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:

Ongoing edit wars over licensees on multiple articles[edit]

Over the last few months, there has been a slow moving edit war over the |licensee= field on a number of articles involving Crunchyroll. Traditionally, this field has been for companies that licensee a series for home video release or television distribution. However, a couple of new editors have started adding Crunchyroll as a licensee on the bases of its simulcast. A couple of Crunchyroll's press releases further muddy the waters as it throws around terms such as "Master Licensee", whatever the heck that is suppose to mean.[1] The biggest offender is Hbartlett1, who has been adding all kinds of unsourced claims that Crunchyroll is the licensee for a number of series, when that claim contradicts existing sources on the article. If streaming constitutes a license, then wouldn't that make Hulu, Daisuki, and Netflix be considered licensees as well? And if the term "licnesee" is going to be thrown around like this willy nilly, wouldn't this make the |licensee= field useless and grounds for removal from {{Infobox animanga/Video}}? —Farix (t | c) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this moment since the original Funimation deal was announced. We know they have a mutual deal with Funimation which means that Funimation are handling some degree of Crunchyroll's home releases - the first confirmed batch was documented on ANN at least but I don't recall if specific details were given over how much Funimation were responsible on each release. An issue here is that mere members of the public are never going to know the extent of the arrangements Crunchyroll have but given that they are owned by a consortium involving the japanese rights holders it's fair to say they are going to have some "master" rights. I don't think we are in a position to claim CR are primary rights holders for the current season but here are going to be some cases where some titles are going to be under CR's banner and articles should reflect that.
Or tl;dr sources are needed for the current season, older works should operate on a case by case basis if they are part of a partnership. Frankly, it's going to be messy on some titles. Edit: ANN have a list of confirmed master license titles. They are the licensee with the rights to release them under their own brand, in partnership or to sell the rights. Seems clear cut to me as to what they are. As for the field, removing it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because the industry has changed direction doesn't mean we should remove a field that is used by hundreds of articles for older works. It's reactionary and unnecessary.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Cant we just make a new field along the lines of "official digital release=" or the like? I also agree that given the amount of articles, the |licensee= parameter is useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think for the titles where Crunchyroll is the master licensee (i.e., where they have the home video release rights, not just the streaming rights), then Crunchyroll should be listed just with the licensee parameter. Perhaps a new parameter for Internet streaming would also be useful, but I think the current parameter is what should be used when Crunchyroll holds the home media rights. Even if Funimation handles things like dubbing and making the actual discs as part of their partnership, those titles are still Crunchyroll's licenses. Right now it looks like we have some things listed incorrectly, e.g., Joker Game and ReLIFE are listed as Crunchyroll licenses in the press release on the partnership [2], but our articles have those as Funimation licenses. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hbartlett1 has once again returned to restore Crunchyroll as a licensee without citing sources. Perhaps time to take it to ANI? —Farix (t | c) 21:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In some cases Hbartlett1 is only citing the source in the comment section. [3] That doesn't help anyone. So is CR a licensee or not? Please give some guidance as to how to reference this properly. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reported it to AIV after seeing this falsely cited edit. There are probably plenty of other edits like it. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The source listed in Hbartlett1's edit summary gives Crunchyroll as the master licensee for Haikyū!! season 3. The term "master licensee" normally means they have home video rights, not just streaming rights, and is the sort of license that should be listed with the licensee parameter in the infobox. So not only is the edit not vandalism, it seems entirely correct to me. I've posted over at AIV that I think your report was unjustified. I'm getting the impression that you are just unaware that Crunchyroll is getting home video rights for some of their titles, but their press releases make it clear that they are doing so (and as I said above, even if they partner with Funimation to distribute those titles, they are still Crunchyroll licenses). Calathan (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The definitions need to be made clear up front: What companies are put for English licensee and whether both home video and streaming should be listed as with Knights of Sidonia which posts both. If it's just by the wording of "license" and "master license" the Crunchyroll article could assume that for those 60 titles, so I can see why HBartlett1 would want to say they are licensed. Also what English companies are put for network_en? Only broadcast shows or streaming? After the first run, if a show changes licenses (e.g. ADV -> Funimation) or is discontinued (e.g. Geneon, Tokyopop), how should it be handled? Should all previous licensees be listed as a record, or only the current one? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
