Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 60 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 70

Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! work group articles and further categorisation

The template {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} has a Yu-Gi-Oh switch, which classifies articles into categories like Category:Unassessed Yu-Gi-Oh! articles, Category:Unknown-importance Yu-Gi-Oh! articles and similar categories. Magicperson6969 has tagged these and similar categories for speedy deletion, but I have declined the speedy deletions as the categories are not empty. If these importance / quality assessment subcategories for the Yu-Gi-Oh workgroup are no longer needed, please edit {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} so they become empty. If not, please make sure articles in Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! work group articles are looked at and get proper assessment categories. If you need help with this, please let me know. —Kusma (t·c) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that editor regularly does stuff like that. They never communicate with anyone, either, so it's very difficult to know why they do what they do. Thanks for catching that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: I am beginning to think this might be a case if WP:COMPETENCE. How many times has this user been warned about these things, only for them to refuse discussion about the problem at hand with a blank of their user-page? In my opinion I have seen this editors name pop up too much, and do not want to have to track edits that may/may not be helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's very possible. I just check their edits every so often to make sure nothing egregious gets through ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend bringing it up to AN. Magicperson6969's repeated reckless actions needs to end at some point, and I'm afraid it will only happen at the point of an indefinite block. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Having just "Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! work group" for the Yu-Gi-Oh! pages would be plenty, as the overall Yu-Gi-Oh! page amount is not that big (Kind of like the Dragon Ball work group, though that one has more pages). Magicperson6969 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

They are sorted not just for this project, but into the overall assessment scheme on Wikipedia. That's the reason for the different categories. I am updating the categories, though, to show they are part of this project. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! had it's own assessment system that was independent of WP:ANIME. Why should it not keep it? If you though the independent assessment wasn't needed, you should have discussed it with the project first before making such mass edits. You also went through and removed all Wikiproject Yu-Gi-Oh!'s tags without merging them it into {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. That is especially reckless and frankly deserving of having your edits rolled back. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll also add that you should never removed the project's template from redirect pages if there are previous discussions on that page. As you did with a number of Yu-Gi-Oh! character pages. —Farix (t | c) 12:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through and restored all of {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!}}'s project templates as best I could until someone does a proper merge into {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. —Farix (t | c) 12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We could just change {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!}} to {{WikiProject Anime and manga| yugioh-work-group = yes}}. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That is what should have happened as well as transcribing the assessments to |yugioh-class= and |yugioh-importance=. But that isn't what Magicperson6969 did. S/He simply deleted {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!}} wholesale from the articles' talk pages. —Farix (t | c) 23:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing ISBNs

I've gone through a bit of dispute with G S Palmer recently about whether ISBNs should be cited or not in tables. My argument is that citing the ISBNs (in addition to the already cited release dates for the volumes) has never been required in past FLCs for manga lists like List of Naruto volumes or List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters, so I don't see a point in trying to go against a rather long-standing convention to not overcite the tables. I also believe that since the ISBNs are not likely to be challenged, they don't need another, redundant cite when the cite on the release date almost always already contains the ISBN within it, and anyone wanting to verify the ISBN can just go to the cite on the release date, or just click on the ISBN link itself and use Special:BookSources to verify it. So do ISBNs need a cite, or can we just leave it out like we've always done?-- 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that citing ISBNs is reference overkill, if the ISBN is invalid or malformed then a message would pop up anyways saying so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I wouldn't cite ISBNs. Like you said, they are usually present in the cite for the release date, and more importantly, they're self-citing: all you have to do to confirm an ISBN is search it. It'd be like requiring chapter titles to be cited. How else would you verify the title but by looking at it? Tables also have limited space so we shouldn't cramp them up with unnecessary citations. The only exception I can think of is if there is a special case with the ISBNs where it is required to show readers where the special case came from. (though I don't know if that actually happens) Opencooper (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. It's part of a single entry for release information as with an album entry in a discography. Adding refs on top of it would also force multiple rows. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't one of the ways to cite a book is to use its ISBN? So isn't requiring a cite for an ISBN essentially requiring a cite for a cite and thus recursive? —Farix (t | c) 02:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't found an instance on Wikipedia where citing an ISBN is required. Ironically enough, WP:CS does not cite it's ISBNs at the bottom so I would guess that there is no policy or guideline requiring it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no need to cite ISBNs as anyone can look them up easily. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Macrons question

It's me again about Seraph of the End but does the English version use macrons? In the Viz media site it doesn't use it. Do the English volumes not use it? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What would they use macrons on? The title shouldn't need them, and the author and illustrator names don't need them. Please be more specific. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's because the characters in the wikipedia articles have them. For example, the MC is written as "Yūichirō."Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Macrons are used when there is no official English translation/transliteration of a name. Hepburn rendering inside {{nihongo}} should always use macrons. —Farix (t | c) 00:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha, then what Farix wrote is correct. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two articles currently up for peer review

Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Sword Art Online: Lost Song are currently up for peer review. Interested users may leave comments at their respective peer review pages. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987) is up for GA review. See the talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: GA Nomination, not GA Review (Tintor2 must have mistyped the section). Either way, that's not relevant anymore since it passed the GAN. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it was a little confusing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-comics reviews

Should weight be given to reviews from sites which, while reliable sources, aren't known for comics/manga? I'm currently digging up sources for a draft of Nijigahara Holograph and the two sources I'm asking about are Wired, known for tech, and AV Club, known for televison/film. The authors themselves of the articles do write about comics so I'm not really worried about that, but rather if the inclusion of the sources would give them undue weight since they don't really specialize in the topic. Opencooper (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that concerned, unless the authors themselves are reputed to have strong biases against any type of anime and manga. You can always write the author and magazine name into the sentence. Some manga relies on general book review sites like from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, or School Library Journal. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I guess I was overthinking it, especially since the authors are experienced with comics. The part about including the author and publisher in the prose makes a lot of sense. And right, I'm using Publishers Weekly as well haha. Opencooper (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That's definitely not a problem. In fact, it's a good thing as usually non-A&M editors always see A&M-only sources as questionable sources. They are wrong on assuming it, but wider coverage definetely shows that a manga/anime is coverede by multiple third-party sources. The more variety of sources you have the better it is! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point since our sources will usually be unfamiliar to people outside the WIkiProject and now that I think about it, more diverse reliable sources help to make an article more balanced, not less. Opencooper (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox animanga character

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox animanga character has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

I've opened this topic for discussion, your participation is welcome. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 01:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It always boggles my mind when it comes to TfDs on how some people can have such a big issue with a template that is useful to a group of editors. Last I checked, we weren't forcing anyone to use Template:Infobox animanga character outside of our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying you are, but then again, WikiProjects are meant for collaborative focus, they're not their own fiefdoms. Wikipedia at large tries to keep derivative templates to a minimum to centralize control over content and formatting, streamline updates, and just generally keep editors from going rogue LOL. There have literally been dozens of similar templates to this one and time has proven that things work just as well without them. But there are also some derivative templates that have proved useful. So, I made my case and maybe consensus will agree with me and maybe it won't.— TAnthonyTalk 03:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Japan Self-Defense Forces in fiction

I noticed someone was just adding Category:Japan Self-Defense Forces in fiction to a bunch of anime and manga articles, many of which don't seem to actually be about the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The category seems appropriate for articles like Yomigaeru Sora – Rescue Wings or Gate (novel series) where the main characters are members of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, but the category has also been added to other articles where the characters are members of entirely different organizations (e.g., Neon Genesis Evangelion and Full Metal Panic!). I've removed the category from those two, but I suspect it isn't accurate for many of the other articles. Could someone please go through the rest of the articles in the category and remove ones which aren't actually about the self-defense forces? Calathan (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In order to avoid an unnecessary edit war I will for the moment just say that I believe Calathan is acting erroneously in good faith and note the answer I've given to the related topic on my own talk page; the category is not limited to characters that are members of the JSDF, but also includes things like fictional equipment and appearances by the JSDF and/or its branches (fictional or otherwise) in various works of fiction. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the way you are using the category goes against Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, specifically WP:CATDEF. The category shouldn't be used just because the JSDF appears in a work, but only when it is a major aspect of the work that would be mentioned in any reliable sources discussing the work. I don't think that is the case for many of the works you've placed the category on. Calathan (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I've done a scrub of the category, and reworded it so it is more like Category:FBI in fiction. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Moe (slang)

Other than the book references, does this article look okay for a B class assessment? The structure, and article as a whole has improved since the last assessment. I would like to if possible work the article up to WP:GA as I see a bunch of academic sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Going forward you should look for reliable sources for Ken Akamatsu's opinions on the subject, he has talked about it on numerous occasions, including his thoughts on the rise and fall of it as a selling point.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
If it helps you, check the Psycho-Pass article. It has some talks about moe.Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tintor2: The biggest issue facing me is the referencing style, I am unfamiliar with how it is set up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

An attempt to return to Wikipedia

I've given lot of thought, and now i'm finally ready to try to return to Wikipedia. if you want to know more about it, here is the link WP:AN#An attempt to return to Wikipedia. If everything goes well, you may see more contributions from me. Lucia Black (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, we would love to have you back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So, about those airdates

Now that a section on airdates has been added to MOS:ANIME, I think now would be a good time to fix articles which still use media dates; meaning, now should be the time to remove footnotes in articles unless necessary and change the media dates to actual airdates. Who wants to do these fixes? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of those footnotes can just be converted to their related sources, so you can do the ones you know about first. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor roles

This user (obviously a same person with this IP address) is trying to remove any minor roles from their lists (this edit for example), is it ok? Marlin Setia1 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor roles have been an issue here for some time now, if I recall correctly. Nevertheless, without a proper discussion on these roles, I think it's more advisable to simply revert any deletions of minor roles in articles, particularly if they are sourced anyway (for example, with links to a voice actor's agency profile). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither the IP and the user have provided edit summaries to sufficiently explain the reasons for deleting or changing the roles, so I would undo that effort. As for minor roles, yes, they are contentious as you can see with Talk:Yuri_Lowenthal#Far_too_many_non-noteworthy_examples_and_excessive_detail, I've put in a lot of comments on how to keep them notable and around, while taking out ones that are really insignificant to the person's career. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: <>So your "yes" here means it's okay to let him remove those minor roles? Ok then.
@Narutolovehinata5: Got it. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No, he should not delete them without providing a reasonable edit summary. It is also not clear what he is doing. Sometimes he changes the names of the characters to Eastern format. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Okay. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I've left a message on the user's talk page. Further actions/warnings may be necessary if the behavior continues. Also, it appears that the user does not reply to messages, at least while editing anonymously. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

An interview but it is in Japanese

I found what looks to be a decent interview for Mitsudomoe the problem though is that it is in Japanese:


(Google translated)

Is there any better translation that can be acquired? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Could you try asking the people at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language? I think they do translations upon requests; I asked there a few times. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay will do thanks Naruto. Hopefully this will be a big help for the articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Anime films and production companies

