Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters

Inactive talk page over at List of Pokémon anime characters, so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below)

Creating a page for "Genjitsu no Yohane: Sunshine in the Mirror" spinoff?

I posted about this a while ago, back in April, on here, but I'd like your thoughts on whether I should create a page for this spinoff from Love Live! Sunshine!! or if I should just incorporate it into the Love Live! Sunshine!! page. I came up with a draft page back in April, but was planning to add a bit more to the page to add in some more current information sometime soon. I look forward to hearing from you. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01: It's premiered already and has reviews at ANN and Fandom Post ([1] [2]), and it's getting a video game in November ([3], [4]). So, feel free to improve it and move it to mainspace. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Great! I will do that when I have some time. Historyday01 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Just created it, at long last, at Yohane of the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror. I copied the text over from that draft, as its a sandbox, and I might use it in the future for some other series. Not sure who the directors, writers, or storyboarders are for each episode, though, and IMDB was no help in that (unsurprisingly).Historyday01 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01: I've added the episode staff. Also, the official English title doesn't contain "of", so the article title should be Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror. Harushiga (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks for the tip. It does call it "YOHANE THE PARHELION -SUNSHINE in the MIRROR" on Crunchyroll, so I'll move it to "Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror" that right away. Historyday01 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please upload for anime key visual for Yohane the Parhelion: Sunshine in the Mirror okay. Lovemuhcko (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lovemuhcko:  Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done at File:Yohane the Parhelion anime key visual.jpg. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving Draft:Ayaka: A Story of Bonds and Wounds to the mainspace.

Since Ayaka was moved into the draftspace, there has been numerous news articles about the anime, from those mentioning the removal of one Takahiro Sakurai from the cast to those revealing to when it premieres. I think it's now appropriate to move it into the mainspace. SimonLagann (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend renaming the article as Ayaka (TV series) due to MOS:SUBTITLE and the fact that the original Japanese title doesn't have the subtitle. I also think this article still needs some work such as plot and reception because currently it looks like a press release where it just lists the cast and staff who worked on the film. lullabying (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Reception could come after the first episode premieres and ANN, as per usual, covers it during their preview columns. SimonLagann (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The plot is mentioned in some of the articles cited in the draft, but I'm not good with paraphrasing. SimonLagann (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the full title will be fine as a title; MOS:SUBTITLE states When the most commonly used name is ambiguous, the full title and subtitle might be suitable to be used as a form of natural disambiguation (see WP:NATURALDIS) and gives the example to use Orlando: A Biography over Orlando (book). Link20XX (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I request for the creation of the "List of manga" article containing all of the manga that has ever been done (translated and not) which is lacking because there isn't one yet. I have already asked for this at the talk page of the article of manga but no one did that. Please reply! Thanks! 186.109.170.149 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's no wonder no one has planning on creating such article, because it would be absurdly and needlessly long. It's like asking for a single list of every film released or book published. Xexerss (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well. It could be done, alongside the supposed "list of books", "list of comics", "list of films", "List of series", "List of music", "list of video games", "list of anime" and "list of documentary films"

They could remain incomplete, for all I care, but at least they are created because they are necessary 190.31.233.2 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The article was created before, but it was decided to be deleted because it seems that it was not really as necessary as you think it is. There are lists of comics, list of films and list of video games articles, but they don't have the unreasonable kind of content that you're requesting. Xexerss (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you can just turn this category article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manga into an actual article of "list of manga" containing all of these manga. I imagine neither of the ones that I mentioned (list of books, list of films and so on) have ALL of the content that has ever been done. That's why I think that the supposed "List of manga" can be done even though it could remain incomplete. What do you think? 190.31.233.2 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just see this discussion and you will see why the article was deleted in the first place. I doubt that any editor with enough experience in Wikipedia will find your request plausible. Xexerss (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga. Link20XX (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Utena

There is a request for Utena to be moved to Utena (city) at Talk:Utena. Thought this WikiProject might be interested. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crunchyroll LLC#Requested move 2 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Split discussion at Bakugan Battle Brawlers

Thought I might post here to attract some attention to the topic at Talk:Bakugan Battle Brawlers regarding splitting the information about the larger Bakugan franchise into its own article at Bakugan, which is currently a redirect at RfD. ― Synpath 23:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

