Template talk:Anime and manga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Template-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This template is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles 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.
 Template  This is a template and is not rated on the assessment scale.


I tried to put {{Animation}}it as a good example, until the template is finished. Kasaalan (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but for our purposes, it's sufficient to simply link to it, as you did above and as I did in the section link. =) In any case, I'm not sure how useful it will be as an example, as anime and manga is both narrower and more broad than animation (depending on just where you look). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm wondering if the navbox style is the better suited for this type of nav template as opposed to an infobox style similar to {{Adventism}}. I guess it will largely depend on how many of the articles that will be part of the series will already contain an infobox. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's something I've also been thinking about. I was mostly waiting until a good majority of the final links had been hunted down and added. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen while working on this (and my past explorations), it seems that our core topic article coverage is a bit on the random side (why do we have an article on the anime industry, but not the manga industry, for instance?). This may not be terribly conducive to a single, vertical column of links, but I've never really worked with navigational sidebars before, so... =P ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems that anime industry can simply be merged/redirected to Anime. But a article series template can show where there are gaps in coverage, as the example I gave above shows. In the mean time, I'm going to remove transcuslions of this template for article space because it is simply not ready and makes what links where more confusing. --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I created a rough mockup of a article series box at User:TheFarix/Sandbox3 using the outline below. --Farix (Talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks very good. I'm still partial to the idea of a navbox, though, as we could link to a broader range of topics. Perhaps we could have both concurrently (the sidebar here and the navbox at {{Anime and manga navbox}} or similar)? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


History of anime, Original video animation, potentially any other article in Category:Anime
History of manga, Manga outside Japan*, Mangaka, Kyoto International Manga Museum, potentially any other article in Category:Manga
Kodomo manga, Shōnen manga, Shōjo manga, Josei manga, Seinen manga,
Genres (anime and manga specific)
Magical girl, Mecha anime**, Harem (genre), Others?
Select biographies (top- and high-importance bios?)
Osamu Tezuka, Hayao Miyazaki, Go Nagai, Rakuten Kitazawa, Shotaro Ishinomori, Kōichi Mashimo, Katsuji Matsumoto, Leiji Matsumoto, Toshio Suzuki (producer)
Anime and manga fandom, Anime conventions, Glossary of anime and manga terms

*Need equivalent Anime article **Should be renamed to Mecha (genre)

Just a rough outlining for an article series box. --Farix (Talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that looks pretty good. And agree on your two notes. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Too much work I made some edits converted categories as (c) near main articles, tried to shorten article names. Maybe we need another sand template. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking at redoing this template from the ground up, which is why I posted the list above. But linking to categories should be avoided entirely. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Without cross checking categories and list base articles, I won't remove categories. After than we can remove. Kasaalan (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Half the reason I originally created this was in the hopes that it would help encourage improvements to some of our more neglected core articles, or at least increase traffic through them. Part of such improvement would be cross-checking between lists and categories. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there've been no further comments for a few weeks, so I'm going to go ahead with Farix's draft and deploy it across a few articles. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been working offline on an anime/manga navbox, but I guess you beat me to it :) But I have to say, I like it better vertical and with fewer articles. Maybe other navboxes could be created for more specific sets of articles (like the cosplay articles). Anyway, here is what I was working on, maybe it can be of some use.--Cattus talk 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very comprehensive. =) You can see a couple of navbox versions we were working on here; obviously far less complete than yours. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Select biographies[edit]

