Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all

Back in October, I started a discussion on how broadcast dates in articles should be presented, particularly if the show airs past midnight but official materials state that the show aired on a different date (i.e. a show aired on July 15 but official materials state its airdate was July 14). The consensus (albeit very weakly, as I'll explain in further detail below) was to use a format which presents the "official" broadcast date with a footnote explaining the actual airdate (for an example of this format, see the article Attack on Titan). However, the consensus was never fully implemented by the project, which I believe is because the discussion petered out in October but was closed in January of this year, meaning when the discussion was closed the discussion was already in the archives, so it's unlikely that many users saw the consensus. Another possible factor is that this format's proponent, Ryulong, is currently banned as a result of the Gamergate arbitration case, which means that he was unable to change many articles to the consensus format.

Since the closure of the discussion in January (although the last comment was made in late October), a number of developments have occurred. First, as stated at a similar discussion on Juhachi's user talkpage, the Japanese Wikipedia, which previously showed official airdates in articles, is now switching to the listing of actual/technical airdates in articles, while at least two (not affiliated with any anime, but still large) Japanese webpages, such as these two, also list the actual airdate (by comparison, Tokyo Broadcasting System's official website uses official airdates: examples are [1] and [2])

Now the question: given the lack of publicity for the original discussion's closure (as I mentioned, it was closed when it was already in the archives: indeed, I wasn't even aware that it was closed until I just happened to look at the archives when searching for older discussions), should the original consensus nevertheless stand and be implemented, or is a new discussion with a stronger consensus necessary? And afterwards, which airdate (official or actual) should be presented in the article, and in what format?

I'm notifying all participants of the older discussion, as well as the original discussion's closer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The actual air dates should have always been listed in the first place. That is because when secondary sources—such as the Agency for Cultural Affairs' Media Arts Database—lists these dates, they are almost always going to use the actual dates instead of the "media dates". And Wikipedia should always with secondary sources per WP:PSTS. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree here, makes the most sense to use the actual airdates when possible. The problem I suspect is that there are tons of sources out there giving like xyz for the airdates as there are in English sources (ex: List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes). In that example you have sources like MSN, IMDB, Tv guide, ect... so many IPs and new users see a source and my guess assume its right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that Media Arts Database is around (it wasn't back in October for the previous discussion), the airdates can be shifted and referenced to the actuals. In the cases where the Media Arts DB may be incorrect in the citing of individual episodes that were aired out of order or postponed, the footnotes can be added to explain (it has to be done anyway). The Media Arts DB might not choose the initial network airdates as with [3] compared to [4], so blanket removal of the existing broadcast info citations is not suggested. Footnotes should be sprinkled in where there is any confusion anyway, at the minimum on the Airdate header in List of episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I still believe they should be listed with the same date that is advertised by their respective official sources, even if it is at 26:00 or something. eg. A late night show that is listed by official sources to air on July 16, 2015 at 24:00, despite technically being 2am on July 17, 2015, should be listed at July 16, as opposed to an early morning show that airs at 7am or something that is actually scheduled as part of the next day's broadcasting. It also helps lessen confusion in terms of series that have simulcasts that would take place in earlier timezones. If the need occurs, players can add a footnote alluding to the technical date. Wonchop (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the simulcasts since the airdates are typically for the first official regular broadcast and not the broadband on-demand content that might be placed shortly before or after the cast. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the actual date is preferrable; however, what to do when the only source you have is the official site (which gives the media date)? With Akagi (manga) it was the case until I knew about Media Arts DB. In other cases, such as Mushishi, even secondary sources (e.g. ANN, [5], animeanime.jp, and even Oricon [6]) gave the media date, so what to do? It would be right to give the actual date without a source or even contradicting the sources? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the header in the episode list can be changed from "Original airdate" to "Broadcast airdate" or "Broadcast night airdate" if it is expected that the sources are consistently going by the media advertised scheme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree: we should use the actual airdate, not the marketing airdate. I don't think we need to give any further explanation in the infobox, or change "Original airdate" to be more specific (since it's already pretty specific). In the text of the article, it would be fine to include a brief parenthetical explanation of some sort, similar to how we list converted Julian dates with Gregorian dates, or old lunar dates compared to the Western calendar dates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree; but, as I said above, what we should when all sources give the media date instead of the actual date? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: That's where the footnotes would come into place, assuming that consensus determines that they be used. A possible format could be something like this: the actual airdate would be presented, but a footnote would be added which would explain that officially it aired the day before. For example: Foo Bar premiered on Station X on January 1, 2015.[footnote: the series' official website states that the show premiered on December 31, 2014 at 25:00 AM (1:00 AM)] or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, ok. I guess it solves the problem. I did something like that on List of Hozuki's Coolheadedness episodes but I've wondered if this could be considered OR... It's good to know others think it's okay. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is simple math, literally the equivalent of 26-24=2. This would not be original research. —Farix (t | c) 03:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I closed the previous discussion-- the late closure was probably because of a listing over at WP:ANRFC when it had been archived already. (Next time, I will make a note in the talk page to better alert editors when it's archived like that.) I think Narutolovehinata5 has a compelling argument here for switching actual date rather than the broadcast date when it is available. In fact, I'm just going to put on my involved hat and argue that we should provide the actual broadcast date on the basis of accuracy. Otherwise, if only the broadcast date is available, even on secondary sources like Gabriel Yuji mentions, it will have to suffice, and I think the footnotes idea above works well. Though this affects a lot of articles, in general, I don't think an official RfC is necessary unless the participation is really limited. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as an addendum to this, I notice Farix has been pretty vocal against me for including dates for future episodes, which often strikes me as odd considering, with a few exceptions like Sailor Moon Crystal which air in irregular schedules, these are weekly shows. To this, I'd like to point out that if you look at the 'On Air' page of an anime's official website, it will generally list each participating channel with the phrase (translated to) "From (ep 1 date) airing every (xx)day at XX:XX", which tells us that from that date onwards until the series' end that each episode will air on that day of the week at that time (for example, the On Air page for School-Live! reads that the show airs on AT-X "Every Thursday from July 9 at 21:30" [7]). Although not providing specific dates, it is still something of a "word of god" kinda thing, so referencing these pages in episode tables should provide the basis for these further dates, as well as better provide sourcing for previously aired episodes, which seemingly don't need them. Titles are probably little rockier since, much like character info and episode summaries, this is stuff that is only verifiable by watching the show itself, but I do believe that if an upcoming episode's title is provided by the series, it should be included, at least for that upcoming week. Tagging these with actual sources seems to be tricky since official broadcasting sites often use automated schedules, many of the sites that report on the next episode's title probably aren't considered reliable sources, and none of us wants to be the guy to put down "Episode 3 Title"<ref>The end of episode 2</ref>. Thoughts? Wonchop (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would concur with Wonchop. For example, since List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes have used Toei Animation's website as a reliable source for airdates and Fuji TV's own website for future airdates, I have been doing the same with Dragon Ball Super. And given that it's a weekly show, we should update the sources when the next airdate is confirmed by Fuji TV. Otherwise, if there is no source, episodes must remain hidden until the date is officially confirmed by the network or on the company's official website. Any comments or objections to it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wonchop: @Sjones23: This discussion is not about whether or not an airdate should be displayed for episodes without a confirmed airdate, but rather, how the airdate should be presented (i.e. if the show airs past midnight at 1:00 AM but officially airs at "25:00 AM", which airtime/airdate should be presented in the article, the official airdate or the actual airdate?). As for Sjones23's suggestion, he has a point, but it would generally apply to week-long shows: it might not be much of a problem for one-cour (12-14 episodes long) since usually their airdates are already fixed and postponements/cancellations are rare. Still, I think that suggestion should be tackled in a different discussion, not this one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion started below. Please comment there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When a similar discussion came up on the ANN forums about how dates should be entered in the ANN encyclopedia, an ANN staff member decided that they should always be entered as listed in the primary sources even if that wasn't the real date (i.e., they went with the media date, not the actual date). While we shouldn't be using their encyclopedia as a source, and they have said not to use Wikipedia as a source, I'm a little worried that having the two sites disagree will cause confusion (i.e., lead to a lot of people trying to change one or the other so that they agree). Also, I would expect most secondary sources to list the media dates rather than the actual dates, since I would expect most to just report the date given by the primary sources and not try to convert them (I think the Media Arts Database might be an exception . . . a database like that is probably trying to standardize things like dates, but a general news story would be more likely to just report what the sources say without any converting). I think going with either date is alright as long as we have a footnote explaining why the date might differ from some sources, but I think I have a slight preference with going with the media dates. I would expect going with the media dates will better match most available sources (both primary and secondary sources), and lead to less confusion. Regardless though, I definitely think the footnote is needed whenever a show was listed as airing at 24:00 or later. Calathan (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't ANN's encyclopedia, and they can use whatever method they like. What we have to do come down with is with the format that is most accurate, natural, and verifiable for the English reader. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How about actually having them as appropriately defined with their normal native listings with the proper notation and a note to explain it as it applies to the the 24 hour notation? When we have a performance show or event we list the times in the appropriate native listings for our guests. This results in confusion for English guests, but saying 26:00 is not unusual because it notes "a continued activity" and doesn't result in confusion with the 12 hour/24 hour cycle. If I were to state that the show is "2:00 Tuesday", it could either be 2 a.m. or 2 p.m. but if I say "26:00 Monday" the intention and meaning is clear. By altering and "converting" the times it only causes confusion for both parties. Confusion without conversion can be handled by a note explaining the native usage whilst retaining natural accuracy of the original sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think going with a "26:00 Monday" format is anything but "having a clear intention and meaning". As you said, English readers will be confused and think "how come the article says that the show claims to have aired on Monday but actually aired on Tuesday" and "26:00?". I regret to say it, but since this is the English Wikipedia, it would probably be best to go with a more common (and common sense) format. In my personal experience, outside of anime I've never encountered these "wrong" times used in other applications. Let's say there is an anime which claims to have aired on "25:00 AM on December 31, 2015" (meaning it actually aired at 1 AM on January 1, 2016). What category will be used in the article: 2015 anime television series, or 2016 anime television series? And if we go with the latter, even if let's say a footnote exists, if the broadcast date presented in the article is the media date, there could be confusion at least initially from readers ("this aired on 2015, but didn't?"). This is why I prefer using the footnotes, but instead of Ryulong's proposal of showing the media date first and the actual airdate in the footnote, I prefer a format with the actual airdate first and the media date in the footnote. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with differences between AM and PM. We are dealing with is the air date to be listed on an episode list. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that, while a number of stations (notably TBS) uses post-midnight airdates in their shows, not all channels use them. At least one channel (Fuji TV if I recall correctly) uses the actual dates for broadcast times. Whatever consensus this discussion ends in, the articles should probably reflect that.

