Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga:


Anime films and production company parameter in the film infobox[edit]

I asked this first in the talk page of WikiProject Film, but I want to ask it here too, because I think this is relevant and may help to come to a conclusion:

There was a long discussion about the name of the 'studio' parameter (studio or production company) back in 2014 that resulted in a name change. Now I have a related question: Which companies exactly are we going to mention in the infobox of film articles? Especially animated films?
My main concern here are Japanese animated films. In almost all cases there is a アニメーション制作 (animation production) or 制作 (production) in the credits of these films which lists the animation studio who made the film. In many cases there is also a 製作 (production [financing]) in the credits which mentions a production committee and also specifically lists all the companies who financed the film. The common practice in English Wikipedia until now was to only mention the animation studio in the infobox, like all Studio Ghibli films, Ghost in the Shell, Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, or Steamboy. Now that the parameter name has changed from studio to production company, some users feel they should add all the companies that finance these animated films to the infobox, like here. The problem is that the list of companies that are credited under 製作 is generally long. A film like Steamboy has 9 companies listed under 製作, or a film like The Wind Rises has 8 different companies under this credit. This would make anime film infoboxes bloated and result in a long list of companies after the 'production company' parameter. The other problem is that if we decide to list all these companies, how do we differentiate them. A simple list in the infobox doesn't show the reader which company animated the film and which company financed it.
In Japanese Wikipedia they have two different parameters in their film infobox, a 制作会社 parameter for animation studios (or in live action cases companies that make the film) and a 製作会社 parameter for companies that finance the film. They also generally don't list the individual financing companies in the infobox, especially when their list is large. Instead they simply mention the name of the production committe that represents these companies. A production committee is a special entity created by a group of different companies partnering for a specific film project to finance and manage the copyrights of said film and is very common in Japanese film industry. I try to explain this further with The Eternal Zero: In Japanese Wikipedia you will see that in the infobox, the parameter 制作会社 lists 'ROBOT' as the single production company that made the film and the parameter 製作会社 lists '「永遠の0」製作委員会' as the single production entity that financed the film. 「永遠の0」製作委員会 (“The Eternal Zero” Production Committee in English) is the name of the production committee of this film, and it actually represents 19 different companies.
The vague definition of the 'studio' parameter here in English Wikipedia has resulted in a confusing situation. Should we mention financing companies of (Japanese) animated films? Should we ignore them in the infobox? Are they needed at all? If yes, how do we show the reader which company actually animated the film? Make it clear in parentheses? Is mentioning the production committee instead a list of financing companies (like in Japanese Wikipedia) sufficient? Is it needed at all? If there is no need to mention the financing companies, isn't it better to clarify it in the template's documentation? It would be very appreciated if we could come to some kind of consensus regarding this matter. --Raamin (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's several differences when we compare American and Japanese films. I'd opt for only the animation company, per Raamin. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of manga[edit]

Okay so we have the following:

The problem I see is by whom (WP:OR) are these labeled as hentai and romance anime? Do we need these lists or would they be fine as categories? @ChrisGualtieri: I would be interested in hearing your position as you created the hentai list the other is by a user who is no longer active. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists and categories are not problems, though categories become useless as they grow and lists retain their strength. A category of Pokemon is a pain to browse versus the existing lists. Though this applies to more practical subjects like the Victory Ships as well. I have never been big into the niche topic, zee irony is overwhelming, but I find my interest in correcting mistakes is directly proportional to the prevalence of myths. Do as you please, the list is hardly representative and I'd break Wikipedia with sources from just those clearly listed and defined in Clements & McCarthy. Though we aren't talking a shot of boob on Titanic (1997 film) for placement the H-works. Each of the ones I was intending to list could have full standalone pages if someone decided to do a little work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean when it comes to large lists, If I were to start with List of romance manga I would remove all of the un-sourced entries and place the content into a table format. As for List of hentai manga I will see what I can do regarding article work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete them. These categories are what scanlation websites give them. Btooom! is definitely not romance. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DZ. Looking through the list, a little fan-based bias seems to be mixed in with some of those titles. Such as with Sword Art Online or Yahari Ore no Seishun Love Come wa Machigatteiru. Those are light novels. Yahari isn't even a Romance and I'm pretty sure everyone bases SAO on the season 1 of the anime and not the printed media. —KirtMessage 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that unless there is verifiable sources calling these series romance manga, it's just OR.-- 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Might be a good case for WP:TNT. You can keep the indexing by letter as with similar lists that use {{AlphanumericTOC}}. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been away but given the above, I feel I will place the romance list up for AfD sometime tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Doraemon films#Short films[edit]

