Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

FUTON bias? Really

The text on top of this page mention "To help editors avoid FUTON bias". I read the page and conclude that free source shouldn't be the only consideration because there are other sources behind paywall. I think this isn't relevant in Wikipedia page about "Online reliable sources". All of wikipedia anime contributor, full time or or not, use free sources anyway. What kind of anime information, locked behind paywall? Hyoroemon2 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hyoroemon2, read the rest of the sentence. It has links to the sources that are usually paywalled. Not everyone uses free sources. Some online information, such as Oricon sales, require further registration / paywall after it ages, such as with Billboard magazine's song and album charts. And if you want to read the liner notes for your favorite manga or bonus material from the anime, you probably have to buy it if it isn't at your local library. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Animate Times

I don't see Animate Times on the list of online reliable sources; they're owned by Animate and often publish release dates and interviews with artists. They're often sourced by ANN and Crunchyroll as well. Should they be added? Would it be situational where their articles are okay but product listings aren't? lullabying (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support it. they seem reliable.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll add it to the list unless someone objects. lullabying (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anime News Network

Anime News Network is not the original publishers of its news articles, thus should not be used or considered a reliable source. I have an editor claiming ANN is valid while claiming its source is not valid. I will move it to the unreliable source section to comply with WP V standards with out objections. Spshu (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spshu: I wouldn't do this without taking it to WP:RSN as we have had past discussions already regarding its reliability. Anime News Network is only reliable on its own when it comes to reviews done by contributors who have also appeared in major anime/manga magazine reviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not how it is being represented on this page ("For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga.") Spshu (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
ANN is the best, most reliable source in the community. Parts of it are not RS, such as the encyclopedia. Most of the news and reviews in general are the best the industry has to offer, and often, the ONLY source. There could be a case by case argument on some things, which for many sources are a thing. Do you have more information about what is wrong with the specific article/review? Has this been reported to ANN as an error? Esw01407 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you shouldn't make those decisions without creating a topic first. If you are convinced its unreliable you have to provide evidence. You can't just call it unreliable based on your personal interpretation and expect others to comply without objections. Why do you think it is unreliable and can you quote WP:V to back up your claim?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we need more evidence as to why the site should be considered unreliable. I’m also confused what was meant by Anime News Network not be the original publisher of their news article since I haven’t seen anything to support that assertion.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think they might be referring to the fact that sometimes new releases and such articles are translated from Natalie. Luckily, Natalie is considered an RS on this project and past discussions have supported that. Opencooper (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Past discussions both project and at WP:RSN have proven ANN's reliability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I would check whether the articles cited are written by someone who knows what they are talking about vs. who are just trying to translate tabloid-like news sources. Like if someone on ANN writes about box office rankings and results but cites IMDb or random forums, I wouldn't necessarily believe that, as opposed to citing Oricon or some official news source. Or if they cite (not just link) their own encyclopedia database for the voice actors. It's kind of like the K-pop news groups. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never seen ANN use IMDB or their own forum/wiki.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be wary on using some of their interest articles, as the sources come from random blogs hosted on Livedoor and tend to be more tabloid-y. lullabying (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Re: the "original publisher" thing, ANN will occasionally publish translations of Japanese articles (and have articles based off of press releases, like many news outlets). But they also have original journalism and other original content, for example, Justin Sevakis' old Answerman columns. Sandtalon (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Two suggestions for online reliable sources

1) Kotobank is an encyclopedia published by The Asahi Shimbun Company, with contributions from Kodansha and Shogakukan. It's a great resource for manga, anime, authors, artists, magazines, live-action adaptations, etc. Personally, I've used it to find the serialization start/end dates for lesser known manga series from the '70s – many of which you can't track down outside of blogs or listings on Japanese auction sites.

2) Anime Feminist is, as the name implies, a website dedicated to analyzing anime and other Japanese pop culture through a feminist lens. They publish reviews, discussions, and some interesting special features. They've also published exclusive interviews with the likes of Arina Tanemura, Sayo Yamamoto, and Mamoru Hosoda.