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A clear consensus for A: List the animation production companies in the infobox while discussing about the investors (製作 [financiers]) in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Which production companies should we mention in regards to anime film articles? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that, and no edit warring is intended on my part (edit warring is forbidden, obviously), hence that's partially why I wanted to open an RfC on this matter in order to avoid future wars on the subject and I've always discussed issues on the talk page to avoid being blocked for edit warring. Another one of the reasons why I opened the RfC was that it was previously discussed here, but only one person responded to the concern. Also, I thought such matters on adding production companies would be done via consensus on talk pages. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
For precedent, I took a look at a number of articles of Western films, and they tend to only list one or two production companies in their infoboxes: specifically, the companies which actually produced the film. In anime and manga, I guess the equivalent would be animation companies, so I guess that's what we should go with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You're discussing this in the wrong place. This is an infobox for films, not anime. But regardless, I'll make my case. The field is called "Production Comapany(ies)" for a reason. That means this field is (obviously) for production companies, i.e. companies that PRODUCED the film. Template:Infobox film even states "Insert the company or companies that produced the film." So we put the companies that produced the film, not merely animated (There's a difference between produced and animated). So for films (whether they be live-action, animated, documentary, etc.) we put the production companies. Also, in articles for Western animated films, they actually put the production companies along with the animated studios in the infobox. Toy Story's infobox has Walt Disney Pictures (production company) along with Pixar (animation studio) listed in its infobox. Frozen has Walt Disney Pictures (production company) along with Walt Disney Animation Studios (animation studio) listed in its infobox. In conclusion: The field is called PRODUCTION COMPANIES, so we list production companies (companies that produced) in this field. In anime, animation production is the studio that animated it, and the production committee are the companies that produced it, so we also list the production committee. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to propose some solutions for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between Animation Production and Production Company. Animation Production is the company that animated it, Production Company is the company that produced it. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Spirited Away even has the production committee listed in the Production company field in the infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I know, and while I agree with some of your views, I think we still need to get some sort of consensus on this matter that should satisfy all parties. So if there are no objections, I'm going to start doing some proposals for solutions as part of this RfC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion I feel that we should only include the major companies involved or else the info-box will become too bloated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


All right, I've put up some solutions for which companies are to be listed in the infobox.

  • Support A - List the animation production companies in the infobox while discussing about the investors (製作 [financiers]) in the article.
  • Support B - List all of the investors in the infobox and discuss them in the body of the article.
  • Support C - List only key production companies in the infobox.
  • Support D - Mention the production committee name in the infobox and discuss them in the body of the article.
  • Support E - List only the animation production companies in the infobox and leave out the investors.
NOTE: I just want to add that these investors ARE production companies. They are credited as "Production Committee" i.e., a group of companies that were involved in the production of the film. Sometimes they are even explicitly credited under "Produced by" or "Production Companies". -- Wrath X (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Example format

  • Support A - Studio Ghibli's clearly the animation studio that should only be mentioned in the infobox and listing all of the others in the infobox can be overly long.
  • Support D - Mentioning the investors in the infobox are too sufficient, let's go with the production committee's name.
  • Support E - Just listing the animation production company is sufficient, we do not need to have a list of every single investor in the committee.

Anyone is welcome to add to it in the matter here. Please note that it should not be construed as a vote rather than a measure for consensus. As always, let's keep the conversations civil.

  • Support A, C or E - I would at least only list the animation studio in the infobox per User:Raamin's rational in the previous discussion. Or we should mention some of the investors if it is appropriate enough to be included. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A for the article text, C, D, or E for the infobox (preferably C or E) - Based on precedent with Western films, as I have mentioned above. If there's a need to mention the film's investors, that can go in the article text instead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A, C or E I have no strong preference though so will go with whatever the consensus is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

*Support B - List the production companies in the infobox. Why?

a) The field is called "Production company(ies)". It is common sense to put production companies in a field called "Production company(ies)" in the same way it is common sense to put the cinematographer in a field called "cinematography".
b) Template:Infobox film explicitly states "Insert the company or companies that produced the film."
c) Consistency with Western animated films: Western animated films have production companies along with animation studios listed in their infobox. The same should obviously apply for Japanese animated film and animated films from other countries too.
d) Consistency with films in general: For live-action films, the production companies are listed in the infobox. The same should apply to all films in general (whether they are live-action, animated, documentary, etc.).
e) There is a difference between Animation Production and Production Company. Animation Production is the company that animated the film, while Production Company is the company that produced it. The field is called "Production Company(ies)" so we should obviously list the production companies (companies that produced). The film infobox in Japanese Wikipedia even lists production companies in its production company field.
Ultimately, this is an infobox for films, not anime. This infobox is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. This discussion should be in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Template talk:Infobox film. -- Wrath X (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is linked from those places, so there's no problem. It came up on a series of anime film articles, so this is as good a place as any to discuss it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you find any GA or FA examples that list all the production companies involved in the info-box? At the most so far I have seen three. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Toy Story's infobox has Walt Disney Pictures (production company) along with Pixar (animation studio) listed in its infobox. Also, its sequels Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3. Other Pixar films also such as WALL-E. Frozen has Walt Disney Pictures (production company) along with Walt Disney Animation Studios (animation studio) listed in its infobox. Other Disney films also such as The Lion King. The Simpsons Movie has Gracie Films (production company) listed along with its animation studios. South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut has Comedy Central Films, Braniff Productions, and Scott Rudin Productions (production companies) listed in its infobox. The Nightmare Before Christmas infobox lists Touchstone Pictures (production) and Skellington Productions (animation). Other films include The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. These are GA or FA articles. -- Wrath X (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
f) The production committee are companies that produced the film, hence they are production companies. There's a reason they are called "production" committee. They should be listed in the production companies field. The members of the Summer Wars Production Committee are NTV, Madhouse, Kadokawa Group Publishing, D.N. Dreampartners, Warner Bros. Pictures, YTV, and VAP. In the English version of the film, these companies are even explicitly listed under the credits "Production Companies". It makes no sense to omit these production companies from an infobox field called production companies. -- Wrath X (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A or E. I have reversed my position for several reasons and now support listing only the animation studio.-- Wrath X (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support B per WrathX. I'd like to see example articles where the use of production/animation companies is in question, though, before I give full support either to B or another option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? -- Wrath X (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the field is called "production companies", it should list all production companies as mentioned by reliable sources. If they all go by the name "X Production Commitee" or something like that, that could be included in the infobox exclusively, with the listing of all production commitee members in the Production section of the article. Maybe also including the main animation production studio in the infobox, as seems to be the case for Western animated films.--Cattus talk 06:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: 製作 (seisaku) isn't financing. It's companies that helped actually produce the film (companies that put in actual work). Financing would be something like 出資 (shusshi) or 資金供給 (shikin kyōkyū) (or something similar). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the previous discussion that I linked for the credits, Raamin pointed out that in nearly all cases there is a アニメーション制作 (animation production) or 制作 (production) in the credits of films which lists the animation studio who made the film (so basically, they are the ones that are responsible for producing all of the animation work). 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 helped financed production of the film, some of which includes the animation studios in question. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A, C, or E. The differences between them seem trivial and unimportant. The field should be restricted to production companies, as that is what the field is for. If there's a dispute over a company's classification, then cite a trade magazine. This is what I do on film articles when edit wars break out over who gets listed in the infobox. If reliable sources discuss the financing, then it can go in the article body. Overall, I don't think this issue is terribly important, but I do try to stick to what the sources say, not my own interpretation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • You're contradicting yourself, first you say you support listing only the animation studio then you say the field should be restricted to production companies. There's a difference between animation studio and production companies: the animation studio animates the film while the production companies produce it. These "investors" ARE production companies. They are credited as "Production Committee" i.e., a group of companies that were involved in the production of the film. Sometimes they are even explicitly credited under "Produced by" or "Production Companies". -- Wrath X (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In the infobox film documentation, the producer field is described as "Insert the name(s) of the producer(s). Separate multiple entries using
    . In addition, link each producer to his/her appropriate article if possible. Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc." There is a field for production companies."Insert the company or companies that produced the film. Separate multiple entries using
    , and use the "production companies" parameter. In addition, link each company to its appropriate article if possible." I would think the investors would not be listed as they would be more like the executive producers. I'm not sure how Media Arts DB or other government databases lists production companies. We just had a similar issue over at Talk:Miraculous_Ladybug#International_producers. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
By comparison the Darabase's page on Toy Story lists 2 production companies, 49 distributor companies, and 20 companies involved in other aspects of production. Are you suggesting a similar list? Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Um, not the IMDb. Can't even use that. I was talking Media Arts DB, so Spirited Away would be HERE which would have: [[製作]]徳間書店・スタジオジブリ・日本テレビ / [[製作]]電通・ディズニー・東北新社・三菱商事 / [[製作]]提携作品 / [[製作会社ロゴ表示]]スタジオジブリ作品 / [[製作会社ロゴ表示]]----- / [[製作会社ロゴ表示]]STUDIO GHIBLI AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


I have suggested a compromise and Lord Sjones23 has no objections with it.

a) For films where the production companies are credited under Production Committee, we simply list "Production Committee" in the infobox and add a note mentioning what companies the Production Committee consists of. See my edit of Fullmetal Alchemist: The Sacred Star of Milos for example.
b) For films where the production companies are not credited under Production Committee, then we list production companies in the infobox. For example, Cowboy Bebop: The Movie has no Production Committee, instead its production companies are credited under "Produced by". So we list those production companies in the infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I like this. For the Fullmetal Alchemist example, the committee is grouped together as Fullmetal Alchemist Production Committee (鋼の錬金術師製作委員会), followed by a long list (Ref: Media Arts DB). I'm going to assume this is the same committee for the anime series as well. For b though, it might be better to group them generally as Production Committee and give them the same footnote treatment. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent compromise. I don't really want the infobox to be too clutered. Still, whenever possible, I would prefer that A would be done. As an alternative, would it be possible that the members of a production committee, whenever possible, could be mentioned in the article text instead of in a footnote? This would apply to articles with "Production" or "Development" sections; the footnote is fine for articles which lack such sections, though presumably this will only work for original shows. As for non-original shows, perhaps they can be mentioned in "Anime" sections. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually I have reversed my decision and fully agree with Lord Sjones23's idea to list only the animation studio in the infobox. Why? Several reasons that I can't be bothered to explain. Basically I support A or E. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2015 (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.