Also, I've raised this in the previous discussion but this little bit of information seems to have been missed then (except by Ryulong in a very early discussion back in 2013): we may already have a solution for this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time of day has this quote (emphasis mine): 24-hour clock times have no a.m., p.m., noon or midnight suffix. Hours under 10 should have a leading zero (e.g. 08:15). 00:00 refers to midnight at the start of a date, 12:00 to noon, and 24:00 to midnight at the end of a date, but "24" should not be used for the first hour of the next day (e.g. use 00:10 for ten minutes after midnight, not 24:10). But here's the problem: Calathan raises an interesting point that going with this format may cause a conflict with what reliable sources say: while some sources (such as the database) use the actual date, others may use the media date. Essentially, this means that the consensus here is more on how to resolve this apparent conflict between between a policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and a guideline (our Manual of Style), and while WP:V is a policy and MOS is just a guideline and thus in theory the former has precedence, the guideline template says ("occasional exceptions may apply"), and potentially using a technically "wrong" media date (which technically violates MOS:DATE) for hundreds of articles doesn't seem to be "occasional". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: You intend to convert the actual given dates and times to your preferred "format" as a foreigner because it makes more sense to you? An explanation is required in either case, but a conversion is not. The MOS applies to Angelo-centic times and not one of used by Asian cultures. Take "週三深夜1時" for example. Literally read as "Wednesday Late Night 1:00" it is really Thursday 1:00 a.m. to "Angelos". I'll translate "10月16日深夜1時" as "October 17 1:00 a.m." for English documents, but to natives - it is October 16 still. This is why you get the flipping back and forth on dates - the date hasn't changed to the native population yet! Without the context and precision of the time notation the true "date" is ambiguous. For Japan, Monday 25:00 is precise and not the same as Tuesday 1:00 because you are still not certain of whether or not its the 12 hour or 24 hour notation. And I doubt you going to notate all the lists with the proper precision and time format context. After all that's only how the issue arose in the first place - a lack of precision and context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Being Filipino I can attest that the practice of these "post-midnight airtimes" is not widespread in Asia and in fact is rare outside of Japan, and those that do use it outside of Japan (such as Adult Swim) usually use it because of the Japanese practice and not because of independent developments. Also, nothing in the MOS states that it only applies to Anglo-centric articles, it does not state that media of non-English origin are excluded (otherwise MOS:JAPAN would have implied this). Also, it is clear from the context that "Monday 25:00" is referring to "Tuesday 1:00 AM". There's no ambiguity there, only confusion. And even if the problem here is the use of the 24-hour clock, MOS:TIME states that, for disambiguation purposes, a leading zero should be added to hours that are less than twelve (e.g. "Monday 25:00" = "Tuesday 01:00"). So while the statement that "Monday 25:00" and "Tuesday 1:00" are not the same is correct, saying that "Monday 25:00" and "Tuesday 01:00" are not the same isn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously stating that your nationality makes you an authority on the matter? Now...the practice to which we are discussing is Japanese and the fact people are not providing the hour of the air times is the root of the problem. When you write "Japanese date" it does not state "Japanese post-midnight showings are converted for a 24 hour clock, i.e. shows airing at Sunday 25:00 are written as airing on Monday despite the TV station and book listing the calendar date as the day prior". With that you have just confused the native sources, the Angelo sources and clarified nothing in the sake of "correcting" a calendar date which was never in error in the first place. Perhaps it is not logical for you to deal with "(Date) 26:00", but no one ever puts the "26:00" in the lists its either "(Date) or (Date+1)" and the latter is dishonest and confusing with respect to both precision and accuracy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're lucky you'll get the announcement like "次回第3話 7月22日(水) 深夜2時 34分放送" which has the "深夜" late night designation. But some programs will list "7月22日(水) 02:34" or "7月22日(水) 2:34" and while 深夜 is implied, it still confuses AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - I understand. Implied cases doesn't always make it clear, but its got be to clearer than alteration without explanation. Until I mentioned it though, it seems as if this designation was unknown and that's what concerns me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: @ChrisGualtieri: The consensus of the discussions for the past two years was always leaning towards using footnotes of some sort. The topic which could never reach a consensus is the question on which airdate should be presented in the article text and which airdate should be in the footnote: should it be that the actual airdate is presented, with a footnote explaining the media date (as seen on List of Hozuki's Coolheadedness episodes), or should it be that the media date is presented, with a footnote explaining the actual date (as seen on Charlotte (anime))? As stated in the discussion, the first option is more accurate but it can, depending on the show and the sources, contradict what official sources say, while the second option is closer to official sources (at least those for shows which actually use the post-midnight format), but is technically inaccurate, contradictory, and technically does not follow the Manual of Style. Whatever consensus is formed here, it will have to involve footnotes of some sort. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't need foot notes. Even in newspapers when the schedule is a long bar, it covers up to like 2 am of the next day, but no one would say Wednesday 3 am of Thursday or something bizarre like that. Stick with normal dates, it's how the Agency for Cultural Affairs wants it done as well. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, the use of media dates by some Japanese networks is what is dishonest. It also sows confusion between networks that use these media dates vs those that uses actual dates. Then you have the Media Arts Database, that uses the actual dates (or at least attempts to). This is why I believe that all dates given on Wikipedia should be the actual dates for internal consistency. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason that no-one has bothered to ask at WT:MOSDATE about the best way to take care of this? This seems to be rather divisive and people divorced from the specific case of anime might have some interesting or useful input. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Back when I first raised this issue back in 2013, after some discussion here, I started a discussion on the Village Pump. Unfortunately, there were very few responses there. Anway, I've left a message at WT:MOSDATE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Most people probably don't have opinions or expertise in the area... it is a very esoteric subject even amongst Wikipedians. I wouldn't be heavily invested into MOS - because it arose from solutions to problems rather than the other way around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Since editors like Farix and DragonZero are unable to recognize valid time notations I feel that this Wikiproject is not capable of resolving the issue. DragonZero advocates conversion without explanation and Farix believes the official listings are "dishonest". Stop creating your own reality and refusing to explain "date-only" alterations because of your cultural blindness. This is an encyclopedia and the act of informing readers to such issues is part of our mission. Wikipedia editors should not be actively compounding the problem and going against official listings and ignoring the existence and validity of alternate time notations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris, you can't seem to discuss anything here without finding some way to put down other editors in this WikiProject. First off, my comment was a direct counter to you statement that converting media dates to actual dates was "dishonest". If you find my counter in any way offensive, then it was because your own comment was just as offensive. Second, you are insinuating that editors who are arguing in favor of using the actual air dates must be racist. This attitude is patently offensive give the very nature of this WikiProject. —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Chris if you dislike WP:ANIME so much then why are you here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Farix has accused me of racism in response to dismissing an editor's argument as an authority based on their own nationality... That's not racism, that's stating that your place of residence does not make you an expert. For this problem and all others, an explanation in prose or in notes is required because said listings are in conflict and conflicting sources require explanations. Wikipedia is an evolving system and best practices for one page do not always apply to another - common sense and enhancing reader comprehension are primary goals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, YOU were the one that tried to insinuated that those supporting the conversion of media dates to the actual dates were racist. "recognize valid time notations", "Stop creating your own reality", "your cultural blindness". These are all code words to cast anyone who disagrees with you as racist. Then like a smooth politician, you turn yourself into the victim when you get called out on it. —Farix (t | c) 11:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've explained twice that someone claiming authority based on their nationality is not a valid or compelling argument. Somehow you twist and distort this to racism. You insult me and are pulling out all the rhetoric to shamelessly attack an editor who has explained their indifference to the form used so long as the valid notation is explained. I don't care what social background you have, but you do not understand the culture and it is patently clear that conversion without explanation is a bad idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Although I'm on the opposite side of the debate as ChrisGualtieri, he has a point. His comments were not racist, but rather, he was lamenting the apparent lack of cultural relativism in this discussion. It's not creating a reality, but rather, learning to respect the differences in Western and Asian (in this case, Japanese) media cultures. Systemic bias, folks. Perhaps this is partly my fault, since I brought up my nationality when he said that the MOS may not apply to non-Anglo-centric matters (although no MOS has ever implied this), although my point was that the practice of post-midnight airdates being shown in such a format is rare outside of Japan (indeed, I'm not even sure if it's widely used within Japan, since even the Japanese stations and websites are inconsistent with it), and I was saying that I know that through experience. With that said, the question on whether or not we should use these media dates based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines is separate from the question on whether or not they are valid from a Japanese perspective. MOS:TIME though seems to be clear that any "25:00" times and the like should be avoided in articles, which is why I prefer a compromise where the actual broadcast date is presented, but with a footnote explaining the official airdate. In theory, this should please both sides, as compared to not having the footnote (and thus any mention of the media date) at all. It would be interesting if a Japanese user could give an input to this discussion. What do Japanese feel about the use of these media dates?

@ChrisGualtieri: With that said, at least in my case, "conversion without explanation" was never going to be an option. That's where the footnotes will come in place. The date presented should probably be the actual time of broadcast (say "Monday 01:00"), but with a footnote that explains that (if applicable), official sites states that the show aired on the previous day (say "Sunday 25:00"). One way to do this is to use two citations for the airdates, one citation for the actual time (perhaps using the Media Arts Database as a source), and one citation for the media date (perhaps using official websites as a source). Of course, for shows that premiere before midnight, this discussion would be moot since the media and actual brodcast dates will be the same. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

DragonZero advocated conversion without explanation. I'm fine with the Attack on Titan listings. An explanation is required and preferably with one that recognizes the post-midnight dates for the illustrative purpose. The Attack on Titan note does this and "going by the MOS" seems to be an argument for preventing even the illustrative example. How the situation is resolved doesn't really matter to me so long as an explanation exists and the validity of the time notation (for illustrative or descriptive purposes). I'll leave a note on your page explaining it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with TheFarix: Use reliable secondary sources, which usually provide us with the actual release date. The "official" "media" date is primary sourcing and counterfactual. It's exactly the same as WP repeating something stated in someone's press release when multiple independent reliable sources show that it's not true. That said, it would be good to put the "media" date in a footnote, to explain why some source may contradict what the others are saying and what WP is saying. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping more news articles will do things like this: "The anime will premiere on September 26 at 24:30 (effectively, September 27 at 12:30 a.m.) and Crunchyroll will stream the series as it airs." But that's more the exception when announcing premieres. As for Adult Swim's late night broadcasting, doing a search by date will indicate a Saturday post-midnight listing, while search by show name will indicate a Sunday morning date on the same episode. Also if the snapshot of the day's full programming guide clearly shows they use a post-midnight format, then using actual date should be fine. Then there may be a wishy-washy case where they move the program across the 24:00 border a few times, which the airdates would no longer follow +7 from the previous episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise?

As seen in the discussion above, one problem is that reliable sources themselves can be inconsistent with airdates for a series. Online and possibly offline, for many series, both "media" dates and actual airdates may be widely circulated. For some however, only the "media" date is reported (although this is less of a possibility now given that the Media Arts Database exists). What about we settle for a compromise of sorts? By default, when presenting a show's airdates, as long as there are reliable sources that confirm the "actual" date, we present that (i.e. actual date with the media date explained in the footnote), but if no reliable sources can be found confirming the actual date (even secondary ones), then the date that would be presented should be the media date (i.e. media date with the actual date explained in the footnote). Then again, as I mentioned, with the Database existing, this would be less of a problem now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It still sounds the same as actual dates over broadcast schedules, since I haven't seen the database lacking in any anime series. Since I was already on the side of actual dates, I don't oppose this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a good middle ground. (Just a side note: DragonZero, the database is missing Hozuki no Reitetsu, for example; that may indicate that there is some delay on its updating.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: My suggestion is kind of a temporary solution though, only for shows where reliable sources do not cover its actual airdate, only its media airdate. Once a source (or sources) can be located that confirm the actual airdate, the airdate presented should be changed to that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think the actual dates should always be used. It's not productive to use media dates only to switch to the actual dates later on when the Media Arts Database and other secondary sources catch up. As for whether the dates should be footnoted, that should depend on the sources used. If the source gives actual dates, there is no need to footnote. If not, then a footnote may be helpful. I do wonder if providing the time slot information in the anime section/episode list be a good idea to clarify the situation. I've attempted this on several articles in the past, but had them removed by other editors. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

An explanation is required when valid sources are in conflict - I'm not sure why you do not understand why this is important. This is by far one of the most simple and easily resolved types of conflicts yet this debate continues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Japanese newspapers

By coincidence, I'm currently in Nagoya, Japan on holiday. I happened to look at some Japanese newspapers, and interestingly, the two I read (a Japanese language paper whose name I forgot, and the English language The Japan Times) use the actual times for their broadcast times (for example, a show is shown to air at 2:00 [AM] as opposed to "26:00") in their television airing schedules. It seems the use of media dates is rarer than I thought. I'll see if there will see anything else. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it show as 2:00 AM for the next day or under the same day? Heh, could use that as cite news ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