An interesting situation with the source

The situation is this. We have a reputable source that confirms that the anime character was the first queer protagonist in the franchise, and it's easy to verify even without a source if you have even a smattering of knowledge. But the source was quick to announce this even before the character was canonically confirmed as a queer. So the question is, can the source be used to claim, if they were actually right, but wrote about it at the time of speculation, before actual confirming the sexuality of the character by the author? As I said, this is a pretty obvious point and most sources are talking about it, but adding this I was met with accusations that I was supposedly "appeal to woke people" and that the status of the first queer protagonist in a cult major franchise was supposedly not significant, so I have to look formal sources, many of which, to put it mildly, are too hasty with conclusions even before the initial development of romance between the characters. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just say it as it is. "[Whatever source] observed that [whatever] before this was confirmed by [the thing]." small jars tc 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So, just to point out that even before it was successfully confirmed directly, a number of media outlets had already named the character as the first queer protagonist in the history of the franchise? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that their claim that the character is queer before any canonical confirmation suggests that they're not reliable. And just from the name, you can assume Pride.com is going to be a biased source when it comes to LGBTQ+ topics, which is certainly acceptable in some matters, but doesn't lend them credit when we've seen them make a claim that isn't backed up.

They also list Kanji Tatsumi from Persona 4 as an LGBTQ+ character, though they do concede it's up for debate - it isn't confirmed in the source material. Their article on Sailor Moon and some other characters include some stretches too.

Some of their articles feel more like a tabloid than a reputable source, with posts like '14 Disney Channel Hotties Who Made Our Hearts Throb As Teens and 10 Times Celebs Talked About What They're Packing. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The attempt is to source the phrase "first such protagonist in the franchise" specifically? I think it's fine to do that, because you (you general) are not using this source to back up that the character is queer (that's a separate source), you're using it to source "first". As I understand it, the intent is to go "Before [character] was confirmed queer by blah blah blah,[ref] X observed that [character] would have been the first queer protagonist in the franchise[ref]" (which is what SmallJars is saying). Whatever perceived bias of the source is, it isn't being used to cite that the character is queer, it's being used to cite that they are the first such protagonist in the franchise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a good source for that, at least in my opinion.

It notes that 'The Witch From Mercury (which is streaming now on Crunchyroll) is the only franchise show led by a female character and after watching the first episode, fans now know it’s the first queer one as well' under the headline 'Gundam’s First Female & Queer Protagonist is Here in The Witch From Mercury'.

The source doesn't claim they would be the first queer protagonist, but makes a definitive statement that they are and claims that the first episode proves as such, which is not the case as Solaire implied above about them being too hasty with the claim. So we've seen that part of their statement is inaccurate (based on the first episode) and another part was correct but actually based on no evidence so not reputable. That she's the first female protagonist has been repeated quite often, but 'only franchise show led by a female character' is also iffy when considering Mobile Suit Gundam SEED C.E. 73: Stargazer (as the Witch from Mercury page currently mentions) is an earlier show this could apply to. So as a whole, it seems like trying to use a bad source to evidence a point. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is fine to use the source for that phrase. Not sure why people are trying to say it is a "bad" source. Historyday01 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to explain my POV on why it's not a good source for this situation:

1) The intent is to confirm a character is queer. As I understand it, this is correct, and I don't dispute that. But sadly Wikipedia policy doesn't actually care whether something is correct, but whether something is backed up.

2) The source listed 'confirms it', but as has been observed, could not back up that claim at the time of publishing. As such, this source is not reliable - it's making statements based on no/flimsy evidence. It goes directly against Wikipedia's outline of "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As a comparison, they could say 'Naruto's father is the 4th Hokage' when only the first chapter of Naruto had come out, and they'd be right... but they'd have no evidence of it aside from the face on the mountain looking similar to Naruto and tropes of orphan protagonists being of a noble line. If they said 'We suspect that Naruto's father is the 4th Hokage', that would be very different.

3) No source has been given above for the statement of them being queer aside from this, only stating that it's 'easy to verify even without a source'... but Wikipedia doesn't deal in unsourced statements.

4) While the statement mentioned was along the lines of "Before [character] was confirmed queer by blah blah blah,[ref A] X observed that [character] would have been the first queer protagonist in the franchise[ref B]", it could potentially be used for [ref B] alongside a number of other sources, but they've not sourced the [ref A] "confirmed queer" part with a reference.

5) Just generally, looking at that website it seems like a tabloid from several of the headlines more than a factual source...

6) There's a lack of staff listing or noted qualifications, editorial policy, or common factors that could point to reliability.