Smile PreCure! -> Glitter Force localization

Smile PreCure! is being marketed as Glitter Force in the Netflix / English version. Unlike most of the other dubs, this is a Yu-Gi-Oh!-level localization which means the names have been Anglicized. Per MOS:ANIME this Netflix version still probably stay as the standard so we need help getting everything converted to something readable as done with Sailor Moon, Case Closed and other localizations. Would appreciate your help and input! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This effort has been contested, so I would need your feedback at Talk:Smile_Pretty_Cure!#Requested_move_23_December_2015. Thanks! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Monsuno again

I think the editors from before are at it again. (talk · contribs) and 悶絶チュパカブラ (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on Monsuno and List of Monsuno episodes ever since the articles were supposed to be protected. (Though looks like they weren't) The IP editor's address is from the same subnet as the banned editor from before and their edits seem to be similar. 悶絶チュパカブラ also posted a plea on the talk page that the editor kept constantly trying to modify. Some more eyes on the matter would be appreciated since I'm not sure how to deal with it. Opencooper (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection requests have been submitted to WP:RFPP and both editors warned for 3RR violations. 悶絶チュパカブラ could probably be sent to WP:AN on ground of WP:NOTHERE because every single edit they have made has been to revert. Given the timing, the IP and the editor could be the same person. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Farix. Considering the level of edit warring that went on, the current course probably is the best since neither seem willing to discuss their positions and have been going at it for a while. Opencooper (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Me and he is not the same person.He is also in the Japanese version have the same vandalism . I've been chasing it .[1]悶絶チュパカブラ (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Question on years of birth

So for example, if a person does not list a year of birth in his/her official profiles, but a reliable source (for our example, Crunchyroll) gives an age, would adding the year of birth given in the news article to the person's Wikipedia article be a BLP violation, or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You could send an email to the author or to crunchyroll asking where they got the birthdate from. I would air on the side of caution here but that's just me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's a regular news article usually by a third party where they list the person's age at the time of the publication, then it could be used to WP:CALC their age. But if it's in their database/profile of birthdays as with Behind The Voice Actors or ANN where you can't tell where they got the information, then it's questionable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree here, calculating someone's birth year based purely on age would seem to be an obvious fallacy. For starters even if you have a reliable source saying someone is X years old even taking into account time of publication it gives no indicators of how close they are to their birthday. This leads to the big issue I would have with this, you can easily be five months out and that can change the year. I don't see how any of this would change the fact that you have no source to state their birth year. I don't think it can be justified under Calc as its not "routine" (compared to calculating age from birthdate) and using it to justify an inherently unreliable method seems a poor justification. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a template called {{Birth based on age as of date}} so you don't have to pinpoint the year based on the news article. The template results in listing two years as possible birth years. Its only flaw is if the person's birthday occurs in that time between the interview and the writeup but if that is known then you'd have a more accurate source to begin with anyway. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: @AngusWOOF: @SephyTheThird: In this case, the person's birthday is known, just not her birth year (at least not officially). The article in question (which can be found at this link) has a date of publication in it, so I guess assuming the information is correct, WP:CALC can be applied. Interestingly, the article appears to have been written by a Japanese correspondent. Is adding a year of birth to her article, based on this article, advisable? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd leave it out for now as the Japanese wikipedia article doesn't even list her birth year. And even though they sourced Maon Kurosaki's website with NBC Universal Japan, there is no detailed article on that site that pinpoints her age at the time of the article. If it were an exclusive interview, then I'd find it more credible. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I did find this interview from a Singapore blog site that also presumes she is 27. [2] and related article [3] I would float this on the talk page and see how the editors feel about those sources. Would prefer a more official news source than a blog though as I have no idea whether she was aware her age would be posted like that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For those interested...

I have expanded List of anime by release date (pre-1939), any additional help would be welcomed =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When should episode list be split

I was gonna work on List of Noragami episodes when I realized the sequel Noragami Aragoto was also on the list. The same happened with List of Seraph of the End episodes. On the other hand, the two anime series of Hamatora have their own article. Any ideas? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about it some time ago. I'm not sure there was a agreement as such but I think generally speaking if a series aired as 2x13 episodes it's perhaps sensible to group them together. Where as multiple seasons when each is 24+ episodes it probably makes more sense to split them (perhaps not until a significant number of episodes has aired). These days shows tend to be split up for production and/or to get a feel for the market and may not distinguish between the halves of a show. Take Assassination Classroom, judging by ANN it carries off from a storyline that wasn't completed in the first season. :p SephyTheThird (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Image/Character/etc/ songs

Please come participate here so we can figure out what that article is about. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Date format for related articles

See the discussion initiated by Immblueversion at Talk:Fairy Tail Zero#Date inconsistency. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think we should just use MDY for everything for consistency and to avoid issues like this. I say that as someone who uses DMY outside of wiki. While acceptable, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to use a "European" date format for articles that are primarily for Japanese media and then frequently populated with MDY sources and US media dates alongside the Japanese ones. I dislike that MOS:NUM's wording could be used as a cop out to favour the format used by the page creator when it's really more interested in consistency and stopping edit warring (note:I'm not suggesting that is the case here). MDY just seems the more natural choice. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This does bring up point. Japanese date structure is year, month, date, similar to the US format, but with the year in front instead of in the back. When they give a shorthand date, without the year, it is always month date. However, YMD is not an excepted format for WP:DATE. So should all dates on anime/manga related articles be converted to MDY format per WP:TIES, since that most closely reflects the date format used in Japan? Perhaps pinging WP:JAPAN for some input on if there should be an established date format? —Farix (t | c) 12:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
In the short run I don't think it matters unless you plan on bringing an article up to GA status, or in this case run into a consistency issue. The references issue though is a bigger mess, and I have seen articles use all three date formats. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Change to Template:Infobox animanga/Video/doc

I have made the following change to Template:Infobox animanga/Video/doc to clarify the use of |network_en=. This change is consistent with past discussions.

English television networks the series aired on. See {{English anime network}}
English television networks the series aired on. Do not include video on demand services such as Crunchyroll, Hulu, Netflix, etc. See {{English anime network}}

I have already done a sweep of Crunchyroll, Hulu, and Netflix. I will be doing sweeps for other known video on demand services. —Farix (t | c) 03:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be some exceptions where Netflix has publicly claimed exclusive streaming rights for the English dub as with Knights of Sidonia and Glitter Force. I have yet to see Hulu do that with anime shows although they have done so on other shows. Also, what about Funimation broadcast dubs? They are a streaming service for Funimation's members. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This exclude all VoD services because they are not television networks. For Funimation, if it is only available via their VOD platform, then it would not be listed. It will have to be on their network. Which bring up the point. Is there any way to verify what was broadcast on the network channel as oppose to only available on their VOD service? —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there should be television listings for the network. Unfortunately the ones earlier than a few years ago are lost unless someone got lucky and archived them. So is there a way to list shows that are released mainly as VOD as the equivalent of Orange Is the New Black? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If that were the case, just mention it in the article text, not on the infobox. It would be a different story if the show aired on, say, Funimation Channel, or on The Anime Network back when it was an actual proper channel as opposed to a VOD service. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Airdates-related cleanup

I think I'll need some help here. A few months ago, consensus here determined that the airdates presented in articles should be whatever date they actually aired in, regardless if official sources say otherwise (see MOS:ANIME). This however, leads to two problems: 1. not all articles have been changed yet (Attack on Titan still presents the "official" airdate rather than the actual one, and just a while ago I edited Nyaruko: Crawling with Love [may Miyu Matsuki rest in peace] to reflect this consensus), and 2. most anime articles aren't clear if the airdates they present are the actual airdates or the advertised ones. I suggest some kind of cleanup drive where editors will check articles, then check those article's sources, and determine if the airdates presented in the articles are the actual ones or not. If an article's presented airdate isn't the actual airdate, the article should be edited to fix it, with a footnote explaining the situation being added if necessary. If the article already has a footnote and an "official" airdate, the airdate presented to be changed while the footnote should be revised to reflect the change (similar to this edit I made). I raised this some time ago here, but there was little action taken, so here it is again. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we get a list going on the cleanup page? I'd be glad to help out. I did Hamatora recently where I only cited Media arts database and the onair article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Go ahead. The problem is that in most articles it's not clear if the date shown in the article is the actual airdate or not. I propose two scenarios: 1. present the actual airdate, and don't add a footnote if the source used is the Media Arts DB or otherwise uses the actual airdate (such as TV schedules), or 2. present the actual airdate, but add a footnote if the source(s) used state an airdate other than the actual one. So at this point it's unclear which articles would even be included on the cleanup list, but I think we could start by fixing all articles which use the official-airdate-footnote format (such as Attack on Titan), and change them to something similar to the edits I did to Nyaruko. Also, if you don't mind, please edit AoT's article. It's been bothering me almost as long as this issue has taken place (which is almost three years). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I did List of Attack on Titan episodes HERE. I'm going with the onair listing first, quoting the broadcast premiere date with the "after midnight" or post-24th-hour designated time, then the Media Arts reference. Then optionally throw in the other supporting references. I then left the footnote as an embedded note in case someone was going to change it back, but that's optional as well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

I would like to get a second opinion on a matter of contention I've run into on the Dance with Devils page. For the simulcast sub of this series, Funimation decided to change one characters' name from "Roen" to "Loewen". Since that is the "official" English translation, I thought it best to use that instead of the original spelling. However, (talk · contribs) and a number of others feel very passionately that this was a "mistake" on Funimation's part, and insist that the "Roen" spelling is the genuine one (see this and this diff). (I assume that this is probably due to those who want to stick with the spelling from their preferred pirate website). Anyway, after having to revert similar edits almost every other day for about the past month, I eventually added a hidden note explaining why we should use the Funimation translation, and urging anyone who wanted to change it to first bring it up for discussion on the talk page. Following this, changed it again, calling the translation "a horrible mistake", and saying that using the "Loewen" spelling was "Lying to fans and giving them the wrong name". Could I get a bit of input from those who know what is usually done in situations such as this one? Thanks, G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on experience, as far as I know, what you're doing is correct (going with the official English names). But what you could do is, while including the official spelling, you also need to use the Nihongo template, which also means you need to include the transliteration. The hidden note is fine and should turn away most other people from making similar edits to the IP you mentioned above. But I also recommend starting a discussion with the IP, either on the article's talkpage, or the IP's user talk page. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I would also do a cite episode with the timestamps to the broadcast dub and sub showing that it is pronounced and spelled that way. If his name is shown in the credits along with the voice actor that would help your case. In cases where it isn't a broadcast dub, the subtitles might show a different spelling from the final name they choose. We had a similar contention with Gasper's last name in List of High School DxD characters where Funimation chose spellings of Bloody instead of Vladi and another character Sir Zechs instead of Sirzechs. Also agree about formalizing this in the talk page as with Talk:List of High School DxD characters#English anime adaptation as standard AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that you talk about any official English name. FUNimation is not the official website of Rejet, and Rejet spells the name "Roen". There's nothing about official names, this is just assumptions from people who follow blindly without knowing anything. The name is and will always be Roen. At least, I'm glad that the people of Wikia are smarter than the people of Wikipedia. Blame FUNimation for being dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurachan (talkcontribs) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not a matter of who is correct as they are both technically correct. Comparing the policies on Wikia to those on Wikipedia is pointless because they have different policies. Because Funimation is the official English langauge adaptation licensee, they get to determine how names are spelled in their version. They chose "Loewen", and that is therefore the one we will use here. If you don't like the policy, start a discussion to change it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
FUNimation may be the official English language adaptation licensee, it doesn't give them the right to change the names and spread lies to the watchers. Only Rejet itself can decide the name for they are the creators of Dance with Devils. And they chose Roen. 'Loewen' does not exist in Dance with Devils, this is a miserable mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurachan (talkcontribs) 00:27, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)
As you are not apparently very well versed in exactly what licensing entails, let me enlighten you on some of it. In fact, licensing it does give the right to Funimation to change the names, usually however they wish. I suppose they could also spread lies to the watchers, but that depends on the details of the contract. Once Rejet licenses it to be released in another language, they likely (again, depending on the details of the contract) have very little, if any, input or control over how names are Romanized. Hope that helps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Too bad the Wikipedia people are dumb enough to believe in lies. Anyway, talking to you is a waste of time. But I let you know that I do not intend to let Wikipedia spread lies to others. Have a good day/night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurachan (talkcontribs) 00:39, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)
Any attempt to continue edit warring will result your being blocked. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring so you can be aware of that policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll always find a way m'dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurachan (talkcontribs) 00:55, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
From numerous comments by Justin Sevakis of Anime News Network and ANNCast in the past, changes such as this often have to be approved by the creator or the work. If Funimation translated the name as Loewen, then that is only because it has received the approval of Brain's Base. —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Answerman is a useful resource however it can sometimes be difficult to find a article once it has been a few weeks or more. I wonder if we should have a central resource highlighting and linking to key articles. There have been several incidents on wiki recently where companies have been accused of changing names arbitrarily when it clearly isn't the case.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
May want to keep this link then: (t | c) 22:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone will need to keep an eye on the article for edits like this after the protection expires next week. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The protection just expired on this one, so please keep an eye on the edits since that now-blocked editor promised to come back and edit war over the name of Loewen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The editor has come in from (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs), both of which are run by Societe Francaise du Radiotelephone S.A. The abuse email address is, in case anyone wants to report them. The protection has been extended for a month. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


