Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Sonic and Pokémon credits

Lately, there have been credits for Sonic and Pokémon removed from voice actor articles per WP:BLP but were reinstated by sockpuppets of the banned user Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs). We may need to find some reliable sources per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR and hold a centralized discussion on this matter here. Reliable sources may include BTVA (only green-check marks), interviews, tweets, episode credit lists via YouTube, Netflix, Neon Alley, Hulu, On Demand, broadcast TV, DVD or Blu-ray and press releases. Any thoughts or ideas on what to do here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bigshow seems to have access to an unlimited supply of un-rangeblockable IP's. The only way to stop the disruption is semi-protection of the articles. Sro23 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. But still, we will have to find some sources after we semi-protect the articles temporarily for disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: pages have now been semi-protected.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You two are wasting your time of all those sourced edits you keep removing, 2600:1000:B012:BD7D:8C6E:3876:980D:7ED3 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a waste when they are not sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive comments struck out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a list of the articles being hit? Maybe they need a scrubbing over at WP:ANIME/BIO? I just did one for Darren Dunstan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are some of the articles in question: Lisa Ortiz, Jason Griffith, Dan Green (voice actor), Eric Stuart, Oliver Wyman (actor), David Willis (voice actor), Kathleen Delaney, Matt Hoverman, Suzanne Goldish, Ted Lewis (voice actor), Kayzie Rogers, Amy Palant, David Brimmer and Jimmy Zoppi. I did a major scrub over on the filmography section of the Rachael Lillis article, actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be best to semi-protect these articles indefinitely to minimize disruptive edits. Homechallenge55 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 1#Tales of Eternia

This FFD discussion has been ongoing since June 2016. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Attacking on Titan?

The article Attack on Titan has been moved twice in less than 24 hours without any sort of reason first by Hawaiifive0 and then Dream Focus. Should we discuss it here or move to the talk page? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The title needs to be fixed so it is "Attack on Titan" again. For some reason the page didn't move back when Dream tried the move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Dream Focus already realized that and went to requested moves to move it back to Attack on Titan.Tintor2 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw it was changed to "Attacking Titan" so changed it to " Attacking on Titan" thinking just the "on" had been removed, then realized my mistake and tried to change it to "Attack on Titan" but that didn't work. So I posted to ask for help in doing it. Dream Focus 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Page has now been restored to the correct title. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Article index?

Hello. I'm considering doing a possible article index, using the WikiProject Square Enix page as a model. That way, we can organize it into topics like people, studios, anime series or light novels and add statistics or charts to it so we can see how the progress is holding up for anime-related articles. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

We have something similar with our topic workshop. The problem though is that we need more editors in our project to collaborate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Knowledgekid87. I do like a lot of the formatting used on the SE project, and I think a goal of improving all stub articles to Start is good. It would also have the added benefit of finding stub articles which cannot be improved so they can be merged, redirected, or deleted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, We've got 60.8% of all articles higher than stub class and it's one of our main goals for this project, after all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
tubs aren't a huge issue and actually can be useful though. Why not pull the resources in helping out start or C class articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I remember doing things like that with the video game project like expanding the article Metal Gear for a week. Still, what could we edit together? ...*cough* S-cry-ed *cough*. Still, I couldn't clean up Ashita no Joe too much. Well, that's an old manga though. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The main things I see right away for S-cry-ed are plot & character info. If I had seen the series I would know which parts are WP:OR verses which parts are legit. I could add tags coming from a neutral point of view though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Previous users even forgot to merge the character list. However, I couldn't find a single source about its creation and airdates.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Still, I merged the character list.Tintor2 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The airdates are on the media arts database.--十八 21:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

New studio article: Studio Ponoc

It's pretty basic right now, but there are some additional refs on the talk page for anyone who has time to expand the article and add them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs for episode lists?

For episode lists, I've discovered that the lead has one paragraph in some lists while most episode FLs have music as a separate paragraph. In List of Brave Witches episodes (which I intend to send to FL once all of the episodes have aired), I attempted to separate the lead into two or three paragraphs myself, but they were repeatedly merged back into one when new episodes are added. Any ideas on how we should split up the paragraphs for the lists to include separate ones for broadcast, storyline, releases or music? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If splitting it up into paragraphs means a bunch of single sentence paragraphs, it's better off being merged. You could wait for a Home Media section to develop as well. Or if the series was aired in multiple regions then that can be beefed up in its own paragraph. In addition to the music section, the writers and directors can be mentioned; mainly the head ones if they rotate the episodic writers and directors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course. Also, since Brave Witches will eventually be licensed for an English-language DVD/Blu-ray release in the future anyway, I think we should include that as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend you using List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes and List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes as examples (I think DragonZero did those) considering how much they cover.Tintor2 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. There's also List of One Piece episodes (season 2) and List of One Piece episodes (season 5). Both are FLs and we can use this as examples also. Meanwhile, there's an ongoing discussion over at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes#Lead paragraph regarding how we should do the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're still having a bit of an issue with the wordings of the summaries and lead sections in the ongoing discussions. I've asked around and tried to explain my reasonings in this discussion, but I think more eyes will be needed on the List of Brave Witches episodes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

AFDs/Sk8erprince

A ANI thread regarding User:Sk8erPrince and their AFD's is here.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Although some details are still being discussed, this has now closed with a deletions topic ban for six months.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Animerica interview

I managed to as much reception as possible in s-CRY-ed. However, I have no information about the series' creation and not even the airdates to create an episode list. While searching online, I found this interview from an unspecified Animerica 2003 interview where the series' director talked a lot about the series. Does anybody know the issue of this magazine? It might help me to get the article to B class at least (although should I reference the characters' section). Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Volume 11, Number 7. July issue I presume. [1].SephyTheThird (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Brave Witches issues

As mentioned in my previous post a few days ago, there's still an ongoing situation regarding issues with the wordings in the episode summaries on the List of Brave Witches episodes article in List of Brave Witches episodes#Episode summaries and I made a proposal on the lead section at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes#Proposal. I've already asked over at WT:TV and WT:TVE, but input from other project members here would also be appreciated. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mechademia volume list

More eyes on Mechademia please, someone keeps deleting the list of volumes. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Started a discussion here.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Searching for s-CRY-ed's dates

While working in the article S-CRY-ed, I noticed the only thing left to create an episode list (and probably its own article) is finding the dates. While I can't find the ones from the original Japanese release, TV.com offered all the ones from the English one. Is TV.com reliable? Regards and happy Holidays.Tintor2 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The airdates are on the media arts database.--十八 01:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
[2].SephyTheThird (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the archives of the TV WikiProject and WP:RSN, it appears that TV.com is largely based on user generated content much like ANN's encyclopedia and wouldn't be considered a reliable source. But the important thing is the original air dates, which Juhachi and SephyTheThird have linked above. On a side note, there was a question brought up on what I believe was episode list template some time back about why the Japanese list had two date fields, one for the original date and one for English. —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback guys. Article created: List of S-CRY-ed episodes. I'll try to work on summaries. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:TV Straw poll for episodes

There is currently a straw poll open to discuss updating and redefining word count limits for plot sections as used in the various articles of the TV project, including anime. The information on the straw poll can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section#Straw poll. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:PrimeBOT is messing up our templates

Recently, there was a change in {{vgrelease}} where the syntax changed from something like {{vgrelease|JP=date}} to {{vgrelease|JP|date}}, and although {{vgrelease}} was changed to reflect the new syntax, the various animanga templates that work in a similar fashion have not, and the bot User:PrimeBOT (operated by Primefac (talk · contribs)) is changing the syntax on the articles that contain {{vgrelease}} before the animanga templates have been changed, which mess up how they are viewed. For example, you can see it on The Pet Girl of Sakurasou, where you can compare the anime box's license and English network fields to how it was before the change (namely, Sentai Filmworks disappears from the license field, the country codes aren't wikilinked, and there is more white space between the country codes and the company name). I also noticed that even on articles where {{vgrelease}} already had the correct syntax, the bot is changing the anime templates to the new syntax anyway, such as on Da Capo III. The animanga templates in question being broken are {{English manga publisher}}, {{English anime licensee}} and {{English anime network}}.--十八 21:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you contacted the bot owner? These templates shouldn't be changed. —Farix (t | c) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought a centralized discussion here would make more sense, since it'd be more visible.--十八 21:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If a bot is misbehaving or doing something it shouldn't, you need to contact the owner. Pinging @Primefac: —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Bot should have only been editing {{vgrelease}} in its various flavours. I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: It may be a good idea to do a mass rollback and redo once you figure out the problem. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm more curious to see how many pages were affected first. No point in doing a mass rollback if it's a relatively small number of fixes. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it's been fixed now. Thanks Primefac.--十八 00:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sorry for the hassle. Glad it was relatively easy to fix. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Anime News Network article

The ANN article has a claim on it regarding a block by Saudi Arabia some years ago. Given that the sources being used for the claim are of dubious credibility being forums I feel that it needs to be examined as an attempt to remove it was undone a while ago. One of the sources being used is the ANN forums, however that discussion only started because the thread starter saw the claim on wiki, opening up the view that Wiki is being used as a source for itself. Opinions are welcome at Talk:Anime News Network#Saudi block — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephyTheThird (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft for Mike Pollock resubmitted

Draft:Mike Pollock is currently in the resubmit queue. It had previously been AFD'ed in a heated discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Pollock. Can someone look through it to see if the secondary sources are good enough this time around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There are at least 20 refs being used to source a single sentence, and most of them are random blogs and some forums. It's hardly convincing me. It's not ready. The problem is with so many poor sources it's difficult to properly consider the useful ones, and I'm not seeing that the problem has been fixed. I'm just seeing lots of announcements and coverage by unreliable sites. Nothing that solves the concerns over notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to pass this information onto the reviewer at AFC? Or can we pull it for this reason? Maybe point to this discussion? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is my first time even seeing a draft article so I have no idea. Talk page?SephyTheThird (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Himari Noihara GA

Would someone be willing to look over Himari Noihara? I think it looks good, but would like more input if anything is flawed that would prevent it from obtaining GA status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just some advices:

  • Make sure the manga is the primary media when writing the article like "She also appears in the anime adaptation"
  • The last sentence of creation is a bit trivial.
  • Clarify in reception who is Inuyasha ("Inuyasha's manga title character")
  • Lasly, I would recommend moving "Reception of her character has been mostly positive; while one reviewer thought she was stereotypical, others pointed out her innocent and interesting nature." to the bottom on the based on how the article is organized.

Other than that, I think it is good shape. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I did everything so far except your 2nd opinion. I was trying to go with Himari's creation from a fictional point of view, but if you think it is trivial then I can remove it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I see @Knowledgekid87:. If you think it's ready for GA, nominate it. If you have doubts you can request a peer review though. Also, it could be better if you added a manga colored image of the character. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Ayu_Tsukimiya, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there's also a request to merge Ayu Tsukimiya into List of Kanon characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Handling Kindle releases

There has been a lot of manga, including older manga, begin released for the Amazon Kindle, this has been a great boon for getting quality cover images as they aren't as blurry, washed out, or have fewer compression artifacts. But as far as article content, how should we go about handled these releases? Should their dates be added to the {{Graphic novel list}} or should the Kindle release only be mentioned in the article text? Is it even worth mentioning at all? —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

At most I would mention them in article text as "was also released through ebooks.." or the like. Keep in mind that there is also the Nook, Tolino, Boox, and Bookeen to name a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerns with citations for TMS Entertainment...

