Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders

Article titling

Another dispute between me and Ryulong, this time pertaining to the titling of this episode list article (as well as the one currently titled JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1). Ryulong is insistent that the article simply be called JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, as opposed to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders episodes, citing this is format allegedly used in long-running American shows like CSI Miami. However, I feel this is just confusing for many reasons, such as how easily it can be confused with the manga article Stardust Crusaders, and how it's actually a sub-article to a List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes article (which I originally suggested both season's episode lists be integrated to, but was rejected by Ryulong for unclarified reasons). So yeah, we need some additional opinions on this. Wonchop (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles on television seasons do not need to be appended with "List of ... episodes". I told you this on your talk page. And Wikipedia has several templates to use (you can see them at Template:Hatnote/doc) to allow users to know that it might not be the right page that they're looking for and to direct them to the other ones. This would not have been an issue if you had not first disrupted everything when the plan was to divide the shows up by the arc that they feature rather than just combining the first season into a single page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So your plan is to make everything more complicated than they need to be? You're even doing that ridiculous 'divide each episode entry into its own subsection' thing you did with the Persona 4 Animation article? Do you really need to impliment something that'll create a massive index bar just because you don't want to spend two seconds scrolling down the edit page? Wonchop (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The subsection thing makes it easier to edit the page and there's nothing wrong with it. You just dislike it because it makes the table of contents longer, which is really unimportant. And no, I'm not making anything more complicated. And because we are going to be the only two people to edit this page, before we continue to go in circular arguments, I'm going to post a request at WP:3O.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So you've already posted a request at WP:3O. So let me take the time to make my opinion explicitly known on this page.

We do not need to make List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes a massive list to contain all the content regarding both seasons, and not have separate articles for the two seasons, because the page will get way too long. This is why I originally split up season 1 into the now merged List of Phantom Blood episodes and List of Battle Tendency episodes, that required me getting Soap to do a histmerge because of all the confusion you (Wonchop) created when you began merging everything back on your own, without discussion and my attempts to clean up after you put everything the way it is presently. Every other anime page may set things up that way, but it's wrong within the context of every other television show on the project. There's nothing that makes these pages so special that they should not be split up along seasonal lines.

Now onto the business of the page's title. Across the project, TV shows that have more than one season separate the list of the singular season's episodes from the main list of episodes, in the format that has been implimented here. We no longer have an article titled List of Friends episodes (season 1) or List of Friends (season 1) episodes; it's Friends (season 1). For this page, this season is explicitly titled "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders". You can see this format in use at American Horror Story: Coven, which is an episode list and slightly more. And because the original arc of the manga is just known as "Stardust Crusaders" and not "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders" (evidenced by the fact that no article existed at this title until recently), then using this as the title is fine enough and we can have hatnotes everywhere to make sure people get to the right place.

And on the section titles, you really need to drop this bullshit. I am tired of your constant whining that I've made the page slightly easier to edit just because you think it looks ugly or that it produces a long table of contents. No one cares so much about that fact but you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ironic how you accuse me of whining when it's clearly you who doesn't like things not fitting to your ideal way. Like, it's fine for you to revert something I've done, but when I revert something stupid you've implemented, you revert it right back.

One: all the examples you've given concerning article titling are American shows with several seasons which, unlike a lot of anime outside of the Narutos, Bleachs, etc., don't have name changes across them. However, JoJo is only two seasons long at present, and they both have different broadcast titles, not to mention as, since it's based on another medium, it can get confused with articles pertaining to that. It doesn't matter if it's 'wrong within the context of every other television show on the project', if it ain't broke for anime articles, don't (try to) fix it.

Two: the term JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders does, by definition refer, to the full title of the manga, with the 2014 anime (and possibly a Famicom game) being secondary to it. Remember, Stardust Crusaders is the subheading to the manga's arc, not the main title of the manga itself. So, technically speaking, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders should ideally be a redirect to the Stardust Crusaders article, and the episode list should be more recognisable as an episode list. If future seasons are made carrying the same naming sense, it's just going to result in more conflicting parralels with the manga articles.

Three: there's certainly no reason, at this point, why putting both seasons into a single episode list would be considered 'too long', considering most anime episode list articles contain multiple seasons each containing roughly 13-26 episodes a piece without the need for seperate articles outside instances when there is a spin-off series. And as it stands, both JoJo seasons currently only tally a total of 29 episodes together. If the article seems too long, then use shorter and simpler episode descriptions. Remember, these are summaries, not play-by-play observations.

Four: subsections may make things easier for YOU as an editor, but it makes the article look ugly for everyone else as a reader. You know how a typical index refers to important sections within a book and not, y'know, every single paragraph? Like every other thing on this site, the important thing is to keep things simple and concise for the reader. As a side note, there's no need to add a 'episode ordering from previous season' column when the TV broadcast order clearly starts from #1.

As far as what an ideal way to go about things is concerned, it would be for both season one and Stardust Crusaders to be part of a single List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes article, at the least until we know for certain there's more seasons to follow, with perhaps a seperate article dedicated to the David Production anime adaptation to distinguish it from the manga and OVA articles, much like how Persona 4: The Animation and List of Persona 4: The Animation articles are currently seperate entities from the main Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 episodes article.Wonchop (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your changes have done more harm to behind the scenes issues than anything I've done to these pages. Your actions have caused issues with copyright retention and completely unnecessary changes to the page titles.

