Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters

Inactive talk page over at List of Pokémon anime characters, so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below)

Crunchyroll

I was analyzing many sources and news coverage about more than 200 pages of anime series and movies that for the first time are currently or previously streamed on Crunchyroll, well I just realized that all the time that I make those edits was change the term of "licensed the series" to "streamed the series" both in the anime infobox and in the section below where exactly it said what the media streaming company acquires the distribution rights from Japanese studios and companies for streaming in select countries worldwide outside of Asia (but includes East Asia and the Indian subcontinent) for the seasons that would be premiered this year, but there is a user called Xexerss who denies the reality of what that the blocked user Imperial meter (which is a sockpuppet of the user Silence of Lambs) made was altering the article by repeatedly linking with the parent company of the same name as if it had no relevance here, if it had relevance here is because no one pays attention to the introduction of the initial paragraph of the original article before and after making those unnecessary changes because its parent company does not have the right to licensing anime series for a release on home video directly but currently operates the streaming service after its merger with Funimation since 2022. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about the sixth time I will repeat the same thing. This has nothing to do with the edits of Imperial meter. The problem is that you keep changing indiscriminately in every article the links from Crunchyroll LLC (the company) to Crunchyroll (the streaming service) even in cases where the series have clearly not been licensed only to be streamed and are sources supporting the fact that they were released on home video by them. I am not "denying reality", I'm just telling you to find out on a case by case basis how Crunchyroll handles the licensing of each series. I personally don't see the problem of using terms like "license" or "streaming rights" when Crunchyroll is the only company that distributes a series in English-speaking territories, because logically to have the permission to stream it they had to have licensed it in the first place, but I understand leaving just "streaming" when there is another company that handles the distribution of a series in other formats. The latter is debatable, and I will not object if it is simply left as "streaming", as you have been doing, if it is decided that we should stick to using that term. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to start a discussion regarding this. Xexerss (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the case, first we are going to solve this problem quickly by following the steps of the banned user, using the Efn template as an explanatory note or a quote depending on the reference that was used both from the infobox and the section below at the end of references and followed of external links about the fact that Crunchyroll's parent company has managed to license anime series and movies for release on home video directly all the time since its merger with Funimation in 2022. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should we follow the steps of a banned user whose notes didn't include any reference anyway? If Crunchyroll has released the series in home video format, it clearly indicates that the licensee extends beyond streaming and it would make sense to link the article of the company instead of the streaming service. Indicating in the infobox that Crunchyroll (streaming service) has the license of a series, along with an explanatory note indicating that Crunchyroll (the company) has the home distribution rights as well, is just ridiculous, and it is simpler to indicate that the company has the license for the series (without superfluous notes), which wouldn't be false anyway, so I still don't understand your insistence on changing this in every article. I'm getting tired of trying to reason with you, and it's not just me who's getting fed up with this, as I've seen other editors constantly reverting similar edits on your part in various anime and manga articles, so it's obvious that you are doing whatever you want on some whim without giving a reasonable argument. Just like the issue regarding date templates addressed at your talk page, it seems to me that you're not understanding what is being said to you here. My point is, if the large company has the distribution rights to the series in home video format, then why should we limit to indicate that the streaming service owned by the large company is streaming the series instead of directly stating that the company has licensed it? By your logic, does a streaming service carry more weight than a company whose license extends beyond streaming, even if said streaming service is operated by the very own company that also distributes it in home video format? Xexerss (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't understand what you mean, I was just trying to tell you nicely that don't you repeatedly link to the article from a streaming service with the namesake parent company instead of adding the efn template so that you can better explain to the users who used to see and edit anime and manga series' article to avoid from many getting confused by compairing with another topic related to media company or an entertainment enterprise, I give you an example here, an IP indicates that Crunchyroll (streaming service) acquires video distribution rights and streams a series, and adds a note along indicating that Crunchyroll LLC (a parent company which also operates this service) licensed an anime series for a home video release directly for North America, followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland through its division Crunchyroll UK and Ireland and in Australia through its division Crunchyroll Pty. Ltd. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems excessive to me to add so many notes with sources that do not even mention the series in question. I wouldn't be surprised if those notes were added anonymously by Imperial meter, given that it's same kind of notes that they used to add in several anime articles. In any case, I suggest you to get familiarized with WP:OTHERCONTENT and note that not all articles have to structure this kind of information in the same way. What I'm saying is very simple: if Crunchyroll only has the rights to stream the series, let's leave the link to the article of the streaming service. If Crunchyroll has the rights for both streaming and home video release, let's leave the link to the company (company that owns the namesake streaming service), what's so complicated to understand? Xexerss (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So it doesn't help you if you leave it linked like this because I explained it wrong without thinking and repeatedly about the same topic in asking you to first find well out the news coverage indicating that if the streaming media company acquires those video distribution rights of a Japanese animated television series and stream it in select territories globally outside of Asia and East Asia; before making this change because I'm tell you that an entertainment company which currently operates the service would not be dedicated to managing the licensing for the home video release of some selected titles internally. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The streaming service is operated by one company. It doesn't matter if it releases a series on home video in one or more territories, it is already inferred that they are the ones who have the license for the series in the English-speaking territories where it operates. Your logic is simply "Crunchyroll released the series on home video here, but not there, therefore Crunchyroll doesn't have the license, it's just streaming it", which simply ridiculous and you're the only one I've seen that is so insistent on defending this stance. In any case, perhaps in particular cases of which I'm not aware at the moment, most of the series that are distributed on home video in North America are also released in other English-speaking territories where the company operates (since 2022 at least). My Home Hero for example: NA, UK, and AUS; considering that these are the three main English-speaking regions where the company operates, I think it's safe to say that Crunchyroll has effectively licensed the series and is not simply available for streaming. The 'licensee' parameter of the infobox is for English licensees (per Template:Infobox animanga), so it doesn't matter if the company just streams the series in other non-English speaking territories where it operates. When the parameter simply shows "Crunchyroll" without specifying the territory (AUS, NA, UK (or BI)) is not necessarily to indicate that Crunchyroll has licensed the series worldwide, but that it has licensed it in those main three territories, and therefore there is no need to include in the infobox something like "AUS = Crunchyroll; NA = Crunchyroll; UK = Crunchyroll". If the company has not acquired a series just for streaming, why would we state otherwise? Xexerss (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you reverse my edit on Shangri-La Frontier's article without anyone else noticing about the rumours that Crunchyroll would launch the series on home video and do you have any evidence that the anime series which Crunchyroll would select for some type of release in physical format on internal home video apart from its distribution partners? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And that explains your logic very well, why several of the series that are currently available on the streaming platform are included the name in what credited to Crunchyroll as a distribution studio which appears in its Blu-Ray specifications list in its store, as if they were distributing internally to home video. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I left the link to the streaming service article, although I'm sure they will release the series in home video format at some point. By the way, note that I was not the one who added the link to the company this time. Xexerss (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but if it wasn't you who sent you to add the link to the company, who was? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

