Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

I'm wondering about this?

From List of Black Clover episodes at the moment there's three notes to the episode's name. But from my edit message there, if in the future. For any names that may change. Would I add in the |RTitle= or leave it be? As some names are different at crunchyroll and when adult swim shows it, some named episode titles are from funimation. Or both names are from the two. like the first episode, but not the second one and so on. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to decide what titles you are presenting on the table and what will be footnoted. The main could be "Adult Swim English title" as the show as broadcast on Adult Swim has airdates listed and the episode's DVRs would refer to this title. Or the main could be Funimation English title since home media ultimately gets to pick the official title. Or it could be the Japanese translated title. You can see List of Suzuka episodes or List of Initial D episodes or List of Glitter Force episodes as examples of the listings as used with the Japanese translated title. The current footnote is confusing. You should either list "Guardians" / "Those Who Protect"(footnote: title from X version) or "Those Who Protect" / "Guardians"(footnote: title from X version). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
ah ok. And for some past episode titles should I add that too? other than the three changed episode names. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Only if there are chances it would be referred to as such by reliable sources, not if they are unofficial translations. Sometimes Funimation or Crunchyroll will attempt to translate the original Japanese title, so those efforts can be recognized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
As before there was three edit attempts where an ip added funimation's episode title over crunchyroll's spelling to the episode titles. On the first try was before it was moved from "move to new page." When the other two was on the "list of; page/ article." Then I saw what episodes had different titles from seeing it on a comcast t.v. and looking at funimation's and crunchyroll's web-site too. Like for episode 2 it goes "A Young Man's Vow" (adult swim/ Funimation) "The Boys' Promise" (Crunchyroll) While both versions; the scene with the opening song is about to end, it tells the episode title. and I went ahead and did that. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
(Somewhat related question) there was someone asking about the black clover airdates, as the asked person had viewed. On its talk page too. "If Funimation is ahead a few episodes, from Adult Swim's airdates." Unblue box (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Animelo Summer Live

There has been an editor in particular @Splouge: who insists on keeping the "Setlists" on the article. I addressed the issue on my talkpage a few months back and my same concerns linger on the notability of them, or if they are needed at all. Any thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have come across others, not just on the talk page of @Knowledgekid87: who find the setlists useful, bringing together information on the live performances onto a single page that can easily be browsed and searched.

Splouge (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about their usefulness, this may not be the proper place for them is all. There are WP:OR and WP:V concerns to think about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It's too detailed for the festival article. Usually setlists are provided to indicate recurring songs for concert tours as they can then be backed up with news article reviews. But the set list shown is for a specific date and it isn't notable on its own unless it's something like List of performances and events at Woodstock Festival. It should better be left as wikia or setlist.fm material, the latter could be added as external link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more specific information about retaining the setlists (I have never used wikia or setlist.fm and am lacking experience of them being referenced from Wikipedia). The media (CD and video releases) are also lacking some details and I wouldn't want to add them only to have them removed again. Splouge (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The media is easier to source and is more notable in the context of the event. Keep in mind that Animelo Summer Live also has the setlists viewable on their website. I feel bad that you rely on them to get your info as I have been in this position, but there are some thing that are just not encyclopedic for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean the world has to end though, I am sure fan sites exist out there that this info can be copied over to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Which licensee should we list?

Per WP:ANRFC #1, closing RFC since a clear consensus has emerged. There is a clear consensus that both licensees can be listed provided it can be referenced to both companies or are under the joint announcement. MizukaS (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

There's a lot of anime that are dubbed by Funimation's in house studio, and listed on Crunchyroll at the same time. That tends to be the case with simuldubs, taking their partnership into consideration. So, what is the point of this topic, really? Currently, there is a user that goes by The Farix that is arguing that if there is no "license acquisition announcement", then no licensee shall be listed. Except, it's common knowledge that a company would not be granted legal dubbing rights UNLESS they bought a license in the first place. I'm not sure why he is struggling to understand such a simple fact, to be honest. MizukaS (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this an RFC and not a dispute resolution WP:DR? Can you provide the licensing references for the show? I wouldn't list it in the infobox if it isn't clearly stated in a reference. If there's a detailed explanation on how it works it can go to a "Licensing" section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is part of a larger issue with the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership. Primary and reliable secondary sources don't sufficiently explain who who holds the "master license," all we usually get is a vague "Crunchyroll is streaming it and Funimation is dubbing it," announcement from AnimeNewsNetwork. Because of this, we end up in this silly "Coke vs. Pepsi" brand rivalry situation, where editors run around changing who's listed in the infobox without any kind of consensus. Given the current circumstances I think the only options are to either list both companies as the licensee, or to list neither, as TheFarix is suggesting. Personally I prefer the former option, but regardless of which one we choose, this consensus should apply to ALL shows under the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership. CurlyWi (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad that this is being acknowledged as an issue. That's the point of RFCs, right? To resolve disputes like these. I've started a subsection below, so go ahead and tell me what your perspective is. For the record, I am in agreement with Curly. MizukaS (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we list Funimation AND Crunchyroll as the licensees, just Funimation because they're dubbing the series, or neither?

Note: This only applies to shows that are licensed under the Funimation/Crunchyroll partnership.

  • List both: Taking their partnership into consideration, both companies have bought their own license for the anime. Crunchyroll has the subbing rights, while Funimation has the dubbing rights. It is erroneous to list neither licensee and it would give off a heavy implication that no company has licensed the series at all. MizukaS (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • List both: Since reliable sources don't make any kind of distinction, we should list shows in the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership as being licensed by both companies. CurlyWi (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • TheFarix is right that we can't list one or the other, as that is just speculation at this point. MizukaS is also right that we do know the show is licensed, or it wouldn't be being streamed at all. Of course, I don't think the show is actually licensed by both companies like MizukaS says, as that would be ridiculous. One of them has the license and has sublicensed it to the other (in most of the cases of contention, I'm pretty sure Crunchyroll owns the license and is sublicensing it to Funimation). However, as previous threads on the topic have pointed out, there's no way to really know until the home video release comes out, or until one of the companies puts out a press release, like Crunchyroll did for winter 2017. So for now, we should either list both (with an {{efn}} note explaining the situation), or list neither. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a note should be included to prevent confusion. MizukaS (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
side question, home video is the dvd/ blue ray? Like this. The picture to the right in the ref/ source. I noticed that it listed three shows from the bottom up, that were shown during the spring season or just 'spring 2017'. Unblue box (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Home video refers to DVDs and Blurays, yes. MizukaS (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Around the time I was new here. I used to live by some rural areas. Right after leaving school (A 'k to eighth grade' but then the town I lived at, placed a high school a street away and somehow changed it from k to twelfth grade. When it was done being built.) Which since then they used vhs. The school was really slow on shifting from vhs and move on to the cd or dvd. Unblue box (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Who was the one that wrote the VHS comment again? Please sign your post. MizukaS (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The box cover pictures in that article do not show the companies (perhaps it's on the back cover?) so it's mainly going by the verbiage from the article itself which discusses the joint production for the three shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It depends - Theoretically, Funimation tends to be the licensee while Crunchyroll is just a streaming site where the licensors stream their content (though CR does have some series that they themselves have licensed). For licensing information, it's generally a good idea to mention what the licensor is based on what the sources say. So if ANN or Crunchyroll or some other site says that Funimation and Crunchyroll have licensed the series, then mention both. If only Funimation is mentioned, then mention Funimation alone, maybe at best noting that the series streams on Crunchyroll. If there's no licensing information, maybe at best note that it has been licensed for streaming, but leaving the licensing information as a footnote or something. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Depends it would apply to the joint announcements as with the one Unblue box referenced, but not retroactively to old titles prior to their partnership. It would have to be something in which both companies were involved in the production of the English content. I would go by Narutolovehinata5's suggestions and back it up by the references in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The ref/ source I used was to tell what did a home video looks like. And the info popped up and that was the closest example I thought of. Which only may apply to the three listed names. Unblue box (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MizukaS, please modify your conclusion. The consensus is that both can be listed provided it can be referenced to both companies or are under the joint announcement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages

It has come to my attention that this hasn't been updated in almost a year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted about it before on Meta. The discussion ended up on the project banner's talk page. I don't remember it going anywhere from there, but there's a small update at the bottom of the discussion. Opencooper (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
To get this page to work, it should be listed here. ~Mable (chat) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox cover images for anime articles

Today I noticed that Blackgaia02 has changed the infobox images for Ace Attorney (anime) and Darling in the Franxx – two articles specifically about anime series – from anime key art to manga adaptation cover art. I reverted it for Ace Attorney as "the primary subject here is the animated series, and the infobox image's main purpose is visual identification, so it makes no sense to use the cover of the manga". Blackgaia02 re-reverted this with the reasoning that "anime posters always falls into grey area. Usually gets replaced once better media representations of the series (DVDs, BluRays and Mangas) were released".

Is this really right? I don't understand what is even meant by "falls into a grey area". To me it is very clear that the best representation of an anime is artwork for the anime – not artwork for a related piece of media, drawn by a different artist in a different artstyle.--Alexandra IDVtalk 14:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that one may want to replace such posters with video covers, but using manga covers for such articles indeed seems odd to me. At the very least, this change is not an improvement at all. ~Mable (chat) 14:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It depends. For adaptations, it's best to go present the original source material in the infobox, but for articles about original anime or articles on individual anime, using the anime art is perfectly acceptable in the infobox. In this particular case, the Darling in the Franxx anime is the primary media and the manga is just an adaptation, so the anime poster should be the infobox images. This is not a gray area at all, it's standard practice. In any case, I've reverted the Franxx edit. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that Ace Attorney is not an anime adaptation of a manga, either - it is an anime adaptation of a video game series. The manga is not the source material, it was just released alongside the anime as promotion for it.--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the manga image is fine for now for Ace Attorney as the anime one is just promotional art, is there an anime image that goes with the Blu-ray or DVD cover? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
From my experienced, anime series always use their first series while mangas use the first tankobon cover. Still, there are also multimedia franchises like Hamatora and Devil Survivor 2: The Animation that use whatever came first.Tintor2 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel there is a general consensus to go with whatever media came first for a given work unless specified otherwise on a case by case basis (ex: free versus non free content). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I would go with the anime in this case. The poster has been up since December 2015 and the manga image was uploaded today. Also when looking at the article while the manga technically came out first (March 2016) the anime was originally announced at the 2015 Tokyo Game Show which occurred in September of that year.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering the subject that takes precedence in the anime's article is, well, the anime, that should be reason enough to keep the key visual. Of course, I managed to find the DVD box art on the official Aniplex Blu-ray/DVD page, but it's very bare-bones, not even showing the title. Still, the poster seems like the best choice. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

History merge?

Had written Draft:Iroduku Sekai no Ashita kara and Draft:Blackbox (anime), and another user has since created Iroduku Sekai no Ashita kara and Blackbox (anime); could someone merge the history of the pages? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)!

History merges are only for attribution related to copyright - such as in the case of copy-paste moves. Since I didn't use any of your text (I didn't even see your drafts), doing a histmerge would be misleading and unnecessary. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, the article is Blackfox, not Blackbox (anime). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Noted. Since articles already exist and the Draft text wasn't used, I'll just G7 my drafts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

How to list an extra episode?