I'm against "Select biographies". Too subjective. -- deerstop. 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Selected biographies" are our top- can high-importance biographies which were more then just a bibliography or filmography. So it's not like they were picked at random. --Farix (Talk) 11:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's we (users) who choose "high" and "low" importance, it's not some kind of fact. -- deerstop. 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We do have criteria to determine the importance scale of biographies. So at the very least, subjectivity is kept to a minimum. It's not a matter of editors choosing which biographies are of high importance and which are of low importance. --Farix (Talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it requires project discussion for an article to be marked as top- or high-importance; you won't get away with just running around and knocking the importance on random articles up (people have tried this on articles for their favorite anime/manga series, and they were reverted every time). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to explain to me how the "Assessment" system works. :) It IS a matter of editors to choose importance - in our case, project's editors discuss importance and determine criteria. Sure, criteria exist, but they are still subjective (for example, "essential historical influence" is a vague definition). I'm not suggesting to kill "Assessment" scales overall, I just don't like the idea of anime directors being added to the template according to their "Top project importance". Especially under "Select biographies" line. -- deerstop. 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Then what would you suggest as an alternative to the importance scale? After all, the template should include some biographies. --Farix (Talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Err... It should? -- deerstop. 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, it should also probably include a handful of series (for that matter, why do we not assess any series as top-importance? they are our primary focus, after all...). Ultimately, it may be better to ask the project for a few articles to include instead of relying on their importance - most of our high- and top-importance articles were assessed as such shortly after we adopted the assessment scale, without discussion, and their assessment as such needs to be discussed anyways. We could actually take care of both issues at once, while raising awareness of this template and (hopefully) garnering further opinions on it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
On this topic, you could also suggest that a section be added for notable anime studios, with obvious inclusions being Toei Animation, Mushi Productions/Tezuka Productions, TMS Entertainment, Sunrise (company), Studio Ghibli, Gainax, Production I.G., Madhouse (company), etc. Any thoughts? Technopeasant (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am now thinking my above suggetion is better attneded too here: Template:Animation industry in Japan, so never mind. Technopeasant (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

New template[edit]


I created another template for early version not to waste efforts and improvement. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there any reason there are so few genres linked? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Other then there are few anime/manga specific genres? --Farix (Talk)
Heh, good reason. Still, what about ecchi and its darker ilk (and all their bastard relatives)? Cattus's navbox above has some other potential inclusion candidates, as well. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty much agreed that ecchi and hentai should be treated as Japanese terms and not as genres. You can check the discussion history at WT:MOS-AM for details. The same goes for bishōnen and bishōjo, which are more a character style. --Farix (Talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, works for me. Any other possibilities from List of anime genres? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sentai would be the only solid one on the list that isn't on the template yet. I'm kinda leery of magical girlfriend as a genre. Like bishōnen and bishōjo, it's more a character type. --Farix (Talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would you be opposed to a new "character type" group, then (again, Cattus's navbox has such)? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about them and really "character type" isn't a good fit either. These are simply terms used in various ways. But since we don't want to overload the template with a huge list of terms (and how do you determine which terms should be included and which should not?), it is probably better to leave them on the terminology/glossary page. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
All right, sounds fair to me. If we continue to develop {{Anime-manga}} (I really don't like that name FWIW), we can be a little more lenient with including links. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created a page for gei-comi at Bara (manga). Bara is similar to yaoi but is by gay men for gay men. Could someone please add this genre to the portal? And get it to work on the bara page? Thanks. --SykoSilver (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a sub-genre of yaoi, which is already linked, so there is no need to include a second link to the same genre. In fact, I have reservations since this appears to be a neologism. --Farix (Talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Things are not always as they appear, especially at a quick glance. Bara does not share yaoi's conventions, creators, publishers, or audience. They are both homoerotic but would you put apples in oranges because they're both fruity? Yaoi is shoujo/josei, bara is seinen. It is not the same genre as yaoi, nor a sub-genre of yaoi. The term "bara" in reference to gay men and media has been in use since the 1960's, longer than the term "yaoi" has been in use. --SykoSilver (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the genre list, it seems to be basically porn, porn, porn, magical girls, robots, porn and porn, which might match with Western perceptions of anime & manga (or the prefered reading material of Wikipedia editors) but does not in any way reflect an accurate summary of genres. To begin with, ecchi is Japanese for the letter "H", which stands for "Hentai", so you have two redundant categories there. "Yaoi" is a derogatory term for works with "no climax, no conclusion and no meaning"; the preferred term is "Boys Love", which could also include the "by-men-for-men" comics mentioned in the previous comment. Sports comics are one of the most significant genres, but remain curiously absent (hard to space what with all that porn, I know). Action comics not involving robots are absent, as are romances and romantic comedies not involving a harem (harem should be folded into "romantic comedy" or just "comedy"). Salaryman comics are a pretty significant genre, though that may be bumping up against the demographics labels. Horror is another obvious label being left out. "Drama" would include romances that are not comedic, and a host of series that are serious but not action (or one of five kinds of porn). I would recommend relabelling 'hentai' as "erotic", because this description both better reflects the vernacular (i.e. that's what they're called in Japan) and would be a more useful label for the casual reader not familiar with American fan terminology. In essence, this genre list looks like something cobbled together by American fans rather than anything approaching an actual reflection of genres of Japanese comics. A more accurate list would probably be: Action (including mecha), Sports, Drama, Comedy (possibly separated into Romantic Comedy and Parody), Erotic, Horror, Magical Girl, and Gay and Lesbian comics (or separate as Boys Love and Yuri - but again, it would be better to avoid fan language in the headings, and linking to a page discussing the various permutations of gay- and lesbian- (and trans-, etc.) themed manga and anime would be more useful than separately linking to two minor articles).Saifaa (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ecchi and hentai are not the same thing. Both are separate terms used in different ways, regardless of origin. Ecchi anime and hentai anime are different things. I'm not saying there isn't scope for changing the genre list but calling the two categories "redundant" is a bit of a leap. Relabelling them doesn't make much sense either, given that both terms have been in common usage in western "fandom" for the past 2 decades+. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand very well that in the context of non-Japanese fans, those terms are used to describe two different things. The problem is that they are terms largely constructed by foreign fans, neither of which actually indicates a "genre". The larger problem here, though, is one I think you inadvertently identified in your response, when you that "both terms have been in common usage in western "fandom" for the past 2 decades+." The crucial question here is whether these are articles about the culture of non-Japanese, largely Anglo-European fans and the manner in which they consume this media, or are these articles about these media as they exist in their country of origin - and given Wikipedia's mission statements, rules, etc., I would argue that that they are required to reflect the latter.Saifaa (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how it was created, but I think there were include only anime and manga exclusive genres (or those ones that first appeared in anime and manga, and later were widespread). I agree when you say that action, sports, drama, comedy, and horror are major genres in anime and manga, but probably they weren't included 'cause these genres are "general genres" since films, games, etc could be about them. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought of that too, but there are a couple problems with taking that position. First, if you take a look at high-selling manga for almost any demographic (from One Piece to Death Note and from Nana to Berserk) and ask what genre they were, they would not fit anywhere on that list. Second, there's a lot that could be said about, say, "sports manga" (broad definition, major works, target demographics, impact on popularity of different sports in Japan, popularity in BL community) that would be specific to "sports manga" rather than to "sports" or "sport fiction" in general. The same is true with the other items I listed - there might be both "action movies" and "action manga", but both have their own sets of conventions, major influences, history, etc. Third, imagine a hypothetical reader curious about manga but with no prior knowledge (let's say a mother whose son just told her he wants to start reading these Japanese comics) looking through that genre list to get a sense of what kind of manga are out there. Rather than painting an accurate picture of the manga landscape, this list describes a narrow subset of publications which serve to reinforce the idea that Japanese comics are nothing but porn and robots.Saifaa (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Terms verses Demographic groups and Genres[edit]