Also, I noticed there's only one Japanese publisher and two North American publishers listed under the "Publishers" section. Is it all right if I go ahead and add other well-known companies, such as Shueisha, Shogakukan, Viz Media, Dark Horse Manga, etc.? KuroMina (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 1) Kotobank is actually just an interface to several dictionaries/encyclopedias. You'd need to look at the individual entry to see what the source is. I would say that these sources are usually quite reliable such as Heibonsha World Encyclopedia or Daijisen. Don't have an opinion on 2, but regarding expanding the publishers, you'd pretty much be making a list of publishers, so not sure how helpful the section is in the first place. Opencooper (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1) seems fine; but for 2) apparently there are no credentials? Their "about us" doesn't indicate any professional journalist nor people with industry background. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji: Their "team" page says that the editor-in-chief, Amelia Cook, is "a published writer on Japanese film, television, and comics in books, magazines and online publications." I did a quick search and found that she used to write for Otaku USA and The Mary Sue. A few of the other editors/contributors have professional experience, too: Lauren Orsini writes about manga and anime for Forbes and Anime News Network; Peter Fobian writes about anime for The Daily Dot and Crunchyroll (where he is also a producer); and Chiaki Hirai has written about Japanese pop culture for the Nichi Bei Times and now for the Nichi Bei Weekly. KuroMina (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@KuroMina: Wow, very good information. Vrai Kaiser has written for The Mary Sue ([1]) so they are also a good author. So it's very good evidence and it can be used as source in my opinion now. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Opencooper: Sorry for the late reply! I still think that Kotobank can be considered a reliable source on its own. The head of Asahi Shimbun's digital media division said that it was created with the goal of "posting only reliable information written and edited by professionals." The list of companies, dictionaries, and encyclopedias that contribute to the site all seem to check out, too; they have good reputations. Plus, some of these dictionaries/encyclopedias are only available online via Kotobank (for example, the Daijisen's official website tells you to go to Kotobank or JapanKnowledge to view its Digital Daijisen Plus entries). Re: the "Publishers" section: I saw that someone up top asked, "Where would you draw the line?" w/r/t to listing all of the publishers, and I'm not sure, either. ^^; It feels weird to leave the section as-is, though. KuroMina (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I wouldn't be against listing Kotobank, as long as the description includes that it's a collection of sources from different publishers. I'd also support AnimeFeminist based on your research on their writers. Opencooper (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Just added both sites to the list. Thanks, Opencooper and Gabriel Yuji! :) KuroMina (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dengeki / Weekly ASCII

Would this WikiProject consider Weekly ASCII and Dengeki Hobby Web as valid online sources since they are owned by Kadokawa? lullabying (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

They are reliable, of crouse, but probably just useful as primary sources for Kadokawa material. As probably they won't be useful for other articles, I don't think it's necessary to include it here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji: Dengeki Hobby Web usually has articles on the latest merchandise and toy releases, which may be helpful for articles about series connected to massive toy deals, such as kids' anime series. lullabying (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
{@Lullabying: On merchandise and toys of their own brands or for kids' anime series in general? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji: I believe it's anime/hobby merchandise (like figurines, Gunpla, etc.) in general. lullabying (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

AniPages

Should AniPages be added as a reliable source? The website was run by Benjamin Ettinger, "considered one of the North American experts on the subject of independent animators and keyframe animators in Japan" and he was interviewed by Anime News Network [2]. The last post was published in October 2015. [3] - Xexerss (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Ettinger is deferred to as a subject expert in OtakuUSA, The Japan Times, and Cartoon Brew. Giannalberto Bendazzi uses him as a source. Linked to by Animation Magazine. There are also positive mentions of him by The Comics Jornal ("top-notch anime blogger") and Jonathan Clements ([4]). We could probably add him as a reliable individual. Opencooper (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yuri Navi

I've found this Japanese news website called Yuri Navi [5], specialized in yuri-related manga. I had troubles when I tried to find the end date of Inugami-san to Nekoyama-san (which for some reason no one updated it when it finished in 2017) , and this website has the exact end date [6]. I think this site could be helpful, but I'm not entirely sure about its reliability. - Xexerss (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Madeline Ashby as a reliable individual

I'd like to propose adding Madeline Ashby under the Individuals header. She is a science fiction writer, and columnist for the Ottawa Citizen. I'm specifically interested in using her review and analysis of Kids on the Slope to flesh out that article, but as it is published to her personal website, it would not automatically qualify as RS unless she herself is deemed reliable. Morgan695 (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Chil Chil

