Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 74

Big change to One Piece
I wanted to get your opinion on how the Japanese text is handled on One Piece, it was a bold edit i made, but i'm curious if it makes the article better. I moved all the Japanese text to the bottom of the article under "Japanese". Not all of it was moved to the bottom; Only the Japanese text that made it harder to read the article. Still would like your opinion and see if this is a style we can pursue on other articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that looks okay. I would put it under Notes / Japanese translations as opposed to the References. List of High School DxD characters used the scheme, which would also work here in case you wanted the hovering over the reference to show the full nihongo information.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * one of the reasons why I chose Refn, was because I was attempting to have both custom group name, and also be able to move all the notes in a specific area so it's easier to edit the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the category schemes
About three years ago, there were some concerns raised about why the WikiProject Anime and manga template doesn't use the WPBannerMeta scheme. When I proposed a suggestion on the talk page, it was shot down. brought the matter up on my talk page and pointed out that it caused some problems with the bot on WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages as well as some display issues. The bot couldn't figure out the importances. I think we should revisit the category schemes and figure out what is the best possible way to fix up the display issues and maintain category consistency. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned back in 2016, the fact that WikiProject Anime and manga insists on having its own unique category scheme (despite the fact that all the other WikiProjects have standardized) means that lots of WikiProject tools and software are not going to be able to work with this WikiProject. The best solution would be for WikiProject Anime and manga to migrate to the WPBannerMeta meta template, thus aligning all the categories with the system used by all the other WikiProjects. Kaldari (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, all the previous efforts to standardize WikiProject Anime and manga were blocked by TheFarix, who isn't even active anymore. Are there any active participants who still object to standardizing? Kaldari (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally have no objections. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objections, and wholeheartedly support this standardizing effort. — Goszei (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, WikiProject Anime and manga is one of just four WikiProjects whose banner is still not built around . Other than Military history (which is one of the oldest WikiProjects and has a large number of unique features), I don't know why any of these have retained their non-standard construction for such a long time - the last conversions to WPBannerMeta were and  in August/September 2012. Notifying  and, who carried out those conversions. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no issues with converting over. As long as nothing is broken, I think it's fine. It may be good to create a working page to address all the issues and take care of them before switching. Doing the prepwork before switching over will save a lot of hassle and frustration. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the categories would have to change as below. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga books‎ to Category:Book-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories to Category:Category-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga files to Category:File-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga portal pages to Category:Portal-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga project pages to Category:Project-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects to Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles
 * Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates to Category:Template-Class anime and manga articles
 * ✅. I've also just updated Template:WikiProject Anime and manga so it points to the new categories. It may take a day or two for the old categories to be depopulated as the new categories take effect. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Could you also update the template documentation at Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/class? I believe that the tables are missing info on "File", "Portal", and "Redirect". — Goszei (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That gets automatically updated based on what the template handles. It shows up for me. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this bit  was missed -  still contains a lot, whereas the others listed above have all gone empty. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a start at Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/sandbox. There's still the taskforces to add. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have moved my comments from this section to . — Goszei (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Animate
Just a note that Animate now redirects to a disambiguation page per Talk:Animate (disambiguation) and all links to that must be changed to Animate (retailer). lullabying (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Animate actually redirects to animation not the dabpage.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction; my point still stands on changing links to Animate (retailer). lullabying (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All the links have been changed. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! lullabying (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable review sources and long-running/popular blogs/small websites
Are long-running blogs/websites like THEM anime that has been active since 2003 reliable enough to be cited in the reception section? Where do we draw the line, particularly when we are dealing with blogs/sites that have been running for many years and have multiple authors? I don't think a single-author blogs are reliable, but when they cross into small portals/sites... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ANIME/RS, THEM Anime is reliable. For others, you may have to use the talk page on the sources page I just linked to see if other editors agree. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing non-English words
Per discussion at Talk:Yaoi, the template used for romanized Japanese words should be instead of italicizing. Should we start using the template for shojo, shonen, josei, etc.? lullabying (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer which has the same output but is less clunky to type. If you're going with lang, even though the script subtag is case insensitive, by convention it is capitalized as "-Latn". If we're applying it widely, care should be taken for the individual words that it's appropriate (e.g. shouldn't be used for "anime"). Opencooper (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article titles and subtitles
Several anime titles have English names that have subtitles (one example being Bofuri: I Don't Want to Get Hurt, so I'll Max Out My Defense.). In many cases the article is at the full English title (an example being the aforementioned Bofuri), while in others (such as Haganai and Oresuki) the article title is at the short title without the subtitle, with the subtitle only being mentioned in the lede. MOS:ANIME does not say anything about subtitles in article titles, only suggesting that the article be located at the most-commonly used English name. MOS:SUBTITLE suggests that subtitles are usually to be avoided in article titles and instead going with the most commonly-used titles, although suggesting that they may be permitted in more modern works where the subtitle is an essential part of the name. Given that there seems to be inconsistencies with how the WikiProject handles these situations, should there be a guideline of some kind on how to treat English anime titles if there's a subtitle? Should this be on a case-by-case basis, should the subtitle be dropped (especially for long titles), or should the status quo remain? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This was brought up a little while ago at by User:Opencooper, who helpfully produced a list of long article titles. I agree with the consensus that there are several good candidates for shortening, but that this should be examined on a case-by-case basis. — Goszei (talk)  01:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a case by case basis as the best option though I believe there wouldn’t be much opposition to removing really long subtitles since there is much less less of a chance that common name of the work would include it. In fact a move from Hensuki: Are You Willing to Fall in Love with a Pervert, as Long as She's a Cutie? to simply Hensuki recently occurred without any opposition.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from the previous discussion, the general idea seemed to be that it would have to be done case-by-case. That's not to say we couldn't offer general guidance that editors try to determine if the common name includes the subtitle. As a rule of thumb, if the main title is already long or unique, the subtitle isn't often needed or used. Opencooper (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anime based on manhwa and Category:Anime based on manhua
I created Category:Anime based on manhwa. Anyone feels like creating the Category:Anime based on manhwa for the Chinese counterpart? We may also need categories for anime and non-anime animation series based on those as well as on the novels. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this idea. 👍🏻 Ainz Ooal Gown (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of cal.syoboi.jp
I have created a discussion on a source's reliability at, and would appreciate some input. — Goszei (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for "[year] in anime" articles
I would like to do a proposal on how the format "[year] in anime" articles should be standardized, using the "[year] in rock music" and "[year] in film" articles as a point of reference. We should things like include notable events (such as the premieres and finales of anime TV series or films), key awards of the year, and notable deaths. If there are any other ideas, please post here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a table with the content of 2020 in anime, but formatted like the one at List of American films of 2020 for would be useful. I suspect that most of page traffic to the "XXXX in anime" articles is driven by readers who want to see the offerings of a given season, and the current tables make that a bit hard (excluding TV finale dates would help clean up visually). Awards and notable deaths would also be sensible additions. — Goszei (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The place where anime studio templates and categories should be
When an anime season received its own page, is it fine to move its studio templates and categories to its season page? I believe it should be, especially for the series like Date A Live—the different season is animated by a different studio (S1 AIC; S2 IMS; S3 J.C.Staff; S4 likely to be Geek Toys). But that leads to another problem. For some series which have already received twenty, thirty or even more seasons by the same studio such as One Piece, Naruto, Case Closed, it is impractical as their wikilink in the anime studio template is to their series' main page and that is the only one—to reach their seasons respectively, it needs to add a chunk number of wikilinks in their templates. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions for anime season articles
Recently, I found @ is moving anime season articles insufficiently (or incorrectly) to pages that are inconsistent for others. He told me that the new page names are the official titles, and I believe while it is applied WP:TVSEASON in some particular series, it is not good practice. For example, Date A Live series was named as "Date A Live (season X)", which works perfectly fine for template:Infobox television season, but he moved season 2&3 articles to Date A Live II and Date A Live III respectively without season 1. Then I felt season 1 is inconsistency (now still remain as "Date A Live (season 1)") for season 2 and season 3, so I moved the page to Date A Live I. However, that is not the end. He moved season 1 page to Date A Live (2013 TV series). Sure it applies MOS:TV, but fails WP:TITLECON. We need consistency in the anime season pages.

To do so, I first summaries there are four situations in terms of anime season articles: It would be easy to name if a series is approached by only one situation, but what if there are multiple? I summaries there roughly are several scenarios as followings:
 * 1) a) unnamed and without seasonal numbers (e.g. One Piece, Case Closed),
 * 2) b) unnamed but with seasonal numbers (e.g. Sword Art Online II, Strike the Blood III),
 * 3) c) named but without seasonal numbers (e.g. Sword Art Online: Alicization, The Seven Deadly Sins: Revival of The Commandments)
 * 4) d) named and with seasonal numbers (e.g. Food Wars! Shokugeki no Soma: The Third Plate, A Certain Scientific Railgun S(econd)).

Scenario 1
Situations: a) and b)

Example: Strike the Blood For this scenario, I believe the alternative solution is the best as it applies both WP:TVSEASON and WP:TITLECON.

Scenario 2
Situations: a) and c)

Example: The Seven Deadly Sins For this scenario, I believe MOS:TV perfectly applies here.

Scenario 3
Situations: a), b) and c)

Example: Sword Art Online I'll be honest, this scenario is the toughest. I have to point out that if the articles are named as per MOS:TV, i.e. Series title (20XX TV series), I found it somewhat impactical with the Template:Infobox television season.

With the original code, it could be like this: 

To fix that, the code should be like: <pre style="overflow:auto;"> However, the  and   parameters are unfixable (or inaccessible to default). The only thing we can do is to do add codes to limit its output such as what I've done.

Given that the aforementioned reason, I would lean toward the WP:TITLECON one, unless someone could proper fix it.

Scenario 4
Situations: a) and d)

Example: The Seven Deadly Sins For this scenario, I believe the WP:TITLECON one is the best, as the alternative solution is actually WP:OR. In terms of the MOS:TV one, I would suffer the same issue as scenario 3's, so I do not recommend.

Other than the above, a simple flat-out solution is ignoring MOS:TV and WP:TVSEASON, while naming all articles in the "Series title (Season/Series X)" style for WP:TITLECON, but I don't think it is a good proposal. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I slightly favor using (season 1) for the first article over (20XX TV series), as shown in your "current Scenario 1" table -- to me, seeing (20XX TV series) signals to an unfamiliar reader that there is another series/season with exact same title from a different year [perhaps an earlier adaptation by another studio], rather than the fact that there is extra seasons. However, I think (20XX TV series) is an acceptable option, and preferable if it would preclude conflict with MOS:TV.