because the articles that I was edited about Crunchyroll anime were not like this since Funimation's anime titles that was listing as now available on Crunchyroll for download in home video format from the beginning of June 2022, or am I wrong. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite know what you mean. I've only been adding links to the the article about the company in articles of series that I've verified that have been released on home video by them. Xexerss (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You can check the edit history of the article yourself. Personally, I would not object if someone changed it back to the company's article, since I don't see much reason to think that the series has not been effectively licensed by Crunchyroll, but I'm not planning to start an edit warring over this. I would prefer to know more points of view regarding this matter instead of the two of us continuing to argue. Xexerss (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's see, I'm thinking of moving a bit of history to the end of the initial paragraph of the original article when it began to be introduced and do it to the article of an entertainment company so that it looks better, but I don't know how to improve the topic on releasing titles on home video directly or ever selected titles released through its distribution partners first things first, I need you to move the page from Crunchyroll LLC to Crunchyroll (company) because I would be worried if I saw the description within or through Google search. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a different matter from what we are discussing here, and I cannot move the article just like that; that should be discussed in the specific article and requires the participation of more editors to reach a consensus. Xexerss (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! Where do I start? 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Apart from unlinking several articles from manga series and light novels that will always receive anime in the year in which it will premiere in Japan and then transmit it on multiple streaming services depending on each country and region globally. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't mention the same issue of home video that Crunchyroll (the company) does all the time so that no more edits are reversed. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