I would like request Chil Chil (also spelled Chill Chill) as a resource for yaoi. It's one of the biggest BL websites in Japan only and has appeared in reporting for Sankei Sports (link) and Anime News Network (link 1) (link 2). However, only interviews and the annual BL Awards should be used; the encyclopedia and ratings are user-submitted. lullabying (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Support. Based on your description and the linked references, I agree that this is a reliable source. — Goszei (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp

Recently I found cal.syoboi.jp, which is a Japanese database for anime airdates/times. As an example of a typical entry, see Hidamari Sketch, which is very detailed in its coverage of stations the show aired on, even down to baseball broadcasting delays. If reliable, it would be an extremely useful and comprehensive source on broadcasting info for virtually any anime.

I did a search of the WikiProject archives, and from what I can piece together there were a few discussions 10 years ago about its WP:RS status, that ended up inconclusive. I found this post from User:Erachima, where he argues for its reliability on the grounds that it compiles anime airdates from tv guides and that changes are not done directly by the users, but rather submitted (with sources) by the users and then checked and implemented by the administrators. He cites the essay WP:RSE as support, rather than WP:RS policy.

Does anyone have any information on this particular source? Is there a pre-existing project consensus that I missed? — Goszei (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

10 years ago Now you're just making me feel old. All jokes aside, this was a source I remember cropping up back in the day, but there was never a consensus about it's verifiability, so it was never accepted as a reliable source on those grounds. The most it was attempted to be used for was for the airdates, and if there were any delays in broadcast times, but it was more of an off-wiki source that would never be cited directly, just used as a guide to get the dates right, and also used as a place to get the episode titles from (which is what I mainly used it for back when I used to populate episode lists). The best source available today for verifiable airdates is the Japan Media Arts Datebase, such as for Angle Beats!. The only problem with that source is that it takes a little while between when an anime airs and when it's updated, so it's really only useful for older series that aired at least a year or two before. You can see this by searching for a recent anime like Hamefura which doesn't have anything up yet for it.--十八 11:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

magmix.jp

Hello, everyone! Is the website magmix.jp a reliable source? It is owned by Kabushiki-gaisha MediaVague. I found several articles have cited magmix.jp.—Lopullinen 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Right Stuf Reviews

Do the Right Stuf Inc. reviews count as valid source? I've checked out some of them and they seem to be written by the web's staff and they're not simply user-generated reviews.[7] Do you think it can be added to the list of reliable sources? - Xexerss (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, Xexerss. It may be a conflict of interest having a Right Stuf review on a work that Right Stuf licensed, for example. Anyway, none of the reviewers use full names, so it's difficult to research their background and tell whether or not they have any journalist or manga critic background. I can't come to a conclusion, but I'm inclined to say it's not reliable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

AniTrendZ

Recognized by ANN and even the staff members from Akudama Drive and Konosuba in polls like this one. Helpful to expand popularity in regards to characters, actors or animes.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Anime & Manga Studies

A new open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated exclusively to Anime & Manga Studies. I think this is a pretty obvious candidate for inclusion. Sandtalon (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sandtalon: I agree with your assessment, hopefully we can make good use of the articles. — Goszei (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking good, this should be a good source.--Vulphere 14:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mangapedia

Is Mangapedia a reliable website? About its information, it is stated that it is compiled by General Incorporated Association Encyclopedia Research Center, Eight Links Co., Ltd., and VOYAGE MARKETING Co., Ltd. [1] It doesn't seem to be another Wiki page or that it has user-generated content, but I can't really confirm it. Does anybody know more about it? - Xexerss (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: I think it's reliable. Heibonsha and Shogakukan established the "Encyclopedia Research Center"; 8-Lynx is a Shogakukan subsidiary; and Voyage Marketing, along with The Asahi Shimbun, created Kotobank, a WikiProject reliable source. :) The site's "About" page says Mangapedia strives to provide accurate information as the world's first official "manga encyclopedia." It's not user-generated, and its writers/editors (listed here) read each series they cover from beginning to end. KuroMina (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://mangapedia.com/about/

