Jump to content

Talk:AnimeCentral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forum threads

[edit]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=662548&highlight=Anime+Central

00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

...and your point is???? Astronaut (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's trying to point out on a particular thread consisting of a "how-to" guide on tuning your Digital Satellite receiver to receive that channel.
88.105.26.93 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original poster didn't pose a question or any info about why the link was important, just the link to a forum started a year before the channel began broadcasting. Sky boxes should just add the channel automatically. Astronaut (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more than 26 episodes?

[edit]

How come Anime Central can't broadcast more than 26 episodes of each series? Does that mean they can't afford to televise more than 26?

88.105.26.93 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can and do broadcast more than 26 episodes, if more episodes are available. Many animes are based on mangas, and studios often adapt a series of manga books into a 26 episode anime, just like with the live-action series coming out of Hollywood having 24 or 26 episodes in a season. Very often however, there is no more original materiel in Manga form to make second season. That said, whilst .hack//SIGN, Cowboy Bebop, Planetes and Wolf's Rain only had one 26-episode season; Ghost in the Shell has had two 26-episode seasons (known as 1st GIG and 2nd GIG), Full Metal Alchemist had 51 episodes, and Bleach has 150 episodes made so far (though the channel has shown only the 50-something episodes which have been translated and dubbed into English). Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wolf's Rain had 4 OVA episodes which haven't been shown, although there have been requests on the forum. [Mind you, if and when when they are shown sales of Kleenex will rocket.]
Also, the series marked as ending on 20/12/2007 have not finished their complete reruns, and will hopefully resume from January 5 2008. Lee M (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. New series are advertised as starting on 5 Jan, though admittedly not enough to fill the regular 3 hour schedule. I think it is unlikely they will finish off the incomplete series repeats (though it would be nice for them to do so). Astronaut (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they've confirmed that they won't. I have no doubt that the series in question will be rerun at a later date, but it's still unprofessional to cut off a series in mid-run. Lee M (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach "Seasons"

[edit]

I removed mention of Bleach having seasons. Although Anime Central has referred to the broadcast of Bleach "Season 2" on-air, they have simply broadcast episodes 1-52 - which was as far as the english dub was available at the time. According to the List of Bleach episodes, that included the Agent of the Shinigami arc, the Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc, and part of the Soul Society: The Rescue arc. I am not sure this anime is split into seasons in the usual sense. Astronaut (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former series

[edit]

The article currently lists former series and includes information about how many times a series has been repeated and when it was shown. When the schedule changes again in late Feb, and new series start to be shown, I can see this list becoming more and more difficult to maintain in a way that makes sense to the casual reader. I therefore propose that with the next major schedule change we drop the "shown x times, date - date" format in favour of a simple list of which series have been shown at any time. Astronaut (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Astronaut (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Errors?

[edit]

According to the What's On page at animecentral.com, as well as the Sky EPG, programming from Saturday March 1 will consist of double-bill episodes of just three series (GI Joe, Cowboy Bebop and GitS). This means that the scheduled reruns of Wolf's Rain, .hack//SIGN and Escaflowne will be chopped off after a ridiculously small number of episodes, and has led to speculation that the channel may be about to close. Discussion on the new schedule begins from the third post on this page. I hope it doesn't but this does look like a major kerfuffle. Lee M (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too hope this is just a simple error in sending out the programme guide to Sky and publishing to the website. It wouldn't be the first time the What's On page and/or Sky's EPG has been wrong - in the early days of Anime Central (Sept - Nov '07), there were a surprising number programming errors, with the guide info being wrong or missing for days on end, the wrong epidodes being broadcast, etc. Whilst Anime Network UK did close suddenly at the end of 2007, I think it is premature to speculate about Anime Central being about to close. Astronaut (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we know it wasn't an error. What it portends for the channel's future I can't say, but it doesn't look professional at any rate. Lee M (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can only hope the "error" will be corrected soon, or at least an explanation will be forthcoming. Anyway, I have updated the article to reflect the current situation. Astronaut (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New series for the winter season

[edit]

The news of more upcoming series is open to two different interpretations. I think it is an announcement of new shows to be broadcast soon on Anime Central. However, it has been suggested that it could be general news in the world of anime - ie. that the new series are still being made in Japan and are unlikely to come to Anime Central for some considerable time. Astronaut (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be general news in the world of anime (see the Anime Central Forums here), so sorry but Persona: Trinity Soul, True Tears, Spice and Wolf, Shigofumi and Hakaba Kitaro will not be coming to Anime Central after all. Astronaut (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GI joe and the transformers

[edit]

