Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Sarada Uchiha

After making some research, I managed to create an article for Sarada Uchiha with two reasonable large paragraphs about how she was received by not only reviewers but even Masashi Kisimoto's brother. However, a fellow user redirected it. I reverted it and tried adding more sources while leaving a message in his talk page. Should we start a discussion in the article's talk page? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Started a discussion in Talk:Sarada Uchiha#Keeping the article.Tintor2 (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! character pages

I've noticed in some Yu-Gi-Oh! character pages like List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters, the official Japanese names of the characters have been removed by an IP hopper. I've restored them for now, but what should we do in organizing and cleaning up the relevant character pages for the franchise such as List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters and List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V characters ? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There's an official English website that lists the characters. I suggest only keeping those on the list. [1] Any that are not listed should be scrubbed away or moved to the talk page if it is debatable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. As for the names of the characters, I think we should keep the official Japanese names in addition to the official English names. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Manga distributor

Do we also list the distributor in the English manga publisher field? Or do we just list the publisher? I should point out that manga publishers and distributors are different. For example, Viz Media publishes manga while Simon & Schuster distributes them in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Do we list Simon & Schuster in addition to Viz Media? -- Wrath X (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Publisher only. Distributes like Random House or Diamond are not listed. —Farix (t | c) 10:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources for PreCure voice actors

Hey there. With some of the voice actors being removed from the Fresh Pretty Cure! and Yes! PreCure 5 articles ([2], [3]) along with Space Patrol Luluco ([4]) and UQ Holder! ([5]) because there aren't reliable sources to back it up, I want to bring this to the project's attention.

As many of us know, all content in general must be verifiable or it will be deleted as original research, which are two of our main fundamental policies on Wikipedia. I'm growing a little concerned about the matter I explained above because in general, the Japanese voice actors for their characters are usually backed up with numerous sources, including news outlets like Yomiuri Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun, websites such as Natalie and Anime News Network, et cetera; the official websites for those particular series; as well as the in-credit information regarding the cast as seen in the end of an anime's episode in general; in the case of the end credits, the episodes themselves can be used as sources with the {{Cite episode}} template. While I've asked a couple of users for their thoughts on the matter, does anyone else have thoughts or suggestions about what other possible sources we can use for them? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than outright removing VAs, I think it would be better to simply add citation needed tags initially, only removing roles if no sources can prove said roles (for example, if the role itself is not mentioned in the credits, which almost never happens nowadays). Before removing said roles, perhaps it would be a better idea to first check if any sources exist that could confirm roles, before even considering removal. This is particularly the case for Japanese roles; as for English roles, it can sometimes be slightly more difficult for sources to exist (particularly for minor roles, or for dubs that don't list who voices who), so removal can be done under certain circumstances.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The shows you mentioned are relatively new (since 2009) so Japanese VA information should be readily available. If the websites do not carry them, you can try Hitoshi Doi's Seiyuu Database and GamePlaza Haruka. Precures also end up being in all those All-Stars movies. As for supporting characters, we'd have to cite the website first to see if they are notable, and then the closing credits. Early English dub streams like on Funimation or even Netflix/Hulu usually don't have a list of English credits (they show the Japanese credits) so you'd have to wait until they get released on Home Media, and even then that's a maybe depending on the company - Sentai usually credits English in the home media. English VAs are a lot harder if they don't have cast announcements. They are dependent then on self-pub tweets to confirm, but even that effort is undermined by editors adding their best guess based on voice matching and a partial cast list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

VA roles for new shows are usually pretty easy to confirm, whether from the official website or from the credits. They shouldn't be removed simply due to being unsourced. Instead, they should be tagged if the person thinks the information is somehow incorrect. Blanket removal is unhelpful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the voice actors for the PreCure articles for now, using Toei Animation's official website as sources. I've also moved all of the other characters to the talk pages at Talk:Fresh Pretty Cure!#Characters and Talk:Yes! PreCure 5#Characters, and started a discussion for them there if anyone's interested. If there are any other sources to be added, please feel free to add them and move them back to the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If the role is unsourced, it should be removed simply because incorrect attribution of roles can negatively affect a VA's career, which is a WP:BLP matter. While this is more pertinent to English VAs than Japanese VAs, both should receive the same level of scrutiny to minimize bias. If a role is tagged with {{fact}}, how long should it remain before it is removed as unsourced? Generally, if a role is tagged with {{fact}}, very rarely does anyone bother to add a source. However, if the roles are removed as unsourced, then they are much more likely to be restored with sources. However, I fear that if roles are tagged and later deleted, editors will restore the roles without adding sources simply stating that the tag should be "enough". In the end, all voice roles need to be sourced to comply with WP:V, so which method is more likely to result in the desired ends? And before anyone state that whoever removes the roles should look for sources themselves, I must point out WP:BURDEN, which puts the burden for finding sources on those who wants to include the roles in the articles, not on those who remove them. —Farix (t | c) 12:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

While I can see where you're coming from, outright removing roles immediately instead of simply immediately adding a source sounds like a bad idea. I know BLP and all, but there's also WP:IAR, and considering these days it's very easy to provide a source, I don't see how removing a role then asking others to readd it is any better than just adding a source yourself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Content dealing with living persons are one of the few areas where WP:IAR doesn't apply, especially when the content could be harmful to the individual. If it isn't source, then it is subject to removal until a source is provided. —Farix (t | c) 21:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's about the doubtful and harmful classification as in {{specify}}, but with BLP it's mostly delete. But I do have a Precure case in Glitter Force Doki Doki, I've tagged Melissa Fahn and Stephanie Sheh's roles as one of the main girls given that the news article lists them as starring and there are 4 starring girls. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely why I am such a stickler for requiring sources with regard to VA roles. Who knows how much damage this particular person has done to Wikipedia by adding in fake VA roles. —Farix (t | c) 03:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Action-adventure, one genre or two?

I just wanted to gauge everyone's opinion on whether action-adventure should count as a single genre, or as two separate genres. This came up with Naruto as I updated and directly sourced the genres to the Viz Media website. Viz lists the genres as "Action-Adventure Comedy Fantasy".[6] Per our style guide, we only list the three most relevant genres. If action-adventure is counted as a single genre, this shouldn't be a problem, but if we count it as two separate genres, this will pose a problem as to which genre to drop as least relevant, adventure or comedy. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a gray area, I found a source from Writers Digest (Their University) that define an adventure story as:

A genre of fiction in which action is the key element, overshadowing characters, theme and setting. … The conflict in an adventure story is often man against nature. A secondary plot that reinforces this kind of conflict is sometimes included. In Allistair MacLean’s Night Without End, for example, the hero, while investigating a mysterious Arctic air crash, also finds himself dealing with espionage, sabotage and murder. (Source)

Since action is the key element I don't see how these could be two separate genres as they go hand in hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So should it then be listed as simply "Adventure" instead of "Action-adventure", since all adventure fiction will contain action as a key element? —Farix (t | c) 13:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is my interpretation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So what will separate action from adventure, as it seems the two will end up being interchangeable? —Farix (t | c) 13:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. While I have seen action adventure used its own genre it has to my knwoledge only been applied to video games and not any other form of media. In the case of gaming action games usually involve players responding to obstacles using fast reaction times whereas adventure games are usually story driven games that involves solving puzzles with a far lesser emphasis on reaction times. An action adventure game obviously combines the two elements (a well known example being the Legend of Zelda series). Now since neither of these elements are present in watching Naruto (or any other anime) action adventure should not be used a genre.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, adventure is a subgenre of action. Everytime a source says "action-adventure", we should just list adventure.--Sakretsu (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Action-adventure game is a type of video game, while Adventure genre goes to Adventure fiction that according to the Wikipedia descriptions presented there "often by physical action". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

About Articles' Name

I want to know exactly how we decide the name of a Manga or Light Novel series' article. I've read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, and it says that we should use the official English title of the series or the English name by which the series is commonly known. Now the question comes here, If a Manga or Light Novel series that is not published into English yet, gets an Anime adaptation, and a VOD service like Crunchyroll, Funimation, Anime Strike or Hidive has licensed it (The Anime series not the Manga or Light Series ), and has given it an official English title. So Is it right to use the anime adaptation's English title as the article's name instead of the Romaji title of the Manga? There're some articles like Classroom of the Elite, Recovery of an MMO Junkie, My First Girlfriend Is a Gal which uses the anime adaptation's English title. Phoenix God (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on who is going to produce the English dub. If they're just translating and providing temporary subtitles (e.g. Hulu, Crunchyroll) until it is picked up by a dubbing company, then the titles will likely change again. But in the meantime, such titles could be considered as aliases. Funimation, Viz / Neon Alley, Sentai, NIS America are more likely to make official their titles. Netflix and Anime Strike (Amazon) might be different now in that they are introducing the dubs as part of their original programming. Funimation has a hand in all three of the titles you mentioned with dub plans, so they're likely going to have the official titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but if we use the Anime series' official English title as the article's name than wouldn't it mean that the article is basically about the anime series. Note: The three series mentioned above was first created as Manga or Light Novel. The anime adaptation came after. Phoenix God (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a Crunchyroll title "temporary"; while some titles change by the time they are eventually released on disc (as with "Cat Planet Cuties"), the titles they used are still approved by at least one production committee member (which may well include the print publisher, if not the author themselves). They are also now working closely with Funimation so I would expect them to differ in terms of series title much less often, and aside from that they've been obtaining full (i.e. including physical) rights to titles or even being committee members themselves more and more often. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The three series that I mentioned above are not published into English yet. Just their anime adaptation is licensed by American companies. The original Manga or Light Novel version is not licensed to release in English yet. And we are using the anime adaptation's English title as the article's name. Phoenix God (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If the manga or light novel's English title is different from the English title of the anime series or OVA, we change it to the original medium's English title. But very rarely are the titles different and the few edge cases that do exist, such as My Monster Secret, aren't worth creating a new rule around. —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This light novel's English title and its anime series' English title are different. Even ANN is not using the anime's English title as the manga's. I think the articles about series that are yet to be released in English should use the Romaji title instead of anime series's title. For example, like how I did in this article. Phoenix God (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea per WP:NCUE. The names should be easily recognizable when possible as there is ja: wiki for Japanese speakers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally if I were getting into anime & manga for the first time or were out of the loop I would probably type in Love is Like a Cocktail rather than Osake wa Fūfu ni Natte kara. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The WP:NCUE guideline says that The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources, and the main subject here is the Manga or Light novel not the Anime, and the reliable source ANN is not using the Anime's English title for Manga. So I'm not asking a question out of nowhere. Usually, The anime series's title change when a new season comes. Just like the The Seven Deadly Sins (manga). Phoenix God (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"Even ANN is not using the anime's English title as the manga's" - ANN has separate pages, Wikipedia (on the whole) does not. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If the TV series or even TV season has its own article, as with Sailor Moon Crystal, then the English anime title can apply there instead of to the general franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If a Manga or Light novel is not published into English yet. Than, obviously the readers know it by Romaji title only because the "fansub" groups use the same title as Japan. I've checked many reliable sources and mostly all of them are using the Romaji title of the Manga, even if its Anime series has a English title. Phoenix God (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Last name on a character article

See Talk:Sakura Haruno#Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017 - Sakura's new official surname should also be added at the beginning of her Wikipedia page, just like Hinata's new surname already is on her own Wikipedia page. I'm not really sure what is the correct answer to this. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that how the character is referred to in the Boruto series? Sometimes editors assume people will automatically use their married name as surname, and then are surprised when the person still uses their maiden name as their common and stage name. Same deal with characters. As long as it's not one of those epilogue cases where they get married in the last chapter or so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If that's the name she goes by in Boruto, and if she regularly appears in Boruto, then Uchiha may be mentioned briefly in the lead and in the character sections. Still, MOS:FICTION applies, and she should generally be referred to as Sakura rather than "Haruno" or "Uchiha" throughout. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Goku's powers and Superman

See Talk:Goku#Powers and Abilities. A user has been adding information about the character's abilities as well as some sort of deathbattles thing. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit notices on Naruto episode lists?