Anime Herald

Has there ever been consideration of Anime Herald as a reliable source? I'm running into my first article that has used them as a reference, and I've noticed them used in several articles throughout the site. Esw01407 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Esw01407: The staff doesn't consist of any notable writers and I haven't seen them cited as a source in order major publications. I would hold off on them being considered a reliable source. lullabying (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The refs I use from there were their direct interviews with voice actors and others in the industry, but that was back in the 2000s. Not sure if that's the same site. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sakuga Blog

I think they should be considered a reliable source because despite the name, Sakuga Blog doesn't allow anyone to contribute information to the site, only their writers can. The site also has coverage from Anime News Network (link, link 2) and Crunchyroll (link, link 2, the latter of which is used as a source in the GA Yuri on Ice). They have also interviewed various people in the industry like Shinya Takano (link). Link20XX (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics

I think Monsters and Critics should be listed as an unreliable source for anime and manga-related articles. The main reason is their articles rely almost entirely on speculation of when something will release, making them fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE. For the new Dr. Stone announcement that happened, they even called it a third season when Anime News Network, Funimation, and the original announcement tweet just called it a sequel, not necessarily a third season. The website has also used leaked magazine pictures from random Twitter users as sources (link). Link20XX (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable? Monsters and Critics has been cited by the New York Times. They have exclusive interviews with (anime) (producers), (manga artists), (directors), (voice actors), and (composers). For its release date stories the website literally states that it combines news and analysis: "As such, this article will be updated over time with news, rumors, and analysis." The news updates are listed by date. (example for MHA S5) As for the Dr. STONE sequel, the website states, "An anime sequel was confirmed to be in production by the final episode of the second season. The exact format hasn't been specified yet." It says something similar for The Quintessential Quintuplets: "On March 25, 2021, an anime sequel project was officially confirmed to be in production by a teaser trailer. The format hasn’t been specified yet." (link)

No site is completely reliable. ANN has a long history of goofs, repeating their mistakes and ignoring correction. Recently, they called the Yashahime sequel "Part 2" even though VIZ Media clearly labeled it as The Second Act. ANN still hasn't updated their story with a correction. Another example is how they kept claiming for months that Kingdom Season 3 was covering the wrong story arc. (I tried pointing that out on their forums.) For The Seven Deadly Sins: Wrath of the Gods they even claimed it would have 40 episodes since they confused the Hawk’s Trouble Consultation Room mini-series with the main anime. They were called out repeatedly but kept repeating the mistake in updates.

The only reason I noticed Link20XX, and thus this talk page, was due to the fact that I would update a Wiki page with an announcement and then Link20xx's sole contribution would be to change the link to ANN. This behavior came off as stalking. Therefore, I have to question Link20xx's reliability and bias.

Gumpngreen (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gumpngreen: ANN has made small mistakes, but part 2 vs act 2 really isn't that big of a deal. Monsters and Critics on the other hand makes speculation as to when something will premiere and uses leaks for sources, something ANN does not do. I agree ANN is not perfect, but it does have reliable information and doesn't use leaks. Link20XX (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: In short, you call a website unreliable since you don't like their story format, which is clearly labeled. The speculation is labeled as predictions. Leaks are labeled as leaks. BTW, I'm not the only one linking to Monsters and Critics since I've seen other users do it for a bunch of Wiki pages. You know what, Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger is right. People like you make this whole platform frustrating with their protectionism and blatant bias. I'm done contributing. Gumpngreen (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gumpngreen: Fine by me. Do what you want, but the standard at WP:QUESTIONABLE does exist, specifically "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions", which if you ask me, that last one includes making predictions about a premiere date with little to no other evidence, and using said predictions as the title of the article. Also this is off-topic, but Larry Sanger has made multiple other wiki sites, all that have failed, so I'm not sure his opinions on other wiki sites are valid. Link20XX (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

While I agree ANN has a history of goofs (which even I have corrected for them through emails), they are a reputable source of information that usually corrects their mess-ups. In comparison to Monsters and Critics, I'd call them far more reliable due to the points that Link20XX brought up, and so I'd have to do a weak agree with the proposal to consider the website unreliable on the project. But none of this has anything to do with bias, even I find myself frustrated with ANN and other sources that tend to fall under weaker journalistic tendencies. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Da Vinci News