 * I do not like your WP:TITLECON proposals, because people will definitely be confused by seeing a title like "A Certain Scientific Railgun (season 3)" instead of "A Certain Scientific Railgun T" -- AKA, the latter is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for the season. As for your "alternative" proposals, I am totally opposed to them because they are WP:OR, like you said. For example, "Strike the Blood I" or "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" are unacceptable because they are made-up titles that are 1) not used, let alone commonly used and 2) do not officially exist.
 * P.S: Could you point out the exact section/quote of MOS:TV that recommends using (20XX TV series) instead of (season 1)? I can't seem to find it myself. — Goszei (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , "If a television article already exists with the name of the show for which you are trying to create an article, use (YEAR TV series) in the title, if the years are different" Unnamelessness (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , If we use (season 1) for the first article (which was commonly used before), it needs to be consistent with the others; it just cannot be like A Certain Scientific Railgun (season 1), A Certain Scientific Railgun S, A Certain Scientific Railgun T. It has either to be A Certain Scientific Railgun (season X) for all seasons (WP:TITLECON), or to be A Certain Scientific Railgun ( 2009 TV series), A Certain Scientific Railgun S, A Certain Scientific Railgun T (MOS:TV). As far as I can see, the former format is commonly used in the TV season article. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider the following cases, which both currently exist:
 * Sailor Moon
 * Sailor Moon (TV series)
 * List of Sailor Moon episodes
 * Sailor Moon (season 1)
 * Sailor Moon R
 * Sailor Moon S
 * Sailor Moon SuperS
 * Sailor Moon Sailor Stars
 * Attack on Titan
 * Attack on Titan (TV series)
 * List of Attack on Titan episodes
 * Attack on Titan (season 1)
 * Attack on Titan (season 2)
 * Attack on Titan (season 3)
 * Both of these structures make sense, and are also in keeping with MOS:TV. Now consider the case of Railgun:
 * ''A Certain Scientific Railgun
 * A Certain Scientific Railgun (TV series)
 * List of A Certain Scientific Railgun episodes
 * A Certain Scientific Railgun (season 1)
 * A Certain Scientific Railgun S
 * A Certain Scientific Railgun T
 * Now, MOS:TV says there should be a A Certain Scientific Railgun (TV series) article before List of A Certain Scientific Railgun episodes can exist. However, no such article exists.
 * The current sitation is well-explained at the following discussion:, which ended with no project-wide consensus. Regardless of your opinion on that matter, the status quo and WP:ASTONISH indicates to me that (season 1) is the most sensible disambiguation, because it doesn't mislead a reader into thinking a first season article with (TV series) covers the entire series, like Sailor Moon (TV series) and Attack on Titan (TV series). — Goszei (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the WP:OR, I would say A Certain Scientific Railgun F is WP:OR, but don't think something like Strike the Blood I is WP:OR. It is naming in the style of "title name + seasonal number (e.g. The Amazing Race series). Unnamelessness (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:TV only says to use "(20XX TV series)" if there's already another page at "(TV series)" . That is, the year is there to disambiguate between two identically-named TV shows. Since there is only one released named simply A Certain Scientific Railgun (or the other examples) specifically, with no subtitles or numbers, there should be no conflict and they can readily reside at just "A Certain Scientific Railgun (TV series)". If that is the naming convention used, the year should be dropped from the title, as like Goszei says, it's potentially misleading. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with dropping year or not. The actual question here is the inconsistency of article titles. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Strike the Blood I, Date a Live I, and similar constructions. WP:TITLECON is trumped by WP:CRITERIA because titles must first and foremost be based on usage in sources. Quote from WP:TITLECON: Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness [AKA the five WP:CRITERIA] then the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia.
 * Try Googling "Strike the Blood I", "Date a Live I", or "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" -- these titles have never been used by any reliable or official source, and have only rarely been used in irrelevant unreliable sources. — Goszei (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, MOS:TV says there should be a A Certain Scientific Railgun (TV series) article before List of A Certain Scientific Railgun episodes can exist. However, no such article exists.
 * The current sitation is well-explained at the following discussion:, which ended with no project-wide consensus. Regardless of your opinion on that matter, the status quo and WP:ASTONISH indicates to me that (season 1) is the most sensible disambiguation, because it doesn't mislead a reader into thinking a first season article with (TV series) covers the entire series, like Sailor Moon (TV series) and Attack on Titan (TV series). — Goszei (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the WP:OR, I would say A Certain Scientific Railgun F is WP:OR, but don't think something like Strike the Blood I is WP:OR. It is naming in the style of "title name + seasonal number (e.g. The Amazing Race series). Unnamelessness (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:TV only says to use "(20XX TV series)" if there's already another page at "(TV series)" . That is, the year is there to disambiguate between two identically-named TV shows. Since there is only one released named simply A Certain Scientific Railgun (or the other examples) specifically, with no subtitles or numbers, there should be no conflict and they can readily reside at just "A Certain Scientific Railgun (TV series)". If that is the naming convention used, the year should be dropped from the title, as like Goszei says, it's potentially misleading. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with dropping year or not. The actual question here is the inconsistency of article titles. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Strike the Blood I, Date a Live I, and similar constructions. WP:TITLECON is trumped by WP:CRITERIA because titles must first and foremost be based on usage in sources. Quote from WP:TITLECON: Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness [AKA the five WP:CRITERIA] then the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia.
 * Try Googling "Strike the Blood I", "Date a Live I", or "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" -- these titles have never been used by any reliable or official source, and have only rarely been used in irrelevant unreliable sources. — Goszei (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Try Googling "Strike the Blood I", "Date a Live I", or "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" -- these titles have never been used by any reliable or official source, and have only rarely been used in irrelevant unreliable sources. — Goszei (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Try Googling "Strike the Blood I", "Date a Live I", or "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" -- these titles have never been used by any reliable or official source, and have only rarely been used in irrelevant unreliable sources. — Goszei (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? Sure, "A Certain Scientific Railgun F" is bad, but the "I" there stands for the meaning of "(season 1)". The similar case: The Amazing Race 1 (original title The Amazing Race, but add an extra "1" for the consistency with the other seasons). Of course, you can say (season 1) is the most sensible disambiguation, then it should be (season 2), (season 3)... for the rest seasons as the fact that the roman numerals/numerical digits which follow titles undoubtedly stand for the meaning of "(season X)" (the Attack on Titan method and widely adapted by the TV sesaon articles). This is indeed the first scenario I've brought in and only applies to series of which their naming convention is [title name + season number]. A Certain Scientific Railgun, Sailor Moon and the like which have a unique naming system does not apply to here.

Having read that archive, I've got a feeling of the reason why anime TV season article titles are so inconsistency and hard to get consensus is that a) complexity (which is also why I've tried to bring in four different scenarios to solve in categorized discussion method) and b) a lack of certain policy which specifically rules the naming convention of anime and manga topic. I believe the project should create one. A third opinion would be really appreciated. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion for The Star of Cottonland
Please come participate at Talk:The Star of Cottonland Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential edit war for The Legend of Snow White article
I think I might be having a potential edit war regarding the translation of the Japanese title for series. I have started a discussion in the article's talk page and could use a few more opinions on the matter. Sarujo (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Kimba the White Lion and YourMovieSucksDOTorg
There's an RfC regarding Kimba the White Lion that users might be interested in. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Akira Fudo
I created the article for Akira Fudo. While I think the reception is enough to pass notability I haven't found too much about creation. I happened to find this Go Nagai interview when googling and it seems he talks a lot about the manga, which might lead to more stuff about Akira. Sadly, it's all in Japanese even with captions on. Is there an editor with Japanese knowledge and might check the video? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Any Mazinger fan around?
I've been on a Go Nagai mood lately so after creating Akira Fudo, I found enough sources about the making and reception Mazinger Z lead Koji Kabuto. The in-universe information provided on his article is based on what it originally was before it was merged. I tried trimming parts but I'm not that familiar with the Mazinger Z series so I think an editor more familiar with the series is better suited to clean up the article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta conversion is live
Around June 28, myself and other users discussed converting the template to the  scheme (here); the completed conversion of the banner was implemented yesterday with this revision.

If you come across any bugs related to this conversion, please report them at the template's talk page:. — Goszei (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Newbie joining
I want to join as an editor for this group The Masley Crooop (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome! There is no formal process for joining a WikiProject, nor is it required for editing. They're just a way for editors who edit in a subject area to coordinate. To start with, you might be interested in checking out our quality articles, our Manual of Style, and our list of online reliable sources. Let us know if you have any questions, and happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mundane science fiction discussion
Related to this project, since a lot of anime is science fiction. Please come participate in the discussion regarding mundane science fiction and whether there is enough to support a separate article: Talk:Mundane science fiction. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war on List of My Hero Academia characters
Most of the descriptions below each characters' names have been removed, and the page has been protected indefinitely for "repeated insertions of unsourced content", despite similar content being on every character list I could find. I think this is needed of more opinions than just me and the other party member. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d like to request for more input again, as the edit war has restarted. Unnamed anon (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Locke the Superman
I've cleaned up the article a little and added some refs, but the characters section is huge. ANyone want to take a stab at reducing it? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead sections for Latin titles
Certain anime/manga titles (a small minority) are rendered in Latin characters in the original (though they often include equivalent kana in their logo). Some examples include: • Angel Beats!; see ja:Angel Beats!

• Aria (manga); see ja:ARIA (漫画)

• Banana Fish; see ja:BANANA FISH

• Beastars; see ja:BEASTARS

• D.Gray-man; see ja:D.Gray-man

• xxxHolic; see ja:XXXHOLiC My question is: How should these special cases be handled in the lead sections of our English articles? For a standard case like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (see ja:ジョジョの奇妙な冒険), we do this:


 * JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (ジョジョの奇妙な冒険) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Hirohiko Araki.

Considering that, I think that a lead sentence like the following is misleading, since technically the original title is Angel Beats!, and the Japanese pronunciation of that is エンジェルビーツ! / Enjeru Bītsu!:


 * Angel Beats! (エンジェルビーツ!) is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.

Possible alternatives that make note of this distinction would be:


 * Removing the nihongo:
 * Angel Beats! is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.


 * Placing Latin characters in JP field (two variations):
 * Angel Beats! (Angel Beats!) is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.
 * Angel Beats! (Angel Beats!) is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.
 * As pointed out by Opencooper, this is bad practice. — Goszei (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Moving the nihongo to a footnote:
 * Angel Beats! (エンジェルビーツ!) is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.

Thoughts on this? — Goszei (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought that we should used what kinda works for the site and the leave a note about how is it still is marketed. See List of Re: Hamatora episodes as an apparent example.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an example of what I pointed out. The original JP title is "Re:␣ ハマトラ", and "Re:␣Hamatora" is a stylization of the English title. — Goszei (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just Nihongo and blank out the kanji section, like this:
 * Angel Beats! is a 13-episode Japanese anime television series produced by P.A.Works and Aniplex and directed by Seiji Kishi.
 * This is what we did with L DK. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC) updated 15:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You could alternatively do:
 * Angel Beats!


 * Hmm, good point, maybe it should all go to the footnote. I just realized the L DK example has a small pronunciation subtitle as well. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support going Angus' idea; using nihongo to use English and Japanese pronounciation. Leaving them in footnotes isn't that bad either. Ainz Ooal Gown (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think katakana or romaji are useful for these. The titles are English. The katakana is just there for Japanese readers, while we're on the English Wikipedia. There are always different stylizations going on with these covers (e.g. One-Punch Man), but we just need to worry about our own MoS. The footnote is only of interest to a narrow audience. Romaji is to aid us in pronouncing Japanese, and thus isn't useful for English. Also, while some of the alternatives listed aren't bad, please don't insert the Latin-script title in the JP field, as it is not Japanese-language text and would just serve to repeat the title (only in a full-width font). Opencooper (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this interpretation, as well. Are leads like the following acceptable, or are these stylizations (taken from the JP article titles) considered "Japanese-only stylizations"?
 * Banana Fish (stylized as BANANA FISH) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Akimi Yoshida.
 * ×××Holic (stylized as ×××HOLiC; pronounced as "Holic") is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by manga group Clamp. — Goszei (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also S.A which is pronounced "Special A." You might also want to discuss this with WP:JAPAN, since this will affect some of their articles too. lullabying (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also S.A which is pronounced "Special A." You might also want to discuss this with WP:JAPAN, since this will affect some of their articles too. lullabying (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I am still a bit conflicted about the best way to implement this. I've just made some high-profile lead edits at One Piece, Hunter × Hunter, Gantz, and Dr. Stone if you all would like to review them. — Goszei (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All-caps titles (as in Banana Fish and others) not be listed per MOS:JAPAN. Morgan695 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The titles of Japanese books, CDs, and other media products may incorporate typographical effects, punctuation, or capitalization conventions generally not used in reliable native English language sources. In all cases, this original title stylization should be included in the lead of the article.
 * Avoid using all capital letters (except acronyms/initials), all lowercase letters (a technical restriction), or alternating upper and lower casing in article titles.
 * I believe you misread that section. Doesn't it forbid allcaps in article titles, but recommend always including the stylization in the lead? — Goszei (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, it just feels silly when it's not conveying any new information. There is obvious utility in noting specific stylizations in media like Chaos;Head or The Idolmaster, but you would never write "Lost (stylized as LOST)," or even "Neon Genesis Evangelion (stylized as Neon Genesis EVANGELION)", even though those titles do appear that way in some materials. Morgan695 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed this with WP:JAPAN yet? Applying a certain format to these titles may also affect articles associated with Japanese films and television dramas. lullabying (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been 10 days and User:Goszei has been actively editing in that time, so it seems this discussion is abandoned. In lieu of any consensus, I think all-caps Romanized titles can be decided on a case-by-case basis, though I would personally err on the side of not including them if no new information is being conveyed. Morgan695 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all-caps stylizations technically do include some new information: it distinguishes cases like Fate/Apocrypha and D.Gray-man, where the Japanese stylizations match exactly with the English titles. However, I see the merit of your points in the above post as well (Neon Genesis EVANGELION would be silly to include).
 * I apologize for not taking the issue to WP:JAPAN (pinging lullabying) -- I got sidetracked and ended up losing interest in the topic. Feel free to start a discussion there, and I will give my input. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all-caps stylizations technically do include some new information: it distinguishes cases like Fate/Apocrypha and D.Gray-man, where the Japanese stylizations match exactly with the English titles. However, I see the merit of your points in the above post as well (Neon Genesis EVANGELION would be silly to include).
 * I apologize for not taking the issue to WP:JAPAN (pinging lullabying) -- I got sidetracked and ended up losing interest in the topic. Feel free to start a discussion there, and I will give my input. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not taking the issue to WP:JAPAN (pinging lullabying) -- I got sidetracked and ended up losing interest in the topic. Feel free to start a discussion there, and I will give my input. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Specifying staff for the FL
I've been trying to clean up the FL List of Devil May Cry episodes to expand on the lead's content, home media release, infobox. I've noticed the official site details each episode's director and writer for the 12 episodes but I'm not that skilled when it comes to add content to the tables as any attempt resulted in me breaking the balance. Could anybody give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dividing List of Boruto: Naruto Next Generations episodes
Looks like the episode list List of Boruto: Naruto Next Generations episodes is becoming quite large. A user suggested the idea of splitting it in the talk page but I don't know how Aniplex or Viz Media are dividing it since the first DVD apparently had 15 episodes rather than the old ones of 4. It might be a good time to divide series based on its length.Tintor2 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "JoJo&"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (1993 anime series), which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Goszei (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Useful source but blacklisted
When creating Manji (Blade of the Immortal) I found that mangauk happened to have interview the author of the series but explained his idea of how he came up with protagonist. Sadly, the site is not allowed for something that happened years ago and can't be used. As a result, most of the creation section is mostly the live-action movie instead. I asked for a petition to here but I don't know if it's lacking something. There is also a blog that has two interviews but none seem to specify the original source well. One was an interview Samura had with Kishimoto and another was Samura alone talking in an adult magazine about his taste in women. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Fate cast
While trying to clean up List of Fate/stay night characters I wondered if it was needed to merge it with List of Fate/Zero characters since they are directly connected as prequel and sequel but I don't know if it's obligatory kinda like the Gundam series created by Tomino.Tintor2 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion
See Talk:List of Fate/stay night characters. I've been trying to clean up the main list especially now that every heroine as well Kiritsugu got their own articles. Please join to discuss.Tintor2 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

One Piece (TV series) episode lists need splitting
The episode lists List of One Piece episodes (seasons 1–8), and List of One Piece episodes (seasons 15–current) each exceed Wikipedia's post-expand include size. List of One Piece episodes (seasons 9–14) is under the limit.