Shoul we add edit notices to Naruto: Shippuden (season 14) and all seasons afterward? Because once again, there was an IP editor adding DVD dates as air dates simply because that is the way the Naruto Wikia presents it. —Farix (t | c) 21:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess so but or we could simply delete the English airdates unless the series appears on tv again. By the way, I've been wondering if we should reorganize the seasons. I mean, season 20 is divided into multiple DVD sections just like the ones from season 21. Just an idea I had.Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with how the season were determined. But at least for "21" Some of those sets only consisted of less than 10 episodes, but still, let's break the episode count down.

• Infinite Tsukuyomi: The Invocation: 18
• Jiraiya Shinobi Handbook: The Tale of Naruto the Hero: 19
• Itachi's Story ~ Light and Darkness: 8
• The Origins of Ninshu ~ The Two Souls, Indra and Ashura: 11
• The Chapter of Naruto and Sasuke: 10
• Nostalgic Days: 4
• Sasuke's Story: The Exploding Human: 5
• Shikamaru's Story: Secret Clouds in the Silence of the Dark: 5
• Konoha's Story: Marriage Ceremony Day: 7

Most of these small sets is largely do the them being original content in order to pad out the series a little bit longer. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, the biggest reason behind including DVD release dates as air dates is because the Naruto Wikia lists them as air dates. Perhaps a notices should be posted to the admins over there that their misrepresentation of dates is causing problems at Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Kotoura-san or The Troubled Life of Miss Kotoura?

Should the article adapt the English title The Troubled Life of Miss Kotoura or just remain Kotoura-san? Looking for some input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If only the anime was licensed I would say to go with the official English title for that, but in this case since the original manga is also licensed but under a different title, I would use that title (Kotoura-san). Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Himari Noihara

I just nominated Himari Noihara for GA (see: Talk:Himari Noihara). If anyone wants to help review it would be a great help! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend moving the voice actor information to the bottom of the creation section.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but the voice actress wasn't involved in the creation of the character. I could do that though if you feel it would help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to post them there since they involve more information about the characterization of them. Actors are often give more traits about how their characters' traits or how different they are in each form of media and differences in translation. See Himura Kenshin#Actors for example.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved the section, the anime part is a bit small but when it relates to her character it is suitable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Demographic labels (e.g. seinen)

I was pointed here by User:Juhachi because of my edits to the description of the magazine Manga Time Kirara as being a yonkoma magazine rather than a seinen one. From looking at some previous discussions here, I see that there's the practice of classifying every manga using a Japanese manga target label (shoujo, shounen, josei, seinen, etc.), regardless of what the publisher of that magazine might label it as.

I haven't found any justification or sources for applying the label "seinen" to manga which isn't labelled as such. Juhachi said on my talk page, <<seinen manga is a catch-all term for "manga marketed toward men old enough to read kanji" as stated in the first sentence of that article.>>, but that doesn't mean that all manga targeted at men is 'seinen' - only that seinen manga targets men of a certain age. I hope that distinction is clear.

I suggest that these manga labels should not be arbitrarily assigned without some evidence from publishers or scholars that they truly are used as catch-all demographic terms. Because publishers clearly make a distinction - Houbunsha doesn't label its Manga Time Kirara magazines 青年向け (seinen-muke) or give it any demographic label. Instead, the Japanese Magazine Publishers Association divides magazines into 'shounen-muke' (for boys) and 'dansei-muke' (for men), and Kirara falls under the latter. The reason for this, I believe, is that 'seinen' is a label that also has genre associations (see the various books and papers describing the usual associations of 'seinen'; a collection of descriptions are found in Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives). Also, while this does not constitute evidence, Japanese Wikipedia is quite specific about the usage of the various terms and applies the 'seinen' label only to specific magazines (e.g. ones with "Young" in their name).

男性向け dansei-muke i.e. "men's manga" is the closest thing I've come across to act as a catch-all demographic term, so how about using that instead? It's the direct counterpart of 女性向け josei-muke and thus makes sense as a demographic label (it's wider than the label 青年 seinen "youth"). I would propose 萌え系 "moe manga" as a genre label too, since it's used on Japanese Wikipedia, but I haven't come across solid sources to back up that term. Hope we can have a thoughtful discussion about this. -- Creamyhorror (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I see 男性向け and 青年向け as equivalent for the purposes of Wikipedia. Even the Japanese wiki for Manga Time Kirara states in its infobox that the magazine is targeted at 10代～30代男性 (men in their teens to in their 30s). This is perfectly in line with what we know about seinen manga. Besides, you can look at the Japanese wiki's ja:Category:漫画のジャンル (対象読者別) to show you that they themselves don't use ja:男性向け or ja:男性漫画 to refer to target demographics. The 4 main demographics used on the English wiki are based on the ones already in use in Japan, so dansei-muke and seinen are roughly equivalent if not entirely overlapping in their target demographics. As for "moe manga", moe (like ecchi) is not a genre, but a motif and visual style used to depict characters in manga. The Japanese wiki also doesn't use ja:萌え漫画 in that way.--十八 19:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Box office and sales

I've been recently working in the article Boruto: Naruto the Movie but I have no idea where to include the sales of the home media release of the movie since there is already a box office section. Any suggestions? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps looking at E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Last Action Hero can be helpful. —Farix (t | c) 15:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Expanded more but how about instead using Blood-C: The Last Dark as an example since it's from the project?Tintor2 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: I started a peer review here.Tintor2 (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me

Hello. I have a question. If I want to use infobox in article Mashimaro (not TV series) or Elsword: El Lady (Nexon; YouTube only) etc, what is appropriate template? I think, in this case, Template:Infobox animanga is not correct, because "Infobox animanga" is for Japanese animation only. And that articles is not TV series or film. So, Template:Infobox television series or Template:Infobox film is also in correct in my opinion. Then, in this situation, do you know what is best template? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to raise something similar, since Turning Mecard is masquerading as an anime series despite being Korean. I suppose Template:Infobox television is the standard? —Xezbeth (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've switched it. But if the series isn't an anime series, it should use the normal {{Infobox television}} infobox. —Farix (t | c) 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xezbeth, TheFarix: Surly, in the present situation, {{Infobox television}} infobox is the best. But... actually that animations are not television program. :l Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A simple overlook/ insight

On In Another World With My Smartphone there was an edit (from when the edit time/ edit counter, etc, says November 8) where someone named a character, Elze to 'Elise'. But from this, when ann goes with elze. As from funimation had uses the name elze too. On here. At the bottom of the link/ url.

So I changed it back, but if I seen similar edits. Is it just change it back to how before the official word spelling was? And I wasn't sure to leave this on the shows' talk page or put it on here. Unblue box (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have had to correct names multiple times. The last time I checked every single name on the page and made sure they all conformed to the spellings used by J-Novel Club was here (most of the characters were removed from the page after this). There was an issue where a preview video for the anime used different spellings, however that was different again (Else) so I don't know where "Elise" is coming from. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

found another one by World Break: Aria of Curse for a Holy Swordsman. As they looked/ edited at, In Another World With My Smartphone from the earlier day.

There were a series of name changes to Magician's Academy.[7] Anyone can confirm if these are legitimate? —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

From the edit at '1;24' and after that is wrong. As to 'Hapxiel' was called hapxier. Anything than that is fine.Unblue box (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Also when I was looking up a confirmed ref/sources, to the names'. Other then the above name. I was using an ipad, and nowadays its old, which sometimes doesn't display certain words, letters as I have to refresh the link/ url. So I'm moving to a laptop, or one of those models. As I have a road job like U-Haul, if the job needs an extra person to carry items. Unblue box (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Japanese reviewers

In the peer review of Boruto: Naruto the Movie, a fellow user advised me adding some reviews from Japan but I can't tell by googling if the reviewer can be approved as reliable. Can anybody give me a hand? It might come across as useful for more movies the project has. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I usually use anything I can find from Comic Natalie as this is what Anime News Network uses for a reference. "Amustyle", and "GNN" may also be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 Thanks. By any chance could you show me the review from of those sites? Can't understand anything. Since the movie's Japanese title is in English it should be easy to find.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Anime News Network. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I already sploited that review in the article. What I mean is that I need a reliable Japanese review.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2:, have you tried the newspapers in Category:English-language newspapers published in Japan? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Australian site for dvds

I forgot to list all English regions about Boruto: Naruto the Movie so I started adding them. However, I can't find the Australian primary source and instead added this site. Is it considered reliable? Can't even find in Amazon's Australian site. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: I did find Madman's source but it lacks its release date.Tintor2 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in a column on the left hand side of the page, using the dd/mm/yyyy format (ie 24/05/2017 instead of 24 May 2017). Madman would be a better source than mightyape. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't find it it. Only thing I see " "the masterfully-choreographed fight sequences alone are worth the price of admission"

- Amy McNulty, Anime News Network Also Available on DVD"

Tintor2 (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

click "Additional details". Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This is what I see. Maybe my computer is old? Still added Madman's source.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Try clicking "release details" here or, failing that, try this. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Surge of vandalism?

Has anyone else noticed an uptick in vandalism on various anime and manga related articles? My watchlist has been very little but vandalism edits the last few days. Anyone have an idea what could be the cause? —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball (manga)? As that is a legitimate date disputed discussed at Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)#Date dispute. I did notice some at One-Punch Man. No ideas why this is happening now though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about Tokyo Ghoul, Pretty Cure, One Piece, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Dragon Ball Super‎, Eromanga Sensei, etc. —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I checked those out and the edits seem unrelated both in type (ranging from blanking to more focused stuff) and geographically. I think it really is just a random surge. You do usually see an uptick in vandalism when school is off as well as when an article gets a lot of attention, but these are just generally popular series. Opencooper (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well the Pretty Cure one is because Netflix released the second batch of episodes under Glitter Force Doki Doki recently. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Volume 1 covers being deleted

Need your thoughts and opinions regarding whether volume 1 covers can still be used for franchise articles. This looks like it will affect almost all the articles we have on the wikiproject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_October_22#File:One_Piece.2C_Volume_1.jpg

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)

Members of the WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987) regarding the content of the article's "Musical style and influences" section. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge article information of Koro-sensei Q! with Assassination Classroom pages (main, characters and episodes)

As I have done numerous edits on the Assassination Classroom and came across its spin-off Koro-sensei Q!, I have realized that information on the latter can be merged into the former's pages. I see that the Koro-sensei Q! page is incomplete anyways, and all characters in that series are already in Assassination Classroom. I am currently in the process of adding short episode summaries in that section on the episodes page, since that section previously existed on that page. So my question is, should the page for Koro-sensei Q! be deleted and its information be moved to the Assassination Classroom pages..... or not? AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 21:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I would keep it separate and then move the episode list to the article as with RWBY Chibi, List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes, Attack on Titan: Junior High, Neon Genesis Evangelion: Campus Apocalypse. Characters can be combined into the Plot, or have a very short listing highlighting differences in the character as they pertain to the spinoff. The anime only lists four key characters and assumes everyone else is about the same just with fantasy abilities and chibis. A merge would be appropriate if it were the same world as the original but focusing on some side stories or omakes for the characters, or just having them in chibi form as with Welcome to Lodoss Island (Record of Lodoss War). Mini-Goddess was like that until they made a 48-episode TV series of shorts which warranted a separate page for its size. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's a great idea, and thanks for the suggestion! But again, the characters section is still incomplete. Of course, not all characters from Assassination Classroom are featured in Koro-sensei Q!. First, I will complete the episode summaries. Then, I will move the summaries back to the Koro-sensei Q! page. And finally, if I have the time and energy, include the rest of the characters with short descriptions. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 19:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Article that might need some consensus

The article Nobuhiro Watsuki has been edited multiple times by users based on the recent controversial events that recently happened. People keep adding it to the lead and different sources while discussing it in their edit summaries. Should we request to lock the article or start a discussion in the talk page? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the relevant policy here: as reliable sources have reported on the allegations, they probably should be in the article in some way, though per WP:BLP they should be presented in a neutral manner without giving any undue weight on unproven or contentious matters. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Assessment drive anyone?