There's no reason to treat this any different from any other TV show just because it's Japanese.

No one calls the manga arc using the same title as this present article. It's just "Stardust Crusaders" or if it's ever in full (and English) it's "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Part 3: Stardust Crusaders".

Any anime that has had such a long break like JoJo did does get a new title or subtitle when its "second season" begins. "K-On!" became "K-On!!" for example. The new broadcast of Dragon Ball Kai is titled "Dragon Ball Kai: The Majin Buu Arc" in full.

Other anime articles give just two sentence "summaries" that don't cover anything and it's just someone translating the "On the next episode of Dragon Ball Z" catch copy and never updating it.

I am fairly certain that the last time we had this discussion, no one remarked on the aesthetics of the subsections.

I will not agree to merging the two seasons into a single episode list article, nor should the 1993/2000 OVA be merged anywhere. The current format is fine. There is no point in having a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (anime) article and then the list of episodes covering two seasons when the current format is fine and used elsewhere on the project for anime and manga pages. Separating everything just creates way too many unnecessary and redundant pages. Just look at what happened when someone split Bleach (anime) off of Bleach (manga). And I'm not going to continue this conversation without the third opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that last paragraph contradicts itself, right? Wonchop (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction. I have previously voiced my dissenting opinion on how the way things have been dealt with elsewhere on the project, namely the Bleach and Ghost in the Shell pages. The present set up for this particular set of pages is fine as is, namely a "List of episodes" page dedicated to just covering details of the anime rather than a page disambiguated "(anime)" and there is no need to change the titles of the seasonal episode lists nor merge them into one super list that you will inevitably pare down and write in a way that will likely incorrectly describe the plot and its contents. And, again, not saying anything until an uninvolved user steps in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, someone royally fucked up the P4a pages by making a separate episode list table on the main page and rewriting the summaries in such a way that they were full of grammatical and spelling errors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have tried to read the above lengthy discussion and apologies if I've overlooked anything. So this is about whether to name it "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders" or "List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders episodes" right?

Also, I have a query...is there some specific reason why Season 1 has been named "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1)" whereas Season 2 is just "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders"? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is primarily about the title of this page having the words "list of" and "episodes" in it. To answer your question, season 1 had no subtitle. When it was airing it was just called "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Then per WP:TVSEASON, shouldn't it be "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 2)" with Stardust Crusaders like how there's "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1)" for Phantom Blood and Battle Tendency? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

But the title of this second season is "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders", much like how American Horror Story's seasons are named.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then I agree that "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders" should remain the article title. The hatnote is enough if there's any confusion with the story arc "Stardust Crusaders". Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Character naming

Just a small query about the naming of characters, as the current descriptions use 'Holy Kujo' and 'DIO' in all caps, whilst the official Crunchyroll subs use 'Holly' (episode 3 also mentions how 'Holly' is derived from 'Holy') and 'Dio' in normal case. Any remarks on that, bearing in mind not all adaptations neccessarily use the same spellings as each other? Wonchop (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Crunchyroll seems to be rolling with its own translations for these characters, rather than going with the English spellings used within Japan. I bought this massive book that has the English language names for every character up until the most recent manga, and they use "Holy Kujo", rather than "Holly Kujo". Also, "DIO" is what is used in Japan, again. It differentiates him from his original incarnation as "Dio Brando" and also from a later character who is nicknamed "Dio" (written in English with standard capitalization). The same thing is happening with "Tower of Gray"/"Tower of Grey". Crunchyroll used "Grey", while all official material, even up to last year's publication, is "Tower of Gray". I suspect we will have other problems with Crunchyroll's translations later on, as several characters were renamed in the Viz translations 10 years ago due to copyright issues, and All Star Battle's looming international release has similar problems (I saw a rumor of Vanilla Ice being renamed "Cool Ice").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact this comes from a Japanese book kinda rings a bit of doubt, as the Japanese aren't particular known for their perfect English, even for their own characters (such as how they sometimes romanize 'sho' as 'syo'). Looking at the katakana, ホリィ is closer to Holly than Holy, which would be written as ホーリィ. Plus, since they distinguish the differences between 'Holly' and 'Holy' in the episode, giving them each different pronunciations, Holly should be the correct one. It's also worth noting that the digital release of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure HD, which is the most recent localized JoJo product prior to the anime and ASB, uses Holly in its translation. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=a3GUuXKF6ic?t=3m22s)

As far as DIO concerned, the all caps work in the Japanese manga since everything else is written in Japanese, but it makes less sense to use all-caps constantly in the context of English text (not that I've read the Viz release, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't tell the difference since everything is generally written in all-caps anyway). Unless it was an anagram for something, just using DIO all the time just makes it sound like his name has to be shouted everytime you mention it. Again, JoJo HD uses Dio in normal case (same link). I dunno what to say about the Grey/Gray thing, since it seems to be one of those USA vs European spelling kinda deals, but I think just going with what Crunchyroll titles them is the best course. Grey is also the main name used in its article.