Looking at the others I can see it more in the characters but here is what I found from the following:

Found in the articles:

Magical girlfriend - "Characteristics of the genre" (Subsection) "A magical girlfriend is a female character often associated with romantic comedy anime series,[1] and is sometimes considered a genre of its own[2]" (First sentence).

Shotacon - "Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime"

lolicon - lolicon manga and lolicon themes do exist and would not fall under any of the other character or just be a Japanese term.

Things can be both terms and Demographic groups and Genres too you know. Just as the words Harem and Mecha are. Might I also add that to seperate the two a split was done between Shōnen and Shōnen Manga. Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the statements describing shotacon or lolicon as genres are supported by a reliable source. So I would leave them out until then. Demographic groups are based on age, gender, ethnicity, and other identifiable characteristics of the target audience. Bishōnen and bishōjo are clearly do not describe the target audience. Also hentai is a Japanese term that is loosely associated with pornography. Like bishōnen and bishōjo, pornography is not a target audience either nor is it a unique Japanese genre. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anime eye[edit]

I know the template is new, and is subject to change. But I was just wondering, why use that image of eye to represent anime and manga as a whole? To me, it's a very stereotypical representation. It annoys infuriates me every time I hear someone says animes are all about big eyes. They aren't. And that way of thinking is very shallow. In fact, many mangas and animes don't use the big eyes style at all. And great artists develop their own distinguish styles very different from the norms. So why adding into the stereotype further?