The easiest thing to do is to split the 2 large lists in half or combine them all and split them into groups of 4 seasons each. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Major changes to project pages reverted
I just reverted major changes made by in regards to WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. I disagree with the changes as I find WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing/Header very useful among other things. Goszei can we please reach a project consensus here and have you explain why you made the changes you did? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot more move reverting that needs to be done... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I jumped the gun. My aim is to reduce the number of cleanup subpages that exist in the project, hopefully with the goal of making it easier for users to find articles to cleanup.
 * Here are my proposals:
 * 1) Move all pages with "/Cleanup task force" to "/Cleanup".
 * For the sake of simplicity and conciseness, like how we use "/Assessment" instead of "/Assessment department", and "/Biography" instead of "/Biography work group".
 * 2) Reduce the number of cleanup sub-pages (either by redirecting, or maybe archiving).
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing
 * 10 years ago, this page hosted a large bot-generated list of cleanup articles, pulled from this external listing. With this revision back in 2012, you removed the list and replaced with a link to the external listing. Now, the page doesn't serve a purpose beyond linking to this external list. I propose that we move that 1 link to the main cleanup page; in fact, there's a template for this purpose that is already transcluded there:.
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing/Header
 * This header page once served a purpose when there was a bot-generated list, but now it does not.
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing
 * This is a virtual duplicate of the above "/Assessment" listing.
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing/Header
 * This is a virtual duplicate of the above "/Assessment" header.
 * Cleanup has evidently slowed down a lot over the years, so I think it would be beneficial to simplify+consolidate our pages as much as possible to make it easier for users to participate. — Goszei (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing/Header
 * This is a virtual duplicate of the above "/Assessment" header.
 * Cleanup has evidently slowed down a lot over the years, so I think it would be beneficial to simplify+consolidate our pages as much as possible to make it easier for users to participate. — Goszei (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cleanup has evidently slowed down a lot over the years, so I think it would be beneficial to simplify+consolidate our pages as much as possible to make it easier for users to participate. — Goszei (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I will look into this more tomorrow as its late and I do not have the energy to go through everything right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay here is my response to the above...


 * 1. A "task force" indicates a group of editors working towards cleaning up articles rather than a broad "cleanup". If anything the titles should be reflective when possible of what goes on for the project pages.


 * 2. The external link is extremely helpful at sorting what needs to be done. I am fine with moving the link to WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force and getting rid of the "Cleanup requests​". Maybe the "Cleanup requests" can be renamed "Cleanup categories" with a list of categories to choose from. Just a side note... you can not edit WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing, you have to go to WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing/Header to make changes to the page. In short...you were making so many major changes that it was hard to keep up and I wanted to be sure everyone is on the same page here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, the terminology is flexible, but I believe that Cleanup deserves to be a "department" (like Assessment) rather than a "task force". All of the other "task forces" and "work groups" are content-related (see the project navbox), and Cleanup is a continuous/centralized/project-wide task (just like Assessment is).
 * I think naming the pages "/Cleanup" would indicate this top importance to the project. It is currently included on our tab header, making "Cleanup" is one of first things that editors see when they come to our our project page (hopefully those who want to help out!)
 * Ultimately, our goal is attract more interested people to engage in anime/manga cleanup tasks, and I think this change would emphasize its high priority to visitors, and send the immediate message that anyone can cleanup, not just listed members of the "task force".
 * 2) I 100% agree with you that the external listing is extremely helpful. However, if we move that link (and corresponding explanatory text) to the main cleanup page, then do the four pages that I linked above need to continue existing as duplicates? They can just be turned into redirects, which will link to the exact same information. — Goszei (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am up for a rename discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force in the form of a requested move. I am fine with "Department" but want to get further input. As for the second thing... Go ahead with the redirects and the linking of the external link on the main cleanup page. I still stand by my opinion that we do not need the same information provided twice. We have an external link, and categories, we do not need to manually place what needs to be done at WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind about the "department" renaming, but I created a requested move here with some fresh rationale. — Goszei (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that there needs to be some edit history merges done for the moved pages. Could you help ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just make a list of the pages that need edit history merges and I'll take care of them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones I see upfront are WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup and WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. I will check to see if there are others... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which one do we want to keep? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would keep WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force as status quo until a discussion regarding a new title can be started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe it's done. It should all be at WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. Let me know if I missed anything. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just make a list of the pages that need edit history merges and I'll take care of them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones I see upfront are WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup and WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. I will check to see if there are others... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which one do we want to keep? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would keep WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force as status quo until a discussion regarding a new title can be started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe it's done. It should all be at WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force. Let me know if I missed anything. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I closed the move discussion, and moved WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force → WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup. Even though I think I performed the "post move cleanup" completely, there are chances that I missed something. Kindly let me know if you come across something, and I will be glad to sort it out. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of mangauk.com (Manga Entertainment) interview
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of an interview on mangauk.com, the official website of Manga Entertainment. The interview ("Blade of the Immortal Interview with Hiroaki Samura") is proposed for use in articles related to Blade of the Immortal. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Anime networks conflict
I've seen an edit conflict in the Fire Force article between listing the Japan News Network stations in parentheses in the anime infobox, "JNN (MBS, TBS)" or to simply list the stations "MBS, TBS". So I wonder about how should we proceed with this issue. Should we list the network and its stations in the anime infoboxes, e.g., "JNN (MBS, TBS)"; "NNS (Nippon TV)"; "FNS (Fuji TV)"; "TXN (TV Tokyo)", or should we just list the stations, e.g., "MBS, TBS", "Nippon TV", "Fuji TV", "TV Tokyo"?

Also, I'd like to know if there are consensus about the networks abbreviations in the infoboxes. Should we list Nippon Television as Nippon TV or as NTV; Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation as Yomiuri TV, as YTV or as ytv; Tokyo Broadcasting System Television and Mainichi Broadcasting System Television as MBS TV and TBS TV or simply as MBS and TBS? what are your opinions on this? - Xexerss (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For as long as I can remember, we've only listed the stations in the infobox, not the networks. There's no real reason to list the networks, since the stations are already sufficient in relation to the show, and reliable sources always list the station an anime airs on, not the network that owns that station. And the abbreviations are generally decided by editor preference, or whatever is more common in reliable sources.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 10:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Only listing the stations seems to be the standardized method, and I don't see why the network itself should be since, as Juuhachi said, reliable sources typically list the station rather than the network. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Graphic novel list template update
I am proposing some updates to the Graphic novel list/header at this talk page template to improve some functionality and would appreciate it if anyone who has an interest in this template could add some input, since this template is listed under this project, thanks. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Bleach characters
Should List of Bleach characters, List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, and List of Hollows in Bleach all actually exist separately? The "reception" in the two offshoots is honestly quite silly, either irrelevant to the topic at hand or overly reliant on a couple major characters. I don't think I see a single other series trying to justify that many lists. TTN (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep. They should be merged but I wonder if about the weight of the main article. There are quite a lot of characters in series especially the Soul Reapers guys.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Themes in character articles
Hi there. I have been wondering about the rearranging a bit a the analysis of both Naruto Uzumaki and Sasuke Uchiha. I happened to find a French article where the author of the series discusses the themes from the manga including the psychology of its two leads and what do they want. However, there isn't much to do so I wonder if they should be given their own section like TeenAngels1234 did with Shinji Ikari and the other Evangelion cast. However, I'm not sure if they should be separated from other sections.

since he made Naruto FA so I won't make bold edits. Is there a guideline that might help with this?Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Development sections should be fine. How much info is there? Link? 1989 (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review
A fellow user User:NotEnglishSpeaker nominated the article Sayaka Miki almost a month ago and I've been doing its review. However, the user has become inactive as I was reviewing it and the activity in general stopped. Is there any other user who might wanna help the user or should I fail the review? Been aiming to get more attention since this project doesn't tend to get that many recognized when compared to others I've been. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer review for Chi (Chobits)
I am wondering if anyone would be willing to peer review Chi (Chobits). It was promoted to good article in 2015 and I would like it to get a 5 year check up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have too much knowledge of the series but the article does mention differences in both manga and anime. Maybe the reception section is lacking coverage about Chi's role in one of these two media. The easiest way to find the sources is looking for reviews from the main Chobits articles since she is one of the leads. If you want to improve its prose (I'm nobody to comment though), you can also request for a copyedit for the article in the guild of the copyeditors.Tintor2 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Which articles should be considered top-importance?
Currently, our project's criteria for including individuals in Category:Top-importance anime and manga articles is as follows: Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium, e.g. Osamu Tezuka, Leiji Matsumoto. The page also states: The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).

These guidelines are influenced by the over-arching WP 1.0 scheme guidelines at Template:Importance scheme: Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. WP:1.0/Release Version Criteria#WikiProject priority assessments puts it in a slightly different way: Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.

Considering these standards, I think that the individuals we include in the category should be reduced down to essentials: in my opinion, articles like Yoshiko Nishitani, Hideko Mizuno, and Ken Ishikawa should be re-assessed with lower importances, but entries like Hayao Miyazaki, Osamu Tezuka, Satoshi Kon, and Hideaki Anno should stay.

Thoughts? I think we should try build consensus around particular individuals that should be included. — Goszei (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, a few of these articles (namely those you mentioned) I don't believe to be worth including in either the "top-importance" or "essential" definition of articles on the project, so it'd be good to re-assess who we believe actually fits there. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I once asked about that and I was suggested by the accomplishments and recognition. For example, since Goku, Saber, Tsubasa, Naruto, etc have huge reception sections about their popularity taken as positive, they are both rated as high.Tintor2 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Anything around the List of best-selling manga over 100 million should be top importance.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 23:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As part of this reassessment, the article for otaku was reassessed to be high-importance. However, I believe the subject merits top-importance status: otaku culture forms the backbone of much of anime and manga. And considering the guidelines, I think it is highly likely that an average reader interested in anime and manga would want to look up the word "otaku." Certainly downgrading the importance assessment of Hideko Mizuno makes sense, but the concept of "otaku" is quite important to the anime/manga sphere and deserves its previous top-importance status. Sandtalon (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Goszei (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Cover date vs actual release date issues problem
While I was editing the article of Onidere, I found out a problem regarding the magazine dates. Weekly Shōnen Sunday, and many other magazines, have two dates, the cover date and the actual release date, and the cover dates of WSS issues are exactly two weeks after the actual release date, as I could check founding official sources of the issues, listing both the cover date and the actual release date. Well, Onideres cover date in the 2008 18th issue (when the series began) is April 16, 2008, so I listed that date as the official date when the series began, since I couldn't find a source listing the actual release date, but The World God Only Knows has the official release date, which was on April 9, 2008, but the series began in the 2008 19th issue of WSS, after Onidere, so it wouldn't make sense to have Onideres article stating that it was released after TWGOW, when clearly it began before. By the way, I could check that, at least from the 2010 1st issue onwards, Media Arts lists the magazines with the actual release date, and in some cases with both cover date and actual release dates. So, just for the Weekly Shōnen Sunday's case, I propose to leave a note after the sources of the series which only list the cover date, something like "the actual release date is two weeks before the cover date" or something similar, to make all of this more coherent, otherwise, we should just list the cover dates for each series, but I don't think this is a good idea, since we have many series with the actual release dates verified listed. What do you think?

P.S.: Now that I think about it Web Sunday's first backstage can serve as a reference to know when a series began, if nobody opposes to it, I will use it as a source for the Onidere's article. - Xexerss (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this is a bit confusing. can you simplify this query?<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 18:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My problem is that some series figure with their cover date as the date when the series began, instead of figure with the actual release date. Here, for example, are listed both dates of the magazines (Kenichi's first issue cover date is May 1 and the actual release date is April 17). So I was thinking on leave a note for the series which use sources that refers to the cover date as the first date of publication instead of the actual release date in their articles, and thus listing the actual release date which is two weeks before the cover date of the magazine. Do I make myself clear? - Xexerss (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some official release dates are not always the most verified. Go with the source that confirmed it was released on a specific day. If it was scheduled to release at a certain time and it's confirmed it was released a week or two early from its scheduled release, the official sites may not change it immediately just because they don't find the value in being accurate on release.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 21:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actual release date sounds good, with cover date when the actual is not readily available. But it should be the actual date in its primary country and in its primary media. Early releases / advance copies should be treated as screenings and not the premiere. Sometimes they have television episodes that are placed in the On Demand section ahead of its primetime television slot. It probably doesn't need to be footnoted unless the magazine is very confusing. As for citations, they often have publication-date= in addition to date= for magazines and music chart lists that are ahead of the actual release date.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How does that work in Magazine format?<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 21:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, sadly there are not so many archived links of the Sunday issues with the actual release date. I think Weekly Shōnen Jump have most of the 2003 issues onwards with the actual release date and it makes it all more coherent. My problem here was because as I couldn't find Onidere's actual release date I used a Media Arts link in the article, which only lists the cover date of the 2008 18th issue (April 16), whereas The World God Only Knows article uses the actual release date of the 2008 19th issue (April 9). Now, I added the first Web Sunday backstage of the author of Onidere (on April 2) to at least clarify that it began before the cover date of its first issue. I hope there's no problems with that. I guess after all we can't make the assumption that every issue was released exactly two weeks before the cover date, even if it happens in most cases. - Xexerss (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Anime and manga controversies
I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts on what qualifies a series to be added to Category:Anime and manga controversies. Is being banned in a single country enough to be included? Cause China has quite the list for example, most seen at Category:Works banned in China. What about stuff like what happened in Australia where stores decide to stop carrying/selling a series? What about when a series gets cancelled due to the actions of some people behind it like Act-Age? The controversy in that case is not due to the work itself.

