Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Anime and manga(Rated Project-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page 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.
 Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

Proposal: MoS changes[edit]

Proposing the following text in the "Media" section:

Proposed wording
For shows that are broadcast on or after midnight, use the actual airdate instead of the advertised media date. For example, an episode advertised for April 2, 2015 at 24:30 or 深夜00:30 has an actual airdate of April 3, 2015 at 12:30am, so use "April 3, 2015". Add a footnote if the cited references cannot sufficiently explain the situation.

The last sentence is to cover any uncommon instances such as when a show delays its start time across the midnight hour (sunday 23:59 one week, monday 00:01 the next) that would make the reader think the show is deviating from its weekly schedule when it really isn't. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good but add "For shows that are broadcast on or after midnight in their country of origin, use the actual airdate instead of the advertised media date." also doesn't 24 hour time stop at 23:59? Okay I have read up, turns out 24:00 - 24:59 is not commonly used in the world but still can apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
My proposed wording: For shows that are broadcast on or after midnight in their country of origin, use the actual airdate instead of the advertised media date. For example, an episode advertised for April 2, 2015 at 24:30 or 深夜00:30 has an actual airdate of April 3, 2015 at 12:30am, so use "April 3, 2015". Add a footnote if the cited references cannot sufficiently explain the situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with adding "country of origin". I would then tweak the link to 24 hour time to 24-hour_clock#Times_after_24:00 I don't want to deal with 12-hour_clock#Confusion_at_noon_and_midnight (12 a.m. is noon in Japan? Yikes!) If the example time should be something more obvious like 25:30 then that would work too. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The tweak works, yes link it to the Times after 24:00 section as it is seldom used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposed wording 2
For shows that are broadcast on or after midnight in their country of origin, use the actual airdate instead of the advertised media date. For example, an episode advertised for April 2, 2015 at "24:30" or "深夜00:30" has an actual airdate of April 3, 2015 at 12:30am, so use "April 3, 2015". Add a footnote if the cited references cannot sufficiently explain the situation.

Tweaked the wording with quotes for 24:30 and the link as mentioned. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems good. Support. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done I've added Proposed Wording 2 to the Media section. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Layout for a character's article[edit]

This section is a bit dated, seeing that we have a layout that works well for WP:GA articles why not go with that? I have created an essay called Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Characters that shows this layout. Articles that use it include: Allen Walker, Akane Tsunemori, Alphonse Elric, Chi (Chobits), and Edward Elric to name a few. The "Appearances" and "Creation/concept" sections are sometimes switched but it is basically the same layout other than that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(TV series) as disambiguation and in place of List of episodes[edit]

Please see Talk:List_of_Attack_on_Titan_episodes#Requested_move_19_June_2017 for discussion on whether TV series should be used instead of (anime) for disambiguation and also whether anime TV series articles should be created instead of just lists of episodes. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

An arts-and-media MoS proposal[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS, it's been suggested to merge that WP:PROJPAGE into MoS, as one of the last remaining genre/medium-specific style guide kinds of pages that isn't in MoS, especially since someone's already put a guideline tag on it, and given it a misleading MOS:VG shortcut.

Strangely, several people from the WP:VG wikiproject have shown up to make what appear to be WP:OWN-based arguments against the idea. I hope that people from other media and arts projects, all of which have MoS pages (largely authored and maintained by people from those projects, but without a claim of absolute control by them) can participate in this discussion and assuage the unreasonable fears of people in that particular project. Promotion of topical style advice pages into MoS has not proven any kind of problem for WP:VISUALARTS, WP:ARTS, WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:COMICS, WP:ANIME, WP:NOVELS, WP:MUSIC, etc. Meanwhile, the continued fragmentation of such a page to an "un-MoS" page (while simultaneously claiming to be an MoS page, somehow), is misleading and a recipe for conflict.