Please see my question at Talk:Granblue_Fantasy_The_Animation#Episode_14?_Pumpkin_Lantern. Tnx, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS

This is just a notice to the WikiProject that MizukaS has been blocked indefinitely by TonyBallioni as a sockpuppet of Sk8erPrince, the details are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, just sad to see is all as he couldn't even last 2 months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks like it's been reopened with the account Yoashai. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Merging similar articles about chibi art

The articles chibi (term), super deformed and Q-version are essentially about the same thing, and I think they should be merged together. While chibi can mean other things in Japan, the article is clearly about the artstyle and not "small" characters in general. I am leaning towards chibi (term) being the main title, because it's the most commonly used term in sources, but if anyone objects, let me know.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The word "Chibi" is the WP:COMMONNAME here so I would definitely go with that one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I would go with Chibi (slang) as with Moe (slang). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I will merge the pages together. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The merge has been completed. If you want to help improve the article than take a look at the sources present at Talk:Chibi (slang)#Reference dump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

assistance

I'm working on Draft:List of Resident Evil media. The comics section is pretty small but I have a feeling there is more manga related to this old series than what I can find. I'm not good at looking up Japanese sources and translating yet. If someone knows any manga for this series, could you help me add it to the list?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, how will that work with the Resident Evil media franchise article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that Final Fantasy had List of Final Fantasy media and thought Resident Evil needed one too. Others in WP:VG agreed. I don't know where the link will go once its a real list and not a draft but I assume the link it will go in the "Media" section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that would work. I just didn't want to see detailed video game tables on both pages. WP:CFORK AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Once the list is made, I think the current list in the main page will be shortened to the main series. I haven't discussed it that far ahead so I can't guarantee it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Arifureta: From Commonplace to World's Strongest

Could someone who reads Japanese take a look at this source from Natalie and tell me whether it says that the Arifureta manga launched in that issue, or merely switched there from somewhere else? Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: It says that the manga by RoGa started in Comic Gardo, and that that online magazine began on December 22, 2016. It also says the first volume was released a couple days later, but it doesn't look like those chapters had been serialized anywhere else beforehand. The website's archive indicates that manga was there at launch date.--十八 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Naruto (film)

Hello,

I have created this draft for the live action film. This ok? Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you check WP:NFF and whether principal photography has begun on the film? Also it might have to be further specified like Naruto (2018 film) as there are a bunch of animated films in Naruto#Films. Has the title been confirmed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed

Should the episode lists of D.Gray-man: List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 1), List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 2) and List of D.Gray-man Hallow episodes be moved to be similar to the ones from the Naruto series that don't use "List of"? Also, season 1 and season 2 are divided based on their Japanese home media release while Funimation's release instead made 4 seasons. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I say it would be ok to change the name for Season 1 and 2 but I'm not familiar with Hallow. is that sequel or an actual season of the original?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, that would fit the naming conventions for television seasons WP:TVSEASON. You can see List of Fairy Tail episodes (season 2) for how they have home media for Collection 3 in the Funimation release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hallow is a direct sequel but the number starts from "episode 1" instead. Still, I'm not an expert in wiki episode tables so I have no idea how to rearrange it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either. But I think it makes more sense to rename it season 1 if its an official sequel to the original anime.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Pinging DragonZero considering how experienced he is with episode lists.Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Well season 1 and season 2 clearly have a continuity in numbering in the overall episode season. [1] Hallow is kind of far away, almost like a reboot or like what Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card, almost 16 years away (Hallow is 8 years away) is compared to the original series. If they renamed it season 3, as with Tenchi Muyo Ryo-Ohki OAVs, then you could add the continuity in numbering. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Angus about Hallow. I think it's safe to say the first D.Gray-Man series can be reorganized to its American division, and can drop the "list of". For Hallow, I would probably keep the "list of" unless it has season divisions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. The thing is that both Aniplex and Funimation did different splits within the original anime. In Aniplex's release there are two seasons, while in Funimation there are four.Tintor2 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I moved season 1 but I don't have the permission to move season 2.Tintor2 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@DragonZero: If you are interested change to Funimation's organization of the series if you want since that would make lists easier to edit. I'm not that good at episode lists.Tintor2 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: managed to move season 2 thanks apparently to the users from WP:Requested moves.Tintor2 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Help: I've just done the splits but there are apparently some technical issues within season 3 and season 4 tables based on the execution.Tintor2 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried fixing the episodes' tables but there are still issues with them, to the point of collapsing with the main list.Tintor2 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages is working again. Oornery (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Zamasu fails WP:Notability. He is one arc character so I wonder if his article should be merged. Also, I would gladly try to bring Rurouni Kenshin to GA if somebody wants to help me.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Durarara!!×2 episodes

Recently, I finished editing the heck out of the page List of Durarara!!×2 episodes, mostly the episode list section, which had incomplete tables and missing summaries. Due to the amount of information presented, and just like List of Durarara!! episodes, summaries are only able to be written in 350 words or less (not the desired 200 words or less). This is just a post to show you all a mass edition of a page that needed fixing that I mostly fixed.... for now. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 09:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

From the first episode "By partially transforming her motorcycle Shooter back into a horse, Celty goes up the side of a building" & "with Mikado noting how the city of Ikebukuro has not changed at all. " I can see this being under 200 words. Episode summaries should contain the points that move the plot forward instead of play by plays. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Before I started working on this page, the first five episodes were well over 600, 700, 800 words long.... Most of the other summaries were blank or incomplete. The summaries I edited/added aren't a play-by-play exactly, because that would result in summaries lasting 600, 700, or 800 words long! Many details are left out. If you saw the original summary compared to the edited summary, you would see the big difference! I truncated, condensed, shortened, cut out all the detail of the first five episode summaries, which was very difficult to begin with. Then from that point on, I was on my own, seeing that 200 words or less was not achievable. But I also compared with the first season (List of Durarara!! episodes), and the episode summaries I helped edited are still there, many of which are still over 200 anyways, so I told myself that "350 words or less is what I should promise". Also, I had added the English air dates to each table, as well as numbered the episodes by season and cour, since there are three cours in this season and each cour has twelve episodes. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I want to be more specific. I didn't want to aim for 350 words. I just wanted 350 words to be the limit. The only episode that came very close to 350 words was the very last episode, even with rearranging the flow of events (since they tend to go back and forth), cutting out as much detail as possible, and not mentioning unimportant scenes or actions. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I'm not downplaying your contributions or anything. Just noting what the next step would be if you want to improve it further. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that is the best I am able to do on that page. Ryōgo Narita intended for Durarara!! and Durarara!!×2 to be laid out in a fashion where bits and pieces of the puzzle are placed, while the plot is being told (in my opinion). I tried to create the "Oh!" moments throughout the series. But again, I didn't mention every single detail and scene. Just the ones that felt needed in the summaries to flow better. I hope that clears up the confusion. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps an "Oh!" moment could be when Mikado accepted an unknown object as a gift from Ran without hesitation (episode 30), and you are wondering what is this object. When Masaomi and Mikado reunite for the last time, Masaomi tries to reason with Mikado during their confrontation, and when Masaomi gets on top of Mikado to punch him, Mikado retaliates with a pistol glove to Masaomi's left leg (episode 35). The pistol glove is the unknown object. I did leave out a scene when Akabayashi talked with Aozaki about messing with Mikado (which was happening at the same time when Mikado and Masaomi were fighting), but I was self-debating if that scene was worth mentioning in the summary of episode 35, which would tie in more about the pistol glove's existence. But instead, I left it out, hoping that the pistol glove's existence and the unknown object as a gift would connect to the reader. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 11:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been tweaking the summaries a bit, but they are still presented in a "puzzle layout" while the plot is being told. There are implications and assumptions figured out based on how they are written such as "At night in a park, Egor attacks a zombie" (episode 2) and "Hollywood is conflicted with mixed emotions about her monstrous crimes and is revealed to be dressed as a zombie." (episode 3). Of course, that means Egor was attacking Hollywood (later recognized as Ruri), who was dressed as a zombie. Anyways, I hope that I improved the page enough. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 08:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Better infobox (?)

Is there a better infobox that can be made for franchises like Cyborg 009? That's a really long infobox, I don't think it would be that useful being that long. For series like this, would it be better to use the template:infobox media franchise instead?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Square Enix and MF Bunko J refs

Since both of these publishers just reformatted their websites/changed their domain names (Square Enix's book pages moved from http://www.jp.square-enix.com/magazine/top/introduction/detail/[ISBN].html to https://magazine.jp.square-enix.com/top/comics/detail/[ISBN]/, and MF Bunko J moved from http://www.mediafactory.co.jp/bunkoj/book_detail/[ID] to https://mfbunkoj.jp/product/[Title]/[ID].html), it seems like there's going to have to be a concerted effort to go through and update all the pages that reference them (i.e. in volume lists). Is there a way to automate the process, or does it need to be done by hand? And if it can be automated, maybe we could also use it to fix any remaining broken Yen Press links. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Football vs soccer

I decided to give a look at the Captain Tsubasa articles but I'm confused in how we should call the sport: football or soccer? Has any of the series also been licensed in England by the way? It might help to expand reception sections. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if possible, could anybody help me to find a source that confirms Nozomu Sasaki voiced Tsubasa Oozora? I'm trying to expand and reference the character article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not the expert on this one, but soccer has less confusion than football in my humble opinion. Everyone knows what soccer is, but there will always be that troll who says "this isn't football, its soccer!"Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:FOOTY might be able to offer an opinion on this. Generally I would go with football unless its known in a given topic to be referred to as soccer. Note the article Football in Japan. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Why not call it association football? The only reason it would use soccer is if its particular English manga/anime version uses that term everywhere. Then it doesn't get confused with Eyeshield 21 which covers American football. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I meant association football, was just typing quickly. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
What does the English dub use? Soccer or football?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this series in particular but quickly read the leads on the articles. The main character's hopes to compete in the FIFA World Cup though kinda seals the deal. When the context is FIFA, always use association football, per WP:FOOTY. I'd just go with that. Soccer should only be used in clear American contexts. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon Adventures' demographic

See Talk:Pokémon Adventures#Shonen?. The user appears to be a new editor based on the way he talks but I'm not sure if I should revert his edit to the article unless more users contribute to the talk page. Already left my impressions there. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Captain Tsubasa's expansion

A fellow anon and me are trying to expand the article Captain Tsubasa by updating every section and adding references. Its Japanese article has become a FA featuring hundreds of references by the way. A help from other users might be welcome. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I managed to tackle most games and mangas. However, I can't find anything about the 80s and 90s anime adaptations (alongside the films and OVAs). The Japanese article has everything sourced but I have no idea what to use due to my lack of knowledge regarding Japanese. Could an experienced user check it? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

One of those once in a while "opinion"

From some shows I come across, doesn't usually the character listing have 1 to 7. As a ref/ sources may list it that way, when I came upon at Devils' Line. But once in a while, it might have character 1, character 4, character 2, character 3, etc. Then sometimes an ip wanted to rearrange it. Like to this on Heaven's Memo Pad.

Then if I come across other pages/ articles where someone switched it. So, do I change it back how to it was before. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, is this going to be another Dream Eater Merry situation? You might want to go with the manga order of first appearance, so everyone who is a main character in chapter 1 of the manga is listed first, and within chapter 1, you can order by anime or manga character list sequence on a website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, but at rare times it happened every other day or week. And for a while it stopped, until earlier ago. With an occasional WP:PROTAGONIST too. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox galgame TFD

Notifying of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Template:Infobox Galgame -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Magical Girl Site

I could use some additional input here regarding what I see as fancruft for the series. One editor wants to add a "terminology section" as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible circular reference on Codename: Sailor V

I have started a discussion involving a potential circular reference being used to source a section about a video game. Given the recent shenanigans going on involving validity of the video game section, accusations of sock puppetry, and edit warring involving dynamic IPs, it is imperative that other editors participate in the discussion. —Farix (t | c) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Free image?

After doing an expansion in Tsubasa Oozora I noticed the Japanese wikipedia has a real life statue of the character here. Can we use also use it in the English article? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Depends on if statues are protected under copyright in Japan. If not, may request a transfer to Commons first. —Farix (t | c) 00:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Anon edits

Multiple IP accounts keep adding WP:Original research to Cagalli Yula Athha. I tried reverting, warning the person about this, but he keeps changing IPs and readds the material, avoiding any warning so I need help with this.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you made a protection request at WP:RFPP? I had to put in one for Elfen Lied because a dynamic IP editor keeps adding in unsourced genres to the article dispite repeated reverts by multiple editors. —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I already did a request, but it was denied.Tintor2 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Semiprotected 1 week. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Wikipe-tan

There is an RFC on WT:Wikipe-tan#RFC that this project may be interested in. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Other language sources?

If there is no English release for a manga, are we allowed to cover sources for other languages? Enigma (manga) wasn't released in English but it was released in France and Spain.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles written in languages other than English or Japanese can be used, provided they are reliable sources. They can especially be used to beef up the distribution and reception sections. What wouldn't be useful are tables for Spanish release dates for the manga, list of Spanish voice actors for the anime, or translations of the titles and character names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure I can find a few sources in different languages.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

articles which lowercase first letter

Does anyone know any examples besides xxxHolic where we intervene to lowercase the letter to contra-act the autocapitalization?