Asking this instead of at the assessment page to allow a wider hearing. Should we do an assessment drive for our manga and anime articles? Right now, quite a few of our anime articles are listed as Start or even Stub class when they're clearly at least C-class (for example Aho-Girl). Time to do an assessment drive and fix this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we trying to bring the articles up to C and above or just doing a status update on what they are currently at? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Both I guess. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a bunch of unassessed articles that could use some classifications, but yeah, if there's a set that needs reviewing, we can get them posted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Crunchyroll licensing

Hello guys. I was looking through some articles on here, and I realised that some of the series that are licensed by Crunchyroll are erroneously written as being licensed by Funimation, with notes saying to not add Crunchyroll as the licensee. This seems odd, as looking at physical releases reveals that these series are licensed by Crunchyroll.

Physical releases for Crunchyroll licensed series typically have a prefix of "CR" in its catalog number (found on the spine below the logos). For example: the Mob Psycho 100 article currently says that Funimation is the licensee in North America, however, if you look closely at physical packaging of the North American series, the catalog number is "CR-01467" (RightStuf product page image). Orange (manga) is also listed as being licensed by Crunchyroll, but the physical release has the prefix "CR-01307" (Amazon product page image).

These articles already say that Crunchyroll has licensed the series, and their physical releases show a "CR" prefix on the catalog number: Free Iwatobi Swim Club (season 1) (Amazon product page with image showing "CR-09639"), Myriad Colors Phantom World (Amazon product page with image showing "CR-01744")

Funimation licensed series have a "FN" prefix: (Attack on Titan Season 1 "FN-07255", Tokyo Ghoul Season 1 "FN-06734")

As such, I am unsure whether to change Mob Psycho 100, Orange (manga), and other affected articles from Funimation to Crunchyroll as the North American licensee since these pages all have a note saying to not add Crunchyroll as the licensee, despite the physical releases showing a "CR" prefix and not a "FN" prefix. Alex Tenshi (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that the prefixes are related to licensing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy it's this discussion again. To briefly get you up to speed: Crunchyroll and Funimation formed a partnership where CR streams the shows that FN licensed, and FN does the dub/DVD releases of the shows that CR licensed. The problem is, reliable sources that typically report on seasonal anime (ANN, Kotaku, etc.) just say "Crunchyroll is streaming it, Funimation is dubbing it." Reliable sources don't actually distinguish between the CR licensed shows and the FN licensed shows, since they are functionally identical. Faced with vague, unhelpful reliable sources, some editors just decided to list every single show as licensed by Funimation, and there was endless moaning and grumbling (and accusations of elaborate hoaxes) when editors attempted to list shows under Crunchyroll.[8] The problem was briefly fixed for one season when Crunchyroll actually put out a list of all the shows they licensed, but they only did that once, and now editors have just gone back to listing every single show under Funimation. I would like to encourage you to be bold and fix these articles but you'll probably just end up facing round two of "You need a reliable source explicitly stating that Crunchyroll has the license, but Funimation gets a free pass for whatever reason." CurlyWi (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Could this omission by the reliable sources mean it is in fact WP:TRIVIA? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's less an issue of trivia, and more just that CR/FN are really bad at actually explaining who has licensed what. This isn't a problem with other companies like Sentai Filmworks, it's usually fairly clear what they've licensed. Perhaps since CR and FN are working "together" on most modern shows now, and reliable sources don't seem to distinguish between them, we should just treat them as one unit for infobox purposes, and list both of them in the infobox? CurlyWi (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering Funimation was recently bought by Sony, it's possible that the relationship may not last for long anyway, but for now at least, it might be a decent compromise; list both as the licensee, perhaps with a footnote or text in the article explaining the situation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are catalog numbers important to add to the anime articles? This isn't a list of albums, where the label and the catalog entry might have some importance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Tenshi wasn't suggesting adding catalog numbers to articles, they are talking about infoboxes, and are asking if the CR/FN in the catalog number is sufficient evidence for determining whether Crunchyroll or Funimation should be in the infobox. CurlyWi (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say the SKU codes issued by Funimation and printed on their product are reliable since they know better than anyone which product are their own and which they are merely distributing (similarly, Kazé product distributed by Manga UK have SKUs beginnning KBR or KDVD while their own product always start MANB or MANG) Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I never said anything about adding catalog numbers; only saying it could help determine the licensee. Also, if something printed by the distributor isn't reliable, then what is considered reliable then? I have also contacted Funimation support to help clear things up. Alex Tenshi (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)

Editors of the WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Musical style and influences. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other Anime projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Anime_and_manga

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of these were actually the result of WP:OVERLINKing in the tokusatsu sections. The link on Yukihiro Takiguchi to Gangsta doesn't appear to be anyway connected to Gangsta (manga) and there is no live-action films listed on the disambiguation page. As for List of Koihime Musō characters, the voice roles aren't sourced nor is it possible to verify that Ui is a pseudonym for Ui Miyazaki. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting them.— Rod ^talk 14:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed that Gangsta in Takiguchi's article is a completely different film, so I've put in that information on the notes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Genre disputes on mutiple Viz manga articles

We have an IP genre warrior changing genres on a number of Viz related manga series, dispute the previous genres being sourced. The IP—which changes ever few days and traces to Nashville, Tennessee—apparently disagrees with the genres that Viz Media (a subsidiary of ShoPro) listed on it and are simply making up their own genres based on no source but their own. The affected pages are Blue Exorcist, My Hero Academia, Fairy Tail, Boruto: Naruto Next Generations, One Piece, D.Gray-man, Magi: The Labyrinth of Magic, and Twin Star Exorcists. This may extend to other Viz released manga. —Farix (t | c) 12:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gone through and tagged the disputed sources that aren't supported by Viz Media as unsourced. If in the next few days the IP editor does not provide a citation from ShoPro, I will revert the article back to their original states. —Farix (t | c) 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ready for GA?

I haven't edited too many movie article (last one was Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike) so I've been wondering if the recently copyedited Boruto: Naruto the Movie is ready for a GA nomination or it still lacks something to pass a review. ProtoDrake and @Aoba47: since they aren't recurring editors from this project. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: It seems ready to go to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Good luck Tintor, my GA request for Himari Noihara (reviewer) has been idle now for over a month now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename discussion

I posted a question at Talk:Tokyo Metropolitan Television about whether the article should be renamed to Tokyo MX. This isn't a formal RM proposal, but to roughly gauge if there is support for a rename. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirect problem

It seems like our Anime and Manga Wikiproject template is having trouble automatically assessing articles as redirect class. As a result of this, a bot is removing classed articles into "unassessed". Full discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:EnterpriseyBot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's because the bot is expecting Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles, however, we use a more accurate named Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects. These aren't articles and their categories shouldn't call them articles. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Came here from the ANI thread out of curiosity Except that category name is entirely out of sync with the entire rest of Category:Redirect-Class articles... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with template

Due to the increase of Gantz articles, I created Template:Gantz but I'm not an expert at how they are made, resulting in red links. Can somebody give me a hand with it? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Made a small adjustment to how the list was written but don't see any redlinks. -- ferret (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article push for Grave of the Fireflies and My Neighbor Totoro

Now that the 30th anniversary of the premieres of Grave of the Fireflies and My Neighbor Totoro are upon us, I'm thinking about taking these articles to FA status so we can feature Totoro in a TFA on April 16, 2018 and Grave of the Fireflies on April 17 of that year. Also, we may need more members for WP:GHIBLI. What is the project's thoughts about the matter here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Both seem to be in good shape to become good articles. However, I would advise to first make a peer review before the FA nominations. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sjones23:, to show that the articles are well-researched (WP:WIAFA 1c), it would be good to show that scholarly sources for Grave of the Fireflies and My Neighbor Totoro have been consulted, as was done for Naruto. Because scholarly sources were found and consulted, the themes of Naruto were able to be discussed and the cultural influences on Naruto were explored, leading to a more in-depth treatment of the subject. Film articles also include scholarly sources at FA level, such as American Beauty (1999 film). An incomplete bibliography for Ghibli films can be found here to get started with, and another anime and manga bibliography, arranged by year, can be found here. Hope this helps. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Food War's mid-season break

After the airing of the next episode, Food Wars! Shokugeki no Soma will be taking an unusual mid-season break before continuing in April.[9] How should this be noted on the episode list or should it be noted at all? —Farix (t | c) 11:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should make a note in the lead section about the mid-season break. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the post-break airing considered a new season? There's such a thing called split-cour, with each cour being considered a separate season. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ANN states that it is a continuation of Season 3 and not a separate season unto itself. It specifically states that it is the second half of "The Third Plate", which is the subtitle of the third season. —Farix (t | c) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about cours being separate seasons, but they can have a split table as with Durarara!!×2 or kept together as The Walking Dead (season 5) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Worth incubating?

Hi! One of my students translated an article from Japanese to English, but the series doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines at this point in time. It seems like it's a popular enough series, so it looks like there's a distinct possibility that it could pass notability guidelines at some point in time. I don't know if the student will be back to edit it and I would hate for this to be lost completely, so I wanted to bring this up here: User:K17nn02/sandbox. The series is Musuko ga kawaikutesyouganai mazoku no hahaoya, literally The demonic mother who can’t stand her son's adorableness. I didn't know if anyone wanted to keep an eye on this and use it as a framework for an article later on down the line. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? The series, although it doesn't seem notable at the moment, could become so in the future if it receives more coverage in reliable sources, and/or sells well enough to chart. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender issues in anime

Copied from Teahouse to expand discussion. In some recent anime, eg. Nanachi in Made in Abyss and Kino in Kino's Journey, there are differences of opinion on how to refer to characters who either display no gender, disguise their gender, or who use non-gender specific language to refer to themselves. Some contributors suggest using the plural pronouns (they, their, themselves, etc) in preference to he or she and other alternatives are: avoid using pronouns wherever possible, use he/she, him/her. The Chicago-Kent College of Law proposes a number of work-arounds. My preference is to use their guidelines with grammatical or syntax work-arounds where possible to avoid using incorrect language. Does anyone know of any precedents in Wikipedia where this issue has been resolved? Ozflashman (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Singular they is the most natural way of handling it, to me. Constructions like "he or she" or "s/he" may work a lot of the time when referring to hypothetical persons, but not as well when referring to specific individuals, and constantly repeating a character's name rather than using pronouns gets repetitive.--IDV^talk 12:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Singular they is what is most commonly used with video games with selectable gender (Though sometimes this is updated if a later game sets a canonical gender). Using slashes such as s/he and his/her I believe is generally frowned on by MOS. There's often times ways to reword a sentence to avoid pronoun, but if not possible, singular they works best (in my personal opinion, for what its worth). MOS is specifically against generic he though. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd go with self-identify first as with Kuromaru in UQ Holder who is genderless but self-identifies as male and with Haganai#Neighbors_Club for Yukimura who self-identifies as male but is actually a female. You could also just use their name as with List of Attack on Titan characters#Zoë Hange. It really depends on how the media commonly refers to the character. Using "they" might be okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Nanachi from Made in Abyss, I think using singular they is the best option, especially since that's what I've seen used in multiple reliable sources (including the description of a piece of official merchandise). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Singular they is not applicable in any of these situations without murdering syntax, please stop trying to force it --85.206.215.63 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

While singular they does sound awkward at first (even for me to be honest), it's becoming more common in formal writing in recent years, and in fact there's been precedent of using "they" in the singular even in previous centuries. So using singular they is not "murdering syntax". In any case, my preference would be to try to avoid using pronouns whenever possible, or use whatever pronoun is most commonly used in reliable sources (if available). Only if either are unfeasible would I use the singular they. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be the case where "they" can used as a possessive, like "Their abilities are to ...." but I would avoid grammatically incorrect constructs like "They is a knight" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Even used as a singular you would write "They are a knight". But that's a phrase that can easily just inject the character's name as well. -- ferret (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of FLCL

FLCL, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sketches vs. images

This a small doubt I have. When revising the Naruto third databook, I found that Naruto's, Sasuke's and Sakura's look were further explained here and here. Do you it is more important to upload the sketches rather than the finished ones? EDIT: Forgot to mention Flowepiep who has been also editing these articles. Tintor2 (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Free image from Japanese Wikipedia

I've been searching for a free image of Sarutobi Sasuke and the Japanese Wikipedia has one. Is it possible to use it in the English Wikipedia? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think only under fair use, unless you can ascertain more information on the statue's creation. The specific tag used in that image's description page states that the image is being used under fair use in the United States. As I understand it, Japan does not have full freedom of panorama, meaning artistic works located in public can only be reproduced for non-commercial use. The only case where it would be allowed is if the original artwork has lapsed into the public domain, which would be 50 years after the artist's death. If you decide to upload it locally, you might want to use the {{Photo of art}} template (example), since the copyright tags can be confusing due to the photograph being freely licensed but the work still copyrighted. Opencooper (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also this book cover from the Meiji period uploaded by the University of Pennsylvania Library that is in the public domain (since it's pre-1923 for PD-US and more than 50 years ago for PD-Japan). Opencooper (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

So it would be a nonfree image, right? Guess, I'll avoid it cos the article already reached three nonfree images.Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You can have unlimited nonfree images are long as they are all being fairly used. If the image of the statue is vital to the article it might be possible to include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia Tried uploading it here.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Kiznaiver episode discussions

There's an important discussion regarding the episode summaries in Kiznaiver. It can be found at Talk:Kiznaiver#Episode summaries. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Otaku

I just removed some content [10] that was most recently tagged as original research. [11] Feel free to discuss possible inclusion here: Talk:Otaku#Proposed sections under "Discussion". Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Powers and abilities sections

Hello.