Or, if you think there's is some kind of problem, feel free to give the opposite opinion. I'm not telling anyone how they should !vote. I'm pointing out that that all the arts-and-media projects and arts-and-media MoS pages share a common sort of history, as well as the same practicality of their advice being included in MoS or shunted to a wikiproject backwater where no one is apt to take "guideline" claims seriously; it's the same across all these projects and pages. So is the increased level to which they agree instead of conflict, by virtue of MoS maintainers ironing out WP:POLICYFORKs between them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Heading issues[edit]

An IP has been grouping the headers in the page layout. However, Knowledgekid87 and I disagree with it ([1], [2]) and the IP's changes weren't made without proper discussion on talk. Per WP:BRD, I'm taking it up to the talk page to get a consensus and see what can be done about the page layouts through a proper consensus. I think the headers should stay the same. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sjones23: What exactly is your objection? What is beneficial about having a "Page layout" section separate from "Page Layout for…" sections, and not using sentence case for the latter, or having multiple sections with duplicate titles (and the wikilinking problems that come with that)? How were the proposed solutions worse? —67.14.236.50 (talk) (editing from public network 151.132.206.26 (talk)) 19:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been a little busy with other things. The headers with regards to the page layout has remained unchanged until now, but unfortunately, it hasn't been properly discussed and more than one editor has challenged it. I thought such matters were to be done by consensus and not revert it over and over. If there's a consensus to keep the headers, they will stay. If there's a consensus to merge them, it will be merged. There's no hurry, but maybe we can ask around at WT:ANIME? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, if no one has any actual objections to the changes, we have consensus. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I objected to your changes because you made them to a long-standing page without proper consensus from other users. I'm currently asking around to see what can be done and am starting an RfC on it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

────────── @Sjones23: If you have no objections to the non-layout changes to the two identically named “Lead,” “Infobox,” and (I now notice) “Reception” headings, or to removing the nonstandard capitalization of “Page Layout,” could we implement at least those changes for the time being? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Headings?[edit]

Should we nest the “Page layout for a … article” sections under the “Page layout” section? Like so: [3]. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Original description:

Should we merge the headings in the article or keep them? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think very specific suggestions for changes should be made and then discussed. Consensus is not arrived at because "no one has any actual objections to the changes". It is arrived at by discussion and general agreement arrived at through that discussion. That said, I can see merit in grouping the section of this MOS page by what they apply to. It may also be good to add a section for episode list articles so it can be more easily found. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    I suggest these changes to fix multiple issues with the headings. No one else has proposed any alternatives, and no one has given any reason against these edits. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Nihonjoe: Per WP:Consensus: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. So, yes, "no one has any actual objections to the changes" is perfectly valid. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    That's only if you have an actual discussion. If you make changes and no one notices them, and therefore no one reverts them, that' can't be considered consensus. It just means no one was aware of the changes. You've never even started a discussion about what you wanted to do, and at least one editor objected to your changes once there was a discussion, so there is obviously no consensus for what you propose. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Nihonjoe: I had started a discussion on each of the reverters’ talk pages immediately after reversion; I believe one of my edit summaries indicated this, and I also recently mentioned it on your own talk page. Neither editor seemed interested in discussion at the time, despite indiscriminately reverting my edits. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there’s any requirement to discuss copy-editing ahead of time. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not ahead of time, no, but once someone has reverted your edits, you should immediately stop your editing and open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. You should also ping any editors who seem to be interested so they notice the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    I didn’t realize that starting a discussion on the reverting editor’s talk page was not an acceptable alternative. My apologies. Policy was unclear on that matter. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was reverted under WP:BRD in a manner that violates BRD:

    Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.

