Talk:List of Inuyasha episodes

Splitting List
I think its about time this episode list got some season pages, similar to List of Naruto episodes, List of Lost episodes, and List of Bleach episodes. This list should have the over all series summary in the lead, then the episode lists without summaries linking to the individual season pages. This can most easily be done through transclusion. Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose In view of the violent objections (Afd) to the article on the Plot of InuYasha and the various articles on particular episodes, I think that this article should be left alone. The article is fine as it is. The only reason to split it up would be to add more material about the contents of the episodes, and that would draw the fire of the exclusionists. We might end up with no article on episodes at all or one with less content than the current article. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even look at the lists I've pointed too in my initial message? Naruto and its season lists are ALL featured lists . Ditto Lost. Here's another List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. It and its four season pages are not only featured lists, but the whole thing is a featured topic. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, per comments from Collectian and that will also help to move the dvd section to their seasons.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, This list is way too long and splitting it may help Wikipedia improve information on the individual seasons. ZinnKid (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: I've never heard of a too-long episode list, don't be ridiculous. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? There are plenty of examples of too long lists that have been split. Almost any television or anime series that goes more than 4 seasons is split until multiple lists. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, in light of AnmaFinoteras ample proof that this would result in a neater page. Plus, I can’t resist the opportunity of having an InuYasha article featured as anything.--BaKa-NEKO (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 96K+ at present...for shame. Every show's doing it nowadays...why shouldn't this? Please split ASAP. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PANTHER DEMONS
I think that wikipedia needs to explain about the Panther demons a little more such as the names for the four humanoid panther demons, (as well as the time the panther king devoured three out of the four humanoid panther demons, but Sessoumaru used his sword to weaken the panther king and ressurect the three humanoid panther demons the panther king kills, after that, Inuyasha kills the panther king with his Wind Scar).

INUYASHA IS THE BEST SHOW EVER I WANT MORE! 6/21/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.27.136 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

original research?
was going to sneak in a few links into the text of various episodes to direct the reader to the folklore equivalent of the characters but they got zapped. It seemed pretty obvious to me. what do you think?.. shippo=Kitsune, kirara=Nekomata, hodgi(sp)=Tanuki, snowlady episode=Yuki-onna,episode with the sage and the humanfaced fruit tree=Jinmenju,comb monster=Harionago , and the noh mask episode=Hannya.. perhaps it was the way I worded it. should I have used the qualifier (probable inspiration) rather then the absolute statement (folklore inspiration)? --Bloodkith (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is still all original research, with it being your belief that each was the inspiration of the other. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions. Nor do we stick that kind of thing in episode lists. The summaries are for episode summaries, not random notes about what someone thinks might have been the inspiration for the episode. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is noticing that a character is a particular animal (or whatever) original research? Is it original research if I say Tom is cat and Jerry is a mouse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.61.43 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firsthand observations, no matter how commonly accepted they are, can be inaccurate. The value of having a cited source is that it offers researchers a trail of analysis to examine the context surrounding others' assertions. For example, it was widely understood that the Earth was the center of the universe and went unquestioned because that fact was sustained by collective belief. If an article/section were about how an episode/series was received/analyzed, I suspect that might be a different situation, since saying, "TV critic John Smith wrote that Tom is a cat and Jerry is a mouse" is factual, regardless of whether or not Smith is correct, because the fact is about the author, not Tom and Jerry.  It's analogous to a tape-recorder or court stenographer. They can record facts and opinions, but they can't add anything new to what they record--doing so would make them unreliable.
 * Also, I'd agree that an episode summary is too brief for anything more than a plot synopsis. Feral shade (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Individual Articles?
Should we make individual articles describing the articles, or at least some of the more important ones, more in depth? Or should that be left to somebody more Inuyasha-centered? Stevv (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. None of the individual episodes are notable enough to have their own articles at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OVA & New Episode
Should we mention the Ranma/Lum/InuYasha crossover OVA anywhere? And, more importantly, should we add anything about the new Black Tessaiga episode?

--BaKa-NEKO (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone actually know anything about the Black Tessaiga ep beyond that its showing? What Ranma crossover OVA? Is it an official one? Link anywhere? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually. While I have yet to get my hands on the physical “Black Tessaiga” episode, I have seen the Ranma crossover OVA/short. I tried to link it here one time before, but it was from YouTube, and I’ve no clue how to cite sources and whatnot, so it was rightfully removed. I have the link; I’m just not sure what to do with it.
 * --BaKa-NEKO (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the YouTube link would violate WP:COPYRIGHT in multiple ways. Have any reliable sources talked about it? Is it listed on ANN? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-07-09/new-inuyasha-short-to-debut-at-tokyo-takahashi-event
 * http://www.furinkan.com/features/articles/itsarumicworld.html#4
 * Grapeofdeath (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the crossover one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only assume this is what they're talking about: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-08-02/new-ranma-short-debuts-at-takahashi-tokyo-event Grapeofdeath (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...that seems to be about Black Tessaiga as well? Maybe some folks misread and thought it was something else? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be talking about two different things, but I'm not sure if the Ranma thing incorporates Inuyasha as well. It's a little hard to understand. Grapeofdeath (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing was misread; I’ve seen the clip. It’s merely that it’s only on YouTube (blarg!) that is the problem. You could probably Google “Rumic World Opening” and see it for yourselves, not that it will help with the situation. I’ve been trying to find other resources, but I absolutely can’t come across any whatsoever.