As a side-note to the whole 'do not post summaries for unaired episodes', it's a common courtesy in anime episode list articles to leave summary entries for episodes empty until they have aired in Japan, even if there is information available, as it avoids spoilers concerning content that isn't released yet (going by the assumption that not everyone following the anime has read the manga).Wonchop (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The spellings are the ones that are in use exclusively through Japan and in the earlier publications in English. Crunchyroll's translation decisions should not change how we spell things on Wikipedia when there is an established and reliably sourced translation that has existed for years prior to these subtitles. For the most part, Araki and Lucky Land Communications have been consistent with the English names of the characters, with only one in particular (and not one covered by this page) having conflicting translations even within a single work (which is evident in my huge book that's full of English and Japanese text). You don't get to choose to completely deny a reliable source simply because it was published in Japan.

• The original dialog in Japan goes "In Japanese the word 'holy' is 'seinaru' so that's why everyone here calls me Seiko" and there is no mention of "Holly" as being separate word. This is just a translation choice on their part rather than accuracy to the original work (not to mention the name spelled as "Holly" is derived from the plant and has no relation to "holiness").
• You have a point regarding "DIO", but then again they do always shout Dio's name.
• The official name is written in English for well over 10 years now as "TOWER OF GRAY". Crunchyroll's choice of "grey" is again, their translation choice rather than accuracy to other published sources.

And Wikipedia is not censored for spoiler warnings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the original text for the "Seiko" scene:

あたしの名のホリィ（HOLY）っていうのはネ　日本語で『聖なる』って意味なの……　だから　聖子さーんってお友だちは呼ぶのよ　フフ！　これからパパ！　日本ではあたしのこと　聖子って呼ばなきゃ返事しないわよ

which got changed to this in English:

My friends here think my name is "Holy," so... ...they call me "Seiko," for "holy child"! From now on, Papa, call me SEIKO in Japan or I won't answer.

and the meanings are not the same. So it seems that she is "Holly" in English publications, but "Holy" (when written in English) in Japanese ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And as a final note, one of my acquaintances in Okinawa whose name is "しょうたろう" (I don't remember the kanji), writes his name in English as "Syotaro". It's a personal choice rather than a requirement to stick to the Hepburn or Kunrei-siki standards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I said, this article pertains to the current anime where ten year old translations might not neccessarily apply. And like I've said many times before, this is an English Wikipedia first and foremost, so English terminology, particularly those used by official sources such as Crunchyroll, should be used if available (although admittedly I sorta cheat on the Squid Girl episodes by including both CR and Media Blaster's 'squidified' episode titles and proper translated ones). Direct translations don't always apply to these kinds of things, and likewise things may not to be 100% parallel to the manga or indeed the original Japanese.

As for the WP:Spoiler thing, there's a difference between putting spoilers for stuff that has already aired, eg. a new episode shows a group is joined by someone so the main article can be altered to say as much, and writing down details from stuff that isn't released or aired yet, like mentioning a character dies in episode 8 when episode 7 had only just aired. I'm not sure if there's a specific rule for it, it's just common courtesy for other users that is generally used on many articles, such as upcoming video games and films, until its original release date, even if it's stuff that might already be known in the original media or may have been seen in an advanced screening.Wonchop (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

These translations remain in use as of last year's publication of the JOJOVELLER book set as well, which is just as much an official source as Crunchyroll. In Japan, her name is "Holy" and next week's enemy is "Tower of Gray". For some reason in the English releases, these have been changed, as have a lot of other things. Oingo and Boingo became "Zenyatta and Mondatta". Devo becaome "D'bo". Vanilla Ice became "Iced" (but that's only in the video game version). And one character was accidentally given the name of another character who had already appeared.

And WP:SPOILER still stands considering the source material had its 25th anniversary two years ago. Not to mention everything that I wrote down is stated in the little "Next episode" clip.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And if those names are used in the CR translation, those are ideally the names that should be used for an English language article. Also you're still missing the point in that its just plain courteous to others to just leave the descriptions for future episodes empty, much like how, when an article about the next Hobbit movie is eventually made, it won't describe the entire plot prior to the film's release just because the book came out in 1937. Besides, 'next episode' clips aren't always an idicator of the full context of an upcoming episode (otherwise the description of Kill la Kill's seventh episode prior to airing would've read "there will be a very slow pan on Mako's face"), and even you can't be certain of how the story will be paced across each episode.Wonchop (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Those names won't match the audio and are hamhanded attempts to avoid whatever copyright problems there are for having a character named "Vanilla Ice" when the musician exists. Japanese sources are in abundance for these characters names and other pieces of terminology that are more common than Crunchyroll's subtitles. Prevalence dictates usage, rather than a single localization.