I suggest changing the eye to Wikipe-tan (head or full body, I don't care.) Yes, it may be changing from one stereotype to another (moe anthropomorphism / maid.) But at least it's not focusing anime as a whole on one single aspect. Besides, she's already WikiProject Anime and Manga mascot. It's better to be consistent. -- DTRY (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific image in mind? There's quite a few (and then some) to choose from. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Wikipe-tan has been grossly overused on Wikipedia, which is why I used a different image for the infobox. One has to admit that there is no "perfect" image. But since your complaint about the eye is that it is "stereotypical" and you want to replace it with another stereotypical image, I really don't see a gain. --Farix (Talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
One problem is that we really just don't have that many free-use anime/manga related images to choose from, and most of what we do have is either Wikipe-tan and co., or designed with one particular use in mind. It'd be great if we could get more people (actual mangaka, especially, would be incredibly awesome) drawing such images for us. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this infobox, I thought this series was an extension relating to "censorship", "surveillance" or "Big Brother". The eye is really misleading, especially since the last article I clicked from was regarding censorship, so you can imagine the surprise I got. There is nothing wrong with having Wikipe-tan on the infobox, since the general public would not really wander into these articles so often. If nobody else objects to it after a few days, I'll make the changes ok? - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind Wikipe-tan myself, but as I said above, we just don't have much other than her. =/ ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been a few weeks and there has been no changes yet. I do agree with the fact that big-eye is a bad stereotype and is confusing. Yet wiki-tan is not more helpful in my opinion, this means that it is time to use our brain a bit more. For a better world 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)ArielGenesis (talk)

There's a whole category of potential images to choose from. The pickings are not quite as slim as people think. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Having just gone through those categories, I must say I'm not not smitten with any of these images. Anime and manga is a broad subject area. We shouldn't misrepresent it by highlighting only one aspect. Instead of forcing ourselves to pick one of several bad options, let's wait until someone draws an image specifically for this template. For example, I could imagine a group shot of characters drawn in various styles to be a viable option. Goodraise 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree - nothing really strikes me. As I said above (well, I said the first two above...), everything seems to either be Wikipe-tan and co., or it's extremely limited-use, or it's too poorly drawn to really work in this template (or some combination of the three). We could make a request of User:Kasuga to draw something for us, but I'm not sure multiple characters in different styles would be viable, given the amount of space we're working with here. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
That's basically my thoughts: none of them really struck me as good replacements. I did notice there were an awful lot of moe images, though. ^_^ ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Bishoujo bildchen.jpeg
I will say I think the image to the right is a very good image. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Infuriates" is a pretty strong word, if you really feel that strongly against it, then maybe a break from wikipedia should be in order as it is just an icon. Personally I dont care much, if consensus wants to replace it with wiki-tan so be it, to me its just anime themed pixels. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image to the right[edit]

I was led to this page because I noticed the "anime eye" has been changed to the image at the right. Personally, I liked the anime eye and I didn't think it was enforcing anything negative at all. I think that this is what most people think of when they think of anime and manga. However, I also like the idea of having Wikipe-Tan as the image. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the image to the right is more "descriptive" than the "eye", and I think it is more indicative of the style that any of the Wiipe-tan images. From a design sense, the colors work better and don't blend in as they would with Wikipe-tan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2011[edit]

this is my editing request: i'll explain on the bottom of this list.

by the genre's: because there are so much more: SchoolLife, Drama, Hurt/comfort, Shounen-Ai, Shoujo-ai, Detective, Sci-fi, Action, Mystery, Adult, romance, psychological, adventure, comedy, doujinshi, Ecchi, Shotacon, Seinen, Gender Bender, Shojo, Shounen, Hentai, Slice of life, Historical, Smut, Horror, Josei, super natrual, martrial arts, tragedy, mecha, lolicon and mature.

sorry if i forgot a few, but i thought this should be edited, because otherwise it will create a image of manga always being gross, sexual orientated etc. wich is actually only a part of it. unfortunatly, the most common part in the western world. so. i hope one of you guys will edit this for me. I'm originally from japan, and one of my new school projects on a school in england was evaluate the image the westernworld had from manga and offcourse anime.

sincerely, Izumi Akihiko. (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that your request did not quite follow the "please change X to Y" format. In any case, I recommend this first be discussed with the editors at WT:ANIME to gain a broad consensus (I will add a note there). Kind regards, G.A.Stalk 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seinen, Josei, Shonen, Shojo are demographics not genres and already covered in the infobox.Lucia Black (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Harem should be removed. It is not a defined genre.Jinnai 05:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably, I've been having a time with that genre as most reliable sources tend to avoid it. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The list of genres focuses on those that are limited to anime and manga. That means that the broader genres—such science fiction, action, adventure, comedy, tragedy, erotica, and etc.—will not be included. Ecchi is not used as a genre and almost all reliable sources avoid using the term like the plague. But would fit under a vocabulary section along with hentai. Dōjinshi is not a genre, but a type of manga. Shōnen, Shōjo, Seinen, and Josei are all demographic groups instead of genres. Shōnen-ai (boy's love) and shōjo-ai (girl's love) are already covered under Yaoi and Yuri respectively. Mecha is already listed. And smut is not a genre (even by western standards). That only leaves shotacon and lolicon, and their status as genres are heavily disputed and generally not supported by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013[edit]

