Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 69

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 65

←

Archive 67

→

Dragon Ball chapters

Hello, I was thinking of transforming List of Dragon Ball chapters (series) and List of Dragon Ball Z chapters into a list or lists using the individual chapter format like at List of Maison Ikkoku chapters and List of Lupin III chapters instead of the current "Graphic novel list" format. But unlike those two examples, the Agency for Cultural Affairs' Media Arts Database has an entry for every Jump issue that gives each chapter title and release date, so it would all be reliably sourced. I'd like to know that there isn't strong opposition to this before I put in all the work that it is going to take. Here's a sample in my sandbox. Xfansd (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of doing a conversion like that? If you did a summary for each of the 519 chapters of roughly the same length as what's in your sandbox (100-150 words each), that would amount to 51,900-77,850 words. Even if every summary currently had 250 words each per volume (which a lot have much less than that, but the bigger ones are about that size) that would only be 10,500 words. Considering Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:PLOT, should we really be increasing the plot summaries of the manga by upwards of 40,000 words? Considering that each chapter can't be more than about 16-18 pages long, it seems really excessive to write 100-150 words for each chapter.--十八 20:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My intention really has nothing to do with the plot summaries. For me it's about having the individual original release dates of a series. Manga is first serialized by chapter in magazines, just like how anime is first aired by episode on TV. Think of if this way; Why do we give the air date and plot summaries for every individual episode of an anime instead of grouping them by their DVD releases and giving just those home release dates and summaries? 4-5 episodes of anime get collected and released on DVD in exactly the same way as how 10-11 chapters of manga get collected and released in tankobon. There is no difference. When only the tankobon can be sourced, sure preferring that over hundreds of unsourced release dates may be better. But when we have the ability to source everything citing too much plot summary to not do it for manga doesn't seem valid when everyone is fine with it happening in every anime episode list. Xfansd (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's apples and oranges. When {{Episode list}} and {{Graphic novel list}} were being created, they did it that way (after various long discussions) because episodes for a TV show are not equivalent to chapters in a manga. A single episode contains enough information for a 100-200 word summary without being excessive, but a single manga chapter containing that length of a summary is certainly excessive when you consider that an 11-chapter volume would have upwards of 1,100 words of summary if every chapter was summarized in 100-200 words. In other words, a single anime episode summary of about 200 words is roughly equivalent to what a summary for a whole manga volume should contain without being excessive, so that is why episodes are individually listed, and manga chapters are grouped by volume.

The real reason why {{Graphic novel list}} is the way it is is because of the release date and the ISBN info for the volumes, which can be easily reliably sourced. It was never really about the plot summaries, even if those were deemed necessary as long as they were not excessive. But an individual chapter list puts way more focus on the plot summaries, so suggesting that bringing this up is not valid is completely ignoring what the vast majority of the content in such a list would contain—the plot summaries. We're talking about 50,000+ words here, the length of The Great Gatsby ([1]).--十八 21:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless you have links to discussions where it was decided TV episodes somehow deserve more plot summary than chapters, which I would be interested in seeing considering I can't think of any reason that wouldn't be arbitrary, that can only be taken as your opinion. Both mediums are serialized episodically, an installment of either one can be taken on its own and can have more important content worth summarizing than an installment of the other. Plot summaries are not what I'm interested in here, they can be trimmed afterwords if more people feel that way. Do you have any other concerns aside from plot summary? Xfansd (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

TV episodes simply have more content than single manga chapters. Usually, an anime episode adapted from a manga will be based on 3-4 chapters of that manga depending on the series, hence why an episode summary would be more detailed because there's more content, so it all comes down to proportionality. It's not that it was "decided" that episodes deserved more—they contain more plot content, thus they deserve more. Writing out a 100-150 word summary for a single chapter would be equivalent to writing 300-450 word summaries for an anime episode based on 3-4 of those chapters, and long-standing conventions on Wikipedia have been about trimming plot summaries down, which is currently recommended for 100-200 for TV episodes (WP:TVPLOT).

Which brings me to my main point of why I brought up the plot summaries to begin with; the real issue here is how encyclopedic your suggestion is. To begin with, based on what I mentioned above, I feel it is widely unencyliopedic to include intricate detail for each and every chapter when Wikipedia has been gearing towards writing more concise summaries for years (MOS:PLOT). If you write a 200-word summary for a volume that has 10 chapters, that's 20 words per chapter, and often you don't even need that much per each chapter because you can summarize multiple chapters in an arc in just as many words. But if you have 10 chapters that you write 100 word summaries for, that's already 1,000 words, 5 times the length of what would normally be considered sufficient for a regular volume list. If that's not excessive, I don't know what is.

The other thing is, what benefit is there to the reader to know what issue and issue date each chapter was published in? Even if you can verify these things, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be on Wikipedia, and such information could even be considered indiscriminate ("...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.").--十八 03:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any ways in which the issue dates of the chapter can be included in the {{Graphic novel list}} without adding more confusion? —Farix (t | c) 03:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The only way would probably be to do something like on List of Yotsuba&! chapters where the second column is used for the issue numbers and dates.--十八 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yotsuba's calendar dates are more like Stardates to frame the story, not necessarily that the chapter was released on that particular date. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was saying that that format could be adapted to be used for the issue numbers and dates instead.--十八 19:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is focused on keeping with the volume list. I mean, ever read some of the Arrancar chapters of Bleach? Some barely have dialogue as the author focuses more on fights, and some of these fights could last an entire volume (Ichigo vs Grimmjow or Ichigo vs Ulquiorra). There are also other manga series with this focus on fighting.Tintor2 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be good to take advantage of the lead summary or publication history sections to specify some of that information, as with non-anime examples The Walking Dead or Superman (comic book). Editors can list when the first issue was released, and any particular magazine formats. Also, include the External link to MADB so people can look up the issue numbers. If publication is more erratic, like it's a collection of their one-shots, and does not appear regularly in a magazine, then it should be considered. Also sometimes the author has like X pages to fill but formats their work to have multiple chapters published in the same issue. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Juhachi: You say your main point is really about how encyclopedic my suggestion is, yet immediately go back to more plot stuff. The word count guidelines for list of episodes are per episode. But you are implying that the supposed "50,000+ words" you would get adding them all up is somehow bad and is reason against my suggestion for original dates. Series get lists of their episodes, each episode gets a summary within the word count. The guideline for writing episode summaries doesn't say anything about a limit on what the number would be if you for some reason added all of them up because that doesn't matter. A series that ran for ten years is gonna have a lot more that one that ran for one season. Plot summaries can always be rewritten/trimmed or I might even be open to not adding them at all and instead let the main page's plot speak for the series. Although that would be highly unusual, that is how much I am not interested in the plot here. Now you've finally moved on to the part that matters, the dates. Giving the dates of a manga series has the exact same value as giving the air dates of any TV show, anime or otherwise. My argument is simple, let's use the original dates instead of the later collected volumes, just like how its done for anime. Let me ask a specific question instead. Please explain how having the 444 original debut air dates for the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime is useful to readers, but having the 519 release dates for the manga chapters would be of less value? Xfansd (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Xfansd: What if you did this? The information is preserved in the {{Graphic novel list}} and we don't have to worry about the plot getting out of hand. I just feel that co-opting {{Japanese episode list}} for manga chapters should absolutely not be done.--十八 05:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Juhachi, can the issue and date be combined like: "001: WSJ Issue 51, December 3, 1984" ? Or tacked onto the end of the chapter title, like: lit. "Bulma and Son Goku") (WSJ #51, 1984-12-03)? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I updated the sandbox, but I personally like example 2 the most. If this info was going to be incorporated, it kind of gets lost in example 3.--十八 21:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've got an idea, will tweak your example 2 to make example 4 which issues a collapsible list. Another option is to make Column 2 of the Example 2 smaller in width, so that the issue numbers and pub dates don't force the main titles to resize to two lines in standard viewing, ~~although I'm not sure how to do that second part.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "so that the issue numbers and pub dates don't force the main titles to resize to two lines in standard viewing"? This is how it looks to me.--十八 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I must be using a bigger font. Anyway, I put in "Example 2b" to resize the columns so that the issue / pub date doesn't take up half of the table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

First, I feel squishing them into Graphic novel list makes it hard to read or too cluttered. That's why I didn't comment on the original Yotsuba&! suggestion. More importantly tho, there's no way to organize that specific template that does not clearly put the emphasis on the tankobon instead of the chapter by chapter serialization aspect which is my whole point. In my replies I did specifically say it's about having the original dates, but I'm not trying to add them anyway possible just because we can. I thought it was understood that would come with a format change. Using the Japanese episode list template isn't unprecedented, I got it from the Maison Ikkoku list first. I'm not versed in the technical aspects. Does using that template automatically put the article into some kind of categories that a manga page shouldn't be in or something like that? If we have to use a generic table, it's gonna take time for me to figure one out. Xfansd (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Japanese episode list}} wasn't designed to be used for manga chapters, so using it for that purpose would decrease readability and would vastly increase table length and the amount of bytes in such a list (which for a 519 chapter manga would be upwards of 500kb). And I don't see what's so bad about putting that info into the graphic novel list table. There is no reason to put a larger emphasis on the original dates to begin with. Having all of the information related to the volume, including it's chapter list, release dates, ISBNs and even the original magazine dates together makes the most sense, and needlessly forcing yourself to split that all up just so you can have the magazine dates in a certain format where they are "emphasized" is, frankly, ridiculous.

What do you have against {{Graphic novel list}}? It's worked just fine over the past 7 years, and what you're suggesting in this conversion has absolutely no merits to organizing this information and readership. Why make it harder for someone to view over 500 chapters by having a table that would be so long, it's not even funny, when you can have all the chapters organized into {{Graphic novel list}} just fine? It's just bad practice to co-opt one template used for one purpose just to satisfy your need for a completely different purpose that the template wasn't even designed for, but more than that, not even trying to compromise by thinking of some way to use the existing graphic novel template because you think it "makes it hard to read or too cluttered" is crazy when you consider how much more difficult it would be for readers to gleam this information by going with your suggestion.

Trying to "emphasize" the magazine dates is not a good enough reason considering all the extra baggage it comes with (increased table length, increased raw byte size, decreased readability, increased plot size not proportionate to story content). And in no way can you convince me that doing it that way is in anyway good for this project or Wikipedia. You mentioned when you started this thread about "strong opposition". Well, I am very much against trying to do it the way you suggested in your sandbox. If you want to include the dates, use {{Graphic novel list}} or not at all. Doing it your way would just create headaches for everyone involved, and would set a frighteningly bad precedent for other series and lists, not that List of Maison Ikkoku chapters and List of Lupin III chapters haven't already.

So you know what? I'm sorry that I ever replied to this thread to begin with, because if you were so set on going for this "emphasis" to begin with, why did you even post it or say something like "I'd like to know that there isn't strong opposition to this before I put in all the work that it is going to take." Because it seems like you're dead-set on including this information, and also dead-set on not using {{Graphic novel list}}. So I'm done with this discussion. Do what you want.--十八 03:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the formats Juhachi suggested. The original publication information is still presented in the article, and can be looked up easily from Example 2 (or 2b). You could even use the format in Example 4 to specify down to the page number where the WSJ magazine has the chapters. With a proper lead paragraph, you can maintain what issues/editions in the magazines the section covers. It's pretty obvious that the original publication dates in WSJ will always precede the graphic novel publication. In currently running series, there is even a "chapters not in tankobon format" to handle ones that aren't compiled. Regular magazines are also organized into years, and there is a natural bounding of material into the graphic novel volumes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: That is just more concern over plot. Please read my most recent reply to Juhachi just above this. There are anime episodes that are repeats of prior ones like Urusei Yatsura episodes 44 and 194 and numerous others that are clip episodes recapping prior ones. Did you assume there would be plot summaries giving the blow by blow of the fights? As I've stated in every one of my replies above, I am just trying to change which dates are added because manga is first published weekly, not in tankobon. Can you explain how anime air dates are useful but manga release dates are not? Xfansd (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably due to difficulties of finding a reliable source but I've just taken a look at your sandboxes and liked it more than the ones from Lupin Xfansd.Tintor2 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode air dates are useful because episodes get re-aired independently and in a different order. Chapters aren't republished independently or in a different order. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think such a chapter table you're proposing would be more useful for Neko Majin as that one consists more of short stories published over different issues. Dragon Ball is clearly being organized into compilation volumes when it goes to paperback. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed up the chapter list for Neko Majin using the book series template, see: Neko_Majin#Chapter_list. I think this is probably what you would like to see, as it works great on Anthology/Short stories. I don't see it applying to Dragon Ball for the reasons previously stated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Juhachi, the very first sentence I wrote here says I want to change the format, the fact that the discussion was almost all about plot instead was your doing. I don't have anything against the Graphic novel list template itself. It has worked well the past 7 years for what it is meant for, and still will. But for manga that is serialized first, the Graphic novel list should be a Plan B or backup in the event that a manga's original serialization dates can't be sourced (or even have both), not the sole go to.