I would like to keep track of them somewhere. Perhaps a hidden category. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Here they all are:
Template:Lowercase title has a SQL query that I ran on https://quarry.wmflabs.org/ to get a list of all pages using lowercase titles. I then manually copied that list into https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ to filter it by pages in this WikiProject. Opencooper (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Does Enigma (manga) count as one beginning with lowercase?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I would check MOS:TMCAPS and MOS:LCITEMS and those third-party sources as some of those titles don't need to be lower-case like Good! Afternoon, or Sweet Arms, or Angela (band). xxxHolic and the Eldive / Ex-Driver is more like eBay in its lower-casing. Enigma sounds more like Adidas as a stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Opencooper: so when you did that SQLquery it even returns xxxHolic itself even though it doesn't use template:lowercase title and instead uses the DISPLAYTITLE function directly, bypassing it? I can't say I understand how it works but I'm glad if it does give a complete list.

In this case, what do you guys think about a hidden category for these pages so we could easily keep track of them and any future ones? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

{{Lowercase title}} is just a wrapper around the DISPLAYTITLE magic word and the query just works on the latter. Opencooper (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Major rework of Major (manga)

This is an all call for any willing editors who would like to help cleanup Major (manga). Main areas of focus are reducing the size of the plot section, filling in details about the various media releases, add details about the production and development of the manga, and determine whether the film and sequel Major 2nd should have their own articles. I've already split the large episode list section back into List of Major episodes because I viewed the original merge as ill informed and only exacerbated the problems with the main article. —Farix (t | c) 12:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviews for Digimon Fusion

I've been working on the article Digimon Fusion and I can't seem to find many reviews despite the fact that Western countries got DVDs of the series. If anybody knows of a site that has reviews, I would appreciate if you left in the talk page or just added them to the article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Themed category naming scheme.

After seeing AngusWOOF adding Category:Manga-themed anime and manga to a number of article, I took a look at the naming scheme for the rest of our categories by theme. The names of these subcategoreis are all over the place. Some are "X in anime and manga" (ex. "Pirates in anime and manga‎"). Other categories are named "X-themed anime and manga" (ex. "Manga-themed anime and manga"). And then there are some categories that are named as if they are genre categories, such as "School anime and manga", "Ecchi anime and manga", and "Ninja anime and manga".

First, I see that Category:Anime and manga by topic may need to be divided into two separate groups: "X in anime and manga" and "X-themed anime and manga". Second all "X anime and manga" should be renamed to one of the two other naming schemes for clarity that they are themes and not genres. —Farix (t | c) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. So you want to differentiate between genres and themes? I mean, for example the author of D.Gray-man said in one guidebook that the series' main theme is "tragedy" but Viz Media does not use those when describing the manga volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to differentiate between themes and genres. For example, what is Category:Feminist anime and manga? Is it a theme category? A genre category? And what reliable sources backs up the inclusion of any of the articles in that category? Other examples are Category:Cooking anime and manga‎, Category:Japanese idol anime and manga‎, Category:School anime and manga‎ and Category:War anime and manga. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@TheFarix: Anything that is an official genre like Harem/Horror/Romance/Sci-fi can be "X Anime and Manga" but something more specific like Cooking, we rename it to "X-theme anime and manga". I have no idea what feminist anime and manga is. How do you determine that?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll say that "Manga-themed" is there because "Manga anime and manga" would be confusing. But it could be renamed to "Manga making in anime and manga" or "Manga artists in anime and manga". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
How about "Manga creation in anime and manga"?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for a third opinion

Hi everyone. I've recently had a bout of edit-warring with a fellow contributor on the navigation template Template:Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, who prefers to have it organized by main character instead of just by medium. I have presented my counterarguments to their new design on the talk page, but they haven't replied in three days, and their most recent revert reason, to me, sounds like they haven't even read my first point. This is the first time I have encountered this sort of behavior in years, so I am not sure how to handle such a situation. :-( So maybe we could have a third opinion or two from more experienced editors? Thanks!

Also, I haven't found is a guideline for how to organize navigation boxes for anime and manga franchises, except by extrapolating from a cursory look through the category, so I'd appreciated if anyone could link me to such a guideline. --Koveras ☭ 10:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with Japanese title

I've been working on making a list of Japanese chapter titles for the Arifureta: From Commonplace to World's Strongest manga, and I've gotten all of them except for the title of the extra chapter/epilogue-thingy in volume 3. Could somebody who knows Japanese take a look at it (there's a preview of the ebook including table of contents here) and tell me what the first two kanji characters are? Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

勘違いしないで!?まだ友達なんかじゃないんだからね!?--十八 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I really appreciate the help. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

opinions on Toonami's talk page

There is some back and forth with some info removed. And it was re-added. Then if the paragraphs are trimmed shorter the refs relating to WP:Twitter-EL is removed. But my only mentioned concerned was, some use using that may fall under that; as it didn't have a blue check there. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Final season of Digimon Fusion

A user has made a valid point regarding the second/sequel season of Digimon Fusion here. I would be bold, but this would require moving also an entire page in the process so a more opinions with a source might seem necessary.Tintor2 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

MyAnimeList article creation at Draft:MyAnimeList

I think it's high time to restore an encyclopedic version of the MyAnimeList article per the increase in traffic and the media coverage. I've started a draft at Draft:MyAnimeList. R9tgokunks ⯃ 04:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Pop Team Epic

Can anyone fluent in Japanese translate Japanese Wikipedia's ja:ポプテピピック article at a draft page? Let's see if I can turn it in the style of the English Wikipedia to expand Pop Team Epic article. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Should individual seasons be categorize in Category:xxxx anime television series?

There is an ongoing dispute at Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma over whether the article should include an anime television series by year category for each season or only for the year the series begins. My position is that only the category for the year the series began should be included and not for each season. Including a category for every season creates an WP:Overcategorization especially for articles such as Naruto (26 seasons), Bleach (16 seasons), and One Piece (19 seasons). —Farix (t | c) 11:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In the page of Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma article, I've noticed that only the first season of the anime uses the category tag Category:2015 anime television series. Why the second and third season do not use the category tag Category:2016 anime television series and Category:2017 anime television series respectively? It is obvious that Food Wars is an seasonal animation (only serializing for a quarter of a year, half a year or a whole year) like Sword Art Online, High School DxD, A Certain Magical Index, etc. If you have a look at their pages, they all have their independent category tags for their repective seasons. For example, Sword Art Online have: Category:2012 anime television series, Category:2014 anime television series and Category:2018 anime television series. Accordingly, the Food Wars series should have multiple year tag.
@TheFarix, you mentioned Bleach, Naruto, and One Piece. However, they are all longlasting. They just like Detective Conan--Serializing for decades consistently. Accordingly, they are not seasonal. I think that is probrably the reason why these animes only use the first year of the series to target.—Unnamelessness (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@TheFarix and Narutolovehinata5: That is great. However, there is a question. In some anime pages, all season articles are in one page. For example, High School DxD only have one season page--List of High School DxD episodes. Does it mean we have to seperate them? That will be definitely a huge work.—Unnamelessness (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
It should only have series debuts and series endings. See Friends article where the main article only has 1994 American television series debuts and 2004 American television series endings as the categories. The list of episodes has none of the year specific categories. The individual season 1 has the specific 1994 American television seasons and 1995 American television seasons. I suggest adding redirects for Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma (season 1), Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma (season 2), Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma (season 3) and add the seasonal categories to those redirects. Then the episode listings can stay where they are, and year categories show up per season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems more like the TV wikiproject made something simple into something more complicated. I don't think that's a good idea if they have their own names already.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Importance of Tsubasa Oozora

Since the article Tsubasa Oozora recently became GA, I wonder if its importance should be mid. I mean the reception section shows a lot of the character's impact in real association football players as well as its impact in Japan. Some months ago, I requested a check but it still wasn't checked. Feel free to be bold. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

StarBlazers characters should they exist ?

I am thinking of creating Derek Wildstar and others for Star Blazers as there sources in the Japanese version of Wikipedia. What do others think. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Are they primary sources, in-universe information, or actual third-party sources that discuss the characters from a real-world perspective? Because for articles on characters, a lot of the latter is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 most of the information I have found is on Derek Wildstar is from reprints of Starlog and the Japanese version of the character Susumu Kodai in Japanese. If anyone finds the article unsatisfactory feel free to redirect it to Star Blazers. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: I would take a look at WP:A&M/CHARACTER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there enough out of universe coverage beyond what has already been listed in List of Space Battleship Yamato characters? And would it include the Japanese character Susumu Kodai? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Genre

See "Category:Situation comedy anime and manga". Seems like a rushed creation.Tintor2 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the inclusion of the two articles in that category along with all articles in Category:Black comedy anime and manga as unsourced. The creator has already received a lvl 4 warning over adding or changing genres to anime and manga articles without citing any sources. The fact that anyone would label Fullmetal Alchemist as a sitcom is extreamly dubious. —Farix (t | c) 22:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with reverting these. No news sources that indicate "sitcom anime" as a category. I'd also watch out for Comedy-drama anime and manga categories. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Anime and manga by topic category renaming

The great anime and manga by topic renaming has become. (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 16#Topic based anime and manga categories) —Farix (t | c) 00:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

MyAnimeList is now a well sourced, permanent article.

After a decade of having no sources and struggling with getting this article to stay afloat, I can finally say the article has been approved from a draft. If anyone has any time extra sources in mind, please add them. R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Circle name

When I skim anime articles, I often run across the term “circle name” (as in “it was published under the circle name XXX”). I’m a complete stranger to manga and anime, and this term puzzles me. There are hints of an explanation at Dōjin, but I wonder if it would merit an article of its own. Just a thought. — Gorthian (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it is already explained over at Dojin, but phrases like "circle name" are jargon and should be rewritten to something like manga group with a link to dojin. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

About Crunchyroll, Funimation and Anime Limited

I find some little problem about Crunchyroll, Funimation and Anime Limited.

In the page of Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World, I find that Crunchyroll and Anime Limited were mentioned in "Licensed by" section, but not Funimation, so I tried to put Funimation in the section. It is because Crunchyroll have the anime's master license in both US and UK, and Crunchyroll arranged Funimation and Anime Limited to release the anime on home video; even Anime Limited admitted that they acquired the anime through Crunchyroll x Funimation partnership. [1] It would be irony if the "Licensed by" section only displays Anime Limited and not Funimation.

I found some other animes' pages have similar problem. For example, in the page of The Testament of Sister New Devil, both Crunchyroll and Anime Limited are mentioned in "Licensed by" section, but not Funimation. In fact, Crunchyroll have the anime's master license in both US and UK, and Crunchyroll arranged Funimation and Anime Limited to release the anime on home video; even Anime Limited stated that they "distributing for Crunchyroll in the United Kingdom".[2] It would be irony if the "Licensed by" section only displays Anime Limited and not Funimation.