A related question I thought of when writing the above and discovering Category:Censored works, which is for "series that suffered from censorship in any form, at any time." There are so many English/foreign versions of manga and anime that are censored by their foreign publishers. Is that not self-censorship? If it is, then such works qualify for Category:Censored works. Thoughts? Xfansd (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another aspect of the censored question, what about when a work is censored even in Japan for its magazine run/TV broadcast before being released uncensored in volumes/on home video. Does something like that qualify for Category:Censored works or is that just "editing" like when a theatrical film is edited for TV broadcast to remove cursing? A notable difference from that comparison tho is that the magazine and TV runs are the original way the work is distributed. Xfansd (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My criteria would be articles that have referenced controversy sections to them. Kodomo no Jikan for example would fall under the scope given how a potential release in the United States was handled as described in the section covering it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the one at Kodomo no Jikan is big, so that seems obvious. But do you feel the types of stuff I listed above are appropriate to be made into controversy sections or are you saying only if there is a sizable amount? Cause I think most might only be able to get 2 or 3 sentences. Also, Kodomo no Jikan talks about how it has been censored for TV. Do you feel it belongs in Category:Censored works? Xfansd (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not to move the Yaoi artcle
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Yaoi. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wondering around
I've been expanding Kimihiro Watanuki, hoping to nominate to GA in the future after a copyedit. However, does anybody think it's a bit unbalanced or something? I kinda wonder if the reception should be trimmed based on the weight it has. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Haleth

Doing some pings since these three have experience with these types of articles.Tintor2 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Aside from a lot of grammatical errors, overall I think it looks good and don't think you need to make any drastic changes. I personally know nothing about the series, but I'm sure it will definitely make GA after a copyedit. If the GA reviewer thinks some things should be trimmed then they will tell you specifically during the review, but for now I think you should just have it copyedited and nominate it. Xfansd (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I happened to wander into this talk page by chance and saw that I was mentioned. I didn't get the ping? I'll have a read of the article and get back to you. Reception can be rearranged a bit. Haleth (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

How to name Syaoran
I've been finding a lot of reception involving the second protagonist of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, "Syaoran". However, I'm confused about making an article since I have no idea what would be the title. The character is first introduced directly as the "Other Syaoran", then "Syaoran Li", and lastly his tr—ue name is revealed to be "Tsubasa". Any suggestion?Tintor2 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Created Tsubasa (Syaoran) but I'm not confident about the title. I mean the character only uses his name Tsubasa once in the entire series. In every cameo or sequel, he goes back to Syaoran.Tintor2 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see why finding a WP:Commonname for this set of characters is difficult. Here are the results of a Google Trends search I just did. As you can see, Syaoran Li is consistently the most searched term since 2004. Obviously, it is also the name of the original Cardcoptor Sakura character, though the article for the Cardcoptor Syaoran Li character is now a redirect for more then 10 years now. Then again, I've noticed that the Cardcoptor series has been recently revived after a hiatus of 15 years, but what are the chances that the original Syaoran Li or Li Syaoran from that series will achieve notability?


 * Another alternative then, is to either call the article Tsubasa Li (per the character's article counterpart in Fandom). Tsubasa Li got over 5,640,000 hits on Google, but surprisingly Syaoran Li only got 836,000 results on Google. Sticking with Tsubasa (Syaoran) is how the character is identified under the List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters article, but not sure if it is WP:NATURALDIS. Haleth (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another solution, and I feel is the most accurate approach, is to move the current article occupying the title of Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle) into another article titled Syaoran (clone), and then move your newly created article into the Syaoran one. Although, this one might be complicated, and may require an experienced admin to help since there's the issue of preserving article history as well. Haleth (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I see. I remember Clamp commenting in the guidebook that "clone" was the most used term to talk about Syaoran and Sakura although they instead used the term "Unmushi" or "copy". Then again, I don't know what term did DelRey use the most for the English publication of the manga (a review called them "image") in a similar fashion with how Toriyama uses either "android" or "artificial humans" for some Dragon Ball characters.Tintor2 (talk)
 * I would say, if there is a Japanese equivalent of the article you've created, the term "Unmushi" should be definitely be used in bracket as the character's name. Having said that, there's a reason why 17 and 18 are always referred to as "android" in English since that is the localized term + widely used term by fans and critics, even though it is not a technically correct or precise term to describe their in-universe physiology. Haleth (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Left the request at Requested moves/Technical requests based on your suggestion and also based on the terms the reviewers for the manga and OVAs tend to do.Tintor2 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does CLAMP distinguish Syaoran prior to the Tsubasa name reveal?<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie They just call him "Syaoran" or the "The Other Syaoran". The whole series is filled with parallel versions of most characters who share the same names like Clamp's Ashura, Subaru or Kamui, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems like both Syaoran and Sakura at the start of the series are clones of the original Syaoran / Tsubasa (Syaoran) and original Sakura / Tsubasa (Sakura). Tsuabasa (Syaoran) also becomes a protagonist in the second part of the series while the clone Syaoran becomes an antagonist. So original might be OK to use.
 * Adding clone would depend on how the media refers to the two characters in their character profiles. In Slayers they have Copy Rezo.   As long as it's not a Rei Ayanami situation.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:25, 17 November 2020‎ (UTC)

They created Syaoran and Sakura but with the Japanese concept of "utsushimi" rather than the Western approach clone. However, the reviewers seem to call Syaoran and Sakura clones. Not sure about the actual licensed manga volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clamp's note is this:


 * The naming convention for most of Wikipedia is to refer to either the series they're from or an objective characterization. We shouldn't be using in-universe style disambiguation such as alternate names in parenthesis. If one confirmed as a clone, should we just refer to one as (clone character)?<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 21:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In one example, the creator of the clones, Fei-Wang Reed, always refers to the clone as clone while he refers to the original simply as "Clow Reed's descendant". The rest of the cast simply say "Syaoran" and "The other Syaoran". The original refers to the clone as "The other me". Even in the minisequel, Tsubasa keeps going by the name Syaoran rather than his true name which he only says once.. I've read multiple reviews and the critics tend to go by "Syaoran", "the clone Syaoran", "The new Syaoran, "The evil twin?" among other examples. I've tried reading google books focused on Clamp narrative and they don't say choose one. They just say "Syaoran clone", "Original Syaoran" like the reviewers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [Definition of "clone" by Merriam-Webster dictionary: one that appears to be a copy of an original form, also "duplicate" as a synonym]. Clamp has acknowledged that the term "clone" is the most widely discussed term for their copy characters, so to me that is obviously the WP:Commonname in English and fits a WP:NPOV, regardless of the creators' own views. From my personal POV, I can understand why they dislike the term "clone" since it probably suggests a sci fi genetic engineering theme as opposed to the mystical theme of the series. But from a linguistic POV and certainly according to reliable English dictionaries, "clone" has had a broader application in the English language then the genetic/scientific definition. Anyway, I think Syaoran (original) and Syaoran (clone) is the right approach, and Syaoran Li could then be reserved for the Cardcoptor character.Haleth (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Current discussion:
 * 
 * move 18 November 2020

Feel free to comment.Tintor2 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , is there a reason why there can't be an article to cover both characters? AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Should there be? Why? I mean, they look identical but their actions are completely different. When the original is introduced, the clone leaves and does the opposite of the original. That's pretty much how Clamp created Tsubasa. Create two identical chararcters who develop their own identities, connections and relationships. If so, even Sakura's original should be merged with the clone even if she appears briefly in the last arc. Same with other clone characters like Luke fon Fabre based on Asch.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it depends on the scope of the article. If it's for any and all Syaorans in any Clamp works, as with Spock or Sherlock Holmes, then it can have sections for each incarnation.  Anyway, the original and clone disambiguators might be okay to use if it's something like (Tsubasa:Reservoir Chronicle, original) and (Tsubasa:Reservoir Chronicle, clone)  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Project scope and manhwa etc.
Hi all,

Just wondering if there's ever been an official RFC or !vote on this project to explicitly exclude non-Japanese, yet ostensibly anime-style works etc. from this project? I can't find any explicit discussion in the archives, although I could fine a couple times where this was brought up with mixed support. I personally believe the scope should be changed to include all anime-styled works for the following reasons:
 * The definition of words change over time. Although "anime" in English may have originally referred to Japanese works only, as other countries such as Taiwan and China have begun producing more anime-styled works, "anime" in English is probably more associated with the art style currently. For example, multiple WP:RS refer to The King's Avatar (2017 web series) as "anime" 1 2 and the series has received attention from anime sources such as Anime News Network 3 and MyAnimeList 4. The project scope should be consistent with what receives coverage as "anime" by reliable sources.
 * The exclusion of these articles (for example, Unbalance ×2 just off the top of my head) makes no sense as manhwa/etc. articles tend to be written in the Anime/Manga MOS anyway compared to the MOS of Western-style comics. I'm also willing to bet there's a higher degree of overlap between editors of manwha pages and manga pages compared to, say, manwha editors and members of WikiProject Comics, so expanding the scope to all anime-styled works is consistent with the overarching aims of the project to identify similar pages for like-minded editors.
 * There is already precedent for works which are not anime and manga themselves but are ostensibly anime-inspired to be included in the project. For example, visual novels and anime-style video games such as Azur Lane (which is from a Chinese developer, so it makes even less sense that a Chinese game with anime-style characters gets included in the project scope, but a literal Chinese anime is not) or the Hyperdimension Neptunia games.
 * I can't think of any reason why expanding the scope would be explicitly detrimental to the project.