    And this RFC only addresses one of three issues my edit dealt with, making no mention of the two pairs of duplicate titles or nonstandard capitalization. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I get why renaming some parts but what's with the "=" changes?Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tintor2: The section titled “Page layout” is about page layout for anime and manga articles. The two sections following that one are also about that, and it actually introduces those sections as if they were subsections. It just makes more semantic sense if they are. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If the markup under discussion is ==Page Layout for a series article== and similar, those are headings, not headers. Headers are things like the {{style-guideline}} box at the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • My recommendation is to remove page layout and retain heading levels for the other two. Page layout just has generic advice that can be integrated into the series article part. The headings should then be redone in sentence case. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support: This actually seems like a better solution than mine. It’s cleaner. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Can we implement this now? And/or the other copyedit changes? It really looks unprofessional as is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
      • As discussion has died down and no one has made any objections thus far, I’ve merged the “Page layout” section as the opening to the “… series article” section. No hard feelings if anyone does object, but please revert judiciously. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate headings[edit]

We have “page layout” sections for two different types of articles. Both types of articles have a lead, an infobox, and a reception section. What is the best way to name the subsections here while avoiding duplication? I prefixed the character article sections with the word “character” for now, but that hardly seems ideal. Anyone have any better ideas? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguators[edit]

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

A recent edit prompted me to search the archives, and I found this: #Article names and disambiguation. I haven’t gone through it yet, but it’s a fair question, why we use “(anime)” instead of “(TV series)” or “(film)”. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's actually already established to use (film) for anime films; In This Corner of the World (film), Paprika (2006 film), Howl's Moving Castle (film), etc. When this project was established, (anime) was meant to be used for anime series, and (TV series) was meant to be used for live-action series, like Hana Yori Dango (TV series) or Jin (TV series). However, (anime) can also be used in cases where its not a TV series, as with Yukikaze (anime) or Battle Arena Toshinden (anime), which removes the need to have an additional (OVA) disambiguator, which is already problematic because by all rights it would be (original video animation) or (original video animation series) because OVA is an obscure acronym only well-known in the animanga community. By the same token, we don't need (ONA) or (OAD) disambiguators, either. So I believe (anime) should still be used as a catch-all for anime TV series, OVAs, ONAs and OAD series for simplicity.-- 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I’m not sure what the widely recognizable alternative to OVA would be, other than anime. It does seem cleaner to just use that for everything. But then there are works in the anime style that weren’t made in Japan, and there are Japanese animated series in non-anime styles… —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"Direct-to-video" is the equivalent of OVA although that would be a burdensome disambiguator with the same kind of issues. Many anime shows have OVAs or related OADs that are part of the same article. Also most anime shows these days are broadcast in their primary media (Japanese television) but in worldwide distribution they are placed in video-on-demand streaming services soon afterwards. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, why not use “TV series” for OVAs? Ozark for example has never aired on television, but we classify it as a TV series. Of course, it’s possible the Ozark article has it wrong; but if we do use “TV series” for streaming shows, why not for direct-to-video releases? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For anime OVAs they're closer to direct-to-videos, television specials, or films, as they are a once in a while video release, like The Land Before Time. Also the anime OVAs could serve as television pilot episodes, or post-series television specials. They are usually accompanied by a television series if demanded. Tenchi Muyo is a good example.of something that started with OVAs, then got multiple TV series, films, then more OVAs. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to debate whether web series should be considered television series, you can check over at WP:TELEVISION. There's also the blurry line of whether television movies should be television or movie? Or whether interactive presentations should be considered a film or a video game. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I don’t want to debate that; I was just going off the fact that we seem to consider them to be. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So they might be one-off features. Right, forgot about that. But do we have any DABed articles about one-off OVAs? Or any dedicated OVA articles alongside a same-named series? In other words, would this problem currently be a problem? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If an anime aired as a television series, it should conform to WP:NCTV and use (TV series) or any additional disambig as listed there (year, country, etc.). For direct-to-video/dvd releases, if the anime is a single unit (not episodic), it should use (film) just as other direct-to-video films do, even if its a continuation or prequel to a series. There are some other corner cases, like web series, which have no particular naming convention as of yet, but TV series and films are pretty clear-cut in my opinion and should follow existing conventions. We don't have to answer every contingency to start moving on the clear cases. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I strongly agree with your position, but I don’t think we quite have consensus for the edit yet. I’d self-revert for now until we get a bit more discussion on it. We do seem to have consensus on the naming of anime films (they’re films), but less so on the rest. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue of anime TV series has been brought up on this talk page before. A Wikiproject cannot override a wider naming convention without very broad demonstration of consensus from outside that Wikiproject. If that were not the case, then any wikiproject could create their own fiefdom and there would be no point in having broad guidelines. TV series and direct-to-video films have broad, project wide consensus to follow WP:NCTV/WP:NCFILM. -- Netoholic @ 06:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
But… but the… yeah, you’re right. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not change the existing guidelines on this page to match other existing guidelines unless a proper consensus is actually established first. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. What works for WP:NCTV does not necessarily mean it must work for every project out there. A set of guidelines for a project are decided by consensus by that project, and trying to supersede that consensus is not going to enact long-lasting change of any kind.-- 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a WP:BOLD. Rather than discuss whether there is consensus, why not instead add to this discussion and provide a rational agreeing or disagreeing with the edit. A revert isn't a statement in itself. This is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and now is the point in time for you to discuss. -- Netoholic @ 07:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I’ll just point out that: BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.
But I’ll also point out that I don’t think User:Juhachi’s comment helps us toward consensus. If you don’t think NCTV should apply to TV series if they’re from Japan and animated… why? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
My main objection is that this is being done unilaterally, under the supposition that WP:NCTV is a "wider naming convention" that somehow eclipses established practices and consensus in this project dating back to its inception. WP:NCTV describes conventions established by WP:TV that applies to articles. In no way do I believe that guideline X can be used to describe how guideline Y should be written if there is a reason to deviate from guideline X.
The reason why (anime) should be acceptable as a disambig is the same reason why we use (manga) and not (graphic novel) or (comics) that are the conventions for disambigs outlined by WP:NCCDAB. Anime and manga are distinct media forms, and are also specific enough that they cannot be misconstrued as anything else. If we're not going to allow WP:NCCDAB to dictate how we disambig articles on manga, then I see no reason to use WP:NCTV to dictate how we disambig articles on anime.-- 08:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That is also a good argument. I still think we should call anime TV series “TV series,” but I also think we should call Japanese graphic novels “manga.” I don’t really have an adequate reasoning for this, except that manga is structurally different from Western comics and GNs, while anime TV series work just like any other animated TV series, and we don’t do anything special for non-anime animation if “TV series” is available. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a strong tendency in this discussion so far to bring up edge cases (OVA/OAD, manga) as part of the objections to handling the clear cases that can be handled with the wider guidelines (series that aired on TV, and films). I don't feel that is very helpful to the process. -- Netoholic @ 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a horrible argument. A manga is a comic book and an anime is a TV show. Doing something wrong in place A is no justification for doing it wrong in place B. --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Netoholic here. WP:NCTV is the overriding guideline and we shouldn't be making an exception for a TV series because of genre/country of origin. --woodensuperman 15:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Or we could just WP:IAR here and accept the fact that in this case changing things isn't the right answer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
But it is the right answer. WP:CONSISTENCY with other TV series is paramount. --woodensuperman 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
One can argue though that changing the naming would show WP:BIAS, and not be a WP:NPOV. An OVA is not a true "film", and an anime may or may not be a short film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems a lot of OVAs don't even follow this guideline, as many are disambiguated with "(OVA)". However, I think Netoholic's version left "direct-to-video" anime as "(anime)" (for now). --woodensuperman 16:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Some of the older OVA are known as OAV as well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
How would it be “biased” if we already refer to (non-anime) direct-to-video films as “films,” or episodic streaming shows as “TV series”? Is it not more biased to treat all (even most) anime as if it’s some fundamentally different thing from similar media? We don’t normally distinguish between animation and live-action, or between scripted series and reality shows, etc., except to disambiguate between them. Treating anime just like anything else would show an absence of bias, I should think. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Should an MOS page be pretending to be an NC page? We have WP:NCTV. We have WP:NCFILM. We have no WP:NCANIME. Shouldn’t we remedy that before describing anime-related naming conventions in a guideline? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OVA/OAV[edit]