Da Vinci News Japanese Wiki link) reports on anime and manga, and they're owned by Kadokawa. They also publish yearly rankings and Anime News Network has used them as a source. Should they be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say so Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why they're not reliable. Link20XX (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's a reliable website owned by Kadokawa Corporation. - Xexerss (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sakugablog

I would propose that Sakugablog be added as a reliable source. Its contributors have expert knowledge of the Japanese animation industry and have industry contacts (see for example, their survey of production assistants, or their look at the animation of 2019 that included the opinions of anime creators). Sandtalon (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added as one -- this just seems like a blog made by fans and reviewers with no formal connections to the animation industry. lullabying (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lullabying: I'd disagree, as they seem to translate books (well, production material; i.e. their extensive coverage of Kizumonogatari's production process through staff interviews from the films themselves) not readily available in English. Also, they do have actual connections to the anime industry; for example, Ken Yamamoto (山本健) has written for the blog, and is an experienced animator formerly working for Production I.G. Also, the lead editor, Kvin (Kevin Cirugeda) is an occasional writer for ANN (see here and here), and formerly wrote for Thrillist (his profile). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
To add on to what Sarcataclysmal said, the site also has coverage from Anime News Network (link, link 2) and Crunchyroll (link, link 2, the latter of which is used as a source in the GA Yuri on Ice). Link20XX (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I will tentatively change my opinion then and agree it should be added to the source list. lullabying (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Gigazine

Gigazine appeared on The Guardian's "The world’s 50 most powerful blogs" [8] and Time's "25 best blogs"[9]. The website has also been frequently cited by ANN [10][11][12][13][14]. I think that it should be added as a reliable source, unless someone can say otherwise. - Xexerss (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't think of a particular reason as to why it shouldn't be. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mantan Web

I think Mantan Web should be listed as a reliable source. They are run by Mainichi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, and are frequently cited by ANN (link, link 2, link 3, etc). Link20XX (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It should be added. - Xexerss (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree as well. lullabying (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree.--Vulphere 05:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Honey's Anime

Is the website Honey's Anime a reliable source? I've seen a few articles using it as a source, but I'm not sure enough about its reliability.--Xexerss (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The only person who seems reliable is "Alfonso "Fonzy" Ortiz", but you need to look into him online some more to make sure. I would not call any of the other writers WP:RS based on what I am seeing here (fans with no prior work or establishment). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Hey, Knowledgekid, there's a discussion at Talk:List of yaoi anime and manga#Primary sources about the validity of Honey's Anime being used as a source. Also pinging @Isaidnoway:, who disagreed on it being an unreliable source and @Morgan695:, who was also involved in the discussion. lullabying (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Just want to point out that Honey's Anime has an Editor in Chief, Alfonso "Fonzy" Ortíz, but after googling the rest of the editors (I'm ignoring freelance writers for obvious reasons) I think "Rod Locksley" is another reliable source, with experience in the gaming/tech industry, anime, comics/manga, and other Spanish-based entertainment media. They also work directly with several brands and anime studios, judging by their collaboration posts and events. That makes me think they do have an editorial line and people in editorial roles who know what they are doing, not just random fans posting whatever they feel like. 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OtakuPT

OtakuPT is listed as a source for Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) and I'm checking to see if it is considered reliable. I don't see any formal editorial board and they seem to accept articles on a submission basis. lullabying (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Anime Sweet

I've seen various articles citing Anime Sweet. I don't think that it does count as a reliable website, since there is no info about their background and many of their articles cite Manga Mogura, a self-proclaimed source "dedicated to be the quickest, most accurate manga news ressource in english". Despite websites like Anime News Network citing Manga Mogura twice [15] (although this article also cited Comicbook.com, which reliability is disputed above) [16], I don't think that is a reason to consider Manga Mogura a reliable source either.- Xexerss (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can tell, they also don't say who the author is, so we have no reason to assume the author(s) isn't/aren't just fans. Here is another example of them citing a random Twitter account as a source. As for Manga Mogura, that is a different topic and I would be inclined to agree with you on that topic too. Link20XX (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Anime Sweet is not a reliable source. I also think Manga Mogura is a bit too soon to list as a reliable source. lullabying (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting lewdgamer.com as a reliable source concerning eroge

I am not affiliated with LewdGamer in any way.