So we may need to set the rule about it to avoid future editing war. For the similar situations, should "Licensed by" section mentions both Anime Limited and Funimation, or not mentioned both companies at all? I think it would be good to show both Anime Limited and Funimation (to let people understand the distribution situation of the anime). -- Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 07:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Per previous discussions, if we know who holds the master liscense they should be listed as the liscensee. In situations where it's unclear who has the master liscense, as sources often don't explicitly state it, it's fine to list multiple liscensees. So if Anime Limited is just sub liscensing it from crunchyroll I probably wouldn't put them in the infobox, but mentioning them in prose is fine. CurlyWi (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with CurlyWi: if reliable sources can confirm that Anime Limited is merely sublicensing the series, then they shouldn't be in the infobox any more than Funimation is. I also agree that it's perfectly fine to include them in the article text. Also, @Marychan41:, I didn't see this thread until after I had reverted your edit. If you wanted me to see it, you should have pinged me. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://animeuknews.net/2017/12/anime-limited-news-podcast-update-on-stock-xmas-sales/
  2. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2018-01-09/sister-new-devil-released-for-crunchyroll/.126214
Thank you. I also agree with it. -- Marychan41 (talk • contrib) 02:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Golden Kamuy

So I noticed that Alexandra IDV split Golden Kamuy into Golden Kamuy and Golden Kamuy (TV series). Wouldn't it be better to merge the two back together, since a) it's common practice to have anime adaptations covered in the same article as their manga, and b) both articles are rather short on their own? The list of episodes could be split off into its own article, but otherwise I don't see any reason to keep them separate, plus it just makes it harder for readers to find information on the series. Thoughts? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I split them up because the anime portion was absolutely dominating the manga article, and because both the anime and the manga are independently notable. It is only common for anime adaptations to be covered in the manga article because people don't expand the anime portions enough for a separate article to be viable - there is nothing saying that them being covered in the same article is the way it has to be or should be.--Alexandra IDVtalk 18:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It was only "dominating" the article because nobody had bothered to write anything about the manga, as far as I can tell. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If you exclude the episode list, there really isn't that much about the anime, at least nothing that would "dominate" the main article. —Farix (t | c) 22:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that merging the articles is sensible and common practice, but keeping the Episodes on a separate page is fine. Ozflashman (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Rename the TV series to List of Golden Kamuy episodes, and remove the cast listing which can be accommodated by the main page's characters list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: the episode list can/should stay separate from main article, but I think the production section should get merged back in. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, turn the anime page into an episode list and then merge the pertinent info (cast and production) back into the main article. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Gantz

Gantz has had a tag on its top because "manga and anime plot differ" since (October 2013). I used Google news as well as the custom Google search for this project, and can't find any reliable sources talking about the differences. Since it was a popular enough anime, surely there is coverage somewhere about how the last 5 episodes were different from the manga and why. Was it because the manga didn't keep up with the anime, so they had to make something up on their own, or was it because they creator wanted to do something different? Dream Focus 02:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I'm pretty sure the site "Fandompost.com" has information about it within its review of the anime. Besides I don't think we need citations for the plot.Tintor2 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this obvious?

Earlier in the info box at Katana Maidens, I saw something there and its by Ubisoft, with Square Enix. Then I edited it out as only from refs/ sources says its by square enix not ubisoft. So when I did there was other categories added too and rid out some of them, like "games set in UK" and another about a spy, etc. But since I don't really play or use mobile games, are some of them WP:TRIVIALCAT? As after I did that, I don't know if someone else will re-added those categories back. Later on. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the excessive amount of categories. However, I have noticed that there have been a lot of shenanigans going on with categories recently, namely in the form of adding Category:Disney franchises to several articles that don't even mention any Disney involvement. (example) Not sure if what is going on with Katana Maidens is anyway related. —Farix (t | c) 01:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh. I hope this isn't back when, someone kept adding random "see also" links. And now expanded to adding categories instead. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Games set in the UK sounds like the game features the UK as its setting, like Films set in the UK. I don't think that's the same as games made by companies that have an office in the UK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
What made me first wonder was, if the info box shows Ubisoft by there? Why, did they went into a mobile game and assisted in the Katana Maidens: mobile game, I don't know, but that feels its all fake and wasn't even mention at all if they produced it, as only square enix is the sole producer/ developer. Then at the same time there was that bunch of categories. It just seems off, as one use to have [[Category:Superhero video games]] and what does that have to do with the game or show? If the show mostly has sword fighting/ fencing. As to Princess Principal having something about child superheroes or it has some other categories for?
Then the only thing that came to mind; where a company like ubisoft and square enix did. Was some cross game promo. In one of the Final Fantasy games, they showed some Assassin's Creed thing as a dlc for a few weeks. And vice versa with assassin's creed having something from final fantasy, a few months later on. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I founded one at a movie/ film by here. Saying it is based off of Just Dance. And took out any other obvious ones. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actors in plot summaries

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

any articles I can help with?

wanting to find some new projects. I'm new with anime-related articles. Are there any articles that need help that you think would be good for me to get my feet wet?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: You are free to work in any article you want but there is a lot of variety like the big Rurouni Kenshin article among others. Is there any anime you might enjoy more than others? For example, I was planning to expand the anime article Devil May Cry: The Animated Series but can't find creation information. Two fellow users have also been creating more articles related to Fairy Tail meanwhile. I would suggest you reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles or instead read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Quality articles for articles that contain more examples to follow. Hope you enjoy editing. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for something closer to the size of FLCL. Something that isn't as big as a franchise like One Piece or Naruto but easy to find info on.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I've been thinking Princess Principal has some potential for a good expansion. There's a bunch of sources archived on the talk page (interviews, etc.) that could be used as the basis for a production section. And the reception section could be expanded as well. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. that one looks interesting. i'll try it out.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Good luck! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: No prob. Feel free to ask something in project if you have an issue. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think one topic you can try contributing to would be our articles on voice actors. Right now a lot of them are basically credits dumps; it would be nice to at least expand them to be actual biographies too. Given the language barrier, it could be difficult, but it's not impossible with Google Translate, basic Japanese knowledge, and a lot of time and effort. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I can try voice actors too. i'm not familiar with which are the more famous ones. Do you have one in mind that needs work?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: A cursory search through Category:Japanese voice actors is a start. I'd advise you to start with the male ones since a lot of them are just lists of roles and are short on biographical content, while the ones on females are somewhat better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
English dub voice actors could use some love too. Basic questions like where they grew up, how they got into the industry, and a walk through their most notable works is more interesting than a rehash of their filmography in prose. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Amy Rose for good article reassessment

Amy Rose, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JOEBRO64 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

JoJo OVA expertise needed

I questioned if this IP editor really meant to make these edits to the episodes' release dates, but they added them back with a confident "Yeah!". I'm skeptical, but I'm not very familiar with the OVA series, so if someone here knows more, please look into it.--Alexandra IDVtalk 19:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: The ANN encyclopedia is not reliable but it tends to have legit dates. You could also try Japan's Amazon considering every of its products have a release date.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Should ViVid Strike! be split?

Considering it's technically a separate series from Nanoha ViVid and doesn't even feature the same protagonists, should it have its own separate article? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Guess this counts as fork. If there is enough material to create a new article then I see no problem.Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It was originally a separate article, but was merged by Juhachi. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The reason why I merged it was because the resultant article was so bare-bones, it made no sense to split it in the first place. If there is enough material to warrant another article, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but a two paragraph lead and a two sentence synopsis is just not enough.--十八 03:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Painting name

Please, someone can help me to find the name of this painting from Case Closed: Sunset beach woman. Thank you. --80.117.94.17 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody can help me? --80.116.115.193 (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Licensing again (Sony Pictures and Funimation in UK and AU)

Recently, Funimation has started to release titles into Australia/New Zealand and UK/Ireland market through their distributors at Sony Pictures (UK) and Universal Sony (AU). Should these distributors be listed as "Licensed by" in the infobox, or should Funimation be listed only without Sony at all, or should both be listed?

I'm bringing this up because articles seem to be inconsistent with one another. Currently on the articles that are distributed/licensed by this: My Hero Academia lists only the distributors; Attack on Titan (UK) lists only distributors (though I did try to change it to list Funimation but it was removed); Yuri on Ice and Black Clover are listed with both Funimation and Sony.

Further note on Attack on Titan: it seems that Funimation has rights to the series in USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Should Funimation also be listed in Australia and New Zealand as well? source: "As part of its agreement with Kodansha, Funimation has secured the international rights to home entertainment, video on demand and broadcast distribution of the series in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand."

Further note on Black Clover: this source states that "The license is part of Crunchyroll & Funimation’s partnership so this is looking to be the first Crunchyroll release under Sony’s belt.", but Funimation and Sony are the ones handling the release. So should Black Clover be listed as Funimation, Crunchyroll, Sony Pictures UK, or all 3?

Further note with Yuri on Ice: this source also has the same situation with Black Clover above, so again, should all three be listed? - Alex Tenshi (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the general consensus was to only list the company with the "master license" in the infobox. So if Funimation licenses a show, but then lets Sony Pictures UK do a DVD release, or lets Netflix stream it, I would still only put Funimation in the infobox. Where it gets tricky is when we aren't actually sure who has the master license since the sources don't usually explicitly state it. So if Black Clover is part of the vague partnership but we don't know who has the master liscense, I would list both Crunchyroll and Funimation, but not sony pictures, cuz again they're just sub-licensing. Yuri on Ice is one of the shows where Crunchyroll explicitly confirmed they have the master license though, so there should be zero debate on that one, they should be the only one in the infobox.
TLDR:
Attack on Titan: Funimation only
Black Clover: Crunchyroll and Funimation
Yuri on Ice: Crunchyroll only
CurlyWi (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why Funimation would let Crunchyroll put their name/logo on a release which Funimation holds the master license to, so it's probably a safe bet to say if the home video release credits Crunchyroll, then they are the licensee. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe someone brought that up in one of the past discussions (I don't remember who), that the physical releases are labeled differently depending on if Crunchyroll/Funimation have the master license. Assuming that's accurate, that would be one way to potentially solve the cases like Black Clover where we aren't sure who licensed it. CurlyWi (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who brought up the physical packaging, with Crunchyroll titles having the Crunchyroll logo alongside the Funimation logo. I also recently noticed that titles licensed by Funimation usually have a line in their copyright information saying "Licensed by Funimation® Productions, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.", so we could also use the copyright information to determine if it's a Funimation licensed title. - Alex Tenshi (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
For Black Clover the home releases, I added the table to that, but I can change it to NA; region 1. Or is this just for the info box? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It was the infobox that was what I was mainly concerned about since that was inconsistent between articles. - Alex Tenshi (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Since this is becoming more and more complicated because reliable sources are increasingly not clearly specifying the license holder and it is not something that can be fully summarized in the infobox, perhaps it is time to remove all English-language related fields from the infobox. This also goes for English networks because there have been disputes over whether only the first run networks should be listed or all rebroadcasts should be listed. For Japanese networks, we limit it to just the first run networks. There has also been plenty of cases where the English licensee or publisher has changed or expired and editors have removed the previous licensee or publisher from the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 16:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In theory it should be simple, we should only be listing the original company that "produced" the English version of the show (wrote subs/recorded dubs), and then companies that are simply redistributing that existing content either via streaming or dvd shouldn't be listed. But you do have a fair point, in practice it's not always easy to tell. Looking at a non Crunchyroll/Funimation example, Toradora! was picked up by NIS America, but then was also released by 2 other companies in the UK and AUS respectively. Should they be in the infobox? I can't tell from the sources if they are simply re-releasing the NIS version or if they actually created unique/original translations. CurlyWi (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Many sources use the words "acquired" or "announced" or "will be streaming", all of which are vague and should not be used to mean licensed, since these words do not always mean that a company has licensed the series. So it's very unclear whether they should be listed or not, since the sources have always been very unclear and ambiguous on the words they use when publishing articles about acquiring a title for release. For example, this article says "Anime Limited announced the following further acquisitions" and then lists Attack on Titan: Junior High, which on its product page says "This is a Funimation title being distributed by Anime Limited in the UK.". The same article then also lists Claymore, which is licensed by Anime Limited themselves (physical packaging says "Licensed to Anime Ltd."), so a single news article is inconsistent and unclear on what the word "acquisition" means. - Alex Tenshi (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

heads up for this one.

Since My Hero Academia is half way in the third season. I just made a few newer pages/ articles by season, but after I do that, could someone over look it. And see what I tried to do at List of My Hero Academia episodes? At first I tried making it look like the episodes at yugioh arc-V, but when I pressed, show preview it gave a few errors. When I "experimented" it at my sandbox. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The 3 links are at, here, here, and here. But I don't know if the year has to be there. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
An extend message is at the archived. What I meant by episode template at the time, was like this;
 
==Episode list==
===Season 1===
{{main|List of "name of show" episodes (season 1)}}
{{:List of "name of show" episodes (season 1)}}

Repeat, ect. It took me a few hours to know how to figure it out. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename Tenimyu

I submitted a request to rename Tenimyu, as the title is actually a nickname for Musical: The Prince of Tennis. It seems that most of the contributing editors have not been updating this article so I'm unable to reach a consensus. lullabying (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews notability

Hello! I'm revisitingWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_65#THEM_reliability and also posted on WP:RSN for discussion, but it seems to me that T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seems to be run by hobbyists with no established credentials. Also, the key people who have appeared in press segments like Carlos Ross is no longer with the website or affiliated with them. Maybe at the time of review, it could be considered a reliable source for reviews, but not by today's standards, especially when more industry-related material is available. In other words, the key people of T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews can be considered valid sources, but the website and its current contributors don't seem like they would be. Please advise. lullabying (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Correction: Ross is still with the website and continues to serve a role with them (he did leave for several years but came back some time ago), and they do have a list of credits on their website. From what I can tell, they do appear to have some vetting for their current staff and they appear to meet vetting requirements, so there's that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding film production companies

Hello. There was a discussion between LTPofficial (talk · contribs) and Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) regarding the film production companies in the infobox for certain anime films. The latter found some reliable sources on some of the Pokemon film pages and removed the animation company, which is OLM (the main animation studio for Pokémon), as they weren't mentioned in the sources that user put in. However, I'm growing concerned about this because it seems to disagree with this project’s current consensus, which is to list only the animation studios in the infobox. I think we may need to ask other project members on here and WP:FILM for input regarding this.