I've looked into the article of TMS Entertainment and I am very concerned about the lack of citations. Now I'm not doubting the research that has been done about the company, however, the lack of citations means that certain segments of the article cannot be fact checked. In response to this, I've added direct links to the Japanese pages of TMS Entertainment and Telecom Animation (a subsidiary of TMS Entertainment). If anyone is proficient in translating Japanese and is good with finding sources, please use those native pages to improve the information that has been provided to TMS Entertainment. I feel that this is imperative to solve as it is considered as Top-Importance on the importance scale Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've done some small work on it but I don't think this is something that needs to be rushed. Removing OR and other unsourced claims are easy enough but properly developing the article will take time. Some of the things that need doing or could be added are tied in to things I'm already working on and I already have arguably the best English language book source for the early history of the company.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help and input. Admittedly, I placed the original research about the textile origins only because it was from the original Japanese Wikipedia page of TMS Entertainment. My only real concern is the citation for Sega's acquisition. Apparently, Sega acquired TMS Entertainment before they merged with Sammy. I've struggled to find evidence of that, however, it must have happened (if Merill Lynch was the second largest stakeholder before "Sega Corp."). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Anime Now RS

Was directed here after adding Anime Now as a refidea to an article. I believe it easily qualifies as a reliable source due to the staff members' past experience: managing editor Richard Eisenbeis has written for Kotaku, GameZone and GamePro; Sarah Nelkin has written for Anime News Network; Toshi Nakamura has written for Kotaku; Brittany Vincent has written for Rolling Stone; and Renato Rivera Rusca has written for Mechademia.--IDVtalk 18:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Animenow before the link to ANN and the Industry was formerly announced. Even at that point the contributors had all been verified and vetted. Definitely RS. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources then. As a formality you might also want to start a discussion over at WP:RSN to further back up the claim in case the source is challenged in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Scryed

The article Scryed has been copyedited with the user suggesting to move it to s-CRY-ed based in its merchandising. I tried doing that but a red warning stopped it. Any ideas? I plan to nominate it ga once I am back from my wikibreak. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been titled s-CRY-ed for over 10 years so I am not sure what the problem is.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That is the display title a user put.Tintor2 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean decapitalize the S? Because it has been moved: just look at the URL. And I don't believe pages can be moved to lowercase titles: see for example iPhone; the article is titled IPhone and uses DISPLAYTITLE. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
So should I request in wp:requested moves?Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, now I get your point GS Palmer. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Afro Samurai

Could anyone that is familiar with this show please check the edits the anon made to List of Afro Samurai characters. I reverted it to the last version by a registered user since the edits looked suspicious (didn't warn the user). If the edits are okay and not vandalism please feel free to undo my revert. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Moka Akashiya

It looks like this page needs watching, Anthony Duran is back doing exactly what got him blocked months ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

From previous experiences, I think this article needs more information in the reception section in order to pass notability. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a merge request that didn't go last time Talk:List_of_Rosario_+_Vampire_characters#Merger_proposal_for_Tsukune_and_Moka. Has there been changes that would prompt wanting to try another merge? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
ANN's article seems to be pretty good if you the editors elaborate on that. Still, I think it might require more expansion considering that even the visual novel GA Ayu (Can't remember her last name) still hasn't passed notability after I tried to add more critical reception. I think articles like Yoh Asakura seem to have good reception even though it's a bit small.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that I check Talk:Rosario + Vampire#Reviews has a lot of stuff about series' reception. I'm pretty sure the character might be commented in some of them if she is the protagonist.Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OVA boxes being merged into anime TV series boxes

Recently, Mika1h (talk · contribs) has been merging all of the anime and OVA boxes of {{Infobox animanga}} into one box for consolidation in some articles, but I would like the project's opinion of this, since I have a few issues with it. For instance, on Angel Beats!, the 2 OVAs were merged into the anime box, but in this case, only the anime series and the first OVA were licensed by Siren Visual, Sentai Filmworks and Manga Entertainment, and the second OVA was never licensed, and so if they're all in one box, it would appear in the infobox that both OVAs were licensed, so I reverted that edit on that basis. A similar thing happened with Shirobako, where both OVAs weren't licensed but the anime series was. And then there's something like on Squid Girl where the two anime series and OVA box are merged into one, despite the fact that the second anime series and the OVAs were only licensed by Sentai Filmworks, whereas the first anime series were also licensed by Madman Entertainment and Manga Entertainment. So although I can understand the rationale for merging the boxes in certain cases where all the information in multiple boxes is the same, when licenses differ between anime series or OVA releases, I don't think these boxes should be merged so as not to create confusion and misinformation.--十八 03:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, OVAs should not be merged into boxes that falsely indicate that they were licensed by x company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Move request for Template:Plot

Please take a moment to comment at Template talk:Plot#Requested move 22 January 2017. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential new article

I have been remembering how I always find a reviewer named Chris Beveridge in a lot of articles I edit. I think I first saw him in AnimeOnDVD (now not working), then Mania Beyond Entertainment (he moved) and his current website The Fandom Post. He also has an account on Twitter where he talks about his work as a reviewer. Still, I'm not sure what he needs in order to be given an article. Just my random thoughts. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He would need more coverage like this: [3] [4] [5]. Anime On DVD and The Fandom Post can then redirect there. He frequents Anime Boston [6] It's kind of tough to find coverage outside the anime community though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Manga vs. manhwa with regard to yaoi and yuri

Hi, all. I've been meaning to address this: In very recent years, I've seen same-sex romantic and/or sexual manhwa referred to as either yaoi or yuri, or as BL (Boys' Love) or GL (Girls' Love). And I don't just mean by the fans, but by authors on sites such as Lezhin Comics. Despite this broader use, we don't yet note it in the Yaoi or Yuri (genre) articles. Thoughts? Any reliable sources noting that Korean authors may use these Japanese terms for their comics?

Manhwa is also commonly labeled "manga" on manga sites.

I'll alert the talk pages of those two articles to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't cover Manhwa under our project. You might want to ask a Korean Wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Knowledgekid87. I know that this is WikiProject Manga; this isn't my first time posting to this project. I know that the Project scope section states that this project doesn't focus on manhwa. But my aforementioned post is about manga in addition to manhwa. This means that it's relevant to this project. There is no other WikiProject that is as relevant to my above post as this one is, and I don't see that there is any other WikiProject that would be suitable for this topic. Not even WP:Korea.
I am stating that the aforementioned Japanese terms are commonly applied to manhwa. In fact, many people do not know the distinction between manga and manhwa, and the distinction is also somewhat debated. Furthermore, it's noted in reliable scholarly sources that manhwa is heavily influenced by manga. I came to this project asking about thoughts on these things and sources that might support them, but, given the initial above response, I went ahead looked into the subjects myself. See the following sources, for example:
Click on this to see sources.

This 2006 Emerging Worlds of Anime and Manga, Volume 1 source, from University of Minnesota Press, page 34, states, "[...L]ocally produced Korean comics -- (manhwa) -- very much mimic Japanese manga in style and techique." The source goes on to note that Korean comics and animation artists "learn skills firsthand from Japan through offshore animation factories", and that Korean and Japanse artists also collaborate on stories.

This 2011 Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture source, from ABC-CLIO, page 202, states, "Some writers extend the term manga to include Korean comics (manhwa) and manga-influenced work by non-Japanese creators: the latter includes OEL (original English language) manga."

This 2014 Manga's Cultural Crossroads source, from Routledge, pages 143-144, states, "Kim Nak-ho, the curator of the Korean exhibition in Angouleme, for example, said about the expansion of manhwa abroad that 'in North America and Europe, Korean manhwa leads with a trump card as something resembling manga', and he regarded this is a positive light (2007). [...] 'With respect to overseas markets, manga has come to be regarded both as the basis for circulation of manhwa and the rival of this Korean brand. However, the hybridity of manhwa style remains unaddressed. [...] It is a well-known fact that Korean manhwa received a lot of influence from Japanese manga. But what has not been researched yet is which work by which artist was actually influenced by which work by which Japanese artist. And of course, there has not been any research either on whether this influence was merely confined to the level of character design, or whether it affected the whole composition (Han 2011).

This 2015 Asian Comics source, from University Press of Mississippi, page 162, states, "Invariably, one of the first questions to come up in a discussion of Korean comics (manhwa) is: how do they differ from Japanese manga? Such a query is justified, because manhwa creators for years imitated manga in drawing syle, format, character depictions, and story lines, and because people involved in Korean comics are themselves often hard pressed to explain the differences. Efforts to Koreanize manhwa have kept the differences/similarities discussion on the table. Lee SunYoung (2007) unhesitatingly wrote that manhwa 'generally looks and reads very much like manga' and that little 'distinguishes it in terms of form or content from its more popular Japanese counterpart.' Earlier, critic Im Bum (1994), claiming that Korean characters and cartoon styles are still very Japanese, avowed that 'cartoonist don't have to put the characters in tradotional garb and settings, but they have to draw with a sense of familairity and originality and touch Korean feelings.' Researchers Kim Nak-Ho (2003) and Seon Jeong-U (2003) talked about similarities and differences, Kim insisting that '[p]ublishers who say Korean comics do not have a manga style are talking trash; you can't tell Japanese and Korean comics apart."

This 2016 Global Manga: 'Japanese' Comics without Japan? source, from Routledge, page 19, says, "[...T]he American manga industry itself defines manga rather differently. On one level, a 'manga' is any comic first published in Japan, irrespective of format or genre, but on another level it can be, quite simply, anything a publisher says it is. The industry definition of manga, as has been elswhere argued (Brienza 2009; Brienza 2011), evolved to have less to do with visual style or content or country of origin and more about the presentation of the book as a mass-produced commercial object and the intended target audience. In the most extreme cases, a manga is simply a comic book of a particular trim size and price point that girls and women would be expected to read. Whether or not it is from Japan is of secondary importance. If this sounds vague that is because, quite simply, it is, and a rigorous, universally agreed upon definition does not exist among industry professionals themselves, and it is within precisely this sort of space of definitional ambiguity that what I have termed 'global manga' begins to take root as a categorical cultural product in its own right." This source goes on to talk about manhwa.

Because of these matters, which have reliable sources to support statements about them, I now believe that we should have some type of "Comparison to manhwa" section in the Manga article. Looking at sources discussing these topics, I'm surprised that this isn't covered in the Manga article already. And considering that (as reliable sources state) manga is more popular than manhwa, that manhwa has been largely influenced by manga, is widely mistaken to be manga, and is sometimes categorized as manga, I think some material about this belongs in the Manga article more than it does in the Manhwa article. I've seen a lot of people confused about these topics, including some of our readers, and I think it's something that should be cleared up in the Manga article.
But going back to my original statement... What if an editor creates a BL or GL manhwa article, would it not be okay to use the terms BL or GL (or yuri) for such articles, given that these (with the exception of shoujoai or GL) are Japanese terms, even if manhwa sources such as Lezhin Comics calls them BL and GL? At the Yuricon website, which Erica Friedman is the founder of, it states, "Here in the west, as anime and manga fandom grew quickly in the 1990s, the term Yuri was often, but not exclusively, used to represent explicit stories with sexual relations between women. In short, it was considered 'porn for guys.' The term shoujoai (Girls’ Love) was created by an American fan as an analog for shounenai, which was being incorrectly used by American fans as a term for Boys’ Love manga. Shoujoai wasn’t ever really used in Japan – although they understood what was meant if western fans used it. Shoujoai was originally used by American fans to refer to stories that contained romantic love between girls. The emphasis was originally on the romantic over the sexual, but this age and content distinction was convention that was made up by Americans and had no meaning at all in Japan. [...] In short, Yuri is any story with lesbian themes." So because of this, it seems the Yuri article should make it clearer that the term GL may not only refer to manga but to manhwa as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a section Yaoi#Yaoi-inspired_works_outside_Japan for discussion of such works. Are you asking whether there should be a similar section for in Yuri genre? As for category: they would fall in Category:Yaoi but not Category: Yaoi anime and manga. Also discussion of yuri in North America is covered by Yuri_(genre)#Japanese_vs._Western_usage AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a Category:Yaoi manhwa would be in order, if the number of notable manwha and webtoons that fall in this genre becomes too high. If yaoi and yuri have significant popularity in Korea, then it might be a good idea to create a separate section on those two articles about it. I personally don't know if these terms "strictly" refer to Japanese work. You wouldn't apply these genre names to American or European works, surely, but I can imagine that Korean media in particular embrace these terms. It may be worth changing these two articles to show that, though I don't have much of an opinion on the topic. ~Mable (chat) 20:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies.
AngusWOOF, yeah, I know what the Yaoi and Yuri articles contain, but those articles currently don't mention manwha, and I was wondering whether or not we should mention in those articles (respectively, of course) that "BL" and "GL" may refer to manwha. I was also wondering about how manwha BL and GL articles (if created) should be categorized, like should we use the terms yaoi and yuri in the lead of those articles, should we use "BL" or "GL" instead, or should we not use any of the terms? You are stating that it would be okay to categorize BL manwha as yaoi? Would this go for the lead as well? Or would it be better to stick to "BL" for the lead (with a pipelink to the Yaoi article)? The leads of the Yaoi and Yuri articles currently indicate that these terms (including "BL" and "GL") are Japanese terms that refer to manga and anime. If you go by the aforementioned Yuricon source, though, the term GL is was invented by an American.
Maplestrip, yeah, I'm asking about changing those articles to note manwha. I'm also asking about creating a "Comparison to manwha" section in the Manga article, per the sources I listed above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll propose the "Comparison to manwha" addition at the Manga talk page at some point. I just have to get some good time to get the wording together. I'm not looking to go overboard on that material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say "comparison to manwha" would be a bad title for such a section, and "use in manwha" or simply "Boy's love"/"Girl's love" would be better. As for whether defining Korean comics under Japanese genre names is appropriate: I recommend asking this at the Korean WikiProject instead. I'd be fine with using genre identifiers broadly, even within original English manga, but it should be the call of the relevant WikiProject or specific talk page consensus. ~Mable (chat) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought of "comparison to manwha" because the sources are comparing the two topics and sometimes equating them. It's not really "use in manwha" unless the sources are categorizing manga as something that is used in manwha. The sources are noting similarities, but they are still mostly distinguishing manga from manwha rather than calling manwha a kind of manga. As for asking WikiProject Korea about this, I will alert them to this discussion, but it does not appear that they actually focus on comics. Furthermore, like I noted above, this topic concerns the Yaoi and Yuri (genre) articles as well, which are mostly about Japanese culture, and is why I brought the matter here. Again, thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I came here from the Korea portal. All I can say that in these countries, Korea and Japan, a difference between Manga and Manhwa does not exist. This differentiation is a solely Western point of view. The words are spelled the same in both countries, only the pronunciation differs. If Koreans speak of Manhwa, Korean comics, Western comics, Japanese mangas are all included. Therefore, there is not really a differentiation in genres. Though, on Naver e.g. you can find 국내순정 and 일본순정 (Domestic sunjeong/shonen and Japanese sunjeong/shonen). But this is only for the most popular genre, Shonen. That Korean authors use Japanese terms is highly unlikely, though. If this happens on English language websites, then it is probably due to overlocalisation. Somehow, in contrast to mangas, webtoons are overlocalized, not to say "Americanized". Therefore, if the content holder of the website thinks Japanese terms are better known in the US than Korean terms, they would chose them. Also, inside the webtoons, much is changed in the English version, from names over currency to graphical and cultural adjustments. Still, use of Japanese terms does happen, apparently when trying to emphasize that the comic is from a Japanese author. BL and 백합 are the respective Korean articles. Note that I am no expert in comics and dunno these genres. --Christian140 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Christian140, thank you for weighing in. You've been a big help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Also because of what you and I have stated above, I wonder why this WikiProject should exclude focusing on manhwas. There really isn't any WikiProject for manhwas and I don't think that creating WikiProject Manhwa would be fruitful. And, per what we've stated above, I don't see that it's needed either. But that's a discussion for another time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Progress bar and List-class concerns

I've redone the progress bar percentage calculations, taking out the list-class from these three groupings.

