Talk:Crunchyroll

Untitled
Can't wait to write a criticism section for this one... Retro2112 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be no conflict of interest on this article, according to article3: The following suggestions should help to ensure a civil and reasonable discussion, but they should not be considered compulsory:

1. It may be helpful to disclose your conflict of interest on the talk page. (An undisclosed conflict of interest may make it difficult for other editors to assume good faith about your edits.) 2. You might consider including a link to this essay ( WP:SCOIC ) to indicate that you are following this advice, and to help people to understand how to respond. 3. When describing your changes, try to be both clear and concise — it makes it much easier for people to consider and respond to your suggestion. 4. Your proposed change should be supported by reasoning independent of your conflict of interest — assume good faith that other editors will treat your suggestion on its merits. 5. This reasoning should be as complete as you appropriate, while remaining clear and concise. 6. Once you have presented your case, it may be best to take a back seat and minimise your participation in the discussion, to avoid any perception or accusation of undue advocacy or pushing an agenda. Of course, if there are indications of any misunderstanding or misconception, it is reasonable to politely address this; similarly, if any editor asks you a question, a response is appropriate. 7. If you realise that you have missed a useful point of reasoning, please add it, but not in reply to any part of the discussion not directed to you. 8. If people respond in a way that seems unfair, keep cool, remain civil, and if all else fails consider the guidelines for dispute resolution. 9. WP:CHILL: let the discussion develop. One does not need to respond immediately to every statement. Do not dominate the discussion. 5:31 PM--Chasewang (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i will leave it up to the unbiased administrators and a civil, legal and fair conversation about this issue.--Chasewang (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

dubious
I feel that this statement: "Content hosted on Crunchyroll, such as illicitly produced fansubs of Asian shows or bootlegs of official US releases of anime titles, were illegally hosted without permission from any rights holders." does not fully tell the story of early Crunchyroll conduct, which despite what most people believe wasn't any more evil than what other sites did. I will not edit it since I am a biased source on the subject. However, I'll tell some of the full story for anyone interested.

The site had a division of community media moderators to manage uploads. For instance, I remember that official US releases were extremely frowned upon if not later banned for approval (before the legal agreements with the companies). All takedown notices were honored immediately, and added to to master "do not approve" list. Once the notice was received, the anime/show never made it's way back on the site, which is better than youtube/veoh/ect could ever say.

As far as fansub groups went, they had a lot more rights than what was granted at other sites. If a fansub group didn't want their material on the website, it would never be approved. The best example I can give of this was Dattebayo's translation of "Naruto". If the fansubbers wanted to put a better encoded episode on the site, the old one would be replaced with the new one. Fansubbers were given credit were credit was due, and if they so desired, they could ask to allow uploads from only certain accounts.

The last thing I'll say (because it miffs me) is that the site was NOT profitable at any point before the venrock agreement and the changes made as a result of that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dillweed who has no idea how much it costs to run a video streaming service. Anyone who remembers the early history knows how touch and go the bills were every month. (Getfightted (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

npov
"Content hosted on Crunchyroll, such as illicitly produced fansubs of Asian shows or bootlegs of official US releases of anime titles, were illegally hosted without permission from any rights holders." Should probably be rewritten as "Content hosted on Crunchyroll, such as illicitly-produced fan-subbed versions of Asian shows or bootlegs of official US releases of anime titles, were illegally uploaded by users without permission from any rights holders." The original sentence is not NPOV and implies that Crunchyroll was complicit in any illegal activity. However, they were just a video hosting site, much like Youtube, Veoh, Dailymotion, et al. and they respected DMCA takedown requests like all the others. I think the facts bear that out and if you want me to supply sources, I will Souleater143 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Crunchyroll WAS extremely complicit in illegal activity. Virtually all of the content was uploaded without the copyright holder's permission. Even YouTube, in the early days, didn't match that proportion of illegal uploads. The site was, of course, anime centric and, at that time, 0% of the anime on it was licensed by Crunchyroll. Turning a blind eye to the fact that your service is used this way doesn't make it legal, nor does it make them less complicit, especially when their primary intent was to make copyrighted content available without permission. Copyright law, as per the Berne Convention, is recognized internationally. Even before anime gets licensed in the US for dubbing purposes, it is still protected in the US from the moment it is created in Japan. Legally, a Japanese company could crack down with DMCA notices, but generally they leave it to the US licensor after its licensed to do that. Usually, all but the biggest sites don't take anything down without a DMCA notice, so many websites, trackers, etc that were created solely for piracy can claim something like "but we honor all dmca requests--we try to be totally legal *wink* *wink*." Of course, under increasing pressure from copyright holders and their licensors, and the potential for profit, Crunchyroll finally changed and now it actually licenses the works it streams. 72.75.62.177 (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (logged out njyoder)

Wait a minute though - "turn a blind eye"? That may be slightly harsh, if I'm reading this right. Harsh in context of the industry, anyway. I thought they respected take-down requests from rights holders? I mean, that's what appears to be the history if I'm reading it right - yes, they didn't do much to PREVENT initial uploads, which makes it hardly perfect but like any video hosting site, they took things down if requested, right? If anything, that's absolutely no worse than YouTube (or ANY other major streaming website) does - and YouTube is pretty much the go-to place for illegally-hosted, copyright-violating videos (search ANY popular music artist or TV series. You will find ENDLESS numbers of clips or music videos or even whole episodes broken up into chunks).

The only difference is that the proportion of illegal or quasi-legal material would have been higher precisely because it was (to the site's founders and users) "foreign-language". And that makes the situation a little unusual. Remember: "fansubs" (NOT talking the bootlegged US releases, here, that's a much clearer, multi-level copyright violation) are a somewhat weird situation. If you're a native speaker of the language, it's arguably no better than an ordinary bootleg (I guess maybe if you're trying to learn the language it's subtitled in it might be different, but still...). So understandably over the years it was seen as exactly that by at least some studios. But. If you're foreign (say, American or British or whatnot), one could (and generally, people did in my experience) make the argument it's for "educational reasons", which brings up a contentious "fair use" argument. Certainly, the original video and audio are copyrighted, and thus a violation of copyright under most reasonable standards, but legally the translation portion is copyright of whomever is doing it. And if it is not intended as a for-profit translation - which the vast majority of fan-subtitled works aren't - then it's... I won't say a "grey area", it's not THAT "grey" anymore thanks to the sheer ease with which they can now be distributed to potentially millions of people, including very easily those who speak the language in its native country, which of course can now hurt the original release's profit margins (particularly in a country like Japan, where media releases are often quite expensive). But with no intent (on the part of the subtitlers) to profit from it, well, there's a reason there's a huge debate over it and a reason that for years and even to some extent even recently (such as with the producers of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya), pretty much nobody wanted to argue against them, as it was often the way an otherwise obscure-on-foreign-shores series got a foothold in foreign markets. In fact, particularly odd, "very Japanese", or geeky series like Haruhi or Excel Saga or Azumanga Daioh, pretty much ONLY got their initial English-language following from being popular as fansubs and building word of mouth. They were successful in non-native markets precisely because enough of the viewers of the fansubs either spread the word or were willing to request and buy the fully-legal, licensed releases (if you're curious, this isn't me talking out of my rear or assuming things here; this is at very least provably the case with Haruhi, as the US DVDs feature a live action featurette on the first volume, with some of the US and Japanese voice actors, largely in-character, specifically thanking the fansub watchers for following and supporting the series enough to get an official release- and also chastising any possible fansub-watchers who enjoyed the series but refused to buy the licensed editions).