If anyone has any thoughts/input on this matter as it'll be interesting to see if there is enough support to progress to official RFC (or if I'm the only one advocating this!)  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  14:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the distinction is important because not all manhwa get the same overage as anime. I bet the reason why Azur Lane is part of this project's scope is that although the video game itself isn't Japanese, it does have official manga and anime media related to it. The same goes for Neptunia. Sharing a similar manual of style editing doesn't really convince me that it should be part of this project. There are also sources to consider. <b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 14:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not against having a manhwa/manhua wikiproject. There's just a clear distinction between the west and east animanga-inspired media.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing about these Western sources calling non-anime media as "anime" is that they do so because they want to redefine the meaning of "anime" in the first place, as opposed to it reflecting general uses at the time (series such as Avatar and RWBY are perhaps the most well-known examples of trying to push this redefinition). In addition, while the lines can be blurred as to what counts and does not count as anime, this usually refers to media that are Japanese co-productions, or where Japanese involvement is minimal. In the cases of (mostly Western) series such as Avatar, RWBY, etc., it may be more accurate to refer to them as "anime-styled animation" where their art style and direction is similar to anime but aren't actual Japanese anime. But to answer your question, with certain exceptions (like for example the manga adaptation of RWBY, with emphasis on the manga part), Western anime-styled cartoons shouldn't fall under this WikiProject. Stuff like manhwa, manhua, webtoons, etc. could probably have its own WikiProject (perhaps a "WikiProject East Asian animation/comics" or something like that) that could be partnered with this project, but not actually be a part of it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are long past the day and age when new WikiProjects should be stood up. This project should step up and pull in the topics which, regardless of "supposedly-pushed" definition, look or feel or are designed after the style. Those that pushed are of interest to this project precisely because of the pushing. I also assert that not everything is RWBY and Avatar interest level of "pushing" -- in fact most people probably can't tell the difference between anime produced in China and those in Japan and those in America (now) without reading the credits. The "we must follow the single precise definition of anime as in one specific country" is a fundamental failure of NPOV (but as this is not content, take that as you will...). --Izno (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the position expressed by . The only real difference is who made it and where it was made, and even that is becoming much more blurred with Netflix and others producing new shows and more and more anime having significant portions (if not the entire thing) produced at studios in Korea and China (and other places, on occasion). While there may have been reasons to exclude manhwa/manhua in the past, those reasons don't really stand up to scrutiny today. It would also make things less confusing to apply a standard across all of these related articles, especially since the average person on the street isn't able to (generally) distinguish between them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, "anime having significant portions produced in other places" is not a new thing. It's called outsourcing and has been for decades. It has been normal for anime to outsource portions of their production to other countries for a long time (traditionally to Korea, but in more recent years to places like China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia, for example). That doesn't change how these series are still primarily created and produced by Japanese staff. To give an analogy: it is also common for American and Canadian cartoons to outsource their animation elsewhere. For example, The Simpsons and SpongeBob among others are primarily animated in Korea. Despite this, you almost never see these be considered Korean animations, they're still referred to as Western or American cartoons. For Japanese-Asian and even certain Japanese-American co-productions, yes an argument can still be made that they're anime and can fall under this project, but the same really can't be said for primarily Western productions like Avatar. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't we just use a definition of "anime" that a show is anime if reliable sources call it anime? After all, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, irrespective of whether they are trying to "redefine" what anime means. And it shouldn't even matter because being anime-inspired is reason enough for it to be included in the project scope. After all, visual novels aren't anime or manga, yet no-one objects to them being included, as they're anime-inspired. Why can't the same argument apply to manhwa, or even potentially Avatar?  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, visual novels go to WikiProject Video games. However, if they're listed under WikiProject Anime and manga, most likely it's because they have an anime or manga adaptation. lullabying (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the project page of ANIMANGA explicitly includes visual novels regardless of anime/manga connection. Quote: Visual novels, dating sims, bishojo games and other similar games regardless of whether they have a major anime or manga adaptation under a shared scope with the visual novels task force; -- ferret (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess the scope of the WikiProject indicates any series that is marketed to the otaku demographic in Japan? I can see reason for why they should or shouldn't be included in this WikiProject. lullabying (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Izno and Nihonjoe. The exclusion of manhwa, and the entire concept of "it's not really anime" in reference to other titles, it's just fan gatekeeping. There are clearly "in the style of" and should fall under the general scope of this project's efforts. Task force them as "manhwa" if you want to categorize them off to the side for your ideal of fan purity. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - this is gatekeeping at its finest.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am against adding manhwa into the project scope as nothing has changed, this would be like associating Geisha with China. Its a cultural issue that we shouldn't decide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be open to including some webtoons/manhwa/manhua in the project, but if and only if they have anime adaptations. So stuff like Tower of God would be included, but others? Probably not. At the end of the day, stuff like Avatar are still American cartoons with little-to-no Japanese involvement and thus would fall under the cartoon WikiProject, not us. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see an argument for including non-Japanese anime-influenced cartoons in this project's scope since some people define "anime" as a style and refer to those as such, even tho I find the idea absurd since that means there is not a single characteristic that all anime have in common. But why do you people think that Manhwa should be covered by this project? No one explained that. Satellizer tried in their opening post, but assumed Wikipedia editor overlap is not a reason. I have never seen anyone aside from Tokyopop refer to a Manhwa that was published in Korea as a manga. Does this "influenced by" mindset only apply to visual aspects in the Asian comics and cartoon mediums? Cause the live-action film Chronicle was influenced by Akira, should that get added to WikiProject Anime and manga? This whole thing gives me the feel of "Well its Asian, let's throw it under WikiProject Anime and manga." This project used the country of origin as the definition because that's the only clear and consistent thing. Xfansd (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try our best to make this as civil as possible if we're going to have this discussion. We should avoid terms like "gatekeeping" and "your ideal of fan purity". No one here is re-inventing the wheel whether we include them in the project's scope or not, the definition of anime and manga will remain the same, we should focus on this on an objective level as best as we can.
 * If there is a dedicated group out there that wants to edit those and have a similar structure to WP:ANIME, then I don't see why a separate wikiproject can exist. There are wikiprojects that are for video games and a Square Enix even though they have the same scope, and the reason why they are their own wikiproject instead of a taskforce is because of how strong the community is. So I don't see any reason to not have a separate wikiproject dedicated to a piece of media that is objectively different.
 * The question is if the scope is expanded for this project, will it improve the Wikiproject or produce more activity? Would the same level of attention they get as the standard anime and manga? In my humble opinion, broadening our scope won't achieve that. It'll be just more content go by the wayside. I do believe, that if we do choose to include them in the scope, the name of the Wikiproject itself would have to change to "Asian pop-culture media" or something similar.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 16:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue there are separate definitions where some think of anime as any type of animation made in Japan, and others (like me) associate anime more with the art style, tropes etc. I'd argue that especially in the English-speaking community nobody cares much about which country produced the show anyway, since it's consumed in English regardless, either subbed or dubbed. "Its a cultural issue that we shouldn't decide" - except that we are WikiProject Anime and Manga, so deciding how these issues are covered is literally our job. And we probably don't need to change the project name - it's called "WikiProject Anime and manga" for conciseness, not "WikiProject Anime, Manga, Visual Novels, and associated media" or whatever. Its implicitly implied that anime-related or inspired media can form part of the scope; that's what most other WikiProjects do.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Its a cultural issue that we shouldn't decide" - except that we are WikiProject Anime and Manga, so deciding how these issues are covered is literally our job.
 * How everyone individually defines anime and manga doesn't matter. If this wikiproject decides to broaden the scope to include OEL manga, manhwa and manhua, it will not change how we define these in the actual articles. We will still refer OEL Manga as OEL Manga, manhwa as manhwa, and anime-inspired or anime-influenced as such. So how someone personally defines anime and manga should be of zero concern in this discussion. If this discussion was created so they can push their personal agenda on how anime is defined, then this will go nowhere. There will be no consensus on anime and manga being defined purely on their style and trying to impose that definition just by broadening the scope isn't going to produce more civility, it's just going to produce incivility among peers who should be working together on areas where attention is needed.


 * If we're going to continue this discussion moving forward, then we should focus on whether broadening the Wikiproject's scope will be beneficial to the Wikiproject itself as well when they already fall under other Wikiprojects. For example, manhwa (Korean) and manhua (Chinese) is a whole new country of origin and will have to search for and learn from. Korean and Chinese reviewers and determine whether they are reliable and unreliable. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a Wikiproject of their own. Or just use the wikiprojects that already exist (outside of WP:ANIME).<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 21:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * btw, Webtoons has WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not specifically directed at webtoons though; in fact, a lot of it seems to cover Western webcomics. Also, them covering webtoons certainly doesn't preclude this Wikiproject from expanding our scope if we choose to do so; for example, the One-Punch Man article has both Wikiprojects. Sandtalon (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter. Manhua and manhwa are included on database sites like MyAnimeList and MangaUpdates and Anime-Planet, so there's that. But I glanced at a few random manhua/manhwa pages, and most of them seem to be already under WikiProject Comics. Ahiijny (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The database pages you listed aren't considered reliable sources per WP:ANIME. lullabying (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly speaking, there are plenty of valid points brought up in this discussion. I do think this WikiProject should focus on anime and manga produced directly in Japan. "Anime art style" and "tropes" associated with mainstream series doesn't seem like a good qualifier as they have a broad spectrum. However, I don't understand why RWBY, Azur Lane, and the like aren't listed under this WikiProject, because they do have notable anime or manga adaptations that take up a section of their respective articles. If Noblesse got listed under this WikiProject for having an anime adaptation, why not them?
 * On a slightly unrelated note, Cheese in the Trap was translated into Japanese and published by Kadokawa with the characters receiving localized Japanese names; they also had a web commercial featuring notable Japanese voice actors. Would it fall under this WikiProject? lullabying (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RWBY should fall under the project's scope because of manga adaptations. Azur Lane already falls under this project. As for Cheese in the Trap, having an official physical release dedicated to Japan and also their own localization is a bit of a grey area. officially, it's just localization of a Korean webtoon comic. But we also can't deny that it's a special case.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add onto this confusion, Rilakkuma and Kaoru is listed on this WikiProject even though it's a stop-motion animated series. (Rilakkuma has a manga adaptation but it is not related to Rilakkuma and Kaoru.) What is the basis for this being listed under the WikiProject, other than being reviewed by Anime News Network By extension, would other stop-motion series be listed under WikiProject Anime and manga as long as they were produced in Japan? lullabying (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jotaro Kujo
After finding a lot of real world information of Jotaro Kujo, I managed to give him his article. Sadly, the volumes I have from Star Dust Crusaders are not the same published in North America so I don't know how to reference the article. Also, I have little knowledge about other appearances like video games or liveaction, so I think this article needs further work. In case anybody decides to help, I'll appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Went for another and created Joseph Joestar. It still needs a clean up but I thought that both Jotaro and Joseph would need their own articles based on their popularity and recent coverage by the media.Tintor2 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Rintaro's X
I created the article X (1996 film) but I failed to find its work its debut in the Japanese box office or even its actual poster. I tried Anime News Newtork but they instead used the cover of the home media release. By any chance does anybody know of a possible source. By the way, most English reviews seem to fully title the movie "X: The Movie" and I wonder if it's okay to move it since the guidelines tend to avoid disambiguation titles. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Producer lists in infoboxes

 * For anime TV series, there can sometimes be a large number of producers credited and listed in infoboxes. Some examples for 12-episode series include Gourmet Girl Graffiti (7 producers), Dagashi Kashi (8 producers), and the particularly extreme example of Holmes of Kyoto (16 producers).


 * Producers for many series are often difficult to source (for example, typical ANN reports on staff give a plethora of credits, but rarely producers -- even more detailed staff listing reports like  typically omit listing producers in favor of other credits).


 * My concern with these lists are that they are given undue weight in the infobox. In many cases, these names are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, and seem to be derived from the credits seen in the work itself. Sometimes these credits produce unconfirmed romanizations (see Happy Sugar Life), and very often most or all of the listed producers are not notable enough to have their own articles.


 * For these reasons, I think that the listings have little utility to readers, and introduce clutter and lightly-sourced information in a prominent location.


 * Note: I am writing above about anime TV series. Anime films, like Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise or Princess Mononoke (which albeit use the film infobox, not ours), seem to be different: there are usually only 1 or 2 producers, and they are frequently mentioned in secondary sources. I suspect this is due to a difference in production structure for films.

I would like to start a discussion on these lists. My opinion is that producers who aren't mentioned in secondary coverage should not be included -- this accounts for the exceptions where producers appear to have a particularly strong role within a project (like for some TV series, and for most (?) films).

Pinging for input User:Sarcataclysmal, who I often see filling in this parameter. — Goszei (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goszei in that the producer field has been just a catch-all for any producer in a given anime series, whether or not it was even worth putting in a dozen names, none of whom are notable to have their own articles. Very rarely, specifically with older series like Cowboy Bebop will the producers even have articles, and usually also with older series, there aren't that many of them to even list, so it's not so much of an issue. But listing 16 producers for Holmes of Kyoto is just ridiculous at this point, and pointlessly elongates infoboxes, especially on articles that already have extremely long infoboxes (notice how the most recent anime has 8 producers, whereas the others have 4 or less). I second Goszei's suggestion that producers who aren't mentioned in secondary sources should not be included. Realistically speaking, only one or two producers, if any, should satisfy that criteria for most anime series, and only in extreme circumstances would more than that be warranted.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 04:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Only listing producers mentioned in secondary sources is a flawed method of going about this, in my opinion. Really, I think we should either include all of the producers (given the プロデューサー credit), or include none of them at all. This is due to the fact that secondary sources generalize those involved in the production of series as all being "producers", whether they be "chief producers" (チーフプロデューサー), whatever "produce" is (プロデュース, which is normally given to companies like GENCO, albeit this isnt always true), or "production generalization" (制作プロデューサー). A good example of this is Land of the Lustrous, where, in a | citation, ANN states that Kiyotaka Waki and Katsuhiro Takei are "producers" for the series; they were part of the production staff (as "produce" and "production generalization", according to the series' credits), this is true. But ANN is simply calling them "producers" due to the fact that they're part of the production staff which... is not particularly accurate, since those are separate credits. Even then, those with "produce" and "production generalization" sometimes aren't called "producers" or mentioned in any secondary sources. Who is the producer then? Going on a case-by-case basis according to what information is available through the inconsistent secondary sources doesn't seem like a very viable option, in my opinion, and I don't believe the production team, or the industry itself, is looking to categorize all of these individuals under the single monomer that is "producer", given that the the original Japanese language credits include a myriad of different credits. I don't have a whole lot of faith in secondary sources when it comes to the "producer" predicament for these reasons. I strictly believe that all of the producers (プロデューサー) be credited in the infoboxes, or that the entire infobox parameter be removed to avoid issues. Making exceptions due to secondary source coverage is simply not something I can get behind, especially if it's going to be choppy information that omits those not deemed notable enough due to lack of secondary source coverage.

You're probably right on the differences between TV and film productions, but there are also things like A Silent Voice (5 producers), Maquia: When the Promised Flower Blooms (6 producers), Fairy Tail: Dragon Cry (7 producers), and Fullmetal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa (9 producers).