AngusWOOF, I'll just reply here because you made three or more comments in different spots. Juhachi's suggested use of Graphic novel list still emphasizes the tankobon and is not easy to follow. You have the tankobon's title and date each prominent in their own boxes, but then have 11 earlier dates (that alone is odd, going backwards in time) thrown into the same box as 11 English titles, Japanese titles, Romaji titles, literally translated titles, and issue numbers. That is putting too much and makes it cluttered, not simple and easy to read. To quote you, there is also a "natural bounding of material" with anime into DVDs. Manga chapters were actually published independently by themselves in North America in the 1990s before the market changed to graphic novels, Dragon Ball being one of them. Maison Ikkoku is another and was also out of order and missing some chapters completely, seen at List_of_Maison_Ikkoku_chapters#Comics. Dragon Ball actually has a special un-numbered chapter that was put out of order when it was collected into volume 33. Chapters are sometimes never collected at all, Golgo 13 has had several that were never collected. The format I propose could hypothetically have all of that information as well, but before people ask, no, I am not arguing for that. Why is it important to have an anime's original dates, but not a manga's? That is really what it comes down to and I have explained that all of the supposed differences you claimed are not true. Manga and anime are both serialized episodically. We shouldn't treat this aspect differently between one and the other. The Neko Majin example looks great. You also brought up a good point, your suggested format can be used on stuff like the recent Rurouni Kenshin two-parters. Xfansd (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We disagree on how the presentation clutters things. A chapter list could be potentially more clutter especially with plot summaries spread out over multiple chapters, and with the same issue and publication date being listed if the author has multiple chapters in a volume. Have you read Initial D? There are whole chapters of just images of cars racing and making turns with hardly any dialogue. Dragon Ball is not quite as bad in comparison, but being a battle oriented manga, it will have long drawn-out chapters as well. And then what about the times when the chapter is given a few extra pages, has special inserts, or makes the cover of the magazine? How will that be noted? Or is that pushing fancruft? I'm not too concerned about the omake chapters or crossover chapters as those can be described separately.

It's also a nightmare for daily serializations. You really expect something like Seitokai Yakuindomo or Azumanga Daioh to be better served in a chapter format, so that every publication date is indicated?

I could still see some use for series that have a mess of compiled formats as you were showing with Maison Ikkoku, and Oh My Goddess where the numbering and the titles for the English version was way off from the Japanese version, and then was renumbered back to the Japanese version. Oh My Goddess for volumes 1-20 can be considered as a good candidate for the chapter format. But Dragon Ball doesn't have such a mess in the manga or graphic novels. So I will stand with keeping the graphic novel format for Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Juhachi was concerned about too much plot, now you're worried about too little? It is a common misconception that the Dragon Ball manga drags out battles simply because that is what the anime did to increase the distance between both mediums. And if the anime, which does drag them out, can have summaries, then so can the manga. It might be a good idea to have a single sentence in the lead paragraph explaining the average number of pages per chapter is x amount. I can't imagine anyone thinking listing every insert, poster, or times it appeared on the cover would be useful. I have no experience with yonkoma, including no knowledge of the two that you named so I can't really speak on those specifically. Whether a series is weekly or daily doesn't matter, we do it at List of The Daily Show episodes for example. But I'm not trying to organize a task group to go through massively changing every article, and I don't expect to be able to reliably source the dates of every series on Wikipedia. But if someone can do it and wants to, let them. Xfansd (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Psycho-Pass' protagonists

There have been some reverts in the article Psycho-Pass based on the roles of two characters. For the discussion, please see Talk:Psycho-Pass#Kogami and Tsunemori's roles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Rob has responded to the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We Without Wings

I have recently improved the page for We Without Wings, rearranging the characters in simpler categories and providing better descriptions. I also added summaries for the thirteen episodes, in less than 200 words per episode. This is just a post to inform you all. Hopefully the page looks a lot neater and better than how it was before I started editing the page. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 2:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Check the talk page and look for the archives of the review like this. It might help to create a reception. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll add them anyway: [2] and [3].Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've assessed this to Start, but it should be C after Reception is added and perhaps after the history is fleshed out. It's rather confusing which version came first and whether sequels should be listed. We seem to disagree on the inclusion of minor/guest characters, so I tagged that section for it to be scrubbed through. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is the confusion that the characters who are not listed as main or supporting are minor, but they are in fact recurring, based on what is shown in the anime series. There were a few characters shown who were minor or cameo (one-time appearance), and those characters were removed from the list by me personally, given the fact that no information (voice actors and descriptions) was there. The original characters were divided into the categories Heroines, Protagonists, Sub heroines, Men and Others.... and I originally simplified it to Main characters, Supporting characters, and Other characters.... before Other characters was changed to Other recurring characters. Although I rearranged the character list this way and revised/added descriptions to the characters with little or no information about them..... I wanted to improve the page, which includes the episode summaries that provide a genuine overview of each episode. I would never write false information! Watch the episodes and see if I am accurate when it comes down to summarizing. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 7:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That fake show that keeps being added to lists of voice actor credits

I'm purposely not mentioning it here by name, but it's been discussed before. Please comment here if you wish. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We have an edit filter now, for anyone who is interested: here. Please help keep an eye on it so we can tweak it if needed. Once it's done testing, it will disallow any edits in mainspace that match it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Evan1975 and Opencooper: Since you've worked on this one before. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping get this set up. It looks good to me, though I agree that we'll have to keep an eye on the edits and react to any adaptations. Opencooper (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Tiger Mask W characters

Talk:List of Tiger Mask W characters. --82.54.234.221 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.234.221 (talk)

The entire list needs to be reorganized and cleaned up as there are too many characters that are not sourced to anything and lots of original research (wrestler X resembles real-life wrestler Y). It doesn't need to be split into real-life and fictional wrestlers. I've placed a list on the talk page of ones that could stay, and given that they have online profiles, descriptions can be written up for them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried removing the minor characters, but other editors are insisting they stay, so this needs a serious scrubbing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A show's opinion at the aired time or date

Yeah. Over by Armed Girl's Machiavellism. There's a part where the date is added. But that's by 'AT-X' then followed by the rest of the sets of tv stations. Is it better wait until the Tokyo MX schedule as the timing is later on. And is it an interpretation to follow the AT-X schedule. As earlier, from my edit on that article. Unblue box (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you try rewording your post? I have no idea what you're trying to say. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh? um, from here. Then after a while (a few edits) the article looked 'off balance.' Unblue box (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What is your native language? It might be easier if you write in that and let us translate it. Your comments make absolutely no sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My main language is English. Unblue box (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe. Your words sound like they went through Google Translate, and were definitely not written by a native speaker of English. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well? I would try to tell. But that would be going off topic. Unblue box (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Advising us of your native language is not off-topic as it would likely allow us to better communicate. We have people here who speak a variety of languages, so we should be able to help you regardless of your native language. Please post your question in that language, and we can work from there. The English you are posting generally makes no sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole part might 'sound' like a story, which could sound boring. Then if I told it, would it be here or my 'talk page.' Unblue box (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see what he's trying to do. The AT-X air dates are starting April 5, 2017 at 23:00 (11pm) so that's the earliest date, not the Tokyo MX dates which are after midnight (April 6) . See [4]. I'll throw those in. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Aki Toyosaki

Myself and @Biswarup5: have gotten into a disagreement at Aki Toyosaki over content. We've both gone back a few times, I fear we're getting into edit war territory, but the diff has been essentially the same each time every: here is the most recent as an example. Essentially, things like using plainlist aside and the notable works list (the latter of which is a separate issue, I think), I believe things such as blood type and height should be kept out of the article. Biswarup5 and I have also had some cursory discussion on my talk page: this section, this section, and this section. The third of which I'm most concerned about, as it potentially raises conflict of interest and some future major changes to multiple articles. Between both myself and Biswarup5 edit warring and the latest exchange of discussion, I'm concerned that this matter should involve third parties.

I should probably have a firmer statement of what I'm asking for. Is there any input about the content dispute? And, I'm asking Biswarup5 here to make any future plans clearer, which I'm concerned about because of the wording of the recent talk page posting. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 06:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think blood type and height should be kept out of the article. TranquilHope (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Things such as blood type, height, weight, and other body measurements should be kept out of biographies because they are trivia and have nothing to do with who the person is, their history, or why they are even notable. —Farix (t | c) 10:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that {{Infobox person}}'s documentation states that height and weight should only be used if the individual was notable for these things or they are relevant, like for an athlete. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

She's not a Wikipedia-notable model, so body measurements and height do not apply. Blood type is never appropriate for the infobox either as this is like an astrological sign in trivia. As for anime as a genre of music, there's Anison but only if she's notable for singing anime theme songs all the time like some of the other seiyuus. I agree about the third discussion pushing conflict of interest WP:COI and original research WP:OR issues. If the editor is indeed a media contributor, then they can help get permissions for pictures and stuff uploaded to Commons to help illustrate the articles, and that would help a lot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Question from a newbie editor to Wikipedia

To whom it may concern,

Is there a reason why I cannot seem to edit Weekly Shōnen Jump? My understanding is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I would like to add some information to the page. Namely, the fact that it and publisher Shueisha is becoming IRRELEVANT: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5874951/why-manga-publishing-is-dying-and-how-it-could-get-better . That is the TRUTH

Thank you,

-Rantanriolla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantanriolla (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is protected because of a persistent troll who has moved the article around in the past, equated the magazine with terrorism and other criminal activity, repeatedly added in false sources, and attempted to have the article deleted. As for the opinion article you linked, it is just that, an opinion from 2012 when the US manga bubble bursting and the decline of manga magazine sales in Japan began. While it does mention Shueisha in relation to JManga, it also does not state that the publisher is irrelevant. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Rantanriolla has been confirmed to be another sock of said troll. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Japanese translation needed for web movie announcement

Hello. I'm requesting on behalf of User:Phoenix God whether someone could use this Japanese source to add details on a web movie to the article for Domestic Girlfriend. Alternatively, there might be other online sources where this announcement was noted such as natalie.mu. Thank you in advance if you can help. Opencooper (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with dead url

During 2015, Jump had an interview between Masashi Kishimoto and Hiroaki Samura where the two discussed their works. I found an archive here that guides me to the interview, but the complete interview is not archived. I also found that a person completely tranlated the interview but I don't know if reviewers will like using this. Any thoughts? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.--十八 01:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Juhachi.Tintor2 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about Naruto's first publication

Would anyone be able to find a source about the full date that Naruto was released on Weekly Shonen Jump? The only info I have is that it was released on no. 43 of the magazine in 1999. -- 1989 03:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the issue dated October 4, 1999.--十八 03:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Juhachi: Thx. Quick question, do you happen to know if Naruto is known officially divided (e.g. Part I, II)? -- 1989 04:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The only official divide I know about is with the anime. The manga has more of a soft divide between the two parts, kinda like how Dragonball is divided with its time skip.--十八 04:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Kishimoto's author comment in volume 27 says "it felt right to end part one with this volume" and that part two will begin with 28. He restates this in vol 28 also. So the original creator makes the distinction himself, but there's no title change like the anime. Although there is a subtle change to the series' logo with 28 in that it uses slightly darker colors from that point onward. Xfansd (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Juhachi: When I looked at the source, I noticed that the release date (not the issue date) for the issue was blank, but I changed it in the article anyway. Now I'm curious as to how September 21 was the predicted date. -- 1989 05:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the issue date is never the actual date. That issue probably did come out in September, but unless you can find another source that specifies that date, I'd just go with the issue date since it's verifiable.--十八 05:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Release dates are rarely preserved be reliable sources, especially when dealing with older issues. So in order to maintain consistency across all articles, we've stuck with the dates printed on the cover even when we are lucky enough to have a source for the release dates. One other thing. If the magazine is a monthly, you only need to specify the month and year as those are the only things printed on the cover. —Farix (t | c) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Aniway #48 available for translation

A new issue of the Dutch Aniway magazine is out and has a few interesting articles on works such as the old Cat's Eye TV series, the manga Kakushigoto (which doesn't have an article), Digimon Adventure Tri, and a lot of anime that came out last season. It also features an interview with Frederik L. Schodt! For a slightly more complete list of topics covered in the season's issue, check this page, or ask me on my talk page. There's a lot more than listed. I'd be happy to do translations of articles in case anyone is interested. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I have written a translation for articles on Orange, Lupin III Part 4, and the abovementioned Schodt interview. They were all requested by User:IDV and are used or going to be used well, but especially the latter two could prove useful in other articles as well. Feel free to request them if you are interested ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 16:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Maplestrip What's the content about Devilman in the #44 issue? A review, an interview or news, etc? I'm interested on it depending on what it's. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: It is a two-page retrospective, describing the history of the series. It starts with the line "In the early 1970s, Go Nagai was the rising manga star of the time. Toei Animation came to him in 1972 with ideas for two anime series based on his work. One of which was..." Quickly skimming through this article, it seems to be mainly about Go Nagai, Toei, and Ghibli. I think it is likely to describe all motion media of the series up to the 2015 crossover series. I'd be happy to translate the entire piece, if you are interested ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 17:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, an overview is always good. I'd appreciate the translation if you can do it, Maplestrip. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm planning to do it within 24 hours ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 23:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball chapters again

As a continuation of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 69#Dragon Ball chapters from last month, I would just like to update the project on Xfansd (talk · contribs)'s herculean effort to convert List of Dragon Ball chapters (series) and List of Dragon Ball Z chapters into what he's been working on in three of his sandboxes currently: User:Xfansd/sandbox, User:Xfansd/sandbox2 and User:Xfansd/sandbox3. From what I can tell, it is Xfansd's intention to split the 519 chapters into 5 lists of roughly equal length, all of which will contain a vast amount of plot, which I have estimated will be roughly 50,000 words in total, the length of a a short novel. This is in stark contrast to the currently existing summaries, all of which total just under 6,500 words. Just for the record, that is a proposed increase of plot by more than 7 times, despite long-standing conventions not to write intricate detail for plot summaries. I would also like to point out that Xfansd is continuing this venture despite there being at least some opposition to the idea from me and AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) from the previous thread. So, at least as of right now, there does not seem to be a consensus for this conversion, but of course consensus can change, so it's certainly useful to bring up this discussion again periodically to see if there's any consensus for or against this conversion.