The site holds editorial and journalists cadre. Its mission statement is LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition.

The site, according to Alexa, is popular. While that does not imply reliability, it does attest to being influential - a must for an acceptable source.

As of now, we have no reliable sources for eroge content - probably because the genre is shun by mainstream anime and manga sites. This is not an healthy state of affairs, as it undermines any attempt to source eroge publications.

אילן שמעוני (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I urge any editor with connection to the subject to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphoria (visual novel). As of now WP:GNG simply does not cover explicit hard-core eroge and can not be used as guideline - otherwise any article regarding extreme eroge is automatically deemed un-notable, which is of course absurd.
I admit that I have no clear idea how to address this issue. As stated in the discussion, it is close to impossible to sift a list of valid sources as been done in other genres. Ideas how to solve this (unlike just ignoring the issue) are called for. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that the discussion as already been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Reliable sources to cover extreme sexual gaming and I agree with the feedback for most. Lewdgamer has no evidence of a formal editorial board and it was associated with Gamergate at one point in time, so there's much to be doubted about its lack of bias. lullabying (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What's In

I saw this source and think it might be a nice addition. What's In? Tokyo is owned by Sony Music Entertainment Japan, as seen on this page. lullabying (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Link20XX (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree as well. It seems pretty reliable. - Xexerss (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Harizotoh9 recently suggested Newspapers.com as a reliable source and has also submitted newspaper clippings to the website, as stated in this discussion. The paid archive has dozens more clippings. Would this be fine to list as a source? lullabying (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it is just pictures of newspapers, I don't see any problems. Link20XX (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually now that I look, Template:Cite news has a section titled "To cite and quote a clipped and archived news article on an information aggregation service requiring a subscription", which uses newspapers.com as the example. Link20XX (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
There is more info about this at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. — Goszei (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an online paid newspaper archive of mostly American newspapers, and used on other projects. During the last free weekend, I went and clipped hundreds of articles relating to anime and manga. There was a lot more there than I had though, as print American newspapers aren't what people typically think of when they think as a source discussing anime/manga. By clipping them they become viewable for free by anyone without an account forever.

I also suggest checking out 90's gamer magazines, since they often did reviews of anime dvds and vhs releases. Anime magazines are also great, but few are scanned. I want people to use more of these high quality print journalism sources for articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Silent Manga Audition

Manga Audition is owned by Coamix. It features news, interviews and other articles in English, which could be very helpful, like this interview between Tetsuo Hara and Kentaro Miura. I think that it would be a good addition. - Xexerss (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Link20XX (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

SciFi.com

Should the SciFi.com's Anime Colony reviews be considered reliables? Here I found a list of reviews done by them. I suppose that the reviews written by Anime News Network's late reviewer Zac Bertschy could be considered reliables. Also, they were frequently cited by ANN[17][18][19][20][21][22][23], and there is an article dedicated to the website.[24] But besides Bertschy, I can't find enough information about the other reviewers. So I better ask before any decision. - Xexerss (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine for any article, especially since they have been widely used by ANN and they don't have that many reviews anyway. Link20XX (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Numan

Numan is owned by Cybird, a company known for publishing otome games and A3!. The website does some coverage over idol, 2.5D, and other parts of otaku culture aimed at women. lullabying (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Link20XX (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yonkou Productions

Should Yonkou Productions be considered reliable? I found two Anime News Network articles citing them (as a secondary source)[25][26] and there are various articles posted by them on The Fandom Post.[27] Still, honestly, I'm not sure if that is enough to call them automatically reliable. Any thoughts? - Xexerss (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking over it, I would say its probably okay, though I am a bit skeptical that they only operate on social media. Link20XX (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't think I'd consider Yonkou to be reliable, mostly in agreement with Link. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Bringing up Anitrendz again