 * Perhaps this could work: http://www.furinkan.com/features/articles/itsarumicworld.html


 * I’ve no idea how to cite sources or to pick and choose legitimate sites, but I’ve been tracking this website for a while. Although it’s fan-produced, it’s really quite reliable (again, I know that doesn’t help). There’s a description of the OVA if you scroll toward the centre of the page, although it’s right besides the video... taken, of course, from YouTube... I apologize in advanced for any problems this might cause. --BaKa-NEKO (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Final
Now that the adaptation of the rest of the series has been announced, do you think it's appropriate to put up a section, or should we wait until at least the first episode has been officially released? Tyciol (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I go with waiting. Someone already tried to jump the gun and make an episode list for the rest of the series, which was way too early. It currently redirects back here. Should let a few episodes air before doing that...did they ever say how many episodes it will be? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they did not say how many episodes it will be, there's actually very little information on the predicted length of the Final Act out there, my guess is that they are going to keep going until they cover the entire manga series, but who knows how many episodes that will take. --128.2.164.115 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC) /  Inuyasha Fan   (on behalf of User:TrekCaptainUSA)


 * Almost all sources say 26 episodes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is 26. You'd know if you read the manga. They're condensing 1 volume into 1 episode. Kagome1977 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's called WP:OR. Without a reliable source saying it will be 26 episodes, then we wait. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't replying to you actually. Just took the time to type my "OR" into the talk page. That's all. Kagome1977 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