Furthermore, there were a couple points from the previous discussion I would like to summarize.

The first largely had to do with Xfansd's insistence on the inclusion and emphasis of the original serialization dates. One of Xfansd's arguments was that since we do it for TV episodes, why not do it for manga? This was countered by AngusWOOF, and I quote: "Episode air dates are useful because episodes get re-aired independently and in a different order. Chapters aren't republished independently or in a different order."
Another thing was an attempt at a compromise by using the existing {{Graphic novel list}} template instead of co-oping {{Japanese episode list}} for a purpose it wasn't designed for. The attempts at a compromise can be seen at User:Juhachi/sandbox/2. Unfortunately, this attempt at a compromise didn't go over too well for Xfansd, and I quote: "I feel squishing them into Graphic novel list makes it hard to read or too cluttered."

Ultimately, Xfansd's proposed conversion would create 5 separate lists of roughly 104 chapters each, each of which will contain around 10,000 words of plot summary. Also, because they're split evenly, they don't follow what chapters were in what volumes, so this would remove all information on Wikipedia pertaining to what chapters were in what volumes, which I do not really see as useful to the readers. If the conversion went through, List of Dragon Ball manga volumes would presumably survive in its current form, but as I said, that doesn't tell readers what chapters were in what volumes. What's more, as seen in User:Xfansd/sandbox2, the Dragon Ball Z chapters are not renumbered at 195 on, which although that is certainly consistent with how it was done in Japan, was not how it was done in Viz Media's release of the series which did renumber the chapters as seen on List of Dragon Ball Z chapters. So I feel that would only confuse anyone who has any of Viz's Dragon Ball Z volumes in hand, and goes against the official numbering in the English release of the manga.--十八 23:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I really think it could be summarized with a single line in the summary like with Aho Girl whose Japanese publisher listed which issues the volume covers. See User:Juhachi/sandbox/2#Example 5. Nice and neat, and up there with the rest of the release dates. I don't think there's much value to providing matching exact issues to chapters. The references provided from MADB can do that if someone really needs to know the page numbers. Also publication dates and street dates will vary. A July 2017 issue would be released in June. Web series may even precede print chapters. And it's still obvious that a compilation volume will be released some time after the magazine date. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The project doesn't need periodic updates on anything. You have no new arguments, meaning this will be a repeat discussion only a month later. Being a serial work, each chapter gets a plot summary coinciding with the word count recommended for episodes. They're not "intricate" either (But as I said numerous times, they can always be trimmed). What they total if you arbitrarily decide to add them up doesn't matter. It ran weekly for ten years.

Odd you chose not to mention my rebuff to the first point; the quote from AngusWOOF. Maybe you just didn't see it since that was after you said "I'm done with this discussion. Do what you want." And yet here we are again. I replied "Manga chapters were actually published independently by themselves in North America in the 1990s before the market changed to graphic novels, Dragon Ball being one of them. Maison Ikkoku is another and was also out of order and missing some chapters completely, seen at List_of_Maison_Ikkoku_chapters#Comics. Dragon Ball actually has a special un-numbered chapter that was put out of order when it was collected into volume 33. Chapters are sometimes never collected at all, Golgo 13 has had several that were never collected. The format I propose could hypothetically have all of that information as well." Which means your point one is not true.

With point two, you again chose to leave out my more pertinent explanation for being against co-oping Template:Graphic novel list. "More importantly tho, there's no way to organize that specific template that does not clearly put the emphasis on the tankobon instead of the chapter by chapter serialization aspect which is my whole point." Your solution to not co-op Japanese episode list, is to instead co-op Graphic novel list. Japanese episode list works better and there is precedent for using it this way.

My sandboxes are a work in progress and I haven't fully decided how to split them up, could add breaks pertaining to the arcs used in either the full color or sōshūhen editions for instance. You shouldn't make assumptions. The two most recent editions by Viz stopped the splitting of the manga into "Dragon Ball" and "Dragon Ball Z" btw. @AngusWOOF, I ditched the individual WSJ issue numbers. Xfansd (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And yet you still cannot seem to come to terms with that the fact that there are at least two editors, myself and AngusWOOF, who do not fully agree with your proposal, and yet you're going ahead with it anyway. And yes, your proposed plot lengths as seen on User:Xfansd/sandbox are intricate because, as I have tired to explain time and time again, anime episodes are not the same as manga chapters, nor should they be treated as the same. Anime episodes have about 3-4 times the content per a single manga chapter, which is why they get longer summaries. Writing a plot summary for a single manga chapter that is the same length of an anime episode is equivalent to writing a 600-800 word summary for an anime episode. I still cannot see why you cannot concede that fact, and are still writing what are basically enormous summaries for a mere 16 or so pages per chapter, when a single sentence should be enough.

And besides, the project needs to be informed of this venture because it could affect other articles in the future. Consensus should at the very least be established before these kinds of sweeping changes are done, anyway. If consensus for this is not established, that is reason enough to revert any changes back to the current version until consensus is established; to quote WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So if you won't inform the project of this to try to establish consensus, then I guess I'll have to do it for you.--十八 03:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I adequately rebutted every argument made in the prior discussion. There are many things on Wikipedia I don't fully agree with, but if you don't have valid arguments against them then you're just wearing yourself out. Just like when you said "I'm done with this discussion. Do what you want." the first time around. Like I said last time, it is simply your opinion that manga deserves less plot than anime. You choose to ignore the numerous times I said that "the plot can always be trimmed", which I just did again, or that I might "even be open to not adding them at all."

The project was informed when I brought up the original discussion only a month ago. Only two editors cared to really get involved in a discussion that went on for six days. This "venture" is not the first of its kind, the Maison Ikkoku and Lupin III articles already use this format. The logical conclusion one comes to is that the project doesn't oppose it. I could argue that I'm creating new articles here, not trying "to add, modify or remove material in articles." If I made the articles now the first bullet at WP:NOCONSENSUS applies instead, which says "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." But I won't. Xfansd (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who worked on Maison Ikkoku. The main reason I segmented the chapters were that it worked plotwise; each chapter was its own short story. I wouldn't do this for a series like Dragon Ball though. Don't count my vote, I'm not going to go out of my way to enforce or discourage this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I didn't come up with anything, I simply wrote "for the last chapters this happens" in List of Gin Tama chapters but I don't know if it's okay.Tintor2 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest two new articles

What do you think about create a two new articles: Export of manga and anime, Manga and anime in Internet? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? There are already sections for Anime#Globalization, Webcomic and Original net animation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

.hack//GU

Not specifically anime, but I believe it's relevant enough to mention here since it follows after .hack//roots. We need some more people to weigh in at Talk:.hack//G.U.. Me and another editor are kind of in a deadlock of opinions about what this article's about. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Project list of manga artists

Over on jawiki, they have lists of manga artists in the project space for those that don't currently meet notability requirements. For example, Manga artists starting with あ. I think such lists could be very helpful here, and it might also give a way to develop individual artist entries until such a time as they are able to be moved to their own pages. Think of it as a project draft space.

To improve on the way they do it there, it might be good to create pages for each artist separately as subpages (say Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/List of manga artists/Yū Aikawa for the creator of Dark Edge, for example) and transclude them into Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/List of manga artists for convenience. Then, when an artist reaches a point of meeting notability, the article can simply be moved to the mainspace. In the meantime, we at least have information about them easily accessible where anyone can work on the article to improve it.

Thoughts? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Would these subpages be considered drafts then? They can be placed in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga#Biography_Requests if there's potential but it's WP:TOOSOON or in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga/Refused Requests Archive if they were clearly refused and don't have another chance of coming back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be considered drafts. Maybe limit it to just those that have the potential to become regular articles. The jawiki project pages I linked to list many that wouldn't necessarily be eligible for articles. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, these wouldn't just be lists of names, but each entry would have some of the same info included in an article. Go look at the example page I linked to see what I mean. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If there's a way of organizing drafts in general for the project, that would be helpful. I've had to push back to Draft a lot of voice actor articles in that situation for being WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discord Chat

I believe this may have been posted once before, but I wanted leave a friendly invitation to you, if any of you might be interested, to an unofficial Wikimedia Discord channel. Discord is a free chat program that a few editors use as an alternative to IRC, available for PC and mobile. We setup sub-channels as needed or requested, and have had one for wpanimanga for a while as several chatters have an interest. The server is moderated by enwiki administrators, and we expect the general IRC conduct rules to be followed. You can reach the server with this link. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

More information now available at WP:Discord. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anime seasons, once again

Now, "individual seasons are different from ongoing series like Naruto", hence they deserve their own infobox, even though they are not a real series. The explanation comes from here (if I'm correct, that's the fourth time Wonchop adds the infobox back). The anime official site confirms it's a second season, but I don't want to start an edit war. What's the consensus?--Sakretsu (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The animanga infoboxes take up way too much space already - sometimes they're even longer than the actual article - so it makes very little sense to me to duplicate information like that. The purpose of an infobox is to allow the reader to quickly find out about the basic facts. Add a "seasons" parameter to the infobox instead.--IDV^talk 14:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically, the way "seasons" work for on-going anime and how they work on a one-cour basis are a bit different, since one is continually renewed by the same committee (and the way users can even determine what counts as a season is vague until home video releases are available) while the other tends to involve seperate committees that must be started anew each time, and may even involve different studios or staff. I think the best way to describe the difference it is that individual seasons for Naruto don't get their own infobox, but Naruto Shippuden does. Even though Shippuden's first season is pretty much "Naruto season 6", it's still recognised as the start of a seperate series. Seperately produced season productions will often treat themselves as individual series (eg. it has it's own unique title and they'll start off from episode 1), and they're only more specifically referred to as seasons in American releases. There's also the issue of what to put in a single infobox if it has to cover multiple seasons/series that have year-long gaps in between. To imply that New Game! has been continuously airing for over a year would be inaccurate to say the least. At the very least, the template would need a good makeover to properly cover how each season works. Simply put, in terms of Wikipedia's main purpose, explaining details clearly, listing differently titled seasons that air at different points in time in seperate infoboxes makes more sense, at least until the template can be improved upon. The exception to this would be split-cour shows (eg. Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works) where it's designed to be a 2-cour season, just with a one-cour break in the middle. Since there's nothing distinguishing the two parts as seperate productions, a single infobox will suffice for them. Wonchop (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Game!! seems to count episodes from episode 1 as a separate series, however it is released on a seasonal schedule (July 2016, then July 2017), which implies seasons. And if the official website is calling it a second season, that should mean seasons. As there are only two to deal with, it's also not a big deal to leave both in the infobox. Also it's not some logical season numbering like with Teekyu!! (Teekyu!! 3, Teekyu!! 4, etc.) On the flip side, Cardfight!! Vanguard has 8 seasons cluttering up the infobox, and that should be regrouped into two major series (Cardfight!! Vanguard and Cardfight!! Vanguard G) as the episode numbering on MADB suggests this split. But it's a bit complicated as season 8 (or 4th season of G) has a new producer. As for Pokemon, that's got a ridiculous number of seasons and series renames that it was best to make everything one big TV series, and it's got a navbox to help things anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The official site calls it New Game!! (ie. extra exclamation mark), only using season 2 as a more noticeable indicator on the Story page. Also, it's just a coincidence that this ended up airing one year after the previous season (ie. if another season gets announced after this, we can't immediately assume it'll be out in July 2018), so that logic doesn't really hold up. Pokémon kinda falls under the long running category in that (despite the questionability of Ash's age remaining the same) it's a continuous story running one after the other without noticeable breaks in between seasons. Basically, it's not like a lot of American shows where you can say "it ran for X seasons", it follows the more recent anime format of "they made a show, and then they decided to make another one".Wonchop (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've a discussion over on Template talk:Infobox animanga with my suggestions on how to improve the infobox in regards to listing multiple seasons that are not in long-running format. Wonchop (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good proposal. Btw, I think Hozuki's Coolheadedness is a nice example on how to handle a second season separated by a long time gap. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, about Shippuden, the seasons are divided based on their DVDs which can take about 30 episodes. However, the last 30 episodes have been covered in less episodes to the point that we would have to create articles for 2 or 4 episodes. The same thing happens with the anime of Katekyo Hitman Reborn. Should we instead follow the English release?Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: You can use {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Invite}}. It looks like this:

You are cordially invited to join the anime and manga WikiProject (WP:ANIME), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with anime, manga, and related topics. WP:ANIME hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help improving old and creating new articles in this area. Simply follow the directions here to join!