I have a recent photo (2010) of this manga artist and would like to add it to her profile page. Hidari10 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more spacific. I meant Rumiko Takahashi's page. Sorry.

Hidari10 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

then you should ask at Talk:Rumiko Takahashi, not here. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013[edit]

There is a part of one template that I wish to change. Please let me make that change; thank you. Batmanfan2013 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can edit semiprotected pages such as this one when your account becomes autoconfirmed. This will usually happen when your account is at least four days old with at least 10 edits. Or, you can make a specific request here for another editor to make the change (it should be in the form "please change X to Y"). RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

10 November 2012 edition[edit]

This inclusion was debated? And why Clamp, Satoshi Kon, Hideaki Anno, Yoshiko Nishitani, Toshio Masuda, Akira Toriyama, Fujiko Fujio, Isao Takahata, Kōji Morimoto, Masami Kurumada, Moto Hagio, Rakuten Kitazawa, Rintaro, Ryoichi Ikegami, Shinji Nagashima, Suzue Miuchi, Tatsuo Yoshida, and Toshio Suzuki (top- and high-importance articles) aren't included (in the stable version)? Shōji Kawamori and Kōichi Mashimo shouldn't be removed since both of them are mid-importance articles? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


Do you think we should add Bara (genre) to the genre section of this template or not? ISD (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Genre header[edit]

It seems very misleading to someone not familiar with anime and manga that what's listed in genres "Ecchi Harem Hentai Magical girl Mecha Yaoi Yuri", which majority has a negative connotation. Outsiders would have a bad impression. Perhaps rename the header from 'Genres' to 'Specific genres' or 'Unique genres'. ⊾maine12329⊿ talkswiki 02:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaitō (thief)[edit]

Please add Kaitō (thief) to genre. -- (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapse Major figures..[edit]

the major figures section of the template is absolutely huge, does it really need to be that big? - Cilibinarii (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

agree, this should be a link to a list article or a category, otherwise it's just going to get larger over time. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Make this template and its subsections collapsible, problem solved... -- (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We should go through major figures and check their importance rating, some of these don't seem to qualify for top/high importance on the project's importance scale. This will cut down on the huge section therefore we won't have to make it collapsible. Additionally, maybe we should also consider the quality of the article too, as some are stub class. Xfansd (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely needs some trimming, or maybe move it to separate template of "Key Anime/Manga Biographies". Not to be confused with Key (company), heh.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the trimming. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014[edit]

Request to add Ken Akamatsu, Kiyohiko Azuma and Kentaro Miura to Anime and manga template, as they created works that were considered to be highly popular and influential in the field. (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than add more, we should consider removing some of the names already on the list. It's way too long and has lost focus leading to readability issues. There needs to be a focus on people who have a succession of important works, not just one or even two. Then we can look at figures with smaller bodies of work. Kiyohiko Azuma would be a good example, he has created two fairly popular works, but his status isn't so large that he is "a major figure" in the same league as those with 30 years experience. Kemntaro Miura has created one major hit, but thats about it. The list should contain major figures, not everyone that publishes one or two works that simply happen to be well known in the west. The list also needs separating into Manga authors/artists and Anime people. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Originally, only the biographies with Top-importance ratings from WP:A&M were listed in the template. I'm not sure on what bases the others were added (and they probably should be removed). Of the three proposed, the highest importance rating on any of them is mid-importance. —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to expand further, when the Selected Biographies section was first populated, we included top and high-importance biographies because there weren't very many biographies assessed at those levels at the time. The biographies listed should be of those individual who had huge influences on the mediums and not simply because they created popular works. But apparently, it is including every manga artist who has become commercially successful. I am going to go through the list and remove all biographies that are not already rated as top or high-importance. Since we now have so many top-importance rated biographies, we may want to limit the criteria to just them. —Farix (t | c) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 14:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)