re-localizing the article if someone else hasn't first.
Finally, I removed the Status section since there was a bit of controversy on that section. It served to give enough room for other columns as well (double whammy). I believe people can draw their own conclusions from the show counts but don't hestitate to talk about it in the additional information section.
I hope everyone likes this format.
BTW, if anyone has a better idea for a color scheme on those tables, I'm more then willing to mod them. This just looked best to be for the moment. Knighthammer 11:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised, I'm not updating the movie section with the new format for a while. I intend to wait to see if we come up with more movies before I shift it into format.
If you still that could be added, please do.
I've added expansion templates to each of those sections to suggest they wont be touched for a while. Since the OVA section was recently made, I DID use the new format for that one. Knighthammer 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

[edit]

Since I got reverted part of the way through, just a quick explanation for the change in date format from MM/DD/YYYY. The main reason is that the MM/DD/YYYY format is primarily understood by North American English speakers, so using that format will cause readers from outside the US to misconstrue dates. 8/4/2007 is August 4, 2007 in the US, but for most other English speakers it is April 8, 2007. If you don't like the spelling out of the months like I did, we could always use ISO 8601 formatting, so 2007-04-08 instead of the other formats. ISO 8601 is a little more accessible and less confusing than MM/DD/YYYY for non-US readers and there isn't the chance of confusion.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates will auto-correct that error for most users. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Date linking does not support MM/DD/YYYY, so linking them will only create dead links.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Damn. Never mind then. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10

[edit]

Ben 10 is going to be on Toonami this saturday 11/24/07 at 7:00 followed by a Ben 10 movie. Do not believe me? Go to the website schedule and look! - User:Mark Alvarez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ben 10 be added to the List of Toonami Shows? -- User:Mark Alvarez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrecked!

[edit]

Someone wrecked the List of Toonami Animated movies section! -- User:Mark Alvarez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Yu Hakusho's Airdate

[edit]

The upper box sais that its airdate was in 2003 but the lower one sais it started airing in February 23 2002. As I recall, it was picked up by Toonami a couple of months after Codename: Kids Next Door sarted and shortly before Rurouni Kenshin started, which would be about Febuary 23 2003.--72.88.108.41 (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10: Race Against Time

[edit]

This movie is live action, so why is it on list of Toonami Animated movies? --User:Mark Alvarez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuff Girls Z

[edit]

Is it true that Powerpuff Girls Z (the anime counterpart of The Powerpuff Girls) will become part of the Toonami lineup in 2008. -- User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.112.15 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we all know that didn't happen.......--173.53.83.234 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wild West

[edit]

The fuck? I'm nearly certain this movie NEVER aired on Toonami.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings Information

[edit]

Just to inform you, no episode of One Piece carried a TV-PG-D or TV-PG-DV rating. The highest it ever went to was TV-PG-V. Bobobo, also, never had a TV-PG-D rating. It did, however, carry a TV-PG-V rating for two episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.139.11 (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bobobo did in fact receive a TV-PG-D on occasion. In fact, it was somewhat common for it to receive this rating at one point in time. If you have actual evidence that it received a TV-PG-V, I will allow it, but do not remove the other rating to make way for it-simply leave it at TV-PG-DV. I also must inform you that One Piece did receive a TV-PG-DV rating at least once during the FUNimation run. --173.53.83.234 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have recorded down the ratings information for Bobobo and every episode was rated TV-Y7-FV except for episodes 12-15 which were TV-PG, and episodes 51-52 which were TV-PG-V. Here is the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz0IIgDRnxI). As for One Piece, that was more so based on memory, however I can't think of one occurance during its FUNimation run, where a TV-PG-D or TV-PG-DV rating would even be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillers23 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it looks like what you said for Bobobo is the truth. You may change it back. As for One Piece, I recall seeing it air with a TV-PG-DV only one time, so if you missed it, it would make sense. However, due to my mistake with Bobobo, I realize it's entirely possible that this could be false as well, so you can leave it at TV-PG-V if you want, at least until evidence is found. Just to let you know, a large amount of this is in fact based on memory, due to the fact that not many records or recordings exist online, and ones that do exist are very difficult to find. Either way, thank you for your helpful contribution. We greatly appreciate it.--173.53.83.234 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D.I.C.E.