Hope that helps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks, 日本穣! I wonder how does the project usually recruit or welcome new editors. I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors to contribute. I am not sure if this is something WPAM would be interested. Here is our project detail. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

University? Sometimes, stuff like that can help to improve articles. For example, Naruto Uzumaki became a FA thanks to the studies multiple writers, studios and university professors made about the character. I could only find one for Allen Walker whereas Sasuke Uchiha could become FA too once the copyedit is finished.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are researchers from the university, and we are conducting studies trying to figure out how to help WikiProjects recruit new editors and thrive. We'd like to hear more suggestions or feedback from Wikipedians about our study before we launch it. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think one suggestion could be to make posts of some kind over at some of our sisters WikiProjects, like WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Animation. There could be other users there who would be willing to help, particularly in finding sources (both online and offline), writing articles, and improving existing ones. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! We have contracted a number of projects to see if they are interested in our study. We identified the most active projects in the last calendar year (based on the number of edits on the project and project talk pages). We would definitely like to invite them. If you know anyone who could potentially be interested in our study, please help us spread our study. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe, Tintor2, Narutolovehinata5, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username	Recent Edits within Anime and manga	Recent Edits in Wikipedia	First Edit Date	Most Recent Edit Date
Hadassah16 (talk · contribs)	5	6	2017-7-16	2017-7-20
SenpaiV3 (talk · contribs)	2	2	2017-7-15	2017-7-15
Dellersx (talk · contribs)	1	3	2017-7-16	2017-7-16
Tyler L. Burton (talk · contribs)	2	2	2017-7-18	2017-7-18
Hinadori (talk · contribs)	218	1844	2008-11-10	2017-7-18
KeinezG (talk · contribs)	350	352	2016-9-15	2017-7-22
Nightwolf87 (talk · contribs)	378	11276	2010-3-20	2017-1-5
Klobis (talk · contribs)	330	1632	2009-2-28	2017-7-18
Juandmarco (talk · contribs)	258	779	2014-1-30	2017-7-19

Bobo.03 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Recommendations for what? If you think someone might be interested in the project, just invite them. It doesn't need to be discussed here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, Nihonjoe. I am just a research in the community, and hope to create new editor recommendations for WikiProjects. We wish to create good recommendations, and let project members/organizers to recruit those editors if they'd like to. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Tyler's a vandalism account. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, AngusWOOF. We will definitely remove those editors in the future! I noticed you left a message on that user's talk page. Did he/she make some edits that drew your attention? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's coincidentally a hopping IP vandal that uses "Tyler" in many of his edits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Translation: Judge (manga)

I was improving Judge (manga) a little to destubify it and found out that the Japanese Wikipedia version has some sourced content (which is a rare case among manga/anime articles). I was able to figure out about the serialization dates, but could not understand properly the first paragraph of "概要". Because of its links to poetic justice and karma in Buddhism I can have a notion that is talking about the series' theme, but I would prefer if someone with better Japanese knowledge translated it if possible. Btw, it is just two lines:

霊能力で悪を裁く「闇の司法官」を主人公とした作品。当初は勧善懲悪とバイオレンスが目指されていたが、オカルト、特に心霊現象に強い興味を持つ細野の性格を反映して、次第に心霊の色の濃い物語になり、さらに因果応報をテーマとして強く取り上げるようになった

Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:TranquilHope knows Japanese. Sorry for calling you TranquilHope.Tintor2 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"This is a story about a main character who is a "Judge of the Darkness" that judges evil with psychic powers. Although Hosono initially aimed for it to be about poetic justice and violence, influenced by his strong interest in the occult, particularly psychic phenomena, it gradually grew more spiritual, and strongly began to feature karma as a theme."--十八 18:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another issue with DVD release dates as air dates

There is an ongoing issue on the Naruto Shippuden episode lists about the use of DVD release dates as "air dates". Previous discussions on such usage DVD release dates as "air dates" resulted in the remove of those dates from the table and sometime adding a home video release section to include the DVD/Blu-ray releases. However, an IP 122.59.209.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues reinserts the DVD dates back onto the episode lists as air dates. This IP may be related to LordShozin, who did the exact same thing a few months earlier. (Discussion 1, Discussion 2) at the time, LordShozin was very insistent that the DVD release dates must be on the list as they used them as their "shopping list". —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WT:WPTV has bee notified of this discussion. —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice posted at WP:VPMISC about this discussion. —Farix (t | c) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem pretty solidly in the right here; broadcast dates and DVD releases are two different things, and it would be confusing/misleading to substitute the media releases in the absence of airdates in the middle of the list. We have many examples of series with some unaired episodes, and they are handled the same way as is currently done in List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, with N/A or a dash or whatever. That Featured List contains meticulously sourced DVD release info, so no one can complain that you're leaving it out.

You might want to include a footnote at the point of the change explaining that the series stopped airing in English just to make sure everyone gets it, and maybe a blurb at the start of Season 15. And the lead doesn't seem clear on this issue either. But of course none of that will likely appease LordShozin.— TAnthony^Talk 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously my comments also apply to the individual season articles, which are equally well done. I'm not sure I understand what LordShozin's real issue is.— TAnthony^Talk 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DVD/Bluray/Video release dates are not air dates, so they shouldn't be listed in the air dates column. If this editor gets too pushy, we can always protect the article(s). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Random question here: What happens when the current broadcast of Shippuden starts airing those unaired episodes? Having multiple years between them seems weird to me, but that's because I haven't seen that situation before.24.47.204.97 (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If by broadcast you mean that that the previous unaired episodes air on television then that date will be placed as the oringal English air date since DVD/Blu Ray releases don't count in this regard.--76.65.42.75 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Milestones revisited

I noticed that WP:VG has bounded some of their milestones for GA's, B and C class articles to just a certain percentage (5, 10, 25, 75). Do you think that's worth trying for here? Pinging Sjones23 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This depends on their purpose. A smaller, reachable goal works way better as motivation, but if it's just meant to show where the project is at, then the current version works.--IDV^talk 19:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest working together to improve important articles like Rurouni Kenshin or Goku that already have all its required contents to become GAs but still need work before nominating them.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Tintor2's suggestion is a good one an it fits the first IDV's purpose. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another important article I think could be taken to GA once its issues are solved is Sailor Moon but I don't have much knowledge about it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Illustratng cosplay article

Please see Talk:Cosplay#Recurring_problems_with_lead_image_and_analysis_of_all_images. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of additional voices in anime voice actor articles

AnimeDisneylover95 has complained repeatedly regarding the removal of additional voices in anime voice actor articles, and keeps reverting edits from other editors whenever they do remove them. However, it is commonly known among WP:Anime participants that additional voices are NOT to be added on VA pages. To settle the dispute once and for all, I'm starting a discussion as to whether or not additional voices should be added in VA pages. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Express your stance below

Exclude with few exceptions: They're unneeded in VA articles. Only notable/named roles should be listed, unless notability could be ascertained (which is mostly unlikely). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Case by case basis, but generally exclude - They could probably be mentioned in certain instances; for example, if it was their first role, or it was mentioned in a reliable source. For example, Anime News Network had a news report on voice actress Aya Suzaki after she was cast as Tamako in Tamako Market; at the time, Tamako was her first named role as Suzaki's previous roles were all unnamed background roles. For certain celebrities who make vocal cameos in anime and movies, perhaps a brief mention could be included, again, if it's mentioned in a reliable source. Otherwise, these roles probably shouldn't be listed, especially if the voice actor has several non-background roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Case by case basis, but generally exclude - As I said below there should be two main criteria: A: Are the "additional voices" notable? If these additional voices are mentioned in reliable sources then they should be included. B. Did these "additional voices" roles have a big impact on the person doing the voices? I think a handful of editors can agree in general though that nobody is going to care who voiced "Girl #2" so usually it is just excess fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Case by case basis as long as this detail can be properly sourced, it's fine to include, but inserting actual character names when known is preferable. There's no good reason to cherry-pick among verifiable roles, and "notable roles" is a POV description. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability to me is inclusion in reliable sources. Some roles might be so minor that the actor/actress goes uncredited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Include minor roles, exclude Additional Voices if minor roles are specified For example, in Tom Kenny filmography for SpongeBob SquarePants obviously SpongeBob and Gary the Snail are his major characters he voiced, but he also does a bunch of minor recurring ones that would be summarized as "others" or "various characters". A voice actor who does like 50 World of Warcraft characters would definitely fit under Various characters instead of listing Orc #2, Dwarf #7, Archer, etc down to the last listed credit in the game. Dee Bradley Baker does a bunch of monsters in Ben 10 all sourced by BTVA check-marked closing credits, so definitely "Various characters" for his role there. "Additional voices" would be okay for films. I don't know about Wallas or loop groups as they are sometimes listed apart from the main credits of a film so they are almost always non-notable, or the uncredited voice substitutions and voice matchers which usually come from self-published sources, which run like "I was the voice match for Jodi Benson in The Little Mermaid. I wasn't listed in the credits, but I was there to voice (whatever quotes) they missed". Those would need some independent secondary source to indicate they are important. But some people like to know that Tara Strong was in feature films such as Sing (2016 American film) and The Secret Life of Pets as an additional voice and if the film credits her so, then she can be listed with that credit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC) updated 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Striking verbiage about how to credit minor roles. Additional voices should be removed if the minor ones are specified. See my discussion thoughts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Include as long as there is reliable source. TranquilHope (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Include I generally don't understand why "minor" voice roles shouldn't be included if we want our articles to contain complete information. After all, Wikipedia is not bound by the limits of print. If a filmography is included at all, it should be a complete to the extent that WP:Verifiability allows. There is no reason to limit it to so-called "notable" roles, and doing so will create too much drama around what roles are or are not "notable". If you look at the filmogrpahies of John Wayne, Kevin Bacon, and Samuel L. Jackson, you will see that all the filmographies included small, sometimes unnamed roles. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Include I am changing my opinion based on the argument of "notability" criteria. As long as there is a reliable source then the part should be included, it isn't going to change something like an AfD discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Include I would like to have the minor roles included for the voice actors (especially the anime voice actors) as long as they are credited by a reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Include if it's a named, credited role. Therefore, if they are credited as "Girl A" or something similar, it can be included. If they are credited as "additional voices" or something similar, it shouldn't be included. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think this is needed as each case is unique. What are "additional voices" anyways, and what would fall under the scope? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a unique case. Most anime VA articles have this tag attached to their templates (as in the EXCLUSION of additional voices). Also, examples of additional voices are "Girl A", "Girl B", "Boy A", etc. Basically, unnamed roles with very little to no significance to the main plot in an anime. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see that but feel that the editor in question should have the chance to explain themselves on the talk-page before edit warring takes place. You cant deter an editor by the use of edit summaries alone as the back and forth reverts can become too heated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we're having a discussion here. We're letting the community decide whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary, true to the code of conduct on Wikipedia in that it operates on consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking the other Wikiprojects such as the WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:TELEVISION, and WP:VG, the last one is important as some video games such as the Skylanders series and Lightning Returns have hundreds of Additional Voices. As for my stance, I recommend looking at Talk:Yuri Lowenthal#Far_too_many_non-noteworthy_examples_and_excessive_detail and Talk:Ryōtarō Okiayu#Filmography is excessive for some earlier debates on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would go with the notability criteria here. This can be determined by if x role is notable, or if x role had an impact on the person's life (this would add biography info). I agree with Angus though that more input is needed before this can be made as a general thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, yes the Additional voices from the vast majority of you is considered to be redundant, but let's be real most animated shows, movies, video games, will contain an portion dedicated to additional voices, and does it feel it is the right thing to do by removing every role that is considered an additional voice? On top of that it would feel odd just removing additional voices on every voice actor page because usually some voice actor's websites, resumes and convention bios will more often will feature "this actor has provided background voices in this film, show, game etc....", lastly we do not have to mention it as additional voices it could be various or others so that it will only list the major roles the character is associated with, honestly I feel that removing additional voices on every voice actor page will not only make the page feel "plain" but it just seems unusual to just leave in ONLY the notable roles and nothing else.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And why would the exclusion of them make the article plain? I can't comprehend your logic. We don't need to include Johnny Yong Bosch's additional voice credits to know that he is the voice of Vash, Ichigo, Hajime, and Renton. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I know it feels unusual but we cant promote a minor role she or he might have played just because she/he played it. We can however provide an external link (provided it meets WP:EL) that shows each role x has played. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I hate to be the one to tell you this & how I don't like to choose sides, but I have to agree with @AnimeDisneylover95: on this whole Additional Voices & many Reliable sources/credibility situation, cause he's right & the way our Voice actor's articles are being provided with the sources that we're retrieving from, it's not even enough to meet the Admin's expectations, & then the next thing you know, the VA article's could get a Speedy Deletion AKA WP:CSD because of it, ya know? :( Norozco1 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)'