While it may be true that Crunchyroll has the home video rights to some shows such as Yamada-kun and the Seven Witches, the first season of Free!, and Gintama I am still inclined to believe that some of the other shows that are streamed on Crunchyroll are licensed by other companies. Take a good number of Sentai Filmworks and Aniplex USA shows, this season for example has Haikyuu season 3 licensed by Sentai see source here: and there is also Blue Exorcist: Kyoto Saga licensed by Aniplex of America, but streamed on Crunchyroll. as both sources say, Sentai and Aniplex have the licenses to their own shows and they are streamed with subtitles on Crunchyroll. It is the same story with Funimation, they have their own set of shows that they licence for dubbing and home video release, those shows are streamed with subtitles on Crunchyroll, while shows licensed by Crunchyroll like the three mentioned above will be distributed on home video via Funimation markets. It may be a bit confusing, but this concept does seem to be the truth. Nstepneski (talk) 3:15 , 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the license announcement you linked to makes it clear that Sentai licensed Haikyu season 3, though I still don't think Crunchyroll would claim to be the master licensee if they only had streaming rights. Perhaps what is happening is that Crunchyroll is getting all of the rights to release some series, but for many of those series just quickly sells the home video rights to someone else like Sentai (and if that is the case, then it might have been something happening behind the scenes with a lot of series). Anyway, for what we put in the licensee parameter, I guess the company that is actually releasing it should be listed unless it is clear that the release is a distribution deal for another company. So for something like Haikyu season 3, I think we should still list it as a Sentai license, even if it is possible that Crunchyroll was involved somewhere. But for the titles that Funimation is releasing as part of their deal with Crunchyroll, where they have made it clear they are Crunchyroll titles, then I think those should be listed with Crunchyroll as the licensee. I think we need to take care to not consider Funimation press releases about distributing or dubbing a title as an indication they have licensed that title, since they have said they will be doing that for a lot of Crunchyroll's titles . . . we should look to see that Funimation says they have actually licensed something themselves before putting it as their license. Calathan (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
so? (this might of sound a tad late?) I got a "small" question? err? a bit about it? when the info of 'crunchyroll' was added? and undid, then 'back and forth' after a time? and the "user" asked for some assistance, or such? and the end result of that, was a some type of conflict of interest? from here? [4]? or well some time ago? but since a week from then? well? more or less complicated problems. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If Hbartlett1 has a conflict of interest with Crunchyroll, then that is a serious problem, and that user should absolutely not be editing Wikipedia with anything about Crunchyroll.-- 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Guys, the "master license" is the company granted broad franchise rights over a title, everything from streaming to home entertainment. They can sub-license elements of their rights. For example, Crunchyroll is the master license holder of Yuri on Ice, but they've sub-licensed, (functionally, though not technically sub-contract) the dubbing and home distribution to Funimation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
After looking at this more and thinking about it more, I think we should list Crunchyroll as the licensee for all the shows they claim to be the master licensee for [5], with Haikyu season 3 being a possible exception. I still think that being the master licensee means they have home media rights (i.e., what Lord Roem said above). For many of the shows where Crunchyroll is the master licensee, Funimation has announced they are also streaming the shows and are dubbing them, but that is because of their deal with Crunchyroll. I didn't find any claims from Funimation that they were licensing the shows separately from Crunchyroll, and to the contrary the announcements from Funimation and Crunchyroll specifically mention their partnership [6][7]. There just isn't anything that contradicts that Crunchyroll is the primary licensee for the shows where they say they are the master licensee. Nstepneski mentioned Blue Exorcist: Kyoto Saga above, but that isn't one of the shows that Crunchyroll claimed to be the master licensee for, so I think Hbartlett1 was just wrong when he made that claim. The only show I've found so far where there is actually conflicting information on who has licensed the show is Haikyu season 3, where Sentai claimed they licensed it without mentioning Crunchyroll. I still think that it is likely that Crunchyroll licensed it and then sold the rights to release it to Sentai, but it is also possible that Crunchyroll erroneously listed Haikyu season 3 as one of the shows they are the master licensee for when they really aren't. Calathan (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided to a little search to see if I can find this press release on Crunchyroll's own website, however, it is not listed among their other press releases.