2:00 AM of the same day. Though apparently the Japanese broadcast day begins at 6 AM. I guess in this case, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a lot happened while I was away. Skimming through most of the above since it is quite tl;dr, I'm not opposed to the use of actual airdates. However, I would say we should use the media advertised dates since those are what the actual broadcasters make available albeit in their strange time slot divisions. Media Arts Database is really just an archive that chooses to use a 24 hour based system to give the actual broadcast dates and hence is good for that purpose, as an archive. I've made it a practice to include a footnote to compensate for the actual airdates. I do understand that it is by no means a solution but it doesn't seem like the community has reached a definitive verdict either. The advertised and actual airdates both have their merits, but if we're going to have a unified source for all anime dates across the Project like Narutolovehinata5 is hinting at then we should definitely be using the Media Arts Database. Maybe we should just vote on it? —Kirt^Message 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: The last time this was discussed the proposal was put into a vote (as mentioned above), with Ryulong's proposal (advertised airdates with the actual airdate in the footnote) winning out, although this was never implemented for reasons mentioned in my original comment above. This time the discussion seems to be leaning towards the use of actual times with footnotes to explain if there's a discrepancy between the actual times and the advertised time (i.e. present the actual date with the media date in the footnote), as long as a reliable source (preferably secondary sources/non-affiliated sources such as the Media Arts Database and newspaper/magazine television schedules) can be found. I don't think a vote is necessary this time given the consensus this time appears to be clearer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Having a reliable source would be the key for this method to work, but wouldn't we still have to wait for secondary sources to play catch up? Broadcasters almost always make their advertised schedules available long before actual airing begins making them the go-to places for initial premiere dates. In addition. unlike the Media Arts Database, digging around for other secondary sources such as magazines/newspapers would be alot tougher for some people provided the schedules aren't available online. This ties to the future airdates trend that has been going around lately (see the discussion below) wherein unsourced dates are being removed until the episodes air despite the dates remaining unsourced, which could either attributed to the fact that secondary sources are now more difficult to come by, or that editors still arent willing to play the sourcing game. My money is on the latter. —Kirt^Message 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: That would depend on a number of factors, such as the show itself and the station that airs it. For example, as far as I know, not all Japanese TV stations used the weird 24+ hour dates at all and just simply use the actual airdates (I can't remember which ones don't use the media dates, it could be Fuji TV or NHK, correct me on that if I'm wrong); in fact, I'm not even sure if the practice is commonly used outside of anime. As I mentioned above, I did suggest a compromise above where, should reliable sources not exist (yet), especially if the Media Arts Database does not have the show (yet), the media dates could be presented in the interim, although they should be changed to the actual dates as soon as a reliable source that confirms that airdate can be found (i.e. the Database), and while DragonZero and Gabriel Yuji were in favor of this proposal, TheFarix opposes it. Though to be fair, the same could be said for using the media dates: for any airdate to be in the article, a source should confirm it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My beef is with using the advertised dates in said interim until a secondary source becomes available. Frankly. it's pointless effort to update a reference (which not everyone is willing to do) and really all it does is highlight the severity of the astronomical amount of unsourced lists that the Project has to deal with. My point is, if the average editor is unwilling to spend an extra five minutes to source an airdate in the first place, what makes you think they would update the date from advertised to actual with a secondary source? That's why I've been saying we should just pick a standard and be done with it. Anything along the lines of compromise only works for lists people are actually willing to commit to enhancing. —Kirt^Message 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: For accuracy's sake, if anything else, it will probably be best to stick to the actual airdates, with footnotes if necessary explaining the advertised date, as the standard. Primary sources may or may not use the advertised dates, but Japanese secondary sources seem to stick to the actual airdates, and WP:PRIMARY states that secondary sources should be preferred whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have slowed down

Well discussion seems to have slowed down now. Has a consensus been reached? Should it be time to close the discussion, or should it be kept open? This issue really needs to be resolved so that a standard may be implemented. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have come to a natural end. Any more debating would probably result in everyone needlessly repeating their arguments. What we need here is a fresh perspective. —Kirt^Message 01:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not just draw a straw vote now? The prose in this discussion was too soft to suggest anything here was binding. I've already started on my next project in the format of real airdates, no notes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@DragonZero: If only for this to be done once and for all, then maybe it would be time to have a strawpoll. It would be easier though if you could create the section and the wordings rather than me, as I'm currently busy with school work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's my proposal:

Use actual date with footnote when:
- Media publishes the broadcast night and uses those dates to refer to the program throughout its first run. Example: [8]
- Media publishes the broadcast night but uses 0:00-3:59 times where they may be contention or confusion.
Use actual date with optional footnote when:
- Media publishes broadcast night for just its first episode, or when publishing the weekly episodes, lists with broadcast time in 24+ range or with "深夜" (after-midnight) designation. (A footnote helps, but when the schedule snapshot clearly shows it occurring after-midnight, it is self-explanatory). Example: [9], [10]
Use media date with optional footnote when:
- Media uses broadcast night with lack of any other detail. Applies to old archived programs where no one can dig up the actual broadcast time or for upcoming shows that have not been scheduled in a time slot yet. This is also for the rare and weird case where the show's start time flops back and forth between 23:55 and 24:05. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you think? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much variety. It's better if something simple is enforced. "Does MediaDB have the airdates? Use those, otherwise use what other sources say" is much more simple. Then there's the footnote issue. I'd just drop the footnotes altogether. From the English airdates perspective, even though adult swim schedules it oddly, sources like The Click of ANN and Tv Guide just do automatic conversions without mentioning how it looks on schedule. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just detailing the possible cases, not the verbiage that will go in the MOS, which should be a lot simpler. How's this: "For shows that are broadcast after midnight, list the actual airdate instead of the media date. For example, Thursday night, April 2, 2015 at 24:30, is technically Friday morning, April 3, 2015, at 12:30am. If the sources insist on using the media date, add footnotes to clarify the after-midnight scheduling." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gangsta.#Requested move 19 August 2015

Another move discussion has been initiated. Please comment by clicking the heading above. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding animate vs inanimate pronouns for fictional characters

There is an RfC under way at WT:MoS about whether or not it's acceptable to use "who" to refer to characters, as if they were real people. The consensus is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "Yes, in fact that's standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions are still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character, who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A more neutral notice than the above: Just FYI, this non-neutrally set up reductio ad absurdum RfC has actually moved on to a more serious discussion about whether MoS should advise rewording to avoid particularly confusing uses of "who[m]" and "[s]he" when writing about fictional characters in an out-of-universe way (e.g. as intellectual property). Further input from projects that actually write encyclopedically about fictional characters a lot would be useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do if the Japanese site publishes English spellings but not easily accessible?

Need input on this discussion: Talk:Is_It_Wrong_to_Try_to_Pick_Up_Girls_in_a_Dungeon?#Translations AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I would go with Yen Press, but will check out the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on unusual prepositions in titles

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Anime films and production company parameter in the film infobox

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

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

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

Lists of manga

Okay so we have the following:

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

Lists and categories are not problems, though categories become useless as they grow and lists retain their strength. A category of Pokemon is a pain to browse versus the existing lists. Though this applies to more practical subjects like the Victory Ships as well. I have never been big into the niche topic, zee irony is overwhelming, but I find my interest in correcting mistakes is directly proportional to the prevalence of myths. Do as you please, the list is hardly representative and I'd break Wikipedia with sources from just those clearly listed and defined in Clements & McCarthy. Though we aren't talking a shot of boob on Titanic (1997 film) for placement the H-works. Each of the ones I was intending to list could have full standalone pages if someone decided to do a little work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean when it comes to large lists, If I were to start with List of romance manga I would remove all of the un-sourced entries and place the content into a table format. As for List of hentai manga I will see what I can do regarding article work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete them. These categories are what scanlation websites give them. Btooom! is definitely not romance. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DZ. Looking through the list, a little fan-based bias seems to be mixed in with some of those titles. Such as with Sword Art Online or Yahari Ore no Seishun Love Come wa Machigatteiru. Those are light novels. Yahari isn't even a Romance and I'm pretty sure everyone bases SAO on the season 1 of the anime and not the printed media. —Kirt^Message 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that unless there is verifiable sources calling these series romance manga, it's just OR.--十八 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good case for WP:TNT. You can keep the indexing by letter as with similar lists that use {{AlphanumericTOC}}. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been away but given the above, I feel I will place the romance list up for AfD sometime tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

need help to resolve situation at meta with anime sources at the SPAM list

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=11528796#world-art.ru what happened

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

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

DO NOT REVERT! (Idot (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC))
now we have a real problem with it in ru-wiki 'coz now it putted in spam-list in ru-wiki with argument that its' already in the global spam-list. so we need to help to deal somehow with meta (Idot (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

you will need to establish that they are indeed reliable sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, content expertise and not spam. good luck with that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this has already been gone over as Sephy reverted the edit. @Idot: I would take this to WP:RSN, chances are though that they will say the same thing Red Pen is telling you, there isn't really much more to be done here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted because IPs were spamming links to it all over Wikipeida AND over concerns that the website distributed copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owners. The latter reason alone prevents the site from being used as a reliable source while the disruptive spamming is also plenty of reason to blacklist the website. What this does point out that we should replace images that originated from this site with images for more official sources. I'll be following up later with a list of images that needs to be updated. —Farix (t | c) 17:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems doable, I am sure browsing through images on Google Japan will come up with results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Monster Musume

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

Charlotte (anime) infobox image

This is in regards to YuuOtosaka (talk · contribs), who for the past couple of days has attempted a number of times to change the infobox image from File:Charlotte anime.jpg to File:Charlotte anime 2.jpg. I have tried to explain to this editor why the latter of the two images does not provide a sufficient representation of the series, and that (at least for now), the former image with the five main characters should be kept, and that the infobox image shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without a good reason. However, the user has continued to change the image, and it's really getting old, so what do I do? Because I'm this close to taking it to WP:ANI since it seems the user either does not want to listen to reason, or is simply ignoring me.--十八 11:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally dislike promo images in general unless there really is not good alternative, but from the images that have been release from the series so far, the second image doesn't look recognizable compared to other media released so far and thus fails at identifying the series (which is a NFCC requirement for infobox images). Do we not have an image of a DVD or Blu-ray cover yet? —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The first and second DVDs have covers, but they only feature 1 or 2 characters, so I don't really find them as better alternatives to File:Charlotte anime.jpg. That, and the art on those covers is from the original character designer Na-Ga, as opposed to the anime's character designer. Just to point out, I'm not against changing it to another image if it's a better alternative to File:Charlotte anime.jpg; my argument is simply that File:Charlotte anime 2.jpg is not a better alternative.--十八 12:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the first image as well here, more is shown. I am at work now, but a quick glance showed me that the first image of a poster has been edited to not show the Japanese lettering on it. If you are looking for a better image I suggest google.jp. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two Rie Takahashi

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

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

I would go with the year of birth as the first option.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The example of LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987) is very informative. Anyway, I take a wait and see posture so far.--Akiyama(tentative) (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Help compelting article

Can someone please help me complete this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_companies_with_licenses_to_stream_anime&redirect=no ), the notable facts section has a lot of copyvio which i itnend to fix. I was hoping someone can help me rewrite it to prevent copyvio and to finish this article sooner? Any feedback is appreciated and help is appreciated--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Honestly while you did do a lot of work, the list looks unmanageable. My concern is that the list has triva which may be notable but whom is it referenced by and how is she/he important? In my opinion, along with that the list is too long, you may want to consider splitting it. Also keep in mind List of United States anime simulcasts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes i also though it needs to be split alphabetically. Currently it is not in alphabetical order. it is ordered by the license holder A-Z, not anime name A-Z--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So your list doesn't overlap with any of the Lists of anime we have? Another concern would be WP:LINKFARM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Im not trying to put down your list, you did ask for input though and I raised my concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm confused as to the purpose of the list. Are you trying to list the companies that provide streaming services, or the list of anime that have been streamed? The former would be somewhat useful and source-able, but the latter is extremely difficult to maintain with any sense of sourcing. I've experienced numerous problems with List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney given how the schedule for shows appears and disappears that I've given up tracking that and just list the premiere dates. Also we don't need to be doing Netflix, Crunchyroll, or Hulu's job in listing current anime offerings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont know myself anymore. Please tell me which direction to take this article. The link column will be deleted. I wanted to make a list of all the anime series streamed online for free by the license holders, and information about when they gained the license and some notable facts about the acquisition--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Free is also debatable. As with many distributors, they will put up a few "free" episodes or samples, and move shows back and forth between free and subscription-only. Shows are also regularly added and removed from their catalogs. There is also no precedent to do a List of programs broadcast by Hulu, but preferably a list of their Hulu-exclusive/original series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In the article I will define free as: (1) not requiring registration or subscription (2) but may or may not contain advertisements. Would that be sufficient. If not I think I would need to add a column about the period in which it was free (all those on the list would be from from streaming date to present). It would be up to the contributors to make sure the period in which it was free is accurate therfeafter--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also how is it going to pass WP:NOTCATALOG which says that Wikipedia is not a programming guide and recommends articles have no current schedules? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is probably going to be a late reply, but that definition of "free" could be considered original research. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Akira plot summary

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Akira_(film)#Plot_summary_discussion regarding the length of the plot. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Doraemon films#Short films

Are all those films notable? At least one article expects deletion.
Some of the articles are very short and lack sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For the less notable ones you could instead try and attempt a merge to List of Doraemon films (itself an article which needs work). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed these as well, there used to be more but seeing the articles were un-referenced stubs I redirected them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest merging them to the Doraemon films and organizing them like the List of Lupin III television specials where they can be summarized and also listed which Doraemon film it was ~~released~~screened with. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I would like to overhaul that Lupin list but with 24 "episodes" it's at risk of being unwieldily. It would work for this example where (next to no non-plot info about each film for detail) but it doesn't work for Lupin.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Exceptions can be made for short films that have its own notability like being nominated or winning a short film award. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Monster Musume infobox - manga title and anime title

The infobox of the page mentions that the manga title is Monster Musume: Everyday Life with Monster Girls. An then, Sentai Filmworks (the US distributor of the Anime) just confirmed that Monster Musume: Everyday Life with Monster Girls is the Anime's official english title. [11]

So I edited the infobox and mentions that the Anime title is Monster Musume: Everyday Life with Monster Girls, but G S Palmer (talk) had reverted my edit.