Already notable voice actors with clearly notable roles (like how Stephanie Sheh is synonymous to Orihime and Hinata and Cristina Vee with Homura, etc.) won't suddenly get their own articles deleted just because we exclude their additional voices credits, as they're already known for something else. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A VAs article could still get speedied with all the "additional voices" because notability is based on the existence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (WP:ACTORBIO). So, actually, having forty "additional voices" roles and no significant voice roles would not prevent an article from getting speedied. Because a plethora of "additional voices" doesn't actually establish notability. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. That's why Wikipedia isn't IMDB. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Precisely. That's why Wikipedia isn't IMDB." And this is one of the biggest pet peeves I have from the vast majority of you naysayers who constantly continue bringing back on this darn issue over and over again until they "beat the dead horse", I did not got MOST of the info from IMDB, and Wikipedia will NEVER be like IMDB they are credited with sources from the end credits of the film, tv show and video game!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that you got your info from IMDB? You're missing the point here - what I'm trying to say is that we're not IMDB in the sense that we do not list every single thing that a voice actor voices in, especially if they're not notable, which is, as I have noted before, 90% of additional voice roles. You need to keep your temper in check and conform to the general consensus within this project. Also, it should be noted that we're not trying to "bring back an old issue"; we're here to settle on a consensus so that we won't have a similar issue like this ever again. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am calm, I just don't like that the majority of you do not want additional voices all because it feels like "IMDB" and the majority of you are still missing the point that - The majority of the articles need to have a a reliable source and most pages DO NOT have to be reserved for just the major and notable roles here!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So the inclusion of non-notable elements is acceptable, when what we should really be doing is listing notable material instead? Sorry, but that logic doesn't sit well with me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add that generally IMDB isn't even a reliable source. There are very few exceptions which include: "1. The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable)." and "2. The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America." Most of the stuff on IMDB is user edited which means that right now I can also edit that page to exclude all of the non notable roles. (WP:CITEIMDB, WP:EL/P#User-submitted contents) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not. We aim to be different by inserting verifiable citations. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry your logic doesn't make sense" You know what Sk8erPrince, you are being so unreasonable it is YOU who isn't making sense besides I have been citing all sources that are reliable, and if you are going to go on with this issue, then that's the last straw!!'--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For someone that claims to be very calm, you sure don't look like it. Look dude, if you can't accept the fact that Wikipedia operates on consensus (as you can see, one is emerging right above us), you might want to reconsider if contributing to our encyclopedia is the right job for you. Seriously, raging like this isn't helping your case. And at the rate you're going, you're going to get sanctioned for being an interference with the progression of this project. I know so because I speak from first hand experience.

PS: I will gladly report you on ANI if you keep obstructing progress. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion as editors are from all over the world on Wikipedia, you have to give time for editors to weigh in before implementing something. Maybe it is just me but I have noticed that you have been very hostile towards User:AnimeDisneylover95 which isn't going to help our project in the long run. Please remember to focus on content, not on the contributor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your point~~, and I'll close it the discussion in a week since opening it~~. I would like to clarify that the aforementioned user can't keep his temper in check, which is why I reported him on ANI. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your temper is also of issue here. You both need to calm down. Now. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion involves apparently involves a large number of articles, and is apparently pulling from four total WikiProjects (I notice Nihonjoe notified WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:TELEVISION, and WP:VG per AngusWoof's suggestion earlier), I think the discussion closing after 24 hours is too soon. I'd give it a few days at least. I also echo Knowledgekid's statement. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly my hostile temper is because of how the vast majority of you seem to not reason over the "additional voices" issues regardless If I cited with a reliable source, but honestly this issue has been going far enough that this needs to be resolved now!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't over sourcing. The discussion is proceeding assuming there is a reliable source. The issue is whether its meriting inclusion, probably including issues of weight (WP:WEIGHT). Never at any point on this page did anyone say that adding "additional voices" would be an unsourced, original research claim. And discussions take time. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with @AnimeDisneylover95: on this decision, cause from the way this issue has escalated so fast & I just want this to get resolved as soon as possible, ya know. :/ Norozco1 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion topic, we need to assume the filmography roles in question are already reliably sourced, as it's harder to argue whether a role should be listed if it's uncredited or only supported by the actor's self-published tweet/blog/resume like "check it out, I voice Girl #2". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sk8erPrince and AnimeDisneylover95: regarding both of your edits at Christine Marie Cabanos, I advise BOTH of you to stop editing voice actor articles with regard to additional voices roles. Leave articles as they are right now. Do not add or restore additional voices. Do not remove them. Leave it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Norozco1: I'm going to assume good faith here, but can you explain this edit? Why did you replace the signature of a comment left by @AnimeDisneylover95: (diff) with your own? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well of course, for ya see, that was my original statement when I try entering it on this discussion, but then @AnimeDisneylover95: took that statement & rewrote it as his own, I know that he didn't mean to do it, so I let it slide & he gave me back my statement, & He apologized after that, & that's what really happened. :) Norozco1 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really, I did put in my statement until Norozco1 suddenly changed it has his comment. I never recall if i ever apologized to him, neither was I aware of him putting the same statement I was putting in. :/--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

None of that response made any sense, Norozco1, and that doesn't exactly inspire confidence. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. :( Norozco1 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:LSC and WP:CSC, the filmography does not need to include everything the person has done, and can be filtered to linked notable material at the list maker's discretion. I think the line can be drawn in that if the person appears in closing credits that have titled minor/guest role as Girl A then those are okay to list, and as per my stance above, can either be specified or generalized depending on the media. Someone who clearly has a utility player role with tens of minor characters over multiple episodes doesn't need a listing of every last character.

I'd be cautious about roles that aren't credited properly and when the actor might have self-published a more specific role than what is credited. For example, I've seen multiple editors try to put in that Tara Strong voiced Mike's girlfriend in Sing, but she is officially credited in the closing credits as "Additional voices", so the filmography should say Additional voices. Starring voices can be handled differently as some shows list credits without roles such as "Featuring the voices of" or those piles of video games that list no voice actors or no English voice actors, and it is left to other secondary sources to dig up and match role to voice actor.

Stuff that definitely falls below the line would be stuff like ADR loop groups, uncredited background extras, cameos, uncredited voice matching work, the last of which can be likened to being a stunt double. They kind of fit among Stunts. Those are fine to describe in the biography for those who've done a lot for the big films and it's notable to their career, but it doesn't need to be listed in the filmography.

That leaves the credited "Additional Voices" grouping itself. Are they notable enough to stay? Or they as important as a loop group in providing background characters? Does it get burdensome like the hundreds of additional voices in Lightning Returns? Or not really because credits are credits, and if they weren't important they wouldn't be listed? I think if the film is specifying minor roles down to Girl A and then adding a Additional Voices section then they're really minor roles and should not be included. But if it's a short cast list like The Simpsons and their "Also Starring" for their regular supporting voices then yes it could be included.

Also per recent actions from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections had recently decided to exclude guest and promotional appearances in talk show and variety shows from filmographies. The promotional stuff goes with the territory for the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Hope other contributors take note of this. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with AngusWOOF's analysis, including about when to include Additional Voices (I.e. did they list minor roles, how Simpson's does it). This seems in line with Nihonjoe's include vote above as well, which I would also agree with. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is their a specific day when this conversation will come to a resolution? As much It is fun to talk about this issue I don't want to continue having this last for weeks, maybe even months or years!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Good evening. Trust you're doing well. I made a post since 2 weeks ago and I want to ask if this conversation has come to a re-solution regarding if the additional voices are allowed to be put on the voice actors page?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If it was an RfC, it would go for at least 30 days. Since it's not an RfC, there's no specific time frame. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Was over looking at a page/ article

On the Schoolgirl Strikers at the bottom of the page/ article. Does the listed 'said list' really belong there? Before from this edit. When there was a list of games and other shows, not really irrelevant towards anything there. Because I noticed, that a list under 'see also' was added ever so often, some time ago. And I'm not sure, if any other article would might have this too. Or just this one? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

From WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I'm not sure how any of the links that was in that "See also" were related to the topic. IMO, any link present in a "See also" section should have a clear link to the topic. For an anime and manga, that could take the form of spinoffs that weren't mentioned in the article, anime or manga set in the same universe, or prototypes, such as Toshihiko Kobayashi's Parallel and Pastel (I'm actually surprised that we have an article on the former as it isn't notable). But I don't consider "similar themes" to be good enough of a reason to included in a "See also" section. —Farix (t | c) 03:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's just that. It seemed strange to list similar items there? Back when if someone kept adding it. And it was a little late of me, to notice that. Then if it was a problem. Which of the matter has been solved or ask about it. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anime News Network is down

Just a heads-up, but Anime News Network is currently down. The full story is a bit complicated (tl;dr: basically they apparently got hacked), but in any case, keep this in mind for now when editing articles and sourcing them, until the issues are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I can confirm from their Facebook page that they are working on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

More specifically, someone hijacked their domain name. The website is currently at http://www.animenewsnetwork.cc until further notice. If they cannot get their domain name back, we may have to put in a bot request to update the URLs. —Farix (t | c) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the link to the story. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

How ANN Was Hacked —Farix (t | c) 22:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My worry is that we have bots here on Wikipedia or clueless good faith editors who might remove the dead links. Maybe we should use a bot to switch over to cc then drop the cc once everything is set. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's doubtful anyone in the animanga community doesn't know about the hack at this point, so I think that'd be premature. ANN said they'll get the .com domain back within a few days to a few weeks, so I think we should just wait for that to happen.--十八 23:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we get the previous articles pointing to archive versions? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DBZ Kai Episode List

Hey guys, I'd like to point out an issue with the episode list for DBZ Kai, specifically, The Final Chapters. As I understand it, there are two different versions: the Japanese and International. Now, Funimations dub is using the International version, so the problem here lies with the American airdates as well as Episode numbering. For example, I have all three Blu-Ray sets Funimation has released. The description for the penultimate episode of The Final Chapters lists that episode as ending in the middle of Goku's fight with Uub, with Goku taunting Uub. However, that does not take place in the penultimate episode in the International version Funimation is using. That entire fight, as well as Pan's fight, is in the last episode of The Final Chapters. This is going to confuse a lot of people, especially dub watchers like myself. Just wanted to point this out in case we need a solution for it.24.47.204.97 (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting - I don't watch Dragon Ball, so I didn't know about this. I would probably create episode summaries based on the original version (which I assume is the Japanese one), and add a note saying that the episodes are cut differently in the international release.--IDV^talk 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Japanese wiki

Some months ago, I expanded Himura Kenshin but ended up with some red links like Matsubayashi Henyasai and Keishi Ōtomo. Is it possible these two have articles in the Japanese Wikipedia and we can add those links like some red links from Naruto Uzumaki? Either way, I don't understand Japanese so I don't know if those articles exist in the Japanese Wikipedia. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You can link by prefixing the Wikilink with "ja". But look at {{Ill}}, as it provides a better method that will still allow for the Enwiki redlink to be shown, while adding a link to Jawiki too. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer not to link articles to a different Wikipedia because 1) it is not very useful to an English reader, 2) it hides the fact that we have an article on topic/person, and 3) it discourages people from helping building Wikipedia by showing that there isn't an article for that topic/person. —Farix (t | c) 15:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why {{Ill}} is a better option than a direct link. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer not to use {{Ill}} as it imposes a redlink and assumes the person will be notable enough to have an article created at some time in the near future. But I do like to use the ja wikilink for works that have extensive coverage in JA wikipedia as with entries in a manga artist's list of works. For example, with Shukan Storyland, which a lot of voice actors seem to be involved in. Another example: Chitose Yagami AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If they are not notable to have an article, then there should not be a wikilink in any form. —Farix (t | c) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Matsubayashi Henyasai is ja:松林蝙也斎 and Keishi Ōtomo is ja:大友啓史. One thing to always try is to google the name and usually for directors or mangaka some sites will have the kanji like Anime News Network's encyclopedia or Asian Drama Wiki. (you could also do a site:wikipedia.org search on Google) Or you could always learn hiragana which helped me find the former (there's only 44 and it really helps when searching for things or for romanizing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opencooper (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Until Death Do Us Part cleanup help

