Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Request to evaluate reliability of source
Due to it not showing up on the current list, I'm wondering if everyone would be able to evaluate whether animecorner.me constitutes a reliable source. It is currently present on several pages, and is currently in discussion for possible use on another article pending an investigation on its reliability. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Its reliability was discussed before, although without a clear consensus. I personally am more leaning towards calling it unreliable. Xexerss (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did some checking and animecorner.me is currently cited as a source on over 50 articles. I think that should lend some weight towards it being credible. Rockman1159 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an indication of reliability. I mean, for example, a lot of articles continue to cite the Anime News Network encyclopedia, even though it's expressly listed as unreliable here. Xexerss (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add, there are currently 262 links to NicheGamer, which is specifically listed as unreliable as a website on the video game project. So I'd agree that amount of links don't really add creditability, but are more of an indication of amount of views/popularity as a website.
 * On Anime Corner, as I mentioned here, it seems to be staffed primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant to use them if there's a better source, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives. Considering the niche nature of anime though and approved sources (such as ANN) also having inexperienced/younger writers without qualifications / EiC without journalism qualification / etc which seem to be used as arguments against in other areas, I'd consider using them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds fair to me, but I'd say that we should be thorough with their posts, as I recall that some of them were based on some tweets from randoms users and other unofficial accounts. As long as their reports are based on official sources, I agree with citing them. Xexerss (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've only been able to find one example (this one), though I suppose there may be some I'm missing. I'd suggest that it's relevant in that particular case too, as they're using multiple 'victims' affected as a primary source, rather than the 'aggressor' who'd be extremely unlikely to issue a public statement.
 * But yes, we should be thorough and take extra care if citing them. Their news posts seem to list the sources clearly, so it's just a matter of scrutinizing them. Interviews cite the interviewee and reviews are more a matter of extending a level of trust regarding accuracy of information and that it's a relevant person from a relevant source.
 * I did find one issue. I went through reviews of some titles I'm familiar with and noticed that while they got most things right about Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire, they said there's no fullscreen on PC which there is. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * COI notice
 * A few of the other writers/contributors do have some experience. From my memory, Jay Gibbs wrote for ComicsVerse and Marcel Kober who has written for the German-language Deadline Magazin publication (he did a Makoto Shinkai interview with them). I think besides some of those cases, ANN is a good comparison since I think a good number of the writers from there gained prominence/"notability" through their tenures with ANN rather than already having experience (even some of the older writers are probably in a similar boat), and I think it's a similar case here.


 * Re, the COI notice: I've contributed a few articles (interviews and reviews; also this one) to the website as a freelance writer, though I'm not part of the team itself. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fandompost
I suggest adding it to the list of unreliable sources per Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by the project in the past. I'm not going to read through the entire AfD, but what ferret said about them not having a staff page is incorrect (see here, found under about and here) and they do list credentials for their staff in articles they write and their credentials were also discussed in the linked discussion above. Specifically, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion (too lazy to reproduce them all). Link20XX (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Link20XX Thanks. If it was discussed but not added to the ORS list, does it mean there was no consensus on its reliability? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is on the list as "The Fandom Post". Link20XX (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just following up. I missed the About Us page at first and found it afterwards, to which I already replied at the AFD. I think this source is very close to essentially being just a blog for Beveridge at this stage, but we do treat some authors as sources in their own right. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be a good idea to add url (ex. fandompost.com) next to the names. That's what I was searching for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's how I missed it. I searched for "fandompost", but it's on the list as "Fandom Post". -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification
Just clarification. Is the "Production Info" on staff review of Anime News Network, reliable source and can be use as source?, because they seem to be not WP:USERG and separated from the encyclopedia. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If it is to objectively point out some fact about the production that is mentioned in a review or to briefly point out some staff commentary regarding some aspect of the production, I think it's fine. Xexerss (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of using this review as a source on Shōgo Yasukawa for being an episode writer of Alice and Zoroku, Do you think this is good source for that? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooops I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood your question. It seems that the 'Production info' is based on the user-generated encyclopedia, so I'd say that it shouldn't be used. In any case, Yasukawa credits appear on other reliable sites like Media Arts Database, so you could use these ones instead. Xexerss (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, Thanks for the tip though! Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Anime Herald
I noticed that this site has been cited in certain articles. Honestly, at first I thought it was going to be just another self-published blog, but the site has conducted its own interviews and some of its columns have been written by Lauren Orsini, who has also contributed for Anime News Network. The site also has its own editorial staff. More evidence may be needed, but so far it seems to me a decent site that could perhaps be added to the list of RS. Xexerss (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)