My point is, fansubs are a weird case. They're not as clear-cut a situation as say, a Lady Gaga video on YouTube posted by not-Lady Gaga; to some extent, they are or verge on fair use (or, to be completely accurate, they are one part easily-argued fair use, one part copyright violation, and in most cases tolerated, because they verge on fair use and can promote a series in a new market without effort on the part of the original owners). So, in many cases, Crunchyroll would have been, if not in a truly defensible position, at least in a less-obviously-indefensible position than you seem to think. The fact that they do have what seems to be a history of actually taking down such material when requested by the original owners from that period in the site's history, would seem to indicate that when it did become an issue, they dealt with it responsibly. Certainly, from the sounds of it, they didn't deal with it any worse than YouTube does today, and the sheer volume of YouTube's collection that violates copyright much more clearly, arguably outweighs anything a smaller, niche site like Crunchyroll could ever hope to cover. Even if the percentages of violating/non-violating were legitimately different (and given that YouTube includes more original content, this is likely the case at least slightly), the sheer volume of YouTube's violating content would I would think be a lot higher? In which case, why is your complaint not directed equally at YouTube?

Or to put it the simplest way: fansubs are only truly unaccepted (socially/economically) when the original copyright owner decides they don't want the content available that way, AND/OR if they explicitly stated (as at least one studio has) that they do not want unauthorized translations floating around before such releases, AND/OR if a legal, licensed release is available in that language (and even on that last one, in some cases, such as when there is a lack of an "accurate" or subtitled translation, as was once the case with many series - say, children's series like Sailor Moon - fansubs are sometimes seen as still a valid alternative for getting a more accurate translation, again, "educational" reasons being the most obvious argument). Otherwise, the tacitly accepted status because of its promotional and educational aspects, makes it a special case. Not a clear cut one (by far!), least of all in a context of non-limited release like video streaming (in contrast to the oldest ways of fansubbing, in which you would make a VHS tape and pass it around a single clubhouse, which was unlikely to do much if any monetary harm)... but unusual nonetheless, in a way that hosting other unauthorized content isn't. If you don't want to blame YouTube for its massive collection of blatant, much less-excusable copyright violations, than you can't fault a site more for hosting fansubs "unless requested to take them down". Not saying it's legal, just saying that it's a different flavor of violation that's a lot murkier than what you usually see on video streaming sites. And pretending it isn't is a bit odd.

Of course, it's sort of moot now from what I understand, as they no longer host fansubs/unlicensed fansubs, yes?

Which reminds me: why oh why isn't it mentioned on here whether these are "raw" (untranslated) or subtitled streaming, or a mixture perhaps, now that it's licensed? That was actually the entire reason I came to this article - I had heard of several series currently available on the site, and was curious whether they were all going to be translated or not, now that it's apparently "gone legit". Yes I realize that I could have gone to their site, but I was also confused and surprised and intrigued to hear that they were licensing releases now - I've been out of the anime fandom loop for a couple of years, and last I had checked (and by "checked" I mean "vaguely heard of", since I was never a user on the site), Crunchyroll was still known for fansubs. I came here to learn more about the history and current status of the site, and almost all I've gotten is the rough history + "now it's fully legal, because it licenses the shows". Nothing about how it currently works other than it being legally licensed. Is it ad-supported? If so, are we talking banners or Hulu-style in-episode video ads? Translated, not translated or sometimes translated? Available in English only or in other languages? None of this appears to be covered, at the moment I am writing this. This article is frankly kind of a stub - Start Class at best - and that's somewhat disappointing, to be honest. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bleach
should there be a comment about them taking on bleach and being licensed for this? the main fansubber for this (www.dattebayo.com) posted that they would stop releasing this once a legit co took over (http://www.dattebayo.com/pr/134) I feel this is worthy of update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Slight wording change + Citation Needed
Okay, in addition to citation request, based on what I've been able to gather, I tweaked one sentence. It's a minor change, but I wanted to explain it in more detail here in case somebody inexplicably decides to take issue with it.

I removed the words "illicitly-produced" from in front of "fan-subbed". Why? Because if you don't already know what fan-subbing is, you will look it up on that link that's already there, and discover that it isn't official or licensed, and if you DO know what it is, you already know it isn't official or licensed. And considering it is mentioned in the same sentence alongside "bootlegs" of licensed releases and the end of that same sentence mentions it was "illegally hosted", the term was unnecessary and redundant.

More to the point, in addition to being unnecessary and redundant, it also read weirdly. It's like somebody was going out of their way to make fan-subbing sound equivalent to, I dunno, heroin. That's probably a little hyperbolic to put it that way, but... well, not really. I have to wonder about that phrasing because it just makes it sound dark and creepy and vaguely exciting in a OMG DANNNNGEROUS way (when in reality, it's generally just geeky, and despite being copyvio, sometimes even tolerated by rights holders before official releases are available - note that I do say "sometimes"). I won't actually assume a lack of good faith - I'm sure whoever it was was trying to be "accurate" or whatever, and I guess it technically may be "accurate" in the strictest dictionary sense, maybe? - but the truth is it just sounds like odd, slightly non-neutral wording and the fact that the phrase was unnecessary in the context of the full sentence, well, that should say it all. The sentence is also, I feel, slightly less clunky this way. Perhaps that was even part of why it sounded weird to me - that the flow was awkward and redundant.

In any case, I do think the non-legally-licensed nature of fan-subs is already made clear by both context, and likely the article on the subject that is linked from, so I hope the new wording will stay and be okay with people, since it really does sound nicer and clearer from a prose standpoint. :)

I did have one other quibble with that section though, but I wasn't sure how else to fix it - so I simply fact-tagged it. Basically, it's obvious from the fact that they were fansubs and "bootlegs" that those videos at the time were not hosted with "permission of rightsholders". That's fine. But in the case of the fansub videos, were they really hosted without permission of the fansubbers? Which is what the article currently claims? I mean, granted, I don't know if this was the case - part of why I bring it up, it's an odd fact and I have never been a user on the site and didn't even follow news about it much even when it was still hosting fansubs - but even if I did, surely that's the kind of thing that should be cited with proper external reference? I mean, it's arguably libel if it's not true (since it can damage reputation of the site), though if true, obviously there's no reason not to include it - with citation.