Regarding ANN news coverage not reporting on producers, that's not due to ANN simply not reporting on the producers, it's just that it's very rare for an official website or news source to detail who is producing a project outside of, say, "produce" credits like the aforementioned GENCO (example). The only example I can think of where an anime's website detailed the producer is Spiritpact (this). Even film websites don't report on producers, like Maquia's or Kizumonogatari's. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on your analysis, I agree that sources (at least ANN) are often sloppy and/or incomplete in their naming of producers. If we create a "secondary source" exemption, I think it would result in similarly sloppy/incomplete listings, which must be avoided. As you also said, there is nuance to how the credits are named, and that would either need to be ignored in the infobox, or footnoted to the point of overcomplexity.
 * I tentatively support removing the parameter entirely. Per my arguments in the OP, I don't think they provide utility to the reader in a majority of cases. User:Juhachi pointed out above that there are particular series (like Cowboy Bebop) with notable producers that could appear in the infobox, but I don't think this outweighs the problems with keeping the parameter: in these special cases, the sources that mention the producers can give that information in the body with little value lost.
 * Unless a compelling argument comes forward for keeping the parameter, I support its removal. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the producer issue is mainly just a lack of citations in the articles themselves; there's definitely interviews and other articles for secondary sources, and I think combining these with cite AV media would work. Attack on Titan has 9 producers (across 3 seasons; only 6 at any one time), and 3 of them were interviewed recently. Despite this, the producers are only mentioned in the infoboxes; so, if we cite the interview, and also add in cite AV media for the missing producers that werent in that particular interview, then the issue of lack of citations is therefore solved by both a secondary and primary source. Another example is Kizumonogatari-- not a single citation for the producers, but if you look some stuff up you'll find an interview with 2/3 of the producers and director Oishi (WaveMotionCannon translated this one). So, cite it, then cite AV media for the final missing producer (Takuya Matsushita of Kodansha), and that issue is solved as well. Obviously this won't really help things with a HUGE amount of producers like Holmes of Kyoto, but at the very least I believe this would keep the "producers" in the animanga infobox alive and certifiably notable to have. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe the core of the problem the sourcing or sometimes-large numbers of producers (though those are contributing factors to the main problem). Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should "allow readers to identify key facts at a glance", which is done by limiting less-relevant information. I think producers simply fall into this less-relevant category of information, compared to directors/writers/composers, which is reflected in their lack of crediting on official websites, sparse citations in secondary sources, etc. — Goszei (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the producer issue is mainly just a lack of citations in the articles themselves; there's definitely interviews and other articles for secondary sources, and I think combining these with cite AV media would work. Attack on Titan has 9 producers (across 3 seasons; only 6 at any one time), and 3 of them were interviewed recently. Despite this, the producers are only mentioned in the infoboxes; so, if we cite the interview, and also add in cite AV media for the missing producers that werent in that particular interview, then the issue of lack of citations is therefore solved by both a secondary and primary source. Another example is Kizumonogatari-- not a single citation for the producers, but if you look some stuff up you'll find an interview with 2/3 of the producers and director Oishi (WaveMotionCannon translated this one). So, cite it, then cite AV media for the final missing producer (Takuya Matsushita of Kodansha), and that issue is solved as well. Obviously this won't really help things with a HUGE amount of producers like Holmes of Kyoto, but at the very least I believe this would keep the "producers" in the animanga infobox alive and certifiably notable to have. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe the core of the problem the sourcing or sometimes-large numbers of producers (though those are contributing factors to the main problem). Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should "allow readers to identify key facts at a glance", which is done by limiting less-relevant information. I think producers simply fall into this less-relevant category of information, compared to directors/writers/composers, which is reflected in their lack of crediting on official websites, sparse citations in secondary sources, etc. — Goszei (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not just do what I did for Powerpuff Girls? You can always make a collapsible list so the trivial details only show up with a simple click of a button. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTHIDE (a Manual of Style guideline) states: "A few infoboxes use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details. If information in an infobox seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion about whether it should be included at all." Based on this guidance, I don't feel the info is important enough for inclusion. Ignoring the guideline, though, I support the idea of putting producers in collapsible lists as a compromise. — Goszei (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ill support this as well. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Magical girl series
I'm considering revamping magical girl after going through reference books. I just looked through Category:Magical girl television series and I'm seeing a lot of series that don't have it officially sourced as a genre? Magical girl is largely coined by Japanese media and some of the shows that were listed under the category don't even reference it as a genre, like H2O: Mermaid Adventures. lullabying (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, it seems that many series from Category:Magical girl anime and manga don't have the genre properly sourced. Days ago a user added various series to the category without adding sources referring to them as magical girl series, even Little Witch Academia, which according to an Anime News Networks review, is not exactly a magical girl series. - Xexerss (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll wait to see what other people say before I start removing unsourced series from the categories. lullabying (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it isn't sourced, then it shouldn't be in the category and should be removed from the article as well. I checked a few of the Western shows included in that category, and didn't see any relevant sourcing in any of them. — Goszei (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree for the already presented reasons by Goszei and Xexerss. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I started removing some unsourced series from Category:Magical girl television series and will be working on Category:Magical girl anime and manga next. I've also rewritten Magical girl, so any feedback is helpful. lullabying (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviews for Gun Blaze West needed
Hey all! I have started working on the Gun Blaze West article, and am in need of more reviews from reliable outlets to help improve the reception section. I'm already using the following: https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/05/06/gun-blaze-west-volume-1-review https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/gun-blaze-west/gn-3 Thanks in advance! Link20XX (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I added some reviews from activeAnime in the "Further reading" section. Here are some more:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (I added this one to source a genre in the article)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I'll add some more here if I find something else. Cheers. - Xexerss (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will use them to improve the reception section! Link20XX (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Join
Dear sirs: I would like to participate in the project. Please talk on my talk page if yes. Waylon1 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Waylon1, and welcome to the project. There is no process necessary to join the project. It is simply a place for those of us who edit animanga topics to collaborate and establish guidelines such as our manual of style or directory of reliable sources. Looking through your contributions I see repeated pleas for others to talk to you, as well as other off-topic commentary. Please limit talk page use for discussing editing only. I would recommend starting out by making small edits to actual articles, such as fixing typos or adding citations. If you need help editing or have questions, the link to the Teahouse on your talk page would be a good place for that. Opencooper (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with Japanese
As I was working in Subaru Sumeragi I happened to find this Newtype magazine about the character's liveaction role. By any chance, is there somebody who could check and see if I can add more about actor's casting? I managed to find the other Japanese actors, but the liveaction film seems too obscure in comparison. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Might wanna try someone from Translators available. Though I didn't have much luck in a past attempt. Opencooper (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Love Monster
I don't think this series is notable, but please take a look and fix the problems noted as tagged. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found an article featuring an interview with the author, though the article mostly talks about Mei-chan no Shitsuji. lullabying (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Publisher sources vs secondary sources
I've seen that changed the Gigant volume list links from the Japanese (Shogakukan) and English (Seven Seas Entertainment) publishers to news website links (Natalie and Anime News Network). Most part of the manga articles use the original publisher links for dates, ISBN and such info for the volume list and I think they are enough to cover this basic information. So, should we only use secondary sources for volume lists or are the original publisher links enough? - Xexerss (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Publisher links are fine for non-controversial information like release dates, so it's not wrong to use them, and I don't see a reason to rush to mass edit articles, but RSs are preferable when available. Personally I only resort to primary sources to "fill in the gaps" when I have no other options.--AlexandraIDV 13:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that publisher links are preferable to secondary sources just for this particular case due to the aforementioned basic aspects. I mean, those Natalie and ANN links only give the volume release dates but not their ISBN, although I'm not sure if this necessarily need sources. Also, I've noticed that sometimes publishers postpone release dates but ANN publishes just the original date and not the new date, as I've seen with Kaiji volume 1 (ANN: ;Denpa ). - Xexerss (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine so long as what is cited isn't controversial. And in some cases, when citing statistical information (which release dates would be part of), a primary sources would be more authoritative. If a dates is already cited to a primary source, there is no need to change the citation to one that is less authoritative. 24.149.102.22 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Publisher websites might be okay, but be sure to archive the web pages since there are many instances where they take down the official website when the series is no longer active. For manga, you could also try Media Arts Database although sometimes they don't agree with the publisher date. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I'm trying to currently do, especially with finished Shogakukan series, which ISBN and original release dates from those series that don't sell particularly well are removed and changed to its digital publication info. But my main concern is whether we should prefer a series' specific volume link or simply use links for general releases of the month. As I said before, I think those links with more detailed info (preferably those from the original publishers) should be preferable to secondary sources that don't give too much info of the volumes besides the release dates, which often, don't coincide with the actual release date given by the original publisher. - Xexerss (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually use Natalie and Anime News Network for release dates and publisher sources if those aren't available. Secondary sources are preferable in my opinion. lullabying (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Clannad (visual novel)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Clannad (visual novel) § Requested move 19 December 2020. Question at hand: is  a valid form of parenthetical disambiguation for our articles? — Goszei (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Macrons or not?
I've been working on the recently created article Fuma Monou. I have seen some old reviews of the manga where Sequelart uses the form "Fuuma" instead. However, behind the voice actors uses "Fuma" when dealing with the character. Is there a certain guideline about it? I thought Wikipedia was against using macrons but I don't know about the character's first name. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If English sources use some sort of romanization without macrons as the COMMONNAME, you should go with that. Macrons are usually used when there isn't a COMMONNAME in English sources. For more details, see MOS:JA. Opencooper (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would check the English manga from Clamp since X is a fairly old series so that should be around. Some of the newer publishers like to put macrons in for their characters though, like with UQ Holder. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like the newest sources for his role in Tsubasa or X's compilation DVDs seem to prefer more the simpler, Fuma like. "Fuma's transformation is vastly more believable here than it was in the film". "Fuma", or "Fuma wrapping his arm". Still, added the optional Fuuma to the lead similar to what I did with Kamui.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the anime has a different macron / spelling usage than the manga, you can include that too in the extra= part of the Nihongo. You won't believe how many times I had to enforce the Koko spelling in List of Rosario + Vampire characters since the manga used that consistently while the anime used Kokoa. Same with Yukari Sendou and Ruby Tojo. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we go: https://www.amazon.com/Vol-vols-CLAMP/dp/1421540428/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=x%2F1999+vol+2&qid=1609612912&s=books&sr=1-2 Amazon x/1999 Vol. 2 3-in-1  says "Fuma".  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Heart of Thomas FAC
Just alerting the project that The Heart of Thomas is currently a featured article candidate. Any comments that could improve the article would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Red Eyes
This page has been tagged for issues for almost 11 years. Let's fix it, merge it, or nominate it for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering it's been licensed in France, Germany, and Italy, it's likely notable. Pages does need some work, agreed. Opencooper (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello and Happy New Year! Thank you, . Can you help fix the issues? If not, can you tag/ping someone who might be able to assist? Bearian (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Kaiji Gambles section
I was wondering if we should keep Kaiji's Gambles section featured in its article. They are relevant for the plot but I'm not sure if we should apply the same criteria as with the Plot section and overlook that it doesn't cite any source. Aside from the plot section, that as far as I know it doesn't require sources, this section is the only one in the article that doesn't include sources. What do you think? - Xexerss (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to fully explain all of the gambles, but that's just me. Potentially, one could use cite AV media / cite episode to source from the series itself, but I'm not certain. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Title lists on company articles
Hey all! I have done some work on AnimEigo and Media Blasters, as well as considering starting work on NBCUniversal Entertainment Japan, and was wondering if it's alright if I just rip out the title lists in them. I don't think they add much to the article and finding a citation for each is difficult (and in some cases next to impossible). I just want to know everyone's opinion on it before I do it. Thanks for your time! Link20XX (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know it'd be possible to cite primary sources (i.e. the series' credits), but I also don't think listing all of these works is necessarily contributing to the quality of the article or the content of the articles. Even then, categories are probably enough for those lists imo. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Monogatari series episode list tables
I was talking with Crosswrm about adding episode/unit directors and screenplay writers into the tables for the Monogatari series episode list, but I thought that adding that might cloud up the tables with too much information; Crosswrm and I both agree that keeping the "Opening credits" parameter is viable considering the sales of the CS songs, and I think that removing the "Endcards" parameter would be fine because they're not particularly notable and their usage dwindles as time goes on (Hana, Tsuki, some Owari I episodes, Koyomi, Kizu, Owari II, and Zoku Owari don't have any).