Even if all of the production companies are sourced and listed in the infobox, should we still keep the consensus on listing only the animation studios? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not listing the animation studios, because this counters what we have been doing for films. It won't be clear to a reader if we have a discrepancy here, especially as this has potential to be something obvious for us, the some-what experienced editors, but not so much for the readers. I understand the value of mentioning in animation studio for anime films, but if its not accurately following the suit of other films, it shouldn't be in the infobox like that. I'd say leave that information for the prose with sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Some of the animation studios are actually members of a production committee in certain films. If we list every single production company involved, it might end up cluttering the infobox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Its just a matter of finding reliable sources and applying it appropriately. Like with any infobox if the information is too difficult to appropriately display there, leave it for prose or weigh in how important it is to really get in there. If the animation studio is a production studio for the film, then by all means include it, but just be able to back it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Still, closing credits to films also count as a reliable source. Like I’ve said, I’ve asked others around, even at WT:FILM, to see what can be done about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What about the opening credits? Many Anime films list the main members of the production committee, like with Spirited Away the companies featured are Tokuma Shoten, Studio Ghibli, Nippon Television Network, Dentsu, Disney (Buena Vista Home Entertainment in English translations), Tohokushinsha Film and Mitsubishi, while some films just list the companies as "Film Name Film Partners" or something like that.
Here's a edit I just did on the Mary and the Witch's Flower page, as in the posters the other companies involved apart from Nippon TV (who's logo is featured) and Altitude Film Distribution (didn't add in as they own non-Japanese rights to the film) are just credited as "Mary and the Witch's Flower Film Partners". Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't just use the companies logos that involved from a poster as they aren't high quality sources. For example, the current article on The Red Turtle lists countless production countries with no source. One site I like using for French films for example is Unifrance.org, which goes into details of what company's responsibility was what. But even this site doesn't make it clear as it states the production companies were just Wild Bunch and Why Not Productions. It lists Ghibli as being a foriegn company involved, but also only officially states it as a French and Belgian production. So just looking at company logos in the credits is not the simple solution I'm afraid. And believe me, I wish it was! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think in anime the animation studio needs to be mentioned in the infobox, as it's what most people care about. The production companies may be more important in non-anime films, but the animation studio will be what readers are looking for on these articles. And we need to provide the information that the reader needs/wants. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this notion - it’s really as simple as the fact that the animation company is pretty important when the subject is “animation”. I’d say both production and animation companies are worth mentioning, in the same way developers and publishers are both mentioned in video game articles. Just my two cents though, I don’t usually work much in TV/Film/Animation content areas very much, I can only speak from the video games and music article approach. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying its no important, but its not quite the same thing as a production company. Listing them side-by-side does not really tell the user who did what. I would leave them in the prose to suggest who did what reflecting a proper source and not original research. Like, as neither of us seem to have an insight into the industry on the how and why these are seperated, I don't think we should make assumptions other than its not as simple as we once looked at as before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think setting a limit on the number that can be included in the infobox is a good idea. If there are more, only list the top 3-4 in the infobox (according to credit seniority) and then list all of them somewhere else in the article. Everything in the infobox should be in the article somewhere, anyway. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be best to set some sort of limit, but it might be better to just leave it blank if it's too excessive for the infobox to handle. I'd rather not confuse a reader to thinking we only had four production companies when in reality there was 13 or something! Kind of miss the old days of films and anime productions where it wasn't handled by a dozen studios. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's because they aren't film production companies. It would be like including the special effects studio in regular film articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
They do the animation though, right? Animation is different from what I recall. Leaving them out would be like not mentioning Pixar or Dreamworks in the infobox. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the "production company" parameter is to list the company that principally produced the film, as identified by secondary reliable sources. let's take Princess Mononoke for example: the British Film Institute lists "Studio Ghibli" as the production company, so that is what goes in the field.In the case of Mary and the Witch's Flower the BFI lists the name of the partnership (Mary and the Witch's Flower Film Partners) and then lists the partners; in a case like this where you have a shell company representing a group of companies it would make more sense to list the actual film partners rather than the shell name. There are two points I want to finish off with though: 1) Editors picking out companies from the film credits is original research because we don't know their precise role, so we should use secondary sources to identify the production companies. 2) The production company field in the infobox is for the production companies, not whichever company you think is worthy of going in the infobox. If you think this is a flaw in the infobox then raise the issue at the template talk page but don't label animation studios as the "production company" if it is not actually the production company. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Manga Tokyo as a source

I found a review listed on MANGA.TOKYO and I wanted to check to see if it can be integrated as a reliable source. However, even though this website works with Natalie and other reliable press outlets, the English Wikipedia article is new and hasn't even been reviewed yet. lullabying (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Its about page mentions they translate articles from Japanese sources so they're about as legit as Tokyohive and All K-pop. lullabying (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list. The discussion is a proposal to merge {{Japanese episode list}}, {{S-Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Episode list}} into {{Episode list}}. -- AlexTW 02:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clean-up on Tenimyu

Musical: The Prince of Tennis has been outdated since 2011 and I've been cleaning up information and extra tables while changing the name order to Western order per MOS:JAPAN. The page also lists every single behind-the-scenes DVD that was ever published as well as specific dates of when CDs were released (whereas on most discography pages, just the year the CD came out was sufficient). I want to see what info I should eliminate. lullabying (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Help from native English speakers needed

I managed to create the article Date Masamune (Sengoku Basara). However, I can't seem find information about one of the English actors, Robert McCollum. I did find these video here and here but my listening for English is not very good. Could somebody lend me help with it? It might help to expand the creation section furthermore. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2, here's the English cast announcement article that mentions Robert McCollum's role in the series : http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-07-31/samurai-girls-vanguard-iron-man-anime-promos-streamed AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
AngusWOOF Thanks but I meant if McCollum talked about his work in the anime series. Behind the Voice Actors already covered that up. Also, I created one article for Sanada Yukimura. Should these two articles be also given the anime and manga template since they are also featured in three seasons and a movie?Tintor2 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Golden Kamuy merger, revisited

The previous discussion got archived before any action was taken, so I thought it'd be good to bring it back to the forefront.

To recap: there exist two pages, Golden Kamuy, which covers the manga, and Golden Kamuy (TV series), which covers the anime adaptation; since they're both fairly short and obviously overlap in content, it was proposed that they be merged. Discussion seemed to favour such a merger but I don't know if it's at the level of consensus. Is there any further discussion— or should there just be action? — Kawnhr (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm for a merger. The production section in Golden Kamuy (TV series) can easily be incorporated into the main article's anime section, and then you can reform Golden Kamuy (TV series) into List of Golden Kamuy episodes. And then just incorporate the cast into the character list with {{voiced by}}.--十八 03:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree to the merger proposition, this is normal practice. Ozflashman (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
As the person who originally suggested this, I also support the merger. Glad you brought it back up, since I had completely forgotten. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, it's been over two months since the merger was first proposed (and a week since I relisted it). In that time, the only dissent was from the person who originally split it off. I think it's safe to say consensus has been reached here, so I'm going to go ahead with merging the pages. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Anybody interested in creating a Yugi Moto article?

I recently found these collections of interviews where the author of Yugioh mentions multiple parts about the main character's traits and relationships. However, I have no idea where the original source come from. One says 4Kids 2002 only. I thought only about Yugi since the main characters tend to be the ones most looked in reviews of a series. I guess we could also show his "alter-ego" the Pharaoh in the same article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I managed to find multiple sources for character's notability. I saved them here. I'll work if we can find creation sources but everybody is free to add anything to the sandbox.Tintor2 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Attention duelists! I mean, editors. I created Yugi Moto. Does anybody know of a good manga image that shows both Yugi and his alter-ego? I only found anime images.Tintor2 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources for WikiProject Japan

I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan doesn't have a list of reliable sources like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources and since there is some overlap with that and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. To keep our references consistent and in standard, I'm proposing a list of reliable sources for Japan-related articles at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliable sources for Japanese-related articles. If you can, feel free to share your input! lullabying (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nihon Tarento Meikan

Hello, I've discovered that the Nihon Tarento Meikan books and the VIP Times website provide useful background details several voice actors or actresses (i.e. date of birth, real name, etc.). Can these be used as reliable sources per WP:BLP and WP:V? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fairy Tail character discussion

There's an important discussion regarding which characters from Fairy Tail should be kept or deleted from the List of Fairy Tail characters article. The discussion can be found at Talk:List of Fairy Tail characters#New consensus for characters. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Update on List of One Piece characters?

We're probably going to have to update the List of One Piece characters to include latest chapters, rewrite summaries for several characters and even discuss which characters should be kept, mentioned or left out. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Larissa Wolcott AFD

Someone might need to check on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larissa Wolcott, it never got posted to our AFD lists and there we're published sources on the page. Big concern for me is, I'm unsure if they are enough weight to save the article. Esw01407 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been deleted. She stars in a handful of ADV titles, mainly Excel Saga and Wedding Peach, but would need more sources to meet WP:ENT and then you can request a WP:REFUND. Are there any newspaper writeups about her? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to dig in here, unfortunately I've only found a few mentions on ANN about her getting the Excel Saga role. Not sure it's enough to push the issue further, so I'm going to move on. Esw01407 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pokémon film companies

A few months back, we discussed the situation with the production companies for the Pokémon films. I think it's time to get another revisit.

Pikachu Project is a production committee consisting of eight to nine companies that produced the Pokémon films since 1998 (which currently includes The Pokémon Company, Shogakukan, TV Tokyo, Tomy/Takara Tomy, East Japan Marketing & Communications, Inc., OLM, Inc., Toho and Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions; Media Factory, Creatures and Game Freak were once members of the committee). According to the opening and ending credits of all of these films, OLM and their teams (Team Koitabashi, Team Kamei, and now Team Kato) has an Animation Production (アニメーション制作) credit and Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions has a Production (制作) credit. However, Pikachu Project itself has another Production (製作) credit.

What is the appropriate way to list these? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I still believe it should go by sources. My source is a published source which lists the proper production company. Animation studios should be discussed, but they are not actual and technical production companies (i.e: where the funding is). Which is what should be placed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Still, I think we might need a proper consensus on this matter. As such, I'm filing a request for comment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick opinion on

For Black Clover, since it will end the first season. Then move to a second season as from ANN would it follow something like this; Black Clover (season 1) and add whatever to season 2? Or keep adding on its episode list instead. I'm asking before prematurely doing so, as I did with My Hero Academia. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And I just did. If to make room for the show's song usage too. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?

MAIN ANIMATION STUDIO
There is consensus to list only the main animation studio in the infobox of anime and manga film articles. Most editors believe that reliable sources are most likely to reference the main animation studio in conjunction with these films, and that the main animation studio would be most relevant to readers. — Newslinger talk 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Should we list either the main animation studio, all production companies, or the just the main production company in the infobox for film articles?

