Talk:Junji Ito Collection

Crunchyroll vs. Funimation license
considering that the show is co-produced by Crunchyroll, it seems much more likely that Crunchyroll holds the license and Funimation is just handling the dub, since, as part of their partnership, Funimation has begun dubbing Crunchyroll's series and releasing them on home video. We won't really know until the home video release comes out (or Crunchyroll releases some sort of statement, like they did in 2016), but we can be pretty sure it's not licensed by Funimation. So we should either leave it blank or else list Crunchyroll as the license holder. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything that Funimation dubs will have a home release eventually. I'm just opposed to having no licensee listed when there is CLEARLY a company involved in it. I couldn't care less if you list it as Funimation or Crunchyroll. MizukaS (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. It was  who removed the licensee parameter in the first place, so I don't have a horse in that race.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The linked forum post is not a license announcement, but an announcement that Crunchyroll will streaming those series. It would be an interpretation to assume that a streaming announcement is the equivalent of a license of the entire series. If there is not clear announcement of a license, then the field should be left blank. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going by that logic, then we wouldn't be sure who owns the license for the other simuldubs this season. One company has the streaming rights, and the other has the dubbing rights. Leaving it blank is just wrong. Tell me, would it be legal to dub something without having had a license first? That's not an interpretation - it's a fact. MizukaS (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is no official announcements of a license, then the licensee field should remain blank. Wikipedia should not add speculation about the licensee to article or the infobox on the absence of an such an announcement. That would be a violation of both WP:Verifiablity and WP:No original research. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're impossible. It's clear as day that Funimation has the license to this. If you don't have a license, you can't dub anything. It's a fact. If you wanna ignore the facts anyway, have it your way. I've made an RFC to force you to abide by consensus, even though it's quite pointless since the facts are shown right in front of you. MizukaS (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just my belated two cents, but I'm with Farix on this issue. Numerous companies license rights to a show but commonly, one is the primary licensee and others sublicensees. Otherwise, you would end up with multiple companies listed for most shows. For example, Hulu is streaming OPM2 this season but Viz is the primary licensee and is sublicensing it to Hulu. And FWIW, there are buckets of companies that acquire licenses to make franchise products.


 * The reality will always be that not every show is documented identically but hopefully what is documented will meet a good standard. The onus is on the editor to be able to explicitly prove who the licensee is. There are all manner of legal contracts that are never made public but it's not an encyclopedia's role to speculate on what they all contain. Where they're documented, they can be written up, otherwise it diminishes credibility.


 * As an aside, if Crunchyroll is producing the show, wouldn't this make them a licensor, not a licensee.


 * Some relevant guidelines on the matter (borrowed from another talk page issue):


 * Writing about fiction: Accuracy and appropriate weight


 * The goal is to attain the greatest possible degree of accuracy in covering the topic at hand…. MOS:FICT


 * Check your facts: Check your fiction


 * Write material that is true: check your facts. Do not write material that is false. This might require that you verify your alleged facts. This is a crucial part of citing good sources: even if you think you know something, you have to provide references anyway to prove to the reader that the fact is true. Material that seems to naturally stem from sourced claims might not have been actually claimed. WP:CYF


 * Verifiability: Responsibility for providing citations


 * All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.


 * Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.


 * Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. WP:VERIFY, WP:PROVEIT


 * To conclude, an empty field is not a crime. The goal is to have accurate information, not to guess as much as possible. If people want to re-assess what constitutes 'licensee', I could support that. But I can't support forcing presumption or speculation into the infobox just to get as many boxes filled as possible. Anime pages typically have a 'media' section where qualified statements can be made, e.g. 'Show x was streamed in North America by Crunchyroll.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.241.8 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)