And your comparisons to other pages don't really make any sense. Kill la Kill's next episode previews were comedic to a degree. In this one, we plainly see them getting attacked by a bug (Tower of Gray) and someone says "It's too fast for Star Platinum", as well as Polnareff's teaser scene. And that's all that I've written. It's not like I've given a detailed description of how Tower of Gray kills most of the passengers and Kakyoin traps its user with Hierophant Green's tentacles and defeats him with Emerald Splash. And regarding films on old stories, it would be perfectly fine to provide a basic description of the plot line of the book that would be impossible to deviate from. For Desolation of Smaug I'm sure we had a sentence on the article saying that Bilbo met Smaug in some fashion, even if the intricate details of the plot as portrayed in the movie are not known.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems very much more like your opinion than anything. Also if we're talking WP:COMMONNAME, the English dub of the OVA series also uses Holly, as apparently does the Viz manga release. So that's at least four licensed uses of 'Holly' I can count, which more than classifies as a common name. Rather than something that is changed altogether, like Vanilla Ice, it's just a slightly different spelling. Also, I'm kinda put off with how the preview summaries are written like "The Crusaders come up against an enemy they cannot possibly defeat. And then they meet some dude with dumb hair." It seems out of place given how intricate you like the main episode summaries to be (again, way too detailed for a 'summary', but that's a story for another time). At the very least, you should leave out the mention of Polnareff so it doesn't automatically seem like the speedy ass bug was no deal. Wonchop (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should the minimal number of licensed properties that use "Holly" outweigh the plethora of Japanese sources that have her name written as "Holy"? And I'm only going off of what I can see, and in some cases where there is a written preview, read. I try not to present any information that is not explicitly stated or shown, and that's what happened with the ep 4 preview.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should a name used in licensed properties just because it's outweighed by stuff in another language? Also, previews are generally designed to be ambiguous, teasing you with what's going to happen without actually saying how it is going to happen. As a result, trying to write a description purely based on what you see from that is more than likely going to end up as complete garbage (ironically just like that KLK example I gave). If you can't write a decent description of what's to come then don't write one at all, if not for common courtesy, then for the sake of not making the article look like crap.Wonchop (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You seemed to have answered my question with a question that doesn't make sense, but "Holy" should be used because of its prevalence in other printed works rather than one arbitrary choice by a translator 10 years ago and this year. And can you tell me anything about the summary I've written for episode 4 that looks inaccurate to what was provided? KLK was comedic (to an extent) and is not a good example.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For it to be used in at least four different pieces of media hardly qualifies it as an 'arbitary choice'. DragonZero has mentioned on my page that Case Closed uses Viz translations for the manga and Funimation translations for the anime. So ideally, names given to the anime version by an official source (ie. Crunchyroll) should be used in the article concerning the anime. And by that logic, 'Holly' should be primarily used in articles concerning the manga since that's how Viz translated it, with 'Holy' being a secondary name. Trying to argue otherwise just comes off as being a stubborn Japanese fanboy. And it's not a matter of accuracy, it's just a terribly written description.Wonchop (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I live in god damn Japan. And all I care about right now is that the content is accurate to all available sources. Concerning "Holly"/"Holy", I will acquiesce to use the former (most people do anyway). But if other odd name changes appear that show an even deeper disparity between the Japanese print media and merchandise, then we will have to discuss it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, alrighty then. I've also adjusted the preview text for ep 4 to be a little better worded and a bit more ambiguous. I left out the mention of the 'mysterious frenchman' as, aside from what I stated above, you can't actually be sure it's the Crusaders who are speaking with him just going by the preview alone (again, putting whether you've read the manga or not aside). Wonchop (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it will probably just be the scene where he holds up the star shaped carrot rather than the fight between Magician's Red and Silver Chariot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Name Changes

should there be a section including the eventual name changes that Crunchyroll will use, typed later when they do arrive? 50.156.82.190 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? 50.156.82.190 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is a drastic difference, then it can be noted. Otherwise, the character lists serve this purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay now we have an issue with this because Wonchop, you want to use Crunchyroll's "Captain Dragon" and let their trantions be the end-all be-all on this rather than going with the original Japanese form of "Captain Tennille". "Captain Tennille" has been in use for years already and Crunchyroll's one-off calling him "Dragon" in subs shouldn't override this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

JoJo SC confirmed for 4 cours

source: https://twitter.com/anime_jojo/status/479965937144057856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.82.190 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentions of 'iconic moments' and 'quotes'