Standard RfC Disclaimer: This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Main animation studio as that is what most readers will be looking for in the majority of cases. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
But that goes against infobox standards for films, which states to only list production companies. When those are sourced in major sources (books, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily) these are not considered production companies. Its a more complicated matter that doesn't require opinions, but basic facts and industry standards. Not our own personal whims. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide useful, relevant information. The companies that funded an anime's production are nowhere near as notable as the companies that animated it, which can be seen by any simple perusal of news articles/reviews/etc. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Only list the animation studio that produced the anime. Not companies that financed the film/series. Not the companies that were involved with in-between animation. Not the company that distributes the film/series. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Only list the main animation studio. For anime, usually only the animation studio is prominently listed in reliable sources, and not who actually paid for the work. Also, anime will often list the copyright as belonging to a production committee, which is usually formed just for that work and named in some way after that work. Because the production committee is just something created for one work, listing it is rather pointless. Calathan (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Only the main animation studio. This is the most relevant info, and would line up with what most readers would expect to find in the infobox of an anime. The rest can find a place to live in the article body somewhere. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 07:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: why not add a parameter for animation studio in {{Infobox film}}? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
All these suggestions are really going against standards for film credits. Is anyone backing on why we should do this other their own personal opinions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be logical to mirror the main guidance for the film infobox. However, I admit that I have little interest/knowledge of anime/manga. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeing that the discussion is not going Andrzejbanas's way, they decided to WP:CANVAS two other editors—Lugnuts[2] and Betty Logan[3]—even though there are already notices on Template talk:Infobox film, WikiProject Film, and the Village Pump. —Farix (t | c) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    I participated in the earlier discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_71#Regarding_film_production_companies. I don't know Andrzejbanas's reason for pinging Lugnuts but it is reasonable to inform me that the issue has moved on to an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Use sources I am just going to re-post my response from the earlier discussion since I still hold the same view:

    The purpose of the "production company" parameter is to list the company that principally produced the film, as identified by secondary reliable sources. let's take Princess Mononoke for example: the British Film Institute lists "Studio Ghibli" as the production company, so that is what goes in the field.In the case of Mary and the Witch's Flower the BFI lists the name of the partnership (Mary and the Witch's Flower Film Partners) and then lists the partners; in a case like this where you have a shell company representing a group of companies it would make more sense to list the actual film partners rather than the shell name. There are two points I want to finish off with though: 1) Editors picking out companies from the film credits is original research because we don't know their precise role, so we should use secondary sources to identify the production companies. 2) The production company field in the infobox is for the production companies, not whichever company you think is worthy of going in the infobox. If you think this is a flaw in the infobox then raise the issue at the template talk page but don't label animation studios as the "production company" if it is not actually the production company.

This approach is advocated by the guidelines at {{Infobox_film}} which instructs "this should be cited to reliable secondary sources that explicitly identify the production companies." If the credits explicitly identify a company as the "production company" this should be sufficient, but if production companies are not explicitly identified then editors should not be interpreting the credits themselves, and should use a secondary source that explicitly identifies a company as the "production company". A respected catalog such as the British Film Institute is a good place to start in these types of disputes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • List "the company or companies that produced the film" as the documentation at {{Infobox film}} says. As Betty Logan above says, infobox parameters are for what the documentation prescribes, not what you want to put on a pedestal. If an infobox only has a parameter for apples but you want to put oranges there, you either don't or you seek to reform the infobox. It goes without saying that anything in this field should be verifiable from reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manhua site

Is there a good Chinese website that has listed the their manhuas? I'm looking for something to reference more The King of Fighters 2003 (manhua).Tintor2 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: As far as I know, manhua are not under the scope of WP:A&M; you might have have better luck asking WikiProject China or WikiProject Comics. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability: 100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams

Hi all, I recently posted a thread at WP:VG [4] regarding the article 100 Sleeping Princes and the Kingdom of Dreams. It seems to be an article regarding an iOS/Android game, with an anime tie-in. I was simply going to mark the article for deletion, as the article is regarding the non-notable game, but is the anime notable/salvagable? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the anime series airs on national TV in Japan, per the notability guidelines for TV series, then it would indeed be notable. As for the game, I'm not sure, but have you tried searching for sources in Japanese? Usually with these sorts of things there'd be more information out there in Japanese than in English. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There is also ANN's Spring review[5] and a later full review[6] of the series. This and the other news relating to the broadcast, cast announcements, and licensing should be more than enough to establish notability. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
iOS/Mobile games like these are generally not notable. The article itself portrays itself as a video game with an anime, whereas it should really be the other way around. 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I think this article needs a re-write under MOS:ANIME so it will be an anime with a video game. It is defiantly salvageable I think. The issue I think is where the game came first and the anime is the spin-off of the game which is why the article is "a video game with an anime". The anime is notable but the game is not from what I can tell. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I can see how it's an issue. But the anime is clearly the primary topic. If the game was notable, it would be fine to have two articles, one for the anime, and one for the video game, but it's not a notable video game. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a media franchise of which the game and anime are merely a part. Though the game came first so it gets top billing, it has nothing to do with primary topic as it's all the same topic. What could possibly need rewriting when the article is a stub that consists of five sentences? —Xezbeth (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Boruto anime seasons

There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of Boruto: Naruto Next Generations episodes#Splitting up Seasons in regards to the fact if the episodes should be divided based on their DVDs. Please join because I'm not exactly sure what method we should follow. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Long vowels: "ō" vs "ou" in articles and summaries.

I am looking for a convention/guideline for the translation of Japanese long vowels "ō" vs "ou" (and other use of macrons) in articles in Wikipedia. They appear to be used interchangeably, even within articles. The closest to a convention/guideline I can see is that "ō" is used in direct translations from Japanese, but "ou" is used in the text for Plot, Characters and Episode Summaries. See example at List of Basilisk characters. There is Help:Japanese#Vowels, but this is not a guideline.

Can anyone clarify this issue, or point to where a decision has been made, so that it can be consistently applied in anime and manga articles? Thanks. Ozflashman (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The default guideline is WP:MOS-JP#General guidelines point 1. However, this can be superseded if there is an official English romanization of a name/term that uses "ou" instead of "ō", which is almost always in licensed series. That's why the Basilisk characters use "ou" (except in the third field of {{Nihongo}} of course).--十八 23:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Ozflashman (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

'Anime and manga' Section Image

Referring to this image: http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Anime_eye.svg

The same eye vector has been in place for 12 years now, however I feel it does not adequately represent the media, being the work of - at the time - a complete amateur. The drawing is a typical representation of a complete misunderstanding of manga as an artform. That being the case, I'd like to discuss the possibility a replacement image; I personally recommend using an image from the 1968 Astroboy comic, due to it's historical significance and unquestionably Japanese style.

InLucidReverie 19:36, 13 October 2018

Anything like that that has a copyright isn't in the public domain and therefore we couldn't use it. Also, I don't have a problem with the current (free use) image.--十八 20:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well for starters, you cannot use an image from a copyrighted work and the Astroboy manga would definitely fall under copyright. Second, how is the current eye not representative? Eye styles will differ from artist to artist, studio to studio, and character designer to character designer, and are constantly evolve over time. So there is no definitive style for eyes other than their general size and shape compared to the rest of the face. And even that isn't always the same either (ex. Mirio Togata eyes from My Hero Academia). There are a few other styles of eyes, but I wouldn't say that any of them are any better that the current image. Of course, the image doesn't have to be an eye either, but it should be something that is simple and easily identifies the topic area. —Farix (t | c) 20:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did a spot check of three recently added episode summaries[7] and confirm ed that they are word-for-word same as summaries on multiple other websites, a direct violation Wikipedia's copyright policy. Looking at the edit history of the list, this same IP range has added several other summaries that are very likely to be copyright violations as well. I have started a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 19)#Copyright violations about how to remedy the situation. —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ex.org and Furinkan.com

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ex.org and Furinkan.com. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections raised, I want to remove the two sources from WP:A&M/RS per WP:SILENCE and WP:N/WP:V issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

UK Anime Network

Can a clarification be made on whom on this site is considered to be reliable, or is this a case of fans writing material? If there is an editor who is a contributor to the site from Neo (as [8] suggests) than who would it be? Should we treat this source as "situational"? What bothers me most is the "write for us" page (here) which says: "The UK Anime Network is not run for profit, nor is it a professional publication. It's a website run by fans with contributions by other passionate fans of the genre." Right now this source is listed as a WP:RS under WP:A&M/RS, this status really needs a second look. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Real Girl

Now that an English dub has been announced, I propose we expand the Real Girl article up to a C or B-class article. This article currently lacks a reception section and production section and I'm thinking that we need to write some summaries for the episodes and volumes. I'm also thinking about proposing to spin-off a list of episodes; I'm working on this in my sandbox. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotta research creation and reception information. It is the hardest part but the most important one. Maybe the books contain information from the artist.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
And also her Twitter feed and official blog would count as sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Streaming companies in the "Licensed by" section of infobox

Recently, Amazon and Netflix have been acquiring titles for exclusive streaming worldwide on their platforms, but they are also listed as licensees in infoboxes of anime series. I thought that only licensees should be listed and not streaming companies, unless the streaming company does have the master license (such as some Crunchyroll titles). I am bringing this up because recently, certain Netflix titles have been acquired by Anime Limited in the UK, and certain Amazon Prime titles have been acquired by Sentai and other companies in their respective regions. But in these cases, Netflix and Amazon still have exclusive streaming rights, even if a company acquires it for home video. (eg: Scum's Wish is acquired by Sentai, Madman and MVM in NA, AUS and BI respectively, but is still an Amazon exclusive in these regions)

So should we continue adding Amazon and Netflix in the licensee section, even if another company acquires it for distribution; add it initially, but remove it when another company acquires it; or just omit it in general? Alex Tenshi (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Unreferenced BLPs

Since this page was deleted back in August, should we remove all links to it, like in the navbox and elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even realize we had kept just a list? I would redirect it to that cleanup list over at https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/bycat/Anime_and_manga.html#Unreferenced%20BLPs AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Digimon Hasbro

There has been an edit wa in Digimon Fusion in regards to the addition of Hasbro owning the rights to the series. More comments at Talk:Digimon Fusion#Hasbro might be appreciated. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Anime" vs "Anime series"

I wanted to get a third opinion on this subject after editing Free! (TV series). In the "Media" section, the anime section is listed as "Anime series." I feel this is unnecessary and had wanted to list this as just "Anime", as many other anime-related articles don't use this and the rationale by @Juhachi: is stated as the following:

  • 21:35, 31 October 2018‎ Juhachi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,565 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Anime: It *is* needed, since the films are also anime. It doesn't matter what other articles do.)
  • 22:22, 17 August 2018‎ Juhachi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,502 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Anime: this is to differentiate it with the films, which are also anime) (undo | thank)

lullabying (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Juhachi is right, identifiers such as "[television] series" or "film" are needed to prevent ambiguity. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I was looking through some examples like Naruto and it doesn't do that? One Piece does, however. lullabying (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a universal practice and not all article do that. Still, it would probably be a good idea to do it, if only for clarity. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody has the Psycho-Pass: The Movie dvd?

I've been meaning to to work in the article Psycho-Pass: The Movie, trimming the lengthy plot section and expanding the real world information. However, I'm stuck with the production section as I could only add one paragraph from the Official Profiling guidebook. I heard that the English DVDs or Blu-rays come with multiple interviews with the staff. By any chance, is there somebody around here who has the material? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Thanks. Created my account and made the request here.Tintor2 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Seems like the post was removed. I would suggest messaging the moderators of /r/movies and asking them what the appropriate subreddit would be for the post. It might help to clarify that you're not looking to pirate the movie or anything WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Tried another per your advice here. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tintor2: It seems like this was removed too. You need to privately message the mods. In each subreddit (I think the righthand panel) there is a "message the moderators" link, which should allow you to privately message them. I understand it's hard to get a handle on rules on big forums like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: How do I do interact with the mods? It tells me to write a name.Tintor2 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Try this https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmovies - In Reddit classic it was at a red button (when you scroll down) stating "Message the Moderators" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Verification troubles in Yugi Mutou

Hi, guys!

I notice "Time Magazine, Vol.157 No.22. June 2001." was cited in Yugi Mutou but I can't find which article it would be. This is an index of articles of Vol. 157, No. 22, June 2001 but nothing seems to match.