Trying to break the discussion into more manageable chunks for discussion. Here let's discuss handling of the direct-to-video animation series. I can't find any using (OAD) or (ONA), so that's a moot point, but there are currently a lot of articles using (OVA) and a few using (OAV) when neither is supported by even the current MOS:ANIME. We need to find some resolution to them.

In my opinion, any series released exclusively on home media formats like VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, etc. should also be considered to fall under WP:NCTV and use (TV series). Home media is (particularly in the past, exclusively) meant for view on home televisions. If the OVA/OAV is not episodic, then it falls under WP:NCFILM and use (film). -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s also possible that those articles more accurately reflect consensus than this page. But if that’s the case, I disagree with that consensus and strongly support deferring to the existing NC pages, in general. If there was a strong enough consensus for alternate naming conventions, I expect we would have a page like WP:NCANIME. We don’t, and it appears we never have, from a quick deletion-log search. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that OVAs that didn't even air on TV should be disambiguated as (TV series)? How does that even make sense? "Home media is meant for view on home televisions" is pretty ridiculous in this day and age when more and more people are watching media on their computers/tablets/phones. And you're also suggesting that a single OVA that is not classified as a film by reliable sources should be disambiguated as (film)? How does that even make sense? If that's not instruction creep, I don't know what is. There is nothing wrong with using (anime) in both cases when that is what reliable sources classify an OVA as.-- 01:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Same way it makes sense for shows like Netflix Originals to be disambiguated as (TV series). It doesn’t have to make literal sense; language changes over time, and words get divorced from their origins. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
So now Wikipedia gets to decide what is and what is not a TV series regardless of reliable sources? I had no idea WP:NOR became a defunct policy in 2018.-- 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
In situations where it really doesn’t make sense to use it, we can make reasonable exceptions, as ever. Did you have any examples in mind? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, we are not in the business on listing examples of what is or what isn't a TV series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:ATDAB should apply. If "OVA" is part of the title of the feature, that can be used to help refine the disambiguation. What would be the English equivalent? (video series)? (video)? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, if OVA or something else is part of its name, WP:NATURALDIS can be used. The English equivalent would be "direct-to-video series", but even that isn't used in either TV or Film naming conventions. -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────── (edit conflict) Examples can be enormously helpful in illustrating discussions, is why I asked. If it doesn’t apply to anything, why debate it? But here’s one: Read or Die (manga), Read or Die (OVA), and R.O.D the TV (anime TV series). Now, I have seen the OVA on television, aired as a single feature; does that mean it’s a TV series? A film? A TV movie? If a distinguishing feature of an OVA is that it “didn’t even air on TV,” what about the ones that do?