I recently made an effort to find references to most of the powers and abilities possessed by the Dragon Ball character Son Goku, but the section was removed, and the discussion discontinued.

It is customary for most prominent North American superhero comicbook character pages to contain such sections, and I think that they represent relevant aspects of the characters, that are of public interest, so I would appreciate if the issue could be reevaluated.

Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We are not from the North American comicbooks project, but Goku's prominent abilities are already mentioned here. If I recall well, that section repeated elements from the appearances section.Tintor2 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Super Saiyan Blue and Ultra Instinct are the new abilities from Dragon Ball Super as discussed on the talk page, and those are now in the article for Appearances. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the nature and scale of all his abilities are not defined, and it seems far more practical to organise them into a specific section, for anybody who is interested to easily overview, rather than spread out a few mentions in unrelated parts of the page. I would very much appreciate if I could be allowed to reinsert the section into the page, as a large part of the people familiar with the character tend to consider this important. David A (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSANIME

There's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Header_issues regarding issues with the headers at WP:MOSANIME. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Also, the relevant RfC is here if anyone's interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about the character and anime sections at Kiznaiver

An IP editor has twice attempted to remove the character and anime sections of Kiznaiver, rendering the article to stub status.[12][13] On the discussion page, the editor insisting that because the article is incomplete, these sections are undue weight and are just fancruft. —Farix (t | c) 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And now, an RfC is made. It's located at Talk:Kiznaiver#RfC: Character descriptions in Kiznaiver. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for review of the quality of the Dragonar Academy article

The article has been listed as Start-class since 07:58, 4 August 2014, however I think it could now pass for C or possibly B class. Could an experienced Wikipedian review the article, and update the rating accordingly? QuietOwl (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 in anime

The page has been created. Feel free to start populating it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

18 disambiguation links remaining

Only 18 disambiguation links remaining according to https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Anime_and_manga perhaps you could help disambiguate them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with episode list table

I recently tried giving List of Boruto: Naruto Next Generations episodes a table but it backfired and it is not showing the image. Could anybody check it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Juhachi. Opencooper (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with romaji

I need help with the romanization of Ore ga Suki nano wa Imōto dakedo Imōto ja nai (俺が好きなのは妹だけど妹じゃない, lit. "The One I Love is My Little Sister But She's Not a Little Sister"). Now, since the nominal の means "the one", shouldn't it be transliterated as "No" with capital N? It seems to me it should be considered as an equivalent form to Suki na Hito 好きな人. Also, is "ja nai" correct? Because for example here we have "Janai", here "ja Nai".--Sakretsu (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sakretsu: Disclaimer: I don't speak Japanese, but since this hasn't been answered for a week, I thought I'd chime in. On Wikipedia, romanization of Japanese is done using modified Hepburn romanization. Not sure what it says about capitalization, but in practice I have always seen の as lowercase when it is being used as a particle. Regarding じゃない, it does seem like it can go either way. Maybe you can try consulting WikiProject Japan. Opencooper (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be Ore ga Suki nano wa Imōto dakedo Imōto Janai. "Janai" is a negative form of a verb, and verbs should be capitalized. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Akira Suzuki (director)

I can't remember exactly how I ended up at Akira Suzuki (director) but it looks to be rather a mess. The page claims he is a "film, anime and manga author, director and editor", however the linked ANN page has (perhaps since) been split and frankly I think it may require further division since the background art/direction, direction and CG animation credits are unlikely to be all from the same person. ja:鈴木ドイツ is evidently the same person as Akira Suzuki (novelist) on ANN. Frankly, I suspect that even if I did try to either disambiguate further or refocus, the result would still be a prime target for deletionists making it not really worth the time; should I just skip the hassle and nominate the page for deletion or do people here think it can be saved? Oh, and while the Ranma ½ credit was present on ANN in the past also (unsourced), it has since been marked as incorrect and hidden by a senior editor due to being a mis-attributed credit for Iku Suzuki (ja:鈴木行). Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

License

How much material is needed to create an article like Editorial Ivrea? What I mean, is that there is another publisher from South America called Larp Editores who releases famous mangas including like Naruto, One Piece, Death Note, etc. The staff introduces themselves here. Since Spanish is my first language, I think I might be able to translate that. What do you think? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Debate over cast list at Junji Ito Collection

MizukaS has repeatedly (1, 2, 3) attempted to remove the Japanese cast list from Junji Ito Collection and replace it with only the English cast, under the logic that "This is an ENGLISH page, the ENGLISH cast is of the highest interest in viewers." I'm of the opinion that the Japanese cast is more important than the English cast (since they are the primary voice actors for the roles), and I've told MizukaS that if they want to add the English cast in addition, that's fine, but they definitely shouldn't replace it. What does the rest of the WikiProject think? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There's more than one reason why I removed it, other than the fact that the page itself is in the English language. Generally, we include the VAs of the media's origin as well if there's a reliable source, but definitely not when:

1) The cast lists that you're trying to keep are erroneous, cluttered and messy. In what way? First of all, the English VAs have already been listed on the official Funimation page, so it's definitely not "TBD". That's wrong. My English cast list has the neatest and most organized info to date, and I don't appreciate you taking it out just because you feel like it; and especially not when you're using such an unpleasant, demanding tone towards me.

2) The Japanese cast section listed a bunch of VAs, but a lot of them do not have any listed roles. That type of disorganization cannot be tolerated and it fails on an encyclopedic standard in every single way. Since it's too messy, it's better to just delete it until someone else can be bothered to reorganize it.

PS: You used a racist term in your own revision, so I don't think you have any say in the matter at all. Maybe when you can learn to be not racist, then we can talk. Also, you reverted "Funimation started streaming the simuldub on January 20, 2018" from my revision as well, so overall, your reverts are deemed to be completely unconstructive. MizukaS" (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

1) I don't appreciate you removing the entire Japanese case because you "feel like it" either.

2) They clearly all have at least one role - in this show, and credits for this show are the ones that are relevant for this show's page even if it is their first ever role (note, I have not checked the individual credits). "Because I can't be bothered to reorganise" does not seem like a good reason to wholesale delete relevant and sourced information. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For starters, the character section is not format appropriately as it does not provide descriptions of characters or does it comply with MOS:A&M. As to your excuse as to why the official cast list or an English translation of said list are not reliable comes off more as "I don't like it". There is nothing about either of these sources that would disqualify them as reliable. —Farix (t | c) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said anything about the JP cast list's citation being unreliable. I just said that it's disorganized with regard to how it looked in a previous revision. MizukaS (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cluttered is better than incomplete, especially when the absence of the information would be a severe oversight. The article is a work in progress. And, well, the list on the article reflected the official cast list—which lists VAs without announced roles for the sake of keeping the element of surprise, as stated in the ANN story TheFarix linked. (It would be worth having a prose sentence in there noting that most VAs were announced without roles for that reason. It's relevant, also, as a production detail.) We don't necessarily leave people out of a cast list just because their role is currently unclear: Solo: A Star Wars Story. And, like, yes, the term was racist but... the best thing to do would've been to... rewrite it out, not remove a lot of valid content over it. Even if the reverts removing the Funimation VAs is also less than ideal, it isn't remotely the case that you had a valid case for removing the Japanese VAs. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's time to put an end to this case now. I've already reinstated the JP cast list with a citation. There. We now have an ideal middle ground. MizukaS (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS: This is not a suitable compromise. You've still removed the vast majority of the Japanese voice actors, including many who do have credited (and sourced) roles. I think you would be best to restore the list to its original form until this discussion is over, per WP:BRD.

Also, I would just like to point out that I did not use any racist language in the article; the term in question was added by Nuobgu in this edit, and just happened to get restored when I reverted your mass deletions. I certainly would have removed it if I had noticed. It reflects poorly on you to make false accusations of racism against people in an attempt to delegitimize their argument. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't understand why you think it would be better to remove reliably sourced information when you could just as easily leave it? Is it just because you can't be bothered to try to integrate the lists of Japanese and English VAs? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it even appropriate to have a cast or character table? It seems like it's going to cover a bunch of short stories with voice actors' roles published on the day of airing. [14] It might be better to organize them into a Casting paragraph, announcing who is participating in the show. And then you might end up structuring it like Rumic Theater or not even having any characters section as with Mushishi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think not having any character/cast section at all might be a good idea, as this section will have a tendency to bloom out of control, seeing as it is an anthology. MizukaS, what do you think?

Another alternative would be to include only the very most important roles (i.e., 1 or 2 per segment) in the episode list itself using the |aux1= parameter (possibly collapsed?). But that probably violates some part of the MOS that I'm not aware of. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Edited. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with listing the key voice actors in the episode summary section as with guest stars in live-action sitcoms, but only if they're presented as such in the listings. Otherwise, I would go with the casting idea and highlight the announced Japanese voice actors participating without a need to assign them particular roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

GS, now you're just being unnecessarily stubborn. I've already reinstated the JP cast with known characters, and you find that unacceptable? Who made you boss? I never wanted to have this discussion in the first place, since you're making a big deal out of nothing because you love disorganization. Wikipedia does not condone the inclusion of unknown, inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no point in adding a bunch of VAs into a table without specifying which characters they voice. Maybe when those characters are revealed, you could add them back. But at this current point in time, they are ineligible for inclusion. MizukaS (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, it is well-established throughout Wikipedia that if there is a reliable source that someone has a role in an ongoing work even if we don't know what their role exactly is, it is reasonable to include them. It is actually verifiable that these people will be in it, they're listed on the official website under cast. It is false that adding these VAs who do not have announced roles yet is "the inclusion of unknown, inconclusive and unverifiable information". Especially given that there is a documented reason for why they do not have roles attached to them, again see the ANN article that TheFarix listed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. No other anime article does this. None. The fact that this one does sticks out like a sore thumb. Just update the article as the anime continues its run. Please. This is getting old really fast. Could you tell me where's the harm in adding those VAs back after their characters are revealed? I don't suppose you can, because there is literally no harm. Also, don't ignore the fact that GS's revision has erroneous information on the Eng VAs as well. It is hence an unacceptable revision for this article. MizukaS (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS, you are the one being stubborn. The voice actors have been announced on the official website, even if their specific roles have not be revealed. That meets both WP:V as well as WP:BIO as the official website is a reliable source. TTP has also pointed out other cases where actors/voice actors have been announced but their roles were not revealed. This isn't a unique case as you keep alluding to. So your justification to keep RELIABLY SOURCED INFORMATION off Wikipedia holds no merit. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this revision looks way better. We can end this discussion now as there should be no more objections. MizukaS (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

When are additional voices eligible for inclusion in voice actor articles?