[8] You could say that this may be an oversight, but with the errors that were already pointed out in the press release, I do question its authenticity. In short, don't list anime as being licensed by Crunchyroll unless there is a second source that cooperates it. In fact, that should go for any information based on press releases that isn't listed on Crunchyroll's website. —Farix (t | c) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and instead agree with Lord Roem's comments below. Anime News Network vets press releases sent to them, and there is no reason to doubt the press releases they post. The link you provided is an archive of all press releases posted on Crunchyroll's news feed, some of which are from Crunchyroll themselves and some of which aren't. There is no reason to expect that every press releases they send out to other news sources would also be posted on their feed. Also, you referred to errors in the press release, but I'm not aware of any clear errors. I said that I think the Haikyu 3 license is probably actually accurate, though I conceded that it was possible it was erroneous. Calathan (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
so? yeah? but a "small" problem or (big) is? if 'crunchyroll' is added? and as the edit is there? if a problem there is, by a conflict of interest from an user? that is an employee, to it? then there's a problem. but no one knew that, when it was the end of january? and until the beginning of this month? so? uh? (which is in my above message?) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The conflict of interest is a separate issue from whether or not we should say the shows are licensed by Crunchyroll. If Hbartlett1 is a Crunchyroll employee, he shouldn't be editing the articles himself to say that they were licensed by Crunchyroll, but that doesn't change whether or not we should say they are licensed by Crunchyroll. Also, please try to write complete sentences. As it stands, your posts are very hard to understand. Calathan (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but at the time. I had minor issues with an old computer and sometimes the buttons on the keyboard wouldn't respond that well or the screen wouldn't turn on. As seeing that it's starting to get pointless over 'fussing' on a soon to be broken computer. Then may switch to a laptop. So, if I was to say more? well, which is off topic. In which my small question is again, answered... --Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
ANN vets press releases from the companies who wish to post one. If Crunchyroll made an announcement about what shows they have the "master license" for, and ANN posted that, that's the most verification we're ever going to get for anime-related content. I don't think Funimation and Crunchyroll will go into any more depth with their legal arrangement -- so I think we either take all undisputed license claims as the relevant source, or not include that information at all. The former definitely makes the most sense to me. As for the other issue, I agree, a CR employee should not be editing that content in, at least not without disclosing their affiliation and discussing their proposed inclusions first. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, ANN doesn't really vet press releases. I've had a few published on behalf of a local anime convention.[9][10] Likewise, there were a number of PRs that the convention sent that ANN didn't publish. So it really depends on who is reading the emails that day. However, the fact that the press release making the claims is not listed on Crunchyroll's website should be suspect on its accuracy and reliability. —Farix (t | c) 19:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact that they posted some but not others would be evidence that they do vet them (plus their journalistic standards are likely much higher now than back in 2007-2008). Also, as I said above, there is no reason to expect all press releases Crunchyroll sent to news sites would be posted on their own news feed. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First and foremost, I wanted to thank all of you and the broader community for the continued contributions to Wikipedia and especially all of the great anime articles that keep growing over time. It takes a lot of time and effort to create these articles and Crunchyroll leverages information from Wikipedia in multiple languages on a regular basis. I'm responding here to in hope clarify some misunderstandings around the term "license" and some of the recent activity. As previously stated, I work at Crunchyroll, FUNimation is our partner, and our communal goal is to all make Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Some users have claimed updating Wikipedia to be accurate could be considered a COI (Conflict of Interest) as I'm affiliated with Crunchyroll. I'm here to help contribute to the discussion to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and want to be respectful of Wikipedia's independence. If there is a better way to make technical corrections opposed to updating the articles themselves, please let me know.