This one would be inappropriate to disambiguate as Read or Die (TV series) regardless, because that would be the 26-episode R.O.D the TV. So, Netoholic, would you change this OVA’s dab? I’m not sure if there’s a better one in this case. Also, would you consider two- or three-part OVAs to be TV series? I’d be more inclined to call them miniseries (which would be more meaningful to general audiences than OVA). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is also WP:COMMONNAME to consider as well. If the majority of English sources are calling x an OVA then that is the one we should go with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"Read or Die (2001 anime)" would make the most sense to me, if (OVA) was indeed going to be phased out.-- 03:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
(OVA) should be phased out, both because it is unclear to average readers (calling it OVA is more like a technical jargon of this fandom) and because we have naming conventions to cover this. (anime) is a genre, which is something none of the major media naming conventions ever use. We don't use (cartoon), so we don't use (anime). -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
R.O.D the TV is a unique name, no disambig necessary, so discussion is moot. Read or Die (OVA) has -zero- reliable sources given in the article. Discussion may be moot as maybe that should be AFD'd as being completely unsourced. Now, assuming it is as described, three episodes totaling 90 minutes released on home television media format only, it would be appropriate to call it Read or Die (TV series). Adding hatnotes to that and R.O.D the TV pointing to each other would help clarify to anyone who navigated incorrectly. It can absolutely still be called an OVA in the article text. We're discussing article naming here. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
And you'd just completely disregard the fact that the Read or Die OVA series has never, and will never, be called a "TV series" by reliable sources? Why would Wikipedia be in the business of declaring something like this a TV series when there is no evidence to support that it's classified as such outside Wikipedia?-- 03:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Another option for the OVA might be Read or Die (film). This has precedent, as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (film) has two parts, released direct-to-video, and we still use (film). Unfortunately its hard to make a determination here as, like I said, there are no reliable sources given. How can you say its "never" been called a TV series in reliable sources, if there are NONE given? -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
There are actually several links in the external links: Aniplex USA call it an "OVA series", an old Animerica review calls it an "OAV series", and Anime News Network also calls it an "OVA series". In contrast, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is actually called a movie in one review, but no where in those three ROD links provided is this OVA series called a "movie" or a "film".-- 04:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Television series[edit]

(Since home video releases are being discussed in the above section, please keep this one related only to those shows which originated on television.)