I am at work so I can not do much in the way of research, but an IP is asking about this term over at Talk:Moe (slang). I have never heard of the term before but agree with the IP that it should be mentioned in the article if it is important enough for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've replied in that discussion. Basically, "moeblob" is generally derisive slang for the stereotypical way characters in "moe" shows look, as typified by Kyoto Animation's style for shows like Clannad, Kanon, and K-ON!. Calathan (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done some research and replied on the talk page. Opencooper (talk)

RM notification at Talk:Hikaru Utada


An editor has requested for {{subst:linked|Talk:Hikaru_Utada#Requested_move_22_January_2016}} to be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}. Since you had some involvement with Talk:Hikaru_Utada#Requested_move_22_January_2016, you might want to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|{{{alttalk}}}#{{{section}}}|{{{alttalk}}}}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Hikaru Utada#{{{section}}}|Talk:Hikaru Utada}}}}|the move discussion]] (if you have not already done so). I'm raising it here to deal with the possible bigger issue of voice actors who might insist on going by their Eastern order of names. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Nihon Review again

I figured I would look a bit more into this website ([4]), I know the last discussion's outcome was that this was a self-published website but then I saw this recently: [5][6] would usage by Dani Cavallaro count towards notability? I ask because this would be useful for reception sections that so many articles are in need of. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is also cited in Variety here [7]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still inclined not to accept those reviews as they are done by relatively anonymous folks that haven't tried to establish themselves as professional reviewers and writers. Granted they do separate staff from members, so it is a matter of whether the individual writers have any credit to themselves. Even the Variety review just mentions it as just a fan review with the username to demonstrate the one quote, hardly recognition as a go-to source. Dani Cavallaro is also questionable at least by this blog post.[8][9] She at least writes a lot of books. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

More GANs in the backlog

We've got two articles up for GAN, as well as another whose GAN has been put on hold since the reviewer hasn't edited in a few months. Could someone review them or otherwise ask someone to review them? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew

... and we have another one. @Gabriel Yuji: I'm currently reviewing Karas, and I've left some comments on the review page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Use DVD covers for The Testament of Sister New Devil episode list?

On most episode lists, there are at least an image of a DVD/Blu-ray cover or a promotion poster. However, with the Blu-ray cover of Volume 1 used for List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes already up for deletion per WP:NFCC#8 as "a DVD cover for an volume of episodes and not of an image covering all episodes," I want to bring this matter up here. Should we use a DVD cover or a promotional poster for that particular episode list

To me the deletion rationale seems like total nonsense, as a cover from a volume containing some of the episodes seems to identify the series just as well as the cover of a collection of all of the episodes. A better question might be whether an image is needed at all to identify the series in an episode list. Personally, I think it is good to have an image, since people might recognize the series by the image when they wouldn't be sure what series was being talked about by name (especially true for series that go by multiple names). Since we have many featured episode/chapter lists that include the cover of the first volume of a series, it seems like including such images is acceptable (at least by the people who participate in the featured list process). So basically, I think the person who wants the image deleted is wrong and we should stick with it. Calathan (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I've commented on the FfD. As I said there, I think the main reason behind the nomination is the sexually provocative pose that Mio is in. The rational is flimsy at best, but could also apply to magazine, newspapers, comic characters that has gone through several artistic revisions/reinterpretations, comic series themselves, novel series, etc. This could be a test case to establish such president by nominating a cover image that others will find unpleasant and not bother defending. —Farix (t | c) 17:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly this has opened the can of worms I was attempting to stop before I realised people had already started commenting on the deletion page. It would have been easier to let it slide, now the very basis of our "style" is coming into the debate. Not something we need. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
An objection would be reasonable if the DVD/BD vol.1 cover is a limited "uncensored" edition in contrast to the most commonly marketed edition. But if it's intended to be an ecchi/sex comedy themed series and other regular volumes in that series are just like it with other girls then that's what it is. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Some time ago Toddlercon got a "hoax" delete just 2.5 hours after it was listed. It's now reopen for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toddlercon_(2nd_nomination), if anyone is willing to go near the radioactive topic. Alsee (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is not a reference to "Con" convention. This is a parallel to our articles on Lolicon and Shotacon. Alsee (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Glossary of anime and manga is too broad

Simply put the lead says it all: "Glossary of Japanese words and phrases used by anime and manga fans within and outside Japan." Is there a way to narrow this scope, I mean just by looking at Comiket for example on the list makes me go "What is this doing here?" How about we rename the article to something like Anime and manga terminology? There are terms that are used that aren't just by anime/manga fans to describe the works and the characters in them. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Doing a quick look-over of the list, a number of terms are rather broad. Terms such as baka, echhi, hentai, hikikomori, iinchō, imōto, etc. are part of the general Japanese language and are not specific to anime or manga. Also, the list lacks sources on most of the terminology used or how it is associated with anime or manga. —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worth sending to AfD then as a collection of loosely associated terms? I do like the idea of a list of terms though such as Dere Dere, Yandere, the character traits used in the storylines for anime, and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest cleaning it first by removing all general terms first and see what is left over. It seems that editors just through in random Japanese everyday terms because they are used in anime/manga. —Farix (t | c) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will do a sweep. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps add a page notice explaining the page is for only those words which are not general, everyday Japanese words. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I still don't know, I mean what should be the inclusion criteria or the lead in? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
General Japanese terms like onee-sama or senpai don't need to be listed. But stuff like omake, tankobon, obi (publishing), dojinshi, yonkoma fit the manga-making jargon. I don't know about the term that says "To be continued". Everywhere I've seen that, it translates to "To be continued". Comiket isn't a jargon either, and emphasizing Komiketto is not using the common name. You can keep abbreviations like OP, ED, BGM, OST, even that "image song" as those are used often in anime productions. Anime jargon would have stuff like "eyecatch". Keep demographics (shonen, shojo, seinen, josei) and other general anime-like media terms like light novel and visual novel. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Found a list by Anime Herald and placed it in a further reading section. It should help reduce the entries, and is also organized to its various categories. It does have all the -honorific expressions though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made sub-categories for the Glossary rather than an ABC list (all of the letters were no tbeing used anyways). Feel free to check if I missed anything or you have improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


There is currently a move discussion over at Talk:Kanon (disambiguation) on what the primary topic for Kanon should be. Since the visual novel is a good article, and has received the most coverage in independent reliable sources I assumed it would be the primary topic. The move proposer though is arguing that Kanon (Germen for Canon as a liturgy term) would also take prime focus. My take on it is that the sources for Kanon are mostly Germen but would be willing to go with a Kanon (disamb) if consensus is in favor of that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


I must have been really oblivious bit somebody has been editing the articles such as the manga infoboxes. I cant write well due to the fact I am using a tablet so I would be thankful if somebody restores them.Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing of anime in American distribution

I've started a discussion regarding the title of this article as I believe the regional focus is ignorant of the wider practice of editing anime.

I'm also interested in feedback on how the page should be constructed and if we should keep the current format or not.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


I've recently removed extra airdates for the uncut versions of episodes from their episode lists on three articles. (example) This is in line with the parameter name, |FirstEngAirDate=, as well as the template documentation which states that it is the date the episode "was first aired", and contains the same wording for the |OriginalAirDate= parameter as well. However this has proven controversial, with 2601:8C:4001:DC9B:3CF0:9B1A:1344:CCC0 (talk · contribs) and Gibshamari (talk · contribs) reverting on the basis of consistency with other articles that contain uncut air dates as well. Thus I would like to establish consensus first for remedying that throughout the affected episode lists. Personally I do not find that when an episode was first aired uncut would be of interest to readers of an encyclopedia, and that the episode lists are explicitly meant to hold the first air date only; the rest are superfluous. A preliminary search found seven lists this would affect: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Opencooper (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors @ProKro and Sjones23 as well. Opencooper (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I Think the opinion that an uncut episode could be considered to have its own original air date to be a reasonable one although I haven't got an opinion on its merits yet. Surely this could be easily solved using the aux field? I think this would make sense on that example 1, I've not looked at the others.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources that supports the claim that those episodes were broadcast uncut in the first place? Also, a few months ago on another article, there was an editor asked why an English air date was included when all other media only gave the original dates. —Farix (t | c) 10:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I would say they are superfluous as they are rarely ever sourced and are not usually noted on episode lists of shows that have had alternate versions, usually uncensored, aired at a later date. Rather than scour for every single date of the alternate, uncensored and uncut versions air dates, they should just be deleted altogether. Besides, as Opencooper said, only the original air dates are notable and what general audience would care about. ProKro (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
SephyTheThird: Good point, i forgot about auxiliary fields, but as you say we shouldn't use them unless we are sure there is merit to them. Farix, regarding the editor's question, I think that's a good question to ask, but considering its scope and repercussions, it would be best addressed in an independent question. Opencooper (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote my reply before in a hurry but you are right in that we would need sources. however I'm sceptical that the average list would even have reliable sources for each episode's air date so i'm not sure it makes much difference outside of a Featured List. First and last are easy, in-between is much harder after all.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically the ones that first aired uncut were the Japanese airdates, so it wouldn't really be a big concern if the US uncut dates were not listed to the episode. However, such dates should be sourced to the Adult Swim programming schedule as they did make it a big deal that they were broadcasting the series uncut. The premiere can go in the season summary's broadcast sections. Even stuff like Hellsing may run uncut but arguments can be made that they still censored the F-word in the language. Rather than having to explain every variant in the listing, it can be detailed in the broadcast and home media sections. And we've already ruled out streaming unless it pertains to a web series. The same would go for Director's cut or special broadcast versions. The exception would be for those sneak preview premieres like they showcased episode 1 at a convention or film festival or another channel ahead of the regular TV broadcast. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Goku's arrangement