  • higher than C: (FA, FL, GA, A, B ) / (all articles including list-class)
  • higher than Start: (FA, FL, GA, A, B, C) / (all articles including list-class)
  • higher than Stub: (FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start) / (all articles including list-class)

Should list-class be removed from the (all articles) section? These are supposed to be for pure lists that don't get a chance to go through the progression.

@Sjones23: for input AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, the last time I used ping for the current D.Gray-man peer review, DragonZero told he didn't receive any notice so I suggest just using User:Sjones23. Also, I'm confused a bit. Can list articles become GAs before becoming featured? It's that I'm confused since other projects avoid it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Lists cannot currently become GAs before becoming featured lists. There was just a recent RFC on that subject at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Request for comment on stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Calathan on this matter. Considering the fact that all stand-alone lists regarding anime and manga are listed from Stub all the way up to B class, the next logical step would be FL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Unassessed article update

Heads up, everyone: the remaining unassessed articles regarding class and importance are now down to zero. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Update the schemes for assessment?

Hello everyone. I'm going to propose that we should help update some categories for the assessment and fix up the redirects so we won't have any issues. Right now, the categories use the original naming scheme, so if it's possible, I'm proposing that we may need a new consensus if we should change these to the current naming schemes listed below before I take it up for a potential WP:RFC:

As everyone knows, consensus can change. If there are any suggestions or ideas on what we should do, please post here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be careful with categories, we have so many that it is easy to overdo it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This is derived from another attempt to convert {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} over to use. However, I very severally dislike the naming scheme used by {{WPBannerMeta}}. First and foremost, it calls everything "articles" whether they are an article or not. Categories are not articles. Templates are not articles. Project pages are not articles. Disambiguation pages are not articles. Redirects are not articles. And finally, Wikipedia Books are not articles. Categories in which these things are indexed in should not be named "articles". There is also the issue that the naming scheme used by {{WPBannerMeta}} was forced onto Wikiprojects without any discussion. These resulted in many projects having their categories renamed to fit the template. When a few projects did resist, like ours, the projects were told that it was "too late" to discuss the matter or adapt the template to use another scheme. In short, it created a fait accompli, which ArbCom has stated in a different case was completely unacceptable. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the above comments, while I'm not against the possibility that the naming scheme used by {{WPBannerMeta}} doesn't sit well with some project members here and that the debacle with the naming schemes created a fait accompli, is there another possible way about we can convert it over to use? Obviously, I'm a little concerned about getting a new consensus on this issue without more input from other editors since the past discussions happened at least 7 years ago. I generally prefer to get consensus on issues via WP:RfC rather than get involved in an extensive edit war. If we can come up with some potential wordings like the one above, I think it would be fine to set the RfC up, since I've already started it in my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Im fine with the status quo here as I agree that we shouldn't be placing these under "article" categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not against the fact that the naming scheme used by {{WPBannerMeta}} might not sit well with some project members and can create controversy. At the same time, I've been involved in quite a few discussions regarding ideas about the parameters in project and infobox templates. In practice, if there are any potentially controversial edits to be made to the templates, the best idea is to resolve it in individual talk pages. I think that, at this point, one of the the possible ways of moving forward is to get a new consensus via RfC (if the categories need to be updated, it'll be updated; if the miscellaneous categories are to be kept, it'll stay). There's no rush, but if anyone wants to second the RfC I'm working on, I'm willing to get it up. I'll get others to weigh in on the outline before launching it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the RfC. You bought the topic up about changing the category naming scheme to the project. So far, you have two negative comments on the idea, yet you talk about starting another discussion about the topic while this one has just begun. —Farix (t | c) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I know I brought this matter up here, Farix, but I thought other uninvolved editors would weigh in on the idea if we could make this RfC a formal one, which it obviously is. My mistake. Meanwhile, I've created the appropriate RfC sub-section below, so we should continue this discussion there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If it isn't a policy or guideline issue than why ask for comments from members outside of our project? Are you looking for comments that explain the benefits/faults of x? In the end we here are the ones that are going to have to deal with the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
When a WikiProject banner template uses the {{WPBannerMeta}} template, it is not mandatory to have the assessment cats in the form "xxx-class yyy articles" (even though I can't find any that don't use the word "articles". The |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter is provided to allow the default to be overridden, so you can put |ASSESSMENT_CAT=anime and manga pages which would use Category:FA-Class anime and manga pages, Category:Template-Class anime and manga pages and so on. What you can't easily do is customise it based upon namespace, so you can't get it to emit Category:Template-Class anime and manga templates etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
But that is an all or nothing override. We due use "X-Class anime and manga articles" for the standard article assessments (FA, GA, B, C, Start, Stub), but categories, templates, redirects, files, books, portal pages, project pages, etc follow a different naming scheme of "WikiProject Anime and manga X". —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Category naming schemes?

Should the non-article related naming schemes in the anime and manga WikiProject be updated to match those of {{WPBannerMeta}}? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Absolutely NO per my comments above and elsewhere in the past. It is semantically incorrect to place non-articles into "X-Class anime and manga articles" categories and the category name states that the contents are articles. There is also no reason to rename these categories other than to conform with the fait accompli that was created back in 2008. —Farix (t | c) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it isn't broken then don't fix it, I agree that non articles should not be placed into categories that mislead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Asterisk War GA plans

There's an ongoing discussion regarding plans for a potential GA for The Asterisk War. I've already asked a couple of users to help work on this (Knowledgekid87, Xezbeth and DragonZero) matter. The discussion can be found at Talk:The Asterisk War#GA? if anyone's interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Milestone improvement drive

Two of our milestones, "All articles higher than Start class" and "All articles higher than Stub class" are 13.5% and 56.8% complete, respectively. However, I've noticed that some of the stub-class articles are non-notable per WP:GNG; they should be either have reliable sources if they are available or taken to AFD if it's necessary. As of today, we've got 5,031 stub-class articles (nearly 60 of them are lists) and over 5,561 start-class articles (at least 300-400 are lists) and some of these articles have biographies, which are generally harder to source. I'm doing a bit of an assessment drive to get rid of the unknown-class and unknown-importance information from the articles at the moment. If we start the improvement drives on those articles, especially the ones in the destubification drive, that would be helpful. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To have all articles destubified may be actually impossible to do as every day new articles are created, Sjones23. I think it's just a too high standard; even WP:VG, from where you got this idea, does not have such a milestone. Moreover, I unfortunately cam say not many people really cared about the dstubification drive. I mean, you brought the issue in March 2016, but how many people really showed up at WP:ANIME/DESTUB. I'm not trying to demotivate you, as I like the project, but I'm only saying we should kept our goals lower until we get more people involved. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Given list-class articles are included in the denominators, getting the pure lists out of stub and to FL will not be likely. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallow sources

While searching for information about D.Gray-man's making, I found this video. The uploader gives credit to the original source located here. Is it possible to use any of these sources? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Cardfight!! Vanguard seasons

I've noticed that recently separate articles have been created for each season of Cardfight!! Vanguard, but with most of the content copied from the List of Cardfight!! Vanguard episodes. For example, there is List of Cardfight!! Vanguard (season 1), List of Cardfight!! Vanguard season 2:Asia Circuit, etc. Most of these articles are poorly named, and many of them have content copied into them that pertains to the show as a whole rather than the specific season (e.g., talking about when the first season started airing in an article that is only about a latter season). I wasn't sure if it made sense to try to clean up these separate articles, or if they should all just be deleted or redirected back to one of the main articles? Are separate articles for each season something that would be desirable, or is having one main article and one episode list the right way to handle this content? Calathan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think they're trying to separate out the episodes into season articles, so I suggest calling them List of (title) episodes as with the Pokemon series and not mix in season 2 or whatever as that gets confusing. Also looks like they'll need transclusion help in moving episode title information to the main list. Another option is to number the seasons like Cardfight!! Vanguard (season 1) and use that as the title for up to season 4. Then renumber Cardfight!! Vanguard G (season 1) and progress that up to 4. The various subtitles would then retarget to the season articles. This might be cleaner given that the original series is titled just Cardfight!! Vanguard. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that Cardfight!! Vanguard (season 1) is on the title blacklist, so it needs an RM. I'll try a technical move request first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Move request is done for the first four seasons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for working on this. I don't think I understood how the transclusion of sublists onto the main list was done until now, even though I've seen other lists use that. Calathan (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No prob. Transclusion is done as well, so now editors can focus on cleaning up each of the seasons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Blood-C Help request

Hi there. I'm in the process of writing up article improvements for Blood-C and articles for The Last Dark and a Blood-C episode list. My eventual intention is to bring them to GA, GA and FL respectively. I've already got suitable artwork stored or already uploaded for both Blood-C and its as yet unborn episode lost, but I'm stumped on a theatrical poster/artwork for The Last Dark. Can anyone help me? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't find the one for the actual poster. It seems that both the DVD and Blu-ray box seem to have the same image as the poster. At least imdb has this.Tintor2 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Eiga has the theatrical poster.--十八 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Juhachi. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Blood-C episodes is now in existence! --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping most of my original editing on the episode summaries. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 20:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sword Art Online and Sword Art Online II episode summaries

Although this is not a concern, I would like to know if the episode summaries for Sword Art Online and Sword Art Online II have improved. All summaries (except for the Extra Edition) are 200 words or less, in which much of the original summaries were way too long and had unnecessary content or too wordy. Hopefully, I have met the expectations for and approval of the summaries. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 20:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't watched the series but I could understand the summaries. Still words like "finally" in the first episode seem redundant. Also, I suggest avoiding long sentences like "When Illfang's health becomes low, Diavel goes for the finishing attack, but Diavel misidentifies Illfang's weapon and becomes mortally wounded as a result." Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of those still words (finally, really, actually, ultimately, etc.) have some impact rather than redundancy, but I did remove the "finally" from the first episode, since there was no event that led up to a "final point". The long sentences were originally a series of sentences broken up from shorter sentences with unnecessary content. In this case, the original sentences were "When Illfang's health becomes low, Diavel goes for the finishing attack. However, Kirito recognises the weapon the boss is wielding, which Diavel identifies wrongly, and attempts to warn him, but Illfang attacks first and mortally wounds Diavel." AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 18:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is pretty common, but why em instead of percent (Em vs %)? If there are plans for FL in the future, there are many things I'd nitpick about the summaries, but seems okay. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
They were originally set to "em's" instead of "%'s". I probably need some other editor(s) to help with the tables. I did my best on the summaries based on what was originally written there, and believe me, some were a challenge to aim for 200 words or less. If either list of episodes could be an GA/FL, what could be a way to bring them up to standard(s)? AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 2:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the table column format for both pages. I think it looks better now. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 17:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Blood-C episodes

I've recently nominated List of Blood-C episodes as a Featured List. Comments and either supports or opposes are welcomed. Just a note for those coming in, I based the article on the article List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes, another FL that didn't seem to have been recently challenged. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it just my computer or are there formating issues because the episodes' titles seem really small.Tintor2 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: They're normal size for me on Mozilla. No extra formatting's there. I think it's your computer - I find things like that happen when I use Google Chrome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I can second that it's broken on Chrome on my 1280px screen. By "small", Tintor2 means that the text gets squished in the table The problem is that you're using the style table-layout: fixed; on the table, which means that "the horizontal layout only depends on the table's width and the width of the columns, not the contents of the cells". And combined with that, you did not give the "Title" column a fixed width. In this mode, the browser depends on you to specify all the widths and since the "Title" column doesn't have one, it probably just gives it what's left over, which causes the extreme text wrapping on smaller screens sizes. So one fix is to specify a width (for smaller screens, readers will just have to scroll to the right for the full table) or just use the default table options which does wrap based on content. Opencooper (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I copied over Code Geass's episode headers, so hopefully that works a little better. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Opencooper: That makes sense. I'm not that good with tables. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Opencooper: @ProtoDrake: By the way, it looks like all episodes were written by the same duo. I guess that would be simply mentioned in the lead or that might count as undue weight. Something similar happened to me in List of Psycho-Pass episodes as Gen Urobuchi wrote every single episode. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm that does seem quite redundant to me. And writer is a pretty important role so I don't see why it wouldn't deserve mention in the prose. Opencooper (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Opencooper and Tintor2: They are. If you'd read the lead, you'll see the key staff there, including the writers. I was just following the model suggested to me, I didn't realize the same writers scripting all the episodes was an issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If the same duo wrote all the episodes for the season it can be stated up front in the episode list as with album track lists and lyrics/music credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We've got a genre situation here...