So, thoughts on this? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would suggest creating sublists and leaving the songs and endcard for the prose. The priority should be given to director and writers kinda like the recent Akudama Drive or Buso Renkin. When it comes to one episode themes like I did with the xxxHolic OVAs I would suggest keeping theme for the prose. If you are interested in the songs' performance, I would suggest a soundtrack article like List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additions by Special:Contributions/45.231.14.255
Hi, I noticed a series of additions by this anonymous user that are at best poorly worded, may be something unsourced but correct, or that at worst is someone adding things across multiple articles as a sort of "sneaky vandalism". I'm not familiar enough with the topics myself, but I thought maybe some folks could review all their contributions lately to see what needs cleanup / removal. Best, umrguy  42  03:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wicked City light-novel stub
About a week back, while organizing various light novel pages, I noticed a page called Wicked City (novel). As it seemed to focus on the light-novel series more so than the original article, I merged the information found on Hideyuki Kikuchi's page onto the article. Furthermore, in addition to the Japanese article, I added in dates and ISBN numbers for all the novels of the Wicked City city. For those who could understand Japanese, is it possible to find anything that could signify the plot summary or synopsis for any of the books for the series as well as the series' reception? Because so far, the article still veers way too much into the primary source range. The book series seems pretty important on its own (apart from the better known OVA film and the Hong Kong film) because the first three novels received English translations between 2009 and 2010.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jenya
Regarding Jenya, she is also listed under the categories Category:Japanese female singers, Category:Japanese television personalities, Category:Japanese video game actresses, and Category:Japanese voice actresses. She is actually a Russian expatriate who later gained Japanese citizenship, so she is nationally Japanese. But should she be listed under these categories? lullabying (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:People by nationality says This category contains articles on people according to their civic nationality (legal affiliation with a state), so I would assume Japanese is correct here based on your post.--AlexandraIDV 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title doesn't match
The article title Aishite Knight doesn't match the name in the article which is consistently Ai Shite Knight. Just a random find, so posting here in case someone with more interest than me wants to fix it or figure out what's up.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would go for Aishite because that's how Toei seems to list it in the URL. The article should also be titled Love Me, My Knight anyway due to WP:USEENGLISH and that's the title used in the English publication. lullabying (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah if you want to change it please do, just wanted to raise the issue. I'm trying to limit the number of pies I have my fingers in haha, and manga is not my expertise. Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen
Got some sad news for those who are familiar with and her work: she passed away earlier this week. She was a well-loved contributor and editor who made quite a few contributions to some anime articles, and will be truly missed by us all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick Question
Should Loading (TV channel) be a part of this WikiProject? The channel has partnerships with both Funimation and Crunchyroll, and has aired many anime series. Link20XX (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Air dates in infobox
Hi, I've been checking some articles on media that have an animated series, and notice that for series that are currently under hiatus, like Welcome to Demon School! Iruma-kun, their run dates are still marked as "original run date to present". On others, like Kaguya-sama: Love Is War, they're separated into their own seasons with their own air dates (which have ended). What's the standard here? Make different sections in the infobox if the seasons are named differently? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much; other examples include Tokyo Ghoul (original series, Root A, :re (which was two seasons, but are titled the same)) and Hidamari Sketch. I'm unsure if there's an actual guideline pertaining to this (I'm not big on guideline know-how), but this is the standard we've pretty much been using. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Should this ANN article be considered a reliable source in this context?
Is this good enough to warrant an entry in such a list? I am well aware that ANN is considered a reliable source for news. However, this article is not news and is instead an interpretation of a single scene. To extrapolate that and include it in this list is clear original research. Bringing it here since the editor who owns this article is belligerent and I can't be bothered dealing with them. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's the official staff discussing it, then it might count similar to other characters whose sexual orientations are discussed by writers like Fuma Monou, Kaworu Nagisa, Fai D. Flowright or Waver Velvet among others who remain unclear. Then again, it might be more worthy in the actual series' or character's article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that ANN has also been considered a reliable source for editorial pieces as well--for example, ANN reviews are regularly cited in the "reception" section of articles. With that in mind, perhaps it can be rewritten to acknowledge that it is an interpretation of the ANN writers, but because we allow ANN editorial pieces, I think it can still be included on the list. Sandtalon (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Misato Katsuragi
There's a debate going on at the Misato Katsuragi article. The discussion is at Talk:Misato Katsuragi. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cardfight Vanguard
Hello everyone I am new and I joined Wikipedia 2 days ago. I just joined project anime and manga. Can I edit any anime I want or just the ones mentioned on the page because I want to edit Cardfight!! Vanguard. Queen of Vanguard (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! You can edit pretty much any article on Wikipedia - just make sure to cite sources for the information you add. If you need help with that, just ask!--AlexandraIDV 07:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 👍 Queen of Vanguard (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Join
How do I join? Starkiryu64 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * : Wikiprojects are pretty decentralized, and there is no "official" membership. You can "join" by participating--editing pages, discussing changes on talk pages, etc. From the main page: "Anyone who edits or contributes to anime and manga-related articles is a participant, and there are no other requirements for membership." There are more specific tasks related to the Wikiproject itself--such as upkeeping templates and doing reviews of articles, but really, the project is mostly article creation and editing. If you want, you can add the Wikiproject userbox to your user page, and you can add this Wikiproject talk page to your Watchlist by clicking the star button--this will allow you to keep up with what's going on with the rest of the project. Sandtalon (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But how do you put in your profile? Starkiryu64 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Click "edit source" and paste " ". For more information on userboxes in general, see here. For a broader introduction to Wiki Markup (Wikipedia formatting in source mode), see here. FYI, on talk pages, replies are usually intended by using a colon  in the Markup editor--this makes the conversation thread easier to read. My replies to you are indented with a colon, for example. The more colons you use, the more indented your comment is. Sandtalon (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Starkiryu64 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Article title/lead problem with Urahara
I've run into a bit of a problem with the article title and lead for Urahara. Right now, the lead reads "Urahara is a webcomic written by Patrick Macias and illustrated by Mugi Tanaka." However, this is not the case--the anime adaptation of the webcomic is titled Urahara, but the webcomic itself is titled PARK Harajuku: Crisis Team! How should I handle this? Maybe make the first sentence of the lead something like "Urahara is an anime series based on the webcomic PARK Harajuku: Crisis Team!, which is written by Patrick Macias and illustrated by Mugi Tanaka"? Any advice would be appreciated. Sandtalon (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would keep Urahara as the article title because it's the most well-known name. Maybe you could write it as "Urahara (originally titled Park Harajuku: Crisis Team!)." Your suggestion is okay too. lullabying (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since nobody else has commented, I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks for the input! Sandtalon (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Musicals
I'm going to attempt to clean up Musical: The Prince of Tennis and Musical: Touken Ranbu, but there seems to be an excess of information that I don't know if it's appropriate for Wikipedia specifically. One issue is the cast listing, where in a series with so many actors getting top billing in a series of musicals, it makes it look excessive. I tried narrowing down only to the main characters for Hyper Projection Engeki: Haikyu!! but I'm not sure if I should do it for the other articles, especially Touken Ranbu. What information should I keep or cut out? lullabying (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with Danganronpa 3: The End of Hope's Peak High School
I've been trying to expand the article Danganronpa 3: The End of Hope's Peak High School but I think the plot section needs some check. Also, while I managed to find a source in regards to how Madman Entertainment licensed the series for Australia, the infobox says Muse Communication licensed the series for other countries from Asia. Sadly, I can't find anything about Muse's license since the official website uses a language I can't understand (Taiwanese?). If somebody could lend me a hand, I would appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaworu Nagisa
Recently there has been expansion in most Evangelion articles. However, there seems to be a discussion at Talk:Kaworu Nagisa involving a disagreement about unsourced material or sources needing more details. More comments would be helpful. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

International licenses
Some manga pages list licenses from other countries, such as Taiwan, China, Germany, France, Poland, etc. Since there are so many languages that manga could be published in, is it necessary to include information about licenses in other countries outside of English-language publications? lullabying (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to include non-English licenses mainly for notability purposes if a series is not licensed for English release and to indicate that it has performed well enough to be licensed in other countries outside of Japan. - Xexerss (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If licensing/translation in other countries and languages can be sourced, why shouldn't that information be included in the article? —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Often times, they're sourced via primary sources and I just don't feel it's necessary to list every single country the manga is licensed in, especially since we are the English Wikipedia. lullabying (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are an English language Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we focus only on English and exclude information for other languages. Also, primary sources are perfectly find when establishing basic facts. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find sourcing for it, I would for sure mention it in the article body. Less likely to be significant enough for the lead, though, unless you do something like "it has been published in 30 languages".--AlexandraIDV 13:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At one time, we had listed each of these international licenses in the infobox, but then we shifted to listing them in the body, which usually consists of a single line about what country it was licensed in by what company. Even the one on Naruto is just a couple of lines.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 23:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Split WikiProject Anime and Manga into WikiProject Anime and WikiProject Manga
They should be split as anime and manga are not the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of overlap, and quite a few manga projects have anime projects as well. Separating this WikiProject into two would double efforts. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To further clarify: this is a hub for editors who edit articles about anime and manga. The two are indeed not the same, but there's a lot of overlap between manga editors and anime editors.--AlexandraIDV 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And adding onto what Tenryuu and Alexandra IDV said, a good number of manga end up becoming anime anyway, so it would be silly to separate them.

Proposed merger of LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages
A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see
Please see Articles for deletion/Eleven Arts, which has been relisted again. Someone mentioned anime, so I thought you might be able to help. I think the main question is whether the sources are truly independent, which is something that might be easier for someone who is familiar with the subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Film & TV projects
For Horimiya, I'm going to include information about the live-action adaptation but I'm unsure whether to use the infobox for film or television series, as the project was announced as both mediums (film first while it is later aired on television). I ran into a similar problem while drafting King of Prism: Shiny Seven Stars. lullabying (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go with film; if neither was specifically announced prior to the other, then whichever would be released first. In this case, the film. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

New page I created about LGBT anime
Its called the History of LGBT anime. I know its not comprehensive and obviously does not include every anime with LGBTQ characters, but I tried to pick the ones where there was overlap, like when a director, like Kunihiko Ikuhara worked on various productions or something like that. So, I just thought I'd like you all know about it. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good so far. the Tone is a bit superfluous and not so neutral. video games have "LGBTQ Themes in video games". Perhaps this could be renamed "LGBT Themes in Anima and manga". I don't agree with the overabundance of cosplay images. Especially because there are multiple cosplays for the same character. Cosplays should never be a substitute for portraying the actual character. At first glance, the article seems like an article regarding cosplay, not anime/manga characters. In this situation, I recommend showing actual anime/manga characters to show off each letter in LGBTQ as possible.


 * This may also be too big of a topic to cover each individual anime/manga that may feature LGBTQ because there are whole genres based on LGBTQ-themed anime/manga such as Yaoi, Yuri.15:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cosplay discussion

 * Blue Pumpkin Pie, I'm glad to hear you think its pretty good, although I'm not sure if its not "neutral." But, I'd welcome you to improve it to make it better. I get what you mean about the cosplay images, but if I tried to add in the original copyrighted/NFCC images, they would be taken down by some bot. I know this from trying to do the same on other pages. As such, I've made it a policy to not include copyrighted images unless completely necessary (or in infoboxes). If it was possible, I'd definitely like images of the characters better, I just doubt I could have that many copyrighted images in the article. Maybe one could be a copyrighted image, but I doubt I could have eight copyrighted images in the article. Anyway, the article is not about cosplay and is more about the characters. You are right that this is a very big topic, which is why it is narrowed from my original pages, because it would be too cumbersome to include every LGBTQ character. In terms of renaming the page, there is already a page for LGBT themes in anime and manga (which I just learned about today). While that page seems pretty developed, I'll ask the people on that page if it should be merged, then go from there. Historyday01 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the images get taken down, it's not because they are Non-free images, it's because you didn't add the correct rationale for it. Despite that, cosplay images aren't a good alternative to show what you want them to represent. If cosplay images are going to be used, the only accurate portrayal they can provide (based on reliable sources) is the cosplay community. They cannot replace the representation of the actual character. It's best to not have an image at all if we're not able to provide an accurate portrayal. You're probably right that you won't be able to have eight non-free images, but why would you need eight images? In my humble opinion, we would need two images at least and 4 at most. that's less than half of the images.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are too many images, but I would still rather use cosplay images than NFCC images. I agree with you that they cannot replace representation of an actual character, but they can be useful as visual aids. I'm very wary of using copyrighted images. In any case, some of those images will make their way into the other page, when the content is merged over. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that cosplay can portray and provide visual aid is the act of cosplaying or cosplay community (if there are sources covering cosplay). If they are not portraying an accurate representation of what they're supposed to, then they can't be used as "visual aid". It does the opposite. I understand you're "wary" of copyright, but cosplay is not a good alternative.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree there. I would say a cosplay image is a fine alternative to using a NFCC image. The only place I am comfortable with adding NFCC images is to infoboxes, nowhere else. Not only am I wary of using NFCC images, but I don't see the point in adding them when someone will just remove them anyhow. If you want to add in NFCC images, feel free, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are removed. Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Piotrus pointed out in 2007 that "commonly, anime-related articles...have problems due to fair use images disputed...we are in a very lucky situation, as there is a great source of free images available, many of which members of this project can easily make in the future...Cosplay images...Cosplay images are of course an approximation - but a good, free approximation...if we can use a free image instead of the fair use one, we should do so." IDV said in 2017, "if there is absolutely no way to get an actual image of the character, I guess a cosplay photo could be okay assuming it's reasonably accurate to how the character looks...it does improve the reader's understanding of the subject." Another user said "...Pictures of cosplay is perfectly free." WP:COSPLAY has not been updated in a while, but it says that "cosplay images may be used to illustrate sourced content about the real world impact that cosplay has had on a copy-protected character." But, I can try to add in some images... I don't think that many images of the anime directors exist, but I'd be willing to add those in instead. Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Naruto Uzumaki, Final Fantasy VII, and Revival (comics) all provide more than one NFCC image and are still high-quality. You're taking what User:Alexandra IDV said completely out of context. There's also User:TheFarix in the same discussion that shares the same sentiments I'm providing to you now. That cosplay shouldn't be used because it's just another form of self-promotion. That discussion was so small, i don't know why it was worth bringing up. After reviewing WP:COSPLAY, it's an essay that failed to become a guideline. It didn't appear to be any guideline at all, just an essay to promote as much cosplay images as possible.