I don't know why my edit need to be reverted? If wiki can mention the manga title as Monster Musume: Everyday Life with Monster Girls, why anime title can't? Afterall, Sentai Filmworks did confirm that it is the official title of the anime.[12][13]--Marychan41 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Monster Musume#Title AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything before 2010...

With over 900 of our articles tagged as being un-referenced I propose that anything before January 1, 2010 that is un-sourced be removed. Per WP:V anything that is un-sourced and challenged can at any time be removed, I don't understand why these need to sit for years on end. Please note this proposal just covers statements tagged with "citation needed" and NOT articles tagged with needing more references as a whole, any thoughts on this? Remember things can always be included later that are properly sourced so there is no great sacrifice to the articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want the list it can be found here:

[14]

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The contentious and fancruft stuff should be removed. The stuff that just requires someone to do a little bit of research or updating should stay and with reasons added to help the folks developing the article. On the flip side, I'd rather WP:TNT all these unsourced filmographies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I will work on that soon then, I don't see why these need to pile up for years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

kanji/romaji for media

When I first started editing years ago it was common practice to give kanji and romaji titles for media in an article. As far as I know the practice has decreased because it can be counter productive:i.e. confusing to follow and adding bulk, as well as largely being unnecessary. Outside of using it in the lead to give the original title, should we be using it in the article body at all? I can see the argument for not including it when there is an english release, but what about if the media doesn't have an official english title? I ask as Lupin III still has a lot of it and while I could easily remove it all I'm unsure what the current suggestions are.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it used where needed on a case by case basis Lupin III is a GA so I don't think it is suffering from it. I also agree that if there is no English adaptation that both should be used in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You could always foot them to increase appeal. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode totals for unaired shows

This uncommunicative IP hopper from a few months ago is still around, making their usual edits. Should I really be reverting them or is it not even a big deal? Presumably there needs to be an explicit reference that provides an episode number if the series in question hasn't even started airing yet. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they should be reported as if any account as been blocked they are block evading socks causing nothing but unconstructive edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Report it to ANI for blocking. This editor is already known to them and has been blocked several times for these types of edits, even going so far as to change their IP to evade the blocks. —Farix (t | c) 18:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with Monsuno

I've put page protection on Monsuno for a massive edit war of atleast 75 reverts. I know nothing on this, so I don't know who is right or wrong. Main IP warring is 202.89.94.86 and has vandalized other articles, which is how I noticed this. Any help would be appreciated. Bgwhite (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a new one on me, but looking through the last revision changes seems to be changing the nature of phrasing with character descriptions rather than any meaningful and helpful changes to improve the article. For a merchandise orientated show that has been localised for english language audiences this isn't a surprise really. With so many edits, and the way that they are displayed in the changes display it's difficult to analyse all of the details. However I would suggest that with most of the problems seemingly being in the ridiculous character section, that it may be in everyones best interest to remove most of that section entirely. It could be dumped into an split article like character lists typically are for anime, but given the complete lack of meaningful content this seems like a terrible idea - this isn't wikia so there should be content here and not just an attempt to list every single character even if it's a single line. If you would like me to give you a heavily cut replacement for the section I can do that for you.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the edits, and it seems the bulk of the IP's edits are for preferring the Japanese version of the animation, listing Japanese names in lieu of English information. For titles, the most common english title is preferred, but for other information I don't think there is an official policy and usually both are included using templates like {{nihongo}}. In this case the animation premiered in America and the adaption changed character names specifically for the Japanese market, so the original english names should probably take precedence, but consensus could decide otherwise. They also added a long list of animals while the MOS recommends only including major characters. Lastly. external links in English are preferred and the editor removed other useful links. I think you should revert to the version before the IP. Opencooper (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed revert to the original version before the IP, this is the English Wikipedia and is meant to tell about the original series yes but also focus on the English adaptation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87, Opencooper, and SephyTheThird: I reverted Monsuno to before the 202 IP got a hold of it. I noticed they are also involved in List of Monsuno episodes, so I reverted that one too. As the user account wasn't at fault, just the IP, I've put both articles on autoconfirmed page protection. Your analysis makes sense to me. I first arrived at After Man, a sci-fi book by a Canadian geologist... The 202 IP was adding {{nihongo}} templates everywhere. They are doing the same to Darwin IV. All are page protected for atleast a month. If I reverted to far, feel free to revert to where you feel is correct. Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

True (Japanese singer)

Shouldn't this be at Miho Karasawa (which was its original title)? For one thing, she had been active under her real name for longer than she has been using the stage name True. She also mostly writes lyrics (for herself and others) as Karasawa and not True. Even her blog uses both names, so it's not exactly apparent by which name she wants to be referred to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would go by her real name, also just saying but the corresponding Japanese wiki article has less sources than the one we have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So would it be alright for me to request a move? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt, I would support it as you make a convincing argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would use Miho Karasawa and have True (Japanese singer) redirect to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started a requested move at Talk:True (Japanese singer)#Requested move 30 September 2015. I have also notified the user who moved the article about the discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Date issue

Would this be an accurate note for List of Nakaimo - My Sister Is Among Them! episodes? The dates used on the TBS source for the episode airings are a day behind though, not forward? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an after-midnight show. [15] Media Arts DB shows July 6 as the start. [16] So use July 6 and optionally add the footnotes per our recent consensus. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I am at work ATM but later on will fill in reception info. I feel that this could possibly be turned into a FL eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose it. Size is too small to warrant a split. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It would need more info then, the series was quickly scooped up by English distributers. Throwing a dozen episode page breaking table into a main article doesn't work out either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No Game No Life#Anime_adaptation. It's going to be like FLCL again. Nakaimo, once merged into the main article, with its lead omitted to prevent repeated information, is still less than 40 kb. Twelve episodes is too little to warrant it's own article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I merged the info back into the article, I placed a translate on the top as the Japanese article has useful content under its overview section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Naoyuki Itō

@Narutolovehinata5: I saw that you contested the proposed deletion of this article done by @AngusWOOF:, looking at it again, I agree with Angus that I see no notability in this person. There is no article over at Wikipedia Japan which doesn't mean everything but if he were notable in his own right, you would think there would be at least some mention. Would either of you oppose a redirect to Kanon or the like? There is of course no reason why this cant be un-redirected in the future if some things come to light. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get it filled in. He directed Over Lord which came out recently [17], which would give him at least two major series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: @AngusWOOF: Given that he directed more than one show redirecting him to just one show, even if it may arguably be his most notable work, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's kind of like redirecting Steven Spielberg's article to the article on E.T. even though he's made many other notable films. Whether or not he is notable in his own right is probably a matter best left for AfD, but honestly I'd rather let it be that this article be deleted outright than it be redirected to just one show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't realized he recently did a major work so he would pass WP:ENT okay. You have to remember WP:NRVE though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Except he isn't an entertainer but WP:DIRECTOR. Would he pass that criteria? Kanon's been reviewed.[18] Over Lord has the recent wave of reviews from the usual places. He really needs an in-depth interview cited, or reviews that critique his directing style. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon species lists - the WP:POKEMON saga continues

So, I've been over at WP:VG talking about getting rid of the goshawful List of Pokémon (1–51) to List of Pokémon (650–721) series of listcruft articles; the discussion here goes into my rationale as to why.

So far, consensus seems to indicate an opinion that we don't need the "detailed lists", and the List of Pokemon article will suffice-- thus, I'm making preparations to mass-AfD the "detailed" listicles. I'm going around a few more related Wikiprojects to sample opinions, to see if this is going to be at least mostly considered a good idea-- thoughts? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 15:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to quickly add, we're talking that with well-maintained dedicated wikias that meet WP:EL, and with the handful of pokemon that are notable (like Pikachu), the shorten list would suffice. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I replied over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Pokemon species lists (a perennial discussion, I'm sure) in order to keep the discussion centralized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft class

This project should consider including draft class to distinguish draft articles from Category:NA-Class anime and manga articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Should drafts really be tagged until they are moved to main space? And with just 40 articles in Category:NA-Class anime and manga articles, I don't see any reason to diffuse it any further. —Farix (t | c) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Why would a "draft" or an AFC candidate need to be added to the wikiproject? Wait until it is recognized as a legit article and then it can be assessed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I can see it being useful for articles have remained stale in draft-space but Farix brings up a good point in saying only 40 articles are tagged as N/A. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is presuming a draft's creator knows enough to tags the draft with project banners in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Some projects find it helpful, that's it. It's assessed as a draft, no different than assessing categories or redirects since that's its current state. A parent project (?) has Category:Draft-Class Japan-related articles so those are just being passed down as NA here. There's also some suggestions at WP:ALERTS to include the possibility of tagging when draft-class articles are tagged or when they reach Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions so that the project could be aware of articles that could be lost (akin to AFD or PROD notices). If there's a wanted articles page here, keep track of drafts would coordinate well with that. Basically a preliminary step to stubs even. As I said, it's a suggestion, I noticed it as I was tagging Draft talk:Anime Revolution and this stood out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are drafts really that big a deal? I've been editing in various amounts for 5-6 years and this is the first I've heard them brought up in the context of this project. Most people just work on them in userspace then move them to mainspace without formalising them as drafts. I don't see any need for them to be included in the project until they are in mainspace as a formal article. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the proponents of the Draft space like it because it is more likely (How much more? No idea, but probably slightly more than if it was being created in user space) someone may find the draft article and help in its creation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie

Please help in the discussion here. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Cowboy Bebop: The Movie#TriStar Pictures. --Izno (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

FilmandTVFan28 is incredibly stubborn and won't back up his claims. He keeps on dismissing my arguments and editing how he wants. I think (not sure) he's even threatening me in my talk page here. - Signed by Wrath X, hatted as non-neutral canvassing by OP.