Ryulong's been on my bottom about this for a while so I may as well as make it an open discussion. Basically, there's a lot of edits (more often than not additions) Ryulong makes that tends to overly emphasise certain parts of an episode based on how 'iconic' the scene/quote/onomotopeia is (ie. what's typically referenced in pop culture), many of which tend to defeat the purpose to the word 'summary'. One notable example is episode nine, where Ryulong seems to give particular focus on the 'rero rero' scene, recently going so far as to even include 'rero rero' in the description. As described in WP:PLOTSUM, plot summaries should not try and replicate the experience one gets from watching the thing itself. The only time something needs to be quoted is when it has an importance to the plot can't otherwise be described in prose (for example, a dying message that can be read differently to determine the true message). It is also advisable that we not rely on in-universe terms such as 'Ora Rush' when simple English words such as 'pummeling' would suffice. Wonchop (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow man it's two fucking words presented in context that are notable unto themselves at least amongst readers of the work for the past 30 years. They're iconic scenes and they have iconic quotes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For a start, it isn't even translated as "rero rero" in English subtitles. It's "lick lick". And the licking part is already covered in describing the cherry being licked, so you're effectively turn the sentence into "he started licking a cherry going "lick lick"". Same goes for iconic quotes such as Muda Muda and Yare Yare. They're not important plot points, they're character gimmicks. And even if the manner someone talks serve as an important plot element (for example, Squid Girl dropping her 'de geso' talk), it can, like other quotes, be described in prose instead of being quote directly. Much like how in a Empire Strikes Back description, one would avoid writing "Darth Vader said "No, I am your father" and instead put "Darth Vader reveals that he himself is Luke's father". It's the difference between descriptions and storytelling. Wonchop (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The translation in Crunchyroll has been already shown to be inaccurate to the source material (not to mention the licking onomatopoeia isn't "rero rero" in Japanese and this is unique to the manga). We have no coverage of these characters on this project anymore after TTN went through all the individual character pages and sent them to AFDs that no one noticed and had the entire histories deleted after the AFD was closed as "redirect". It's honestly two words or so that are not even in every summary. Vader proclaiming "Luke I am your father" can be easily told in prose but the fact that you already quote the TV scene and you have had no issue with my "Gun is mightier than the sword" bit means an "ora ora" and a "rero rero" can just be added without much aplomb other than your intense opposition to such a minor aspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did not notice that quote since my focus had been kept on episode 9's summary. Ora Ora and Rero Rero are merely catchphrases that pertain to a character, not the character's story, and generally have no impact on the plot of a piece of media. As such, they can be mentioned in an article describing the character itself, but should be left out of a plot description.Wonchop (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit how much are you cutting out? You removed shit that carries on between episodes, cut out scenes that explain other scenes, etc. Might as well just cut out everything and just leave a 3 sentence summary that barely goes beyond the next episode preview like every other anime article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Logistically, episode summaries can just be a few sentences explaining about as much as a TV listing would, being more in line with summaries for American cartoons. We only really describe the full episode's events because of the storyline's continuity (as opposed to say slice-of-life anime). The point of a summary is describe the basic plot in as few sentences as possible and keep things brief, not lingering too much on scenes that don't add to much. For example, we don't need to go into detail about fake Kakyoin's jaw being ripped off, or Rubber Soul or Forever gloating about how they can't be defeated. The only things that need to be mentioned are scenes that notably advance the plot, such as when a particular action turns the fight around, or things that significantly show how an event evolves a character (and no, the fact Kakyoin actually licks cherries is not included in this). In the case of ep.9, rather than say "Jojo tried one thing to get rid of the slime, then JoJo tried another thing, then Rubber Soul went lololol im invincible, then JoJo referenced something from the previous season, then dragged Rubber Soul into the ocean", it's simpler to just say "after failing to get rid of the slime, JoJo instead drags Rubber Soul into the ocean). Bear in mind this list has got to cover four cours worth of episodes, so the less scrolling people have to do the better.Wonchop (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In short, it needs to read more like a proper Wikipedia article and less like a reminiscing fan.Wonchop (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Kakyoin thing is the reveal. You're skipping tons of events that you feel have no overall relevance and putting things in the wrong contextual order throughout all of the summaries. I had to argue with you to get a scene that lasted 5 minutes in one episode to even get a mention on this page because you felt it had no significance to the story despite the fact so much time was put into presenting it in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, presentation bears no meaning in a text summary, regardless of how much budget or whatever went into it, cos we're not seeing it for ourselves. Summaries, by definition, need to be trimmed to their basic format, focusing more on the what and less on the how.Wonchop (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonchop is right about the summaries being over detailed and how they are written from a fan's point of view. Looking at the first episode in the dif provided by Ryulong under the name "Holy Shit", Wonchop's trimming was fully justified. When both sides won't budge, it means the discussion should get more eyes instead of parroting reasons. What I would do in this situation, Wonchop, is replicate the summary section with shorter summaries in a sandbox, and later starting a discussion on which version should stay. As a follower of the series, I'd be able to summarize each episode under 200 words at least. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why can't famous scenes that have been replicated in other media be mentioned? That's all I want to know.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that to be the case here. All I see is a scene by scene in prose form stuffed into the summary box. If it truly is that important, it should be enough to support its own article. (What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural)) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? All I want is to have some particular scenes and quotes mentioned that Wonchop has decided are irrelevant.

• Jotaro disliking his mother's attention ("yare yare daze") which plays into the next episode where he realizes she has not bothered him
• The fact he says "ora ora"
• Kakyoin's "rero rero"
• Hol Horse's "The gun is mightier than the sword"

And there might be others coming up like

• ZZ gloating that he will be the main character
• Dio and Hol Horse's confrontation
• The ridiculing of Arabia Fats
• Cameo's "Hail 2 U" and Avdol's "Hell 2 U"
• The "I can see your panties" joke during the High Priestess fight
• How Kakyoin deals with Mannish Boy