Also I want to cite the credits of the Singapore Yu-Gi-Oh! dub for Yugi's voice actor there, Chuck Powers. I'm having trouble finding an official site that states this, so I want to know how to cite the episodes/media themselves.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Aha! It turns out the content is from Time Asia (and not the Time North American edition!) - See the article index here http://content.time.com/time/magazine/asia/0,9263,501010604,00.html (Archive) - and I found a full archived version of the article. it shows why specifics (including the edition and/or URL) are important: https://web.archive.org/web/20010913025830/http://www.time.com/time/interactive/entertainment/yugioh_np.html
Having said that the stuff about Yujo doesn't seem to be discussed in the article, so it's still unverified.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, folks! Now I found the true verification! https://web.archive.org/web/20020702174238/http://www.time.com/time/interactive/multimedia/takahashi_int/frameset.exclude.html WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Joji" as a genre

I've been wondering which category "joji" works belong to. Basically joji (女児) refers to works aimed at girls from toddler to kindergarten (or age 10 if you're willing to stretch that far). It seems to be a subgenre of shojo but is way more specific as to who it's marketed towards. Examples of "joji" works include Pretty Cure seen in this article, Sailor Moon, Akazukin Chacha, and Hime-chan's Ribbon seen in this article. It seems that shojo is mostly aimed towards middle school students to high school, whereas joji is marketed towards girls from kindergarten and elementary school. lullabying (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Shojo and Joji would be more of a demographic than a genre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

late of me for asking

Does a show use t.v. ratings? As used at My Hero Academia Season 2? Also for season 1 and 3. Because outside of having the watchlist, I had an indirect page/ article notice. Like this edit. So; 

{{Japanese episode list/sublist|List of My Hero Academia episodes (season 2)
|EpisodeNumber   = 14
 |EpisodeNumber2  = 1
 |RomajiTitle     = Sou iu Koto ne Ochako-san
 |KanjiTitle      = そういうことね お茶子さん
 |EnglishTitle    = That's the Idea, Ochaco
 |OriginalAirDate = {{Start date|2017|4|1}}
 |FirstEngAirDate = August 11, 2018
 |ShortSummary    = Still recovering from the previous incident, the school is about to hold the Sports Festival, which will serve as an opportunity for the students to show off their Quirks to professional heroes looking for sidekicks. In the occasion, All Might confesses to Izuku that his powers are diminishing, and that the festival is an opportunity for Izuku to show his true value to the world.

The episode earned a 3.4% rating in the [[Kantō region]] of Japan.<ref>{{citeweb|url=https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-04-06/japan-animation-tv-ranking-march-27-april-2/.114480|title=Japan's Animation TV Ranking, March 27―April 2|date=April 6, 2017|website=[[Anime News Network]]|accessdate=July 23, 2017|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714155636/http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-04-06/japan-animation-tv-ranking-march-27-april-2/.114480|archivedate=July 14, 2017|df=}}</ref>
The episode earned a 0.27% rating and was watched by 559,000 viewers in the United States.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-8-11-2018.html|title=UPDATED: SHOWBUZZDAILY’s Top 150 Saturday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 8.11.2018|date=August 14, 2018|website=Showbuzz Daily|accessdate=November 19, 2018}}</ref>
 |LineColor       = 00BFFF
}}

Or have it as to this; 

{{Japanese episode list/sublist|List of My Hero Academia episodes (season 2)
|EpisodeNumber   = 14
 |EpisodeNumber2  = 1
 |RomajiTitle     = Sou iu Koto ne Ochako-san
 |KanjiTitle      = そういうことね お茶子さん
 |EnglishTitle    = That's the Idea, Ochaco
 |OriginalAirDate = {{Start date|2017|4|1}}
 |FirstEngAirDate = August 11, 2018
 |ShortSummary    = Still recovering from the previous incident, the school is about to hold the Sports Festival, which will serve as an opportunity for the students to show off their Quirks to professional heroes looking for sidekicks. In the occasion, All Might confesses to Izuku that his powers are diminishing, and that the festival is an opportunity for Izuku to show his true value to the world.
 |LineColor       = 00BFFF
}}

Then does the t.v. ratings stay or go? At the time when I did WP:SPLIT, which the info to the t.v. rating was already added in. So I was too busy to notice with my job place since August and asked at WP:HD. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ratings usually go in its own field in the episode listings like Aux4. You can keep the JP ratings if they are notable. See List of Glitter Force episodes for an example on how to integrate it. I think they use the same rankings table as My Hero Academia. Also it is not clear if it is with a % or just the number. I don't know if it's worth adding the US ratings as that is the secondary market. Those can be used to boost reception sections. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
O.k. I'll try that first. And figure out the US views after doing the table column. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Was "Nichiren (book)" published in Japan? if so, what is the kanji of the original artists?

I'm trying to find more info on Nichiren (book). Neither mangaka has an article in English, and I wonder what their kanji is. Also I wonder if this book was published in Japan and what its original title is... WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

i couldn't find any history of this being published in Japan. it looks like it was originally published in the US, so technically not a manga. the author and illustrator sound familiar but so far i can only find their works through goodreads and amazon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If the artists are Japanese citizens and/or published other comics in Japan, wouldn't it count as manga too? Akira Himekawa drew Gold Ring which was published in the United Arab Emirates and was written by an Emirati man. Because of the nationalities of the duo who are Himekawa, I think it would count as manga too... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
i can't find any history of passed comics that were originally published in Japan.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Draft for Matt Ishida

A draft for Matt Ishida from Digimon Adventure has been written at Draft:Matt Ishida. Feel free to provide input! lullabying (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this award notable?

See here. We tend to use Behind The Voice Actors as a reference so I wondered if an award provided by them could be notable. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would list them in the voice actor's awards and nominations, but I wouldn't count any of it towards notability. Ones that could be considered would be Annie Awards, NAVGTR or Seiyu Awards. Also, only the Staff Choice in BTVA should be listed. The People's Choice isn't notable as it is user-polled like a popularity award. It's also questionable whether the recipient gets an actual physical award or just gets such recognition on the website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Images for Fate characters

I have recently been adding images to the Fate characters Shirou Emiya and Saber (Fate/Stay Night). However, I'm kind of new to the franchise so I don't know if there were better shots similar to what I did to the D.Gray-man characters who I replaced with images of full bodies. Feel free to be bold. Also, I recently created Rin Tohsaka but I haven't added an image yet for this reasons.Tintor2 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryona article

Ryona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted twice.

Samantha Ireland created a redirect for the term on August 28, 2018‎, at 02:02.

Gaioa recently recreated the article -- a translated version from the Japanese Wikipedia -- on December 8, 2018‎, at 14:39. Article is still poor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you send it to CSD? It still looks like a pile of original research and about the same detail as the previous articles in 2010 that got AFD'ed. Alternatively redirect it to Violence against women which the article says "The term "ryona" almost exclusively refers to where a woman being abused by a man. " with the "a woman being abused by a man" is linked to Violence against women. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Animax and Aniplus redirects

Could project members please confirm that the following redirects are suitable?:

I fail to see why either should be any different, but both have recently been the target of attempted changes to redirect them to specific series' (usually Vividred Operation). I have been reverting them as unexplained changes, but am happy to take advice from others here. It would be useful if other editors could also keep an eye on these. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Aniplus Asia is a relatively common, if not quasi-official name for Aniplus' Southeast Asia operation. I've never heard Animax Asia called "Asia Animax", but eh, WP:CHEAP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I "pending changes" protected Asia Animax due to all the problems in the last while. Any changes by new or unregistered editors now need to be approved. The other one has only had one change, so we'll leave it for now. If it starts having a significant problem, let me know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. Nzd (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: All of these are from the same ISP. Pretty sure this is Robby Dream editing logged out. May be worth a direct warning about that, if not just going ahead with a NOTHERE block, considering the long history of nonsense redirect changes on these topics. -- ferret (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The same thing has happened with Animax Philippines.--十八 02:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobuhiro Watsuki organization

Please see Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Edit war to join in a discussion about the article's organization.Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Another discussion

See Talk:One Piece#"Plot summary" section removed. Any comments are welcome.Tintor2 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Problematic new user in the project

Would it be possible for other experienced editors in the project to explain to this user why his edits are being trimmed and reverted? His highly uncollaborative attitude is off putting to me. I've tried to explain to him using policy, but to no avail. I'll be the first to admit that I am no good at dealing with stubborn new users. Anyway, he seems to be the type of editor that can't seem to differentiate between fan wikis and Wikipedia itself, as evidenced here. There's also an issue with his lack of fluency in the English language, but I think his attitude is more of a concern at the moment. Furthermore, when he approached me on my talkpage, he immediately insisted that I was wrong, and that I have no right to perform any cleanup tasks. He also called me a vandal over his apparent disapproval of the cleanup tasks I've performed. I think something should be done about this. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinions?

Hello all! I just created my first manga article here on Wikipedia, School Judgement: Gakkyu Hotei. Because of that, I need some opinions on if I should remove or add something, is it all good, or not. Thanks in advance, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Jovanmilic97, you should add a section of manga characters. Masum Reza (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

New userscript

Hello, I wrote a userscript that might be of interest to the editors of this WikiProject. showKanji adds the corresponding Japanese kanji and furigana of a page under the title if any is found. Opencooper (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to try it out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Should the trademarked terms "SimulDub" and "Dubcast" be used in articles?

Recently I've changed a few articles to remove the usage of the word "SimulDub" from articles since this is a trademarked term of Funimation, and MOS:TM says "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed", and these terms require prior knowledge on what it is. However, in avoiding this term, it has caused some disagreement since it creates verbosity in the article. Same thing with the word "Dubcast", which is trademarked by Hidive.

Personally, I don't agree with using the term since using the terms requires readers to have the prior knowledge that Funimation (SimulDub) or Hidive (Dubcast) is producing an English dub as it airs, it leaves out the language of the dub, and causes inconsistencies between articles. However, another user suggested linking to Funimation#Simuldub program and Sentai Filmworks#Dubcast when these words are used in articles.

So, should these trademarked terms be used in articles to describe a simultaneous production of an English dub as it airs (obviously complying with MOS:TM by capitalising these terms), and linking the words to the relevant sections; or should avoiding these trademarked terms altogether be done? Alex Tenshi (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support: As long as Dubcast and Simuldub are linked, then these terms should be used. Furthermore, the term Simuldub could be used to broadly define all simultaneous English dubs as they air in Japan. New terms are made up by companies from time to time, and I think it's better for the readers in the long run if we educate them what these terms mean. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I do think that the word 'Simuldub' should not be used in articles as it is a trademark. However one can use this like this 'Funimation aired this anime on Simuldub'. But it requires knowledge so inexperienced reader might not understand it. But it should not be used like this 'This series is simuldubbed by Funimation' as it is not an official word in language. And for the user User:Sk8erPrince, it is not possible to educate every anime article readers around the world. Never will be. Masum Reza (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it's Simuldub. You didn't even get the spelling right. And secondly, what is the point of this comment? You trying to kill optimism here? Readers can learn new terms by reading the subsections of the Funimation and Sentai Filmworks articles as long as they are linked. I don't think you even truly grasp what exactly is being discussed here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
What about "streamed in English"? Unless you're needing to refer to the specific product service like Livestream or Facetime then you can write "the series was streamed in English using Funimation's Simuldub service". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
That wording sounds really good, actually. I approve. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Using "streamed in English" is good, but saying "the series was streamed in English using Funimation's Simuldub service" makes it more wordy and verbose than avoiding the terms altogether by saying "Funimation produced an English dub as it aired", which was a reason why one of my edits was reverted. Alex Tenshi (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
"Broadcast dub" should not be used because they're known as simuldubs nowadays. Broadcast dub is an outdated term. Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I would like to wish everybody on the WikiProject a very Happy New Year. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Voltron

I have created a discussion at Talk:Voltron about whether a Voltron (1984 TV series) should be created any opinions are welcomed. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Kira Pika and Kirarin Revolution

A discussion as to whether Kira Pika should be merged to Kirarin Revolution is taking place at Talk:Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS#Requested move 4 January 2019. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Need an ear

I have found an interview about Bryce Papenbrook's talk about his character Shirou Emiya here but since English is not my first language, my listening is not pretty good. The article has already a bit about Papenbrook's ideas but I wonder if there is room for more. At least the voice actors information is lacking. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tintor2: The podcast is 3 hours long. Is there any specific information you're looking for? lullabying (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lullabying: Nevermind, a fellow user already showed me information about it. Thanks anyways.Tintor2 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Making a common pagenotice for all anime and manga project pages?

As per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Display_a_link_to_WikiProject/topic_specific_guidelines_when_editing_an_article? I suggested that WikiProjects could make pagenotices covering all articles relevant to their projects.

IMO a good way to notify new users of manual of style/project guidelines is to use a common pagenotice. Please take a look and consider what kind of pagenotice you would like. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discography for Kirarin Revolution (and other idol anime)

While I was working on Kirarin Revolution, I was thinking of merging Kira Pika and MilkyWay to the article. Kira Pika and MilkyWay are idol groups from the show itself who also crossed over to mainstream TV and performed in real life at music festivals and shows, but they were only made for the sole purpose of promoting Kirarin Revolution and have released only 1-2 singles. I noticed other idol anime like The Idolmaster and Love Live! just listing their discography on the main article page.