Since I didn't want to remove it if it were true (no need to start an edit war if it's actually accurate, and like I said, I have no way of knowing if it is), but I didn't want to leave it like that in case it wasn't, I chose to simply fact-tag it, as I said. Hopefully one of you folks who knows how to dig up cites for this will edit it appropriately. :) Good luck! 68.202.85.105 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a crunchy roll (sushi food item)?
It's really hard to find out because every Google match is about this anime Web site. What is a crunchy roll in sushi? Equinox (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge with The Anime Awards
Following the decision to merge The Anime Awards with the Crunchyroll article, I've copied and pasted the information from the awards article into the Crunchyroll article. I think all we need to do now is change the article for the Anime Awards into a redirect to to Crunchyroll if everyone is OK with that. ISD (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll make the redirect now. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crunchyroll. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222222449/https://theanimeawards.com/anime_of_the_year.html to https://theanimeawards.com/anime_of_the_year.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

FIR
What is an FIR? The article states that Crunchyroll filed an "FIR" against the hackers who compromised the site, but it does not explain what one is, the FIR disambiguation page doesn't seem to have anything relevant, and "FIR" isn't even in the citation given. Can someone explain what the heck this is supposed to mean? 184.170.93.22 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

High Guardian Spice
Should there be a wiki article on High Guardian Spice? Galefuun (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the coverage by reliable-third party sources like? If it is just covering the announcement, then no because that would not pass WP:GNG. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Crunchyroll logo vertical.png