I mean I've had Wonchop argue with me on the mere formatting of these pages because he doesn't like the sections because the table of contents gets too big or he didn't like how I wanted mention of the tarot cards on Persona 4's episode list, even though a scene was dedicated to discussing them each episode. Adding a simple one line mention of a particularly notable quote or event from the manga that has been repeated multiple times in other media (such as inclusion in previous video games, the previous anime adaptation, or simply being a memetic phrase) shouldn't be superfluous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Which returns to Wonchop's arguments on these details being unimportant, and returning to my reply about how I agree with him and how the summaries are written from a fan's point of view. I won't be returning to this specific discussion but may return further down the line depending on Wonchop's resolve to cut down the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're just here to cast the tie breaking vote? And all of these summaries have still been written by Wonchop considering he's cut out practically all of my contributions to the article at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, you've spent so much time whining over these kinds of things being excluded and have said absolutely nothing about how these things actually benefit the article outside of what can otherwise be detailed in a fan wiki. The scenes you mentioned, iconic as they are, are nothing but memes that aren't worth mentioning if they don't contribute to the plot in a meaningful way. I love Kono Dio Da as much as the next guy, but this isn't Niconico, it's Wikipedia. As such, it needs to be written in a manner that norms can understand.Wonchop (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's universally recognized then it's an integral part of the work of fiction as it relates to the audience.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a part of its notability, maybe, but not it's actual plot. The 'dickless' joke from Ghostbusters is iconic, but whether Peck actually has a dick or not plays no pivotal role in the story. And seriously, what do you have against 'whilst'?Wonchop (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Basically, in all articles I can think of where a particular 'scene' or 'meme' is worthy enough to be mentioned, it's generally left out of a plot summary and is instead put more in subsections about its legacy or impact. You can just as easily go into the main franchise article and put down 'the series has spawned multiple phrases and memes such as' in the reception section or something, but plot is for plotty things.Wonchop (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I just don't get it. If it's a notable event in the story, it should be perfectly fine to spend a single sentence mentioning it within the context of a plot summary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

But it's not notable in the context of the story. That's the point. The whole thing about ZZ's muscly arm is just a visual gag that doesn't bear any importance in the manner he is defeated, since he does all his attacks and stuff with his car. The danger the Joestar group was in did not revolve on whether or not the guy had ripped abs. Since we're not actually seeing it for ourselves, and its not that vital to the plot, we don't need to go into detail about it.Wonchop (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

But if it doesn't impede on anything why do you have to cut it out? It's not even a sentence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of asking why I have to cut it out, ask yourself why it needs to be there in the first place. Do inform us how we cannot possibly understand the story of this episode without the inclusion of bulging arms and rero reros. Wonchop (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

They're descriptions of visual and audio aspects of the episode which we cannot provide to our readers in the original format because it is non-free.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is generally what words exist for. Now how about actually answering the question? Wonchop (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did fucking answer the question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it certainly didn't win you a million dollars, I can tell you that much. On another note, why do names like J. Geil and Hol Horse need to be written in full upon repeat mentions instead of just "Geil" or "Hol"? It's not like there's any other characters named P. Geil or Paul Horse we could mistake them for. Bearing in mind that we're not characters living inside the anime and we're not obligated to refer to them the same way they do in the series. Wonchop (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Because that's their names and there's never been a short way to refer to them in any media prior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's an issue. Wikipedia articles don't tend to refer to characters in the same manner as in the anime (such as characters referred to by the first names even though they're almost always called by their second names). Wonchop (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know why that happens. If that's how the character is referred to in the work of fiction, that's how you should just refer to the character in general.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Either way, outside of characters who have superhero names or happen to be YuGiOh monsters or something, characters are rarely referred to by more than one name on repeat mentions. Wonchop (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

But that has never been the case for Hol Horse and J. Geil, at least in any discussion I've seen. And their names are short enough anyway that it doesn't matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Official English Dub Announcement

http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2014/06/23-1/crunchyroll-to-stream-english-dub-of-jojos-bizarre-adventure-stardust-crusaders50.156.82.190 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Clean up-rewrite" tag

I don't know if they the plot summaries are complex or not but WP:TVPLOT states: " For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)." And, no they do not "fall within the '100-200 word' limit", as Ryulong stated. Just look at Smallville (season 1) and you'll notice the difference. Anyway, instead of speaking abstractly, I'll give the numbers of words, according to wordcounttool.com and wordcounter.net respectively (when different results were obtained):

1. A Man Possessed by an Evil Spirit: 456/459
2. Who Will Be the Judge!?: 272
3. The Curse of Dio: 359
4. Tower of Gray: 323/327
5. Silver Chariot: 361
6. Dark Blue Moon: 330/329
7. Strength: 388
8. Devil: 369
9. Yellow Temperance: 324
10. The Emperor and the Hanged Man, Part 1: 322
11. The Emperor and the Hanged Man, Part 2: 447
12. The Empress: 377
13. Wheel of Fortune: 350
14. Justice, Part 1: 257
15. Justice, Part 2: 208
16. The Lovers, Part 1: 213
17. The Lovers, Part 2: 228
18. The Sun: 216/217
19. Death 13, Part 1: 368/372

As you can none of the 19 episodes are "within the '100-200 word' limit", with only four close to comply the MoS (15-18). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm... I've just noticed a similar discussion above, so I guess Wonchop and DragonZero may like to participate. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I underestimated how much has been written. Is it really that much of a problem though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't wanna get too involved in the process, since this kinda stuff often leads into some head-achey arguments, so I'll just suggest that people find ways to simplify the summaries, such as merging multiple points into one sentence, not going into too much detail about things (such as what specific fight techniques are used), and straight up leaving out things that don't actually have any impact on the overall plot (yes, this includes rerorero). Remember, you're summarising the plot, not replicating the experience of watching it. Though I will admit it can be a little hard to get them under the 200 word limit, given how intricate and over-the-top the plots of this kind of series can be. Wonchop (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Ryulong, is it a problem? I guess to follow the MoS is the minimum an article can do. And, Wonchop, it's okay to do not get yourself involved. I'm not too disposed to help either; but I've stumbled on this and I thought that at least a tag should be put... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