[edit]

Starting October 8, 2005, it was not D.I.C.E. that aired in that slot, but rather Duel Masters, and I have specific proof that this was the case. (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/toonami-archived-forum/151655-duel-masters-overlook-hotel-talkback-spoilers.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.139.11 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Somebody came in and made numerous false edits to the article quite some time ago, and this has been a problem for a while. You may add it back, if the edits are still intact (somebody edited it recently - I am not entirely certain if they are legitimate, however). --173.53.83.234 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Clone Wars Redirect

[edit]

It does not redirect to its Wikipedia page. --70.208.129.36 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 September 2013

[edit]

I need to unblock the page from editing. 68.5.246.104 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)68.5.246.104 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

 Not done Please file a request at WP:RFPP. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 September 2013

[edit]

Ghost in the Shell is possibly on hiatus it will return. 68.5.246.104 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously long unreferenced list

[edit]

The programming listings need to be shortened severely or cut, as it violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. To have 200 main sections makes it unreadable. It's only after I page through the huge list that I get to the list of programs that actually broadcast and have information I can actually make sense of.

If you really need to archive the names of the Toonami blocks, create a separate lineup article as: name of block, start date, end date, time of block (e.g. 3-5PM, 11:30PM-2AM), programs, comments, references to a timeline archive.

Special marathons and minor lineup changes to accommodate for movies should not be listed. The movie section is already there at the bottom. They are probably listed in the main article's history anyway.

This is also missing all the references to news articles and snapshots to the Cartoon Network schedule. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC) updated 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have chopped this way down. Some of the lineups are still preserved but should probably be further grouped to seasons or major changes as with Weekly Toonami. Again, schedules are not needed on here: this isn't a programming block in the prime time ratings hunt. -AngusWOOF (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has reported that the new structure is too complicated so I am removing a bunch of the table lineups and just listing the programs. I still believe that the structure is better than having 200+ sections with unsourced lineups. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the list of the programs themselves to the top of this list article. This is much more useful for readers who want to know what has been on Toonami, rather than having to navigate through the various editions of TOM2 or TOM3 to get to the list. The blocks are now organized at the bottom of the article and broken into simple lists of programs that are comparable to other "List of programs broadcast by X" lists. I left the Adult Swim lineup schedule as if they were a lineup of guests for a convention / festival.
I realize this loses a lot of data concerning exactly when certain programs aired in Toonami, however, retaining that information would raise major WP:NOTTVGUIDE problems (I had to compromise and leave the current schedule on top and even that could be stricken at any time) and be overly detailed. The solution is to reference those detailed schedules in television archives and magazines, where available, and where people can then look at such listings and even get what specific episode was planned to air that day. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are referenced in the view history section if you go far back enough. With some effort, it is recoverable. It was not included due to the difficulty of its inclusion. This current version of the list is extremely complicated and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --70.208.140.156 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Not trying to suggest the current style does not need work, but in the way it is being restructured is unsuitable. --70.208.140.156 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest putting the schedules into lists by year to reduce the size, and getting more to the point (the program list is the main focus of the article, the schedule list isn't). I would also suggest that the schedule list or any other necessary section be put underneath the program list. --Toonipedia (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have originally mentioned, if you really want to preserve the lineups then propose a lineup history article. It doesn't belong on the list of programs, and only serves to bar users from getting to the information they really care about. This also has the problem of NO sources for 90%+ of the lineups mentioned. Similar lists of programs have been AFD'ed for lack of sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is that this page is completely and ridiculously unreadable. Especially to the average user. No one is going to look at that intimidating TOC. If only this page had more prose.. and less TV guide material. —KirtZMail 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with KirtZJ. This text wall is almost entirely unsourced and is being used as TV Guide. The table of contents is unusable. How can vandalism be suppressed if there are no references for any of this information? A table would be a more effective way to present this data, but then it would become exactly TV Guide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently making a new table that could possible be better visually. I can agree that the old format seems difficult to navigate, but i think if i show you the other version, you will be more happy with it it. (don't worry, i'll post it here, so that people can ask if they like it or not) Lucia Black (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly off topic, but I have one suggestion. If were are going to entirely remove the schedule list, the current schedule really isn't neccessary. Maybe it could be moved to the Toonami main page. It would probably be more convinent there, if users are expecting to see a program list on this page. --Toonipedia (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Compromise