I know that Tintor2 already brought this up above, but I am going to bring it up again because I feel this warrants a full discussion. Obviously, the website in question is Anitrendz or Anime Trending, which runs both social media trending polls for anime each season, as well as hosting news on their website. Admittedly, I have no stance either way as to their reliability, but since I have seen them being used on more and more articles, I feel their reliability warrants a full discussion. Link20XX (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the website has established some reputation. Twin Engine, the production company of Vinland Saga, mentioned their 2020 award. [28] They have an editorial staff [29] and they had also conducted direct interviews with various creators [30][31][32][33][34][35] I honestly don't know if that is enough reason to call them reliable, but at the moment, I personally would call them so. - Xexerss (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, even the creators of Akudama Drive talked to that website when they won their award.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Based on the above information I would consider them to be reliable. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: I'm not sure about Anime Trending..They delete comments & immediately ban people that even ask about possible flaws in their voting result..or are like suspicious of them..there's some other things too -Kimochihime (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Admittedly, I don't know much about what happens on their social, but the evidence others have stated above does make me lean more towards the "reliable" side, though perhaps limited to just the website. Link20XX (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Upon doing more looking on their website, it appears they have some kind of a partnership with Netflix, so obviously reviews of those series would be a WP:COI and unreliable. Link20XX (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

BD Gest for biographical information

I am very much aware that BD Gest is generally considered reliable for its news and reviews, however I am a bit skeptical as to their biographical information. For instance, the image on their Naoshi Arakawa page is actually File:Naoshi Komi.jpg, which is of Naoshi Komi, a different person. Thoughts? Link20XX (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Anime UK News

I would like to see Anime UK News added as a reliable source. They have been extremely useful in my edits as they are a great source for finding UK release dates for anime (DVDs/Blu-rays etc), news and anime and manga reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amffy (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I already brought this up above in the section "three new suggestions", where there appears to be a consensus to add it. Link20XX (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comicbook/anime

I've seen this website comicbook.com being referenced a lot, usually listed as simply "Anime", and I have a feeling it's not a reliable source. They seem to just take news content from another source, such as Crunchyroll News or ANN, or even Twitter, and then use this information to make an attention-grabbing title and content; or is just a review/summary of an episode or chapter of a series, and then passed off as news. For example, this article uses an ANN interest article for its source, and adds the author's own interpretation to it. In this article, the author references a Tweet from an "anime content creator" (not any reliable sources), and then presents it as fact (at the time, no other sources had confirmed this). This article just seems to be a summary of an anime episode, yet is on the website's "Anime News" section. Surely this isn't RS, especially since they usually just reference other, more credible sources, and just add their own commentary to it. Alex Tenshi (talk|contribs) 15:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I would be wary on listing CBR as a reliable source, especially their editorials. This article, for example, lists Macross Delta as a "magical girl idol" series when there are no other sources that stated the show is involved in the magical girl genre. lullabying (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
CBR and Comicbook are different websites. Regardless, I also agree on you with CBR being on the same level of quality and iffyness as Comicbook. Alex Tenshi (talk|contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wow, I'm silly. Please disregard that example. My comment on both CBR and Comicbook not being reliable still stands, though. lullabying (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't done much research into CBR, so I can't speak for them, but Comicbook.com definitely doesn't appear reliable most of the time, like here they wrote an article that is just fans of the show asking for a new season. Link20XX (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that Comicbook.com is not a reliable source as well, as many of their articles are iffy at best. I'd say the same about CBR, however, the articles written by Hannah Collins, who appeared as a judge of the Crunchyroll Anime Awards 2021, along with other reputable critics/reviewers from Anime News Network and other notable websites,[36] should be considered reliables in my opinion. There must be more reputable critics on that website, but I don't really know about it.- Xexerss (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily consider being on Crunchyroll Anime Awards 2021 judge list to be reputable or reliable. Comicbook.com's Megan Peters is on the list (despite some of the articles I listed above being written by her), and there are some people on that list who are not anime critics/reviewers (Kaho Shibuya is a cosplayer/model, Jenya is a voice actor).
Regardless, if Hannah Collins were to be added, she should be considered as a reliable individual, rather than having the entire site listed as situational. I know that CBR has allegedly been accused with plagiarism (allegedly this plagiarised this), so that should also be taken into account. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 10:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, right. I didn't mean that because she was a judge she's automatically reliable, but the link depicts her profile, and she has also written for other websites, including Anime Feminist, which is considered a reliable source. I was dubious about listing CBR as unreliable, because, just like Collins, there must be other reputable writers on the website, but since I'm not aware about it, I suppose that it should not be considered as situational. - Xexerss (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I also found that CBR has articles by Danielle Leigh,[37] who also wrote for Manga Book Shelf, considered a reliable source.[38] - Xexerss (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If we are going to generalize ComicBook.com then I consider it as a reliable source since the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, which I am active in regards to updating the current Phase 4 films and TV shows, are using the website as a source. We should consider a certain article a reliable source if they basing it on an existing confirmed information. Overall, ComicBook.com is a reliable source. Centcom08 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
An article being based on confirmed information doesn't guarantee it to be a reliable source. International Business Times does that and yet they are considered unreliable by WP:RSP. Link20XX (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, if the WikiProject Anime and Manga doubt the credibility of ComicBook.com then I shall inform the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force about this since they also use CBR as a source aside from that. That will be a major overhaul of MCU-related articles then. Centcom08 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
About the Comic Book Resources, the site is listed as a reliable source on WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force so I am not sure how the WikiProject Anime and Manga will agree on that another WikiProject. Centcom08 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are already some cases where WP:ANIME and other projects consider the same source of different reliability, such as we consider Animetric unreliable but WP:VGRS considers it reliable. Though for CBR, they do have some writers with good background, so I would support putting that more on the situational side. Link20XX (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Asian Movie Pulse