" that doesn't help you link for each article in which you modify it between a streaming company and an entertainment company which focuses on licensing, mercandising and home video in one more than once." What is this supposed to mean? I mean that seriously, because I'm having trouble trying to decipher what your reasoning is. Why don't you think it is appropriate to link the article of Crunchyroll LLC when the series is licensed for home video release? Excuse me, but I'm clearly reading here "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC", so what's the damn problem with linking the company instead of the streaming service? If I keep repeating the "not just for streaming" thing, it's because I have yet to see a single coherent or minimally reasonable argument from you explaining why it would be wrong to link the company article instead of the streaming service article when the series is released on home video. Take the time to search on Crunchyroll Store the series that have been released on home video by it. If you check the images of the back covers you will read "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC" (just like in Planetes). And now I am puzzled by what you did here. What part of the article or which source suggests that Nier: Automata Ver1.1a is licensed by Aniplex of America through Crunchyroll LLC? I'm getting more and more confused with your edits. In other words, it seems illogical to you that a series that has been acquired to be released in physical format includes the link of a company, which is precisely in charge of the license and distribution of a series in physical format, but it does seem logical to you to link the very same company when it has nothing to do with the license of a series and there is no evidence to support such a statement in the article? Xexerss (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what, you're right, the foto links that you previous showed me about the upcoming home video release of multiple anime series that are licensed by Crunchyroll LLC and the Crunchyroll logo are registered trademarks, all rights reserved, but look, the problem is that you prefer to link to an article from a streaming service instead of an entertainment company to multiple articles selected for the aforementioned launch in which you want, I mean, I was trying to compare many anime series outside of Crunchyroll and its parent company with Netflix and Amazon, which also streamed the series globally by acquiring all anime distribution rights from Japanese animation studios and companies that produce it, but it is not about companies that are dedicated to the distribution and licensing of the same and would release it internally on home videos for the United States and Canada, and the truth is that I am quite confused about the same issue as I don't know anything else about this orange distributor or distribution company that acts as the streaming service.

By the way, actually about the anime series Nier: Automata Ver1.1a, it's not me who put the Efn template as a note to the article that indicates that it was through Crunchyroll LLC that used to share licenses which made me a little curious, it was the banned user who allegedly placed that Efn template in the article that I modified long ago, is for the consolidation of its international anime streaming businesses that Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex did years ago under the creation of a joint company, Funimation Global Group, LLC., which allowed the acquisition and distribution of many of the titles with Aniplex subsidiaries Wakanim, Madman Anime and AnimeLab, and well, you know the whole story. 190.166.83.153 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi - are there any Japanese sources?

This is a translation of my article about Japanese manga, one of the very few that concern Poland, that I wrote on pl wiki. I nominated in for GA as I based this on a comprehensive analysis of Polish sources (the manga got some reviews in Poland, and even some mentions in academic works). However, it has no ja wiki article, and I am not fluent enough in Japanese to even confirm whether there are any RS about it in that language. If anyone would care to help on this, I'd appreciate it. Oh, and to make this cooler, I'll mention that this is a side-story to much better known The Rose of Versailles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Amber Lee Connors in Zom 100

Amber Lee Connors appears in episode 10-12 in the dub for the anime Zom 100: Bucket List Of The Dead. But this has not been added into the Amber's list of anime's she played in

Amber plays the character Ayumi, The episode 10-12 were released in December 25th 2023 to December 26th 2023 Speedrunningkfc (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Bleach season 1 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 1 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Light novel as a Level 5 Vital Article

I have nominated Light novel to be included as a level 5 vital article on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society. I believe that they are important as a broad concept as they heavily influence Japanese media, which is increasingly popular globally. Please join the discussion if interested. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Limits of using anime reviews as a source

I was comfortable with the explanation that reviews of a show can provide basic information or be used to write acceptance of the show, but not to confirm non-obvious or controversial information. But more and more often I see people refer to reviews as confirmation of the canonicity of certain things or their interpretation. Can someone explain this point to me, including the limits of using anime reviews as a source? This is especially sensitive, since often the other option in the absence of direct words from the author can only be some chapters or scenes, but as you understand, in non-obvious cases, none of us can give any assessments of the things happening in them.

As an example of the consequences of this, I can point to the infamous "anti-capitalist" G-Witch debates (one of many debates surrounding an article about this show), where users spent several years arguing over rating a show as anti-capitalist based on reviews without the author directly using such language, or the current low-intensity debates surrounding Kanoujo mo Kanoujo, where users try to describe one of the characters as bisexual based on a fan theory that was supported by reviewers. As you can see, this all very quickly turns into a fan debate where people argue about the interpretation or assessment of certain things while we lack both a primary source (the word of God) and essentially a secondary one (reviews cannot be a source about author's intentions) Solaire the knight (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have always been a firm believer in "if a creator has not said it, then it should never be treated as a fact". It doesn't matter if the most reliable reviewer of all time wrote something as if it were a fact, or if a college professor wrote a paper on it, if it's not obvious in the work or outright stated by a creator, then it is nothing but one opinion and opinions must be attributed in the text; "John Doe of AnimeisCool.com found G-Witch to have an anti-capitalist message". This lets the reader know it is not a fact. Like you said, this is for things that can be considered controversial, or "likely to be challenged" as Wikipedia likes to use. Xfansd (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is, even if one opinion is dominant or widely held (for example, the view about misogyny in the original UC Gundam), we still have to describe it as a critical opinion to make it clear to the reader that this is an assessment and not something objective and directly recognized? Solaire the knight (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In that specific Gundam example, I say yes. I am personally unfamiliar with all of the examples you have cited (after a quick search on Wikipedia I saw no current mention of anything like that about Gundam), but we're talking about controversial views here, and I don't see how labeling something "misogynistic" could not be seen as controversial. WP:INTEXT provides a warning about how poorly worded in-text attribution could fail to give due weight to the majority view, but that just means it has to be worded properly. Xfansd (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a common criticism of the first UC titles, as Tomino often "abused" female characters in order to show the cruelty of war and its hostility to women. Of course, Tomino has explained this more than once in interviews and has never shown a negative attitude towards women (for example, he has always been positive about the influence of fujoshi on the popularity of the franchise), but many people still try to attribute this to his potential misogyny. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"Sensational" description of new events of ending titles