I was recently asked by Phoenix God to help him clean up the huge character list on Until Death Do Us Part (manga), which seemingly listed every single character who appears in the series. I started trimming down the individual character entries and removing entries that were just a name with no information on them whatsoever, but stopped after going through the "protagonists" section because I don't know who's important and who isn't. If anyone here is familiar with the series and willing to remove minor characters from the list, I'd be grateful. Thanks, --IDV^talk 11:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)--IDV^talk 11:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ruby template

Do we really need to put rubies on these character names? Marlin Setia1 (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless the names are pronounced differently than the Kanji indicates, no. But where are these Furigana coming from? I looked at the character pages on both websites[5][6] and they do not provide any Furigana for the character names. If these are simply made up, they need to be removed. —Farix (t | c) 11:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The user probably get those rubies from the Japanese wikipedia, also the user put "Adding Hiragana names of character, so that the readers can learn them easily." on the edit summary. It seems not a strong reason to put those rubies. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Furigana is rarely helpful, and in the few cases that it is helpful, it is to show the correct transliteration. But let's put it simply, if there isn't any Furigana provided by the publisher, then it shouldn't be in an article. —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Thanks. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, there is furigana provided in the manga for Love and Lies: [7] Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fairy Tail: Season 7

The seventh season of anime series Fairy Tail was dubbed into English by Funimation and Animax. But, the English air dates are not added into article yet. Phoenix God (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

They don't need to be added until they are broadcast in English. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Just what did you mean by broadcast in English? As I've said before they was dubbed into English by Funimation, and available in English on their website.

Does Funimation dubbed english episode can not be count as "broadcast in English"? Phoenix God (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast, as with Attack on Titan and Death Note. Being available on a website or in a video on demand service is not the same as a broadcast. Exceptions are made for those that normally occur as a web series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The only exception to this was Neon Alley. But that was more because it was a linear broadcast over the internet and not a VoD. —Farix (t | c) 18:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

But, Funimation has officially licensed the series, and the English air dates of Funimation are used in the article of Previous season. Also, here on English Wikipedia, English episode titles by Crunchyroll (which is also a video on demand service) was used in many articles, and we are still using them. So i added this discussion in hope that someone will take the request. And many series that aired last year was dubbed by Funimation[8] but the English air dates are yet to be added. Phoenix God (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The article you link to sources the English air dates to "Date the episode first aired on the Funimation Channel in an English dub". There is no longer a Funimation Channel (the page here now redirects) and its replacement does not appear to be broadcasting Fairy Tail. Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there any guideline which allows us to add English titles from Crunchyroll but forbids to add English dates from Funimation. Phoenix God (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Common sense and the fact that they are not aired on a television network. What you are arguing is that an apple be called an orange. —Farix (t | c) 19:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I understand. I don't have any issue anymore. I just thought that since Funimation is dubbing them officially, than we can add them. Phoenix God (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Anon adding unsourced/improbable English casts

I reverted English cast additions to Nijū Mensō no Musume as I can't find any evidence that it is even licensed in English and the cast was improbable. They were re-added. It looks like the same user has added casts to other anime under multiple IPs:

2600:8801:DC01:4800:1D78:CAB5:6EFE:6408 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2600:8801:DC01:4800:2839:E9E8:E29D:767F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2600:8801:DC01:4800:9561:63BB:B3C1:4C36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2600:8801:DC01:4800:C5C0:C7A7:CBE7:4540 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2600:8801:DC01:4800:C5F0:4DF7:70F7:8A89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've not checked the others in detail, but I've glanced at a few and, if nothing else, they didn't have any English licensee listed. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If they're persistently vandalized, you can request page protection on the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone knows if there was a Canadian dub for Kinmoza on Animax Asia? It's a long shot but I'd prefer to be thorough before reverting. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Shiroi Hane: There was no English dub version for Kinmoza on Animax Asia. ([9][10], Japanese audio with subtitles) Marlin Setia1 (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

More difficult, our article says that there actually is an existing English dub for Akazukin Chacha (although this is unsourced). If it was only broadcast in Asia I very much doubt the cast would include the likes of Tara Strong but cast lists for Asian English dubs are notoriously difficult to source. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this user also under

2600:8801:dc01:4800:64d7:b03c:35e9:84bb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2600:8801:dc01:4800:b1f4:9acb:90a1:d486 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As a rule of thumb, all voice casts should be sourced, both Japanese and English, so any additions to them that are unsourced should be reverted unless an RS can be found to back them up.--十八 20:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly this cast appears to be true (I've not seen the actual cast list, but the show does at least have a Texas dub). I can't conceive the point of mixing real information with fake, unless there are multiple people editing anime articles under the same IP. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for anime voice actors

Just a thought came to me recently: maybe normal sourcing requirements are being applied too highly for anime voice actors? Anime voice actors, particularly US dub actors, don't really get much coverage in media in the first place, as the industry is rather niche in the United States. Even voice actors and actresses with several main roles may be deemed to be not notable due to a lack of coverage in sources, which is hard to begin with when the media at large doesn't really give much attention to such actors. Given how coverage for the American dubbing industry is hard to come by in the first place, perhaps we may have to lower the bar when it comes to establishing notability? Perhaps focusing on WP:ENT, regardless of how much coverage is out there? What do the others here think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's not lower the bar. If the voice actor is notable they will meet WP:ENT which means significant roles in significant titles. The roles should be starring / main characters, while titles mean ones that are published widely in English, like broadcast on Adult Swim and other channels, not just some exclusive niche subscription on Funimation or any old direct-to-video. They should also appear as panel / regulars at anime conventions and not just ones that are local to where they work. Many of them are WP:TOOSOON. Do you have a list of those who are on the borderline, besides the ones in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga? We're seeing a ton of ones where they are sourced by self-published tweets and announcements, which looks really bad if most of their credits are like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ANN back

So Anime News Network's dot com domain seems to have returned: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/. Although the dot cc domain is still up as well—probably to not break any incoming links—you can tell they consider the dot com the official domain because the canonical link element points there. (search for "canonical" in the page source) So is it time to point any newly added .cc references to .com? ({{ann}} needs to be reverted as well) Opencooper (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

{{ann}} should not have been changed in the first place until it was clear that they weren't going to get the .com address back. Whoever made that change needs a severe trout slap. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I went through and changed all the instances of .cc to .com (there were only 10 articles thankfully), and made a request to revert {{ann}} back (which I agree with Farix was pretty trout-worthy).--十八 20:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for taking care of it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being premature by checking with the project first. :) Opencooper (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot more than 10 articles that had the .cc address. —Farix (t | c) 20:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's odd; why didn't those others show up when I searched for the .cc domain?--十八 20:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please check that you're not breaking archive links when you switch to .com, like here - either leave the .cc archive link alone or replace it with a new .com archive link.--IDV^talk 21:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
No one should have been archiving the .cc links in the first place because we all knew that they were just temporary. They should have waited out until the .com website came back online. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in lead or style issue?

I don't want to edit the lead in case this is a style issue, but please see Talk:Re:Creators#Manga_was_first.2C_anime_second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Rhodes (singer)

I know I could just discuss this on the article's talk page, but I'm raising it here so that the matter could get some attention. Anyway, shouldn't the article be at Rei Yasuda? Both Japanese and English sources almost always call her by her stage name, and her Japanese Wikipedia article uses her stage name rather than her real name as the title. Contrast with Miho Karasawa (aka TRUE), who is still frequently referred to by her real name, and continues to use her real name (as opposed to her alias) when writing lyrics and on social media; in addition, her Japanese Wikipedia article uses her real name as the title. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, WP:COMMONNAME may help. It says, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: In this case at least, it seems "Rei Yasuda" is more commonly used in reliable sources than "Rachel Rhodes", whether Japanese or English. A search for "Rei Yasuda" gives 91,600 hits, while "Rachel Rhodes singer" results in only 20,200 results ("Rachel Rhodes" alone gives 130,000 hits, but most appear to be false positives for other people with the same name). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I'd say go for "Rei Yasuda" then. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible good reference?

Japanese Animation Filmography Project

I came across this source: Japanese Animation Filmography Project, on the website it says that the entries are verified by "Catherine Munroe Hotes, PhD (Film & Visual Culture) and author of Nishikata Eiga". [11] Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it would be a good source to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well if you think so too, we could add it to our reference library at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. This would be useful on expanding the "fathers of anime" with biographical info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hotes herself would be fine as a source. I would put her and her blog (Nishikata Eiga / Nishkata Film Review) under Academic. The Filmography Project is assembled as a wiki with just a handful of contributors and it looks like she will post when it is fact-checked by the authors. So I would only accept those which have that fact check done, and place under Situational as with check-mark / screen-shot for Behind The Voice Actors. [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Appearances at some Nippon Connection convention Japanese Film Festival [13] [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That is encouraging, thanks for the additional find. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Otaku News

Also, I'm not too sure about this. The}is site has a section about how they compare themselves to "Anime News 'something'" but they allow people to join as noted here.Tintor2 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? How does that source relate? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried asking this in source section of this project but got no answers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's a site that "allows people to join" then I'm skeptical of its reliability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this does not look like an RS to me. I'm looking at the front page, and the currently most recent article is written by an uncredited "guest contributor". Looking at the credited authors, they seem to just be fans - like, this guy's main qualification is apparently being an "otaku", and this lady's is having worked on a fanzine ten years ago.--IDV^talk 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Where is this alleged "guest contributor" article? I can't see one anywhere. The main contributor to the site (and she says she also reviews anything submitted by others) has a PhD in Film and Visual Culture, teaches Kanagawa University, contributed to a couple books on this topic, and contributed to a number of different websites that address the topic. And why do people keep linking to otakunews.com? The site is at https://sites.google.com/site/nishikatajafp/home . ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Pretty sure the section got hijacked and everyone is talking about Tintor's reply. Looks like only you replied to Knowledgekid87's source. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So it seems. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. To answer Tintor2's left-field section-hijacking question, I wouldn't consider otakunews.com to be a reliable source. Tintor2, please don't do that again. It only causes confusion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I was a bit confused there on how otakunews.com related to the source I linked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Anime Pilipinas

I found a review of Fairy Tail: Dragon Cry film on this website. So i wants to know if this website is reliable or not. Also, ANN have used this website [15]. Phoenix God (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

While the contributors have tried to establish themselves as legit, having a published staff list of contributors that aren't hiding under aliases and are candid about their background, I don't know how recognizable the organization is in the anime industry in the Philippines, and if they get exclusive interviews or news announcements. I don't see coverage by mainstream media on them. They seem to have been created out of some fan forums, and I don't know if they are professionals, as the founder is still attending college, and another guy is a computer website person. They might be okay as individual reviewers of the material when stated (e.g. (Reviewer) of the website Anime Pilipinas said that ...) but it's different from someone who's made it their career to be a writer. Do they have panels and booths at anime conventions? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone from the Philippines who can evaluate this website? Is it like the equivalent Anime News Network over there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you try the Philippines Wikiproject? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted a request there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Shoboi Calendar

The website is sometimes used as a source for broadcast dates of anime television series (e.g. Oreshura). Is it reliable or not? I've looked for a way to edit something or add content, but even though it gives the opportunity to register and log in, it doesn't seem to me that it is possible for anyone to do much. What do you think?--Sakretsu (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've never considered that site as reliable for air dates because we don't know who is updating them or where they're getting this info from. The site links to a BBS where random people can request changes to the listings, but then we don't really know who updates the site to begin with. The most I've ever used that site for is to look up episode titles, and I feel that's really all it should be used for.--十八 10:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References to Syoboi should be switched out with the Media Arts Database whenever possible. This was discussed once before. There are also several other discussions about Syoboi, none of which definitively resolved whether it meet the standards for a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi all,

It's been a while, but hope you still remember the study about recommending new editors to WikiProjects I proposed :) Please see the previous discussion here. So now, we have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We have started our study in a couple of WikiProjects, and received good feedback. We'd like to engage more WikiProjects, and invite some of the project organizers in WPAM to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Verification check on STAR jewel