Once again, you're not getting the facts straight. I not dismissing anything. I googled the North American poster for the movie and it said Destination Films. I don't see you looking at it. Also, warning templates are not threats. You say TriStar, I say Destination Films. I'm right, you're wrong. This stupid argument was a waste of my time zone and I'm not getting any sleep at all. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Destination wasn't involved. I'm saying that TriStar was involved in the theatrical release. It's entirely possible that both were involved. I (and Farix) have provided reliable sources that you tried to casually dismiss. I showed you the trailer and told you it was the theatrical because the trailer said "Coming Soon to Theatres". You dismissed it and said it was home video without actually explaining why. Moreover, as I pointed out, even if TriStar was only DVD and not theatrical, the film should still be listed listed under the TriStar category (because distribution company categories include both original releases and later releases). -- Wrath X (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. I already made proof that I was right and I'm already sick and tired of keeping on explaining. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The "proof" that you provided isn't what you think it is. Even a cursory examination of that poster reveals the TriStar logo on the bottom right. That combined with several announcements reported by ANN the theatrical trailer is enough to establish inclusion into the category under WP:Verifiability. Nor is it evidence that Colombia TriStar lied about acquiring distribution rights. —Farix (t | c) 13:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you never noticed, you're only looking at the home video logo and not the whole image. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You claimed it as the theatrical poster. There would not have had a home video logo on it at the time. Nor does it support your claim that Columbia TriStar lied about acquiring distribution rights or that a year long series of news articles from ANN are "wrong". —Farix (t | c) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I ever said it was a poster? NO!!! You need to stop assuming everything. ANN just forgot to mentioned Destination Films in the source. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wrath X: Please review WP:Canvassing as your message was not originally neutral. Others: I have hatted this section to consolidate the discussion (feel free to copy+paste to talk page as desired). --Izno (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Visual novel engines

Would anyone be aware of sources about visual novel game engines? Three articles on separate game engines were merged into the article visual novel engines, but I'm concerned that this just changed three poorly sourced articles into one poorly sourced article. If anyone is aware of any sources either on the topic as a whole or on any of those three individual engines, it would be helpful. Calathan (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ending Chronicle

Someone may want to keep an eye on this one, I have an IP that is insisting that a bloated terminology section is needed in the article despite it being a mess of WP:INUNIVERSE info. If someone were to improve the plot these things can be explained without going into detailed information that the reader can find out for themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to work the terminology into a Setting subsection of the article (before Plot) as with articles like One Piece? In the meantime, you can keep blasting it for being unsourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Character descriptions on Free! (anime)

Since this will potentially affect nearly all articles in this project, I believe we need some consensus on this. Administrator Drmies recently removed basically all the character descriptions that were on Free! (anime) on the basis of original research. My question is, is this really something the project as a whole should be supporting? And if so, are all the character descriptions from all the articles under this project going to be removed?--十八 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Juhachi. As anyone can see who looks at your edit summary in your revert, you link to WP:TVCAST, an editing guideline which is fantastic. The sample description given there is "Pilot of the Millennium Falcon". Apparently these six words add up to "a brief description of the character". So the challenge to all you editors of such articles is to do just that: one sentence for a character description. The disadvantage? You have to move all the stuff you love to Wikia--but much of that was inedible prose, plot summary, excessive trivia, and original research. The advantage? You'll save the environment. Because much of what is found in these anime/manga/etc articles looks like this. After trimming that properly, the article is reduced in length from 114,000 to 10,000 bytes.
In the case of our article, that meant cutting stuff like
Sousuke is Rin's childhood best friend from Sano Elementary and is the person who understands Rin the most. He transfers to Samezuka Academy so he can spend his last year of high school swimming with Rin in his home town. Having a strong personality, he does not let anything irritate him. He takes a dry and harsh position on swimming toward himself and others around him. He is a very skilled butterfly swimmer, and was ranked in the top 10 in Japan. After Rin left for Australia, he set a goal for himself to one day become a professional swimmer alongside Rin. It's revealed that due to over training in his first year of high school, he severely injured his shoulder, ruining his chances of ever entering the professional world. He appears in the second season.
There is no way in which anyone can argue that that is in line with the letter or even the spirit of TVCAST, if only because (and typically those who write such paragraphs don't realize this) it's plot, not description. (Anytime you see the word "revealed" you know you need to cut.) Now, I'm not here to rain on y'all's manga parade--I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. These rules are here for a good reason, and if you were to carefully look at the average Good Article, you'll see why. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

He did the same on List of Initial D characters. I think the project can support the removal of unsourced material, however, it should not support a complete removal of character descriptions to just name and voice actor. Most descriptions should be along the lines of A Town Where You Live in size. Characters that have a lot more depth and analysis should warrant more to say. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Angus, Initial D was a nightmare (I mean, the table porn alone was obscene--and did you look at the spoilers? the turbos? the bronze rims? the custom-made windshield wipers?). Of course there can be more than the name of the voice/actor, but you can't expect me to condense a wall of text into one single sentence--I'm not a fan of the show. (Was it a show?) That's your job--you're one of the article's editors, I saw. In the article you point at, descriptions are up to four sentences long (I didn't look at all of them). (I'm not counting a sentence saying "The character is voiced by..."; that's not description, it's a basic part of the cast listing.) That's pretty long already, and if I had reviewed it for GA I would have said something about it--I think you know I am a GA reviewer also. But in a "regular" article I wouldn't object to that length. But Initial D, and this one here, that's way over the top and it makes us look like a fan site. We should not look like a fan site. If we spent one-tenth of the time we spent adding such detail on actually improving articles according to our guidelines, the place would be loaded with GAs. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies Look, I'm all for removing needless plot summary from character descriptions, and even though I understand that's what you did in Free!, you also essentially threw the baby out with the bathwater and removed everything about those characters, without even leaving a "brief description", which by the way is up to interpretation. The guideline doesn't say that each character should only get one sentence; it says it should be brief. Furthermore, you can go to other places on WP:MOSTV and finds things like:

WP:TVCHARACTER: "Treat individual character sections within articles about programs as if they were mini-character articles"
WP:MOSTV#Role in "SHOW NAME": "Instead, try and summarize major events that occur with the character."

I'll caveat this by saying I realize that the rest of that section echos what you have already said: "Regardless of the title of the header, this section is not a character's biography and should not be a detailed recording of the character's every move, as this can create an overly long section devoted entirely to in-universe information – think of it as being similar to a plot section of an episode article." That is not something that I am going to debate nor say is wrong in any way. However, that section also says "the information should be succinct", not "non-existent" like what you did in Free!.

I would also like you to clarify your statement, "But in a "regular" article I wouldn't object to that length." Does that mean you're okay with there being descriptions a few sentences long? If so, then why say just earlier in your edit summaries on Free! that they should only be "one sentence", which (again) is actually not stipulated anywhere on WP:MOSTV (or any other MOS that I know of). At the very least, "brief" could just as well be anything between 1-4 sentences, if you would indeed not object to that length, as you suggested.--十八 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Regular" meaning "not good". As for baby and bathwater, I think I addressed that in my comment to AngusWOOF. You want to write that sentence, go ahead. But this arguing is all beside the point. Your up to four sentences, or maybe more, are intended to, I think, render something of the "depth" of the character, as you suggested earlier on. In none of these descriptions have I seen any depth--I've seen tons of detail, but not depth. And let's not forget we're not talking about characters from Moby Dick or the bible or a Murakami novel: you're talking about teenage characters in a TV cartoon for teenagers. "It doesn't say 'one sentence'", that's wikilawyering. Common sense and editorial discretion are important, and besides, if you want to get specific, the guideline gives you a sample that's five words long--and I'm not suggesting you stick to five words. Come on, this is not the place or the time to argue about details. Follow the big pictures. A sentence. Or two. Or three, for crying out loud, if someone is really important. And description--not plot, not suspicions of who's in love with who or who would rather do backstroke rather than butterfly. We're wasting our time here: you could have written all of those sentences/short paragraphs already, and your article would have looked so much better. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies I've never actually watched Free!; I keep it on my watchlist because it's a high-traffic article for vandalism. Besides, if you want to talk about wikilawyering, what would you call saying describe in one sentence, no mas despite that not actually being recommended in any guideline, and indeed, the relevant guidelines above saying "summarize the major events that occur with the character" and "the information should be succinct", not remove all detail, pertinent or not. Again, I'm not arguing about the removal of "suspicions" as you put it, as I agree, that sort of stuff shouldn't be there. But even in the blockquote you gave above, in no way does all of that deserve to be removed, as you did in your edits to the article. Instead, I suppose it should be something like
  Sousuke is Rin's childhood best friend from Sano Elementary. He transfers to Samezuka Academy so he can spend his last year of high school swimming with Rin in his home town. Having a strong personality, he does not let anything irritate him. He takes a dry and harsh position on swimming toward himself and others around him.
  Of course we're not gonna get the sort of depth that a piece of literature gets, nor should you expect there to be any, for a series like this. But, I'll point out again, WP:MOSTV#Role in "SHOW NAME" states: "Instead, try and summarize major events that occur with the character." These are the major events that occur with this character, in addition to what WP:MOSTV#Characterization recommends: "Included here should be information about the character's personality, motives, and interpretations of their actions." I just want to point out that the descriptions in the Free! article, while not perfect, should be allowed to follow the spirit of these guidelines, while simultaneously (as you have stated) keep out any plot summary that does not (again) "summarize major events that occur with the character".--十八 03:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Juhachi. I haven't really written character descriptions, so I'm not sure what's appropriate, but there are several Good Articles that have more than one sentence about each character like A Town Where You Live that AngusWOOF mentioned or Angel Beats! for example. Wandering Son has a lot more than even four or five sentences for the main characters. The only exception seems to be when there is a dedicated List article for characters. So I guess we should follow the example of Good Articles and, as long as it follows the rules that Juhachi mentioned and seem very reasonable, and there is no original research and, obviously, the description is not overly long, it should be fine.--Cattus ^talk 07:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

When trying to make a point of defence when justifying edits, using phrases like "you're talking about teenage characters in a TV cartoon for teenagers" is quite an odd one which should have no bearing on anything. I think the established method works, a brief summary (one sentence says nothing) with an overall character outline. If it's contentious put a ref in there. Also I think the argument that brief summaries are plot is an important one. We don't add refs to plot because it's evident from watching/reading the material, which is surely the same with character summaries that are done properly. Brief points that are relevant to the story. Rather than go by the letter of the law, we should go by the spirit. A well written character summary will be plot summary, therefore shouldn't need sourcing just list the overall plot summary. If it's not written well and contains theories and viewpoints and other actual OR, then that is a separate issue. I'm certainly against the process of removing character summaries and replacing them with simple lists of the names and voices as was done here. That's not improving the encyclopedia. Removing OR is important but so is recognising what Original Research actually is, summarising basic details about a character in the story is not necessarily OR by itself, that would need interpretation and viewpoints.

"But Initial D, and this one here, that's way over the top and it makes us look like a fan site. We should not look like a fan site. If we spent one-tenth of the time we spent adding such detail on actually improving articles according to our guidelines, the place would be loaded with GAs." Yes, some pages have these sorts of issues but your attitude is uncalled for. We have a limited number of editors who know what they are doing enough to deal with these issues on the amount of pages they occur and naturally some get more focus than others. Character list articles are not, and never have been priority so the ones in the main article often get more attention - a very good reason why they should remain and be dealt with according to the actual details rather than simply culling them on sight. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this will change anything for the project. While Drmies is an admin, none of their abilities allow them to override consensus and if they protect pages or block users, it would only be in certain circumstances. The manual of style does not dictate that any sections are required or disallowed. Interestingly, I don't see our own manual of style mentioned. I've looked at Free! and the old character list goes against many of it's recommendations: "The length of each entry and inclusion of characters will vary with the character's importance to the story", "Character sections should not be divided into numerous sub-sections", and "Minor characters may be included here, but article length should be considered."; I could go on. Ideally, the list should have been trimmed down to usable information but I see in this case many of the descriptions were plot details or personal interpretation of characters. There's nothing wrong with character lists themselves per se, but they become magnets for fancruft and special attention should be paid to their contents to limit original research or extraneous detail. Opencooper (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, one sentence for character descriptions? I agree that excess WP:OR should be cut out but the basic plot information should stay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For Free, I would think the character descriptions at the level presented in the anime website would suffice. Since the show concerns a swim team, it'd be fine to know who is a swimmer on the team, their personality, what their high school team / year is, and what is their specialty stroke. This can easily be cited to the website and not be original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial D is one of those cases where WP:TNT was appropriate. I agree there's too much detail on car information when it is simpler to list "(s)he drives a (car model)", and add a reference to the chapter or volume that shows the detailed specs of the vehicle. However, the series does have characters that are present for tens and even hundreds of chapters. If someone wants to write up sourced descriptions which I estimate could be a paragraph or two, the old copies of the article are still there. I just want to make sure our GA and potential GA character lists aren't going to be gutted like that when they are decently sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the view is that the changes made were excessive. No one is arguing that there isn't room for improvement, but removing them entirely isn't the way to deal with it. I've restored the descriptions based on the consensus for keeping them, they can then be improved using it as a starting point. Unless the article suddenly comes up for GA, any of the issues raised aren't going to cause any issues for the page and I would argue this would be the section best left until the end for a GA submission anyway. Developing reception information is a bigger priority I would say.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