English airdate for the second series
The list for Inuyasha Kanketsu-hen has an English airdate column with all the dates on which the English subtitled versions went online. I tried changing it to "English-subtitled" but the user AnmaFinotera seems to think it's "irrelevant". Thoughts? Kagome1977 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What does it being subtitled have to do with a damn thing? Its the English airdate, period. That's all that matters. it is completely irrelevant whether it was dubbed or subbed, and we do NOT make that distinction in the header, which just clutters it up. And will you please stick to editing with one account.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about logging in and out. I didn't expect disagreement. Anyhow all the episode lists in the anime project have the airdates of dubbed episodes in that column (most importantly including this one). So either we gotta clear up the whole column or we can just label it "English subtitled" like I did before you stared reverting it. Somebody took the time to put those dates up there so I'd suggest we label it differently for now (and what do you mean by clutter?!) and when they start dubbing, clear it up and start filling in from top as they get released... Kagome1977 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all of them don't. Animax episodes also air subtitled, and we do use those sometimes. Either way, it doesn't matter. It aired in English, period. Whether it was dubbed or subbed is irrelevant to that column's name. We don't have to clear up anything. It is already clearly stated in the lead. And yes, I did take the time to put those dates in there, thanks, along with others who have carefully made sure that only sourced dates have been added. And no, we do not need to clear a damn thing. The idea is seriously assine. What does it not being dubbed have to do with the price of coffee? It aired in ENGLISH. That's it. The column is for the FIRST English airing. That is its Hulu release. If it later airs in a dubbed format, agian, so what? It has already aired in English. That's that. There will be no clearing of that column and starting over (and attempts to do so would be reverted as vandalism). The first English airdate is there, period. It isn't going to change. The heading does not say "English dubbed airdate" or any other such nonsense. It says first ENGLISH airdate. That's it. Clarification is not needed and only makes the header bloated. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Animax episodes also air subtitled, and we do use those sometimes." - Where?
 * "It is already clearly stated in the lead." - Agreed. But in the other article. I'm only suggesting a change because that carries over here and makes it inconsistent.
 * "The idea is seriously assine." - Am good at English but not that good. Pls use simpler words.
 * "What does it not being dubbed have to do with the price of coffee?" - Don't know and don't drink that. If that's an idiom or something, sorry I was absent to English class the day they taught that.
 * "It aired in ENGLISH. That's it. The column is for the FIRST English airing. That is its Hulu release." - Several North American channels air English subtitled versions of anime. We don't list those dates as FIRST English airing (for instance Naruto). We leave the column blank.
 * "The heading does not say "English dubbed airdate" or any other such nonsense." - That might be nonsensical but it's kinda implied. I mean you don't watch a French movie with English subtitles and call it English do you? Bad example but you can see my point.
 * "Clarification is not needed and only makes the header bloated." - Clarification would go a long way cause the first series has all English dubbed dates and again, what do you mean "bloated"? It's one word. One line! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagome1977 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If those are the FIRST English airings, subtitled or not it is what is listed in these tables. If a French movie is aired with English subtitles, that's its first English airing. Same difference. I'm sorry your English is not good enough to understand most of my remarks, ut it seems to me that if it is not at least at that level, what position are you arguing from what on whether "English airdate" needs clarification? Anyone else would not feel it needs any sort of differentiation. It IS its English airdate, as in the first time it aired in through an English medium with some form of English language sub or dub. That's its. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. What about the List of Naruto episodes? I can pull out enough references to show that all the episodes were aired (actually broadcast on TV - not "aired" on a video website) in North American channels long before it premiered on Cartoon Network. But I'll let you have it your way for now.
 * "The first English airdate is there, period. It isn't going to change." - Pls stop saying "period". Nothing can't be improved. And pls remember that you don't own wikipedia.
 * "Anyone else would not feel it needs any sort of differentiation." - Kinda agreeing with you there. Much like the last time I wanted to differ with you. There is some "silent consensus" here. So we'll see if someone else pithces their thoughts. Kagome1977 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are sources showing Naruto aired on other NA channels before its Cartoon Network, then get over to that list and correct it. And I'll say period if I want. Somethings in this world are concrete and it doesn't have crap to do with "improvement" or even Wikipedia. It aired. It was its first English airing. Until time machines are invented, you can't go back and change that. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "If there are sources showing Naruto aired on other NA channels before its Cartoon Network, then get over to that list and correct it" - I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Naruto or any other anime across the WikiProject has its episode list. It is this one that I don't approve of. So I'm here to fix this.
 * "And I'll say period if I want." - Sure.
 * "Somethings in this world are concrete and it doesn't have crap to do with "improvement"" - Nope.
 * "Until time machines are invented" - They never will. Kagome1977 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically, all you care about is being a "fan" rather than the accuracy of Wikipedia articles? Nice. You claim you have "sources" showing that the Naruto article is wrong, but because you like it wrong, you'll just let it stay that way and instead try to screw this one up and make it wrong too. Really nice. This article actually accurate and that is the way it should stay. It doesn't need your silly added label to make it any less so, it is already accurate with its current label. 05:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "all you care about is being a "fan" rather than the accuracy of Wikipedia articles?" - Accuracy and consistency are ALL I care about.
 * "You claim you have "sources"" - No. I don't have any sources, although if you want I can fish for some.
 * " showing that the Naruto article is wrong" - No. I think your definition of "English airdate" is wrong.
 * "Really nice." - Taking an interest in sarcasm?
 * "This article actually accurate and that is the way it should stay. It doesn't need your silly added label to make it any less so, it is already accurate with its current label." - If nothing I'll atleast get into the silliest discussions hall of fame. Anyhow I took the liberty to come to an intermediate solution. See if you like it...Kagome1977 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Viz Media licensed the new adaptation and began airing it in English subtitled form through Hulu." - Fair enough for now. Kagome1977 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to be corrected. As there can only ever be one first English airing, that date will not ever change and doesn't need fixing unless it can be shown it was aired in English prior to the date listed. As AnmaFinotera stated, whether it is dubbed or subtitled in English is irrelevant as the first of either is considered the first English airing. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not again the DUB vs SUB conflict. (facepalm) Any first English broadcast will do either dub or sub as long it's the very first one. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Didn't see that one coming, but OK. - Kagome1977 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm..... A little help!
There is a 7th season of inuyasha from episode 147-167... Right now it's being shown as a part of season 6... It's bugging me... Sorry! Just want Wikipedia to be correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.9.190 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:InuYasha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Season Inclusion Disparity
The episodes are grouped into seasons differently in the Episode list section than in the DVD releases section:

Feral shade (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Inuyasha episodes. 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/20091107222355/http://www.animax-asia.com/shows/inuyasha-final-act to http://www.animax-asia.com/shows/inuyasha-final-act

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) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD decision on Japan's retroactive TV season repackaging
If you are here, it's likely because of my WP:BOLD edits done towards the episode list. This is a far more legitimate episode re-division of the TV seasons that is based on Japan's retroactive sets. Translate these official citations into English: ytv's official website, Hulu JP, U-NEXT; This current seasonal division here on English Wikipedia doesn't even seem to be based on anything legitimate: I've searched very hard for any evidence saying contrary, with the only exception seeming to be North America Netflix (who likely just looked at the Wikipedia page and copied it from there). This original division isn't even Viz Media's original "seasons" home media package of the series, which actually had 7 and as Feral shade pointed out 2 sections above, this is groundless classification disparity. Regardless of this information, Japan's classification should take precedent anyways as it is the country of origin for the anime series, just as we override Crunchyroll's home media seasonal re-classification over at the One Piece episode lists. This is the ground statement regarding my edits, and I do believe it holds far more citation grounding than what we currently have. Thank you for reading.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)