[edit]

OK this article is really complicated, and the old revision is just as complicated as well. For one, i don't think "notes" is necessary. this is just a list article, and we don't really need additional notes. Rating, i'm debating of whether its really necessary at all. I removed it in the proposed table. Remember when you want wikitable to be "sortable" to add the "dts" template for dates so that we see "January 1998" at the top instead of "April 2006" (hypothetically).

Title Initial Airdate Last Airdate Rating
Series A January 1, 2000 April 2, 2000 TV-Y7-FV
Series B January 1, 2000 June 2, 2000 TV-Y7-FV
Series C April 1, 2000 April 2, 2000 TV-Y7-FV
Series D October 1, 2002 May 2, 2000 TV-Y7-FV

I highly suggest making a separate list-article for the current revival of the series, and make this article the current version. List of programs broadcast by Toonami (1997-2008) and List of programs broadcast by Toonami (2012-present). Also, separate these lists by main block and "Special blocks" to those that were special events and make sure to include the years its been. for example: Midnight run (1999-2003) and Giant Robot Week (2003). It'll be easier to navigate through it all.

I "probably" oversimplified the list, if you feel we need to add another category, i'm flexible with the list, so long as we don't have "notes" in it discussing various issues. I understand that the notes section was probably there to highlight whether a series aired completely or only aired partially, but thats ok. If theres an alternative that can make it simpler, then that would be great.

So this is my compromise, and i hope you all like it. I think this will make things much simpler. Lucia Black (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this suggested version is a massive improvement on the current set-up. As it stands, the article is an exercise in insanity that goes into unnecessary detail and is mostly unsourced. This new format makes things more concise, and makes it more in line with standard practise for list articles.IrishStephen (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The premiere dates column can be retained. Last aired is partly useful; I suppose it can always be updated when it airs again. I agree the Notes should be simplified to remove unsourced synthesis/OR like "This is the thirteenth program", "this would later air on Fox Kids (or some other channel unrelated to Toonami like Funimation Channel)". "Edited for content or time" is a given for all programs, so suggest listing the problem as "uncut" when they advertise about it (Naruto, One Piece, Dragonball Z). Keep notes if only a few episodes were demo'ed or if there is first-run programming. I agree the block schedules and lineups can be removed as the main Toonami article explains those details and changes fine. I also agree with splitting Cartoon Network (1997-2004) from Adult Swim (2012-present) articles since Adult Swim is a different channel entity with completely different target demographics in 2012, and retaining lineup histories might be informative in the latter. On any lineups, remove scheduled times as per conventions and concert festivals. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC), updated 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, just because one user disagrees when multiple users agree that the format is unsuitable does not mean that that user gets his way. I've restored AngusWOOF's trimming of the article down to a managable level that does not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE as the version preferred by the anonymous editor (who may be Toonipedia based on responses) is advocating for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: we do it by line up and possibly add in a second or third line up depending on how many times it appeared. So first airdate and last airdate would be considered a single line up and if a new revival comes in, we put it in the second column for 2nd line up.
If we separate things by specific blocks "Main block" "Saturday block" "Studio ghibli month block" or whatever blocks there are, it would be ok for series to repeat, it would be easier to navigate because it would only matter how many different line ups a single series had within a single block.
So pretend Naruto is plastered in every block, but only in the main block did it get removed and added again for it to have 2 line-ups. BUt that could also be considered a single line up.
@Ryulong: that's fine. I still believe this version might be easier to navigate and help understand things. so i think keeping the current revision would help organize the list faster when we use this version. Lucia Black (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV Ratings need references

[edit]