SephyTheThird, if there is any consensus here yet it's that OR/fancruft needs to be cut. That means stuff like "She and her twin brother Ren appear to adore Makoto". You should improve, not simply restore. It's because you have no consensus but claim you do that I have reverted you. The article without cruft is better than the article with, and while I will gladly admit that the article with proper brief descriptions ("The pilot of the Millennium Falcon") is better than the one without, that's up to you all to make happen. If you don't like the brevity of "The pilot of the Millennium Falcon", you should take that up elsewhere, on the MOS talk pages. The MOS is not written in stone, but it's better than some ad hoc observations based on an article or two--or simply one's affinity for the material. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Drmies, I ask you to respect WP:BRD. This is the third time you have attempted to cut out material wholesale while it is being discussed. Any further reverts will be brought up to ANI. Just because you have an admin flag doesn't excuse you from edit warring. —Farix (t | c) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I could warn you for adding fancruft and unverified material to an article? We have warning templates for that, besides an MOS guideline that's completely disregarded. I don't know why you bring up my admin flag: I haven't waved it--au contraire, it's the fans here who wave it as a red herring. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think it is unverifiable, then tag it. If you think something is original research, discuss the specifics. But wholesale removal of the character descriptions is not acceptable, especially when there are several other editors who disagree with you and think your actions were the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. —Farix (t | c) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly Drmies your attitude does not befit your position. You seem to be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The consensus is clear that there should be some degree of text and there is also consensus to change to examine the text and improve it. Not that it's all cruft/OR and should be removed - quite the opposite. Rather than go on a personal mission to remove the content, accept that people have both objected to your actions and reasoning but also agreed that there is a middle ground. Rather than get everyone into a stupid argument and start threatening action against people who dare defy your vision maybe you should let people actually have a chance at improving it first? Some of the editors you are butting heads with are more than capable of improving the text given the time. Must I remind you that you also removed perfectly sourced statements so throwing OR around is more than a little misguided. As it stands I'm with Farix here, you are overstepping acceptable behaviour for someone who should know better. We had a discussion with a clear consensus to improve the content rather than remove it and you are continuing to try and override the outcome without allowing for time to improve it. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that a good character list will include descriptions that are more than one sentence long. WP:MOSFICT gives List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters as examples of exemplary character lists, and those certainly have far more content than "The pilot of the Millennium Falcon" or the like. We should strive for descriptions comparable to what are in those featured lists, and if the list gets too long, then in can be split into a sub-article. Of course the content of the character descriptions should be cited to reliable sources. However, I disagree with Drmies that his edits improved the article. The information seems like things that should mostly be in the final article with a little trimming, and definitely with more sources. Rather than removing the content, we should try to add sources to it, and trim anything that isn't an essential part of describing the character. The character descriptions also need more real-world information if that is available (e.g., reception among viewers and reviewers), but that doesn't mean the current content is bad. Calathan (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue that we commonly have with character descriptions is that they're often expanded by IP editors passing by, who often add trivial details to them. Based on my past experience, reverting these edits often nets angry responses and even accusations of WP:OWN. It's a natural cycle for these kinds of articles, given the reader demographics, and so if we were to trim the trivial contents from the character descriptions and only focus on the core points (preferably with good citations), one would also need to ensure that they don't start growing back up again. Otherwise, such attempts at cleaning up become wasted effort. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed here, most of the time there are also primary source character bios on official websites (In Japanese) that can also be referred to if nothing else in the mean-time. I propose however, that we start thinking over what to do with all of our un-sourced character lists that don't even have these external links to refer to. The question should be: "Why are we keeping un-sourced lists of pure WP:OR?" In some cases the character lists we have are so in-universe that only a fan would understand the context. In a nutshell, im suggesting WP:TNT for some of our character lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A descriptive summary of a character's role in a plot is not original research nor must it be sourced. Sourcing the plot details does improve the overall quality of the article in the even someone does question a particular plot detail, its not a requirement. So put always that nuclear bomb for something that just needs a bit of sandpaper and a layer of polish. —Farix (t | c) 18:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started reorganizing the Initial D characters list ; the old info is now present but commented out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I spot-checked some of the old descriptions and they were copied from the Wikia, so I am rewriting the entire list. If anyone has the series available they can help add refs, but in the meantime I'll try to keep it general enough so that anime/manga profiles would work as source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that the content might have been originally copied from Wikipedia to Wikia. The CC/GFDL license permits it, after all; Although Wikia users tend not to properly attribute content, we can still check and compare the edit date/times within the page histories. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Wikia copied over the article Wikipedia to Wikia. It still has a lot of original research, but at least now we don't have to reword sentences. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the project members' interpretations of the cited MOS guidelines are acceptable. Care should be taken to make sure character descriptions are not overly detailed and filled excessive trivia. That said, I don't see a problem with allowing even 2-3 sentences as long as they remain focused and don't wander aimlessly into fancruft. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gundam infobox images

Just dropping a notice just in case this becomes a contentious issue. Blackgaia02 has replaced many Gundam infobox images with ones from a collector box editions with highly stylized artwork of just one mobile suit. I have reverted the articles back to the original images because: 1) The images do not accurately represent their respective series, especially when most of the existing images feature one or more of the main characters. 2) The existing images where already sufficient to serve the purposes of identification, which is what an infobox image is for. 3) Just because Bandi Entertainment is no longer in business doesn't mean that the images need to be replaced.[19][20] —Farix (t | c) 19:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that Bandai Entertainment no longer exists is not a reason to force removal.--65.94.254.106 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The concern for the original images is they came from sources that are outdated, no longer exist or have images that are poor quality. It is yes, Bandai Entertainment is no more but the images can no longer coincide with the rules of Wikipedia. In other words, a broken pipe sometimes needs to be replaced.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't replace images because the sources if the images (in most cases Amazon) are "outdated" or "no longer exist". The images still identify the series and comply with the WP:NFCC. So nothing is actually "broken". As for quality, which specific image is poor quality and why do you consider it poor quality? —Farix (t | c) 03:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to know where the '"oudated" images can't be used rule is.--65.94.254.106 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do comply with the rules but how the you got the images bothered me the most. At least reupload them with a better quality than just continually use it.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "how the you got the images bothered me the most"? The images you were trying to replace the existing images with also came from Amazon. The original images are also of appropriate enough quality to serve as identification without violating the WP:NFCC. The images you were trying to use were actually too large to comply with WP:NFCC. —Farix (t | c) 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Alright. Then they should be kept then. But I am disappointed on this discussion.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackgaia02: "The images do not accurately represent their respective series, especially when most of the existing images feature one or more of the main characters." This point by Farix bothers me the most, would you like to address it? Some images might be better quality but if they don't accurately describe the content it is worse than using a poor quality image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's more on if those original images are not grainy, blurred or anything. They may come from sources that doesn't comply with rules.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again what rule are the sources not complying by? So far there is no evidence provided to this effect outside of personal assertion and no one else has agreed with the removal. --65.94.254.106 (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Young Magazine Listing needs Updating ()

There are 33 titles in the current list that is on the official site of Weekly Young Magazine. However, the wikipedia article lists 22. =( The effort of finding premier dates for all of them and fixing the list will be significant.

I wanted to know if I could get anyone in the Animanga Wikiproject to help me out with this as its a huge job. I know that about half the current series are non-notable so inserting redlinks to them and leaving them until they start selling tankobons or hitting the news (Japanese or otherwise) should be fine.

As for release, I have amassed some data already, without authors names however.

Young Magazine series not inside list

Kudannotogoshi (クダンノゴトシ)
Ghost Writer (ゴーストライター)
Okaka (おかか)
The Fable (ザ・ファブル)
A Catastrophe Report (終末の天気)
GTO Paradise Lost (GTO パラダイス・ロスト)
Smoking (スモーキング)
Seven Star (セブン☆スター)
Senka no Kanojo (戦渦のカノジョ)
Sailor Ace (セーラーエース)
Chikotan Kowarefu (ちこたん、こわれる)
Chū 2 no Danshi to Dai 6-kan (中2の男子と第6感)
Dino Sapiens (ディノ・サピエンス)
Debusen (でぶせん)
Tokumei no Kanojotachi (匿名の彼女たち)
Torabis to Isshonara (トラビスといっしょなら)
Doctor Satome (ドクター早乙女)
Hantsu X Trash (ハンツー×トラッシュ)
Baka Believer (バカビリーバー)
Back Street Girls
Painynan (πニャン)
Hokago Minko Fusuki (放課後ミンコフスキー)
Yoshifumi to Karaage (よしふみとからあげ)
Bokutachi ga Yarimasuta (僕たちがやりました)

That's for missing series only. I have yet to cross-reference the current official list to the Wikipedia list to work out what's ended and what's still going from before.

Any help would be really appreciated =D Speeditor talk 20:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest checking out and sourcing the Media Arts Database. http://mediaarts-db.jp They should have the series and which issue they premiered in, assuming the series is notable and fairly dated. Most of it is concerning the tankobons published. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"so inserting redlinks to them...should be fine". I think adding redlines for every series just because it might possibly become notable at a later date is a bad idea. The occasional redline is fine but adding them for every series that doesn't yet have a page is excessive. Also I would say that getting tankobon's is not a good way to determine notability as they get made pretty much automatically.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Biohazard film series

FYI, I have a draft article up for submission, see Draft:Biohazard (film series) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like your draft was accepted as an article =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup help needed!

I was wondering if someone could help me clean up the draft article Draft:Brianne Siddall. Long story short, this was a VA whose article was deleted at AfD due to a lack of sourcing. As you're all well aware, coverage is usually slim to nonexistent when it comes to VA in general, but especially anime VAs in North America. Siddall has voiced some major roles in multiple anime, so I'm trying to argue for it to be restored on the basis of these roles alone, despite the lack of a lot of secondary coverage. One of the things I'm pushing for is notability via the roles and that any biographical data would be removed if it wasn't backed up with a reliable source of some kind.

Part of what I need is for people to go and clean up the tables. I want to have the roles listed with the years they were done, along with episodes and characters. I've listed the episodes as I could find them, but this will be somewhat of a major undertaking. I'd continue on with this myself, but I have some papers to write for class so my ability to really get in deep with this is limited. Plus I'll openly admit that I'm not great with making tables.