An IP hopper has been adding unsourced genres to The Asterisk War ([7], [8], [9], [10]) and Cross Ange ([11], [12], [13]). I think this may need to be looked at. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I would not label the series as science fiction per the definition: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.". This means that if the fictional innovations don't have a meaningful impact in the storyline then it is not under the scope. The category that is the most broad though is "action" which might want to be replaced with a more precise category if possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You could refer them to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Categorization and state that Mecha encompasses science fiction and action, while Harem encompasses romance, comedy, and ecchi. If they persist with the unsourced editing across multiple IPs, you can get the article semi-protected. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Does "The Asterisk War" have robot action as a main theme though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. No mentions of robots in any of the reviews of the first volumes. There are characters with super powers they acquired from a meteor crash, and they fight each other. [14] [15] Later characters use robots, but it isn't a robot-themed or mecha-themed anime. So would that be considered Fantasy? It's not swords and sorcery fantasy though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've simplified the genre for The Asterisk War to Action and Harem given that "The story is a fairly typical battle school/harem adventure" [16] The reviews aren't clearly calling what side of fantasy or science-fiction though so I've left that part out as with Maken-ki. As for Cross Ange, it looks like it's a mecha-based show [17] [18] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC) updated 17:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Whether a series does or doesn't have X is beside the point. If a genre cannot be verified by reliable sources, it doesn't belong on the article. And simply "watched the anime" or "read the manga" is does not meet venerability requirements as it involves the reader's/viewer's analyst of the work and interpretation of the genres, which violates WP:NOR. —Farix (t | c) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed that Dragon Ball (manga) be merged into Dragon Ball. Please see this discussion. MCMLXXXIX 20:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect dates being inserted into episode lists

Just a heads up to anyone who's noticed Windywalk (talk · contribs) changing dates on anime episode lists. They are changing certain dates to incorrect dates, which can be confirmed by checking the Media Arts Database if the given article doesn't already use it. I have already contacted the user about this, but if you see this user continuing to do this, just revert the changes back to the correct dates.--十八 20:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I made this attempt because of personal stress, that dates have bad memories myself. This is the second time since November 25, 2016. Windywalk (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Why would you even change dates without checking a reliable source. Judging from multiple warnings on your talk page, you have a history of adding/chanting information without citing sources. —Farix (t | c) 01:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion on what should be included. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Anime set in Hokkaido

This is probably something we should deal with before other similar cats get created. Do we need cats like this? And if so, shouldn't it then be renamed to "Anime and manga set in xxx" to fit with our other cats? Or should I just put it up for WP:CFD?--十八 05:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

After checking a little, I see that there are already similar categories for films (the subcategories of Category:Films set in Japan by prefecture). If there is a consensus that those categories are fine, then I think it would be alright to have similar categories for anime and manga. It might be somewhat redundant with existing categories though (I see a lot of anime films are already categorized in those prefecture categories). In any case, if we do keep this around, then I agree that it should be "anime and manga" rather than just "anime". Calathan (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a frivolous WP:OVERCAT. However, if other edtiors are going to insist on these categories, then it should follow the conventional naming scheme Category:Hokkaido in fiction,w which would be a subcategory of Category:Japan in fiction. There really isn't a need to have an "anime and manga" specific variant of these. —Farix (t | c) 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be necessary but I heard Rurouni Kenshin's upcoming manga will take place in Hokkaido.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete keeping them with (city) in fiction and even Films set in (city) is good enough. Otherwise it's one of those trivial intersections per WP:OVERCAT like red-haired kings. If we split anime set in, then we'd need light novel, manga, OVA, OAD, web series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Need translations of Aniway magazine?

I have a subscription to the Dutch anime-focused magazine Aniway, which has been running for over ten years and which has articles on both older a new anime series, as well as related Japanese topics. I generally don't feel interested in adding information from these magazines to Wikipedia, however. I am, however, willing to help people out by translating articles on topics people are interested in improving. I have a list of issues I own (only six right now) on my userpage here. Feel free to make requests on my talk page. The latest issue has articles ranging from The Little Norse Prince to Gundam model to Inuyashiki to The Black Museum (all start class). The magazine also has short manga reviews, reviews of anime-inspired western works, a few video game reviews, news blurbs, etc. Feel free to just ask me about something on my talk page and I'll see if I can find it :) ~Mable (chat) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article up for deletion review

Members of the WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 6#Eiko Shimamiya. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Romantic Comedy manga

There really isn't a literature genre for Romanic comedies? I point to this edit here by @Opencooper: [19]. The strange thing is that I remember Tokyopop having a genre under this wording, yes I have heard that Harem most often is comedy, but not always. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a stub at Romantic comedy, but it was redirected in 2009 for being unsourced and inferior to the film article. Searching for the term in Google Books, the term indeed seems to be more common in films and Hollywood. Although, one book discusses Elizabethan romantic comedies and there are also many results of plays with the subtitle "A Romantic Comedy in Three Acts". I think you could create a main article on the genre, but you'd need sources talking about it aside from in films. Opencooper (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
While romantic comedy has applied to films and not really books, I could see where critics would describe a manga using the words "romantic comedy". But harem supercedes that, as with mecha genre, to cover comedy, drama, romance, romantic comedy, action, sex comedy, and ecchi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Fake anime "Vierratime"

Heads up guys, someone (Ivanferninos and his sockpuppets) is going around wikipedia and wikia adding fake anime called "Vierratime" and "Striveshoot" to seiyu credits. Evan1975 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I've removed the remaining instances that weren't commented out. They've also added them to ANN's encyclopedia, so if you can find a way to report that to their community, it'd be great. Opencooper (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Something about the episode listings in articles?

Not sure if to say it here, or somewhere else? In some of the articles, when I see the episode list part? So what's upgoing with the episode number having do with 'parentheses?' Like this one [20]? if the show (err, is that the right name for it?) had ended some time ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainted-wingsz (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit was reverted so it probably doesn't matter anymore, but it seems like what they were trying to do is keep up the overall episode count of the whole series. Opencooper (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so when I saw it? It was quite of strange on why add that. When everything is arranged right. And maybe there was no need too? If in any other articles which have shows that ended, or maybe it's still airing? When it has a second season and so on. Because if a show was airing, then just leave as is. So then if it ended and the parentheses part was added after a while? What would everything go as. But I'm not sure if there would be more similar small problems like those? Which I got a little curious about it? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be explained in the header, as with Cardfight!! Vanguard G: NEXT, or as a really complicated version List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes but since it's not one that has a bunch of different numbering schemes, it should be better if a column were introduced for the overall series, and they use EpisodeNumber and EpisodeNumber2 with No. in series, No. in season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is just speculation but I was thinking about it before it happened and then it happened, so there's a possibility funimation was thinking about it too, "What happens when the english dub catches-up to the japanese dub?". With One Piece, I believe new Japanese dub episodes are released every friday, that's 4 to 5 a month, however the formerly monthly English Dubbed DVD releases have been averaging 11 episodes. This is what prompted me to think about the fact that the English dub is catching up, and at more than double-pace. There is no doubt in my mind funimation knew and noticed that and had some plan to manage that inevitability. It is for this reason I suspect we are seeing a temporary halt in One Piece English dub DVD production (I only hope they don't lose any voice talents in the wait). My best guess from a business stand point would be to say the halt has been cut at the start of season 15 to provide a time buffer, and I suspect DVD releases after this time will be equally infrequent. The time buffer will most likely be closer to the actual animation's production rate, if they still plan to release 11 episodes a DVD that means 2 and a half months per DVD. However they are not completely caught up yet and there may be other factors which add time between the japanese dub release and a possible english dub release (such as obtaining a mute copy of the video and adding-in background music and sounds, figure like 1 - 2 days a video, and of course recording and sound-cleaning that could take weeks for an episode). 2605:1900:80E5:6800:4A4:FB59:440A:181B (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Catching up is usually planned for. They do "broadcast dubs" nowadays with home media coming later so the model is already there. I've seen similar cases with Oh My Goddess where the graphic novel releases "catch up" and then come at the pace of the Japanese manga release, as explained in the afterwords of the English manga versions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In need of help

As many of you know, I nominated D.Gray-man to FA. While it already has 4 supports, image and source reviews passed, a fellow user said it might need a prose rev. The article has already been copyedited by the guild but my computer stopped working yesterday. To make it worse my tablet is not very good so I would appreciate if somebody could take a look and or fix issues. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about plot summaries in episode lists for Naruto

Hello. I've noticed in the Naruto and Naruto Shippuden episode lists that the summaries were heavily trimmed down by the IPs 174.93.53.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.112.61.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.93.53.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (all of which are based in Mississauga, Canada) and Rectify 54 (talk · contribs) (which is also located in Toronto, Canada as far back as June 2016 (I suspect that they are sockpuppets). I think this is a clear violation of WP:TVPLOT's recommendation for episode summaries, which states "Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." I did a mass reversion of the summaries, but is there any thoughts about what should be done after that? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I quite like this guy's summaries though. It looks similar to the style I used in the Code Geass episode summaries. They summarize the episodes quite well, and the amount of content is due to how the series is paced. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I know, but I think this is something that might have to be addressed. I've already contacted User:Sro23 to voice his opinion on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me to see Rectify 54 still socking and edit-warring via logged-out edits. Attempts at communication almost never produce results. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. As for the actual summaries, I have no comment. All I know for sure is the author is quite disruptive. Sro23 (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I've opened up a new investigation on the matter at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rectify 54. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
All in all, it looks to me like an attempt to remove most plot details the editor considers to be "spoilers". However, without the editor actually communicating in any way as to why they are reducing the summaries form 150-200 words to just a sentence or two, it really is hard to tell for sure. —Farix (t | c) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World

I've just finished expanding the article's plot summary as part of me nominating it for Good Article status; however, the plot section is currently 581 words long, far longer than the recommended 500 words per season plot summary as stated at MOS:TVPLOT. Help in trimming down the plot section to the appropriate length is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary shouldn't only cover the anime. Someone who has read the light novels should expand it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the plot of the light novel different from that of the anime? If not, there's no reason to add a separate section for that. I know the light novel continued on where the anime stopped, but the current summary should work really well as a synopsis, which is really what an encyclopedic article needs. ~Mable (chat) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was that the plot shouldn't necessarily stop where the anime did, and should cover the events that take place in the light novel as well. The current summary could also stand to be made a bit more compact, which would leave space to expand on the LN's plot. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Problematic IP user still being problematic

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive_67#Problematic IP user

New IP: 122.53.245.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They are still active and still hopping (presumably dynamic) IP addresses as they have changed two episode titles on Chaos;Child (anime) to ones that contradict those on the official site and which, as before, appear to be translations back into Japanese of the English titles. I'm checking their Blue Exorcist edits now, and so far it is not looking good. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

and some more IPs:
Shiroi Hane (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want, you could request an SPI report. Not sure if that would solve the problem, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Osu!! Karate Bu

There's an user who is adding indiscriminately(?) the "Proposed deletion" thing for many articles, is that good? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osu!!_Karate_Bu&diff=771087820&oldid=743124840 --- I don't want to see articles like these being deleted just because a random user was bored. Thanks in advance. --89.180.151.225 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable rational. If there are no reliable sources covering the topic, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, if you are going to mass revert a single user with not evidence of bad faith, then you may find yourself blocked. So unless you can find reliable, third-party coverage that establish the work as passing WP:NOTE or any of the other notability guidelines, I would recommend you leave those prods in place. —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, then screw the English Wikipedia. And feel free to make the useless block. --89.180.158.129 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

High School DxD

As many of us know, the series will have a fourth season. However, Ahan45 (talk · contribs) has been adding that Passione would be animating that season instead of TNK. The announcement apparently came from Yusaani, which isn't really considered a reliable source and I reverted it for now. Thoughts on what to do next? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wait for an official announcement. As an aside, in many cases these sources have actually turned out to be true: "unreliable" Japanese blogs revealed that Kyoto Animation would anime Sound! Euphonium about a week before the official announcement. Usually, in these cases, where there's smoke, there's fire. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidental or one episode characters on character list