6a) While it doesn't list author bios or who works there aside from on the individual articles, looking into it a little by checking the first three writers I found, one only works there and at The Daily Dot, which notes here that "Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated", another only works at Pride.com and the final one only works there and at a site no-one has ever discussed on Wikipedia at least, so it doesn't seem like it has much professional clout behind it in terms of journalism. And if there is, they've not made it clear. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that 4 is the situation going on. That the intent IS to use a ref A to confirm queer, and that THIS is ref B. Hence, why I don't see an issue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding from the initial post is that this is being taken as a 'reputable source that confirms that the anime character was the first queer protagonist in the franchise' and they want to use it as a source. Admittedly, it's a rather long five clause question, so I could be misinterpreting:

>So the question is, can the source be used to claim, if they were actually right, but wrote about it at the time of speculation, before actual confirming the sexuality of the character by the author?

If Solaire has a reputable and solid Ref A, then it seems it would be simpler just to use that to state they're the first queer protagonist - saying that *and* saying there was speculation beforehand doesn't seem too important to the article IMO at least. But the initial issue was needing a 'formal source' for sourcing the 'the status of the first queer protagonist' judging from the first post, due to disagreements on various aspects of including it.

I'd still say that Pride.com isn't a great source, generally for the reasons outlined above making it not seem to meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards generally, but also because the source does not observe that they would be the first queer protagonist or post speculations, but they make a definitive and unfounded statement that they are. This article by Gizmodo would be a better source for it I believe, which is considered generally reliable and speculates rather than makes claims without evidence. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't want to use Gizmodo because of its sensationalism and buzzfeed approach to news reporting. For example, in the past they, like Pride.com, have relied on fan twitter to support conclusions from new episodes of the show that hasn't ended yet. At this point, I've added a third source to the article that looks at the show's ending from a cultural politics point of view, with its own issues, but still in a more "scientific" style than trying to hype social media clicks out of it. But thanks for the example with Naruto, you perfectly understood the essence of the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the list of yuri works

Is it just me, or is this list gradually more and more duplicating the yuri category? The article was originally created by me to move a work's list from the original article about yuri as a genre, but since then it has simply become a potentially endless list like any list about an active and popular genre. The section about yuri as an extra element still contains some original information, but it's basically any anime that has queer female characters without affiliation with the genre (of course, mostly with links to episode reviews on anime resources). For example, Ika Musume is only listed due to the occasional mention that the show has a running gag with a minor character obsessed with an MC. In general, is it possible to somehow rewrite this? Because now it looks like a duplicate of the category and a more localized version of the list of lesbian characters in animation. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would remove any work that was not published under a yuri magazine. Having a category like "yuri as an element" doesn't mean the original work is classified as yuri. I would also remove licensing in other languages outside of English because this is the English Wikipedia. lullabying (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but what about works that have never officially been yuri or even romance, but have always been widely discussed within the genre? For example, Kakegurui or Saki (lots of lesbian overtones and a lesbian antagonist in the first and copious amounts of pairings and symbolism in the second). This is speculative, yes, but such works are always known, if not for queer characters, then at least for subtext and flirting with the audience. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would personally opt to add prose to describe how each listed non-yuri manga includes yuri elements. In doing so, a trim would be easy. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That is, to remake a bare list into a cursory example of works that are outside the genre, but have a prominent element of it in it? Like "Witch from Mercury, an anime that received special attention as the first Gundam in the yuri genre, thanks to (description of nuances) ? Solaire the knight (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though I'd leave the "central element" section unchanged and would try to limit this secondary list to items with particularly detailed reliable sourcing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Then what could be a reliable source? I don't mind Erika Friedman as usual, but as Ika Musume's case shows, shows can be added with reference to her even if she once mentioned the show in passing. In general, as far as I can see from the CCS pages, we have a rather large problem with this topic. For example, the page about Li Syaoran simultaneously had bisexual categories and mentioned that his bisexual crush was the result of magic and was not considered real love. I can still understand when people consider Sakura bisexual or pansexual despite the quote of the authors taken out of context, but I was confused that the article had such categories despite their direct refutation in the text itself. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Compare List of yaoi anime and manga. Yuri on Ice has two men as lead characters who are implied to be in a relationship and have a huge yaoi fandom, but it is not yaoi. lullabying (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s hard for me to say something because the list is as concise as possible, but it looks good (at least I don't see any shows here with minor gay side characters or fairly popular ships). As for Yuri on Ice, I don't think it's even "implied" as both men have rings and the authors have explicitly confirmed that they are engaged (I don't know about marriage). So it's practically a G-Witch with a more grounded relationship and no Utena. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As the creator of List of lesbian characters in anime, which I think is what you are referring to here, I only created it in the process of creating similar lists for many other identities. I originally had intended to merge it with List of lesbian characters in animation, but later decided against it because they were so different. My impression was that List of yuri works was pretty broad, even broader than any other lists. But, in its current form, its definitely vulnerable to fancruft. A lot of lists like this are vulnerable to that. I've had the same issue with LGBTQ lists for a while, and am constantly removing unsourced and badly sourced content, which people just try and slip in. Historyday01 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that Japanese culture, or at least its anime incarnation, often either overuses romantic overtones in platonic friendships, or shows lesbian relationships too subtly compared to straight romance (hello G-Witch), or pretends that sexuality as such does not exist and most of the characters are metaphorically bisexual. This confuses people very much and makes us look for any hints or author's words in order to understand what was said. I used to laugh at the claim that anime often makes lesbian couples call each other friends, but over the years it doesn't seem so naive anymore. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sakura's pansexuality or bisexuality