But is "too much information" ever a problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it became a catchphrase in the first place? Since a lot of debates, particularly some of our recent ones about episode list splits, tend to focus on how lengthy an article is, then naturally you'd try and keep things to as few words as possible. Basically, it should just focus more on the 'what' rather than the 'how'. Wonchop (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I guess too much information is not a problem but it's not the case. It's (in general but not in total) WP:fancruft (i.e. "rero rero") and desnecessary content (as raised by Wonchop and DragonZero above) but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And, again WP:TVPLOT is part of the MoS and then should be followed; if it says is a problem, so it's a problem. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even touch on catchphrases? And my arguments have simply been that if it is a scene that is widely known and iconic it should be featured.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is if it isn't something that benefits the description of the main plot, it shouldn't be included regardless of how many t-shirts you have of it. Even the iconic lobby and bullet time scenes from The Matrix are just described as "performing feats on par with those of the Agents". And trust me, "rero rero" is not on that level of fame, considering it's limited to the more niche anime/manga fanbase. Wonchop (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an iconic part of a 20 year old manga that has been referenced in subsequent works based on the manga. And all that we say is that he licks it oddly without even quoting anything anymore. If it's famous, it should be touched upon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Famous is very much a debatable thing. I could probably list a load of examples that are more famous than that (Akira's motorbike skid), but the bottom line is none of them are actually relevant to the episode's plot (heck, the part about licking actually detracts from the fact Jotaro was almost pushed off a building.) The impact some scenes may have had on the industry (I sincerely doubt gross licking is one of them) might be worth listing in a Reception segment or something, but not as part of a plot summary. Wonchop (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, it's part of the plot as a whole as it ties into the stuff at the end and it became his quoted phrase.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As Wonchop said what if it is famous or iconic is subjective, unless you bring here RSs. And, in the end, if it's iconic or not it doesn't matter; WP:TVPLOT states: "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail." For the sake of comparison look at Smallville (season 1) (the example given on the guideline, and a FA): each episode has 3-6 lines summaries, while the shorter summary here has 7 lines and the bigger has 15(!). It only gets worse when you know that Smallville episodes last long 42 minutes and JoJo episodes are the half long... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The plot is really simple. I could probably make the summaries equal or shorter than the ones at List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes. I think it is pointless to argue though, since Ryulong will want to discuss each episodes summary separately and it would take too much effort to dissuade him. Someone will really have to want to push this to FL qualtity for it to warrant the effort. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly I don't have a consensus so you should just do it instead of make me out to be the bad guy. I'm sorry tha being a fan of the work completely ruins any and all articles I touch.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• To comply with WP:TVPLOT, I am undertaking an edit of the episode summaries, shortening them to around the recommended 200 words, correcting and/or removing unnecessary event details and fixing some errors in syntax and grammar. This is not meant as a criticism of the many contributions to date and I will retain much of the current content rather than rewrite completely. These summaries are based on subtitled rather than dubbed versions, and utilize the names used in the Japanese language versions as has been the previous practice. Ozflashman (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sectioning

I won't fiddle with anything myself, namely cos it's a coding nightmare, but we should probably do away with this sub-heading-for-each-individual-episode thing, since doing that for a 52-episode series would make the table of contents larger than most articles. Naturally, dividing them up by their "seasons", (ie. the first arc and the currently airing Egypt arc, which had a gap between them), is reccomended, but we don't really need individual headings for the sole purpose of making easier edits, especially this far into the series. Wonchop (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) While on that subject, since the second part would likely be called "Egypt Arc", what should the first part be called? Wonchop (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The table of contents can be hidden/modified such that it only shows a particular number of headers. And the first part has no name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You could label them as "Part 1" and "Part 2: Egypt Arc" or something. Basically whatever they did for Digimon Fusion. Wonchop (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Xros wars had its shit across different pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant in terms of naming (ie. They were referred to as Xros Wars, Xros Wars: Death Generals and Xros Wars: Time Hunters). Obviously splitting this article into multiple ones is just dumb. And again, even regardless of the ToC, sticking a subheading for each episode is unneccessary, particularly since you, the only person who actually felt it neccessary, said you don't feel like writing the summaries anymore. Editing episodes individually has a lot of downsides, namely when it comes to memorising the correct spellings of recurring characters. Just two section splits for each of its seasons should be fine. Wonchop (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also we don't really need that second set of episode numbers (eg. #1/#27), as it's a totally seperate season from the first one and does not follow on from its episode count, much like how the first chapter of the SC manga would still just be chapter 1. Wonchop (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Remebering spellings of character names isn't an issue when we have a whole page dedicated to this part. The subheadings makes updating easier, regardless if I'm not the one writing the summaries. And yes, we do need the second set of episode numbers because this is indeed a continuation from the previous anime, just as all of the manga until stone ocean had its numbering continue throughout.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese wiki doesn't use a second set of episode lists so I don't see why we need to. There's a difference long running anime that are split up into seasons and anime of which each season is a distinctly seperate production, such as seasons one and two of typical moe slice-of-life, and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders are definitely in the latter. Even Naruto, one of the aforementioned long-running anime, starts its List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes at #1 without using a secondary listing its overall Naruto episode. It just adds unneccessary clutter. Wonchop (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't set up separate episode lists to begin with so that doesn't really matter here.