When I looked the articles of gi joe a real american hero and the transformers, they are the same company and both aim at the viewers that watch pop but GI joe is on anime central. GI joe is not a anime as such along with the transformers. GI joe had just been removed off anime central on 10/3/08. I think GI joe should go on pop not anime central. Do you agree with me? --Omegace (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much the same has been said on the Anime Central Forums. Both shows appeared to be deeply unpopular with Anime Central's demographic. I did read somewhere that one of the stated aims of the channel was to bring more mature Japanese animation to the UK and that fits in with the 9pm - 6am time slot. However, one must appreciate that the channel is free to air and therefore relies on advertising revenue alone. For a long while the channel carried no advertising and money must have been tight. If the likes of Transformers and GI Joe were cheap filler that enabled the channel to get a good deal on the rights to better shows, then perhaps it's a good thing. On the other hand, I have a strong suspicion that some TV executives really don't understand the demographic, and frequently make the mistake of equating all animation with purely children's programming. One only needs to look at the early advertising which included a Dora the Explorer magazine spot, clearly aimed at pre-teen children despite being shown well after midnight!
One last thing: this page is not really the right place to have a general discussion of Anime Central's programming decisions. Perhaps this discussion would be better continued on the channel's Forum pages.
Astronaut (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things, Dora the Explorer is not aimed at pre teens but at babies and I meant the transformers that air on pop not the headmasters etc. Did you get that! --Omegace (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that completely. I assumed you were talking about the various Transformers series that were shown on Anime Central. Astronaut (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been told that Dora the Explorer is for babies not pre-teens. Pre-teens would do anti-toddler programming humour on Dora the Explorer. Did you get that! --Omegace (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-teen is anyone under 13 - but that really doesn't matter. Editing the meaning of other people's comments really is frowned upon by the community, and edit summaries like "imbecile" breach wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks. Astronaut (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but pre-teens are anyone between 8 and 12. Babies are between 0 and 7. Would a 10 year old watch Dora the Explorer. No. Did you get that!. --Omegace (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just say Pre-school children next time if any pre-school related television appears. So I think that GI joe may appear on pop in the near future but just see if that will happen. --Omegace (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anime central is rebranding to true entertainment. GI Joe could come to Kix!. The boys kids channel that i think GI Joe is suitable for. But it could be on the Anime central slot if there is a anime cetral slot for true entertainment. --Omegace (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a reply about this new idea. --Omegace (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all speculation at the moment. When more news about Anime Central is announced, it could be added here. If GI Joe does move to Kix!, then that could be mentioned on the Kix! article when it is announced. Astronaut (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audience Share

[edit]
The following discussion is an copied from User talk:AJFurnell#Viewing shares and is included here for the sake of being easily available to others who may bring the subject up repeatedly. No further edits should be made to this section. If you wish to comment on this matter, please do so in a new talk section.

Please read the referenced source from BARB. It says:

* = figures are small but not zero

For decimal figures, where the actual value for a statistic is greater than zero but less than the value which would round to the smallest decimal used for the set of figures, * indicates a figure between zero and the smallest figure shown.

Where hour and minutes are shown, * indicates that the recorded figure is between zero and half a minute.

Therefore a channel with "*" in the columns, has a share between 0 and 0.1% Pleas stop providing inaccurate information. Astronaut (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read your talk page,

I did. The information you are providing is inaccurate. A * indicates a share between 0 and 0.1%. Astronaut (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to give the channel a better share than it deserves and trying to put it in the same league as Five Life +1 and others that can actually make a share of 0.0%, If BAAB thought it was worthy of 0.0% than they would put that, the fact they haven’t means that even putting it is being generous. Oh and stop putting times in next to the shows how many times do you need telling, Wikipedia is not a tv guide --AJFurnell (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not trying to give the channel a better share than what you think it "deserves". There are channels with a 0.0% share (which looks a lot like zero viewers to me), but the footnote clearly states that * is a figure that is small but not zero. I suppose I am asking, why do you think 0.0% is in some kind of higher "league" than *?
I do know there are more than zero viewers. I have read elsewhere that Anime Central has attracted around 10,000 viewers per night though I don't know how accurate that figure is or whether that is some extraordinary peak in the viewing figures. but I make that around 0.015% (of 60 million potential viewers) ie. it is not 0.0%.
As for the times, I know Wikipedia is not a TV guide. However, the channel is sometimes unable to provide accurate information about the current schedule either on it's own website or through Sky's programme guide, therefore that information is useful to readers and I think it should stay.
Astronaut (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having made a case to keep the times, I noticed you removed them again quoting policy. The policy is pretty clear, so lets leave it like that for a while and see if any other editors feel the times are useful. Astronaut (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure?