I was recently involved in a discussion at Talk:The Rising of the Shield Hero over the website Asian Movie Pulse and its reliability. The IP wrote this for its reliability the site continues to get many interviews with directors and actors within the realm of Asian movies, they have sponsorships with several film distributors including Third Window Films and Arrow Films, among others but I chose those two because they have their own wikipedia page in the hopes that I wouldn't have to also argue about whether those sponsorships are meaningful. Panos was also a member of the jury for multiple film festivals. Rotten Tomatoes approved him not as a mere "user" but an actual critic. Admittedly I have no strong feelings either way, just curious what others think about this website. Link20XX (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Blog.esuteru/Myjitsu

Now that I've started a discussion on the talk page of Yashahime, I'd like to know if these two websites Blog.esuteru[39] and Myjitsu[40] could be considered reliable sources. Blog.esuteru has been cited by Anime News Networks a couple of times[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] however, about Myjitsu I couldn't find any evidence of its notability, only perhaps, as I said on the Yashahime talk page, that it belongs to Nihon Journal Publishing Inc., but, anyway, I'd like to know what others think about these two websites, maybe there is more information about them that I simply don't know. - Xexerss (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kuriousity

I found this website, Kuriousity, owned by Lissa Pattillo, who has written for Otaku USA[48] Anime News Network[49][50][51][52] here is the rest of the staff [53] and according to her website, she is production manager at Seven Seas Entertainment [54] The website stopped posting for over 6 years. I think it would be a good addition to the list but I'm curious about why it hasn't been added yet. - Xexerss (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Xexerss, I agree with you. I've made a similar point back in October 2016 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 67#Knights, but no one commented on it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

About ComiXology

I was planning on using ComiXology as a source for genres, since they usually include them on their website, but I'm unsure about its reliability since they are not an original publisher. So I better ask before making any addition. - Xexerss (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comixology is already listed under "Situational" header, Xexerss. If it's a review by some professional writer, it'd be a good source. If it's the retailer part, I'd be more skeptical. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Helen McCarthy as a reliable individual

I was surprised to see Helen McCarthy not on the list of reliable individuals. She has been a long time anime and manga critic, authored several anime reference books and written for/edited for two manga magazines in the UK (Anime UK and Manga Mania) I ask this, because she has a Wordpress blog, and while Wordpress usually isn't source-worthy, one of her posts about magazines was only one of two sources I could find about the history of Manga Mania, and given her experience I feel it could be reliable. Amffy (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Amffy, probably no one bothered to include her because she's so well-established as a critic that no one would question it. However, I think it's good that we establish consensus here and add so newcomers to the project know that. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Paul and MangaCast

I found out that the professional translator Stephen Paul had a blog where he wrote various manga reviews [55] (I'm not sure if we can directly cite blogspot.com, but some of his reviews were also translated in French by du9 [fr] [56] His blog was also linked on MangaCast [57], which had Ed Chavez as editor in chief [58] MangaCast has been cited several times by Anime News Network[59][60][61][62] so I think that it should be added to the list too. - Xexerss (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources/Archive_2&oldid=1129237923"