This is going to be a long running anime. It's already been on and off TV for 3 years and you have to be insane that they are not going to milk this for what it's worth and continue to produce through the next 5 parts of the manga. It's simple. This is split up into seasons like the Naruto, Bleach, and every single god damn non-anime TV series. Phantom Blood and Battle Tendency were 1 season. Stardust Crusaders is a second. Diamond Is Unbreakable will be the third and so on. So that means there's going to be an ongoing count as well as an internal seasonal count and that's how every other show is set up. I see no reason to treat this different other than your insistence that it somehow makes things more complex.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No no no. There's a big difference. Series like Naruto and Bleach are the long-running ones that run continuously from 1-2X6, with the only breaks being typical off-days for sports or New Year's etc., and they keep running until they run out of material or decide to end it. Each season of JoJo however, is its own anime production, one one-cour and one two-cour, with each having its own greenlighting, production period, and a defined number of episodes. This should be made clear by the fact that an anime for Stardust Crusaders wasn't announced immediately after the end of the first season. Even though they teased SC at the end of season 1, it wasn't an absolute certainty that another season would be made at the time (taking into account whether it would sell or if there was even a need for one with the OVA existing), thus it's a seperate anime production altogether. Also your 'milking' comment is pretty much in the same league as "Whatsherface is clearly Cure Obvious", in that it may be obvious but isn't officially confirmed, so it doesn't make sense for you of all people to make that sort of argument. As such, animes for Diamond is Unbreakable and so forth, while highly likely in the future, don't exist yet, and even then they might be subject to changes in staff or production studios, and thus will all be treated as seperate productions (unless two of them get merged into one season again). Maybe these seasons could become long running anime on their own accord if they go on long enough, but in terms of a franchise, they're as seperate as each Pretty Cure installment.

Also the fact that episode 1 of Stardust Crusaders has a freaking "1" in its titlecard should be a dead giveaway. Wonchop (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wonchop, they literally call it a second season in Japan. And I set all this shit up so it can be listed together on List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And do you know what they call the first episode of a second season in Japan? Episode 1. Wonchop (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the first episode of the second season but like every other article on television shows that have multiple seasons the numbering is continued from the previous season. This template lets us have two sets of numbers. We're using it. You have no reason not to use it other than your complete misunderstanding of how this website and television works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And like every other article on non-long-running anime shows with multiple season, that stuff has no place here. JoJo (season 1) and Stardust Crusaders are as different from each other as Avatar and Korra. They may follow on from each other, but they're each seperate productions. And that List of episodes should really just be a straight up article about the anime franchise as a whole already rather than just a list of freaking lists. And who the heck is this we person. Wonchop (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

None of what you're saying makes any god damn sense. There is no reason to make these stupid anime "franchise" articles. The main list is a perfectly fine place to host any content on reception and development. We are not basing this off of your original research on "cours". Warner Bros. Japan and David Production have exclusively handled this one anime which has been broadcast on and off since October 2012 as evident from their own website. We are setting this page up like any other singular season's episode list on Wikipedia, anime or not, and expanding upon it with all of the other crap we have that is just for this season rather than content that can be said for the whole 2012-2015 JoJo anime. There is frankly no reason to change anything that isn't broken. And this is nothing like the difference between Last Airbender and Legend of Korra. Both of those had multiple seasons unto themselves. JoJo (season 1) and Stardust Crusasders are two seasons of one show.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Literally everything we have argued about is for the sake of keeping things simple and compact, which means cutting out superfluous crap that doesn't really add anything for the reader. Also you seriously need to stop using American shows as arguments for these things because like it or not, things do work a bit differently in Japan and, indeed, between different series produced in Japan. Wonchop (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are demanding that this be different from all other pages when I'm trying to make it the same as others (section titles withstanding).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Define "other pages" (preferably examples that aren't American/long running anime series or one obviously monitored by yourself). Because as far as I know, all the regular anime episode lists don't have all the subsectiony, multi-columny nonsense. Wonchop (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The JoJo anime is the only one where the section headers exist to edit multiple sections easily because when they were on the persona pages you deleted them there because you hated them then too. Let me ask you this. Does using any of these formats I've put in break the page and make it completely unusable or is it just because you don't personally like the formatting?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No more fucking sections. No more complex garbage. If you want to get rid of the second episode numbers fine with me. It's not like I'm going to be able to refuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks better already. I don't know how to remove the secondary numbers or hide the untitled episodes without screwing up the tables though. Wonchop (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast needs more info!!

The cast section needs to show more characters and the actors/actresses that voiced them. Otherwise, I'll have to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.31.148 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, unless a show only has a small cast of character, you would only list the main cast. It just takes too much space to list all minor characters.--IDV^talk 11:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Added link to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters. Ozflashman (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

English in "Voice Cast" table

What about add “English name” in wikitable in Voice Cast?

Like this:

Character	English name
Enya Geil	Enyaba
Vanilla Ice	Cool Ice
"Captain Tenille"	"Captain Dragon"
J. Geil	Centerfold