[edit]

Comment moved here from my talk page Astronaut (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hiyas reason first deleted the closure part then added more to it is that its pure speculation that AC will close ...it could be that they are just renaming the channel . so to say its closing is pure scaremongering...so should have the caviat that the nam change could be to extend the channels time slot or to show other anime like films etc ..so untill we know the reason shouldnt speculate.

(90.197.32.216 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I wouldn't classify it as "pure speculation" - it is supported by an official list of TV channels from the government regulator. The fact is, the channel is no longer listed by OFCOM and that definitly has fueled speculation on the Anime Central Forums. That speculation has typically ranged from "There's been no official announcement so let's not be premature", to "Oh no, the channel is closing :-(", to "It may yet be saved as a 'programming block' within True Entertainment". The idea is to report the "news" and subsequent speculation that appeared first on the Anime Central Forums. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Logo?

[edit]

A recent edit has changed the station logo in the infobox to one with a white background. Since the channel's colours are black and red and you never see the white background logo on screen, I think the previous logo (shown right) is a better representation of the channel's identity for the infobox. Astronaut (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are right, i suggest that the other user come here and discuss which is better, altohuhg you could make a new section called logos and put the odl one in and put the new one in or put both logos into the title box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 July 2008

True Entertainment content

[edit]

The issue of the proposed content for True Entertainment is easily resolved by looking at the OFCOM license infomation here. It clearly says the channel's content will be "Cartoons" despite the more usual meaning of the term "True". Astronaut (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Means Reality Ofcom Are Stupid --Omegace (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OFCOM who decide the channel name or content, though obviously there are some rules on what names and content are acceptable. That page reports the name and content type from the form that CSC Media (presumably) filled out when applying for the license change. Astronaut (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Proper Meaning Of True Means Reality. Cartoons Are Never Reality Television So CSC Media Group Are Stupid. --Omegace (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys! I've just found that AnimeCentral will become True Entertaiment on 20th August according to Sky EPG guide. It'll be Simlucast PopGirl at 6am-6pm and True Movies 2 at 6pm-12am and Also AnimeCentral will be still showing as a programming block at 12am-3am. HMR 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith (for the moment), but for the news to stay we will need a reference. Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, True Entertainment will be showing movies according to Sky EPG on July 1st. HMR 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, True Entertainment's launch has been on-hold. I wonder why? Let's hope that it might be launched sometime in the future. HMR 21:10, 01 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to discuss this over at Talk:True Entertainment or Talk:Showcase TV. Astronaut (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changeover to True Entertainment

[edit]

I've set up True Entertainment as a redirect to this article. When the change does actually happen, I intend to replace that redirect by moving AnimeCentral to True Entertainment (and at the same time AnimeCentral will become the rediret). Astronaut (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget there is still the upcoming Sky EPG reshuffle. The entertainment section should get reshuffled on the 1st of Sept, however this article was written before the change in OFCOM license name to True Entertainment: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a94793/sky-firms-up-epg-reshuffle-plans.html Tpmaughan (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having examined what I can see on Sky's EPG, I do not think it would be appropriate to move the current Anime Central article to True Entertainment when the changeover occurs on 20 Aug. From what I can tell so far, True Entertainment will have 4 blocks with Anime Central making up just a small part of it (6am - 6pm: some of Pop Girl's programming, 6pm - 12am: movies, 12am - 3am: some of Anime Central's programming, 3am - 6am: teleshopping).
I would prefer to see a new True Entertainment article with a wiki-links to the other channels (Anime Central, Pop Girl, True Movies?) in the lead section, ... and this Anime Central article, would be "finalised" in a similar way to Anime Network#Anime Network (UK).
Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serparate articel is what is required, animecentral will no longer be channel, look on cnx it had toonami listed but when toonami came it own channel it got it own article. this page should not be redirected to true entertainment either both article should be serpateAndrewcrawford (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://uk-tv-guide.com/list/Anime%20Central/20+August+2008 still shows existing schedule for weds 20th. If it was turning into TE, the sky EPG would show the change in channel name. If the name is going to change its most likely to be during the resuffle on the 1st of sept.Tpmaughan (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It changing get over it--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One the channel does not change name until wednesday how dum would it be to change it name before it changes? it still anime centra jus tnow. secon the tv guide your listing does not get updates driect fromt eh broadcvaster sky epg does--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The EPG on my sky box has gone back to showing teleshopping and bebop/GITS for the rest of the week, no sign of anything else. Sky website still shows the strange popgirl/True movies 2 crossover schedule.Tpmaughan (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now it seems True Entertainment has bought the farm, its OFCOM license has gone. There is a new CSC channel called 'Showcase TV' http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/1509.htm although we'll have to wait for the next monthly update to confirm it was transferred from TE.Tpmaughan (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made the true entertainment article if some wants to expand on it good
Showcase TV has now been launched on Sky Digital on Channel 199. HMR 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo woes