I need someone to do a verification check of STAR jewel. Unfortunately, I think this is a case of "anything as a source" and nothing on that article is verifiable except for the most basic of facts (that it exists). To put it shortly, I believe that SBarT is falsely claiming sources backs up the genre and the voice actors—because sample entries of The Anime Encyclopedia does not list the voice actors or the genres. The fact that SBarT claims that the entry for an almost unknown minor OVA stretches over 4 pages (while more well known anime barely has a page) and the page numbers don't match those on the Title Index leads me to believe that this citation was either made-up or copied and pasted from another article. Can someone with a hard copy verify? —Farix (t | c) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have digital copies of the latest two editions (so can't provide page numbers). The 3rd edition gives Star Jewel 2 paragraphs, one for a summary and one for a personal impressions. It provides two staff (one of them for three roles) and no cast. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, vol. 28 of Champion Red Ichigo came out in 2011. Here are the issues released April and June 2014 (it was bimonthly): [16] & [17] Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(bear with me, I'm at work so both using my tablet and being careful what I look at) It looks like there was something called "STAR☆jewel: Natsumi Oblivion" by Rui Takatō in issues 28 and 29. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Voice actors are not listed in The Anime Encyclopedia. Here's the snippet for Star Jewel. It doesn't look like it is an abridged version of some longer description, and certainly not spanning four pages. [18] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed the voice actors and genre once again. That and the problems with the Champion Red Ichigo citation makes me wonder if SBarT has the first clue about sourcing and Verifiability. I wouldn't put it past them to link to the ANN encyclopedia to support their claims. But with that said, does anyone believe that this could pass a WP:NOTE challenge? —Farix (t | c) 19:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Farix, the errors are now fixed. Due the lack of reliable sources I am synchronized the Japanese version I translated in English by setting CITE and Unreferenced templates. SBarT (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would just list the six characters and their Japanese voice actors based on their entry on the website. [19] The others seem non-notable or are minor characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, I explain, there are only main characters, not supporting or other. But the supporting characters are set only in third party websites, so the supporting characters and cameos are exist. So, I set WP:VERIFY template for this. Break. SBarT (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The supporting and cameo characters do not need to be listed. Neither do minor ones like "Bartender". It should just be the first three characters from one side and the three VS. characters on the other side. That's what that website supports as main characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Are ye jokin' yet? The Pork Side are the evil goddesses. So, the Protagonists are The Light Side? I fixed it now. And use multiple issues template, OK? So, Zircon is also called as Gen Rhino, got it? And thank ye for commenting my old edits. Do not erase it for now. Break. But you don't edit the japanese article for now, they are armed for the "noncommissioned" editors like me (I am locked now like Stalin sued lots of Soviet people). Break. SBarT (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Genre is fixed and set to Hentai due the string at source link at "Order Information" section at this link: アダルト = Hentai!! Break. SBarT (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Angus, Larry Zircon as a General is confirmed now! As in Amazon, the registration process and The System's approval is required for add. «Генерал Носорог» (Generál Nosoróg) = General Rhino, why not? SBarT (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What is Shikimori? Is that a reliable source website? It looks like a database to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Angus, It's not a database as you think. It's just a lil' encyclopedia (not user-generated, but content patrolled) but not MAL- or Wikipedia - like website. I'll set WP:VERIFY, then other users will check it out. And Dr. Gen is an Cameo, so it's not listed in official website for now. I'll take it on another section for now. Break. SBarT (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Potentally relevent discussion

Recently several images were removed from the Hentai article and it has also been suggested that File:Futanari.png should also be removed from the Futanari article on the grounds they go against Wikipedia:Offensive material. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Hentai#Wikipedia is not censored... but which has so far only has one other comment on.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake air dates on List of Tokyo Ghoul episodes

List of Tokyo Ghoul episodes has often been targeted for months by an editor from the 47.136.x.x IP range who repeatedly changes the air dates from those given by Adult Swim's website to those that are entirely fake. For example, Adult Swim's website states that the next episode, "Deluge of Flowers", will air Sunday, September 24 at 12:30am, however, the IP's edits makes "Ken" the next episode. The IP also changes the dates to make it appear that the series is aired on Saturday instead of Sunday. Unfortunately, Adult Swim doesn't keep a good archive of their previous broadcast history, so it is hard to confirm dates when a week is skipped or there was a double episode. And given how Adult Swim structures their website, is next to impossible to archive. This does create a verifiability problem for past episodes. —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually an attempt was done to reference the marathons on List of programs broadcast by Toonami so I put in those references to justify any skips in the schedule on the episode list. Hope that helps! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlimited number of English networks in infobox

So apparently when listing Japanese networks in the infobox we only list the original network that the anime premiered on. We don't list the Japanese networks that aired the anime sometime after the premiere. For example, in Dragon Ball Z's infobox we only list Fuji TV where the series premiered. We don't list other Japanese networks that aired the series after the premiere like NTV, TV Asahi, TBS and Animax. However when listing English networks we seem to list any/all English network that aired the series. In Dragon Ball Z's infobox all the English networks that aired the series are listed, from the English premiere in 1996 until the present. An even more ridiculous example is Pokémon's infobox: only TV Tokyo is listed as the Japanese network while there is a huge list of English networks. How is it that for a Japanese animated series we only list the premiere Japanese network while we can list an unlimited number of English networks? -- Wrath X (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's take this further. Why have English licensees, publishers, and networks listed at all in the infobox as they are not the original? This is one of the very few topic areas where the initial release information is accompanied by a later (English) release information. You really don't see it with films. You don't see that with other television series—especially British series that are rebroadcast in the US. You don't see it with books. The only other area you regularly see secondary release information are video games. —Farix (t | c) 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If the infoboxes for films, TV series and books only list the original release then why not anime/manga?. The problem with listing English networks, publishers is that there is no limit. Many English networks will air the series and it will eventually bloat the infobox like Pokémon's. How do we prevent infobox bloat? Maybe if we only listed the English network the series premiered on. -- Wrath X (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is value in listing English-language networks for anime. The US, UK, and Australia each have their own television networks, so such lists are always fated to get overly bloated. Licensers and publishers may be active internationally and tend to hold on to an IP for a longer time. I can also imagine legal streaming sites becoming more consistent in the future, though that's still WP:CRYSTAL. Networks... I don't really see the point, honestly. For late 90s and early 2000s shows, this has some weight, with channels like the American Adult Swim having a large cultural impact. However, if a network has a large cultural impact, you can describe this in prose! ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by Japanese networks that air the series after the premiere? What if the show airs on multiple channels within that first week as part of its first run? Those shows seem to all get listed, even on their official website. If other Japanese networks later pick it up in reruns or licensing then those aren't listed. However, on the Dragon Ball Z side as with Fullmetal Alchemist, One Piece, and Attack on Titan, there is a significant television broadcast release on the English dub side. There's a notable 4Kids run for One Piece, which would count towards part of the One Piece series, and then the Funimation / Cartoon Network / Adult Swim run, all with first exposure to English dub episodes. If they waited a while as with the Miyazaki films and released a bunch of direct-to-videos first and then some time later released the same dub series on television, then no, that wouldn't be a first English release so those shouldn't be listed. As for British releases, that's because the original version is in English already, so there's no need to list another English network. The infobox can also just point to the Broadcast section of the article for the "it's complicated" cases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's right. The Japanese networks that air the series in its "premiere" or as you say "first run" are listed (this can be one channel or multiple channels), while the Japanese networks that air the series after the premiere/first run are not (like reruns). Therefore the number of Japanese networks we list in the infobox is limited: only first run Japanese networks are listed. The problem though is that when we list English networks there is no limit: any/all English networks that airs the series is listed. This will inevitably lead to infobox bloat.

For example, take a look at Pokémon's infobox. Only TV Tokyo is listed as the Japanese network since that's where the show premiered. On the other hand, all the English networks that aired the show are listed. As a result there is a huge list of English networks which bloats the infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Dragon Ball Z one, and ugh, that's a mess. I'd strike all of that out and replace it with "See English broadcasting" If you have to list something I would suggest

Syndication (Ocean dub)
Cartoon Network (Funimation dub, Funimation uncut/remastered dub)
Nicktoons, Adult Swim (Kai)

That's it. Throw the rest out as they are reruns or second runs of the dubbed material. International Channel had broadcast the Japanese version so they shouldn't be listed in the infobox although they should be mentioned in the broadcast section as being one of the first in North America to bring in the newest episodes (Tournament/Buu, and Kid Buu saga, ahead of the Funimation dub). If you look at the individual seasons for Dragon Ball Z, you'll see Syndication and then Cartoon Network, and that's it. Similarly Nicktoons was first-run, followed by Adult Swim. The uncut versions are covered on Adult Swim later anyway. I've edited in that for the infobox, so now it's compact and should not cause problems. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC) updated through 06:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So we only list the English networks where the series had its first dubbed run? That's fine by me. But this is quite a big change. Shouldn't there a consensus first before any changes are made? Also, I think we need to clarify in Template:Infobox animanga that we only list Japanese and English networks the series had its first run in. Like:

network | Japanese television networks the series first aired on
network_en | English television networks the series' English dubbed version first aired on -- Wrath X (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that if Southeast Asia (SEA) creates their own dub for Animax, then they can keep an entry. But yes, first-run English network per dub produced, and notable dubs only. We're not concerned about what channels are currently airing reruns or revivals, only those that are doing first-run English episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. So do you know how to edit Template:Infobox animanga to clarify this? -- Wrath X (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, edited it myself. -- Wrath X (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF:What about English publishers/magazines/licensees? These are also listed in the infobox without limits. Should we only list the first-run English publishers/magazines/licensees (similar to how you said to only list the first-run English networks)? Seriously, listing Japanese information in the infobox is simple and easy since we only have to list the first-run information. It's listing the English information that bothers me. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I replied on the next topic section thread, but yes, the publisher follows the same principles. Licensee is more of a status like agent. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Maoyu air dates reference problem

List of Maoyu episodes is the last article where the Syoboi reference has not been replaced by the Media Arts Database. That is because the MADb lists a much later broadcast date as the original air date, and the anime's official website only lists the initial start date of the series.[20] The individual pages for the episode do not list the episode's air date.[21] While I can site the air date for the first episode, I cannot find a suitable alternative to the Syoboi reference to site the air dates for the remaining 12 episodes. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I only see ones for the last three episodes. [22] [23] There are some snapshots of weekly schedules. [24] but it doesn't list the episode number for that show. You can check old news articles like this one for episode 5. [25] Is it consistent in that there are no skips and no resequencing? Then WP:CALC can apply. There's also a twitter thread, maybe that one was still active at the time to announce upcoming episodes? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, all of the dates are located in the upper right textbox. —Farix (t | c) 18:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good! I didn't see that it was scrollable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

English publishers and licensees

So which English publishers and licensees do we list exactly? When a publisher/licensee loses the manga/anime rights and a new one picks them up, do we list the old publisher/licensee or the new one? Or both? -- Wrath X (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we cant include all past and present license holders, just use the "br" and "small" parameters to shrink the date info.

For example:

Funimation
(2002-2012)

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Suppose an anime from the 1970s has gone through ten English license holders. Do we insert all ten license holders? If we do then wouldn't it bloat the infobox? This is the problem I have with inserting "non-original" information: there's no limit to the things we insert in the infobox. And the infobox will inevitably bloat. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For most series this wont be problem, but for those I would just include the first and current license holders. I agree there should be a limit of two or three for the average series but others can weigh in here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, we need specific examples, and how they are treated like with album releases, book releases, and film releases. First editions and significant world releases are noted. For artists or franchises the "label" would be a longer list as new material would have been developed and released under different labels. For example, I don't know who or what label currently owns the rights to publish the Beatles' back catalogue, but the infobox of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band shows the significant labels at the time that made it a worldwide success. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually according to Template:Infobox album:

"Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternative track listings) e.g. in the US vs UK, the later release date or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section."