I recently cleaned up the articles about Sakura and Syaoran, as the information about their sexuality was mostly original research, and in the case of the latter, even directly contradicted the plot and the article itself (the show reveals that the attraction was caused by a magical aura and the article openly talks about it). But at one point I still want to bring it up here to get an outside perspective and avoid possible misunderstandings or disputes. And so, all of Sakura's canon love interests are heterosexual, her love for Tomoyo is explicitly confirmed as being different than romantic and the only time she was attracted to a female character was explained by a magical aura in the universe. But. You can often see claims on the internet that she is bisexual or even pansexual based on a couple of passages in CLAMP interviews where they refer to her as open-minded characters and refute the notion that her relationship with Syaoran was heteronormative, claiming that they loved each other as personality rather than age or gender, and that Sakura would probably love him even if he was a girl. Many take this as a direct confirmation of Sakura's bisexuality, or even directly refer to it as a statement that Clamp considers her bisexual. What do you think of it? Could this serve as a source beyond the fact that no other sources list her as bisexual (except for secondary sources, including those referring to the interview I mentioned), and in the show itself the character is not pursuing any lesbian love interest? Considering that CCS is one of those Japanese works where there are a lot of queer characters, but you never hear any talk of sexuality, since love is implied to have no boundaries, I also find it speculative that this interview could claim her as bisexual. Not to mention that the context of the answer implies that this logic applies to all characters in the work. For example, Tomoyo clearly continued to love Sakura if she was a boy. But will we then write that she is bisexual instead of the indisputably canonical lesbian? Solaire the knight (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting interview. The character readings here are quite new to me. In particular, Li Syaoran currently claims "Syaoran constantly wonders whether his feelings towards Sakura and Yukito are true as which changes when Yue notes that his attraction with other types of magic caused his crush on Yukito which serves as an early coming-of-age," which I don't remember from the show at all. Either way, with this show, I think it's important to refer to common readings of the work. Clamp doesn't spell these sorts of things out and I don't think it's helpful to stick too closely to Clamp's own claims about the characters. In the case of this interview, they are saying that Sakura and Syaoran ending up together was unrelated to genre trappings ("young boy and young girl interact? Surely they must fall in love!"). I wouldn't read this as Clamp suggesting Sakura is bisexual. And a Sakura as bisexual reading is indeed not common for the show itself, while as I understand it Syaoran is consistently read as bisexual (though I haven't dived into the sources). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with English-language sources, since I'm not an English-speaking person. But as far as I know, the reading of Sakura as bisexual or pansexual caused by this interview is quite common among queer fans and authors, as it serves as a kind of justification for why a show with such a queer-friendly premise almost does not follow the traditional ideas about the abundance of yuri subtext in a magical girl show. For example, now there are quite a few people who despise Mamoru and try to promote Sailor Moon as a queer show where all the female characters are bisexual etc. In general, the genre has long become a kind of lesbian analogue of the gay reading of the shonen genre. But I got sidetracked a little. I think the question with Syaoran doesn't make sense since the show itself directly refutes this, but in my opinion CLAMP's words about Sakura are still open to different views, so I'm wondering how many people agree or disagree with my view of the source. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If I recall the show had a thing for giving teddy Bear presents to the person they. When Syaoran gives one to Yukito he transforms into Yue who makes him wonder who is truly the person he loves . This results into Syaoran wondering about it until he realizes it is Sakura. In the finale these two exchange their bears as a show of love Tintor2 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand what you meant, but neither the show nor I deny that at some point he had some kind of crush on Yukito. But the fact is that later in the show it is explained that this was caused by a magical aura, thanks to which Yukito attracted people who could use magic to him. The problem is that people ignore this in favor of speculating about the character's actual sexuality. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, on the previous version of the List of animated films with LGBT characters page, and previous version of List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1995–1999 cite the following sources for Sakura as pansexual:

• 2018 dissertation (says she is bisexual)
• ScreenRant, The Mary Sue, and official website for claim she had a crush on her teacher
• The February 2001 interview (which you cited in your first comment). This the same as the "Cardcaptor Sakura Memorial Book (in Japanese). Kodansha. February 2001. ISBN 978-4-06-324535-6." source listed on the List of animated films with LGBT characters page.

The aforementioned 2018 dissertation says Syaoran as bisexual, while the other sources are about his established relationship with Sakura. On the List of animated films with LGBT characters page, an ANN review is cited as further evidence of his bisexuality. Looking at it now, it is pretty thin, in terms of sourcing for his bisexuality, so I probably was hasty on that. Looking back, I suppose I saw that as sufficient and no one every questioned it, when I added it to the page, and I copied it over from the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1995–1999 to save me time. In the original interview, I think we can at least say Sakura is queer and Syaoran had feelings for Yukito (I mean, Sakura pretty clearly had feelings for him too), based on this part from Ohkawa:

...Syaoran was, at first, attracted to Yukito...I took great care in how to portray all that. I mentioned this earlier, but the series’s main theme is explored through the main character, so think of how Sakura-chan acts. For example, when she found out that Syaoran was in love with Yukito, she didn’t look at him strangely...If Syaoran had been a girl, if they had been far apart in age, as long as he was still Syaoran, I think Sakura would have fallen in love with him...It’s not because Tomoyo-chan is a girl that she didn’t end up with Sakura. Of course Sakura does love Tomoyo, but it’s not the kind of love she has for Syaoran.

Perhaps the compromise we can come to is that Sakura is queer and Syaoran is as well? I also wouldn't mind removing the part about the crush on the teacher, either, as that may be too much up to interpretation. Saying that Sakura is "a protagonist who had an open mind towards different family structures, different kinds of love, and different perspectives from society" may not be confirmation she is pansexual, or bisexual, but... can hint at possible queerness, I'd argue. Historyday01 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it almost goes without saying that this show is very queer in general, and its characters are by extension, even if it doesn't use western queer language to describe anything. Those sources are good, thanks! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody argues that this show is pretty queer overall. But the problem is that this show is "pretty queer in the Japanese sense", which is why any particular sexuality is never discussed and love is seen as something beyond gender. For example, it's obvious to us that Tomoyo is a lesbian, but this is never discussed, not even in interviews. The author says only once that she did not make them a couple, not because Tomoyo is a girl, returning to the topic of relationships. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of "obvious to us that Tomoyo is a lesbian, but this is never discussed, not even in interviews", in the above interview says pretty clearly that Tomoyo is a lesbian... so I think that's pretty established, and don't think that's a stretch. Historyday01 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious from the show and it's obvious from the way the writers talk about her. But her sexuality itself never rises. That's what I'm talking about. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Historyday01 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that's my thought too. I had heard that the Clear Card sequel (which is apparently getting another sequel) "removed" the queerness, but I don't really agree with that interpretation. My thought about the sources as well. Historyday01 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember much of Clear Card, but from what I remember of the discussions back then, the main gripe was that Tomoyo didn't get a new love interest and was destined to either be a "perpetual" gay best friend with a crush on an MC or even be shiped with one of the male side characters. Who then got his love interest, but still (I even remember an article from AnimeFeminist where they implied that the show was homophobic because Tomoyo wasn't getting any development). It's just that people were misled by the fact that almost all the romance in the new anime focuses on two straight couples, one of which is canon. But judging by the announcements, this is definitely not the last CCS anime. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That Anime Feminist article is the same one I was thinking of. Sometimes Anime Feminist is right on, but other times...they are off base. Like with ANN, it all depends on the writers. And I did see on social media they got some criticism of not writing about The Witch from Mercury. Historyday01 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For this reason, I am always skeptical of such resources. Politics is a separate conversation, but they often have a fairly obvious, albeit understandable, bias in this matter. For example, when they called the new Lupin homophobic, for the writer adding a joke where a female character teases the MC and his sitcom archenemy that they look like a gay couple with tension (which is ironic, years later the same person will write a couple of "progressive" yuri anime, including the aforementioned Witch). Because they thought that the character is annoyed by a gay joke makes a message that being gay is something shameful. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, no one questions his very crush. The question is why this is, especially when it is further revealed that it was caused by magic. If you watch the show itself, only a Chinese girl (I already forgot her name) is presented as Sakura's love rival all the time, even playing the "childhood friend vs new girl" theme. But I don't mind describing it as "authors often interpret Sakura in this way etc etc" by linking to a major source that discusses and cites this interview. And add it somewhere in the evaluation section. But this will already be for the character page, not lists. Another conversation is whether you want to talk about magically induced bisexuality and whether that might be a reason to add the character to the list. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Since there's so much debate, I'd be fine with that. By "evaluation section" do you mean Sakura Kinomoto#Reception and Syaoran Li#Reception? Or, did you mean another conversation. In terms of magically-induced bisexuality, I'm not sure if if that would qualify a character for the list. In some ways, I'm glad this discussion began, as it is giving me further determination to continue going through those lists of animated series with LGBT characters, and pair them down. I finished going through the 2020s list, and hopefully will get through the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2015–2019 list at some point this month, if all goes well. Historyday01 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