  • Are all those films notable? At least one article expects deletion.
  • Some of the articles are very short and lack sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
For the less notable ones you could instead try and attempt a merge to List of Doraemon films (itself an article which needs work). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed these as well, there used to be more but seeing the articles were un-referenced stubs I redirected them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggest merging them to the Doraemon films and organizing them like the List of Lupin III television specials where they can be summarized and also listed which Doraemon film it was releasedscreened with. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Exceptions can be made for short films that have its own notability like being nominated or winning a short film award. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

need help to resolve situation at meta with anime sources at the SPAM list[edit] what happened

  1. is the source used at ru-wiki
  2. an anime-hater wanted to delete the articles as "no source"
  3. so he/she started a campaing for adding the sources to the spam-list
  4. at first time the hater tried to add sources to spam-list at ru:Википедия:Изменение_спам-листа
  5. and failed to do so
  6. then the hater started at the site to all other wikies
  7. an the hater got success at meta:Talk:Spam
  8. other anime sites as Anime News Network, AniDB - are going to be the next!
  9. the hater will do the same with the all anime sites that are used as sources (Idot (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

15:52, 29 August 2015‎ SephyTheThird (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,360 bytes) (-899)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 678252725 by Xx236 (talk): 6 month old non issue. Overstated case which has no basis in fact. (TW)) (undo | thank)

  • DO NOT REVERT! (Idot (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC))
  • now we have a real problem with it in ru-wiki 'coz now it putted in spam-list in ru-wiki with argument that its' already in the global spam-list. so we need to help to deal somehow with meta (Idot (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC))
you will need to establish that they are indeed reliable sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, content expertise and not spam. good luck with that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this has already been gone over as Sephy reverted the edit. @Idot: I would take this to WP:RSN, chances are though that they will say the same thing Red Pen is telling you, there isn't really much more to be done here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The site was blacklisted because IPs were spamming links to it all over Wikipeida AND over concerns that the website distributed copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owners. The latter reason alone prevents the site from being used as a reliable source while the disruptive spamming is also plenty of reason to blacklist the website. What this does point out that we should replace images that originated from this site with images for more official sources. I'll be following up later with a list of images that needs to be updated. —Farix (t | c) 17:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems doable, I am sure browsing through images on Google Japan will come up with results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Monster Musume[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion regarding how we should title Monster Musume. It can be found at Talk:Monster Musume#Title. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte (anime) infobox image[edit]

This is in regards to YuuOtosaka (talk · contribs), who for the past couple of days has attempted a number of times to change the infobox image from File:Charlotte anime.jpg to File:Charlotte anime 2.jpg. I have tried to explain to this editor why the latter of the two images does not provide a sufficient representation of the series, and that (at least for now), the former image with the five main characters should be kept, and that the infobox image shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without a good reason. However, the user has continued to change the image, and it's really getting old, so what do I do? Because I'm this close to taking it to WP:ANI since it seems the user either does not want to listen to reason, or is simply ignoring me.-- 11:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally dislike promo images in general unless there really is not good alternative, but from the images that have been release from the series so far, the second image doesn't look recognizable compared to other media released so far and thus fails at identifying the series (which is a NFCC requirement for infobox images). Do we not have an image of a DVD or Blu-ray cover yet? —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The first and second DVDs have covers, but they only feature 1 or 2 characters, so I don't really find them as better alternatives to File:Charlotte anime.jpg. That, and the art on those covers is from the original character designer Na-Ga, as opposed to the anime's character designer. Just to point out, I'm not against changing it to another image if it's a better alternative to File:Charlotte anime.jpg; my argument is simply that File:Charlotte anime 2.jpg is not a better alternative.-- 12:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the first image as well here, more is shown. I am at work now, but a quick glance showed me that the first image of a poster has been edited to not show the Japanese lettering on it. If you are looking for a better image I suggest - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Help compelting article[edit]