I think that if everything is cleanly laid out it will make a huge difference when it comes to convincing the deleting admin, so any help is much appreciated. This just really should've been kept despite the lack of sourcing, given that she appears to be a prominent VA in the anime industry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I will take a look at it later today if someone else hasn't already. Some of the smaller tables might be better off in prose as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering about it being in prose as well - the tables would be better for the roles in anime, but the smaller things would be better off with prose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to beef up the filmography section or the biography section? I think citing the latter with articles and reviews is what will keep the voice actor around. Here are articles about her accident and highlights her major anime roles. [21] Deadline.com [22], worth a paragraph on her article, and a review which confirms her male alias Ian Hawk [23]. It looks like you got most of those, but that should establish notability. If you're just trying to beef up the filmography section then use Crystal Acids for Ian Hawk, Brianne Siddall and Brianne Brozey. But the article really needs to stand on its own and not on the filmography part. Outlaw Star and .hack//SIGN are starring roles that should meet WP:ENT so emphasize those, citing reviews. Also cite her appearances at anime conventions in 2004-5.[24] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is that there aren't a lot of reviews that cite her by name, rather that just cover the anime as a whole or the role but not naming the VA. I'll see what I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My concern though is that we have someone who has performed major roles in several notable series - her role in the .hack series is a major one and she voiced the character for 26 episodes and four games. If we can't find the coverage then her performing in roles like this should count for something. If she'd had the equivalent of these in a live action series she'd probably have had more coverage than the actor for Sheldon from BBT, which is frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The actual problem is that any coverage of her will be in Japanese. Since most of us do not speak or read Japanese nor have access to most Japanese magazines and other publications that report on actors, directors, manga artists, etc. (including back catalogs), our articles end up being filmographies or bibliographies of their work. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If the review critiques the English voice acting for her specific character, and you have another source that confirms her name (or alias used) in the series, then it covers her. Here's her Anime Boston writeup: [25] Also there are Anime Encyclopedia books by Jerry Beck or Hal Erickson that list her as a starring role (Google searched "brianne siddall" under Books) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gundam 0080 review I cited earlier to show Ian Hawk would be an example of the critiquing of her role, as well as justifying that it is a major role in the series. It by itself is not enough to carry the article, but the other articles that go over her career, especially in the context of the hospitalization articles should be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You guys are wizards. For some reason these just weren't popping up when I did a search earlier. It's probably because she has so many different VA names. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: @Knowledgekid87: I was wondering... if we have reviews that cover the dubbed version of her anime, wouldn't that count towards notability? I'm specifically thinking of the series where she was a main/central character to the series as a whole. If the reviews mention her character specifically, as this review does, that should definitely count IMO. Also, I couldn't find her in the web version of the anime encyclopedia - do any of you have a print version you could reference? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked Neo (magazine) (their website) for any reviews? I will see if I can find anything in Otaku USA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find issue numbers I could check my copies of Neo. They are stored away and I have too many to search them all but might be able to help if I can narrow it down. As for Anime Ency, I have the printed giant 3rd edition but It's never going to cover English VA's in any detail and it generally avoids talk about voice work aside from rare occasions. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Her role as Emizel might be worth investigating, he is one of the larger characters in Disgaea 4.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this considered to be a RS? It specifically highlights the dubbed version of Digimon Frontier. I'm leaning towards yes, since I've seen this used before and the site doesn't allow reviews from just anyone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

THEM is listed as an RS in our list of reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes per Opencooper, in addition you might be able to find additional sources from our list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

After-midnight airtimes and MOS:ANIME

So it's been about two months since the last discussion. It seems there was some rather weak consensus on implementing the compromise I proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 64#Compromise?, with the added condition that if the Media Arts Database gives the actual airtimes then those should be presented. Now, should we implement this consensus, or should we stick with the status quo where there is no standard (some articles using the actual airdates and others using the official airdates)? The lack of consistency is bothering me and could possibly confuse others as well. Perhaps we may need to add something to MOS:ANIME now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I ran into this issue with the anime adaptation of Nakaimo - My Sister Is Among Them!, would a simple footnote like the one I used help in these cases? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably as long as the actual date is the one which is presented in the article and the media date is the one in the footnote, rather than the other way around. This WikiProject still needs to discuss though if this should be included in MOS:ANIME. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If it means streamlining the articles then yes I would be in support, in my view the actual airdate should be the one presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A note for the MOS would be to use actual dates over media dates, but to present explanatory footnotes and/or references where there may be ambiguity. Then cite an example such as: July 3, 2015 at 24:30 would be listed as July 4, 2015. The actual format of the footnote or reference doesn't have to be standardized, unless you really think it needs to be? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No of course not as long as the message to the reader is that due to a time difference the original airdates are different than the media ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If the source used gives the actual dates, there is no need for a note. Notes should be limited to explain why the dates of the source are different from what is on the table. —Farix (t | c) 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of Nakaimo where the reference already quotes "after midnight", the additional "Japanese Standard Time" footnote would not be necessary as people can do the math. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically, is it safe to add this to MOS:ANIME? If so, how should such a statement be worded? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

Proposed wording

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

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear enough. Now what needs to be done is a mass change to all articles which use the reverse format (media date in text and actual date in the footnote) and update. Given the sheer number of articles needed to edit, this could take a while. Is anyone willing to do it? Good examples of articles which still use media/actual rather than actual/media are Attack on Titan and Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?. Also, most of the articles that use the media/actual format are shows from 2013 and onwards; articles and shows before that are more ambiguous on the matter, so a WikiProject effort to verify all airdates might me necessary (since consensus on another discussion is that all airdates should be sourced, regardless of which one will be presented in the article). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll clear out the dungeon one. Perhaps the episode lists can be tagged with {{MOSLOW}} in the meantime? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A better idea would be to ask the WikiProject if it's fine with adding your proposed text to MOS:ANIME. If the consensus agrees, then the text should be added. You should probably tag only after that's been done. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's move this proposal to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So... any updates? Do we have consensus to add this to MOS:ANIME now? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Dragon Ball

I am currently in an edit war with a new user at Template:Dragon Ball regarding the inclusion of the Dragon Ball Collectible Card Game link in the "Media" section of the navbox. Please discuss at Template talk:Dragon Ball#Collectible card game. Presently discussion is ongoing at the user's talk page but it would probably be desirable for other participants to comment at the template page. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week proposals

While undone a move to Kodocha, I noticed that it could use a lot of tender loving care. Since it has been a while since we had a collaboration project, I would like to nominate this as a collaboration of the week. With some effort, we can bring this and it's related articles up to at least C-class quality. —Farix (t | c) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Man, just a quick search and I found the anime has like ten reviews here. Also THEM Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding IGN review. For some reason I can't find manga reviews. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned bringing back collaboration projects before but either the silence was defeating or people were more interested in basing it on page views rather than quality,significance of availability of info. It's an odd choice but I'll see what I can do. Lack of info shouldn't be an issue as I believe it was well covered.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Some other sources for the anime here but I still can't find a manga review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Praise be to Animefringe [26] [27].Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I Have a feeling Newtype has some as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of universe is of course preferred but does anyone own this series to write a plot? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, somebody wrote summaries for every volume so I guess it's ok. It would be even better if those volumes had the author talking about the making of the series.Tintor2 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Too often though the manga and the anime adaptation have different plots though. Are there any articles of this structure of GA status that don't have plots? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm a stranger to both manga and anime but Farix might know.Tintor2 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that I paid attention to an Animefringe review both the manga and the anime have identical plots.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if @Magicperson6969: merged and redirected the character list to the main article. I don't know about this move seeing how big the character list is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

considering it's entirely unsourced and almost certainly not of quality, I don't think it makes much difference. Either way it needs to be drastically reduced. The likelihood of a seperate article evolving into a quality one seems rather low so I would leave it on the main article with hefty reductions unless sources turn up. We would consider cracking down on lists that don't justify themselves. SephyTheThird (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The number of characters on the list is about the right size in terms of number of main characters. There should be reviews for the characters especially for Sana and her voice actor portrayals in Japanese and English. I would remove a few of the "Others" that appear to be guest roles, especially the one that only appears in four pages. The manga and anime do have different plots; the anime spends a lot more time in New York, and I don't see many of the main characters there. Unfortunately those episodes (eps. 52-102) are extremely difficult to find as they aren't dubbed or released by Funimation. Alternatively, it can be moved back as the series does have a lot of characters. The individual descriptions can be shortened of course. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move this discussion to Talk:Kodocha to talk with the editors? Just wondering.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to do this as a CotW, we'll have to make it a regular thing, and just for this week. TheFarix, is it okay if I include more suggestions for succeeding weeks here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see having a formal CotW ever week, but suggesting an article every once in a while is perfectly fine. In general, I think candidates should be limited to articles about older shows that haven't been getting much attention and whose articles can be easily improved to C-class. Probably create a list of articles that are more than 10 years hold that are still Stub- or Start-class.

What about a Collaboration of the Month, then? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should focus on older works, but 10 years seems too "new". What about multi-decade multi-media franchises, there are quite a few of those and we have very few franchise articles that are "of quality". Of course they should be assessed for the availability of sources but for franchises they shouldn't be that difficult to find. A monthly franchise collab seems the best option to me, and we could line up 2 or 3 so that we can keep an eye out for sources that may pop up before the timeframe for that subject. If we can get B, cool. If not then getting to a state that gets close would still be a success. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I could also use some help over in WP:ANIME/BIO. Right now it's got a list of 13 people who supposedly need priority work on their bios but they haven't been updated in years. They're not on my todolist regarding filmography references. Should we remove them from the list and replace them with articles we have a realistic chance of tackling? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh

Does anyone have any ideas in regards to replacing Oricon sources? There are 9 dead links on this good article but I cant retrieve them using Wayback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we now remove dead links? I thought we assumed good faith and tried to find another ref which could be used to replace the dead one, but kept them in the meantime. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep them for how long? I can see this as being fine on an article for a few months but then it comes to over 3 or 4 years at some point someone has to do something. If I could replace the sources I would, that's why im here. Is there a cutoff year you would suggest? There are a whole bunch that date from 2010 and earlier (5+ years) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead links should never be removed. There is always a chance that someone can use the URL to find a new source. But more importantly, it also shows where the information originally came from. Removing a dead links is the same as removing a source. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that nobody has done a thing about it for years. A lot of the dead links I have been able to recover, but some as you have said can be replaced with other sources hence the source needed tag. I wont remove anymore dead links, and haven't touched the ones over at Azumanga Daioh. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just fixed the dead Oricon links you removed from the Aria article; those were over 5 years old. For Oricon, you just have to know how to search the site. It can definitely be difficult for those not in the know. Please do not remove dead links as they are extremely useful, as Farix pointed out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I should have known it would be like Akita Shoten, and it's new website update. Thank you for pointing this out, I hadn't done a lot of dead link removal the ones I had done I self-reverted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sakura Wars

WP:VG was notified of a merge discussion occurring at Talk:Sakura Wars#Proposed merge with List of Sakura Wars characters for List of Sakura Wars characters. As a courtesy, letting WP:A&M know as well. :) -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Seraph of the End episodes

I messed up when adding the staff credits in the episode list List of Seraph of the End episodes and I confused writers with storyboards. I tried to change them but for some reason I ended ruining the format. Could anybody take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryōtarō Okiayu filmography

There is concern that the filmography in the Ryōtarō Okiayu article is too long (see Talk:Ryōtarō Okiayu#Filmography is excessive and WP:ANI#User Unbuttered Parsnip). If anyone could take a look at the article, it would be helpful. Calathan (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been a contentious topic instigated by different editors outside the WikiProject who don't understand that voice actors are extremely prolific in starring in a number of shows. Okiayu's got a huge number of entries in the VADB. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters edits

There is currently a mini edit war here in the list List of Naruto characters. These involved User:Sjones23, User talk:Mumbai0618, an anon and me. I believe we should discuss here before making any changes to the list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to add the link Talk:List of Naruto characters#Current state.Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zodiac P.I./GA1

I started a review about 6 days old in Talk:Zodiac P.I./GA1. The article looks good but the nominator has been a bit inactive. Could anybody come here to fix issues or provide more arguments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Malformed references

I thought I would just not here that I am noticing a lot of references on pages with something like: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "mania-adv-v2" defined multiple times with different content". Was something depreciated that is causing this problem? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Some reference is using the same name causing a conflict. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, but this is happening on a lot of articles, if it were an isolated instance I wouldn't have picked up on it like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a change in the software because it wasn't being detected before. It was fixed here and deployed around October 7. Initially I think it was only meant to add those articles to a tracking category but it was changed to emit the error instead. I guess the best way to find out about these kinds of things is to follow the Tech News, as the change was noted here. Opencooper (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking opinion on name change

Recently the Case Closed article was moved to Case Closed (manga). I question the move since the only entry on the new dabpage actually called Case Closed was a made for TV film that aired in 1988 created yesterday. The other two entries are a book where Case Closed is part of a nine word title and a Spanish language court show titled Case Cerrado airing on Telemundo. From that list I see the manga as the primary topic since I siubtbtahtbthe movie is well known and that people looking for the court show would type Case Cerrado over Case Closed.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It was moved without any discussion. Now the move back is being disputed. :/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Case Closed requested move