About Sakura, yes. If we have a wide discussion, but no direct confirmation, then why not? As for Syaoran, I'm not sure, but I think you can easily find sources discussing his crush on Yukito and how it was shown regardless of what it was caused by. I have a similar feeling. I have always been a supporter of the thesis that truth is born in a dispute. I will also try to rewatch the Clear Card again, perhaps this will somehow develop my view on the issue. It will also be possible to look at the Japanese Wikipedia and see how they describe things, but I'm not sure if we will find sources there. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to assign a specific identity label like "bisexual" or "pansexual" to a character unless the character is specifically described in those terms, either within the text of the work itself or by the creator(s) of the work. It would be a glaring omission for any article on Card Captor Sakura to not discuss the very apparent same-sex romance themes in that series, but a statement like "Sakura is bisexual" (or "Utena is a lesbian" or "Ash Lynx is gay") is, in lieu of an in-text or creator source directly supporting that claim in that specific language, POV. Morgan695 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that in the case of Ash or Utena, bisexuality is almost obvious, as both characters (especially if you accept all BF readings) show attraction to both sexes. But yes, even if the attractions seem obvious or reasonable for conclusions, we don't have any authorial evidence. Especially in the case of Sakura, when we have one general statement without clarifications known to me. Then what to do? Really move this to the reception section with reference to the media's interpretations? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest stick to first party sources for these themes and leave the third party sources for reception. I did something similar for Clamp's Subaru who is one of the earliest gay protagonists highly recognized in the West. Tintor2 (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Subaru? I heard that the female character in the trio is also bisexual, but I didn't watch the anime and the description of the manga seemed confusing so I didn't get the point. For now, I have removed only the categories and the phrase "pansexual" from the paragraph with the citation of the authors. So it's all good, just create a paragraph discussing the character's sexuality in the reception part? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been long but I remember that in the case of Syaoran Clamp was careful with how to write. They wanted to be careful with the fact his feelings for Sakura were more geniune than Yukito based on his actions. I think I have Clamp no kiseki where the authors discussed important events from their series and Sakura, X and Tsubasa were the most talked

I saw the opinion that the versions of the characters in Tsubasa can also be some kind of argument, since they are supposedly complete analogues of the original ones, but I do not know how true this is. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Since this is kinda getting too long, I'll send you a message to your talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Toei USA as the master licensee

As recommended by User:Xexerss to go here, I proposed an idea to amend several Dragon Ball, Sailor Moon and One Piece anime articles that the license holder of the three anime series is Toei Animation Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Tokyo’s Toei Animation. Crunchyroll and Viz Media are the licensing agents as evidenced here, here and here. What do you guys think of this idea? 142.113.187.47 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga states that licensee corresponds to the English licensee of the series, which usually (as far as I know) refers to the companies that distribute the series in English-speaking territories and not necessarily refers to the master license holder. Xexerss (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually dude. There is a misunderstanding. Dragon Ball, One Piece and Sailor Moon are distributed by Toei USA anyway. Crunchyroll actually is the sub-distributor of OP and DB while Viz Media serves as a sub-licensee for the SM anime. I have checked the Toei Animation Inc. article and they actually distribute each of the series in North America. Not the other way around. According to LawInsider's definition of "sub-distributor", it means any Third Party or any Affiliate of Distributor that has entered into a written agreement with Distributor for the distribution of Products anywhere in the Territory. –—142.113.187.47 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)