For anime which air on television as a series, those should use the WP:NCTV disambiguator (TV series), and be additionally disambiguated using year/country as described on that page per WP:CONSISTENT. I intend to add the following bullet point the MOS: * Anime television series article – title (TV series). -- Netoholic @ 04:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If the proposal to move Pokémon (anime) to Pokémon (TV series) ended in a non-consensus, that doesn't exactly bode well for your argument. If there isn't consensus to move that article, then I don't see there being consensus to move any of them. Although I'm certainly interested on seeing how Talk:Bleach (anime)#Requested move 25 January 2018 will turn out.-- 07:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a catch-22 : RMs (like that Bleach one) won't go for renames when the MOS is as it is... and now you're saying we can't change the MOS because RMs aren't going for it. If I need to, we'll take this to WP:VPPOLICY, but how about instead we actually discuss why this genre of televisions series is deserving of being an exception to WP:NCTV when WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says it shouldn't be. BTW the Pokemon move was non-consensus because it includes a lot of extraneous animations not part of the TV series. I've already started the page split discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 08:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I kinda feel a "local consensus" argument is a little disingenuous when WP:NCTV itself recommends using such "genres" as (miniseries), (talk show) and (game show) where appropriate, despite the fact that all of those things are technically TV series, too. I really fail to see how (anime) is any different from those when anime has a clear definition and is a distinct media type totally unlike all other media types of its genre. For instance, there may be a lot of different cartoons around the world with different styles, but anime is something exclusive to Japan and therefore has a very specific style it adheres to. Again, I feel this is the exact same reason why we use (manga) and not (Japanese comics) or (Japanese graphic novel), because manga is a clearly defined media type, similar to how (manhwa) is used on articles like Moon Boy (manhwa) or (manhua) for articles like Three Kingdoms (manhua).-- 08:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Miniseries is not a genre, its a format. Its the mechanism used to convey the story. Game shows/talk shows are non-series TV program formats (there is no continuing narrative in those). Even if you were to make that argument, we'd still standardize all animated shows together as something like (animation) or (animated TV series) - anime is a genre... more specifically a stylistic and regional sub-genre of animation. Anything this sort of discussion happens, a fanbase tries to insist there is something "clearly" special about their particular interest, and when discussion is brought to the wider community, that assertion is rejected in favor of consistency across the project. -- Netoholic @ 09:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want a consensus then take it to WP:VPP. There are valid reasons why we don't follow WP:NCTV 100%. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say that if “miniseries” is a format rather than a genre, then so is “anime.” There are comedies, dramas, superheroes, etc.—different genres represented in anime. Depending who you ask, the word denotes either the work’s country of origin as Japan or the visual style associated with it. Either way, it’s not a genre in and of itself: British documentaries or Swedish dramas are not distinct genres, nor is “animated series.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Full agreement. Either that, or create WP:NCANIME, because an MOS page should not override naming-conventions pages. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@67.14.236.50: MOS pages and naming convention pages such as WP:NCTV are both guidelines, and therefore carry the same weight. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said if you want a community consensus then there are other venues. This change is a major one as it would effect the titles of dozens of articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: We have community consensus. It’s called WP:NCTV. But if there is substantial disagreement here over whether that should be respected, I agree with taking it to a wider venue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
That isn't community consensus, that is consensus within Wikiproject television (if you look at the top of the talk-page it is under their scope). If you want Wikipedia wide consensus then you have to take it to the WP:PUMP. I would just let it go as it appears that nobody wants to get dragged down into this with all the articles that need improving out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, WP:VPP just closed a discussion about the use of genre/format disambiguators in general. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion was about "telenovela" not "anime" which isn't a genre. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If you read beyond the heading, it was about whether or not we should disambiguate by genre and format in general. Consensus was against it. See also WT:NCTV’s discussion of it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Again I will repeat... Anime is NOT a genre. The term includes series, films, and OVAs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────── I said “genre and format.” Please read the comments in that community-wide discussion. The use of (anime) is specifically brought up as an example of what we should avoid. If you believe there would be sufficient support for using it, go ahead and propose a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (anime); otherwise, please respect the consensus determined at the venue that you yourself requested. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anime is made up of multiple formats, and as Angus stated above multiple series under the same franchise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Why not just use "Anime television series"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
For the reasons given in that VPP discussion. Why not say “animated” instead of “anime”? Why say anything at all if we can get away with not? There are series for which following established NCs is impossible or just impractical, but those are far from the norm and should be considered on a case-by-case basis (again, see that RFC). Guidelines are for the norm. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You have to take WP:COMMONNAME into account. More people know Bleach (for example) as an anime rather than just a television series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand your argument. You think readers familiar with Bleach would be confused if we called it a TV series? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The policy reads per WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A problem I see with going by (year TV series) is that the anime articles often represent multiple series under the same franchise. They could be considered seasons but with different names, but then sometimes the series have their own seasons within, or parts called "cours", and it gets very messy. You would then have to create a number of redirects for every year where they do a rename, whereas using (anime) would cover all these. And then what to do with the List of episodes? Do you have (year1 TV series) go to (season 1) or to the (anime) page? And if they threw in a live-action drama in the same year, would you then have to consider (year animated TV series) and (year drama TV series)? Regardless, you're going to end up having to keep (anime) redirects anyway, and those would be more useful to show in the disambiguation pages. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think I get where you’re coming from. With multiple articles, how would “year anime” be any clearer than “year TV series”? With a single overview article about a franchise, why would you use a different word from “franchise”? This is why we have naming convention pages. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Because you don't seem to understand that anime is made up of more than just television series. It makes more sense to have the Film/OVA, and TV series info in the same article for small series articles that meet WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
We always discuss associated media (adaptations, spinoffs, movies, comics, etc.) in the main article. That isn’t unique to anime. And we don’t rename the article to accomodate the extra media types. That rationale, for some ineffable reason, is unique to anime. Again, what’s wrong with “franchise”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough. I’m starting a VPP discussion to settle this, because the VPP discussion that just ended and condemned “(anime)” apparently wasn’t clear enough. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free.... I will respect a full consensus on the matter. Just make sure to notify WP:JAPAN, WP:A&M, and WP:TV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You may notify whomever you wish. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Usually when someone makes a major discussion they notify the appropriate Wikiprojects that are involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:VPP#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Projects notified, now we wait for the outcome. I have pledged to respect the outcome as should you whatever it may be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

a question, as asked.[edit]