I recently started a discussion in here and I'm open to suggestions. Considering Goku is one of the world's most popular anime characters I believe we could try to make it a GA at least. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC KonoSuba structure

Link. Even if its a straw vote, please participate. I'm am prepared to walk away from the article completely if necessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Kanokon characters

I need an opinion here, should reception be included in the separate character entries or in a separate "Reception" header on the characters as a whole? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd put them in a Reception section as with List of Fairy Tail characters and List of Naruto characters. The information pertaining the portrayal of the characters by the voice actor can be done in their individual sections though. Information regarding how the character was created can go in a Conception section or under the individual character. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, I had the feeling that the main character sections were becoming bloated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

5cm Per Second photographs

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Photograph. It could use more opinions and help addressing the editor's concerns. Opencooper (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

English episode titles when no english titles have been officially announced

Over at Ajin: Demi-Human editors have been adding english titles. As the series is licensed by Netflix and won't appear until after the entire series has been broadcast in japan, no official titles have been made available. The titles being added appear to be direct translations of the Japanese and are either taken from the fansubs, or from places such as[MyAnimeList. G S Palmer has been removing them, which I more or less support, but I'm not aware of anything saying what we we should do in these situations. Do we have a view on this, and if not, should we?SephyTheThird (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

English translations of titles should be given even when there are no official translations as of yet. If there is an official English title later, the title can be adjusted later. If the official English title end up are dramatically different from a translated title, then both can be given and the situation noted. Of course, we should never copying translations from other source—whether they be fansubs or MyAnimeList—but should be translated by an editor. —Farix (t | c) 17:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If the work will not have an official English title, then I recommend the romanized name as the title with a good-faith translation in parentheses, like: "Yakusoku no sekai" (約束の世界, Promise of the World). If the romanization points to an obvious English word or phrase then use the English like with: Girls Life (がーるず・らいふ Gāruzuraifu). This is what I've done for discographies and manga artist works. For the Japanese episode list template, I would put the English in parentheses as it is a suggested translation until the official title comes out. I agree it can always be adjusted to the official one later, with embedded notes to confirm what translation method was done (Google or personal translation attempt, or verified by published volume). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

RWBY discussion

Need your thoughts on Talk:RWBY#Remove_Japanese_VAs and also whether a manga adaptation of the series would qualify the article for our wikiproject? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate over a manga adaptation making it fall under the project, I think we should limit the projects influence to that adaptation. Anything regarding the animated work falls outside our scope and I don't think a manga adaptation is enough to 'throw our weight around' as it were. I don't agree with the need to add the Japanese va's but as far as I'm concerned, it's not for this project to be concerned with as a whole. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we can be quite lenient about what WikiProjects are added to an article, as long as the project itself doesn't object since the templates are not official in any way and mostly used for tracking and rating purposes. A manga adaption certainly seems to meet the scope defined on our main page and many franchises will have a WikiProject added for each adaptation. Opencooper (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Weekly Shōnen Jump

It might be worth keeping an eye on this page again as our old vandaliser has snuck in one of his attempts to add a negative bias towards the publication. This time they went with one of the less obvious ones that to doesn't immediately look like vandalism but it may be the thin end of the wedge. It was a direct copy/paste from before but the page has been stable for months and the content could easily have gone without notice or concern if you weren't familiar with the all of the previous vandalism. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Pafu Magazine, anyone?

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the fact that I can't expand Haruhi Fujioka further. I'm thinking about eventually getting it to GA (though no hurry :p). According to this old blog post, there exists an old issue of Pafu Magazine that contains incredibly interesting information about Ouran Koukou Host Club and Haruhi in particular. I really want to verify this information, and get some basic information like author and date, so I can add the information to the articles.

Does anyone have access to the "2003 rankings issue" of boy's love-magazine Pafu? If you do, could you verify the information or take some pictures so I can verify it myself? I would be eternally grateful. ~Mable (chat) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reception-wise there is no room for expansion there? The Fandom Post, Capsule Computers, Japanator, and THEM Anime reviews are all great places to look. As for conception/development, try your search focus on Haruna Kawaguchi in relation to Haruhi. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. My searching has been mostly limited to Google searches, so I haven't checked these places specifically. I'll see if I can get something out of them when I get home. I haven't been able to find that much on Haruna's relation with Ouran, but I might try to focus on her a bit more. I did find more about Caitlin Glass, but nothing that was covered by reliable sources and most of it seemed trivial.
The Pafu interview described in that blog would be the jackpot, though. ~Mable (chat) 15:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Help hunting down RS for audio drama

I've been trying to hunt down RSes to confirm the existence of D.Gray-man audio dramas, but all of my hunts in English and using my limited Japanese recognition in going around the official websites hasn't turned up anything. I was wondering if anyone thinks they can hunt something down? I don't even know what the titles would be in Japanese, and I'm not even wholly sure if official audio dramas actually exist or if they're fan made. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a list of them? Do you have catalog numbers for them? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@TenTonParasol: Found it here [10] ( ドラマCD translates to drama CD ). Linking that term I see three drama CDs that were bundled with other main merchandise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes on Boku Dake ga Inai Machi

Over the last several days, there have been various IPs and new accounts removing plot details on the pretense that those details are "spoilers", particularly Gaku Yashiro's role in the plot. We will need more eyes on the article and probably request page protection if it continues. —Farix (t | c) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't we just leave them a message or something? I know that Wikipedia's spoiler guidelines are rather unpopular with non-editors and Wikipedia newcomers, but we need to tell them that our guidelines exist for a reason. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Himari Noihara

Well I feel like I have added just about as much as I can to the article but am looking for additional feedback. Does the article look good for B class or does it need more work in areas? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the B-class criteria: the referencing and structure is good, and it is reasonably well-written and includes an image and infobox. Then the only things to worry about are if the article reasonably covers the topic, and if it is presented in an appropriately understandable way. It covers her backstory, her character, and her role in the plot pretty well. It also includes relevant real-world info such as her conception, voice actresses, reception, and differences between adaptions. That seems like reasonable coverage to me. (If you can find any character polls that might be worth including as well. You can also look at Featured Articles for character for other possible information) As for presentation, appropriate wikilinks to characters and terminology are included where needed. (Though maybe include some in-article explanations like "an ayakashi yokai") I've gone ahead and reassessed the article as B-class. I also copyedited a little, but feel free to revert anything iffy. By the way, I'm not sure character names are supposed to be italicized. Opencooper (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! Yeah I agree about the italicized character names and will try to look for some kind of character poll. Hopefully I can get this one up to GA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck! Opencooper (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting the lead into at least two paragraphs pero WP Lead. Anyway the article looks good.Tintor2 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, and imput, yes for a GA the lead has to be more than what it is now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


Per this discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Goodreads, Goodreads isn't a reliable source. A check should be done to see if it is used in any reception sections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The only time I would consider it reliable is if an author whose account has been verified there (listed as a "Goodreads Author") posted something there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems at List of hentai anime

I'm having an problem with Angrybirds707, who is apparently placing everything in Category:Hentai anime and manga on the list regardless of whether it is a hentai anime or not. They have even attempted to add articles article about erotic games that have a non-hentai anime adaptation. Apparently, this individual does not know what anime actually is. —Farix (t | c) 03:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It obviously should be removed. That would be like listing Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark atList of Marvel Comics publications (N–Z) due to the fact that Spider-Man originated in comics.-- (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see much in terms of sources, nor does the list give any additional information. Seems like it doesn't do anything more than the category already does, failing stand-alone list guidelines. ~Mable (chat) 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The category includes both anime and manga. The list, however, is limited to just anime. It has a more narrow scope than the category and can be annotated and cited (if anyone even bothers), unlike the category. —Farix (t | c) 11:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time restructuring

What's the best way to organize these articles?

  • Harukanaru Toki no Naka de, supposedly covers the video games but has infoboxes for the entire franchise (OVAs, manga, etc.). Details appear to be for the franchise.
  • Official manga title in English: Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time
  • Official anime title in English: Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time – A Tale of the Eight Guardians [11]

The video games have not been released in the US so they are staying as Harukanaru Toki no Naka de.

Two video games have their own articles:

Here's my plan:

Thoughts? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Harukanaru Toki no Naka de is mainly about the game, but provides summary information on the adaptations. I think it is fine for an article on the game to summarize adaptations of the game, and that doing so doesn't make it a franchise article. I don't think a franchise article is really needed right now, so I would just leave that article on the game at its current name and not have separate articles for the franchise and the first game. If the number of notable parts of the franchise continues to grow, then it might make sense to have a franchise article, but for now it seems unnecessary. I do think that the anime/manga infoboxes should be removed from the article on the game . . . if we have a separate article on the anime/manga then it makes sense for those to just be on the anime/manga and not on both pages. As for the name of the anime/manga article, I think it should be moved to Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time (anime), while Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time should be left as a redirect to the first game. My thought is that even if the English name isn't officially used for the game, people would still refer to the game with that name. Unless the anime is much better known than the game, I think the game would be the primary topic, so the name without a disambiguator should probably go to the page for the game. Calathan (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I would name the article with (manga) as that came first (1999 vs. 2004) but yes, a redirect for the TV series would go there and the detailed infoboxes can stay there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, some of the OVAs follow the game development, and not necessarily the manga/anime series. The anime is adapted from the manga version. The single game listed in the anime series section I am assuming is based on the anime version. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC) updated 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Each edition of the video game series has its own set of characters for the most part. The latest version is Haruka: Beyond the Stream of Time 6 released in 2014 but those haven't warranted individual articles yet. [12] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
With so many games I would suggest creating a box to let the reader know which is the first. I'm kinda lost.Tintor2 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the infoboxes and made a list of the games. Hopefully that will help things. Also created a navbox. A lot of the entries there point to the same article but at least it helps clarify what titles are part of the series. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've initiated a RM here: Talk:Harukanaru_Toki_no_Naka_de AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Standardizing plot summary length for television episodes

I've noticed that in some anime episode lists (like List of Cross Ange episodes and List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes and List of High School DxD episodes), some of the episode summaries are overly long or too short (the episode summaries in the List of Ai Yori Aoshi episodes are mostly copied from I would like to quote the relevant guideline from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Plot_section:

For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines, with the provision that articles using {{episode list}} should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template).