Origins and illegal distribution
Was it really illegal in 2006 2008 and when did it become legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation on the sale
Has anyone actually confirmed the most important question of the sale, whether they are unloading all of Crunchyroll Inc or just the streaming service. For some strange reason quote reporters seem to look at you oddly when you want them to confirm the most important detail of the story. I assumed it was the entirety of the company yet the wording in the paragraphs here are written as if it's just the streaming service that's being sold. Both we're realistic possibilities depending on whether AT&T or now Discovery cared to be hands on in the anime distribution or not. But i'd still like to see a very simple black or white answer to what the sale is.68.134.180.108 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the Crunchyroll/Funimation article situation
So, while this is probably impossible, I do think that we actually should be trying to fix the current situation, because at present, both Funimation and Crunchyroll's articles are trying to find weird ways to combine two topics into one. Like was stated on Talk:Funimation awhile back, a split is probably the best option, as the streaming service Crunchyroll and company Crunchyroll, LLC are different topics. Funimation (the service) used to be owned by Funimation (the company), but after Sony acquired Crunchyroll, the company Funimation became the company Crunchyroll, LLC, not the streaming service; the streaming service Crunchyroll is still active (which is what this article with the base name should be about). In short, we should aim to have a similar situation to how Roku is about the device and Roku, Inc is about the company that makes them, just that Crunchyroll should be about the streaming service and Crunchyroll, LLC should be about the company that runs the service (which was formerly Funimation the company). Link20XX (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Fukunaga issue, Fukunaga is not the founder of Crunchyroll the service (which this article should be about); rather, he is the founder of Crunchyroll, LLC, which was formerly Funimation the company. Thus, he should not be listed as a founder in this article. Link20XX (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More specifically, this article is (or was) about Crunchyroll the service, and it's company, Crunchyroll, Inc. Funimation (founded by Fukunaga) purchased Crunchyroll, Inc. Funimation did not "become" Crunchyroll, Inc. Funimation renamed itself to Crunchyroll, LLC, which still owned Crunchyroll, Inc. The combination of these two details has resulted in a horrible inaccurate article that acts as if Funimation simply ended and Crunchyroll replaced it, which isn't what happened. No evidence at all has been presented that Crunchroll, Inc. has been dissolved or no longer runs the service. The Funimation article *seems* to be relatively intact, but THIS article has been mangled. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I second what you just said; this article is a mess of trying to combine three topics (Crunchyroll the service, Crunchyroll, Inc, and Crunchyroll LLC) all into one article. Link20XX (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what would make the most sense at this stage is to use Funimation to describe the Funimation brand and the company/streaming service as it formerly existed pre-acquisition, and use this page to describe the Crunchyroll brand and company as it originated, developed, exists currently, and plans to exist in the future. It may also work to perhaps have a separate article covering the merger and the current status of Sony owning the Aniplex, Crunchyroll, and Funimation companies and brands; that seems a notable topic in and of itself and perhaps one that warrants separate coverage if sufficient sourcing can be found. Joyce-stick (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that Crunchyroll (the service) is not the same as Crunchyroll, LLC, as they have completely different histories. As of now, the Funimation article appears to focus mostly on the company, which is fine for now, but in the future that should be changed to focus on the streaming service since Funimation (the company) changed its name and is now Crunchyroll, LLC. This was the consensus forming at Talk:Funimation a little while ago. As for the acquisition, frankly I have no idea what an article about that would even look like or if it would even be a notable topic. Link20XX (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably the cleanest option right now is to stop treating the article as a company. Rework the lead to be about the service, not any company. Rework the prose as necessary to cover the company history in *relation* to the service, noting the original company's history (Ellation, who renamed to Crunchyroll, Inc), the various owners of Ellation/Crunchroll Inc over time, then finally the purchase and rebranding by Funimation. The current "owner" of the service is still unclear IMO, but if this article says "Crunchyroll, LLC is the owner" would not really be off, just not direct (Crunchyroll Inc may still exist and technically run the service).
 * Crunchyroll, LLC should redirect to Funimation, as that company literally simply renamed. It was not dissolved or merged, simply rebranded after buying the Crunchyroll brand. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting this proposal. In the future, perhaps spinning off Funimation into a separate Crunchyroll, LLC article while Funimation's page covers the streaming service as it existed prior may be desirable, but for now having this page describe the Crunchyroll service and Funimation's page remain mostly as-is seems like the choice with the least potential to confuse until more information on the impact of the merger becomes available. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already pitched my support for that proposal in the past; I even created Draft:Funimation and Draft:Crunchyroll, LLC awhile back as for what potential articles would look like. Link20XX (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sony should have either waited until the rebrand was completed before making the announcement or used a new name for the combined companies. Not helping matters is that the rebrand started aggressively the first couple of months after the announcement, which led to mass confusion all around. As such, I agree with the proposal to create separate Funimation and Crunchyroll LLC articles once the rebrand is finally completed. 2600:1700:A3F2:300:CC65:EF49:6F1:F59F (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But the corporate rebrand has already happened; Funimation is still working on merging its catalog, but the company Funimation is now Crunchyroll, LLC for all intents and purposes. Link20XX (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is in the process of happening but hasn't been fully done. The companies still haven't finished merging the Funimation catalog and phasing out the brand, and until they have, it's WP:TOOSOON for the article(s) to say that Funimation "was". I believe the best course of action at this time is to fix this article's current issue (e.g., the lack of focus between Crunchyroll the streaming service, Crunchyroll LLC, and Crunchyroll, Inc), on which the rough consensus seems to be to make the article clearly about the Crunchyroll service and its history, and WP:WAIT until the rebrand is finished before splitting the Funimation article. Joyce-stick (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But like I just said, the corporate rebrand has already happened. Yes the Funimation service still exists and is still in the process of merging its catalog, but the Funimation company has already been rebranded; I don't think it is TOOSOON for that. Not to mention that Crunchyroll, Inc. has existed since even before the sale. Link20XX (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the main section of the article is listed Crunchyroll, LLC. This is incorrect because this is the new name of Funimation Global Group, LLC. The service was formerly owned by Crunchyroll Inc., but now there is no information about this on the site. It appears that the site is now owned by Ellation, LLC: https://www.crunchyroll.com/tos Crunchyroll Inc. is now Ellation, LLC? Aoito (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ellation, LLC is Crunchyroll's former parent company; that company, as far as I can tell, has been phased out by this time (which you can see as ellation.com presently redirects to Crunchyroll's current corporate home page). That TOS page simply hasn't been updated or deleted according to this fact. Far as I can tell, current sources list the current company that owns the service as being named Crunchyroll, Inc: ,
 * Crunchyroll, LLC is the new name of the company formerly known as Funimation, rebranded after the Sony acquisition of Crunchyroll's parent company from AT&T, as stated in this article: "The company is also renaming it[s anime arm as Crunchyroll LLC from Funimation Global Group."]
 * To summarize, Sony/Aniplex own Crunchyroll, LLC. (formerly Funimation), Crunchyroll LLC. owns Crunchyroll, Inc., Ellation no longer exists as it's been bought out- I think I have this more or less straight. Someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, I guess. Joyce-stick (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ellation renamed to Crunchyroll, Inc., who was the parent company of Crunchyroll until the buyout. The fate of Crunchyroll, Inc. after the buyout is not 100% clear, though. On the topic of Ellation, I notice it currently has a redirect to Otter Media, which should probably be changed to either this page or Crunchyroll, Inc. when split. Link20XX (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Link is correct. Ellation renamed to Crunchyroll, Inc (I've seen the press releases). The rest is correct. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, since their seems to be consensus here for separate articles for Crunchyroll, Inc. and Crunchyroll, LLC, as well as changing this article to be about the streaming service, I guess we should start working on that. Link20XX (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I guess we should. I'll have a look at the articles when I have some time and help make any appropriate changes as seem to be needed. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright; drafts for Crunchyroll, LLC and Funimation (the service) currently exist so those should be expanded and/or improved where necessary. I'll see if I can throw something together for Crunchyroll, Inc. and Crunchyroll (the service) in a bit. Link20XX (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Created Draft:Crunchyroll, Inc. with some content from this article. I would appreciate if someone could look through it and expand it or fix any issues if needed. Link20XX (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ellation was the parent company of Crunchyrolll Inc. and Rooster Teeth Productions, LLC (source 1). Crunchyroll, Inc. and Ellation, LLC. are two different companies (source 2 See Crunchyroll Terms of Service ). Crunchyroll Inc. still exists (source 3). Ellation, LLC. was founded in 2015. Crunchyroll was operated by Crunchyroll, Inc. until 2017 (see source 2). Crunchyroll is currently operated by another company - Ellation, LLC (source 4 See Crunchyroll Terms of Service ). Crunchyroll, Inc. is the original Crunchyroll. Crunchyroll, LLC. is the former Funimation. Aoito (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Crunchyroll, Inc and Ellation are not the same company; this source in Russian says that they are the same; not to mention the Ellation website redirects to the Crunchyroll corporate website. The TOS link you provided does not even mention Ellation, though. Link20XX (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This source does not say they are the same company. He says Ellation's office in Chisinau has taken the name Crunchyroll. Funimation also took the Crunchyroll name, so? Read the article about the trade name. 'The TOS link you provided does not even mention Ellation, though.' - https://www.crunchyroll.com/tos 'Ellation, LLC. ("Ellation", "we" or "us") provides our website accessible at Crunchyroll.com...' Ellation, LLC. still exists. https://sec.report/CIK/0001427177 - Crunchyroll Inc. still exists. These are two different companies that currently exist. Ellation and Funimation use the Crunchyroll brand. Aoito (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I agree that Crunchyroll, Inc. still exists; that is not what I am saying. The source I previously provided actually does say the company renamed, as the title literally translates as "Ellation, 2019 Employer of the Year, Renames to Crunchyroll"; it also states "The company decided to drop the Ellation name, focusing on Crunchyroll" in the first paragraph. While the latter parts focus on that specific office, the beginning of the article does indeed support the claim that Crunchyroll, Inc. was Ellation. The TOS link you provided above is simply out of date; looking at the archive of the page, it appears to have not changed since 2019, before Ellation rebranded to Crunchyroll, Inc. in 2020. Link20XX (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just in your draft you indicated that Crunchyroll, Inc. was formerly Ellation, LLC. (2015-2020), although Crunchyroll, Inc. never changed its name. I see no sources that would confirm that Ellation, LLC. has changed its legal name to Crunchyroll, Inc. Aoito (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I wanted to add some info and context on Ellation. The name Ellation went from being used as Otter Media's Consumer Division pre-2020 to becoming used solely for Crunchyroll Moldova's offices in early 2020. The Ellation LinkedIn page in April 2020 stated: "Ellation (a Crunchyroll company) was formerly the Consumer Division of WarnerMedia's Otter Media, which included industry leading brands Crunchyroll, Rooster Teeth, and VRV. We are transitioning the Ellation company name to focus on our team in Chișinău, Moldova." Unfortunately Wayback Machine didn't archive the page properly, and I am basing this off of info I added to the Otter Media page at that time, but the Crunchyroll about page from that time says that Crunchyroll's Chișinău offices was called Ellation. i.e.: Otter Media's Consumer Division → Crunchyroll's Moldovan office → Crunchyroll Moldova drops the name. tenshibeat (talk&#124;contribs) 07:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal
I invite you to discuss this proposal at talk:Funimation%23Split%20some%20section%20into%20its%20own%20history. Thank you. -76.68.77.114 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Crunchyroll, Inc. / LLC.
Until March 17, the main section of the article mentioned Crunchyroll, Inc., then it was replaced by Crunchyroll, LLC. Although Crunchyroll, Inc. still exists. I propose to return Crunchyroll, Inc. to the article. Crunchyroll, LLC (Funimation) owns the original Crunchyroll, Inc. Aoito (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Crunchyroll, Inc. is the original Crunchyroll.
 * Crunchyroll, LLC. is a former Funimation Global Group, LLC.
 * I think we should change this article to be about the streaming service and create separate articles for Crunchyroll, Inc. and Crunchyroll, LLC, which was the consensus in the above discussion. Link20XX (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t it be easier to return Crunchyroll, Inc? This will cause less confusion. We only need two articles about Crunchyroll - Crunchyroll, Inc. about streaming service and Crunchyroll, LLC. about holding company. For example, the holding company includes Crunchyroll Games, LLC. (see https://www.crunchyroll.com/games/terms/index.html 'Welcome and thanks for your interest in the products and services of Crunchyroll Games, LLC and its parent Crunchyroll, LLC'). Aoito (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no limit to the amount of articles about Crunchyroll we can have, provided they are unique topics, which you have stated they are. While it would be easier to make this about Crunchyroll, Inc, that would still lead to errors and people mixing it up with Crunchyroll, LLC. It is better to have three articles with the Crunchyroll article about the service. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Use a Template:For for Crunchyroll, LLC. The story of Crunchyroll, Inc. is closely related to the streaming service. Aoito (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While Crunchyroll, Inc and Crunchyroll (the service) have some overlap, it is actually not that much. Crunchyroll, Inc was founded as Ellation in 2015, so anything before that is not directly related to Crunchyroll (the service), which was founded several years earlier. Link20XX (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, Crunchyroll, Inc. was founded in 2006, after which it was merged into Ellation, LLC in 2016 - source (OpenCorporates). At first I thought they were two different companies (Crunchyroll, Inc. and Ellation, LLC.), but I was wrong. Aoito (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It turns out that in the main section it should be written like this: 'Ellation, LLC, doing business as Crunchyroll, is an American...', '{infobox company} Formerly = Crunchyroll, Inc. (2006-2016)'. Aoito (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should focus specifically on the history of the streaming service, with coverage of the various ownership changes. This removes the conflation of two topics: The service, and the company. The company itself (Whether Crunchyroll pre-dating Otter Media, or Crunchyroll after it was handed to Ellation to be ran, later to once again be named Crunchyroll, inc) may not even be notable independently per WP:NCORP, but that can be hashed out separately. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to do like HBO and Home Box Office, Inc.? Aoito (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * .....yes. That's what we've been saying for months. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have open a discussion to move the pages in Talk:Funimation. —76.68.77.79 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Funimation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Funimation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