Anime licensing has evolved over the recent years and the actual licenses on Wikipedia are all not accurate due to some contributor confusion. We've attempted to make changes where we know with certainty we in fact hold the Master License and some of these changes have since been reverted. To clarify, Crunchyroll, Funimation, and other anime companies hold different types of licenses which vary by title and season. They can be a Master Licensee (where they're able to sublicense specific rights such as Home Video and streaming rights to another company) , be a direct streaming (AVOD/SVOD) licensee from Japan, or a sub licensee from a Master Licensee for a particular category such as Home Video, Streaming, or Merchandise. Crunchyroll has been all 3 depending on the title on our service.

While historically Crunchyroll held many direct streaming licenses from Japan or was a streaming sub licensee from a domestic Master Licensee, licensing has evolved. In the past few years Crunchyroll has now become the Master Licensee for multiple titles and we've sub licensed some of those rights to Funimation, Hulu, and other home video and merchandise partners. If there is to be one company listed as a "Licensee" for a title on Wikipedia it should be that of the Master Licensee who has the ability to provide that title to other partners within the territory via sub-licenses of home video, DVD, streaming, etc.

Our goal is for Wikipedia to be accurate when "Licenses" are referenced. We have no intent to list ourselves as a Master Licensee when it isn't a fact (and another company is in fact the Master Licensee) and have made it a point to cite independent 3rd party sources [1] confirming we are in fact the Master Licensee for these titles in the referenced territories. If you have have further questions please let me know as it's to everyone's benefit that what Wikipedia articles list is accurate and not misinformation due to a contributor's confusion or misunderstanding. Hbartlett1 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)hbartlett1

Hi @Hbartlett1:, thanks for the detailed response. Yes, as per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, it would be best for you, and other Crunchyroll employees (like Miles, if he's looking), to avoid directly editing these pages with Crunchyroll-related content. For pages that have an inaccurate licensee listed, you can post a request to the talk page w/ references to justify the proposed change. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


We understand and will respect that. It seems that the users TheFarix and Nstepneski have continued to go in and put inaccurate information, or I should say take out accurate information. Our goal is to have the series we are a Master Licensee on to be listed accurately on the series wikipedia page. If they have not read our post yet I understand, but if not I don't understand why they keep removing Crunchyroll as a Licensor. Hbartlett1 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking into this issue, it seems to be a 50/50 split on the problem. I agree with some sort of Infobox parameter being needed, that's straightforward. It also seems that Crunchyroll PR is part of this issue. [11] is a poor source, besides it being a press release, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page further raises concern with me. "The statements made in this press release that are not historical facts." and "The Company cautions readers of this press release that a number of important factors could cause's actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in any such forward-looking statements." make me wonder if it would survive a reliable source challenge. ANN new stream writeup's tend to only mention streaming, closest reliable source I could find in many cases. Does Crunchyroll on its website even have a master database of what it's licensed? Esw01407 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder about that too? But as time goes by, it feels likely a no? In my option, if that's the only source that's present. That listed the winter shows and the past shows, unless if there's more clarity/source(s) to back the 'fact of' ... But, since there hasn't and soon is the start of the 'spring' shows? So, would there be another list like that too? (Well, an off topic thing to say, in which to avoid some or any future problems?) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Aren't these just badly phrased versions of "Errors and omissions expected" to cover their own backs in case of any future changes (rights expire after all, and in it's more common form it's a standard disclaimer). The opposition to the info box parameter is purely a sturgeon refusal to except the industry has changed and that we should be adapting to those changes. If Crunchyroll say they have a master license, it's irrelevant if the parameter was conceived for home release and not streaming. I also think that we should just drop the pretence over ensuring the license field is only for home releases, it's simply not necessary and not mentioned in the template anyway. The constant edit warring over the field is not an indication of misuse but an indication that it should be adapted to suit the actual reality of the industry. This is not 2005, why are people insisting we treat articles as if the industry was the same as it was then. Streaming is the primary delivery mechanism for anime outside of Japan and it's about time we reflected that in the info box. I also suggest that the En_Network field should be either revised to include the streaming companies, or a new field added to cover them instead.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would opt for a new field, this way we can tweak it down the road if needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say just get rid of the English language fields. {{Infobox animanga}} is one of the only templates that has specific English language fields. All other major media infoboxes simply includes the original release information. Remember that the infobox is suppose to summarize key facts, however, licensing and English republication is really not key information. And I still feel that we are being played by an elaborate troll. The language used in the press release along with the about line does not match those used in other Crunchyroll press releases. There is no way to confirm if Hbartlett1 is a Crunchyroll employee as we have not way to vet that claim. What I can say is that the press releases is not on Crunchyroll's website nor has anyone named Bartlett writing anything on the Crunchyroll website. A believe a great deal of caution is warranted. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about plot summaries in episode lists for Naruto[edit]