But this time, it is a little different as it is not the standard Case Closed -> Detective Conan request. (Talk:Case Closed (manga)#Requested move 01 November 2015) —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add that Mojo stated her intent on the talk page to start a requested move in December to move Case Closed to Detective Conan again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Skimming the page I've come to the conclusion that it's an absolutely absurd argument before it;'s even started. The most vocal supporter of the move has actually spent time preparing their case months in advance and then telling everyone they are going to try and force it through again way in advance. As far as I can tell nothing has changed that justifies a change other than leaving it a set period of time to try again so they can get their way. Time better spent on articles. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Magicperson6969 moved the Case Closed to Case Closed (manga) and then Case Closed (disambiguation) to Case Closed without any discussion. I tried to move it back as has been done two years ago and other cases, but now MY move back is being opposed. That's just messed up. Why does Magicperson6969 get a free pass to change things without discussion? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, but they've been doing it a long time and do whatever they want but they don't engage and it's pretty difficult to do anything about it long term. Most of their changes are to articles that no one will get involv d with and the speed and intensity is rather hard to deal with. Most of their edits probably aren't worth worrying about or are based on arguements that aren't necessarily wrong in principle (letter of the law rather than benefit of the doubt). Narrowing down specific edits to use as a basis for action is hard to nail down. Either way, it's not that straightforward given the suggestion we are about to have an arguement over if to move to the Japanese title.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Case Closed (disambiguation) never existed. What he did was move the page to Case Closed (manga) and created a disambiguation at Case Closed. It was WP:BOLD, but not out of line. For that reason, I have move the disambiguation page back to Case Closed until the conclusion of the other move request. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is relevant to the move discussion, but Magicperson6969 has also been going through all articles that mention Case Closed/Detective Conan (such as voice actor articles) and changing them so that they use the name "Detective Conan" (see Special:Contributions/Magicperson6969). If the preferred name here is "Case Closed", then someone should probably talk to him about that (and possibly revert his edits). Calathan (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of them and placed a few warnings on hi/her talk page. Even if they don't respond, if the warnings are placed there and they refuse to engage in any productive discussion, they can eventually be blocked for longer and longer periods. This editor does make some good edits, so I would encourage doing everything possible to engage them. If they still don't, then it's their problem, not ours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the disambiguation page to Case Closed (disambiguation). I'm in agreement that this disambiguation page can be made. However, the problem is whether we can move Case Closed (manga) back to Case Closed because of the bold move that Magicperson6969 did, so please chime in on that aspect. After that is settled, THEN you can discuss whether you want to revisit renaming to Detective Conan or wait for that December proposal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead links again

If anyone spots a dead website, tag it and I will see if it can be fixed. If it cant, I will leave it be but note it as one that needs a replacement source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot (edit:Cyberbot II) that can automatically add archived pages to dead links. Is there any way to manually run it on a per page basis? SephyTheThird (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be cool to have a project page listing all the pages in the project with dead links. That would help us find them faster. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's [28]. Should that be added to our cleanup page or is that redundant? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow I wish I had known there was a bot that does this, yeah per Angus I have been going by the cleanup list. There are over 300 articles that need dead link repair, I have been doing it manually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we could request an on-wiki page with specific details about which links are dead? That would be easier as we could then watchlist it and be notified whenever it's updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be helpful yes, some of the dead links I am finding go back as far as 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing/notability?

I came across the article for Natsumi Kawahara, which is up for AfD. A look at the translated Japanese WP article shows that she won a rookie prize from a major manga company, so maybe she's notable? I could definitely use some help looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A single prize doesn't really fit WP:AUTHOR, and if she's tied to one main work, then it would make more sense to redirect to that particular work. Unless that prize is a big-time award like Nobel or Pulitzer. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes for characters

TAnthony is changing the infoboxes being used on a large number of anime and manga character articles. Has the project stopped using {{Infobox animanga character}} in favor of {{Infobox character}}? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, {{Infobox animanga character‎}} excludes a lot of irrelevant and excessive fields (such as all those fields about relatives). —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Can someone do a mass revert here? I feel that this was a reckless move, ~~with no discussion at hand~~. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Maybe this editor can come explain why they are doing this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken, there was a discussion started here: [29] but what is bothersome is that the editor continued making these "Bold" changes before, Farix or anyone else could reply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As I just noted at Template talk:Infobox animanga character, I'm actually very surprised this is controversial. Looking at how this infobox is used, it's interesting that you have an issue with multiple "family" fields other than |relatives= considering some of the other information that is featured in the infobox. And many of your articles do use parameters like |children=, whether they display or not. But I was in no way trying to police what you think is important in the infobox, I was just "cutting out the middle man" by eliminating the wrapper template. That said, I welcome a discussion at the template talk page but if I'm not convinced I'll open a formal template discussion and see what consensus we get, maybe I'm wrong.— TAnthony^Talk 01:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the other page, {{Infobox character}} can always be used if more parameters are needed. I am against the extra work involved when it comes to editors adding un-needed fancruft. It was a widespread problem before this solution was put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm seeing what fancruft you're keeping out, {{Infobox character}} has pretty basic and notable parameters and your use of |relatives= still allows for wives and cousins to be added. In fact, having the custom fields at all allows for the introduction of birthdates and age and who-knows-what-else (and some of that is there, I've seen it). And as this template was created in 2007 as a means to allow for information like superpowers, I think you've got your history confused.— TAnthony^Talk 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Robin Hood co-production

Please come participate in the discussion if you wish so we can get more eyes on it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we want a bot to keep an eye out for flag icons in the infoboxes?

Every now and then, I see someone removing them, but it's pretty inconsistent. Do we want to request this task be added as a regular maintenance task for a bot? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why not it cant hurt. I have seen an article here or there that has the flags and it is an annoyance to have to go through them all as they aren't marked as needing this done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can those who have removed them recently please add a few diffs here so we can use those for the bot to use for search parameters? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few:

The nationality of the company is connected to its article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Are there enough parameters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to come up with a proposal for the BOT team. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

List of manga licensed in English

While going through articles to clean up I stumbled upon this one. The problem is that this overly broad list looks like WP:NOTDIR to me. Lists such as Best selling Manga which is notable for being in the NYT, or list of manga published in x at least defines the scope. Any ideas for this one? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think an aptly named category could accomplish the same thing; like a Category:Comics titles by region and then each region like Category:North American comics titles could be added to the categories in Category:Comics titles by company. It would be pretty straightforward except for a few edge cases like how Tokyopop is still active in Germany, so it would have two region categories. If we do decide to do that we should probably consult WIkiProject Comics. Opencooper (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

List of manga published in English already redirects to that list. The Nihongo for all the titles needs to be removed. This is about manga as titled in English, not how they have been titled in Japanese, especially with the awkward Engrish subtitled constructions that some folks consider official. Remove mentions of light novels. Not sure what to do about one-shots that have been published in English in Shonen Jump or Shojo Beat. A column can be added at the end for references. Cross references are okay for major alternate titles, otherwise they can be grouped under the main English title with a parenthesis. Citations can be made to Manga: The Complete Guide or publications that mention the English version. I've worked on List of zombie films before if you need some ideas on formatting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Osamu Dezaki

A new user has been trying to add a translation of the japanese page to the article. While I can't fault the attempt to do so, their knowledge of wiki editing is minimal and that has resulted in a wall of text with no wiki code at all, and that means all the refs are missing. Originally I was going to try and add all the formatting and such back but it quickly proved impossible due to the volume of text. I've tried leaving talk page messages and the page has been reverted but this is yet to grab their attention.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. The editor has chosen to be offended at my attempts to help them rather than learn.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lupin III - Lady Liberty

I've finally moved my sandbox for the first Lupin III tv special to Goodbye Lady Liberty. I'm getting tired of trying to debate the best title for it so wanted to make an excuse for it :p Basically there are 3 accepted English titles for this special, one for the Uk/Europe, one for the US and one being a fan name.

Normally I would ignore the fan name, but Bye Bye Liberty Crisis has long been considered a valid title, and is even used by Helen McCarthy in one of her books (despite the UK release being available years before hand) -the Discotek dvd even states it as the "generally accepted title". Manga Ent released the special as Goodbye Lady liberty in the mid 90s, so I've used it as the first official english title available, but I'm sure that print media of the time and after swap around their usage. However I don't have all of those materials to hand. The special was released in the US last year as Bye Bye Lady liberty so naturally I expect a bias towards that title in internet searches.

The question is, which is the "common name", can we use the fan name due to it's common usage? If not which release takes priority? The older, less common release which is named in print sources after it's release or the newer, more common release that explains they are all valid titles? SephyTheThird (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, use the name that is most prevalent in English-language sources. That might be a tough call due to the multiple usages, but I don't think anyone would fault you if you went with what you felt the sources best conveyed. I think the current title is a safe choice considering sources probably had more time to look at it than the new title and more sources are probably used for the UK title than the fan one if we ignore McCarthy. (Though you would know this best, depending on what you can find) Regardless, you should create redirects for so users will still be able to find the article from all the titles and you probably want to include the alternatives in the lead. Lastly, it's probably a good idea to link to this when it is archived from the article's talk page so people can at least see your rationale in the future before hastily moving it to the "correct" name. Opencooper (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thing is McCarthy has used the Manga Ent title in other works (like Anime Encyclopedia) but it goes some way to show the popularity of the fan title if that came to mind first. I have some other books to check first. Redirects have been set up before but I wanted some feedback before changing them all (they originally linked to the list article). Thankfully the other specials are more straight forward.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli portal is live

Feel free to expand it, add it to your watch list, and so on. Portal:Studio Ghibli ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the portal and all but what are we going to do about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Studio Ghibli then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Portals are mainly for providing a "main page" for readers for a specific topic while taskforces are more for coordination between editors. They can both coexist. Though the task force should probably link to the portal and the portal currently has an error in the selected biography. Opencooper (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The bio count was off. Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Supernatural and fantasy

Please come participate in the discussion. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be very helpful to have consensus based on reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion over there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN backlogs

So it seems we've got a bunch of GANs that are on backlog at the moment (see the to-do list and the article alerts for the actual articles that need to be checked). Anyone willing to review the said articles, or refer them to people who do GANs? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the news, the only GAN is Spike Spiegel. I would review it, but I'm afraid of being biased since I have been working with the nominator for some time.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait Himegoto is also a GAN.Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing Himegoto.Tintor2 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Thanks for reviewing Himegoto. Well LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987) is up for GAN as well, as well as a few other articles which for some reason weren't added to the to-do list. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how about this @Narutolovehinata5:? I'll review LiSA and somebody else will review Spike?Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Fine with me. Pinging Bobamnertiopsis as he seems to be experienced when it comes to GANs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible new person

@Sigehelmus: is interested in helping with our project, welcome this editor here. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Sigehelmus. Hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia.Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to come and make constructive edits tom improve the anime and manga coverage here. Welcome! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I see he's interested in Elfen Lied. Interestingly the show appears to be much more popular in the west than in Japan since the anime was a huge flop there sales-wise (didn't even average two thousand copies per DVD volume if I recall correctly). Anyway, ようこそ! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like the anime, and it had great premise they blew it though in the end with not answering enough questions. I wont give anymore away than that as Sigehelmus has said that they haven't seen the ending. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I'll do my best. Is there anything that happens when you sign up for a WikiProject? I'm going to read the MoS and all that, do you just use the main Portal page to keep track of things or are Projects and Portals not related?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to work on anything that interests you. The portals are a great place to start, as are any pages tagged with the project banner. You can see pages needing work by going to the main project page and looking at the various items listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Open tasks, as fixing any of the problem articles there would be awesome. We appreciate you joining us, and look forward to working with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wicked City novels

Does anyone here have copies of the novels published in English? If so, could you take pictures of the copyright pages for The Other Side and The Scarlet Clan and point me to them? I'm trying to figure out which Japanese volumes they correspond to as none of the Japanese volumes have titles that would translate into those English titles. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

*Wicked City: The Other Side from Macmillan.

*Blackguard at Amazon with look inside says it was printed as "Youju Toshi" (妖獣都市) from 1985.

*Scartlet Clan at Amazon without look inside.

Love it when they do this by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A big mistake

I have been working in a chapter list for Seraph of the End here but for some reason after writing the sixth summary, the table is looking bad. Could anybody fix it or tell me how to? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The brackets were misplaced. You have to make sure that every opening pair of double brackets is matched by a closing pair at the appropriate place. In this case the summary was added after the brackets were closed and volume 5's summary wasn't closed either. To mitigate this in the future maybe you can try indenting every time a new template is used so it's much clearer when something is closed or not. For example:

{{foo
  |{{bar1}}
  |{{bar2}}
}}

Also, if you aren't already using the syntax highlighter gadget, I highly reccoment it; it helps make sense of all the bracket soup. Opencooper (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :D Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)