I've been trying my best to remove or comment out and then discuss a series of characters Kirakira PreCure a la Mode that by their discussions and the episode summaries appear to be either incidental background characters or single episode "villain/monster of the day" characters, however, These characters keep getting restored to the article. Only one other person actually participated in the discussion, but only to say that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on writing about fiction should not apply. —Farix (t | c) 11:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Uhh I replied there, and just now realized that the discussion there was not recent. But yeah in short I'm also against the inclusion of minor characters in the article. Opencooper (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed here, minor characters that do not move the plot along should not be included. I feel these characters are included to provide a sense of background realism as it would be strange to focus on just the main characters all the time. It also gives a chance for voice actors/actresses to break out on a career path. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
They can be listed in the voice actor's filmographies but doesn't need to be in the character list. I kind of gave an exception for some of the List of Kill la Kill characters because the official website gave them full sections on their character list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I may need additional help on the article as there are still random IPs and SPAs restoring the incidental characters along with some trivia I removed from the character descriptions. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are change alot of the character section? The other articles for the previous Pretty Cure series on this site weren't organized and labeled. Have you even looked at them? --ExplorerX19 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll post on that talk page which characters should be highlighted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
That should be easy. We can just check the official websites see which characters belong in the character section of the article. Mostly supporting characters. --ExplorerX19 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done, list has been trimmed and organized to the ones on that website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Why did you just revirted my edits?--ExplorerX19 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The list should be kept simple, does not need all the subsections for the band or the classmates. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Leafa article GA

Hello I just nominated the article for possible promotion to Good Article status and thought that I should leave a note here. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Although there are no rules of ownership in Wikipedia, the main contributor to the article was User:Satellizer so I suggest at least to request him permission to nominate it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Message sent to said user, now just have to wait for reply. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've given the article a quick review. Also, I have currently nominated Yuri on Ice for GA status, so if anyone is interested in reviewing that it would be very much appreciated. ISD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
ISD, wanna exchange review with the one I nominated to GA, Millennium Earl?Tintor2 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Tintor2, sure I'll give it a look over if you will do the same for me. ISD (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World's also up for GAN. I'll leave some comments on the Leafa GAN (though I'm not going to review it as ISD is already doing so). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The Re:Zero seems in good shape to be a GA, but I have some doubt. Have the original light novels been released in the west? The primary media is the one that needs more reception. Also, to avoid long summaries, I would suggest using a premise similar to the recent GA, One Piece.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: As far as I know, yes they've been released in the US (by Yen Press). There is some reception for the light novels in the reception section, but I guess these concerns could be discussed in the GAN instead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?

This article is a mess, to fix things up I propose that we split the article in two for the different series. So the articles would go as follows:

I feel doing this will things easier to describe, and cut down on the clutter in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure since the article doesn't look that difficult to read. It just seems a bit incomplete. Maybe once it's complete (and Sword Oratoria gains notability), maybe you could split it. That's just a suggestion though. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is trying to be too much, Sword Oratoria is going to be adapted into an anime which will further complicate things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a mess. It just has a bulky title (no one liked just calling it DanMachi). If Sword Oratoria has its own notability, then you can split that off from the main series. Kind of like Attack on Titan: Before the Fall (prequel with a whole set of new characters) and Attack on Titan: Junior High (same characters, different setting). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Inazuma Eleven GO

Hey, guys. There is a discussion to rename it on Talk:List of Inazuma Eleven GO. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokémon: The Movie 2000 name romanizations

There's a discussion regarding the name romanizations at Pokémon: The Movie 2000. The discussion is at Talk:Pokémon: The Movie 2000#Name romanizations. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.com

There is currently an ongoing discussion on if Amazon.com should be blacklisted from Wikipedia or not. This relates to our project as many articles in our scope use this website for release dates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is going to cause problems with citing a lot of release dates as Amazon is our only available source. I'm not sure if the MADb can replace all of those citations. —Farix (t | c) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing edit wars over licensees on multiple articles

Over the last few months, there has been a slow moving edit war over the |licensee= field on a number of articles involving Crunchyroll. Traditionally, this field has been for companies that licensee a series for home video release or television distribution. However, a couple of new editors have started adding Crunchyroll as a licensee on the bases of its simulcast. A couple of Crunchyroll's press releases further muddy the waters as it throws around terms such as "Master Licensee", whatever the heck that is suppose to mean.[21] The biggest offender is Hbartlett1, who has been adding all kinds of unsourced claims that Crunchyroll is the licensee for a number of series, when that claim contradicts existing sources on the article. If streaming constitutes a license, then wouldn't that make Hulu, Daisuki, and Netflix be considered licensees as well? And if the term "licnesee" is going to be thrown around like this willy nilly, wouldn't this make the |licensee= field useless and grounds for removal from {{Infobox animanga/Video}}? —Farix (t | c) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this moment since the original Funimation deal was announced. We know they have a mutual deal with Funimation which means that Funimation are handling some degree of Crunchyroll's home releases - the first confirmed batch was documented on ANN at least but I don't recall if specific details were given over how much Funimation were responsible on each release. An issue here is that mere members of the public are never going to know the extent of the arrangements Crunchyroll have but given that they are owned by a consortium involving the japanese rights holders it's fair to say they are going to have some "master" rights. I don't think we are in a position to claim CR are primary rights holders for the current season but here are going to be some cases where some titles are going to be under CR's banner and articles should reflect that.
Or tl;dr sources are needed for the current season, older works should operate on a case by case basis if they are part of a partnership. Frankly, it's going to be messy on some titles. Edit: ANN have a list of confirmed master license titles. They are the licensee with the rights to release them under their own brand, in partnership or to sell the rights. Seems clear cut to me as to what they are. As for the field, removing it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because the industry has changed direction doesn't mean we should remove a field that is used by hundreds of articles for older works. It's reactionary and unnecessary.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Cant we just make a new field along the lines of "official digital release=" or the like? I also agree that given the amount of articles, the |licensee= parameter is useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think for the titles where Crunchyroll is the master licensee (i.e., where they have the home video release rights, not just the streaming rights), then Crunchyroll should be listed just with the licensee parameter. Perhaps a new parameter for Internet streaming would also be useful, but I think the current parameter is what should be used when Crunchyroll holds the home media rights. Even if Funimation handles things like dubbing and making the actual discs as part of their partnership, those titles are still Crunchyroll's licenses. Right now it looks like we have some things listed incorrectly, e.g., Joker Game and ReLIFE are listed as Crunchyroll licenses in the press release on the partnership [22], but our articles have those as Funimation licenses. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hbartlett1 has once again returned to restore Crunchyroll as a licensee without citing sources. Perhaps time to take it to ANI? —Farix (t | c) 21:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In some cases Hbartlett1 is only citing the source in the comment section. [23] That doesn't help anyone. So is CR a licensee or not? Please give some guidance as to how to reference this properly. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reported it to AIV after seeing this falsely cited edit. There are probably plenty of other edits like it. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The source listed in Hbartlett1's edit summary gives Crunchyroll as the master licensee for Haikyū!! season 3. The term "master licensee" normally means they have home video rights, not just streaming rights, and is the sort of license that should be listed with the licensee parameter in the infobox. So not only is the edit not vandalism, it seems entirely correct to me. I've posted over at AIV that I think your report was unjustified. I'm getting the impression that you are just unaware that Crunchyroll is getting home video rights for some of their titles, but their press releases make it clear that they are doing so (and as I said above, even if they partner with Funimation to distribute those titles, they are still Crunchyroll licenses). Calathan (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The definitions need to be made clear up front: What companies are put for English licensee and whether both home video and streaming should be listed as with Knights of Sidonia which posts both. If it's just by the wording of "license" and "master license" the Crunchyroll article could assume that for those 60 titles, so I can see why HBartlett1 would want to say they are licensed. Also what English companies are put for network_en? Only broadcast shows or streaming? After the first run, if a show changes licenses (e.g. ADV -> Funimation) or is discontinued (e.g. Geneon, Tokyopop), how should it be handled? Should all previous licensees be listed as a record, or only the current one? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
While it may be true that Crunchyroll has the home video rights to some shows such as Yamada-kun and the Seven Witches, the first season of Free!, and Gintama I am still inclined to believe that some of the other shows that are streamed on Crunchyroll are licensed by other companies. Take a good number of Sentai Filmworks and Aniplex USA shows, this season for example has Haikyuu season 3 licensed by Sentai see source here: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-10-07/sentai-filmworks-licenses-haikyu-3rd-season/.107393 and there is also Blue Exorcist: Kyoto Saga licensed by Aniplex of America, but streamed on Crunchyroll. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-12-27/aniplex-usa-to-stream-fate-grand-order-granblue-fantasy-anime-on-crunchyroll-daisuki/.110410 as both sources say, Sentai and Aniplex have the licenses to their own shows and they are streamed with subtitles on Crunchyroll. It is the same story with Funimation, they have their own set of shows that they licence for dubbing and home video release, those shows are streamed with subtitles on Crunchyroll, while shows licensed by Crunchyroll like the three mentioned above will be distributed on home video via Funimation markets. It may be a bit confusing, but this concept does seem to be the truth. Nstepneski (talk) 3:15 , 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the license announcement you linked to makes it clear that Sentai licensed Haikyu season 3, though I still don't think Crunchyroll would claim to be the master licensee if they only had streaming rights. Perhaps what is happening is that Crunchyroll is getting all of the rights to release some series, but for many of those series just quickly sells the home video rights to someone else like Sentai (and if that is the case, then it might have been something happening behind the scenes with a lot of series). Anyway, for what we put in the licensee parameter, I guess the company that is actually releasing it should be listed unless it is clear that the release is a distribution deal for another company. So for something like Haikyu season 3, I think we should still list it as a Sentai license, even if it is possible that Crunchyroll was involved somewhere. But for the titles that Funimation is releasing as part of their deal with Crunchyroll, where they have made it clear they are Crunchyroll titles, then I think those should be listed with Crunchyroll as the licensee. I think we need to take care to not consider Funimation press releases about distributing or dubbing a title as an indication they have licensed that title, since they have said they will be doing that for a lot of Crunchyroll's titles . . . we should look to see that Funimation says they have actually licensed something themselves before putting it as their license. Calathan (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
so? (this might of sound a tad late?) I got a "small" question? err? a bit about it? when the info of 'crunchyroll' was added? and undid, then 'back and forth' after a time? and the "user" asked for some assistance, or such? and the end result of that, was a some type of conflict of interest? from here? [24]? or well some time ago? but since a week from then? well? more or less complicated problems. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If Hbartlett1 has a conflict of interest with Crunchyroll, then that is a serious problem, and that user should absolutely not be editing Wikipedia with anything about Crunchyroll.--十八 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Guys, the "master license" is the company granted broad franchise rights over a title, everything from streaming to home entertainment. They can sub-license elements of their rights. For example, Crunchyroll is the master license holder of Yuri on Ice, but they've sub-licensed, (functionally, though not technically sub-contract) the dubbing and home distribution to Funimation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
After looking at this more and thinking about it more, I think we should list Crunchyroll as the licensee for all the shows they claim to be the master licensee for [25], with Haikyu season 3 being a possible exception. I still think that being the master licensee means they have home media rights (i.e., what Lord Roem said above). For many of the shows where Crunchyroll is the master licensee, Funimation has announced they are also streaming the shows and are dubbing them, but that is because of their deal with Crunchyroll. I didn't find any claims from Funimation that they were licensing the shows separately from Crunchyroll, and to the contrary the announcements from Funimation and Crunchyroll specifically mention their partnership [26][27]. There just isn't anything that contradicts that Crunchyroll is the primary licensee for the shows where they say they are the master licensee. Nstepneski mentioned Blue Exorcist: Kyoto Saga above, but that isn't one of the shows that Crunchyroll claimed to be the master licensee for, so I think Hbartlett1 was just wrong when he made that claim. The only show I've found so far where there is actually conflicting information on who has licensed the show is Haikyu season 3, where Sentai claimed they licensed it without mentioning Crunchyroll. I still think that it is likely that Crunchyroll licensed it and then sold the rights to release it to Sentai, but it is also possible that Crunchyroll erroneously listed Haikyu season 3 as one of the shows they are the master licensee for when they really aren't. Calathan (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided to a little search to see if I can find this press release on Crunchyroll's own website, however, it is not listed among their other press releases.[28] You could say that this may be an oversight, but with the errors that were already pointed out in the press release, I do question its authenticity. In short, don't list anime as being licensed by Crunchyroll unless there is a second source that cooperates it. In fact, that should go for any information based on press releases that isn't listed on Crunchyroll's website. —Farix (t | c) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and instead agree with Lord Roem's comments below. Anime News Network vets press releases sent to them, and there is no reason to doubt the press releases they post. The link you provided is an archive of all press releases posted on Crunchyroll's news feed, some of which are from Crunchyroll themselves and some of which aren't. There is no reason to expect that every press releases they send out to other news sources would also be posted on their feed. Also, you referred to errors in the press release, but I'm not aware of any clear errors. I said that I think the Haikyu 3 license is probably actually accurate, though I conceded that it was possible it was erroneous. Calathan (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
so? yeah? but a "small" problem or (big) is? if 'crunchyroll' is added? and as the edit is there? if a problem there is, by a conflict of interest from an user? that is an employee, to it? then there's a problem. but no one knew that, when it was the end of january? and until the beginning of this month? so? uh? (which is in my above message?) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The conflict of interest is a separate issue from whether or not we should say the shows are licensed by Crunchyroll. If Hbartlett1 is a Crunchyroll employee, he shouldn't be editing the articles himself to say that they were licensed by Crunchyroll, but that doesn't change whether or not we should say they are licensed by Crunchyroll. Also, please try to write complete sentences. As it stands, your posts are very hard to understand. Calathan (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but at the time. I had minor issues with an old computer and sometimes the buttons on the keyboard wouldn't respond that well or the screen wouldn't turn on. As seeing that it's starting to get pointless over 'fussing' on a soon to be broken computer. Then may switch to a laptop. So, if I was to say more? well, which is off topic. In which my small question is again, answered... --Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
ANN vets press releases from the companies who wish to post one. If Crunchyroll made an announcement about what shows they have the "master license" for, and ANN posted that, that's the most verification we're ever going to get for anime-related content. I don't think Funimation and Crunchyroll will go into any more depth with their legal arrangement -- so I think we either take all undisputed license claims as the relevant source, or not include that information at all. The former definitely makes the most sense to me. As for the other issue, I agree, a CR employee should not be editing that content in, at least not without disclosing their affiliation and discussing their proposed inclusions first. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, ANN doesn't really vet press releases. I've had a few published on behalf of a local anime convention.[29][30] Likewise, there were a number of PRs that the convention sent that ANN didn't publish. So it really depends on who is reading the emails that day. However, the fact that the press release making the claims is not listed on Crunchyroll's website should be suspect on its accuracy and reliability. —Farix (t | c) 19:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact that they posted some but not others would be evidence that they do vet them (plus their journalistic standards are likely much higher now than back in 2007-2008). Also, as I said above, there is no reason to expect all press releases Crunchyroll sent to news sites would be posted on their own news feed. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First and foremost, I wanted to thank all of you and the broader community for the continued contributions to Wikipedia and especially all of the great anime articles that keep growing over time. It takes a lot of time and effort to create these articles and Crunchyroll leverages information from Wikipedia in multiple languages on a regular basis. I'm responding here to in hope clarify some misunderstandings around the term "license" and some of the recent activity. As previously stated, I work at Crunchyroll, FUNimation is our partner, and our communal goal is to all make Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Some users have claimed updating Wikipedia to be accurate could be considered a COI (Conflict of Interest) as I'm affiliated with Crunchyroll. I'm here to help contribute to the discussion to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and want to be respectful of Wikipedia's independence. If there is a better way to make technical corrections opposed to updating the articles themselves, please let me know.