If the TV ratings columns and uncut/edited for content information is to be useful, it needs to have references to programming guides and news articles to confirm these. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That's standard operating procedure. C'mon kiddos, bring your references! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should reflect the broadcast that had the strongest rating restriction as ratings can vary per episode. The main schedule http://video.adultswim.com/schedule/ lists them for most of the programs, so be sure to list the publication-date -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lagoon: The Second Barrage

[edit]

Please refrain from adding this title and related entries until it is properly announced in the tumblr lineup, or updated on Adult Swim's schedule which should be after June 7, 2014. [1] Right now, It is unclear whether they will still count this as part of Black Lagoon or rename it after its second season. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least from [2] they are still going to title it Black Lagoon for listing purposes even though they are planning on airing the second season (The Second Barrage) episodes. Should be confirmed pretty soon in the video schedule. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source, proving that it is currently airing. Why was it deleted anyway? --74.110.141.60 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Two different shows going by the same name is not proper reasoning for merging them, in my opinion. This should have been brought up at the talk page earlier. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim did not list them as two separate shows, but as a season 2. Adult Swim on Demand even has it as Season 2. I'm not sure how it could be brought up on this talk page any earlier, as it could have gone either direction until the tumblr announcement. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before merging them, it should have been discussed on the talk page. I just don't think it makes sense for two different shows to be listed under the same section, even if they shared the same name during listings. Sure, that info should be noted in descriptions, but merging them is just not really going to be clear enough for those who are not already familiar with Toonami or Adult Swim programming. --74.110.141.34 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I just don't think it makes sense for two different shows to be listed under the same section." No one seems to mind Sailor Moon being listed as such. --Tv's emory (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to discuss before making a bold edit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement, but that's not the point he's trying to make. He also never said it was a requirement in the first place. --63.88.70.247 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's now listed in this article as two different shows, and it has the notes that Toonami grouped it under the same title. The lineups also stay as is as there was no restructuring or renaming on Toonami's part for the second show.-AngusWOOF (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV Ratings revisited

[edit]

Hi, there's been a lot of activity over the months with regard to the various parental ratings listed in this article. I am revising my previous stance on the ratings above, and now propose cutting the parental ratings from the article for the following reasons: 1) They do not meet WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. How can we verify that any of this data is accurate? Where is the central list that tells us which episode of One Piece was TV-14 DL? When a vandal changes that information, who fixes it? The regulars here who know in-their-heart-of-hearts that G-Force: Guardians of Space aired with a TV-Y7-FV rating? Even the dates are problematic because there are few sources. 2) WP:PRIMARY We can't use primary sources (i.e. the broadcast that you watched with your own eyes) for vast amounts of information, as we are doing here. 3) MOS:TV#Things to avoid specifically instructs us to avoid indiscriminate parental ratings, which seems to be ignored here. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should remove them per your third point MOS:TV#Things to avoid and retain only key parental rating edits in the notes section where it is historically notable and documented. The Adult Swim schedule example does list TV ratings for specific episodes, but if one week it has a TV-14-LSV and the next it has a TV-14-DLSV, would require someone to snapshot and document that every week with tons of cite episodes, while providing very little useful information about the impact of the series to Toonami. I also suggest removing "nth new show in Adult Swim" as that is synth material that Toonami does not number or present as such. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been removed. So that's pretty much that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the related discussion that led to the removal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Parental_TV_ratings_at_various_kids.27_TV_articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but just wanted to say we removed them years ago and somehow they came back, so I'm glad to see them gone once again! --Tv's emory (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone get rid of them here while they're at it? List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Adult_Swim --Tv's emory (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably soon to come, @Tv's emory: I believe there is a request open at WikiProject Television. Just waiting for the honrable 23W to hit it again with the regex (regular expressions program). Seems to have been reverted by the same IP who kept reverting the removals at this site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that TV's emory guy add ratings before they were posted to the schedule, so I don't know what he's talking about. and i'm reporting cyphidbomb for making fun of another user (regular expressions program wtf) O BLOCK ME I DARE YOU --Solidvaper (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solidvaper - Report to your heart's content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed editions

[edit]

I removed the edition counts for the broadcast history table for Toonami 2012-. There is no source for how the schedule changes are counted, and you can still sort by date to see how the schedule changes over time. I also combined October 4 and 11 because the main difference was the ending of Space Dandy and the beginning of the re-airing of Ghost in the Shell. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sourcing required.