As such, I think we should standardize the length of the plot summaries in episode lists by trimming or expanding the summaries or even possibly rewrite some of the plot summaries from scratch where necessary. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea considering the Manual of Style and the template itself, both which are just as applicable to animanga lists. These lists can have a lot of episodes so succinctness is important and some of these are overly detailed. Though for the shorter ones, they should really only be expanded if the summary is missing important plot information. (A lot of them are just very general and avoid spoilers) Considering most of us don't have the episodes fresh and how there's so many of them, we've got our work cut out for us. Also if you're sure that the Ai Yori Aoshi summaries originated from first, you should remove them as copyright violations. Opencooper (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
That size is good for a typical episode and OVA in the 30-minute timeslot. I'd expect shorts to be much less. Are you getting resistance from editors for trimming those summaries? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree a standard should be agreed on for quality articles. However I think that attempting to enforce it on recent and ongoing shows is probably not worth doing due to the high likelyhood of random editors who all have different views. Once a series has reached a point of stability, then by all means - especially if you have a long summary and can start to reword it. Episode lists tend to be low priority and while occasionally an editor will make a featured list, most episode lists will generally be all over the place. I'm not sure any suggestions over length are going to have much effect until someone takes them seriously and prepares them towards FA standard. So really it's the time and effort an editor has, which tends to resolve around a strong affinity to the title. Even then it can be a lot of work. Copied summaries (and manga "summaries taken from the cover) are all copyvio and need to be removed, regardless of if you have replacement text.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there should be an arbitrary length, just that the episode summaries should be relatively consistent in length with others from the same series. In fact, I would rather have episode summaries that are too long or too detailed then the opposite. Overly detailed summaries can always be trimmed down by just about any editor, but those that are nothing but a couple of sentences will require someone to rewatch the episode and write an entirely new summary. —Farix (t | c) 22:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly non-neutral article?

Hi, I'm Justin. For a school project I decided to research the magazine Weekly Shōnen Jump. However, reading the article it struck me just how promotional it sounds. It really reads as an advertisement. Question, why isn't there any criticism of the magazine in the article? As far as I'm concerned there's been plenty of criticism from both Western and Japanese magazine sources about Jump's heavy dosage of ecchi content, violence, and connections to terrorism. Why isn't any of this in the article? Please add some criticism to Weekly Shōnen Jump to stop it reading like an advertisement!Crazy Boy Justin (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI to anyone interested, this is probably Cow cleaner 5000.-- 06:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"probably"? All I have to say is "Quack".SephyTheThird (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
SPI case filed. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You would think that this person would move on by now, it amazes me sometimes on how many years this can go on for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Twitter for in-universe detail

While out fixing things I came across Shima Shima Tora no Shimajirō, and saw twitter being used for in-universe detail. This made me wonder, can or should the social media site be used to fill in character information? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a primary source, and probably better than quoting the work itself (which is basically just original research), but it is describing in-universe content nontheless. If reliable sources don't describe this aspect of the plot, there's no point in using primary sources for it. ~Mable (chat) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The question is more whether is an official twitter account for the show or just a fan twitter account? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That is another good point that I am unsure on. I do know I have seen character twitter accounts before though (ex: Garfield), mostly it is the character saying something about the day ect... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's a fan one, then its only value is when the official twitter account either retweets that information or tweets a specific reply to confirm the information presented. WP:TWITTER / WP:Twitter-EL AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's for in-universe detail, it's perfectly acceptable to quote the show itself (episode #, timestamp, etc.) as anyone can look up the details that way and verify it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably a case better discussed at WP:RSN. I've seen previous discussions there about using twitter as sources range form only verified accounts to twitter should never be cited. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I would think that twitter could be best used for interviews, or upcoming releases/info from official accounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
How would the 140-character format be used for interviews? A short Q/A I can imagine, but even that would be pushing it? ~Mable (chat) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The Facebook seems to be legit. I think using that Twitter for cast announcements is probably okay, but all of those references need to be redone to the cite tweet format as using the reFill tool didn't fill them in properly. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing of anime in distribution

I've started redoing this article (previously "editing of anime in American distribution"). I was originally planning to sandbox it until it was done, but frankly it's a lot of work to do it that way and while there is no deadline, the page was long past the need to be nuked. The layout is vaguely what I had planned, but it's quite "fluid" depending on how it develops. I'm quite happy to continue building the page but if anyone would like to help, I'd really appreciate it.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Genre name RFC

I’ve opened an RFC about the name of a genre at Talk:Real Robot#RFC: What should this be titled?. Please participate. Thank you. — (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

THEM reliability

Revisiting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_37#Comics_Worth_Reading_and_Pop_Shock_Culture_RS.3F, which questioned why THEM was reliable and someone said:

THEM Anime, similar to AnimeOnDVD/, has been around a long time, at least ten years. Its reviews have been quoted by other reliable sources and it has some industry backing. They also do meet the requirements of having specific guidelines for accepting submissions with editorial oversight. It also does have published credentials/info on its writers and staff. The, now former, editor and chief Carlos Ross was featured on G4's Attack of the Show, including discussing several of his reviews.[13] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this discussion was from 2009 and our approach to sources has changed. THEM has no hallmarks of editorial quality. It is written by hobbyists and has no institutional pedigree. Being around for a long time is not a marker of reliability, quoting might be (depending on the specific quote), but where is this editorial oversight policy mentioned? Perhaps a link to this discussion worked a half-decade ago, but this is not a reliable source by today's standards. czar 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I found three published books that use THEM Anime as references. There is Fanthropologies written by Frenchy Lunning, and Japanese Aesthetics and Anime: The Influence of Tradition by Dani Cavallaro. [14][15]. There is also International Perspectives on Shojo and Shojo Manga by Masami Toku. [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a Phoenix New Times article on Carlos Ross: [17]. He has a journalism background at ASU. [18] ANN Cast of THEM contributor Bradley Meek and Deb Aoki ( on [19] Freelance writer Tim Maughan had Meek as a guest writer at his blog.[20] Also see this FAC discussion on Twin Spica where they questioned THEM as a reliable source and then struck it off the questionable list: [21] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: I think it would be a good idea if we go into WP:A&M/RS, and look for old discussions. Additional info to establish the reliable sources in the "Evidence" column is always helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to Google the website's editor-in-chiefs and the only one I managed to find anything out about quickly was Tim Jones, who has a less than stellar resume. It's probably out-dated, though, and I am not sure how Google knows this Timothy is related to THEM Anime. Regardless, I wouldn't count them out simply because of their silly-looking staff-page. According to this page, new editors are admitted "irregularly through a rigorous process of peer and editorial review." That sounds good, but it's difficult to say how accurate that is. ~Mable (chat) 18:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
If Frenchy Lunning is using them as a reliable source, they are definitely acceptable. Lunning is the editor of the long-running Mechademia academic journal which publishes papers and essays about anime and manga. Also, AnmaFinotera was not known for casually accepting places as reliable without a lot of solid evidence to back it up. Those two points, as well as the others raised by Knowledgekid87 and AngusWOOF put me squarely in the "consider THEM reliable" camp. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Brian Ruh, who's done his Ph.D in anime and writes in Mechademia,[22] has a paper Transforming U.S. Anime in the 1980s: Localization and Longevity references THEM Anime Reviews by Raphael See (original editor-in-chief) and the site in general. [23]. LepreCon 29 in 2003 confirms that the THEM organization originated as Arizona State University's science-fiction and fantasy society. [24]. However, it is not one where any student/anime fan would post a review, but that the reviews section comes from a small group of editors-in-chief, each individually named in the review itself. Other than Ross and See, the chief editors aren't necessarily affiliated with ASU. The reviewers that aren't chiefs, however, are mostly ASU-affiliated alumni. If you want to draw a RS line, I would retain only the chiefs and founders, and then consider the other reviewers on an individual credential basis. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC) updated 20:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this means much, but Jason Huff of wrote that Stig Hogset of THEM are among the anime reviewers "who occasionally get pull-quoted and are known to various PR departments." [25] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the website and have come into contact with their reviews on occassion, including Carlos. Pretty sure I've seen their reviews quoted in journals that I've used for my own researches, as well as, more importantly, in advertisements by American licensors. They're also mentioned frequently by ANN and other reliable people in the American anime scene too. The site itself is definitely reliable, though they've had some new blood lately so I don't know if that applies to their newer reviewers as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above I would say that this qualifies as a reliable source, if anyone wants to contest it further then there is always WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump under discussion at AFD

This poor little Manga related article has been mostly unloved for eight years. Please take a look and see if you think it has the potential for cleanup or if it should be mercy killed. Leave feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Move request

See Talk:IS (Infinite Stratos)#Requested move 12 March 2016. Input appreciated. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done moved. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Super hero vs. fictional character

There is currently a discussion in Talk:Goku#Super hero vs. fictional character regarding how should the lead start. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Character lists and summary style

Many of the series articles with separate character lists do not list the characters in the series article—why? If the characters are important to the series, they should be covered in the series article (at least in brief), no? And then split out summary style as needed? Many series articles have empty Character sections apart from a {{see also}}/{{main}} template that links to the separate character page. It would be more helpful for readers if these sections at least summarized that other article's contents. I don't see the logic by which character list articles receive special exemption from the summary style conventions. czar 18:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Character lists should be linked to plot sections when possible (example: Tokyo Mew Mew), as usually a long series will have a lot of essential characters that cant be summarized all on the same page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of those "many of the series articles"? I don't see that being the majority, especially not the GA-level articles. Most articles have a Plot section that highlights the main characters, and those can be linked to the list whether the latter be on the same page or separate. What should not happen is a Characters section that has nothing but a see also/main to the character list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Progression template

I'm thinking about adding a progression template for this project using Template:Progression rainbow and I think the four major milestones should be "All articles FA or FL class", "All articles GA, FA or FL class", "All articles higher than Stub class", "All articles higher than Start class" and "All lists featured". I'm using WP:VG and WP:SQUAREENIX as models for the achievements. I think it would be beneficial for this project to achieve these milestones. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the percent larger than stubs be higher than the percent larger than start? (Since the former would include the latter. 59.1% also seems too high) As for my opinion, I think the goals should be towards fractions of the total articles like for WP:VG because our project has a lot of articles unlike WP:SQUAREENIX. All articles GA, FA, or FL class is a mighty goal but realistically will always be a small percentage because of the effort involved, so the top two should be tweaked or else we'll be forever looking at small percentages which serves to demoralize rather than encourage work towards a specific goal. Opencooper (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't have added it, as the status is more of an embarrassment. With 0.5%, and 1.9% complete, we should wait for a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with recalibrating the goals. Tiny fractions will only discourage. Getting articles out of Stub is a worthy challenge though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't getting all articles to C-class or higher be a much more meaningful and possible goal? At the video games project, some goals are "20% of articles C-class or better" and "5% of articles GA-class or better." They don't even keep track of FA/FLs in this way, because that just doesn't get you anywhere. The goals I've set for myself at the Webcomics task force are similarly low: I like to imagine I could eventually manage to get 20% of the articles covered in its scope to C-class. I can't even imagine getting more than five articles to FA-class... I too think it might be more useful to recalibrate the goals ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 20:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added the project's goals at WP:ANIME#Goals and updated the Milestones section to include featured lists and articles higher than C-Class. Any other ideas on how should we proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the difficulty of getting featured, how about replacing "All lists Featured" with "5% of articles and lists GA-Class or better" like WP:VG or just for articles considering the lists are already at 10%. (the list percentage could also be lowered) It would be more realistic and attainable. (and could always be increased if reached) Also, can you double check the code for the Stub and C class articles? Like I said before, the percentages shouldn't be the same, but rather should be cumulative if I'm understanding right. Opencooper (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If no one objects, I've cut down to at least the All Start and Stub classes. They're pretty much similar in comparison. I'll add some more goals as we finish up those plans. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Percent is good. As more articles are created, the number of articles that should be GA-class (or whatever) will naturally increase. There really isn't an equivalent for GA in the list progression, so perhaps B-class would also be a good goal to have. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
While we have 7.1% of articles higher than start class, 5.7% of articles higher than B-Class and 10.7% of lists that are featured, I've made a proposal about destubifying all anime and manga articles below. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Destubify project