 * I believe that every image in the article should reflect the content of the article "accurately". So if there is no coverage on cosplay, they can't be used. Adding new images without proper context is a form of original research or promoting an idea that's not in the article can be easily disputed just as much as an NFCC.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also find any discussion that was as older than 5 years irrelevant. The one in 2007 is almost 15 years old.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that was what I could find. I would say that adding a few images here and there is fine... that's why I revised the article I'm going to merge into that other article, with some better images I found. I agree that WP:COSPLAY is only an essay which failed to become a guideline, and I was only using it as another resource. I'd still say that having a few cosplay images, not too many, is fine. I would not call adding cosplay images a form of self-promotion and think that they can be added in on a very limited basis (like on the History of LGBT anime which only has one cosplay image of RGU because there are no good images of either the director or anything else related to the show other than the titles). And if I did add in such images, I'd definitely add proper context. Historyday01 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cosplay images fail to provide the necessary context in an article like History of LGBT anime because none of the images are providing any visual representation of "anime" "lgbt" or "History". These are visual pieces of media that objectively cannot be replicated. 1 or 2 non-free images will be fine if it's representing something Historical and should fit within NFCC guidelines if you do it properly. Example: one image we can use is Kaworu Nagisa (G) and Shinji Ikari (B). We don't even have to find two separate images for them, we can find one where they're both in the same shot. Which leaves "L" and "T" to be covered. Ranma 1/2 technically counts as trans, so that's more than enough content there.
 * The only context that cosplay images can provide is "cosplay"Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems way too restrictive of a context. I will not be putting in any NFCC images in that article whatsoever, as there is no infobox. If you want to put them in, feel free, but I'm not doing so for the reasons I previously stated. Anyway, I wish more photographs of anime directors were on Wikimedia because I'd use one of Ikuhara, but for some reason no one has uploaded one. I decided to change the image to something better, so your comments on adding more images are mute. Historyday01 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * my main concern really isn't whether you add NFCC, its whether you use more cosplay.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will continue to add it on a limited basis and as a last resort. Historyday01 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ranma discussion
For those interested there is also a discussion about content involving Ranma 1/2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't related to the Cosplay discussion. Why are you mentioning it here? This should be discussed on the talk page and not here. Besides, it will change when the page is merged with the other page, so this is silly. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why its under its own sub-header here. I have no comment about the merger as that is another topic left someplace else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, this discussion would be better to have on that talk page, than roping in other people. They can make more contributions once the merger happens. Historyday01 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Request some input
I have started a new discussion at Talk:Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma. I would like as many opinions as possible. Link20XX (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC for The Heart of Thomas
After undergoing a substantial peer review, The Heart of Thomas is again a featured article candidate. While I personally have no problem with (and in fact welcome) editors who wish to make "drive-by comments" on FACs, one of the reasons cited for the nomination's original failure was that it received a large volume of passing comments and few substantive reviews. So with that in mind, I would invite interested editors to review the FAC, and look forward to receiving your feedback. Morgan695 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source discussions
You are invited to join the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. There are several new sources posted there for consideration by the project (namely: Mangapedia, Anime Herald, Comicbook, and the Journal of Anime & Manga Studies). — Goszei (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) — Goszei (talk)  20:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Studio page disambiguations
Some studios have their name disambiguated as "studio name" (company), like Pierrot (company) and Shaft (company), while others have their name disambiguated as "studio name" (studio), like NAZ (studio), MAPPA (studio), and Bones (studio). What is the standard? Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no particular standard. Of course, we could create one, albeit I don't know whether I'd rather "studio" or "company" be used, personally, since both seem to be fine disambiguations. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion at List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks
Hey, everyone, I apologize to have plugged this almost 3 times now but the discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks has been open for almost a year with very little feedback. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Received request to merge the LGBT themes in anime and manga article into the History of LGBT anime article in February 2021. Reason: <I>Merge these ...following the guidance outlined on WP:MERGEINIT. However, after some discussion on Anime and manga WikiProject and looking at this page, I see overlap between the two pages... User:Historyday01</I>. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. – GenQuest "scribble" 04:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Family as a genre
I've seen that someone add family as a genre to the One Piece and One Piece (TV series) articles, which is a tag used on Viz Media website. I think that Viz Media uses that tag for customers, for commercial purposes rather than using it to mean to be an actual genre. I don't think that Viz tags should be automatically be considered genres and I'd say that it should be removed. - Xexerss (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you – "family-friendly" is not a genre. — Goszei (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a marketing label to me, agreed that it's not a genre. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Family fits better as a demographic than a genre.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hajime Hinata
In the past weeks I created a character article for Danganronpa character Hajime Hinata. However, due to some issues involving a sockpuppet rushing it one in early January, the video game project sent it to deletion. I tried rewriting everything and include as much possible real world information as possible in the draft located here but it appears most editors still want it deleted. If more users could voice their comments I would appreciate it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

List of magical girls
A user created List of magical girls which seems to be lacking sources and has been listing characters that technically aren't magical girls. Any editing help is welcome! lullabying (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just put it up for AFD as listcruft.-- <b style="color: black;">十</b><b style="color: red;">八</b> 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ lullabying (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This has morphed into List of magical girl works AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Request some input
I have started a new discussion on Talk:LGBT in anime. I would like your input if you can provide it. Thanks in advance! Link20XX (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Please input your thoughts. Have a great day! Link20XX (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantasy and supernatural fiction
Reading the supernatural fiction article, it seems that supernatural is a subgenre of fantasy fiction. So I think that articles that include both genres, for example JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and its parts, should only include supernatural as a genre instead of both fantasy and supernatural. What do you think? - Xexerss (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cherry Magic
There's an anonymous IP editor who keeps making a separate section for the cast of the live-action drama adaptation when the live-action cast is already listed next to the drama CD cast on the characters section. Your input at Talk:Cherry Magic! Thirty Years of Virginity Can Make You a Wizard?! is highly appreciated. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Need input on a move request
Hey everyone! I have started a discussion on Talk:Yasuke (anime) about renaming the article. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give your thoughts. Link20XX (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

euphoria by ClockUp
I know well enough this eroge VN is and was quite famous (and notorious). Still - the sources I found are all considered of low validity, and so the article faces deletion. I guess editors here that are keen on the VN world, especially eroge VN world are well aware of its fame and infamy. The other option is that I was transferred to this dimension from another, but this seems a tad farfetched. אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should it be deleted when it has OVA adaptation? Why not use sources from the Japanese wikipedia, which are these three:
 * http://entacom.org/clockup/product/dvd/euphoria.htm
 * http://otapol.jp/hentai/2016/10/euphoria.html
 * http://otapol.jp/hentai/2017/08/euphoria-clockupeuphoriaova-hentaieuphoria-6.html
 * ChuChu (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding non-Japanese, non-English TV networks to infoboxes?
I noticed that someone tried to add an Indonesian network to the infobox on Superior Defender Gundam Force with a "network_other" variable but it didn't work, I tried to work with it based on the existing data including trying "network_in" and adding " IN     = Indosiar" below "network_other" but still couldn't get it to work. Mattwo7 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Infobox parameter is Template:English anime network, so obviously it only accounts for English licenses/releases. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I would say that non-English or original networks (eg. Japanese broadcaser) don't need to be shown in the Infobox, though mentioning it in media can't hurt. Link20XX (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that Japanese broadcasters shouldn't be listed in the infobox? I thought that was the purpose of the original "network" parameter, unless I'm mistaken. lullabying (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Lullyabying's question, if it's for English networks only, then the Japanese network is irrelevant. I'd also like to point out that ~90% of the article is unsourced as it is and is long overdue for citations. Mattwo7 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry thats not what I meant, I meant to say only the original network and English networks should be listed. Sorry for the confusion. Link20XX (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your opinion. IMO, it's either all English, all networks or at least rename the infobox to be better reflective of the current state of affairs. Mattwo7 (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't list non-English licenses in the infobox, so how is non-English TV networks any different? The original Japanese network makes sense cause that was where it first released, but why do others matter? Link20XX (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the other networks don't matter then why list the English ones? By your logic, only the original network matters. Mattwo7 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The exact Wikipedia standard as to why I think what I do is MOS:TVINTL. If you think that it's the broadcast is notable enough for inclusion, please give reasons why, but I don't think it is. Link20XX (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion, the original broadcast matters because it was when the series first aired, and only the English networks should be notable because this is the English Wikipedia. "English" networks doesn't necessarily mean only North America, Australia, and Europe, as there have been English dubs produced for Southeast Asia that should also be rightfully listed to avoid systemic bias per WP:CSB. If you want to have the template rearranged this talk should be raised at Template talk:Infobox animanga. But for now I don't think anything other than original and English broadcasts should be listed in the infobox per WP:NOTDATABASE, and any notable broadcasts outside of that can be mentioned in prose. lullabying (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd remove those from infobox and consider whether it belongs in the Broadcast section as a notable country broadcast per WP:TVINTL. If it's just added like any other random programming, then no, but if it's like "this is the first anime ever broadcast in (country)" then it might have a line. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 04:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not going to add much but I have the same opinion as Lullabying's. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussions
There is a request to merge Original video animation to Direct-to-video. Editors are invited to make improvements/give input. — Goszei (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a request to merge Isekai to Accidental travel. Editors are invited to make improvements/give input. — Goszei (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsplit Sven and Shiro
I think it was a mistake to merge Shiro and Sven (Voltron). I think they should be split again I have started a discussion at Talk:Sven (Voltron) Dwanyewest (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * While there is enough creation information, it seems the character fails notability with only three sources so the article should be merged. Be more specific about where does the discussion take place.Tintor2 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV despute in Kaworu Nagisa
Hello. We've been having a discussion for a while but have hit an inpasse. I believe a big portion of the article was unbalanced and/or misrepresented, missing lots of information etc, breaking NPOV. As of now I still wish to remove some things I consider to be kruft, like overdescription of early drafts, disproven fan speculation and a misatributed joke. I also wish to include some other things to balance it out but the editor disagrees. Relevant diff. The talk page is massive, but you can ignore what's before the 3O section. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears you keep removing such information despite the discussions. From what I get you are removing original ideas about giving the ideas that didn't make it to the series like more homoerotic scenes that weren't approved by the producers whch seems quite notable or his portrayal in Rebuild. Why is such information uncyclopedic if it is written by the staff. Is it that trivial? The other GA character articles have similar information.Tintor2 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it's the opposite. I added the information from the staff, producers and creative process on why they were removed. They were originally present with none of this information and even some plain mistakes, like attributing them to the creator. All of the other removals are third parties and not due, being contradicted fan rumours and misattributed jokes. The other articles have many similar examples that could be used in them, too, sometimes from the same sources, and they weren't included in them. To say nothing of other disparities like spin-off appearances in the initial rewrite. And you can see I discussed this and other points and four other people generally agreed, 2; 3 but that made no difference.FelipeFritschF (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper articles (1978 onwards)
The site had a free weekend, so I clipped nearly 1000 articles in regards to anime and manga and video games most of which aren't otherwise archived online. I found a lot of gold in there too, such as the excellent series of articles by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin called Drawn and Quartered that profiled anime. And I found a lot of anime films like Twilight of the Cockroaches, Robot Carnival, Lensman or Macross 2 got screened and reviewed by mainstream film reviewers (who often weren't very kind). Plus a bunch of "hey there's this thing called Japanimation and it's taking over" style articles from the early to mid 1990's.

Below is just a sampling. Hit search to find more.


 * manga articles (1978 onwards)
 * anime articles (1980 onwards)
 * "Japanimation"
 * Project T (Rumiko Takahashi series)
 * Shojo manga
 * Honolulu newspapers

Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing! Maybe you can add them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources? lullabying (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lullabying. Seems to be a good source. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Newspapers dot com is a paid archive site of thousands of newspapers, mostly from America from 1700's onwards. Once an article is "clipped" it's free to view by anyone even without a paid subscription. If anyone else has a subscription, or knows someone who does (it comes with ancestry dot com account) please clip more articles. I wish to build a very strong archive on the site since it has a large library, and very powerful OCR technology. And because they cover 80's and 90's series, which often lack sources. There's also a bunch of scanned gaming magazines and a few anime magazines on archive dot org which review some of the same material. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Handling of Agumon
I created the article Agumon but I'm not sure exactly how the character should be handled. See talk page Talk:Agumon where a user wonders about how the character should be handled. I wonder if it might be like a Pokemon article or something.Tintor2 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * agumon isn't even really an anime character. I mean, it is, but in the sense that it appears in the digimon anime. just like pokemon, its a game series with an anime to promote said games.Muur (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agumon falls under the scope of WP:ANIME. lullabying (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * why, though? does pikachu?Muur (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, check the talk page -- both articles are listed under WP:ANIME. lullabying (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * seems even danganronpa falls under anime. thats weird. anyway the main point was the fact the agumon article was badly treated and needed to be expanded to including everything digimon, not just its appearance in one tv show - which ive now expanded. still needs lots of work though.Muur (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agumon is the partner of the of one of the main protagonists of Digimon Adventure, Digimon Adventure tri as well as the reboot series Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) I see no reason not to consider him an anime character at this point.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviews for Megalobox?
While expanding the article, for some reason I have barely found four reviews about the first season of Megalobox even though that series has already been localized in Western regions as it aired in Japan in 2018 and as well as Adult Swim. Fandompost, IGN and even DVDTalk have nothing about it. If anybody finds reviews about the series' first season and adds them to the talk page I'd appreciate and I'll try improving it more. However, I'm not sure if the second season should be given its own article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Where should anime actor's comments should be?
As more characters were added to the anime To Your Eternity, the actors started commenting on their own twitter account about their experiences. Initially, I placed all actors' comments in a subsection of development. However, new characters keep being added to the story so I wonder if I should use the GA Devil Survivor 2: The Animation as an example and add commentaries to each character. What do you guys think? Happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , the commentaries, if listed in the characters section, should be about the portrayal and design of the character, not about the series in general. The instances in Devil Survivor 2 aren't really describing the character but the overall series. Also it helps if the creator, character designer or directory has commented about the portrayal and design. I kind of put information in both sections though, like in Kaguya-sama: Love Is War and the main characters in List of Kaguya-sama: Love Is War characters  If the actors just want to comment about the series in general, then it can go in the reception or casting / production sections.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent PRODs
There has been a recent string of PRODs by User:Waxworker, mostly in the eroge/hentai animanga topic area. I am just dropping a message here for added visibility: WikiProject Anime and manga/News/Article alerts. — Goszei (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Berserk production
I've found various Kentaro Miura interviews in various languages. Here are some of them:
 * (English)
 * (French)
 * (3 pages) (Japanese)
 * (4 pages) (Japanese)
 * (part 1) (part 2) (English)
 * (French)

I also found scans from other interviews featured in two art books, but with these links alone there is enough material to expand the Berserk (manga) production section and add some subsections as well. Most of these are already linked in the article, but there is much more content in them that could be added. I would highly appreciate if someone can help with this. - Xexerss (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Osamu Kobayashi (illustrator)	116,369	3,878	Stub--13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)