I am well aware that there was a discussion about this same topic a while ago. However, due to the fact that it did not up end as a policy, there is still much confusion as to what credits are truly eligible for inclusion. I, for one, think that a vague tweet like this is ineligible for inclusion. I do not think that all additional voice credits should be excluded as long as there is a reliable source that supports it. These include official cast announcements and credit rolls. MizukaS (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I still would like to have "minor roles", "additional voices", and especially the "Incidental roles be included with the following sources. Frankly it feels odd just removing additional voices on every voice actor page because usually some voice actor's websites, resumes, convention bios and to some degree Tweets and Facebook posts" will more often will feature "this actor has provided background voices in this film, show, game etc....". I feel that removing certain additional/background voices included for the anime voice actors all because of a "Tweet" or Facebook" post, I feel that seems to take it to the extreme. Besides, even if their is not other reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors) to back up the "Tweet" and "Facebook post" doesn't mean it should be removed or better yet eliminated.

While Wikipedia and the Wikiproject will still continue to debate if Tweets and Facebook post are considered to be allowed "Till the cows come home." I just feel that they shouldn't be eliminated even if they are the first to mention them and NO other ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio mention that specific information on the project that actor/actress was involved in.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Roles, even minor ones, could probably be included as long as a source could be found that confirms the role. If that fails, users need to check the actual episode(s) in question, watch the credits, and see if the role is mentioned there. Unsourced roles should probably be commented out until they can be sourced, but completely removing roles (especially if they're already sources), even if they're minor, is probably a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a reason why the EFN notes that were represented as [a] & [b] on the roles Cristina Vee has done and was involved were included in the tables.

A - "Streaming": "The title was dubbed in English for streaming, but has not translated the closing credits into English."

B - "No english credits": "The title did not list any English voice actors in its closing credits."--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS, you are wanting to have two discussions. 1) Should minor roles and additional voices be included in filmographies? 2) Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source? So which one do you want to tackle here? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Both. I'll open up two specific headers that concern those topics. MizukaS (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

* No I would think. in general, that a minor role that doesn't even rise to the degree of being credited doesn't need to be added to an encyclopedia. These aren't CV's. If something doesn't rise to a reasonable level of being of public interest, or have some kind of public interest, it doesn't need to be included. I would includ e it, only if I have a very solid source.

* No With regards to tweets, this wouldn't constitute any kind of edited research of facts at all. It is just promotional chatter.

I will say I am not expert in the anime community.

Panix comics (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Should additional voices be included in filmographies?

Added WP:ACTOR, WP:TELEVISION, WP:VG/Sources AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Case by case basis: If they're listed in an official cast announcement or the credits roll, then yes. If it's self-pub, then no. Especially if the subject does not even remember which extras she provided the voices for.
  • Changing to No. I was under the impression that "minor roles" (eg. Girl A, Boy A) and additional voices are under the same category. Thank you for explaining the differences, Angus. In that case, I'd advocate for the inclusion of minor roles that are listed in the credits roll/official cast announcements, but no for additional voices. MizukaS (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. Additional voices are not as notable as named roles in credits lists. They're somewhere below named minor roles such as "Girl A" and above "ADR loop groups" and uncredited extras on the notability scale. The "complete list" can always be found in the databases provided at the External Links section of the article: IMDb, Anime News Network profile, and official website / resume. I've discussed this in these threads for years now: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles, Talk:Yuri_Lowenthal#Far_too_many_non-noteworthy_examples_and_excessive_detail, Talk:Ryōtarō_Okiayu#Filmography_is_excessive Note that I'm not adding to this scope the actors who clearly have utility roles in the show that might not have a specific named role in their credits (e.g. Marcia Wallace and Tress MacNeille in The Simpsons) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes As I said before, and discussed this previously in this thread since last year: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles but Addtional voices need to be included for the voice actors (especially the anime voice actors) as long as they are credited by a reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, article interviews with the voice actors, tweets, Facebook posts).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, under the general principle of "not IMDb" (i.e. WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Only named roles are generally presumed to be notable for live-action roles, and the same should be true for anime. So no "Additional voices" roles, and no "ADR" works, should be listed. IOW, we should never list "non-notable" roles like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - I can't imagine anything that can be generalized as just "additional voices" is going to be a noteworthy role in a film. I'd be okay with exceptions for extraordinary situations. For example, in the music world, while minor uncredited "additional backing vocals" wouldn't normally be listed, we've listed the fact that Justin Timberlake did minor backing vocals on a song from the Foo Fighters Concrete and Gold album, because, its rather rare for such a major artist to take such a bit role. But that would be few and far between. If an "anime equivalent" happened, I'd be okay with it. But generally, no. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for minor roles - provided that: it was early in their career (most Japanese voice actors started with unnamed or background roles; it's rare for Japanese voice actors to start out with supporting or main roles), and/or the roles are mentioned in their official agency resume or other reliable sources (Japanese or English). As for "additional voices", it depends; if they're mentioned in their agency profiles or reliable sources, then go, but otherwise, they should be avoided if the roles are very minor. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First and early unnamed roles can be described in the career/biography section, and don't really need to be listed in the filmography, which can be saved for their first minor "Girl A" role or first major starring role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• No for reasons given above. We're talking about minor items here. And will AnimeDisneylover95 please stop repeating that tweets are reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"And will AnimeDisneylover95 please stop repeating that tweets are reliable sources?" STOP BEING SO OVERLY CRITICAL WITH YOU RANTS AND OPINIONS Drmies!! :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You should really settle down, with your all-caps. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Include Repeating my previous comments: "I generally don't understand why "minor" voice roles shouldn't be included if we want our articles to contain complete information. After all, Wikipedia is not bound by the limits of print. If a filmography is included at all, it should be a complete to the extent that WP:Verifiability allows. There is no reason to limit it to so-called "notable" roles, and doing so will create too much drama around what roles are or are not "notable". If you look at the filmogrpahies of John Wayne, Kevin Bacon, and Samuel L. Jackson, you will see that all the filmographies included small, sometimes unnamed roles." I'm rather surprised that this discussion even came up again given the near universal support for minor roles in the previous discussion. —Farix (t | c) 17:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read this policy. Also, disagreed with how you described that discussion as "near universal support". That discussion was never officially closed, and never made an actual policy. MizukaS (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source?

Adding WP:RSN, WP:ACTOR, WP:TELEVISION, WP:VG/Sources AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We need to assume that the tweet already meets the WP:SELFPUB criteria: 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim 2) does not involve claims about third parties 3) does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source 4) no reasonable doubt as to authenticity (e.g. verified account on Twitter) 5) article is not based primarily on such sources. If this is indeed the case, and applying to filmography entries and possibly the career section of the article, is this acceptable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC) updated 19:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes. That sums it up pretty well. MizukaS (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed bolding on the yes, since MizukaS already voiced opinion below. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm staying neutral on the question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to clarify this is about self-pub by individuals, not for companies and organizations, which would be more of a press release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: If the subject clearly remembers what role they voiced for, and there is no official cast list (such is the case with many Japanese video game dubs), then self-pub is acceptable in that case. See Xanthe Huynh's tweet for an example (minor role). As for significant roles, Derek Stephen Prince's post is considered to be an ideal self pub source. An official cast announcement is always preferred, and it is highly encouraged that official sources outnumber self-pub sources, but the simple fact is, some media just simply don't have a credits roll. In that case, the only way to verify those roles is by self-pub. MizukaS (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would changing their profile and pictures make a difference on the reliability of the self-pub post? The actor mainly does it to promote their recent appearance. It doesn't make their post more reliable. If other media pick up on that, and post articles referring to their tweet, then it's moved closer to secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's got nothing to do with the actors' profiles or their avatars. I'm trying to illustrate the differences between a more significant role vs trivial roles like additional voices. In my opinion, it's more credible when an actor actually remembers the specific role they voiced for as opposed to this one (notice how Cristina says she doesn't even remember the specific characters she performed). The difference between the two? The former is more eligible for inclusion. Though, again, I am 100% supportive of the idea of replacing the self pub tweets with more reliable coverage should they arise. MizukaS (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• YES (with sources): IMO, I feel that removing certain additional/background voices included for the anime voice actors all because of a "Tweet" or Facebook" post, I feel that seems to take it to the extreme. Besides, even if their is no other reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors) to back up the "Tweet" and "Facebook post" doesn't mean it should be removed or better yet forgotten and not be put back. While this issue will still continue to be talked about "Till the cows come home" I just feel that they shouldn't be eliminated even if those posts are the first to mention them and NO other sources to back it out especially if it's from the ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio mention that specific information on the project that actor/actress was involved in.

In addition, the EFN notes that were represented as [a] & [b] on the roles Cristina Vee has done and was involved were included in the Notes Column.

• A - "Streaming": "The title was dubbed in English for streaming, but has not translated the closing credits into English."

• B - "No english credits": "The title did not list any English voice actors in its closing credits."

Look, I know this really doesn't change much especially when you continue to "beat a dead horse" saying that THIS and mostly THIS one aren't going to be reconsidered to be put back, but I feel that these tweets and posts shouldn't be forgotten and removed immediately especially when you have the EFN notes in the Notes column and what they signify (*please look at EFN notes above this comment).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The EFN notes are a different issue since they can apply to main character roles and be backed up with other sources besides self-pub such as reviews on the media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"The EFN notes are a different issue since they can apply to main character roles and be backed up with other sources besides self-pub such as reviews on the media" How are they a different issue if some of the anime that are streaming on sites like Hulu with an English dub don't have ANY English credits. That's why they were put in the tables on the different anime titles she was in. Secondly, I feel that you're going against Additional voices and just continue to not support the idea on EFN notes aren't valid and Additional voices are not allowed regardless of source.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are to point out that looking at the closing credits won't get you the information as to the actor's role. You would have to look at the other references provided. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment another thread with more opinions was started over at Talk:Cristina_Vee#Rfc_about_the_Sources_in_the_Cristina_Vee_page You may want to redirect folks who commented there to this thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted a notice to attract the attention of other editors. MizukaS (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, at least prior to the public release of the work. People may record roles but they get cancelled or cut; alternatively, they may be trying to drum up interest and being jesting. As a self-published source, these should not be considered reliable. --Masem (t) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is roughly where I probably come down, unless the Tweet actually includes the date of airing. IOW, something along the lines of "Catch me on Anime Team Warriors!! this Fall!!" should not cut it, even for WP:SELFPUBLISH. However, something like, "Catch me in "Episode X" of Anime Team Warriors!!", airing on February 10!!" should be OK. Even better if the tweet says something like "Catch me voicing Akira-san in "Episode X" of Anime Team Warriors!!, airing on February 10!!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - as long as its verified that it's their account, and they're not making any subjective or extraordinary claims, this fits in with WP:PRIMARY just fine. It should be used as a last resort though, and in disputes, we should typically go with the reliable third party account should one exist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Use with caution The actor etc. may be talking about something that has not happened yet, in which case the source would be reliable only for "Actor Babette Smith said on Twitter that she has been cast in the upcoming Boosters movie," not whether she actually appears in the movie. Case in point: Kevin Spacey was certainly cast in All the Money in the World but he will not be appearing in it. by the time the movie is actually out, there will probably be other sources available. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes provided that it's confirmed that the SPS is indeed the voice actor in question - particularly with English dub roles, it's common for licensing companies to only list the dub actors involved in an anime and not necessarily the roles. In some cases, such announcements are the only source to confirm that an actor played a particular role, since in some anime dubs the credits only list the actors and not the roles (like what the Pokémon anime does). Whenever possible though, try to use third-party reliable sources, or failing that, episode credits as sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• If a tree falls in the forest... If there is no secondary sourcing to provide evidence that person x played the part of character y in some movie or other, then why would we even mention it? Why do we, in anime and especially voice work, feel the need to list every single fart recorded for every bit part, resorting to citing the subject's hopeful and chatty tweets? (Quick, go see how many voice artists have articles that have no text but list a million speaking parts.) Drmies (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That. If it only exists in tweets etc, it´s WP:UNDUE, to much detail. Perhaps suitable for a dedicated fan-wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per reasonings provided by Narutolivehinata5 and Sergecross73. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:EL/P, conditions must of course be enforced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:EL is off topic, isn´t it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Read the Social Networking Websites section. MizukaS (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No - read my comment above.