One again asking if we can finally resolve the Funimation/Crunchyroll situation
Alright this entire situation has gone on long enough and I believe it is time we actually start changing things. Most notably, I believe it is time that Draft:Crunchyroll, LLC be moved into the mainspace (after some cleanup and updates) and this article be fully converted into an article about the streaming service. The Funimation article (as the consensus favored in the original rm) should be converted into one about the streaming service, like Draft:Funimation. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the article that users were editing here is a mess by making drastic changes for example Crunchyroll UK and Ireland, Madman Anime and recently Right Stuf are now divisions of Crunchyroll or because Rahul Purini and Asa Suehira are listed as key people in the infobox but if there is something that we don't know now when it will change the name of Funimation to Crunchyroll, LLC you know, the main article Crunchyroll is the streaming service and the other for example, an entertainment company specialized in anime dubbing, that is, just a group of users who have edited many times or make a war of edits is that they do not stop speculating about the future of the company. 190.80.229.192 (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say, but from what I can tell, CR UK/Ireland, Madman, and Right Stuf are indeed under the Crunchyroll umbrella which is by extension under the purview of Aniplex which is by extension under the purview of Sony. It says as much in the articles for each of those entities, and those statements appear reliably sourced to me. I don't see a rationale for trying to remove this information from the infobox. Should this be under the as yet nonexistent Crunchyroll, LLC page? Yeah, probably. But I'm not informed enough to make these changes, so I personally feel it's safer to wait for someone who knows what they're doing here to move those draft pages to mainspace as User:Link20XX proposes. And no one's gotten around to doing that, but in the meantime, I think it best to maintain the status quo and not make any ill-advised and contested further changes to the basic page information which may lead to an unstable appearance of such a high-trafficked page and thus create reader confusion. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within)  04:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current edit war, the companies added to divisions are divisions of Crunchyroll, LLC, not of Crunchyroll the streaming service; using the HBO/Home Box Office, Inc. example, the HBO article has no section for divisions or subsidiaries and these are instead saved for the parent's article. Additionally, the "owner" parameter should probably be removed per Template:Infobox company/doc, "If the company is majority-owned by a single entity and as such is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead. Do not use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent." Link20XX (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