[edit]

Hello! I notice very little in the way of sourcing with regard to all of the very specific broadcast times. What is the academic purpose of listing these times? What are the sources you are all using to included this information? Specific air times are not typically added to these sorts of List of programs broadcast by X network articles. As previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not TV Guide, so I think it's worth discussing why this content is important, whether it is sourced or not, and whether any of it meets WP:V. I suspect that most of this information comes from various editors' personal observations, which (although we old-timers try to communicate this) is not suitable for inclusion, since it likely constitutes original research. And through my travels, I've also experienced numerous niche fandoms that seem to have difficulty differentiated academic content from cruft. Thoughts? If there is no way to verify any of these times, or to explain why we need this level of content for a programming block that seems to largely rebroadcast existing content, then I would probably propose the removal of the times. Grazie, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the premiere air dates (e.g. 3:30/2:30c am) or that a block schedule (e.g. 12-6AM) is posted? The latter can be verified by Toonami Tumblr's schedule postings, but I agree that the specific times for premiere air dates are not needed, plus there would be technical confusion on Saturday late night / Sunday morning air dates just like with the Japanese broadcast schedules. The references that have schedules in them should pinpoint the time if someone really needs to know when in the block they aired. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angus, I don't understand why we are listing current programming. Wikipedia is not a breaking news source and we are not here to archive every aspect of everything under the sun, and that's what seems to be going on here. But apart from that is the wall of times for every show, very few of which, if any at all, have sources.
Outlaw Star January 15, 2001 – 6:30/5:30c.
How do we know that Outlaw Star aired on Toonami January 15, 2001? What's the source for that? (Fortunately I got lucky and found this), but how do we know what time it aired? Or The Batman vs. Dracula? No hits here even for an airdate. How can anybody possibly be expected to preserve the accuracy of this article when there are no sources for these dates and times? And why do we care what time it aired? What is a real-world academic example of how this litany of unsourced data is being used? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you're preaching to the choir ;) I agree the times should be removed or restricted to the premiere date. The time within the block is not notable unless there are specific articles that highlight its position within Toonami, for example, Space Dandy became controversial when Adult Swim proposed to extend its overall channel into the 8pm hour. The current schedule is a compromise of showing "current" programming like List of programs broadcast by NBC although I agree it's not meant to be a tv guide so the times can be removed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a week or so before removing them in case some of the regulars wish to comment. But they should be forewarned that their personal preferences do not supersede WP:V. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

I added a deletion request on the basis that all info is present on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. Also, practically nothing is sourced, and the failure to retrieve these sources after multiple reiterations seems to suggest that the info itself is inaccurate. --OrangeSniper (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you added Template:Prod, which is for non-controversial deletion nominations. I don't think that such a nom for this article would be considered non-controversial. I would propose instead that you nominate the article for deletion through AfD. Please be sure to read WP:BEFORE before doing so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why I need to do this beforehand? I'm very sure I did not violate any rule by posting the deletion request and I believe the reasoning was perfectly valid. --OrangeSniper (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, you're asking me to explain why you should read the what to do before nominating an article for deletion documentation before nominating this article for deletion? I think that should be pretty apparent once you read it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have again restored the WP:PROD template, which is for uncontroversial deletion nominations only. This article, as problematic as it is, is edited regularly, is sourced, and Toonami is likely a notable programming block, so PROD would not be appropriate because deleting it would be controversial. You need to use AfD, which means you're going to have to read this. Please do not resubmit the PROD template. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read what you told me to read. I was slightly confused why the template I added was not suitable for the article, but I understand now. Thanks. I decided it was best not to request deletion considering the article is still very active, as you said. Sorry for the confusion. --OrangeSniper (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a show aired on another network...