Pertaining to the discussion to include the progression templates, I thought that we should make a push to destubify all anime and manga-related articles and turn those into Start-Class articles or better. Currently, we have 59.1% of articles higher than stub class and there's currently 5,155 stubs and is not an undoable task. Is anyone else interested in joining this project? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I recommend people pick a letter and post here which one they are working on, just so there's not duplication of effort or too many edit conflicts. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested as long as these are in the fields I'm familiar with, such as seiyū and singer articles, as well as anime articles. Animators, directors, and other staff, I'm not really experienced in working with such articles, but I could also try. If anything, I'm willing to either create articles on anime theme songs singers, or at the very least expand existing articles on theme song singers to Start-class. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
What about the articles that are notable enough for inclusion but cant be expanded to anything more than a stub? I would rather put my time into fixing up articles that need it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There will always be exceptions, but it's really unlikely that something notable enough for inclusion couldn't be made into at least a start. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What would be good enough for Start? I've recently sourced Yuriko Chiba and Azusa Kataoka, but can hardly find any biographical information about them. I suggest the under construction tag for overhauls. I don't think there would be that many edit conflicts with 5000+ articles, and it might be good to share effort on some of them. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For people like them, we already have a section detailing all their works, so a pretty minimal sourced biography section should be enough. I'd argue that Azusa Kataoka is already start-class, as it looks well-sourced and there are no big issues. Two or three paragraphs of prose could make it c-class even, though that's just my opinion. The line between classes are vague, but the point is to improve the article to acceptable standards. A few paragraphs of prose text outside of the lead section should do just that. ~Mable (chat) 14:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually for most of those voice actors and crew, there is not a sourced list until we go through them rigorously. But yeah, adding a paragraph or two walking them through major roles would help. The character designer and director ones might be boring though as they would just say that they worked on this series and then another. Ideally there would be something about the person's style or approach but such information rarely shows up. But I can throw those samples out to the Assessment page and we can have at it there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let's move this to WP:ANIME/DESTUB. We should post articles that we want to tackle and need help and then cross out. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm planning to update the participants list and the stub class articles there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Czar's mass redirecting of characters articles

@Czar: has been redirecting character lists left and right, in some cases with sourced content. This should be discussed as character lists have been kept in the past as plot extensions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't redirect anything that wasn't an obvious case. No need for the alarmist rhetoric. czar 01:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Well this is going to go into an AfD now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key (company) visual novel character lists. Czar I can easily find character mentions in independent reviews. Ayu Tsukimiya for example is linked to List of Kanon characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't there an editor who was topic banned for doing exactly this? —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is "an obvious case" in this situation, it's not something the project usually does. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about so many articles being redirected without discussion. Being WP:Bold is fine and all but considering how many articles have been affected and would be in the future, I think the discussion and debate is necessary.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of his AFD's and redirects have been on video game character lists such as List of Hyperdimension Neptunia characters but also some anime ones that have not been worked on in ages such as List of Sword Art Online characters. I have to oppose per MOS:ANIME, character lists can be split off when they get too big for the main article to handle. For manga/anime, that's when the number of main characters gets to be unwieldy (e.g. 20+ major characters), or if it covers a franchise. The reviews and independent notability applies to the cases there's a single character article. References to primaries, as with the list of chapters and list of volumes are to be expected along with plot. However, I do agree with WP:TNT when the character lists have gotten out of control and are written from an in-universe perspective. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I would generally agree that TNT would be preferable to outright redirection or an ill-fated attempt at a mass merge, but the history of this WikiProject has shown more often than not that even if you were to TNT something, eventually, sooner or later, it would end up out of control again. It's very hard to maintain character lists for that reason; 99% of the content is written by fans and IPs, and if any editors that were maintaining a list go absent, there's no hope. Character lists have at least offered a sort of buffer to keep the main article focused while most of the plot fans want to see is on a character list. My point is that even if you TNTed List of Sword Art Online characters, it would just pretty much go back to where it started once another anime or film gets made, and for that series, that's in 2017.-- 09:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Character lists in main-series articles that get too large should be trimmed before being splitted off. Any content that isn't sourced to reliable sources and doesn't add context needed to understand the rest of the article can probably be removed. Honestly, the summary-style description of a work's characters that is left behind is often of perfect length and has due weight, while the list that is created in the process contains exactly all the trivial information that should have been trimmed in the first place.
...Or that's how I feel about this, anyway. If you can't source it, it's probably not notable (read: worth noting). ~Mable (chat) 09:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • keep the main article focused while most of the plot fans want to see is on a character list There's the rub. As a generalist encyclopedia, if we accept that there is not enough secondary, reliable source coverage to write an encyclopedic article on a set of series' characters alone, then we acknowledge that fans would be better served by another (specialist) wiki for this information. czar 14:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If it can't be sourced, it can't be put in the article anyway. But what Czar is advocating is that everything has to be secondary sourced, which I disagree because of WP:LISTN and WP:LSC "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." There are criteria to establish notable main and major characters such as manga character profiles at the head of a graphic novel volume, anime main cast/staff and character lists, and allowances for large ensemble casts. If the show doesn't going to be that big, and concerns around a dozen characters tops, then it doesn't need the separate list. As with non-anime TV shows, episodic guest and minor recurring characters are usually off the list and mentioned maybe in the episode list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You should not confuse the notability of a creative work (be it an anime or a game) with the notability of the group of characters in said work. The entries of a list don't need to meet particular notability guidelines. For example, relatively few of these exoplanets are independently notable. Because of this, they don't get much of a description (it's really just some numbers). The topic of the list itself, however, is notable, as is confirmed by reliable sources.
If a good amount of sources state something about the cast of characters of some work, then perhaps that grouping is notable. At the very least, you could built a reception section out of it. Listing the characters themselves could still be difficult, though, and it may still not be worth it to create an offshoot article for it unless you actually have some information about specific characters. ~Mable (chat) 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point about the reception sections. Most of the better quality articles that are list of characters, List of Naruto characters being our prime example at FL, have reception sections as well as character design and conception sections. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
General reception sections are definitely not always the best way to go, but at the very least, they can establish WP:LISTN. ~Mable (chat) 16:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So uh, if anyone's interested, List of Sword Art Online characters is being proposed for merger with Sword Art Online. I'm still unsure about it due to the large amount of characters in the series and (to me at least) it seems extremely difficult to trim down to fit into one page, but feel free to comment at Talk:Sword Art Online#Proposed merge with List of Sword Art Online characters. Zappa24Mati 03:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Similar issue with List of Hyperdimension Neptunia characters. Please comment at Talk:Hyperdimension_Neptunia#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Hyperdimension_Neptunia_characters. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting here that I salvaged the deleted Senran Kagura character list and dumped it in the parent article, with what I consider to be the more minor groups of characters commented out. Since there's so many separate games I'm not sure what the best way to deal with them is. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove Incomplete list tag for current manga/anime lists

To help cleanup tagging efforts, I recommend {{inc-up}} should be removed from current manga/anime episode lists as they are broadcast, and should be tagged for cases where the lists have fallen way behind broadcast. Optionally, we can try {{Dynamic list}}. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible Featured or Good Topics?

I'm thinking that we should make some Good or Featured Topics in the later months. Some examples that we may need to do are: Fairy Tail, Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball and One Piece. Any others? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Make an update to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Topic workshop to centralize the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I just updated the page, feel free to work on existing topics or add new ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Countdown to Zero Cleanup Tags

Similar to the most recent discussion at WikiProject Square Enix, I'm thinking that we should cut down all of the cleanup tags to zero. Currently, 4,640 articles have tags, with a total of 7,295 issues. Please do your part: if you see a tag, fix it and remove it. Some are very simple like adding title to references, or archiving references; some of you are also excellent writers, and we have some intro sections and some plot sections that could use your help. If everyone does a few, it will all be done, and will be a milestone for us like no Stubs will be. Here are some Featured Articles and Featured Lists with cleanup tags:

So, there's only one FA and five FLs, let's get that down to zero! Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on the FA and FL ones first like you said. And the easy ones like CS1 and bare URL. Dealing with everything at once is pretty much impossible. Over at WP:ANIME/BIO I've done a ton of work to get rid of all the BLP refimprove tags, but most of them were moved to More footnotes. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I did the low hanging fruit above, (if the error sounds vague, click on the hidden category to see more details, look at the references, and the top of the page preview when editing) though the Naruto one will be difficult unless one has the actual issue that was cited. I also recommend that the project members check out the cleanup task force, and specifically the project's cleanup listing. Opencooper (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, did the Trinity Blood one. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It took me a while, but I managed to track down the Naruto reference to the article it was merged from. @Tintor2: if you still have that issue on hand it would be very helpful if you could find the title for the section the text appears in so we could get a full citation and fix the error. I found a cover and table of contents here in case that helps. Opencooper (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Still I think Kishimoto referred to Tobi rather than Madara. Also, I remember some interviews here that I only found the transcript by googling it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The current text actually says "Obito in his Tobi persona" so looks like it was fixed. (Great memory by the way!) It also looks like some of those interviews are utilized in the current article. Are you saying you found the transcript somewhere instead of having the actual magazine? Pragmatically, we could always put whatever as the title value since you already provided a page number and that's enough to find the information. Maybe "Kishimoto Interview"? (though I have no clue if it's an interview or something else, but page 11 would imply something standalone) Opencooper (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I found the interview's preview in the original Viz Media site and then I found it in Google complete. Since I live in South America I can't any copy from the interview.Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That was fast! Now we have just two more featured lists left, and we'll have zero tags for it. Also we have 52 good articles that need cleanup, minus the other two that might have to be merged (Big the Cat and Blue Dragon). We need to shorten that to zero also. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed Gunslinger Girl problem. And according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Manga magazines, Jinnai and Dinoguy1000 may help use with Naruto list. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Jinnai has not been active since 2012 obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I can source interviews and other content that was featured in Shonen Jump, but accessing my collection takes some effort so if there's more than one source needed, I would prefer doing as many in one go as I can; if someone wants to get a list together, you can post it on my talk page and I'll try to get to it in a reasonable timeframe. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And with that, our FA and FL cleanup is almost done! Nice work. There are two more FLs left for cleanup.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Phase two: Good articles

Here's the full list of our GAs with tags on them. Just like the FAs and FLs, to help them keep their status we should have zero tags on these as well. Here they are:

Good article cleanup list

So, we have 52 GAs total like I mentioned earlier. Think we can do this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, most are very easy problems to solve, so I think we can. (I've already done 6 within 20 min. and found problems with robots.txt to archive dead links) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually want Lupin GAR'ed, it needs a complete rewrite. Leave it for now and I'll see if I can justify nominating it.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Demoted GAs

What about demoted GAs? Some of them are still good enough that it shouldn't be hard to bring them back up to standards. Sailor Moon comes to mind; there's plenty of sources about it which could be used to bring it back to GA-status; in fact, with all the coverage it's gotten, it could be a possible FA in the future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections. We should make this a goal as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Phase three: B-Class articles

We have some B-Class articles that we may need to cleanup. There are 37 articles total, some of which are part of WP:VG and some which do not count because of merge needed tags (Sword Art Online).