Anime licensing has evolved over the recent years and the actual licenses on Wikipedia are all not accurate due to some contributor confusion. We've attempted to make changes where we know with certainty we in fact hold the Master License and some of these changes have since been reverted. To clarify, Crunchyroll, Funimation, and other anime companies hold different types of licenses which vary by title and season. They can be a Master Licensee (where they're able to sublicense specific rights such as Home Video and streaming rights to another company) , be a direct streaming (AVOD/SVOD) licensee from Japan, or a sub licensee from a Master Licensee for a particular category such as Home Video, Streaming, or Merchandise. Crunchyroll has been all 3 depending on the title on our service.

While historically Crunchyroll held many direct streaming licenses from Japan or was a streaming sub licensee from a domestic Master Licensee, licensing has evolved. In the past few years Crunchyroll has now become the Master Licensee for multiple titles and we've sub licensed some of those rights to Funimation, Hulu, and other home video and merchandise partners. If there is to be one company listed as a "Licensee" for a title on Wikipedia it should be that of the Master Licensee who has the ability to provide that title to other partners within the territory via sub-licenses of home video, DVD, streaming, etc.

Our goal is for Wikipedia to be accurate when "Licenses" are referenced. We have no intent to list ourselves as a Master Licensee when it isn't a fact (and another company is in fact the Master Licensee) and have made it a point to cite independent 3rd party sources [1] confirming we are in fact the Master Licensee for these titles in the referenced territories. If you have have further questions please let me know as it's to everyone's benefit that what Wikipedia articles list is accurate and not misinformation due to a contributor's confusion or misunderstanding. Hbartlett1 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)hbartlett1

Hi @Hbartlett1:, thanks for the detailed response. Yes, as per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, it would be best for you, and other Crunchyroll employees (like Miles, if he's looking), to avoid directly editing these pages with Crunchyroll-related content. For pages that have an inaccurate licensee listed, you can post a request to the talk page w/ references to justify the proposed change. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2017-01-24/crunchyroll-announces-winter-2017-anime-lineup/.111421

We understand and will respect that. It seems that the users TheFarix and Nstepneski have continued to go in and put inaccurate information, or I should say take out accurate information. Our goal is to have the series we are a Master Licensee on to be listed accurately on the series wikipedia page. If they have not read our post yet I understand, but if not I don't understand why they keep removing Crunchyroll as a Licensor. Hbartlett1 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking into this issue, it seems to be a 50/50 split on the problem. I agree with some sort of Infobox parameter being needed, that's straightforward. It also seems that Crunchyroll PR is part of this issue. [31] is a poor source, besides it being a press release, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page further raises concern with me. "The statements made in this press release that are not historical facts." and "The Company cautions readers of this press release that a number of important factors could cause Crunchyroll.com's actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in any such forward-looking statements." make me wonder if it would survive a reliable source challenge. ANN new stream writeup's tend to only mention streaming, closest reliable source I could find in many cases. Does Crunchyroll on its website even have a master database of what it's licensed? Esw01407 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder about that too? But as time goes by, it feels likely a no? In my option, if that's the only source that's present. That listed the winter shows and the past shows, unless if there's more clarity/source(s) to back the 'fact of' ... But, since there hasn't and soon is the start of the 'spring' shows? So, would there be another list like that too? (Well, an off topic thing to say, in which to avoid some or any future problems?) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Aren't these just badly phrased versions of "Errors and omissions expected" to cover their own backs in case of any future changes (rights expire after all, and in it's more common form it's a standard disclaimer). The opposition to the info box parameter is purely a sturgeon refusal to except the industry has changed and that we should be adapting to those changes. If Crunchyroll say they have a master license, it's irrelevant if the parameter was conceived for home release and not streaming. I also think that we should just drop the pretence over ensuring the license field is only for home releases, it's simply not necessary and not mentioned in the template anyway. The constant edit warring over the field is not an indication of misuse but an indication that it should be adapted to suit the actual reality of the industry. This is not 2005, why are people insisting we treat articles as if the industry was the same as it was then. Streaming is the primary delivery mechanism for anime outside of Japan and it's about time we reflected that in the info box. I also suggest that the En_Network field should be either revised to include the streaming companies, or a new field added to cover them instead.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would opt for a new field, this way we can tweak it down the road if needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say just get rid of the English language fields. {{Infobox animanga}} is one of the only templates that has specific English language fields. All other major media infoboxes simply includes the original release information. Remember that the infobox is suppose to summarize key facts, however, licensing and English republication is really not key information. And I still feel that we are being played by an elaborate troll. The language used in the press release along with the about line does not match those used in other Crunchyroll press releases. There is no way to confirm if Hbartlett1 is a Crunchyroll employee as we have not way to vet that claim. What I can say is that the press releases is not on Crunchyroll's website nor has anyone named Bartlett writing anything on the Crunchyroll website. A believe a great deal of caution is warranted. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Break

Hello. I hope this sets your mind at ease. Here is the press release on the Crunchyroll website. [1] I believe this should be enough proof that I am an employee and this is not an elaborate ploy. We simply want the information on Wikipedia to be accurate and have Crunchyroll rightfully listed as a licensor, if this means a new field, okay. What do we need to do in order to move forward with that? Hbartlett1 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-press-release/2017/03/28/crunchyroll-announces-winter-2017-anime-lineup
Um, that's the same article you posted earlier, and doesn't state anything about being an employee. Also the asterisk for Master Licensee bothers me, points to the statement "*Specific rights for each title may vary." So despite being a Master List, it is not definitive which title has the full rights. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
And isn't it a little (or rather, a lot) odd that Crunchyroll didn't post this press release on their website the day it was released? On previous press releases in regard to CR, they posted it on the same day (or the day after). Not to mention that, as far as I can tell, CR tends to post their press releases either the day of or the day after the date in the press release. So how is it possible CR didn't do that in this case when it is about them? Do we even know for sure that the original press release even came from CR? What if this is just some elaborate troll like Farix said?--十八 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that some editors were challenging the reliability of the press release that that was posted on animenewsnetwork, questioning them as a reliable source, so in response, the crunchyroll employee reposted the same press release on their own site (thus it being dated as today) in order to prove that it was legit primary information, and not something incorrectly reported by ANN. CurlyWi (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
But to me, that seems like a very implausible set of circumstances. There's no real reason why CR wouldn't have posted it to their website the day it was released when they've done that for other press releases. What if the same person that sent the press release to ANN somehow got CR to post it to their website? In both cases, it doesn't really seem like the press release was previously vetted to prove that it really did come from CR. For all we know, the press release was sent to whoever runs CR's website, and they (thinking it was an official press release from CR) posted it yesterday without really looking into where it came from. The only way would be to personally contact CR's press room (or some equivalent) to see if it's actually legitimate or not.--十八 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try contacting them, see if I can get an official response on this. CurlyWi (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I will say, though, that Hbartlett1 has previously said their name is Harmony, and that they are a CR employee. Looking on Google, I actually found a LinkedIn profile of someone that seems to fit that bill (I won't link to it for WP:OUTING concerns). So either Hbartlett1 is who they say they are, or they are merely impersonating this individual. There's really no way to know, sadly.--十八 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A plausible explanation for this bizarre series of circumstances might be corporations realizing the advertising potential of Wikipedia sought to direct anime watchers to Crunchyroll through Wikipedia, and the press release was published to make sure the Crunchyroll mention stays on Wikipedia. _dk (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay I got an email response from Crunchyroll, and they said that "she is a real employee, she is posting on this topic, and she has access to the latest licence data, so she is able to provide correct info as needed." Should I post an imgur screencap of the full email? Do I need to cover up the Chruncyroll rep's name or anything? I don't know what standard operating procedure is here. CurlyWi (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Added {{connected contributor}} to the Crunchyroll article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If verification for specific titles is being done with correspondence with Crunchyroll, then it should be done and logged using OTRS. But the press release currently posted is still kind of questionable for some titles because of the disclaimer about master licensing varying per specific title. It's not like we can see the patents or licenses listed for ourselves. Perhaps when the home media is released and it has "licensed by Crunchyroll" in it, then that would be suffice as proof? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm very confused why there's so much concern regarding the CR press release. The only publicly-available information regarding which company owns a master licence for X show are their public statements/press releases. Where the press release is clear ("Anime Licensed for Fall 2016 for which Crunchyroll is Master Licensee"), we should abide by that, barring some source that contradicts it (i.e. news article saying another company). Harmony should not be editing these articles herself, as discussed elsewhere, but she has resolved the sole concern some editors had, namely, that the press release on ANN couldn't be verified. It's now on the CR website itself. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I too am very confused. On articles like Kiss Him, Not Me, editors repeatedly removed Crunchyroll from the infobox, but left Funimation listed as the licensee, when the source the article cites doesn't even refer to Funimation as the liscensee, it simply says Funimation is dubbing the series. It's the same story over at Fuuka (manga). Listed under Funimation, and the source cited says nothing about who actually licensed it. Interviews with Monster Girls? Masamune-kun's Revenge? Same thing. All listed as Funimation with sources that don't actually back up that claim. It's strange that editors are willing to let that slide on multiple articles, but then turn around and get super picky about sourcing when Crunchyroll is involved. CurlyWi (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This would go into WP:OSE, Funimation sourcing is a separate issue here. As I said above we should add "official digital licensee=" as a new parameter to the template. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not a separate issue, it's part of a larger pattern of behavior. Let's review what's happened from the beginning: Farix opened the discussion saying that Crunchyroll shouldn't be listed as a licensee because they don't do physical releases. That argument gets refuted as editors explain that times have changed and streaming is what people do now, it's not just physical releases. Then editors challenged the reliability of the anime news network article, so Hbartlett1 reposted the press release on the official website to prove that it was accurate. Then editors began challenging Hbartlett1 directly, saying that this might all be an elaborate hoax. On top of that, none of these editors actually made any attempt to verify Hbartlett1's identity, they all just said "We have no way of knowing, guess we're stuck." So I stepped in and contacted Crunchyroll directly, and they confirmed that this is not a hoax. That should be the end of the story right? No, now editors are saying that Crunchyroll has to officially contact Wikipedia directly in order to verify that the information published in both primary and reliable secondary sources is in fact true.
Lord Roem was asking why there was so much concern about the press release, and from this behavior it's pretty obvious. For whatever reason, some editors don't want Crunchyroll listed in the infobox, and the strategy seems to be to just endlessly stall the issue with new arguments, and hope that people will just give up out of fatigue. It's honestly getting silly at this point. The fact that editors were happy citing anime news network as a reliable source for Funimation licenses (when the articles they cite don't even say that) but suddenly turn around and challenge that same reliable source when Crunchyroll is involved is absurd. CurlyWi (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with CurlyWi above. We have a verified source now. Unless there's something that contradicts it, we should use it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the problem is also with the content of the PR itself. As mentioned by AngusWOOF above, at the end of the long list of anime titles, it says "*Specific rights for each title may vary.", and then even further down, it expands on this, which makes it even more troubling:

The statements made in this press release that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements." These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. The Company cautions readers of this press release that a number of important factors could cause crunchyroll.com’s actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in any such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, without limitation, product delays, industry competition, rapid changes in technology and industry standards, protection of proprietary rights, maintenance of relationships with key personnel, vendors and third-party developers, international economic and political conditions. The Company may change its intention, belief or expectation, at any time and without notice, based upon any changes in such factors, in the Company's assumptions or otherwise. The Company undertakes no obligation to release publicly any revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

The very last part of that paragraph is also very bad for us, since even if there were a change to which series were licensed and which were not, CR may not even send another PR out to correct it. So without a corroborating, additional reliable source (separate from this PR or its copy on ANN) that says specifically what rights CR has to these titles, the CR press release is ambiguous by its own admission.--十八 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That statement is a boilerplate statement that doesn't contradict the section listing which titles they own the 'master license' for. If a primary source from the company itself is not sufficient, then we should not list it at all on WP, because there will never be any source that details the licensing agreements between streaming services and production companies. That material is, understandably, confidential. Besides, most of the boilerplate disclaimer is about the ability of CR to stream successfully, i.e., 'we don't promise the service will work 100%.' Nothing about it undercuts the idea that, for example, Crunchyroll has the master license for Yuri on Ice and other titles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. The 'specific rights may vary' could mean whether they have rights over distribution in certain territories, or if they have merchandise rights. Yet that doesn't change whether they have the 'master license,' which is what gives them the right to offload aspects of the rights holdings to other companies (i.e. giving Funimation dubbing rights on Yuri on Ice). We should use the master license holder in the infobox if there's to be any such information there. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
What? @uh? To anyone on top of said part(s). If one got dub, then the other sub? Err, take Akiba's Trip for one? Since the partnership happen, funimation been doing dub, as crunchyroll has the sub in their video log 'part.' Or simply video catalog? Then in posts/sources now mostly tells which shows is streaming? And, maybe have a dub too. Because since then, it's just that going about... But not any said part of license? So, next? do we just wait, or get pesky about it?
While also, the list would of been posted around the same time as it was on ANN, but then said on crunchyroll after a two month 'wait time?' To prove something on a number of articles? To me, the time frame between that? Is that some small misunderstanding went about back and forth? Or maybe? Some info was mixed up in the process of, too? And still after that? Not much to depend on? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If they want to send a message to info-en@wikimedia.org, that goes to an OTRS queue, and we can then work out proof they are who they say they are so personal information is not here in enwiki. I can check any ticket there if needed. @Hbartlett1: What do you say? Does that sound good? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I've got ticket 2017041410013957, and am working on it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hbartlett1 has provided proof she works for Crunchyroll. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that her identity has been officially verified, and there don't appear to be any further arguments against it, can we go ahead and call this one resolved, and start fixing those infoboxes? CurlyWi (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I say go for it, think we're all on the same page now. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Hbartlett1 should take you up on that. As for why they posted it on their website later after it was already on ANN, I think that's directly in response to the initial concern that a random 'press release' there couldn't be verified. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless ANN is shown to be posting false news and press releases, I would take any press release they post at face value. As a news source, ANN has proven very trustworthy. Obviously, it can't be used to verify notability, but it can certainly be used to verify various facts mentioned in the press release. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I agree. We will never be able to look at the actual legal agreements between CR/Funi/Sentai and the production companies in Japan. We have to use the best sources we have. Currently, that means relying on what these companies say publicly in their press releases (or news coverage on places like ANN). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The press release, even if verified by OTRS, would still be treated as a primary source, and would require third-party sources if what they say is considered an exceptional claim. Would it have to be something like in the Home Media, there would be a "licensed by Crunchyroll" credit? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are perfectly fine for verifying factual information. They only thing they can't really be used for is notability claims and so-called "exceptional" claims. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that determining who has the master license (which functionally means main license holder) isn't something that'd necessarily be in the end credits. Home Entertainment rights are different from streaming rights, which are then further divided by territory (Nordics, NA, Latin America, Brazil, Australia, China, and so on). Besides seeing who is streaming and who is dubbing--certainly not a precise measure, much less a source--primary statements are our main means of answering the question 'Who has the license?'. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Are not credits also a primary source? And what secondary sources are there going to be with regards to business contracts? Every single license announcement through third party sources like ANN is merely reporting on information provided by the licensee or licensor (others in the industry may be "in the know", for example competitors may know who out-bid them. This information is usually kept in confidence until an official announcement, but Crunchyroll's license for Free is one exception). Also, for the record, Crunchyroll have been obtaining home video licenses since before their deal with Funimation; the most obvious being Free!, but there was an early abortive attempt with 5cm/s. Shiroi Hane (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Aha, sorry if that came off like I didn't think home release credits aren't valuable. Certainly are! My point is merely that company announcements will, most times, be our only source. At least, it'll be available before any BD/DVD releases. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, this would be in the cases where the licensing is contested, like those titles and seasons that contradict the press release, or exceptional claim. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

I see that CurlyWi and Lord Roem have begun changing the license holder in the info boxes for the anime listed in the press release, a decision I believe to be premature. I would like to express why I believe that. First, let me say that there are some inconsistencies within the article itself, the article has two different categories labeled "Anime Licensed for Winter 2017" and "Anime Licensed for Winter 2017 for witch Crunchyroll is a Master Licensee" the same is listed for Fall 2016 as well. Regarding the first part, it says Licensed for Winter 2017, who do they mean by that, Crunchyroll? Because in that section I see titles that are licensed by other companies(Blue Exorcist: Kyoto Saga by Aniplex USA, Naruto Shippuden by VIZ Media, and One Piece and Dragon Ball Super both by Funimation ). Hbartlett even went to edit these pages too claiming Crunchyroll as the licensee, edits which were obviously incorrect. While it is true that Crunchyroll streams these four shows, all matters regarding home video distribution are held by their respective licensees.

Second, you see that the article Fall lineup lists Haikyuu as one of the shows Crunchyroll has the master licensee too, and at the top of the article it says that the term "master licensee" represents BD/DVD, merchandice, and other rights. However, ANN also released and article saying that Sentai Filmworks has licensed the show. Source: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-10-07/sentai-filmworks-licenses-haikyu-3rd-season/.107393 It is in this article that ANN states that Sentai has the rights to release the series digitally and on home video making them the master licensee. The article also states that Crunchyroll only STREAMS the series, it does not say that Crunchyroll has the license to it. If the ANN press release made this error then then the press release's validity is in question. Here is the news from Sentai's own website http://www.sentaifilmworks.com/news/sentai-filmworks-returns-to-karasuno-with-haikyu-3rd-season

When you consider the errors made by both Hbartlett and the ANN press release you will notice their flaws. Hbartlett made invalid edits on some of her edits regarding Blue Exorcist, One Piece, Naruto, Dragon Ball Super, and even Monster Hunter Stories: Ride On which wasn't even mentioned in the press release(look into her early edits and you find those shows and their invalid edits). You also claim that ANN is a reliable source but even it is has given misinformation. Take its recent article regarding Fate/Apocrypha in which it stated that Aniplex had the license to it only to retract the statement once it was proven false https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-04-15/errata-aniplex-usa-does-not-announce-fate-apocrypha-anime/.114883 this means there are two possibilities either the press release is true or it is false and ANN either hasn't noticed or hasn't been provided with contradiction from other sources. Speaking of source CurlyWi has only reached out to contact Hbartlett and Crunchyroll regarding the matter, no one here seems to have contacted Aniplex, Sentai, Funimation, nor VIZ Media on who holds the license to which show. It is important to check all reliable sources to prevent the spread of disinformation. With all the conflicting sources and inconsistencies within the article I cannot come to accept its validity. talk 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this multiple times now. We are talking about two different kinds of licences here. In the context of the article, "license" just means "has the rights to stream the show." If a show is on Netflix/Hulu/etc. they have a license to stream it. For infobox purposes, streaming rights are not a license. "Master license" is the real license. That means they have actually licensed it directly from the original publisher, and have the the right to sub license it to other companies. We see that on most of the shows Crunchyroll has master licensed, they sub licensed them to Funimation for the dubs and physical releases. Titles where Crunchyroll has the master license are licensed by crunchyroll, and the infobox should reflect that.
If there are cases where there is conflicting information, then those individual shows can be discussed separately. Notice I didn't touch the page for Haikyu, since there is some uncertainty for that show. But Haikyu is the exception, not the rule. For the rare cases where there is conflicting information I would encourage you to open up a seperate discussion, but for the vast majority of these shows, all available information indicates that crunchyroll does indeed hold the license for them, so they should be listed as such.
I can't help but notice from your edit history that you appear to be a recently created WP:SPA revolving around infobox licensing information. On current shows like Alice & Zouroku I see you citing an ANN article (that doesn't even say Funimation has licensed the show) and adding Funimation to the infobox. Are you really concerned about "not spreading disinformation?" Are you really concerned about the reliability of ANN? Because it seems like the only thing you are actually concerned about is not having Crunchyroll listed in the infoboxes. CurlyWi (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

An opinion on The Eccentric Family

I'm a bit confused there? For the moment, there's a second season? So in the episode list, it's added from the said list at 14 to? uh? who knows when? But there's a separate info part, err "box" added, with 'April' and very little info... So, uh? What then? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tainted-wingsz, I think it's clear now. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh? At the time, I wasn't sure if added from 14 to a certain number of episodes? Then later on it got restarted back to "1" on a new info part? (Well? again 'box') And a clean sheet like how Medaka Box, was? Or how Rewrite is... First set of episodes was, then the rest after it took a break for a season. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: RWBY again

Need some help on RWBY as editors are still insisting it is an anime show and are using news articles that call it an anime, even though it isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can WE as a Wikiproject define what is anime? Can a handful of random news articles and what the company itself define this show to be anime? Is that permitted? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


I've made this an RFC. Please post your comments there at Talk:RWBY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Japanese episode titles being inserted

Recently, Tainted-wingsz (talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect Japanese episode titles to episode lists, three examples I can verify so far: The first on Akashic Records of Bastard Magic Instructor episode 4; the actual title is 魔術競技祭. The second was on Sakura Quest also for episode 4; the actual title is 孤高のアルケミスト. The third was on Sin Nanatsu no Taizai for episode 3; the actual title is 色欲の渚. And although I can't verify them yet, I have a feeling this edit on Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?: Sword Oratoria also gives the wrong Japanese title. I notified the editor about this, but if this continues, this is just a heads up to anyone noticing such edits.--十八 06:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any indication where they're getting the incorrect ones from? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Wait, are they just... translating/guessing themselves?? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what it seems like; they're taking the English translated title and restranslating it back into Japanese, or copying from someone else that's doing that.--十八 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so? A somewhat strange part is? Maybe they wanted to have poked/practiced? But it was added to some articles? Then if did, hmm? There would be a problem, when the user had put the info in? Then it would be some wording error, that it's the incorrect ones'. For that small set of errors, and such? When any said problem is over a short time frame like a hour, but not over off and on for like a few days?
So? If the info was used for "practicing?" Then? Would it be better, to use the sandbox? Instead? When it could of been wrong, in the first place. Unblue box (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tainted-wingsz (talk · contribs). There are a lot of similarities between these two accounts, first and foremost their unintelligible writing style. Second, Tainted-wingsz stopped editing on April 23, and then Unblue box (talk · contribs) started editing on April 24. Third, every article Tainted-wingsz has edited has been edited by Unblue box, and their editing habits are identical (updating episode counts, titles, dates).--十八 20:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@uh? To said part, from the "date" I'm on a short vacation thing. Over by some islands... Where it's little to none wifi. Unless by some harbor, which does.
Then when living in the same building area with either a big computer/PC screen that can be like a t.v.? Or acts like one? about 2 hi-tech PCs' (or is it called PC's?) I'm not sure what would be the right name, for that? So, when your not around, what do you do? When having some siblings over to see how 'grandpa' is doing and being away for vacation alone. Until the 28 or 29th.
I'm not too familiar, if it came to where one just made a new account on one. Off from one of those computers and knowing at least one, has the same type of hobby as me. And just does, whatever... Like that?Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
See WP:BROTHER and WP:DUCK. All I ask is that you do not include made up Japanese titles in episode tables, whatever account you use.--十八 23:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin's Hokkaido arc

As some of you know is that Nobuhiro Watsuki will write a new Rurouni Kenshin arc known as the "Hokkaido arc". As revealed in the final volume, Watsuki planned to write the Hokkaido early in the 90s but he decided to stop the manga's serialization. Should the arc be given its own separated part in the infobox even though it will be published in another magazine? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Pollock again