Panix comics (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes So long as the account is verified as belonging to the actor. For Twitter, it is the blue "Verified Account" checkmark. Not sure what mechanisms are used to verify accounts on Facebook for Tumbler. It should still be treated as a primary source and if there is a reliable third-party source also verifying the role, the third-party source should be the one cited. —Farix (t | c) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, one possible suggestion for this is to place the words Tweet (or Facebook) in the References column, followed by the actual self-pub statement. Then people know it's coming from the person and to make their own judgement as to whether it should be acceptable. That way it doesn't have to be tagged with {{self-published-inline}} if disputed AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes with a caveat. If the info in the tweet/post/whatever can be verified in the credits of the episode/show in question, I see no problem with accepting the tweet as one source. If it can be verified elsewhere, that is better. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to assume that the tweet cannot be simply replaced by closing credits verification as the closing credits do not show English voice actor credits, do not show actor, or it shows actor but does not show actor's role) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why I worded my comment the way I did. If the tweet is not backed up by the credits, then it can't be used by itself to verify a role. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maga-Tsuki Omnibus

It appears that Kodansha is releasing both volume 9 & 10 as an omnibus. Is there a way in the "volumes" section to show this? I tried using "rowspan=2 |" but that does not appear to work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You can repeat the release date and ISBN number like I did with Blood Lad. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. It looks like you were trying to use wikitable markup within the template. Because of that, it was confusing the template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks you two, couldn't the template also be fixed to handle omnibus entries? I don't see a reason to repeat the same information twice if we have "rowspan". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice for {{Graphic novel list}} to include an easy way to represent omnibus collections; I've had to use AngusWOOF's way in far too many articles, and it's a pretty ugly way of doing it. Of course, I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. I assume we would have to make a new template called, say, {{Graphic novel list omnibus}} (similar to how we currently have {{Japanese episode list multi-part}}), which would include both/all of the single volumes that are collected in the omnibus. Of course, that would only work for omnibus editions that collected entire volumes, not ones that included, say, 2.5 volumes, etc. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It'd be nice but in the case with Blood Lad they actually renumbered it by omnibus so that Omni Vol. 5 is Volumes 9 and 10. [15] Other publishers are better with the omnibus edition numbering such as One Piece calling it 25-26-27 [16]. And for those omnibuses (One Piece, Dragon Ball Z, even Cardcaptor Sakura and Fruits Basket), those are published so much later than the individual volumes so they'd be listed separately anyway, like with Home Media / DVDs. But yes, there are still a number of releases that come out in English as omnibus first and have multiple volumes. I'm not too worried about the chapter splitting across different volumes. That was an issue especially for List of Oh My Goddess chapters which was a nightmare for the first Dark Horse edition which eventually got a fairly short volume 19/20 and was then renumbered completely to match the Japanese tankobons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC) updated 14:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew FA renewal

It may be hard to believe but in this year it will have been 10 years since the FA topic was promoted. If someone is up for it, I feel that the FA status of the following articles should be re-checked:

Tokyo Mew Mew

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters

List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes

Doing so will ensure that the series is up to date with any new possible policy/guideline changes that have since been implemented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anime versus TV series

There is an ongoing debate on if our articles should be changed to (tv series) rather than (anime) after the article titles. Those who argue in favor of the change state that anime is a "genre" which shouldn't replace the more commonly known "TV series". My rebuttal would be these ngram findings... [17], [18]. A formal discussion should be opened up about "Anime" as a discussion just closed at WP:VPP regarding the genre "telenovela". Some editors want to extend the findings of the consensus to include anime as well which I feel stretches things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Article naming discussion

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the appropriate projects, Knowledgekid87, since the holier-than-thou IP coudln't be bothered to do it him/herself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, looking over things this wont have as big of an impact as I thought. Only some of our articles use (anime) after the title as a disambiguator, the resentment though is what gets to me. Comments such as "only anime people", and "anime has been condemned" or the like aren't helpful in reaching an agreement. I just wish other editors could see things from a different point of view rather than focusing on trying to keep everything consistent for the sake of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My stance, which I posted at the VPP is that yes, the article titles can be renamed to meet the standards, but do not incorrectly disambiguate direct-to-videos to be TV series, and that the supposedly now deprecated (anime) dab redirects should be preserved and not called for RFD's in any manner because of their usefulness in searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"known in Japan as [literal English translation of Japanese name]"?

The lead sentence of our Dragon Ball Z: Wrath of the Dragon is incredibly cluttered, but apart from that, it's not even technically accurate to say that the film is known in Japan as Dragon Ball Z: Dragon Fist Explosion!! If Goku Can't Do It, Who Will? -- it's actually known in Japan as Doragon Bōru Zetto Ryū-Ken Bakuhatsu!! Gokū ga Yaraneba Dare ga Yaru. The Nihongo template allows for English (漢字 Hebon-shiki rōmaji, literally "Translation of Japanese") and this appears to be how it is used in most of our Japan-related articles, except for a few anime movie articles (at least it only seemed like a few on a brief search). Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the real issue here. That's trivia, and the article will mostly refer to its official English title, anyway. MizukaS (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not change it to "known in Japan as Doragon Bōru Zetto Ryū-Ken Bakuhatsu!! Gokū ga Yaraneba Dare ga Yaru (ドラゴンボールZ 龍拳爆発!!悟空がやらねば誰がやる, lit. Dragon Ball Z: Dragon Fist Explosion!! If Goku Can't Do It, Who Will?)"? Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to me to be the best solution. Talked with my best friend who is an anime nerd. He actually suggested this idea before we scrolled down to read how the discussion went. 96.236.91.214 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Known in Japan should be for cases where an English alternative title is clearly presented as with Detective Conan. Is "Dragon Ball Z: Dragon Fist Explosion!! If Goku Can't Do It, Who Will? " an actual English title in Japan? Is "Doragon Bōru Zetto Ryū-Ken Bakuhatsu!! Gokū ga Yaraneba Dare ga Yaru" the English title of the media? Otherwise the Nihongo should be combined, like with Heaven's Lost Property. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Ugh. That example is even worse. I really think MOS should somewhere, if it doesn't already, specify that in articles about foreign works, where the "official" English title is a perfectly fine literal translation of the original title, we should not include any other variant translations just as glosses. Just about any Japanese phrase could be translated a dozen or more ways, and if anything we are currently implying, for our non-Japonophone readers, that e title could translate literally as "Lost Property of the Sky" or "Misplaced by Heaven" but not "Misplaced by the Sky", and that "Heaven's Lost Property" is somehow less accurate as a translation than those two, when in reality the only difference is that the official translation reads more naturally as English. I seem to recall an article on some live-action Japanese film a few years back did this because, before the film received an official English title, some Wikipedian created an article on it and titled said article with their own original translation, and wanted to preserve said translation in the text of the article even after it was moved, as though the original en.wiki article title was in some way independently notable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The English title is significantly different though (the only similarity, other than the Dragon Ball Z at the start, is that they both have "dragon" in them). Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How is Heaven's Lost Property example worse? Sky and Heaven are the same character, also the translations are what were suggested by other translators in sources, not us editors. Anyway, point is that if they are reasonably similar they can be combined nihongo, otherwise splitting it would be okay. It depends on how wordy you want to make that opening sentence. It shouldn't flood the rest of the summaries with "known in Japan" though, especially with the character names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn has a similar issue so it'd be good to know what the standard should be. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please check out WP:NCFILM as another method of explaining the film's title. I think that one favors Shiroi Hane's suggestion AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Both Dragon Ball film titles have been converted over to the format suggested. Are there any further concerns? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Crunchyroll licencing (again)

Just giving everyone a heads up,

Another editor has popped up claiming to be a Crunchyroll employee, and is going around editing licensing information on various articles. Previously it was @Hbartlett1: and now it is @MilesThomas:. I already left them a message on their talk page regarding our conflict of interest policy. Assuming we can verify their identity, and they're willing to cooperate with us, can we use this as an opportunity to finally resolve this licensing issue once and for all, so we don't have to keep having discussions about it every few months?

Note: Please see these two past discussions if you are out of the loop on this issue. DISC 1 DISC 2 CurlyWi (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, Miles Thomas here. I noticed that some changes I had tried to make back in 2016 had been reverted again, even though I thought we had this issue resolved with editors here. I'm happy to work on getting a press release out to address which titles that Crunchyroll is the master licensor for, yet the previous one submitted to Anime News Network was not reflected in any Wikipedia entries, even when some users attempted to correct the pages with that source. Please let me know what I can do to help this process, as it's very confusing that the incorrect licensor is being listed on so many titles. User:MilesThomas 02:52:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

After the initial discussion the general consensus (minus a couple of opposing editors) was that the press release was a legitimate source. In fact, I personally went through and fixed all of the articles on the list. So I'm not sure what you mean about the list being "not reflected in any Wikipedia entries." If Crunchyroll had continued to put out press releases like that one each season we would have used them. Because you didn't, and we didn't have clear information, other editors just went back to listing everything under Funimation. CurlyWi (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This recent edit at Edward Elric

A fellow user made a large change to Edward Elric here. I'm not sure if we should revert but it starts with his backstory rather than his first appearance. Any ideas?Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Up to you whether you want a "Fictional biography" or "Appearances" section. As long as the material added is supported properly. If they're just filling in details without attribution, then no. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Children of the Whales

So MizukaS is trying to add an English dub cast list to Children of the Whales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) based on some random Twitter post and then an Imgur screenshot (Diff 1, Diff 2), both (supposedly) showing the English credits for a show that isn't even premiering on Netflix until March 13. I pointed out that this is hardly a reliable source, but they seem to want to contest that, so I thought I would start a discussion here to avoid a pointless edit war. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

1) I am a male. Will you please do me a favor and stop using the gender neutral pronoun when referring to me? I clearly specified that I am a male on my userpage for a reason, you know.

2) You are wrong by claiming that the show isn't out yet. It IS out. Just not in the US. You want proof? Here you go. Here's some undeniable proof; I rippped the video straight from Netflix.

Figure 1 (title card)

Figure 2 (official English credits)

Figure 3 (official English credits for Kakegurui)

3) Children of the Whales is dubbed in several other languages, and it has a German cast, too.

4) We don't need a discussion when we have official sources and facts. Your constant skepticism and denial irritate me. I think it's plain as day that you have no idea what Netflix credits look like, but that's ok. Refer to Figure 3. MizukaS (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you change the reference to use cite episode instead of cite web. The random tweet / screencap doesn't really stand by itself as a reliable source, but pointing it to the episode broadcast makes it a primary as others can then easily verify by having watched the episode's credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds doable enough. Better than that other guy that thinks these credits are doctored. (facepalm) MizukaS (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

They could be doctored or for another Netflix show, thus the cite episode is better. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You really need to stop being so confrontational. I disagreed with your edit due to the unreliability of the sources you provided. There's no reason to get this working up over it. Furthermore, I didn't recall seeing you express a pronoun preference, so I used gender neutral pronouns like I usually do in such situations. I don't see why that would bother you, but I will note your request to be addressed by male pronouns and try to remember it in the future.