B-Class cleanup list

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Invisible characters, and reference errors are easy fixes I have been tackling these issues for months. The harder ones are going to be sourcing where you have to take more of your time to do the work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing anime in Category:Post-apocalyptic television series

The IP editor keeps removing anime articles from Category:Post-apocalyptic television series with a stated reason of "It belongs to the Post-apocalyptic anime and manga category". I've tried to explain on his talk page that both categories are needed, but the he doesn't seem to agree. I've been having a hard time understanding what he is getting at since he is only communicating through edit summaries. However, I'm thinking from his latest edit summaries, and because he made Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga be a sub-category of Category:Post-apocalyptic television series (and also a subcategory of Category:Post-apocalyptic films), that he wants to keep Category:Post-apocalyptic television series as only directly including live-action shows. However, I just don't think the way he is categorizing things works, since lots of things in Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga aren't TV series (since that category also include manga, anime OVAs, anime films, etc.). I think the best way to categorize these pages is to just have them in both Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga and Category:Post-apocalyptic television series. I suppose an alternative would be to create a new Category:Post-apocalyptic anime television series, and make that be a subcategory of both Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga and Category:Post-apocalyptic television series, but I don't see any reason to do that rather than just categorizing them in both categories. Anyway, if anyone could help out with these articles (see the IP editors edit history for the articles involved) or give any opinions on what should be done, that would be helpful. Calathan (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current categorization hierarchy the editor is using doesn't make sense, since "Post-apocalyptic anime and manga" also contains manga and the other things instead of just television series and films. An anime is also not the same thing as a live-action or film at all. It's also common to have separate categories for each type of adaptation in an article. Opencooper (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Would you say that Category:(whatever) anime and manga should be considered Non-diffusing WP:DUPCAT to the various media and then diffusing only to the "anime and manga" categories? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga should be a subcategory of Category:Post-apocalyptic television series at all, since it isn't a subset but instead a set with partial overlap. I don't think making it non-diffusing would help, since we aren't identifying a subset of post-apocalyptic TV series that have the special characteristic of being anime. Instead, the IPs categorization scheme wrongly implies that all anime and manga that are post apocalyptic are also television series, which simply isn't true. So my opinion is that his edits to make Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga be subcategories of Category:Post-apocalyptic television series and Category:Post-apocalyptic films should be reverted, and that each individual article in Category:Post-apocalyptic anime and manga should also be individually placed in whatever other categories are appropriate (e.g., Category:Post-apocalyptic television series). Calathan (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised this hasn't been decided upon already. I agree with putting the post-apocalyptic anime and manga category in Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction and nesting all anime and manga franchises that apply in there. "anime and manga" is something completely different from "animated series" or "comic", but I suppose that an anime tv series in a post-apocalyptic setting does also constitute as a "post-apocalyptic television series". ~Mable (chat) 18:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. That's how I've been categorizing articles for a long time; I just haven't got around to do a lot of them in one go. Personally, while I understand why it was done, I think having categories for "anime and manga" together is a bad idea, and it can result in situations like these. They just don't fit with the rest of the categorization system.--Cattus talk 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad news for the project...

I know this is old news, but in case you were wondering why Jinnai (talk · contribs) is not around anymore, he passed away four years ago. See also User talk:Jinnai#R.I.P. and Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2012#Aric Ferrell (Jinnai). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That is very sad news. I have fond memories interacting with him through WP:VN and his excellent work on the Popotan articles years ago, not to mention that School Rumble that he brought to GA and later FA is still one of the few FAs under this project. Jinnai, you will be missed.-- 06:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Never realized he died, and four years ago even. I remember interacting with him with School Rumble's FAN back in 2010 (I wasn't even very active on Wikipedia at the time, but given that School Rumble was, at the time, my favorite anime, I did what I could to improve with the article). I guess it's four years late, but may he rest in peace. At least we know Miyu Matsuki has a companion now in the great convention beyond. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow that is sad, I hope he is in a better place now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I decided to write a reception section in the character list of School Rumble in memory of Jinnai but it's still too small. If anybody helps, or just brings ref idea I would be grateful.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting the use of cosplay images from Wikicommons

I was looking over Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_20#A_solution_to_non-free_image_issue, and while the consensus was to discourage use in the actual article unless it pertains to the subject of cosplay and fandom, I thought about whether it is acceptable to add {{Commons category}} with Cosplay of (title) to the External links of character list articles? Thoughts? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yuri!!! on Ice

I can't create a talkpage for Yuri!!! on Ice - it is protected, for some reason? (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, can you demonstrate why this shouldn't be redirected to Sayo Yamamoto? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Didn't write it, don't care. (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I see a talk page for the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
That's because G S Palmer created it. I tried before and I was able to create it, but not logged out, so looks like it was semiprotected from creation. Don't know why though. Opencooper (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The three exclamation marks were tripping the first "EXCESSIVE PUNCTUATION OR REPETITION" rule on the title blacklist. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Changed the title to remove the exclamations as it doesn't need to be disambiguated from other works of a similar title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Note the title on the official website has the English subtitle for ユーリ!!! as "Yuri on Ice" without the exclamations, implying this is a stylization. However, the title as indicated on Twitter is styled as 「ユーリ!!! on ICE」 AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can be used as a reliable source for airdates. I remembered using them in List of Slam Dunk episodes and List of X episodes but there has been no removal of them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Can you use MADB instead? No idea where they are getting those dates. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
For some reason googling them leads me to books' shops.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Slam Dunk, X TV series AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks but I still don't if it is more acceptable or not.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I use amazon when I cant find any other source to use first (think of it as a temp source), it is acceptable but not encouraged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It depends entirely on where they are getting them. If they are just sourcing them from another database then they are only as reliable as that database. I think MADB should be our "official" database as it removes the doubt over reliability and should server as the deciding source if two sources differ. It also brings a consistency. Even for release dates Amazon is considered a backup source. It's worth noting that the first episode in the table matches neither amazon nor Hulu :p [26] SephyTheThird (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't we just simmply use (whenever applicable) official websites as sources for airdates, particularly for those which don't have MADB entries yet? Unless of course, a show aired when the internet wasn't a thing yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but it's not even a case of if the show was pre-internet as you also have to assume that the records were kept and maintained and then not lost after that. However if available i think it goes without saying that official sites are usable. I just wouldn't count on the data being existing.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As long as Amazon/Hulu isn't getting them from Wikipedia or random eBay-like sellers. I agree the dates pre-2000 may be hard to find given the lack of archived websites. MADB is best but sometimes they log airdates of later broadcasts. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
By "Later broadcasts" are we talking reruns or just the date from a different region (as sometimes things air in Kanto first)?SephyTheThird (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Date from a different channel later that week. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Make School Rumble a featured topic?

I'm thinking that we should make School Rumble a featured topic. I think we should consider making all of the School Rumble-related lists (such as List of School Rumble episodes, List of School Rumble chapters and List of School Rumble characters) to FL status. Any other ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too difficult since both the manga and the anime were released in English. There should also be coverage for the characters somewhere: in fact, there already is some character-related content pertaining to Harima and Tenma in the main article's development section, so that can also be included in the character list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about splitting List of Pokémon Adventures chapters

The List of Pokémon Adventures chapters is turning quite long and there is now a discussion about splitting it here. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft article for De:vadasy

Back in 2012, I noticed that the page for the anime De:vadasy had been deleted, but the anime seemed to have enough available sources to pass the notability guidelines. I had the old article userfied (to User:Calathan/Devadasy) and started working on it, but at the time I didn't get around to finishing it. I've now tried to get it in good enough shape to be moved back to mainspace. Despite being a long-time Wikipedia user, I don't really write much content, so I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Does it look ready to be moved to mainspace, or is there anything else that should be done first? Calathan (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is short – definitely start-class at best – but is otherwise completely fine. It gives the reader information about what the show is about, how it was released, what people thought of it, and it uses sources for verifiability. It would do just fine in the main space. I can't really see what people were involved (voice actors, director, etc), but such expansions can work in the mainspace too. Same for some details on the video game. ~Mable (chat) 05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The only requirement for mainspacing is that an article clearly show its notability, which in the case of animanga titles is done with reviews. This certainly seems to be notable and I'm sure there is even more coverage to be found. Looks good to me. As for information that could be added after that, I see a game mentioned in the infobox so that should be talked about in the prose as well. Opencooper (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
looks great, I would definitely move it to main space.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, everyone. I've gone ahead and moved the article to main space. About the game, I don't think I would have known one existed if it hadn't been mentioned in the previous version of the article that I had undeleted/userfied. I really don't know anything about the game to add to the article. Calathan (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
this is the source used in the List of titles by Green Bunny, if we need some verifiability. Someone might have to start looking through Japanese gaming magazines of the early 2000s to find out anything else. ~Mable (chat) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode lists

I just finished adding the episode 2.5 OVA to the list of Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash episodes. I added it between episodes 2 & 3, but that made me wonder: should its placing be based on its numbering (2.5), on its release date (which would place it between 10 & 11), or on the fact that it's an OVA (in which case, it should probably go at the end of the table)? Thoughts? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it its own subsection as the TV anime website [27] does not list it in its material. It can then be explained how it was bundled and released (with Vol. 1 of the Blu-ray/DVD) ANN ref.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that - good idea. Thanks. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

One Piece dubs

Just a note, the release date for episodes 446 and 447 of English dubbed one piece say April 26, however they are already out, probably with the previous DVD release. (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Adventures

I split List of Pokémon Adventures chapters into three sublists due to the excessive weight on the original article. However, the current list feels kind of empty and I don't remember how to do those sublists. Could somebody give me a hand? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I replied there but I have done the sublists. Opencooper (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Fancruft? Physical attraction

It's been a while since I've had to deal with this, but can I revert these edits on the grounds of fancruft? Here is some context. This user argues that this protagonist with weak emotions should have his physical attractions to a character noted. He also added insignificant events like "oh, they shared an umbrella", and has backed off from that point after I noted it.

The thing is, this character has noted other characters physical attractiveness before, and I believe this user is really stretching the importance of things here.

I've started a discussion (here) to try a diplomatic approach. Thanks DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Depends, really. Does his attraction to that character form an important part of his own character? Is the elationship between these two characters significant to the storyline? (I don't know enough about The Irregular at Magic High School to give a qualified opinion btw.) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 07:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's an offhanded comment, like acknowledging someone is beautiful. It looks like the user wants it to be something more. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)