[edit]

I fail to see what the problem is with the black background logo which appears everywhere - on screen, on the website (top left on this screenshot) and in advertizing on other channels. In fact the only place I've ever seen the white background version is the cscmediagroup website. I would say the black background version should be the only one to be used since it is more representative of the channel identity. However, some people insist that the white background version is the "official" logo. I have tried to compromise by using the "logo2" field of the infobox to display both forms of the logo, but it now seems even that is not acceptable. Some explanation of why the white background version even appears in the article would be useful. Astronaut (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add my opinion. Previously, I had uploaded a version of the logo, with a white background. That was indeed reverted to the other version, with the black background. I see why, too. It is used with the stripes. However, I believe that both should remain. But, that's just me. Malpass93 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The file with the white background is the logo that is most accurate and is the official logo of the channel. The file with the black background is not the actual logo, its a screenshot of sort, the black background is not an actual part of the logo, like I said before, it's just a background. The black background just happens to be what is set against the logo sometimes, it could be set against anything, it doesn't matter, it's just a background and is not an actual part of the logo. Take G4techTV Canada for example. Take a look at its website and you can see that the logo is set against a red background. Now that red background that it's set against, it's just a background and it's not a part of the logo itself, it just happens to be the colour of background that they choose at this point and time to set it against, that doesn't make it a part of the logo though. By your logic, none of the logos uploaded on Wikipedia would be correct because they are not uploaded with one of the backgrounds they may be set against sometimes.
Keeping that file in the article, for one is not needed because they are so similar, it's just pointless and secondly it's a misrepresentation of the logo, readers may think that the black is part of the logo when it is simply not. The infobox is for the logo, not screenshots. It would be fine if there was no actual logo available, but in this case there is one available, and its the white version, and since it's available it goes there and the black version should be removed. musimax. (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, when I watched the channel, visited the website and saw the advertizing, the logo always appeared with the black background. The stations colours are black and red. It is pretty obvious to me that the black background better represents the channel's identity. In fact, looking back at the article history, the black background logo existed for a long while before the white background version came by claiming to be the "official" logo. How do you even know which is the official logo? Astronaut (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse an ident with a logo. A logo is exactly that. An ident is the short film which appears before programming. They generally include logos. The one with the background, I presume, is a screenshot of the ident. I fail to see what the problem is with retaining both. Malpass93 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, just because the black version was in the Wikipedia article first and for a long time means nothing, many articles have bad versions of logos, etc uploaded for whatever reason, be it a correct or good quality version is not available so they upload a not so good quality version because it's better then nothing and they just wait until a better one can be found. There's nothing that better represents a channel then the exact logo of the channel, not a distorted version which is not correct. The black version is not correct, it has added things that distort the actual logo itself, so it shouldn't be there. The infobox is for the exact logo, not screenshots. If the actual logo wasn't available then a screenshot would be ok, but the actual logo is available so that's the one we use. And it's pretty clear that the white version is the logo, AnimeCentral's owners, CSC Media Group, put the white version on their website because that is the correct version. If the black version was correct then they would have put the black version there. And the problem with retaining both is because it is pointless, they are too similar, it's the same log but with a black background, it's adding pointless unnecessary images to the article and messing up the article. musimax. (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this confusuion over which is the correct logo stems from the fact that the CSC Media's website has a white background theme throughout the whole site, while the channel's own website has a black background theme throughout the whole site. TBH I am unsure which is the "official" logo, or whether either version is the official logo (eg. perhaps the background is transparent). Until this issue is resolved, I fail to see why both images cannot coexist on the article. Astronaut (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if CSC Media has a white background or not, If the black background was suppose to be part of the logo, CSC Media would have had the black added to the logo that they have on their website, just like what they do with the Chart Show logo here. And yes, the background is suppose to be transparent, thus why the background is white and that's the one that should be used. musimax. (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have removed the black background image from the infobox and instead created a new section about the broader channel identity (similar to Chart Show TV#On-Screen Identity). However, I am still not convinced that rationale presented by Musimax is correct. Nominating a logo that appears nowhere else as the "official" one, simply because you found it on the channel owner's website, seems daft to me. But surely the image that appears in the infobox should represent the channel's identity as it appears to the viewers. One last thing: In my experience as a viewer of this channel (and some other CSC Media channels), they seem to be pretty sloppy when it come to getting the details correct. It is quite possible that there is no "official" logo at all and that the logo is created as and when it is needed and to suit the environment in which it appears. The trouble is, even when errors are spotted they have a poor record of addressing those errors or even responding at all. Astronaut (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on AnimeCentral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AnimeCentral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AnimeCentral&oldid=1198758910"