Also: "I think it's plain as day that you have no idea what Netflix credits look like, but that's ok." Is that supposed to be... an insult of some sort? I am direly offended. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But in all seriousness, @MizukaS:, you really need to attack people less in you comments/edit summaries. Someday you're going to cross the line and find yourself at ANI. Also, can't you just for once respect BRD? It wouldn't kill you to let an article stay in what you think is the "incorrect" state for a few hours while you talk things out with other editors. And lastly, you're doing (facepalm) wrong. If you really want to do it, you really should use {{facepalm}}. No self-respecting editor just puts it in parenthesis. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Facts are facts. I’m not sure what more you need. The figures above reveal the truth as crystal clear as can be. Because I have factual information, discussions like these are not necessary, and, as such, your reverts are unconstructive at best. You could ask me where I got the screenshot (that Twitter account is mine, by the way), and I would be happy to provide you with all the factual information that I know of. Instead, you rudely assume that I don't know what a reliable source is, and it's evident that you are constantly trying to pick a fight with me. I am willing to talk it out, but you have to first stop assuming that I don't have a solid grasp on Wikipedia policy. MizukaS (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What I'm debating is that these are actually facts as opposed to unverified assertions that you have made and backed up with self-published sources (note how the policy makes specific note of social media posts). And if you think I'm trying to pick a fight with you, that's just not true. You just have a habit of making edits that I disagree with on articles that I have watchlisted (a number because I wrote them). And I know you're fond of accusing people of vandalism, but it really doesn't help anything. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let me back out. If the show cannot be verified on Netflix because it hasn't been released, then cite episode can't be used. I've just checked that it hasn't aired on Netflix yet. Tweets from random sneak-preview screeners can't be used. I would leave the credits commented out until they are announced by another source or until it does premiere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the show is released in other countries. Where else could I have gotten the video? I told you that I ripped it straight from Netflix. MizukaS (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Which country? You'll have to specify "|location=" in the cite episode, and in the article you should mention that it was released in that country already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned that if it was a leaked source like it wasn't supposed to be released yet, or a private screening. Then you should just wait until it's published by a secondary source or until the premiere date. You can also add publication-date to the cite episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Manga award categories

Looking through categories such as Category:Winners of the Shogakukan Manga Award for general manga and Category:Winner of Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize (Grand Prize) I noticed that those two for example are used only for the manga that won, whereas Category:Winner of Kodansha Manga Award (General) is used for the manga and author(s). So my question is do only the manga get added to the categories, only the authors, or both? Xfansd (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The distinction to look at is whether the award is given for specific works, or to the author themselves (for multiple works). In this case it's the former. Therefore I would limit the category for the winning works only. Opencooper (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with American Shonen Jump

According to the Naruto wikia there was a Western Naruto poll to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the series once in the English Shonen Jump. Does anybody know what issue of the magazine could be? This might be notable since the only polls mentioned in the characters' articles are from Japan. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Could perhaps this issue be? It was released in 2009 and features the series in the cover.Tintor2 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, thisTintor2 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When are additional voices eligible for inclusion in voice actor articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am well aware that there was a discussion about this same topic a while ago. However, due to the fact that it did not up end as a policy, there is still much confusion as to what credits are truly eligible for inclusion. I, for one, think that a vague tweet like this is ineligible for inclusion. I do not think that all additional voice credits should be excluded as long as there is a reliable source that supports it. These include official cast announcements and credit rolls. MizukaS (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I still would like to have "minor roles", "additional voices", and especially the "Incidental roles be included with the following sources. Frankly it feels odd just removing additional voices on every voice actor page because usually some voice actor's websites, resumes, convention bios and to some degree Tweets and Facebook posts" will more often will feature "this actor has provided background voices in this film, show, game etc....". I feel that removing certain additional/background voices included for the anime voice actors all because of a "Tweet" or Facebook" post, I feel that seems to take it to the extreme. Besides, even if their is not other reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors) to back up the "Tweet" and "Facebook post" doesn't mean it should be removed or better yet eliminated.

While Wikipedia and the Wikiproject will still continue to debate if Tweets and Facebook post are considered to be allowed "Till the cows come home." I just feel that they shouldn't be eliminated even if they are the first to mention them and NO other ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio mention that specific information on the project that actor/actress was involved in.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Roles, even minor ones, could probably be included as long as a source could be found that confirms the role. If that fails, users need to check the actual episode(s) in question, watch the credits, and see if the role is mentioned there. Unsourced roles should probably be commented out until they can be sourced, but completely removing roles (especially if they're already sources), even if they're minor, is probably a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a reason why the EFN notes that were represented as [a] & [b] on the roles Cristina Vee has done and was involved were included in the tables.

A - "Streaming": "The title was dubbed in English for streaming, but has not translated the closing credits into English."

B - "No english credits": "The title did not list any English voice actors in its closing credits."--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS, you are wanting to have two discussions. 1) Should minor roles and additional voices be included in filmographies? 2) Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source? So which one do you want to tackle here? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Both. I'll open up two specific headers that concern those topics. MizukaS (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

* No I would think. in general, that a minor role that doesn't even rise to the degree of being credited doesn't need to be added to an encyclopedia. These aren't CV's. If something doesn't rise to a reasonable level of being of public interest, or have some kind of public interest, it doesn't need to be included. I would includ e it, only if I have a very solid source.

* No With regards to tweets, this wouldn't constitute any kind of edited research of facts at all. It is just promotional chatter.

I will say I am not expert in the anime community.

Panix comics (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Should additional voices be included in filmographies?

Added WP:ACTOR, WP:TELEVISION, WP:VG/Sources AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Case by case basis: If they're listed in an official cast announcement or the credits roll, then yes. If it's self-pub, then no. Especially if the subject does not even remember which extras she provided the voices for.
  • Changing to No. I was under the impression that "minor roles" (eg. Girl A, Boy A) and additional voices are under the same category. Thank you for explaining the differences, Angus. In that case, I'd advocate for the inclusion of minor roles that are listed in the credits roll/official cast announcements, but no for additional voices. MizukaS (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. Additional voices are not as notable as named roles in credits lists. They're somewhere below named minor roles such as "Girl A" and above "ADR loop groups" and uncredited extras on the notability scale. The "complete list" can always be found in the databases provided at the External Links section of the article: IMDb, Anime News Network profile, and official website / resume. I've discussed this in these threads for years now: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles, Talk:Yuri_Lowenthal#Far_too_many_non-noteworthy_examples_and_excessive_detail, Talk:Ryōtarō_Okiayu#Filmography_is_excessive Note that I'm not adding to this scope the actors who clearly have utility roles in the show that might not have a specific named role in their credits (e.g. Marcia Wallace and Tress MacNeille in The Simpsons) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes As I said before, and discussed this previously in this thread since last year: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles but Addtional voices need to be included for the voice actors (especially the anime voice actors) as long as they are credited by a reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, article interviews with the voice actors, tweets, Facebook posts).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, under the general principle of "not IMDb" (i.e. WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Only named roles are generally presumed to be notable for live-action roles, and the same should be true for anime. So no "Additional voices" roles, and no "ADR" works, should be listed. IOW, we should never list "non-notable" roles like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - I can't imagine anything that can be generalized as just "additional voices" is going to be a noteworthy role in a film. I'd be okay with exceptions for extraordinary situations. For example, in the music world, while minor uncredited "additional backing vocals" wouldn't normally be listed, we've listed the fact that Justin Timberlake did minor backing vocals on a song from the Foo Fighters Concrete and Gold album, because, its rather rare for such a major artist to take such a bit role. But that would be few and far between. If an "anime equivalent" happened, I'd be okay with it. But generally, no. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for minor roles - provided that: it was early in their career (most Japanese voice actors started with unnamed or background roles; it's rare for Japanese voice actors to start out with supporting or main roles), and/or the roles are mentioned in their official agency resume or other reliable sources (Japanese or English). As for "additional voices", it depends; if they're mentioned in their agency profiles or reliable sources, then go, but otherwise, they should be avoided if the roles are very minor. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First and early unnamed roles can be described in the career/biography section, and don't really need to be listed in the filmography, which can be saved for their first minor "Girl A" role or first major starring role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• No for reasons given above. We're talking about minor items here. And will AnimeDisneylover95 please stop repeating that tweets are reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"And will AnimeDisneylover95 please stop repeating that tweets are reliable sources?" STOP BEING SO OVERLY CRITICAL WITH YOU RANTS AND OPINIONS Drmies!! :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You should really settle down, with your all-caps. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Include Repeating my previous comments: "I generally don't understand why "minor" voice roles shouldn't be included if we want our articles to contain complete information. After all, Wikipedia is not bound by the limits of print. If a filmography is included at all, it should be a complete to the extent that WP:Verifiability allows. There is no reason to limit it to so-called "notable" roles, and doing so will create too much drama around what roles are or are not "notable". If you look at the filmogrpahies of John Wayne, Kevin Bacon, and Samuel L. Jackson, you will see that all the filmographies included small, sometimes unnamed roles." I'm rather surprised that this discussion even came up again given the near universal support for minor roles in the previous discussion. —Farix (t | c) 17:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read this policy. Also, disagreed with how you described that discussion as "near universal support". That discussion was never officially closed, and never made an actual policy. MizukaS (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source?

Adding WP:RSN, WP:ACTOR, WP:TELEVISION, WP:VG/Sources AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We need to assume that the tweet already meets the WP:SELFPUB criteria: 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim 2) does not involve claims about third parties 3) does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source 4) no reasonable doubt as to authenticity (e.g. verified account on Twitter) 5) article is not based primarily on such sources. If this is indeed the case, and applying to filmography entries and possibly the career section of the article, is this acceptable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC) updated 19:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes. That sums it up pretty well. MizukaS (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed bolding on the yes, since MizukaS already voiced opinion below. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm staying neutral on the question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to clarify this is about self-pub by individuals, not for companies and organizations, which would be more of a press release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: If the subject clearly remembers what role they voiced for, and there is no official cast list (such is the case with many Japanese video game dubs), then self-pub is acceptable in that case. See Xanthe Huynh's tweet for an example (minor role). As for significant roles, Derek Stephen Prince's post is considered to be an ideal self pub source. An official cast announcement is always preferred, and it is highly encouraged that official sources outnumber self-pub sources, but the simple fact is, some media just simply don't have a credits roll. In that case, the only way to verify those roles is by self-pub. MizukaS (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would changing their profile and pictures make a difference on the reliability of the self-pub post? The actor mainly does it to promote their recent appearance. It doesn't make their post more reliable. If other media pick up on that, and post articles referring to their tweet, then it's moved closer to secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's got nothing to do with the actors' profiles or their avatars. I'm trying to illustrate the differences between a more significant role vs trivial roles like additional voices. In my opinion, it's more credible when an actor actually remembers the specific role they voiced for as opposed to this one (notice how Cristina says she doesn't even remember the specific characters she performed). The difference between the two? The former is more eligible for inclusion. Though, again, I am 100% supportive of the idea of replacing the self pub tweets with more reliable coverage should they arise. MizukaS (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• YES (with sources): IMO, I feel that removing certain additional/background voices included for the anime voice actors all because of a "Tweet" or Facebook" post, I feel that seems to take it to the extreme. Besides, even if their is no other reliable source (e.g. actor's resume on website, ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio, and article interviews with the voice actors) to back up the "Tweet" and "Facebook post" doesn't mean it should be removed or better yet forgotten and not be put back. While this issue will still continue to be talked about "Till the cows come home" I just feel that they shouldn't be eliminated even if those posts are the first to mention them and NO other sources to back it out especially if it's from the ending credits for a specific film, TV episode and video game, convention bio mention that specific information on the project that actor/actress was involved in.

In addition, the EFN notes that were represented as [a] & [b] on the roles Cristina Vee has done and was involved were included in the Notes Column.

• A - "Streaming": "The title was dubbed in English for streaming, but has not translated the closing credits into English."

• B - "No english credits": "The title did not list any English voice actors in its closing credits."