10 million paying subscriber mark
The video from the Sony Investor Relations is a slog to get through. There is a speech transcript that can make it easier to reference. Additionally, the citation to the video is just a hard link with no citation information. I don't have time to get to it now, but I will try to get back to it later in my day. Inomyabcs (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Updated. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Crunchyroll parent company
Again I go to this page to try to reverse various issues regarding the supposed parent company of Crunchyroll, because as you may know the Funimation page has just been renamed to the company of the same name by the user who insists that the streaming service was being used did not exist or has not been merged yet1, so I had to revert several edits234 (although the other IP added the Availability section below because it contained ads or advertising at the time of copy-paste) but I admit that adding references does not help much to improve the article, what Imperial is doing with both articles is a mess and they won't let me revert one, they won't let me accept one of them either (I'm talking about this original article for example) what should I do. 200.88.93.222 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s because this Crunchyroll the OTT service was founded in 2006. The company that owns Crunchyroll is actually Funimation, founded in 1994, was bought by its parent Sony last year and Funimation just changed its corporate name to Crunchyroll. The corporate entity that owned Crunchyroll was known as Ellation Holdings. -Imperial meter (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is a pure mess by putting Sony's Crunchyroll, LLC (formerly Funimation) and the holding company known as Ellation Holdings into the opening sentence and the infobox by combining those two unnecessary topics, there is no such thing that you can compare to the company of the same name for the main streaming service, the web references that I add in the Funimation article did not yet exist and kept its original name, so I don't see why not. And look, the user had already changed its original name again so you know. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funimation&action=history 200.88.93.222 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Imperial meter, @200.88.93.222 - I stumbled upon this dispute while reviewing Pending Changes. I request that you two resolve this or come to an amicable agreement before making more edits on the topic, so as to not accidentally disadvantage the IP via the Pending Changes protection, and to avoid edit warring. Perhaps WP:3O is an appropriate place to go next. casualdejekyll  23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you restore the latest stable version of the vandal edit on the page I was trying to edit if it had already been carefully repositioned the Use American English template which data is updated automatically? 200.88.224.219 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see much wrong with the IP's edit; the hatnote is unnecessary as long as Crunchyroll, LLC is not a page, updating ENGVAR/date format templates is common practice, and Crunchyroll has announced Indian English content. Regarding the parent parameter, (for the millionth time) this article should be about the streaming service Crunchyroll, whose current parent is Crunchyroll, LLC. This is why creating an article for Crunchyroll, LLC, is the best way to resolve this dispute. However, it seems I'm just talking into the void at this point as nothing really has been done about this for months. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , Let's see what happens to everyone, I try to reverse the mess of histories that Imperial made by combining Sony's Crunchyroll, LLC in the lead that now claims to be the parent company that owns this streaming service.  when creating or recreating the page with which you are proposing it is of no use to you, in fact there have been many history of useless move by Imperial meter. 200.88.224.219 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misunderstood your comment, but I am not opposed to the hatnote should Crunchyroll, LLC become an article, I just feel that a hatnote when no such article exists is unnecessary. I agree that the wording added by Imperial meter seems to be too much detail (and also not completely correct; a previous discussion found that Crunchyroll's parent under Warner Media was Crunchyroll, Inc, which was formerly known as Ellation). When you wrote, I want some clarification by what you mean by this. Crunchyroll, LLC is absolutely the parent of Crunchyroll (the service); whether that particular way of adding it to the lead or not is better or not I have no opinion on. However, I agreed on adding Indian English in the infobox so I don't understand why you felt the need to justify that position further. Finally, while I believe Imperial meter's page moves to be a bit too bold, I do agree that we should actually make some change here and disagree that a page for Crunchyroll, LLC is "unnecessary" like you stated. Link20XX (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I modified my comment by telling you that creating the Crunchyroll, LLC article with which you are proposing now is of no use to you, and you did not understand what I just told you, I do not agree that Imperial meter combined Sony's Crunchyroll, LLC on the lead and in the infobox since they are all subsidiary owners of Crunchyroll (the service), this is a vandal edition, they don't see it that way, I try to make this page that I was editing right now look more disordered than the one that already is It is better to leave it like this to my stable edition to be more comfortable and by the way, I added the English language to the availability list in the infobox because you know, the platform announced for the first time the list of anime series dubbed into Indian English and they will be available for India so you know, it says in a statement. (see note) say something and explain to this user about moving pages between Crunchyroll and Funimation. 200.88.224.219 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright I believe that you need to calm down. While I agree with you on Imperial meter's changes, I do not believe that they are vandalism or in bad faith as Imperial meter seems to just be trying to improve the article and lobbing accusations of vandalism will only serve to unnecessarily escalate this discussion. When you wrote, why is this exactly? I have previous explained in the past why there should be a Crunchyroll, LLC article (on this talk page and on Talk:Funimation) so I don't feel like explaining it again. Also, what exactly do you mean by ? I realize that you're probably not a native English speaker, but I would like to request a little better grammar to help me understand what you are trying to convey. Link20XX (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what happens is that I translate from Google in Spanish to English with correct spelling during the discussion about the content in the article with a copy-paste in the section below Availability that I also took it from Spanish Wikipedia. 200.88.224.219 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I'm explaining them hundreds of thousands of times and they don't listen to me combine those sentences and the infoboxes of both articles that they have been editing and speculating for months saying that Funimation would move all their content to Crunchyroll is a mess, a fanaticism that users have created, now you are understanding me I try to revert to the latest stable version in case you don't agree with this ask Landingdude13 about moving pages between Crunchyroll and Funimation and he will give you the answer. 200.88.224.219 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and restored your edit per your explanation and my concurrence above. If Imperial meter or other users still wish to pursue this change, they should provide a rationale for it here. As a side note, if you translate content from other language versions of Wikipedia, unless you were the original writer you muse provide the proper attribution (see Copying within Wikipedia for more information). Link20XX (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You User:200.88.224.219 and Link20XX have to get it right as Crunchyroll, LLC is largely mentioned in Sony's press releases. To make it a clarification, this article about is the streaming service founded in 2006 before Ellation was founded in 2013 by Otter Media, which was acquired by AT&T in 2018 and sold to Sony in 2021. Funimation was founded on May 8, 1994, then sold to Navarre in 2005 until 2011 and has been owned by Sony Pictures Television since 2017 but reorganized as a joint venture with Aniplex in 2019 and took the Crunchyroll name in 2022. Please forgive me, Crunchyroll, LLC is the name of the company that was used to be Funimation like AT&T was SBC. So no, the edits are not vandalism but the recent press release like this one here affirms it and this Crunchyroll the company is run by the same staff as Funimation. Until we agree to use Crunchyroll LLC for the company and Crunchyroll for the streaming service itself, I am going to temporarily revert some edits for now. -Imperial meter (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that Crunchyroll, LLC is formerly Funimation Global Group; I agree with that. What I do not agree with is your WP:BOLD page moves and edits to thwart the consensus achieved in three requested moves that splitting Funimation is preferable to moving it. Link20XX (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But how do you agree with this user who repeatedly says that Crunchyroll, LLC is formerly Funimation Global Group? Imperial meter keeps altering all information by re-entering the page to this anime streaming service as if it were the current property of Sony's Crunchyroll, LLC if the page doesn't even exist the reference note you have provided refers to a co-production between Crunchyroll (the service), Sony Pictures and the Japanese television network Wowow, the original fantasy adventure anime series Tow Ubukata's Bye Bye, Earth which is currently in production and Crunchyroll, the anime streaming service is handled by its parent company Funimation (it is who controls that acquisition), not a company so no, everything this user says is invented by his fanaticism and without ideas to help us improve the article. In addition, Funimation is still moving all of its licensed content to Crunchyroll every Tuesday of the week. 190.80.229.229 (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article, written by Crunchyroll, directly states . Link20XX (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, the phrase "about" is backwards, look at the link here: https://www.crunchyroll.com/about/who/index.html Crunchyroll always operates independently between US-based Sony Pictures Entertainment and Japan's Aniplex, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) Inc., both subsidiaries of Tokyo-based Sony Group Corporation. The reference you passed me all is invented by Funimation doing business as Crunchyroll, LLC. 190.80.229.229 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly need a better translator since the statement on that website never used "always" nor implied that and the statement I posted above directly states Crunchyroll, LLC was Funimation Global Group, LLC. Link20XX (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Translate them yourself, if you clearly know how to understand me spelling into English, this link that you showed me, what Crunchyroll wrote in that article at the end of the beyond the conclusion has wrongly referred to changing the name and operating from Funimation Global Group to Crunchyroll, LLC, that statement is also incorrect and as I told you before everything was invented and speculated by one of Funimation's editors causing a content edit'war and history disorders and they are increasing. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know Spanish and I have trouble just reading your comments as-is, so I can't translate it for you. Also, please do not cross out other editors comments. Link20XX (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not crossing out the other editors comments, I crossed out the user because he keeps repeating his statements about how it operates, how it is the main headquarters and how it is managed in Crunchyroll as the same companies that by the way, everything is false with splitting both pages or creating disambiguations is now a confusion with a streaming service of the same name. It is a fanaticism invented by his imagination, he wanted to give you a suggestion to put the idea in their heads to leave this to Crunchyroll as the owner of Crunchyroll, LLC instead of Sony in lead sentence. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are definitely crossing out comments from other users, which is not something you should do simply because you disagree with them (per WP:TPO this is considered editing another's comments, which is generally not allowed). is simply false and a borderline ad hominem attack. Imperial meter's first edit to any Crunchyroll/Funimation-related article was on September 29, 2022. Meanwhile, myself and others have made this claim long before that, as can be seen at Talk:Funimation, particularly in the first requested move. Link20XX (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Why not create a new page called Crunchyroll (company), split both stories (like they do on German Wikipedia) and issue fixed. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh believe me I have advocated for that for almost a year now and yet it hasn't got beyond Draft:Crunchyroll, LLC. Link20XX (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There must be another way for it not to convert with another Netflix or Roku? 148.0.127.119 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Link20XX (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, just comparing divisions or subsidiaries of all sorts like a limited liability company although I'm not sure the idea on ​​moving Funimation article back to Crunchyroll (company), delete the redirect, create it again (I mean the old streaming service) and remove lawsuits in the section below maybe I can't think of anything else. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just splitting and reworking the pages is best rather than moving anything. The specifics should be worked out once Crunchyroll, LLC is an article and not a redirect. Link20XX (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So we will have to wait and see what happens when Funimation completes the transfer of all its licensed anime to this platform or else, I will reversed the same, but remember that this edition will not allow me to accept due to the configured pending changes settings that it will last until September 2023. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can still edit the page when it is pending changes protected, just that edits from non-autoconfirmed users will need to be accepted by an administrator or pending changes reviewer (like myself). You could also register an account and get autoconfirmed status. As for the company rebranding, that had already happened. The streaming service of Funimation still exists though and is being gradually merged into Crunchyroll. Link20XX (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but to be specific, Funimation as a corporate entity, changed into Crunchyroll. The former Crunchyroll was absorbed into Funimation and took their name.-Imperial meter (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is how the business operates. This Crunchyroll as I said, is headquartered in the same campus as Funimation, who moved from Flower Mound to Coppell in 2021 by Sony. Same company, different name. -Imperial meter (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just crossed out and canceled at least two messages declared by Imperial meter, in case he want to comment on his repeated statements on Crunchyroll. 148.0.127.119 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not cross out my statements. It is not considerate and not cool. Link and I agreed that Funimation is using the Crunchyroll name for corporate purposes. —Imperial meter (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, but Ellation, LLC no longer exists, as it doesn't appear on EDGAR. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Some ideas for improvement
After reading through the article, I would like to propose a few ideas for improvements. The first is that the "Availability" and "Operation" sections should be merged since they cover similar information and other streaming service articles, like Netflix, only have one section for this information. Secondly, almost every streaming service article has a section called "Content", such as the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and HBO Max (where it is called "Programming"). In each of these articles, there is also always two subsections: one for original programming and one for film and television deals/partnerships. This shouldn't be too hard to do here as well since the "History" section already has some material on this and the current "Crunchyroll Originals" section can be quite easily converted into a section on original programming. I would like to hear some thoughts about these ideas. Link20XX (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Logo between 2012 and 2018
Does anyone have that logo we have the first logo and current logo but not this logo 216.195.133.74 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop the edit-warring
@64.32.107.120: You are at risk of violating the three-revert rule, and being blocked as a result. Please provide an explanation for the changes you have been making here and develop consensus with other editors before changing it again. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Two important topics missing from Crunchyroll history
1) No information regarding their lawsuit for violating the privacy of its users 2) The digital library loss for users who were on Funimation and were transitioned into Crunchyroll. 81.56.253.22 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ellation is still alive
If you read the press release, Ellation LLC still exists, but under the Sony umbrella. Ellation owns the CR trademarks. Imperial meter (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Imperial meter (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if you say that Ellation is still alive after all why did you add in the infobox parameter as if it were the parent company that actually controlled the Crunchyroll streaming service before if it didn't exist? This doesn't make sense, research the company's history well before making any changes. 190.167.46.211 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ellation is the legal name and Crunchyroll is the trade name. If you look at the SEC documents, at the word "Ellation", this is an excerpt:
 * "Acquisition of Ellation Holdings, Inc. On August 9, 2021, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (“SPE”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony, through Funimation Global Group, LLC (“Funimation”), acquired 100% of the equity interest in Ellation Holdings, Inc. (“Ellation”), a subsidiary of AT&T Inc., which operates the anime business “Crunchyroll.” Funimation is a joint venture between SPE and Aniplex Inc., a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) Inc. The consideration for the acquisition of 135,938 million yen (1,237 million U.S. dollars) was paid in cash. As a result of the acquisition, Ellation has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony. On February 24, 2022, Funimation changed its company name to Crunchyroll, LLC. Crunchyroll is a DTC service, connecting anime and manga fans across more than 200 countries and territories. Crunchyroll provides services including subscription video-on-demand, advertising-based video-on-demand, mobile games, manga, events, merchandise and distribution. The acquisition has brought together two animation distribution brands, Funimation and Crunchyroll, allowing Sony to expand fan-centric offerings. The global unification and integration of the two brands and services under the Crunchyroll brand started in March 2022."
 * Regarding Sony's acquisition of Ellation Holdings, Inc., Crunchyroll's former parent company, which you were talking about now, it's a thing of the past and although the SEC document from what I just looked at closely seems to be accurate, but I'm afraid that it is not necessary for you to put that initial sentence and the infobox's parameter, the parent company because Ellation does not have a main headquarters located in Coppell, Texas, since anyway the legal name of this company no longer exists, and as I said before in the edition's summary regarding all anime series pages are licensed by the streaming service and they are the ones that handle the distribution and home video rights with the collaboration of its distribution partners and its parent company of the same name as well its corporate sibling, Aniplex of America for North America. 186.6.89.19 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Manga of anime