The only issue I'm facing is whether to merge Koharu Kusumi's discography to Kirarin Revolution. All of her solo releases were under Kirarin Revolution and she was performing under the name of the main character, Kirari Tsukishima, so I feel like it would be more appropriate to merge there. What do you think? lullabying (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lullabying: I'm afraid no one commented because probably they don't know anything on the subject to give an opinion. I don't know either. However, I recommend you do what you think what it's better since you have knowledge on the subject. My only real advice is to look for some help on WP:MUSIC guidelines, general WP:Notability and WP:V. Hope this helps, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Saber's true name

You might know it but the character Saber (Fate/stay night) has the name of King Arthur. However, it appears that for English releases of the series and official images, it is written as etheir Arturia, Artoria or Altria. Some users have been editing that and spamming references so I'm not sure what is the correct name the character should be given. Still, across her appearances she is treated as "Saber" so there is need to change ther article's name. Nevertheless, the idea of having the real name in the lead might be annoying due to me not knowing what is the official real name the character has. Any viewer of the series who might know? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Pendragon is written アーサー・ペンドラゴン. Saber's name is written アルトリア・ペンドラゴン. While her name is likely inspired by Arthur, that's not her name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I mean which of Arturia, Artoria or Altria should be used in the article. I mean, a fellow user added but by backing it out of a fantranslated novel.Tintor2 (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd guess Altria. This official character good (a mousepad) uses that spelling, as does this official Seiko watch product (it's shown in the image at the top and the closeup of the side of the watch). This product, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Which English release did you want to reference? The English release of the video game? The first TV series? I wouldn't use any on-screen Engrish'ed titles from Japan (e.g. Aeka for Ayeka in Tenchi Muyo). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Chance! (Koharu Kusumi song) and Talk:Happy (Koharu Kusumi song) over renaming the articles. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't have any strong feelings on the matter other than to say go with the WP:MOS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:SONGDAB portions that relate to this: 1) Use the name of the performer who first published the song or 2) You may include the name of the film or musical a song was released on ("Almost There" (The Princess and the Frog song)), or the studio which owns its rights ("Let It Go" (Disney song)) I recommend using (Kirari Tsukishima song) since this is more like that Hannah Montana situation (main performer and persona). Koharu Kusumi has been using Kirari Tsukishima, or fully, "Kirari Tsukishima starring Koharu Kusumi (Morning Musume)" for all the albums and songs she has done for that show and product, so Kirari Tsukishima is practically her stage name for her. (Kirarin Revolution song) and (Koharu Kusumi song) could be retained as redirects. At this point, her entire solo career is as Kirari Tsukishima. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Thanks for your input. I was thinking this too since the songs are technically image songs for the character Kirari Tsukishima, and not exactly for Koharu Kusumi. I would be fine to renaming the articles to "(Kirari Tsukishima song)" instead. lullabying (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In need of help

Because the Heaven's Feel article was becoming too big, I created Fate/stay night: Heaven's Feel II. lost butterfly. However, I don't know well where I can find the poster of the film or a bit of the premise. I also messed up the article talk page title and requested a move but if somebody is able to fix it, I'd be grateful. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help for cleanup

Recently I started editing a light novel and anime series page named The Rising of the Shield Hero. I noticed that the summaries of anime episodes are too big and doesn't comply with Manual of Style. Also informations of characters is to large like long essays. I tried to cut down the numbers of unnecessary words but I am not good for this task. So I am here to ask help from fellow editors on this project. Sincerely, Masum Reza (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

One Piece move discussion

See Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019. There is a move in regards to the name of each season.Tintor2 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Are these the light novels?

I have been searching for the year of the release of Fate/Zero novels as well as ISBN to rework some references. However, I'm lost here about which of these are the light novels. According to the series' infobox there are only 4 volumes but most of these are far longer. Any idea?Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible the book might lack an ISBN? See the official site here.Tintor2 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The original release of novels lacked ISBNs (Fate/Apocrypha is the same way), but the release dates are given on that cite on the side bar near the bottom. Then it was published in 6 bunkobon volumes from January 12, 2011 to June 10, 2011. Most of the other stuff on that amazon search you linked are for the manga.--十八 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Juhachi: Thanks. So that means there's no need to add the original ISBNs or that we should replace the references. Sadly, the only translation I found about the novels are based on the original format of the novels so I have no idea how the chapters or author's note are explored.Tintor2 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Clover season articles for possible FL status

I'm planning to nominate Black Clover (season 1) and eventually, Black Clover (season 2), for FL status at some point later on. For now, I've expanded the lead section to include arc summaries and DVD releases and nominated the first season for a peer review. Any thoughts on how we can proceed from here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"The season adapts the first nine volumes of Yūki Tabata's Black Clover manga over 51 episodes" This might qualify as original research unless you find an interview with the staff members to back up this statement. I see that you copyedit but I have heard that some people from might find it still needs a copyedit so I suggest you requesting you a retouch to be more prepared.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. And the plot summaries in some episodes may need to be trimmed down to less than 200 words per WP:TVPLOT. Meanwhile, I've started up a discussion on the talk page. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobuhiro Watsuki

Nobuhiro Watsuki is currently engaged in an WP:EDITWAR with several IP addresses who keep reverting changes made by editors on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS, which is difficult to tell because they are not registered users and no consensus was established.

I opened a request for comments to discuss whether his 2017 arrest information should be in a section apart from "career" at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges. Your comments and feedback are appreciated. lullabying (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding FLs for current seasons

Hello again. While I’m still working on Black Clover (season 1) for FL status, I’ve got some concerns about expanding and nominating current season lists for FL status, such as Black Clover (season 2). Are the current season lists eligible to be FLs or do we have to wait for the home media releases beforehand? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mini-theater ranking

I have noticed that some movies are not given grossings and instead listed at a ranking of a "mini-theater ranking" by Anime News Network. I'm not familiar with that. Is there a wikilink that would make this better?Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Voltron: Defender of the Universe

Why are the foreign language version of Voltron: Defender Of The Universe not linked to Voltron (1984 TV series)? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content?

Before I ask other users, I wonder if somebody could check this. While a user was copyediting Shirou Emiya he removed the following content for not finding it important

Writer Gen Urobuchi who has been involved in the making of series believes Saber's relationship with Shirou does not seem like a realistic relationship between a male and a female but a complicated relationship with a boy who became a girl. He further explains that it is not a relationship fueled by instinct like the relationship between a man and a woman but a romance of logic between two people who need each other from the heart. He thinks the Fate route could have been told as a story through the ancient Greek views on love. Urobuchi thinks the true heroine of Fate/stay night is Rin Tohsaka. He asserted that Shirou's relationship with Rin was the more realistic. The "Unlimited Blade Works" route depicts an equal relationship with a woman who becomes stronger than men. Rin and Shirou mend each other's weaknesses with their own unique strength. Also, Sakura's romance expresses the dark sides that women have, but Shirou's actions show that men can accept that and love them regardless.[1] Nasu responded to Urobuchi by saying that it is difficult to call the relationship between Shirou and Saber a relationship between a man and a woman. Saber has fought for a long time as the ruler of Britain but then turned into a woman all of a sudden and fell in love with Shirou. Shirou's consistent desire to avoid having Saber fight for him represented his love. Nasu further added that while Rin is female, her characterization is highly different from Saber that Shirou would still fall for her.[1]

I talked with another user about it and he replied it might be possible to have in the article. I find it interesting since not only Nasu talks about this but Urobuchi too. What do you guys think about it? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tintor2:, I am not not familiar with this character nor the visual novel. I think this page is too big for just a fictional character as it is. But this quoted text might be important.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: I see. Thanks for the reply. The thing I wondered is that if the talk between two famous writers (as well as scholars) about a character is more important than just adding reviews about him. The user who I talked to said that it might be given it's own subsection. About the size of the page, I've tried reducing all the unnecessary weight but the character has multiple appearances besides the original visual novel which made the the coverage by third party sources more important for coverage.Tintor2 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I gave it a try here. I avoided adding too much material and balance more creation with the reception. Take into account that the original visual novel has three routes which is why there is so much coverage.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tintor2: That would work. And as for your question, I think review is more important than the talk between two writers.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 10:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ a b "TYPE-MOON Ace 7 - 10 year Anniversary interview: Nasu Kinoko X Takeuchi Takashi X Urobuchi Gen". Archived from the original on 2015-04-14. Retrieved 2015-04-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

So I want to make a Slayers TV series article (or four of them)

Who's with me? --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SNAAAAKE!!: Pardon me, Are you talking about this? If so then no need to do it. It already has Anime section in it's page. And It also has List of Slayers episodes.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 10:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm precisely talking about this: Slayers (TV series), Slayers Next, Slayers Try, Slayers Revolution (I already did Slayers The Motion Picture, Slayers Return, Slayers Great, Slayers Gorgeous, Slayers Premium, Slayers Special (OVA), Slayers Excellent years ago, as well as Slayers Royal, Slayers Royal 2, Slayers Wonderful, Lina Inverse, Naga the Serpent, etc.). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

These links are redirects to the Slayers#Media except the first. No need to do this. But If you still want to do it then make sure the pages will follow MOS:A&M guidelines.

I asked who's with me, not who's not with me. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How rude.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember the guideline but it's possible as long as there is enough content to create such article without making it a stub. Episode lists. The GA Devil Survivor 2: The Animation might be a good example to follow based on how it's an anime based on a video game similar to how Slayers are animes based on light novels.Tintor2 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion

Come at Talk:List of Sword Art Online all season episodes. There is a move discussion.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the FL designation for One Piece (season 5)

Just recently, all of the One Piece episode lists was recategorized as One Piece (season X) per the relevant discussion at Talk:One Piece (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019. However, since One Piece (season 5) is still designated a Featured List. Should we keep or remove the designation from that list? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So it seems official about staying more true to the tv project now? I guess any interested user could easily make it to GA since it is in good shape, but it sure is sad that we would lose FLs.Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but in fact, the first ten seasons of Bleach are still considered FLs, even though they're not listed as "List of X episodes (season Y)". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sailor moon North American publishers

I found at least 2 more publishers not mention in publisher on article Chix Comix https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sailor-Moon-7-English-Manga-vintage-graphic-novel-Chix-Comix-Usa-American/183681413187? Mixx https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sailor-Moon-5-English-Manga-vintage-graphic-novel-Pocket-Mixx-Usa-American/143115523368? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.120 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think those may need to have some reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I found this for chix comix http://www.comicbookdb.com/imprint.php?ID=289 And pocket mixx http://www.toddlertime.com/sailormoon/history/press-release-9-30-98.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.120 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Anybody experienced at Japanese?

I recently found this article where Hiroyama talks about his take on Shirou Emiya but even when using Google translate I'm confused with who is talking about that. I would ask Tranquilhope but he seems to be busy in real life. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

too early for WP:SPLIT

The question is by here. I feel, I would wait until the episodes are shown "then" split it. If the summaries were already written in. But not all of them isn't. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think it warrants a split for domestic girlfriend. i personally think character lists aren't that good when it comes to anime and manga. they list too many of them with so little information.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah? Then I don't know to do the steps to add it back in the main page? (Not blindly, but as asking at WP:PROPMERGE, etc.) Then later the old page will change into a redirect. And if I tried/ asked. I have a day job and writing while being rushed to get to my job. I wouldn't be smart by doing that. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you wanting to split the episode list or the characters list from Domestic Girlfriend? If the character list is about 10, then it doesn't need to be split off. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably only concerned with the episodes list.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It's this episode list. For the time being, I don't really know how long it last? Only 10 episodes, 12, or 13? Some thing like that I would just let it stay on the main page. And don't split it at all. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
12 or 13 episode I guess. I added some episode summary but I am no good at this. Can anyone here write the summaries?
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
There's two things here. 1.) If it might have around the 12 episode range and it stops. With scattered episode summaries written in, you might as well leave it alone on the main page. While another dilemma is, it could have been renewed for a new season. That tells about it at the end of it's t.v. shows' run. Which no one knows if it will happen. 2.) If neither happens, merge it back. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_71&oldid=1136054591"