Can someone please help me complete this article ( ), the notable facts section has a lot of copyvio which i itnend to fix. I was hoping someone can help me rewrite it to prevent copyvio and to finish this article sooner? Any feedback is appreciated and help is appreciated--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I dont know what to choose as the title of this article, I was also considering "List of anime legally streamed on the internet", any suggestions is appreciated?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly while you did do a lot of work, the list looks unmanageable. My concern is that the list has triva which may be notable but whom is it referenced by and how is she/he important? In my opinion, along with that the list is too long, you may want to consider splitting it. Also keep in mind List of United States anime simulcasts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes i also though it needs to be split alphabetically. Currently it is not in alphabetical order. it is ordered by the license holder A-Z, not anime name A-Z--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So your list doesn't overlap with any of the Lists of anime we have? Another concern would be WP:LINKFARM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Im not trying to put down your list, you did ask for input though and I raised my concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I always try to make sure the articles I make pass stress tests/scrutiny. I am aware of WP:LINKFARM that is why I did not concentrate on the links as being the centre but rather the information about the license holders and any notable facts regarding their purchase of the license.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Update2: I have rewritten all the text and all copyviolations have been fixed, I actually made this article a long time ago, did not realise i already had a version without copyviolations--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Update3: consensus on the irc seems to be of the opinion that this IS a link farm, therefore I will remove the link column--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the purpose of the list. Are you trying to list the companies that provide streaming services, or the list of anime that have been streamed? The former would be somewhat useful and source-able, but the latter is extremely difficult to maintain with any sense of sourcing. I've experienced numerous problems with List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney given how the schedule for shows appears and disappears that I've given up tracking that and just list the premiere dates. Also we don't need to be doing Netflix, Crunchyroll, or Hulu's job in listing current anime offerings. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I dont know myself anymore. Please tell me which direction to take this article. The link column will be deleted. I wanted to make a list of all the anime series streamed online for free by the license holders, and information about when they gained the license and some notable facts about the acquisition--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Update4: all links removed, should no longer violate WP:LINKFARM--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Free is also debatable. As with many distributors, they will put up a few "free" episodes or samples, and move shows back and forth between free and subscription-only. Shows are also regularly added and removed from their catalogs. There is also no precedent to do a List of programs broadcast by Hulu, but preferably a list of their Hulu-exclusive/original series. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article I will define free as: (1) not requiring registration or subscription (2) but may or may not contain advertisements. Would that be sufficient. If not I think I would need to add a column about the period in which it was free (all those on the list would be from from streaming date to present). It would be up to the contributors to make sure the period in which it was free is accurate therfeafter--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Also how is it going to pass WP:NOTCATALOG which says that Wikipedia is not a programming guide and recommends articles have no current schedules? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two Rie Takahashi[edit]

I found two voice actresses who have same names, Rie Takahashi(ja:高橋李依) and Rie Takahashi(ja:高橋里枝) who is mentioned in the article Smile PreCure!. As you can see they both have another way in written Japanese, but they have exactly the same pronunciation. Although latter has no independent article yet, it's a bit equivocal. How should I distinguish them?--Akiyama(tentative) (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Until the second one has enough notable roles to warrant the creation of that article, you probably don't need to worry about it. I recently organized a restructuring for Hiroshi Ito (disambiguation) where the secondary voice actor was AFD'ed. Ideally the voice actors would have different birth years so you can distinguish that way (e.g. LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)), but given that the second one has not listed one, that might be more difficult to find. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)