[edit]

A recent edit of mine was reversed with one of the main reasons cited being that mention of broadcasts on other networks aren't relevant and have nothing to do with Toonami's broadcast of a show. I'm sure others who have been here longer know better than I do, I'm not questioning the decision, but I am curious if there is any kind of policy or guideline to take into account if a show has aired elsewhere before? Some show descriptions already mention broadcasts on other networks, others don't, so it seems a little inconsistent. Should such information only be mentioned under certain circumstances?

And while we're at it, what kinds of information is recommended for show notes? Many shows are completely blank. Surely some bit of info could be found to give every program something in the Notes box, however small. WisperGee (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who reverted the edits in question, the other networks can be mentioned is if it was affiliated with the company, like shows that were initially added by or mixed with Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim (non-Toonami) and Toonami Jetstream. Notes can also be added if it is the show's first run. That a different network later picked up the show is more like "Where are they now" and not relevant to the listing, but is better fit for the show's article. Some of the entries should be cleaned up of this detail. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding useful notes, if only particular seasons of a show were picked up for Toonami broadcast, that can be mentioned too. I still think that "edited for content" should not be mentioned as that is a given for all broadcast shows, although if Toonami Tumblr posts that a show is to be aired uncut, that can be noted and cited. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WisperGee, the scope of the article is to list programs that were broadcast on Toonami, so where something else was broadcast is simply beyond the scope of the article. I think I see slightly differently than Angus on this point, but not enough for it to impact productivity. I don't think specific guidelines need be invoked if the content being added is beyond the scope of the article, but WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE would apply. Or the spirit of WP:TRIVIA. I find these "List of programs broadcast by" articles irritating, because we already have categories that do the same job of letting readers know which programs were broadcast on which networks. These articles tend to be little more than cruft magnets where fanboys memorialize the most mundane information about the series. Batman Beyond was edited for content? So? It's TV, editing is expected. Why is this a fact worth including in an encyclopedia? Reruns--are they noteworthy? No! Anyhow, the content usually contravenes WP:NOTTVGUIDE, is almost always unsourced, and with vandalism being so rampant, is very tricky for regular editors (i.e. non-fanboys) to maintain. If these articles must exist, they make more sense to be as simple as possible. Here's an example of a simple list article containing names and birth years, and that's all. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sword Art Online II

[edit]

Treat as separate program (Black Lagoon / Second Barrage) or second season (The Big O, Space Dandy)? -AngusWOOF (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove edited for content

[edit]

Isn't this a given for any show broadcast on Toonami / Cartoon Network / Adult Swim? This isn't HBO or some channel where they don't censor. It should be the inverse case that a show is advertised to be uncut. Otherwise this is very difficult to document.-AngusWOOF (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this. It's unsourced anyway and personally making comparisons from the version you're used to and the version that aired is likely WP:OR. This article is already an absurd cruft mill for what is basically a glorified rerun block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of programs broadcast by Toonami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of programs broadcast by Toonami. 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:

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) 01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of programs broadcast by Toonami. 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:

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) 18:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule references

[edit]

These two links found on the main page describe changes made to the schedule that have not been acknowledged. If they do not, please explain why.

March 24: https://www.facebook.com/Toonami/posts/1881072838850221 - This link indicates that Outlaw Star was removed, Space Dandy moved to a different time, and there were 2 episodes of Cowboy Bebop for just that night.

April 7: https://twitter.com/ToonamiNews/status/982765857603489794 - This link indicates that Black Clover moved from its previous spot at 11:30 PM to 1:00 AM, other shows were shifted as a result, and two smaller programs aired in the 11:30 spot before FLCL took that spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.103.151 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batman movie "alphabetical" order

[edit]

Under Western animated movies, what order were we exactly putting those Batman movies in? Do colons count as part of the alphabet system? What about ampersands? Is "the" considered part of the alphabet system?

I tried to add the two that will premiere soon, only to be met with confusion. I looked over, and it seems there were too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. What order should those movies go in? Matty-chan (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote for the order they should go in:

Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
Batman: Gotham Knight
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman
Batman Ninja
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2
Batman: Under The Red Hood
Batman: Year One

Matty-chan (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been a few days, no objections, so I'll go ahead and do that. Matty-chan (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Toonami&oldid=1218756805"