Sk8erPrince has re-created Mike Pollock (voice actor) without improving its notability, but I'm unable to push it back to draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've done the most work in improving his article by instating numerous sources. Contrarily, you're just a deletionist that's wanting to push it back to draft just because you don't like his page. Multiple users have pointed out your clear bias in not wanting Mike's article on the mainspace, and to this day, you still don't realize the controversy you've caused? Stop gaming the system and actually further improve the article, which you've barely done. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Explain why it was rejected in February despite such improvements? And nothing has been edited to improve it since then. I'm actually going through the article now to clean up the sources. Pinging SephyTheThird. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Because of blatant invalid reasons. I'm not sure what part of WP:ENT you and the Wiki staff don't get. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, they were valid before. Now, there's more backing for his anime roles presented as lead, and there are book sources now for his Pokemon narrator role as well as his roles in the films, appearances in the Yu-Gi-Oh feature film that was not a direct-to-video when brought to North America, a convention appearance for Yu-Gi-Oh (Arthur Hawkins) and Yu-Gi-Oh GX (Jean-Louis Bonaparte). Tom Howard is also a major role in Rio: Rainbow Gate which is being English dubbed for two seasons. He even has a major role in Miss Hokusai that he get credited in the cast in those film festival newspaper writeups. That he did a commercial that became notable because of his voicing of a Vince Lombardi speech on Adweek also helps. Even his continuing Sonic work lands him more roles in the franchise this year as one of the two voice actor representatives (the other being the voice of Sonic) making the product announcement for Sega. And he becomes a finalist for a Shorty Award. So please don't assume I'm not trying to improve the article, 'cause I just spent a bunch of hours doing just that. It now needs a third-party (not you or myself) to look it over and make sure it can survive notability. I don't think it will become primary topic for Mike Pollock though, given how many other Mike Pollocks there are, including the screenwriter who uses Mike as a nickname. But the (voice actor) designation is good and I think it has a better chance of passing notability than it had before. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging seasons in infoboxes

Is there a discussion of this somewhere? New Game! not being in Category:2017 anime television series is a nonsense to me, and it seems to stem from one or two editor's arbitrary standard of what's considered a new series and what's a continuation. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There was this discussion in 2015 that establish a consensus that we shouldn't have separate infoboxes for each seasons. There may be other similar discussions. Also, I don't know why a new season of an older series would necessitate being in Category:2017 anime television series. —Farix (t | c) 10:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The by-year categories should always be manually added to the article. Even though the infobox adds them automatically for now, that won't always be the case. —Farix (t | c) 10:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no consistency. There are at least 16 sequels currently in the category. I haven't checked the older by-year categories but there will be dozens in each. The infobox at Hozuki's Coolheadedness falsely implies that it has been continuously airing since 2014. If the infobox is actively misleading the reader then it is not fit for purpose. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sequels or second seasons? Because the two aren't the same. If it is a second—or third—season, it shouldn't be in a new by-year category. The question about Hozuki's Coolheadedness is whether it is a second season or an entirely new series. ANN is calling it a second season, but that could be a error resulting from early reporting or ANN is calling any continuation a "season". I will note that the official website has placed the first anime television project's pages under http://www.hozukino-reitetsu.com/1series/, meaning that they are treating these as separate series. —Farix (t | c) 12:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"Sequels or second seasons? Because the two aren't the same."
Really? Elaborate please, because I'm pretty sure that, pratically speaking, they are exactly the same. Avengingbandit 23:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What about XxxHolic? I think a user merged the two animes and manga series.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: This should resolve Hozuki's case: [32] — and maybe other cases. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Transcribe Japanese

While the FAC of Yu Kanda, I'm now in big problems since two users pointed out that all the Japanese sources used in the character (the guidebook Gharagray for the characters' section) is not used completely. I mean, while I have the English translation, I can't write Japanese with my own keyboard. If anybody could help me with writing the Japanese word, I could send you the page through email. Anyways, cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I can write Japanese on my computer. What exactly do you need help with? TranquilHope (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, TranquilHope two users pointed that to write English translations of Japanese books require to quote the original prose too. Could you give me your email and I can send it? My email is "martinsartor8@hotmail.com" anyway.Tintor2 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I uploaded the image through twitter. Here.Tintor2 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
先生が持つ神田というキャラクター「もともと、神田が人気の高いキャラだという意識は全然なくて、良くも悪くも、いちエクソシストとしてしか捉えていなかったんです。でも、担当さんから熱烈に神田を推されたり、ファンの声とかで段々と神田が人気のあるキャラだと認識するようになりました。ただ、美形なだけに作画は緊張しますね。神田1人を描く時間で、ルベリエとか伯爵とかオジサン連中が10人くらい描けます(笑)」ビジュアル面で一番気を遣っているところは？「髪と目かな。神田は”目でモノを言う”タイプなので、戦う時の目線とかまで気を遣います。あと、髪のツヤベタは女性のリナリーより慎重にに描きます」
神田のイメージカラーは？「青です。JC20巻力バーの髪の色がそうです。明るすぎず、暗すぎず…紺色っぽい青かな」「神田」という苗字の由来は？「JC20巻で描かれている、神田が第二エクソシストとして生まれた”御戸代”が神の田んぼ…”神田”という意味なんです。ティエドール元師もに連れられて入団する時に苗字が必要になったので、その時に"神田ユウ”と名付けられました。神田自身、過去を思い出すので、アルマ以外からは”ユウ”と呼ばれたくなかったんです。だから神田は、苗字ができて助かったんじゃないかな」神田がポニーテールなのはなぜですか？「髪が邪魔なんじゃないですか(笑)。それに戦闘の時は、髪を
ギュッと縛ると気か引き締まるし。だからヒモは結べればなんでも良いんです。こだわりがないから、きっとリボンだって付けますよ。普段はリナリーの髪ヒモとかをもらっていますからね(笑)」今後、神田に活躍の場はありますか？「アルマ編を描いたことで、私の中で、神田とアレンの関係性がここでハッキリと確率されたんです。2人が車に仲が悪いだけの関係じゃなくなったことで、神田は動かしやすいキャラになりました。だから、もし戻って来るとすれば、ガンガン活躍してもらいたいですね。現時点ではアレンを支える1人になると思っています」
Done! TranquilHope (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Kenshin a samurai?

Check Talk:Himura Kenshin#Samurai for the discussion. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dream Eater Merry: Character order

There has been an issue that came up on Dream Eater Merry about the character. Originally, the main characters where listed in which they first appeared in the manga (Yumeji Fujiwara first, then Merry Nightmare). Even in writes of the series by Anime News Network and Sentai Filmworks place the characters in this order. However, Nintenchris5963 is insisting that two of the main characters should be switched around claiming that it is "the true character order". His claims on my talk page that the anime website should supersede their presentation in the manga and in news coverage. I insisted that the order remain that which they appeared in the manga (and that the anime is a separate production), but Nintenchris5963 is inclined to edit war over the matter. —Farix (t | c) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In the manga do they both appear in the first chapter? If so, then don't worry about which one is first as that's considered within the same episode/chapter. The character order is more important if a character appears later in a series. But yes, I would favor the order as presented in the manga. For example, even though Lucy appears first in chapter 1/episode 1 of Fairy Tail, Natsu appears in the same episode and Natsu is listed first in all media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've read the first manga of Dream Eater Merry. It's shows that Merry appeared first. Just only for a short time and her eyes weren't shown, and the rest of the scene is Yumeji's appearance. So I prefer the official website's order. Also, Merry is the title character, and title characters are always called the main protagonists. And there's no reason for you to remove the phrase "The main protagonist of the series."; otherwise, people don't know who is/are the main protagonist(s). Nintenchris5963 (talk)
Yumeji Fujiwara is definitely the major protagonist here. The titular character are not always the main character. One example that I can recall from my small selection of readings is The Memorandum of Kyoko Okitegami, where the protagonist is some guy dragged around by Kyoko. Even in the first chapter, the story follows Yumeji around. Appearances aren't a good measurement either. In Bleach, Rukia is the first character to appear in a panel, but Ichigo is the protagonist there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, Merry is listed as Character No. 1, and Yumeji is listed as Character No. 2. I go by the character list as shown in the end credits and in the official website. In Bleach, yes, Ichigo is the main protagonist. And it's because he's listed first in the end credits and in the official website. And in Okitegami Kyouko no Bibouroku (The Memorandum of Kyoko Okitegami), it says that Kyouko is called the lead role, and Yakusuke is called the supporting role. That means Kyouko is called the protagonist, and Yakusuke is the called the deuteragonist. Nintenchris5963 (talk)
That's the anime order but what about the manga? Do they have a list of characters up front in the volumes? Yes, both characters appear in chapter 1 of the manga so there is no preference there; in other words, it doesn't matter which one appeared earlier within that chapter. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Answering my own question here. They do not feature a character list at the beginning of each manga volume. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, calling them protagonists or deuteragonists should be removed, unless RS'es are consistently using those terms. WP:PROTAGONIST AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I also forgot that protagonists are called heroes as well. Merry is called the hero because she did all the fighting around here. Yumeji did nothing but being rescued by Merry all the time. Just like in Haiyore! Nyaruko-san, a boy named Mahiro Yasaka appeared first being chased by a black alien and calling for help, then a girl named Nyaruko appeared second and defeated that black alien. The plot says that it's all about Nyaruko trying to win Mahiro's heart also know as "love at first sight". Mahiro always rejected Nyaruko's love, but Nyaruko chose not to give up and kept on trying to win Mahiro's heart over and over until Mahiro accepts Nyaruko's love. Black aliens always show up and Nyaruko is the only one defeating them all, and Mahiro is the only one doing nothing but being rescued by Nyaruko over and over. Nyaruko was listed first as Character No. 1, and Mahiro was listed second as Character No. 2 in the end credits and in the official website. The manga says it as well, saying "Cover of first light novel volume featuring the protagonist, Nyaruko". Nintenchris5963 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation help needed

I have been working on Shomin Sample, and discovered a two volume spinoff that was made but I am having trouble translating the whole thing. Here is what I have:

  • 俺がお嬢様学校に「庶民サンプル」としてスピンオフされた件

When translated it is roughly the same as the main title 俺がお嬢様学校に「庶民サンプル」として拉致られた件 (Shomin Sample: I Was Abducted by an Elite All-Girls School as a Sample Commoner) but with a few different characters. Using this information my best guess with google translator was "Shomin Sample: I Was Spun Off by an Elite All-Girls School as a Sample Commoner", but the wording "spun out" I know is wrong. Yes I know I can post this on the Wikipedia translation help page but was wondering if anyone here could help out first? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

TranquilHope seems to know about Japanese (see above).Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I will go ahead and add a ping then. @TranquilHope: - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That translation is correct. It's a spin-off, so they were just being funny by replacing 拉致 with スピン(supin)オフ(ofu) (spin-off). TranquilHope (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

One (manga artist)

Hello, I only have access to intermittent internet at the moment and would really appreciate it if some project members would add the above article to their watchlists. it's currently being targeted by some fringe conspiracy theorist adding the most outlandish statements. (I also requested page protection but not sure if it will go through) I tried to talk with the editor in the past but they seem to be back. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Japanese books

Sorry for bothering you. As some of you know, I started another peer review on Yu Kanda. The main reason I made is due to the fact in the previous FAR I had to withdraw it since there was strong opposes about using Japanese books but I found that harder to explain to casual readers and give more undue weight. Since I already have something similar with Allen's article, I would like to hear your opinions about adding information with Japanese books. The peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Yu Kanda/archive2. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is 100% no problem with using Japanese books as references. If someone has a problem with it, and complains about it, politely show them WP:NOENG, which clearly states they are acceptable. If they state otherwise, they are going against very widely-accepted policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nihonjoe, if the books are reliable then there shouldn't be any problem. You should have challenged that oppose vote. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, the example citation with that really long quote would violate fair use. If two or more sentences in the article refer to the same quote, there should never be a problem with that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem isn't that a Japanese book is used. It's that at the FAC, there was a request that if a non-English book was used, there be a quote of the exact sentence of Japanese included. Also, at the peer review, I suggested breaking up with quote, multiple references that identical except in what sentence is in the quote parameter. That will probably circumvent a fair use issue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's somewhat ridiculous to require exact quotes from source material for every little bit about a fictional character. If we have a solid source for the information, and it has a page number (or page numbers) if it's a book or magazine, we don't need to quote the source for the information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. But, that's how it shook out for the FA in question. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Marketing image

Just recently, posters have been posted in the Shinjuku Station promoting the release of the new Rurouni Kenshin manga. Is it a free image or a nonfree? I never uploaded a free image so I have no idea. Either way, I wonder if they could be used in an article from the series. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The image would be under copyright. —Farix (t | c) 23:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
They could only be used under fair use, and likely only in an article about the promotion of the new series. As that will likely never have an article, they likely shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that the Hokkaido arc of Kenshin is actually a story arc the manga author wanted to write in the late 90s but got tired of writing the manga. As a result, this is kind of part of the series' canon unlike the Restoration spinoff manga. Still, should I even ask permission to upload the image?Tintor2 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless the article specifically discusses the poster(s) being used, and reliable sources can be found discussing the posters themselves (the design, who made them, and so on), you may not use the posters on Wikipedia as it would violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. Sorry. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The posters are mentioned but I doubt Crunchyroll is a reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Crunchyroll is reliable, but if the posters were only mentioned, it's not significant enough to include them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about a change to Template:Nihongo

I'm not overly sure how many eyes are on Template:Nihongo, but I've opened up a discussion on the talk page about the placement of the help question mark and a suggestion to move it after the kanji/kana parameter rather than the romanji parameter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_68&oldid=1140107458"