Look, I know this really doesn't change much especially when you continue to "beat a dead horse" saying that THIS and mostly THIS one aren't going to be reconsidered to be put back, but I feel that these tweets and posts shouldn't be forgotten and removed immediately especially when you have the EFN notes in the Notes column and what they signify (*please look at EFN notes above this comment).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The EFN notes are a different issue since they can apply to main character roles and be backed up with other sources besides self-pub such as reviews on the media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"The EFN notes are a different issue since they can apply to main character roles and be backed up with other sources besides self-pub such as reviews on the media" How are they a different issue if some of the anime that are streaming on sites like Hulu with an English dub don't have ANY English credits. That's why they were put in the tables on the different anime titles she was in. Secondly, I feel that you're going against Additional voices and just continue to not support the idea on EFN notes aren't valid and Additional voices are not allowed regardless of source.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are to point out that looking at the closing credits won't get you the information as to the actor's role. You would have to look at the other references provided. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment another thread with more opinions was started over at Talk:Cristina_Vee#Rfc_about_the_Sources_in_the_Cristina_Vee_page You may want to redirect folks who commented there to this thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted a notice to attract the attention of other editors. MizukaS (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, at least prior to the public release of the work. People may record roles but they get cancelled or cut; alternatively, they may be trying to drum up interest and being jesting. As a self-published source, these should not be considered reliable. --Masem (t) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is roughly where I probably come down, unless the Tweet actually includes the date of airing. IOW, something along the lines of "Catch me on Anime Team Warriors!! this Fall!!" should not cut it, even for WP:SELFPUBLISH. However, something like, "Catch me in "Episode X" of Anime Team Warriors!!", airing on February 10!!" should be OK. Even better if the tweet says something like "Catch me voicing Akira-san in "Episode X" of Anime Team Warriors!!, airing on February 10!!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - as long as its verified that it's their account, and they're not making any subjective or extraordinary claims, this fits in with WP:PRIMARY just fine. It should be used as a last resort though, and in disputes, we should typically go with the reliable third party account should one exist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Use with caution The actor etc. may be talking about something that has not happened yet, in which case the source would be reliable only for "Actor Babette Smith said on Twitter that she has been cast in the upcoming Boosters movie," not whether she actually appears in the movie. Case in point: Kevin Spacey was certainly cast in All the Money in the World but he will not be appearing in it. by the time the movie is actually out, there will probably be other sources available. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes provided that it's confirmed that the SPS is indeed the voice actor in question - particularly with English dub roles, it's common for licensing companies to only list the dub actors involved in an anime and not necessarily the roles. In some cases, such announcements are the only source to confirm that an actor played a particular role, since in some anime dubs the credits only list the actors and not the roles (like what the Pokémon anime does). Whenever possible though, try to use third-party reliable sources, or failing that, episode credits as sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• If a tree falls in the forest... If there is no secondary sourcing to provide evidence that person x played the part of character y in some movie or other, then why would we even mention it? Why do we, in anime and especially voice work, feel the need to list every single fart recorded for every bit part, resorting to citing the subject's hopeful and chatty tweets? (Quick, go see how many voice artists have articles that have no text but list a million speaking parts.) Drmies (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That. If it only exists in tweets etc, it´s WP:UNDUE, to much detail. Perhaps suitable for a dedicated fan-wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per reasonings provided by Narutolivehinata5 and Sergecross73. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:EL/P, conditions must of course be enforced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:EL is off topic, isn´t it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Read the Social Networking Websites section. MizukaS (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No - read my comment above.

Panix comics (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes So long as the account is verified as belonging to the actor. For Twitter, it is the blue "Verified Account" checkmark. Not sure what mechanisms are used to verify accounts on Facebook for Tumbler. It should still be treated as a primary source and if there is a reliable third-party source also verifying the role, the third-party source should be the one cited. —Farix (t | c) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, one possible suggestion for this is to place the words Tweet (or Facebook) in the References column, followed by the actual self-pub statement. Then people know it's coming from the person and to make their own judgement as to whether it should be acceptable. That way it doesn't have to be tagged with {{self-published-inline}} if disputed AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes with a caveat. If the info in the tweet/post/whatever can be verified in the credits of the episode/show in question, I see no problem with accepting the tweet as one source. If it can be verified elsewhere, that is better. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to assume that the tweet cannot be simply replaced by closing credits verification as the closing credits do not show English voice actor credits, do not show actor, or it shows actor but does not show actor's role) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why I worded my comment the way I did. If the tweet is not backed up by the credits, then it can't be used by itself to verify a role. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with ISBN

While expanding some articles like The Last: Naruto the Movie, Flowerpiep and me have been using some guidebooks. However, two of them were only handled to people who watched it in Japan so it appears they don't have ISBN. However, we also found another guidebook and noticed this page? Could this be an ISBN? I tried adding it to The Last, but there were errors with the citation. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is an ISBN as evidenced by this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there's an error in the check for the ISBN. It's not recognizing it even though it's valid. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In the amazon site I can't find the ISBN. I instead found the ASIN: B00QNBNRR8 which appears to be used for magazines.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There are also two guidebooks " Naruto -ナルト- 秘伝・列の書 オフィシャルムービーガイドBook [Naruto Secret: Scroll of Line Official Movie Guidebook]" and "NARUTO -ナルト- 秘伝・在の書 オフィシャルムービーBOOK [Naruto Secret: Scroll of Country Official Moviebook]" that not even the wikia was able to provide isbns.Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The T number is a JAN (Japanese Article Number) 4988104059925 [19] so it isn't a ISBN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I guess Amazon included it somewhere in the listing I linked to. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So does that mean the citations are complete already?Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Mikio Ikemoto

I started this draft about a recent manga artist. I'm not too skilled with the real people articles but I couldn't find much about Ikemoto's origins.Tintor2 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Flowerpiep: Forgot to ping him.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

FAC/GAN/GAR Backlog

Seems like we have an editing backlog here: Sasuke Uchiha's FAC isn't done yet (though since it's a FAC, I guess it's okay for it to take its time), there are two GANs that have yet to be started, and the Good Article reassessments for FLCL and Jutsu (Naruto) haven't been acted on in weeks. It might be time to work on at least the GANs and GARs. Also, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Naruto characters/archive1 has yet to be closed even though it hasn't been edited in over a year. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Now that you mention it, the article is close to pass the review but a user pointed the reception section. I tried doing a major rewrite but the reviewer has not responded. Could anybody give Flowerpiep and me a hand with it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Superheroes in anime articles

Ash87000 has been adding the category of superheroes to some anime characters like Dragon Ball, Naruto, Bleach, etc. Should this be reverted?Tintor2 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless the characters are frequently referred to as superheroes in RSs, that category should not be used. I would expect to see it on My Hero Academia and One Punch Man, but probably not Dragon Ball.--Alexandra IDV^talk 21:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please revert. One Punch Man, My Hero Academia, and Tiger & Bunny exemplify superhero anime and would be described as such in RS'es. About the only superhero part of Dragon Ball would be The Great Saiyaman, not the series in general. Magical girl anime could be a subgenre though as the non-Japanese adaptations have referred to their magical girl characters as superheroes, and they have supervillains with the monster of the week. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Which licensee should we list?

There's a lot of anime that are dubbed by Funimation's in house studio, and listed on Crunchyroll at the same time. That tends to be the case with simuldubs, taking their partnership into consideration. So, what is the point of this topic, really? Currently, there is a user that goes by The Farix that is arguing that if there is no "license acquisition announcement", then no licensee shall be listed. Except, it's common knowledge that a company would not be granted legal dubbing rights UNLESS they bought a license in the first place. I'm not sure why he is struggling to understand such a simple fact, to be honest. MizukaS (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this an RFC and not a dispute resolution WP:DR? Can you provide the licensing references for the show? I wouldn't list it in the infobox if it isn't clearly stated in a reference. If there's a detailed explanation on how it works it can go to a "Licensing" section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is part of a larger issue with the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership. Primary and reliable secondary sources don't sufficiently explain who who holds the "master license," all we usually get is a vague "Crunchyroll is streaming it and Funimation is dubbing it," announcement from AnimeNewsNetwork. Because of this, we end up in this silly "Coke vs. Pepsi" brand rivalry situation, where editors run around changing who's listed in the infobox without any kind of consensus. Given the current circumstances I think the only options are to either list both companies as the licensee, or to list neither, as TheFarix is suggesting. Personally I prefer the former option, but regardless of which one we choose, this consensus should apply to ALL shows under the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership. CurlyWi (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is being acknowledged as an issue. That's the point of RFCs, right? To resolve disputes like these. I've started a subsection below, so go ahead and tell me what your perspective is. For the record, I am in agreement with Curly. MizukaS (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we list Funimation AND Crunchyroll as the licensees, just Funimation because they're dubbing the series, or neither?

Note: This only applies to shows that are licensed under the Funimation/Crunchyroll partnership.

• List both: Taking their partnership into consideration, both companies have bought their own license for the anime. Crunchyroll has the subbing rights, while Funimation has the dubbing rights. It is erroneous to list neither licensee and it would give off a heavy implication that no company has licensed the series at all. MizukaS (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• List both: Since reliable sources don't make any kind of distinction, we should list shows in the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership as being licensed by both companies. CurlyWi (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• TheFarix is right that we can't list one or the other, as that is just speculation at this point. MizukaS is also right that we do know the show is licensed, or it wouldn't be being streamed at all. Of course, I don't think the show is actually licensed by both companies like MizukaS says, as that would be ridiculous. One of them has the license and has sublicensed it to the other (in most of the cases of contention, I'm pretty sure Crunchyroll owns the license and is sublicensing it to Funimation). However, as previous threads on the topic have pointed out, there's no way to really know until the home video release comes out, or until one of the companies puts out a press release, like Crunchyroll did for winter 2017. So for now, we should either list both (with an {{efn}} note explaining the situation), or list neither. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a note should be included to prevent confusion. MizukaS (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

side question, home video is the dvd/ blue ray? Like this. The picture to the right in the ref/ source. I noticed that it listed three shows from the bottom up, that were shown during the spring season or just 'spring 2017'. Unblue box (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Home video refers to DVDs and Blurays, yes. MizukaS (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Around the time I was new here. I used to live by some rural areas. Right after leaving school (A 'k to eighth grade' but then the town I lived at, placed a high school a street away and somehow changed it from k to twelfth grade. When it was done being built.) Which since then they used vhs. The school was really slow on shifting from vhs and move on to the cd or dvd. Unblue box (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Who was the one that wrote the VHS comment again? Please sign your post. MizukaS (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The box cover pictures in that article do not show the companies (perhaps it's on the back cover?) so it's mainly going by the verbiage from the article itself which discusses the joint production for the three shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• It depends - Theoretically, Funimation tends to be the licensee while Crunchyroll is just a streaming site where the licensors stream their content (though CR does have some series that they themselves have licensed). For licensing information, it's generally a good idea to mention what the licensor is based on what the sources say. So if ANN or Crunchyroll or some other site says that Funimation and Crunchyroll have licensed the series, then mention both. If only Funimation is mentioned, then mention Funimation alone, maybe at best noting that the series streams on Crunchyroll. If there's no licensing information, maybe at best note that it has been licensed for streaming, but leaving the licensing information as a footnote or something. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Depends it would apply to the joint announcements as with the one Unblue box referenced, but not retroactively to old titles prior to their partnership. It would have to be something in which both companies were involved in the production of the English content. I would go by Narutolovehinata5's suggestions and back it up by the references in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The ref/ source I used was to tell what did a home video looks like. And the info popped up and that was the closest example I thought of. Which only may apply to the three listed names. Unblue box (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Depends per Narutolovehinata5's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• List both as long as it concerns titles that fall under the joint announcement, like Narutolovehinata5 and AngusWOOF described above. Provided this only applies to those titles, I think it best to provide what information there is (with an additional note) to avoid confusion and dispute.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Relatives in infoboxes

Should relatives really be mentioned in infoboxes for fictional characters? I mean in some articles like Goku, Naruto Uzumaki, Boruto Uzumaki there are so many that they tend to clash with the actual prose. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support their removal from all of the info-boxes here as the functions these might serve are already handled with prose and templates that list the characters. At the very least, I take issue with adding the word "deceased" after a character's name if they were alive at one point in the story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Goku one has an embedded note: "This list is reserved for immediate family members only: namely sons/daughters, parents, siblings, and spouses. Do not add grandchildren, in-laws, or other descendants here! (exceptions listed below)". I would remove deceased and in-laws unless they are fundamental to the understanding of the character from the get-go like "Goku has been living with his mother-in-law since his wife had died." or someone like Auntie Em. Deceased should only be used if the character has been deceased for the entirety of the series, but for a series like Dragon Ball, that doesn't seem to be useful as many characters bounce between dead and alive over different stories. And if that's not complicated enough check out the infobox for Tenchi Masaki, which shows how he's biologically related to almost every character in the series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User claims undue weight for reception

In this edit (Link) a user has claimed the reception violates Undue, and has compressed four reviewers into a single sentence. I believe Undue does not apply here, as the whole paragraph was a unique view offered by four different reviewers on the the first, and only the first episode. There is no special attention or bias given to ANN, as there is no other source with the sole review of the first episode available at the time. The discussion link is Here if opinions are avaiable DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Animated television series by country

There's a rather glaring omission in Category:Animated television series by country, and I'm not sure what the best approach is. Should a container category be created, or should Category:Anime television series be in it? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps create "Category:Japanese animated series", then have Category:Anime television series be included in it? From what I recall, although "Japanese animated series" and "anime" have significant overlap, there are some Japan-animated series that aren't usually considered anime (usually co-productions with foreign countries, or 3D series like Snack World or Pingu in the City). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Naruto's suggestion would also allow us to distinguish between animated series and animated television series. ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)