Hello. I've noticed in the Naruto and Naruto Shippuden episode lists that the summaries were heavily trimmed down by the IPs (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (all of which are based in Mississauga, Canada) and Rectify 54 (talk · contribs) (which is also located in Toronto, Canada as far back as June 2016 (I suspect that they are sockpuppets). I think this is a clear violation of WP:TVPLOT's recommendation for episode summaries, which states "Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." I did a mass reversion of the summaries, but is there any thoughts about what should be done after that? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I quite like this guy's summaries though. It looks similar to the style I used in the Code Geass episode summaries. They summarize the episodes quite well, and the amount of content is due to how the series is paced. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I know, but I think this is something that might have to be addressed. I've already contacted User:Sro23 to voice his opinion on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me to see Rectify 54 still socking and edit-warring via logged-out edits. Attempts at communication almost never produce results. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. As for the actual summaries, I have no comment. All I know for sure is the author is quite disruptive. Sro23 (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I've opened up a new investigation on the matter at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rectify 54. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
All in all, it looks to me like an attempt to remove most plot details the editor considers to be "spoilers". However, without the editor actually communicating in any way as to why they are reducing the summaries form 150-200 words to just a sentence or two, it really is hard to tell for sure. —Farix (t | c) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In need of help[edit]

As many of you know, I nominated D.Gray-man to FA. While it already has 4 supports, image and source reviews passed, a fellow user said it might need a prose rev. The article has already been copyedited by the guild but my computer stopped working yesterday. To make it worse my tablet is not very good so I would appreciate if somebody could take a look and or fix issues. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World[edit]

I've just finished expanding the article's plot summary as part of me nominating it for Good Article status; however, the plot section is currently 581 words long, far longer than the recommended 500 words per season plot summary as stated at MOS:TVPLOT. Help in trimming down the plot section to the appropriate length is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary shouldn't only cover the anime. Someone who has read the light novels should expand it. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 12:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the plot of the light novel different from that of the anime? If not, there's no reason to add a separate section for that. I know the light novel continued on where the anime stopped, but the current summary should work really well as a synopsis, which is really what an encyclopedic article needs. ~Mable (chat) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was that the plot shouldn't necessarily stop where the anime did, and should cover the events that take place in the light novel as well. The current summary could also stand to be made a bit more compact, which would leave space to expand on the LN's plot. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 04:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Problematic IP user still being problematic[edit]

See /Archive_67#Problematic IP user

New IP: (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They are still active and still hopping (presumably dynamic) IP addresses as they have changed two episode titles on Chaos;Child (anime) to ones that contradict those on the official site and which, as before, appear to be translations back into Japanese of the English titles. I'm checking their Blue Exorcist edits now, and so far it is not looking good. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

and some more IPs:
Shiroi Hane (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want, you could request an SPI report. Not sure if that would solve the problem, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Osu!! Karate Bu[edit]

There's an user who is adding indiscriminately(?) the "Proposed deletion" thing for many articles, is that good?!!_Karate_Bu&diff=771087820&oldid=743124840 --- I don't want to see articles like these being deleted just because a random user was bored. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable rational. If there are no reliable sources covering the topic, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, if you are going to mass revert a single user with not evidence of bad faith, then you may find yourself blocked. So unless you can find reliable, third-party coverage that establish the work as passing WP:NOTE or any of the other notability guidelines, I would recommend you leave those prods in place. —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, then screw the English Wikipedia. And feel free to make the useless block. -- (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)