This right here sets a limit. Only the first label is listed in the infobox. Later labels are only mention in the article. In contrast, all English manga publishers are listed in the infobox. Parasyte has four publishers in its infobox, one Japanese and three English. If we follow Template:Infobox album's logic then we shouldn't even be listing English publishers and instead only list the Japanese publisher since that's the original publisher (or at most, list the Japanese and only the first English publisher). -- Wrath X (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The licensee can either be treated like agent for infobox person, and be just the current holder. That way if the show or manga is unlicensed, then it doesn't need to be listed in the infobox. Example: Higurashi When They Cry anime. Was licensed by Geneon, then dropped, the picked by Funimation, then dropped again, and now it was picked up by Sentai. For publisher, I like Knowledgekid87's suggestion of adding (original/former) and (current), with a link to the publishing history section if it's complicated. If it's an ongoing series that has changed publishers, then you have to list both of them anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For Parasyte, did Tokyopop publish the series in its entirety? Then they can stay as the original publisher, with the reprints and others to be removed from infobox, but kept as informational in the Manga publishing section. It can always have a (history) link to that section. I listed Tokyopop as original and Kodansha as current. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC) updated 17:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So for licensees we only list the current one, while for English publishers we list both the original and current. But aren't English licensees and publishers similar to each other in that they pick up and eventually drop a series. Why are we treating them differently? If we're only listing the current licensees then shouldn't we only list the current publishers? I don't think we should treat them differently. -- Wrath X (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

LIcense seems to apply to anime while English publisher applies to manga, at least according to prominent examples like Attack on Titan. If you want to list (former), (current), or both, or every step in between, that's fine. In the case of Higurashi, the dub was already done under Geneon hiring a studio in Los Angeles area, then Funimation used the same dub but formatted the captions to their style and made it a boxset. Who knows what Sentai did with their release? I just don't want the confusion where the series has already been published in full in English and then the license goes to some other group that just plays it as reruns with their own packaging and then it's assumed the new licensee is the original publisher. Adding Netflix as a licensee to the TV show Friends 20 years later just doesn't make sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

IIRC in the case of Higurashi and other titles of that era Geneon arranged a distribution agreement with Funimation for titles. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox's notable roles of Japanese voice actors/actress

Before I or anyone do other useless edits about this, do we really need to put a bunch of notable roles into the infobox? Many VAs like ~~Tomokazu Sugita~~, Miyuki Sawashiro, Yūki Kaji, etc., have a lot of notable roles. Also many of these roles already mentioned in the lead or the body of the article. Many fans just put the roles they think are notable, without tell anything or give any source about why these roles are notable. They not even include the award-winning roles in the infobox (e.g. Inori Minase's Jun Naruse role, the actress who got the award though). Marlin Setia1 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say no for the most part, but with exceptions for actors that are so strongly tied with their character that it trumps everything else they are voicing such as Ikue Ohtani = Pikachu and Tom Kenny = SpongeBob. I agree that any of the characters listed there should be discussed in the lead paragraph as to why they are strongly notable too. Kikuko Inoue = Kasumi Tendo is one such role that is career-defining, where they call Inoue "onee-chan" and think of her in those roles all the time. Masako Nozawa = Goku (Dragon Ball) and Akiko Yajima = Shinnosuke Nohara (Shin-Chan) are also major associated roles. I don't see how Sugita has that kind of major role given his body of work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on no for placing notable roles into the infobox. I'm not sure about "strongly tied" roles though as they are subjective so we would need to apply a source to back up the connection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Tom Kenny, there are lots of media articles that have indicated he is SpongeBob. [26] [27] [28] But yes, an actor or actress would need that kind of news coverage to warrant putting that in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

An IP hopper keeps readding a bunch notable roles to the infobox. Do I should ignore this or keep revert him? Any inputs? Marlin Setia1 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There is always WP:RPP, although I believe that this is the type of editor that will simply wait out any protection period. —Farix (t | c) 21:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I Don't think it Unnesscery add the most notable role in the Infobox Jabunra (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The field is for roles that the actor is heavily associated with. So where are the sources that demonstrate that the actors are heavily associated with those roles? —Farix (t | c) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it really matters if numbers of fans recognize them for one of their role sources doesn't really matter in this part Jabunra (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources very much matters. Wikipedia has a policy that everything must be verifiable by reliable, published sources. If we make the claim that an actor is heavily associated with a particular role, then we must have the sources to verify the claim. —Farix (t | c) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it,s not source is not needed for a voice actor notable role being placed in the infobox and this policy doesn't apply for this point may be for other things Jabunra (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)cdswalkthroughJabunra (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (WP:Verifiability) Infobox content is not exempt form this policy. If there are no reliable sources that established that an actor is heavily associated with with a role, then it simply does not belong in the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 21:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There no need for reliable source to place a voice actor notable voice role in the infobox and does not to be verifiable their role are source and there no need for a reliable source on how heavily associated with the role source is only need to confirm that particular voice actor voice that character Jabunra (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if you continue to claim that an actor is heavily associated with a role without a reliable source, (a) the claim will be removed by other editors per WP:V and (b) you may lose your editing privileges if you continue adding unsourced content to VA articles. No editor or administrator is going to accept "policy doesn't apply here" as an excess to add unsourced content. —Farix (t | c) 23:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh If you not going to agree with me then fine I won't do any editing on voice actor for while Jabunra (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No one was going to agree with you. I just stated it out loud. —Farix (t | c) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I rather prefer that you don't say anything so shut it Jabunra (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT all you want, but that won't change anything. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you not hear me just shut it and stop replying it will just a waste of time Jabunra (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably reliable source

Hi guys! I want to know if this website called Manga Tokyo is a reliable source or not. So please take a look at it. Phoenix God (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would say they seem to be. They appear to be published by a Japanese company, and while some of their articles appear to be translations of reliable sites like Natalie.mu, they also seem to have original content. At the very least, it appears similar to Anime News Network. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they look similar to ANN, but there's a major difference between them. That site is mainly based in Japan, so they've more detailed information on some topics compared to ANN. I checked that they've some exclusive interviews that are not available on other sources. ANN interviews an artist only when he/she visits "North America" (that's what i believe). Also, they report about anime conventions and music events, even more detailed than others. So it can be used in the articles. But lets see if the others approve it as a reliable source. Phoenix God (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK to use. I could check the contributors and make sure they are on staff and not the general users from the forums. If they have usernames that can't be traced to a real person, then hold off from using those posts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hooray! There is also a lot of more reception we could use from that site. Already added some to Lenalee Lee.Tintor2 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If possible, I want to propose that this website should be included in the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources" because it can be helpful in many articles. So everyone please consider checking the website. Phoenix God (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As a backup I would also inquire over at WP:RSN. We have had people before challenge the legitimacy of the sources before in AfD debates so having that in place wouldn't hurt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

While I don't see anything that would immediately disqualify this as a source, I would hold off on it until more information is learned the company that publishes the website, Donika Co. Ltd. Has there been any other coverage of either the website or the company. Has their reviews been sighted or commented on by other reliable sources? I do have concerns that the authors of those reviews rarely give full names and their page profiles aren't all that encouraging either.[29][30][31][32][33] —Farix (t | c) 18:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a few interviews from there, and some translations of reliable Japanese news sites (like Natalie), so at the very least those parts should be fine. Might be better to use it as a case-to-case source for now, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

When are cosplayers image necessary?

I'm curious about this since some series have a lot of free cosplay images. However, for both FAs Allen Walker and Naruto Uzumaki, their cosplay images were removed. I don't remember the issue with Naruto's article, but a user once said Allen's image had copyright issues. Are cosplayers then used for special occasions? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:COSPLAY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is something significant about a specific cosplay of a character, such images shouldn't be on articles. Generally because such images are more intended to promote the person that is cosplaying or the photographer than actually illustrate anything relevant in the article. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't think of anything but Naruto's cosplay was done by the CEO of CyberConnect2. Guess it was not relevant for the reviewers. Still, thanks for the answer.Tintor2 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, but does it mean the cosplayers are better for other language Wikipedias since some can't use nonfree images?Tintor2 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's really something each individual language version of WP has to decide on. If there is absolutely no way to get an actual image of the character, I guess a cosplay photo could be okay assuming it's reasonably accurate to how the character looks. It's really a "better than nothing" kind of situation - I don't like it, but it does improve the reader's understanding of the subject.--IDV^talk 23:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Original work" field

Can an "Original work by" field be added in the infobox? This is probably one of the most, if not the most, important credits in anime since it's basically the creator. "Original work" in Japanese is 原作. I've had a look at the Japanese Wikipedia and the infobox has 原作 (original work) at the very top meaning it's an important credit. Also it's generally one of the first credits to appear in an anime opening.

The "original work" of a manga-based franchise is obviously credited to the writer, but it's less obvious for an anime-based franchise. For anime, "original work" is can be credited to studios (Gainax for Evangelion) or pseudonyms (Hajime Yatate for Cowboy Bebop) or directors (Satoshi Kon for Paranoia Agent) or writers (Jun Maeda for Angel Beats!) or collaborations between studio and director (Bones/Tensai Okamura for Darker than Black) or collaborations between studio and writer (Bones/Keiko Nobumoto for Wolf's Rain) or collaborations between director and writer (Gorō Taniguchi/Ichirō Ōkouchi for Code Geass), etc. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Opposed to "original work", as it presupposes that the anime is a derivative work. Many animes are released side by side with other media (I.e. mixed media strategies) or as the original work themselves with the manga being done second. Using this as a "creator" field makes no sense, that's not what "original work" means. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Even in original anime they use the 原作 (original work) credit. Wolf's Rain, an original anime, credits "original work" to Bones and Keiko Nobumoto. But anyway. How then do you propose we credit the creator? With "created by"? -- Wrath X (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If its needed at all, then yes, "Created by", just like {{Infobox television}}. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Before talking about adding a new field, what field should be removed to make room? I am extremely hesitant to add new fields to the infobox do to existing bloat issues. And while it may seem to be "only one field", that is exactly how well intentioned additions to the infobox turn into bloat. —Farix (t | c) 14:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We could remove runtime. The anime television series infobox doesn't even use it. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That field only displays for films and OVAs, so it wouldn't be significant enough to make room for another field. What about |producer=, since their significance is often minor and are often unsourced? —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? I've noticed that anime producers are less likely to have an article than directors, writers or composers. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Original Creator" is a common translation of the term, as "work" in English implies the work itself, not the creator(s). ANN's encyclopedia currently displays 原作 as "Original creator" for example. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove producer from the infobox and replace it with creator. -- Wrath X (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wrath X: Discussions like this affecting infobox fields should run much longer than 19 hours. -- ferret (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In particular, there's no solid consensus to add it yet. I objected to the original name, without a firm support for "Created by". Farix objected to adding it without first considering other removals. They haven't firmly supported adding it, and no one else chimed in on the removal yet. Due diligence requires trying to determine how many infoboxes are affected by a field removal. Shiroi commented on the translation issue, but did not support the field changes clearly. An infobox field discussion should typically get at least a week of exposure. -- ferret (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you object to adding 原作 in the infobox? Because it presupposes that the anime is a derivative work? But it's even used in original anime eg Wolf's Rain, Last Exile, Paranoia Agent, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop. It's used in both original and adapted anime. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We've already went over that, and I thought Shiroi covered it well that "Original Work" is a poor literal translation. The question is: What does the encyclopedia gain by adding a "Created by" field for animes? Why does it belong on the anime infobox, and not in the main header infobox (I.e., applied to the "franchise" rather than just the component). How often is it going to differ from either the "Author" of the manga, or the "Studio"/"Director" of the anime? From your example, it almost always duplicates these fields. -- ferret (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually the creator field being in the main header infobox sounds like a better idea since the creator is the same for the entire franchise. Nice one, I'll give you that. Template:Infobox media franchise has a creator field, so why not have one for an anime franchise?

Anyway I mentioned earlier that for manga-based franchises it's obvious the author is the creator, but for anime-based franchises it's not clear at all. I know the creator of Dragon Ball is the writer Akira Toriyama, but who is the creator of Evangelion? Is it the director, the producers, the writers, the studios (Gainax or Tatsunoko Production), or the manga writer (since the manga was released before the anime)? I don't know since it's not so obvious now. It could be anyone of these. Anime creators vary unlike manga. This is why a creator field would be useful. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting choice of examples. Why is Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) missing {{Infobox media franchise}}? The creator would be denoted (The lead sentence already states it) if the infobox was there, as it is at Dragonball. The problem with the Animanga infoboxes is that they already do a lot of overlap with other infoboxes. For example, Neon Genesis Evangelion could easily just use {{Infobox television}}. That said, from the basis of {{Infobox television}} having Created By, then there shouldn't be an issue with {{Infobox animanga/Video}} having it. However, I don't necessarily agree with removing fields to make room. Infobox animanga's sub-templates should be generally be patterned after the more global infoboxes for the same (I.e. {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox comic}}, {{Infobox video game}}, etc). -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the creator field being in {{Infobox animanga/Header}}? Now that I think about it, it might be better placed there. The creator (原作) credit applies to the entire franchise not just one anime. Code Geass has two TV series, a third TV series planned, and an OVA series. That's four series in total. If we listed the creator in {{Infobox animanga/Video}} then we'd be listing the creators four times. However, if we listed the creators in the header then we only need to list them once. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Header sounds like a better idea for placement but I think it should only be filled in when there's a clear originator. If it gets thrown in infobox for anime or OAV it'll be likely filled with the manga artist, which I suppose is okay as it's much like "based on" for films. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say Header as well. In that sense, it becomes a field for the overarching franchise, not unlike IB Media Franchise. The sub-IBs then fill out the individual components. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So any other thoughts? -- Wrath X (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a loose consensus to add to the header template as "Created by". This puts the template inline with its nearest compatriot, {{Infobox media franchise}}. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret:Is that enough for a change? -- Wrath X (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take that as a yes. I'll add "Created by" to the header template. -- Wrath X (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women artists during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriate sub list Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)