Are there any rules regarding the description of close endings of actual manga or anime? Especially if the title is in its final stages and the article subjectively becomes a place for too sensational details from recent chapters/episodes? The fact is that the original Oshi no Ko is one step away from a full-fledged ending and I feel that other users are in too much of a hurry to describe every hot detail from the new chapters (SPOILERS WARNING), although personally, again subjectively, I feel that this could be bait and in the last chapter something will happen that will change things dramatically and we will have to rewrite it again. This has already resulted in some pages on the fandom wiki being protected due to an edit war over this, so I want to know how the rules talk about this to avoid issues like this in the future. I truly believe that we should wait for the final chapter due to the obvious conflicts of the last 2-3 chapters with the previous ones, but I also don't want to break the rules due to my potential original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight: The relevant guideline here is WP:SPOIL, which means that edits to an article should not be deleted solely on the basis of being spoilers (indeed, I don't even think your spoiler warning would be allowed here given they're forbidden on articles). Even if they happened in new chapters, if they actually happened, then they should go in the article, especially if they're important plot details. I don't read the manga, but I just read the chapters in question to check, and they happened as described in the edits, so they must go in the article. We are not Fandom: we do not use spoiler warnings, and we do not hide information just because they're spoilers. What goes on at the Fandom wiki is none of our business, as it's their own community with their own rules. If things change for the final chapter, the article can be edited to reflect that, but events that have already taken place should be presented as-is.

Had it been information from manga leaks rather than the official release, the information could have been deleted for that reason since from what I remember (at least for similar cases like video game leaks), information based on leaks is not considered verifiable and thus can't be included. However, once the chapter has been released, it's fair game.

To cut a long story short, Wikipedia articles include spoilers and does not put warnings on them. If a section is titled "Plot" or "Characters", expect information about them, including endings. That's how comprehensive descriptions are supposed to work. Yes, that includes characters dying; if anything, all the more that they should be mentioned in the relevant parts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Spoilers were definitely part of my question, but overall I was more interested in whether it was worth writing about if it could potentially change or be different than it seems. Of course, we shouldn't care what happens on the fandom wiki, I used this as an example of how potentially hot and sensational this information is at the moment. That's why I called it sensational, since such edits usually have more of a desire to attract a potential reader with hot news than to describe the development of the plot. It’s enough to remember the G-Witch I already mentioned, when people were in a hurry to put a fresh development almost at the very beginning of the description of the characters or identify their sexuality long before the romance in the show really began to work. This is exactly what worries me. The fact that this is a spoiler is a more minor question. But one way or another, I understand that I did the right thing by canceling my edit? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what Narutolovehinata5 said above. Although I feel it would be better to wait to until the manga is effectively finished, it is not wrong to write according to the most recent events of the story, but as stated above, it would be better to write once the chapters have been officially released rather than when leaks appear. Xexerss (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem with that, the English version of the manga is officially published online in the MangaPLUS app. Well, since I see the consensus of the project concluded that I was wrong, so as a result, I will not return my edit and will leave the text in the article. Thank you for the prompt resolution of the issue! Solaire the knight (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Love Live! School Idol Project (TV series)#Requested move 4 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Love Live! School Idol Project (TV series)#Requested move 4 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Using Niche/Japanese Sources?

I recently submitted a draft for a page that which was unfortunately declined. It may need some more work or perhaps not be suitable. But one of the parts of the feedback was that because it uses Japanese sources and is an enthusiast/niche area, it may need another look by someone more experienced in the sources available.

Is there any way to direct a draft to someone experienced in the more anime-related/Japanese-language sources? If it is up to standard, it'd be a shame to get it declined due to unfamiliarity with the sources by the reviewing editor, while if it isn't up to standard, it'd be good to clear away any doubt that it was rejected due to the editor's unfamiliarity with the sources and expecting it to be more in-line with an international game.

The draft in question related to a Visual Novel, which is named as falling under the Anime Project. It has coverage in physical magazines released by publishers (not self-published), a manga adaption, and more. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)