Over by Kakegurui when applying the template. (example A) I see an edit screen as used like example B. Then as advised from here.

example A;

:{{voiced by|[[Actor A]]|[[Actor B]]}}

example B;

:{{Voiced by|[[Actor A]]}} (Japanese); [[Actor B]] (English)

then at example B isn't that redundant? when {{voiced by|[[Actor A]]|[[Actor B]]}} the template will automatically insert the spoken language there. Unblue box (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Example B isn't taking advantage of the template. I've fixed those entries in the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it's that when usually if some shows had told new casts, for a while I've been seeing the edit screen like example b, other than at Kakegurui. While in any process as number of shows has added the cast/ characters. I didn't see similar edits like that. When it was the fall season. (october to december) Unblue box (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Unblue box: I’m not entirely sure what the question is, but, quite simply: Example B is doing it wrong. Go ahead and fix it (or ask for help fixing it) when you find it like that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I first asked this at the 'wiki help category' then it led to asking the 'help desk'. Then to here, but at the time was there a uptick in edits? And one character had example b, where as out of maybe seven other characters had used example a. But that can be in one page/ article, and later on, who knows if there was more.
Also I'm not that 'keen' on that. Because to a new job shift, etc. (Well being a little busy, from part-time to full time.) Unblue box (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RFC closure with regards to use of (anime) for TV series[edit]

An RFC was held at WP:VPP with regards to whether (anime) was a suitable disambiguator. The full discussion and closing statement can be viewed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?. As a result, no change to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) guideline is in order, and any television series of the anime genre is eligible to be moved to titles using (TV series). This change should be incorporated into MOS:ANIME#Article names and disambiguation.

My suggestion is that for any series (i.e. those that clearly aired on television in first run) can probably be moved uncontroversially - with redirects left in place. Some anime series were released direct-to-video, and may need formal WP:RM discussions to determine if they are "(TV series)" or "(film)". I would also suggest full RM discussions for any series with a name that conflicts with another TV series and needs WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 12:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well this outcome is just going to effect big name franchise anime such as Pokémon, so it shouldn't be that big of an impact. Most articles combine all of the franchise into one article as to pass notability requirements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Instructions for lead section for works adapted into multiple forms of media[edit]

As I mentioned in my edit summaries, I still disagree with the instructions that the lead section should always introduce the original work first when a title has been adapted into multiple media. That section was last discussed a few years ago (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles/Archive_7#Proposed_change_to_guideline_for_lead_sections_of_series_articles), which resulted in no consensus on that section. I personally think the lead section should introduce the most notable work or media first, even if that is not the original portion of the franchise. This should be judged by coverage in reliable sources. If the series has multiple works that seem equally notable, I think the original work should be mentioned first, but other works in the franchise should also be mentioned in the lead. I believe this would be more in line with the instructions in MOS:LEAD, which says "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences" and "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence". I propose rewording that section as follows:

Articles about series which have been adapted into other media should introduce the most notable portion of the franchise first, as judged by coverage in reliable sources. All portions of a franchise that contribute significantly to the series notability should be mentioned in the lead. If an original work and an adaptation are equally notable, the original work should be introduced first. For example: "Bleach is a manga series which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series based on a manga of the same name."

I think this alternate wording would still prevent people from just listing the part of the franchise they like best or think is most popular, while also being in line with WP:LEAD. As an example of a case where I think an adaptation is significantly more notable than the original work, see Whisper of the Heart. That article currently ignores our instructions, and introduces the adaptation first. I believe that is the correct way to introduce such a work, and we should make it clear that is correct in our instructions. Calathan (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018. This is a requested move looking to establish a consensus on how to name "OVA" series-type anime titles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Case Closed -> Detective Conan again[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Case Closed which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)