Jjk 2400:1A00:BAA0:23AA:3515:C55B:4641:2A3C (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Reception section
In the interest of WP:BRD, I'm moving the discussion here. For the Kevin McCarthy controversy, all of the dubbing is done by Crunchyroll LLC (the distribution company, where said controversy is already mentioned in the history section); Crunchyroll (the service) just streams the dub they create, so it's not really related. It would be like if this was added to the Hulu or Netflix articles now that they also stream some Crunchyroll content. As for the antitrust case, it's already mentioned in the history section with context, so I don't see why it should also be mentioned there too. I fear this section is becoming a dedicated criticism section, which our policies discourage since it can hurt WP:NPOV. On that note, the point about the digital copies may be related, but it would probably be better in the history section. Link20XX (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Dubbing is intimately intertwined with the Crunchyroll service. It's almost 50% of their product offering! They advertise on the fact that they have a broad selection of dubs and even offer simuldubs for the most popular shows. To hide criticism of dubbing practices here does a disservice to readers. Further, offloading criticism to a separate, less trafficked article strikes me as a WP:POVFORK (Crunchyroll gets double the pageviews as Crunchyroll LLC). It is relevant here as well, so there's no compelling reason not to reproduce it in some form on both pages. And as you pointed out, Netflix has a criticism section. Having it peppered throughout the history section is one way to do it, but since the criticisms are grouped into distinct topics (dubbing, antitrust) that recur over time, it is easier for readers to understand when it is grouped into one paragraph/section on the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a WP:POVFORK to put criticism of the company's practices on the company's article and not on the streaming service article, which is uninvolved with the actual production of the dubs and simply releases them. In fact, the way you speak of "hiding criticism" makes me fear you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. While Netflix does have a criticism section, Netflix has far more controversies such that it would make the history section unduly large to include them all, hence why a separate article exists documenting them. However, there are only three main points: dubbing, digital copies, and anti-trust. The first is not criticism of the service but criticism of the company's practices and thus not about this topic, the second is valid, and the third is already mentioned in the history section with context, so duplicating it like this lends it WP:UNDUE weight. Since only one of the main points is not already in the history section, I think it makes more sense to condense it that way. Link20XX (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Buddy, I've been editing for almost 20 years. It's almost a personal attack to suggest I'm here to WP:RGW. It's basically arbitrary for there to be two articles about Crunchyroll the service and Crunchyroll the (pre-merger) company. Their histories are virtually identical. For some difficult to discern reason, the Crunchyroll LLC article primarily contains the history of Funimation, which is largely reiterative of the Funimation (service) article. It's not clear to me why we need two articles at all. Crunchyroll the (current) company only administers one service, Crunchyroll the service, so what's the point of splitting pertinent information across both? The history of Funimation should be returned to the Funimation article, where readers who search for the Funimation article would expect to find it. Wikipedia is not beholden to corporate maneuvering. The mission is to convey information in the most understandable way possible for readers. Arbitrarily splitting information does not further that mission. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never intended to make any personal attacks, but I don't believe that someone's length of editing has any merit (I know that I've been corrected and wronged multiple editors who are newer that me in the past). As far as Crunchyroll, LLC vs Crunchyroll split, there was a huge discussion on this page and Talk:Funimation about this that lasted for several years and led to this eventual status quo (read the archives if you're interested), but it was found that the split was the best course of action to take. The short story is that after Sony acquired Crunchyroll, they renamed Funimation Global Group LLC (which was owned by Sony and was the parent company to the Funimation service) to Crunchyroll LLC and made it the parent to the Crunchyroll service in a similar manner. The point is that the company and service are different topics entirely, so if they both meet WP:N, there's no reason why we can't have an article about both. Furthermore, there exists precedent for this type of split: Netflix/Netflix, Inc., HBO/Home Box Office, Inc., Roku/Roku, Inc. among others. This split was not arbitrary but done by a consensus after many discussions from many different editors over the span of over a year. While we do try to explain information as understandable as possible, acting like Crunchyroll (service) and Crunchyroll, LLC are the same topic or always the same topic would only create more confusion. The hatnotes help direct anyone looking for the right topic to the right article. But in any case, that still doesn't address the other point I made about placing the other parts (antitrust and digital copies) in the history, especially since the former is already there. Link20XX (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is WP:ASTONISHing to arrive at Crunchyroll LLC, expecting to read about the history of Crunchyroll and instead find the history of Funimation. Even if we take as given that Crunchyroll (service) and Crunchyroll LLC should be separate, this is an extremely unintuitive state of affairs and should probably be sorted out. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion. I think the thing that's triggering your NPOV sensors is the short length of the Reception section that focuses on the service itself. Primarily, my goal was to incorporate sources that have been added to this page's refideas over the years. I only added a few reviews of Crunchyroll when I saw that that wasn't there either. It's clear that there are enough reliable critical sources to create the section without running into UNDUE weight. The solution is to balance it out with more reviews, not to remove the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the Crunchyroll vs Crunchyroll, LLC situation, I'm not opposed to a Reception section with some opinions from critics, industry insiders, etc, but I'm just saying that I don't think the particular controversies (digital copies, anti-trust) should be in that section because I think they would be better in the history section. That doesn't mean that we're "hiding criticism", it just means it's mentioned somewhere else in the article (or another article) where it's more appropriate to do so and with appropriate context if necessary. Even if more reviews are added, I still think it's more prudent to mention activities like the digital copies under history rather than reception. Link20XX (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue with only presenting chronologically in the History section is that you run into WP:PROSELINE problems and it's tougher to see the forest for the trees, especially if the topic is peppered around the History section in fits and starts. It's easy to lose the thread when the information is diffracted across multiple paragraphs/subsections. A proper paragraph with a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a summary conclusion should exist somewhere. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any proseline issues can be dealt with by careful copyediting (which this article could use anyway) and there's no reason why can't exist in the history section and needs it's own dedicated section. Heck, the anti-trust case does just that is already mentioned in the history section. I don't see why digital copies can't be done the same way. Link20XX (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's your position, then it really comes down to whether the paragraph, as already written, lives in Reception or History. I think Reception is the better location for it, long-term, since it may cross a sub-section boundary in History. The anti-union stuff appears to predate the Sony acquisition. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree and think that the history section is better since it documents a major event in the service's history. Regarding anti-union, neither Crunchyroll nor Funimation used union actors before the Sony acquisition, but the anti-union rhetoric and particularly the recasting that caused the controversy is new and does not predate the acquisition. Link20XX (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it's tough to come to a consensus with just two people. Let's revisit when more people have weighed in. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at the topic discussed here, but I agree with Link20XX. I short, I think this controversy is something that pertains more to Crunchyroll (as a company) than to Crunchyroll (as a streaming service). Xexerss (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the direction of the discussion thus far with your quick look. We agree that the content should stay on this page but disagree about where on the page. I think a paragraph-structured overview of each issue is warranted and would prefer that it lives in the Reception section. Link believes it should be integrated in the History section (which I don't oppose, in addition to a paragraph-based summary somewhere). Axem Titanium (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do oppose mentioning the union dubs situation here since that is directed at Crunchyroll LLC (the company) and not Crunchyroll (the streaming service). As for the other two, you have summarized my position well. So, you wouldn't oppose mentioning the digital copies situation in the history section then? Link20XX (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)