Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Latest comment: 23 hours ago by Harizotoh9 in topic Project A-ko
WikiProject iconAnime and manga Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters edit

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)

Hello, as this article is over 50,000 words long, I think it would be reasonable that it is split into multiple articles. Here are some ideas:

Split by name: Split into articles titled List of Pokémon anime characters (A-M), List of Pokémon anime characters (N-Z), etc. Pros of this method are simplicity, though it may become harder to navigate, as related characters are no longer grouped together.

Split by introduction: This would include the article being split into several articles titled List of Pokémon anime characters (seasons 1-3), List of Pokémon anime characters (seasons 4-6), etc. Pros of this are sorting characters by when they were introduced, and thus were likely the most notable, though cons could be that many of the most notable characters are from season one, and related groups are not together.

Split into categories: This would be splitting into articles like List of Pokémon anime antagonists, List of gym leaders in the Pokémon anime, etc. Pros are that related characters are all together, though cons are that characters may need to neatly fit into one category. However, this is my preference.

Please do tell me your thoughts.

DecafPotato (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be better to split by individual season instead. Although it's a shame we can't have a structured central database of characters and display them in different orders. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Splitting by series is far better, as it is inline with Japanese and English dub. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe a significant trim would be much more appropriate. Currently, most of the article is original research, talking about minor characters no publication has ever mentioned and who may have appeared in only a handful of episodes each. It is silly for Wikipedia to host a whole paragraph of fictional biographical information on each gym leader Ash Ketchum has faced; that's what fanwikis are for and such content isn't helpful for general readers. Rewriting an list like this based on reliable secondary sources is really hard, though, and I don't feel up for it. I'm quite happy with the trim I had given the video game equivalent list, though it's still 99% original research there too and might require a much more significant trim too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think splitting by series would be much better.
List of Pokémon anime (Original series) characters or List of Pokémon anime (The Beginning) characters and List of Pokémon anime (Gold and Silver) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Advanced Generation) characters or List of Pokémon anime (Ruby and Sapphire) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Diamond and Pearl) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Best Wishes) characters or List of Pokémon anime (Black and White) characters, List of Pokémon anime (XY) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Sun and Moon) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Journeys) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Horizons) characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should stick to using the Japanese or English series when it comes to naming the articles, as I hate it when people mix and merge the two together, like Bulbapedia with their episode codes. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So which one do you prefer, Japanese name or English name? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As its a Japanese series, I prefer Japanese over English. So Black & White become Best Wishes!, XY becomes XY&Z, Journeys becomes 2019 series and Horizons become 2023 series. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
XY series's Japanese name is XY not XY&Z. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it is XY and XY&Z according to various media, such as TV Tokyo and Amazon, as they have separate pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Bulbapedia XY series is divided into two seasons (XY and XY&Z) in Japanese version. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TV Tokyo and Amazon Japan don't split Best Wishes by season, indication that XY and XY&Z are two interlinked series. Not everything that Bulbapedia says is correct, however. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!#Requested move 31 January 2024 edit

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!#Requested move 31 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of original Japanese titles in lead sentences edit

Hello, I'd like to request some community input on what the consensus is for displaying original Japanese-language titles in the lead sentences of anime and manga articles. To be clear, I don't oppose including a work's original-language title in its article somewhere, but as a longtime reader and editor of WP, I feel like retaining an original title as a parenthetical statement in the lead sentence just clutters the article for the average English-language reader. This becomes especially messy when multiple verbose translations are included, as in Dragon Ball GT: A Hero's Legacy. Wouldn't this be easier for casual readers if it were a footnote? Is this standardized in the anime and manga community?

MOS:ANIME's brief guidelines on lead sections and article titles do not answer my question, and other resources such as MOS:TV and WP:OTHERNAMES are equally unhelpful. I also searched through this project's talk page's archives and found an RfC from 2014 that concluded that inclusion of these titles using Template:Nihongo foot is acceptable, but there doesn't appear to be a standard. This also overlaps with WP:WikiProject Video games to an extent, which does have a standard in WP:JFN.

For instance, both Dissidia Final Fantasy, a video game, and Final Fantasy: Unlimited, an anime, retain Japanese-language titles as footnotes, while Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, a video game, and Dragon Ball GT, an anime, both retain Japanese-language titles in prose. The related article about the Dragon Ball Z anime keeps the Japanese title in a footnote instead of a parenthetical. There seems to be a lack of consistency.

To me, the manual of style for anime should outline a standard for lead sentences based on consensus from this project's community. In no way do I want to diminish the original titles of the works, but I'm in favor of including the Japanese titles as footnotes instead of parenthetical statements. Wikipedia has made viewing notes and references more accessible for readers in recent years, so confining original titles to footnotes would not obscure them from people who don't make it to the bottom of the article.

I would like to know how the community feels about this. Your input is appreciated. — Paper Luigi TC 04:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a universal approach is necessary. For longer titles a footnote should be used to shorten the lead, but for shorter titles just leaving them in the parentheses is fine. Link20XX (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How long is too long? — Paper Luigi TC 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not any concrete number of characters; editors should use their judgment to determine when a title is too long. Link20XX (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shorter titles are indeed less disruptive to the reader, but I disagree that it should be left to editors' discretion. Without a universal standard, selective editors can propagate their own styles without any justification but their own opinions. It's a loophole that needs to be closed. — Paper Luigi TC 06:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Link20XX. I think that in cases where titles are unnecessarily long for lead (e.g. more than a line), it would be preferable to use nihongo foot. In any other case just parentheses are fine. Xexerss (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In cases where there's a short Japanese title, do you believe we should include leading phrases like "known in Japan as" before the Japanese titles, or should we stick to English-language titles followed immediately by the nihongo template text in parentheses? — Paper Luigi TC 05:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming the English and Japanese titles are not entirely different, I think just having the title with the kanji and romaji is fine for conciseness sake. In cases like My Monster Secret it makes sense to emphasize the other title, but otherwise we should keep leads more concise. Link20XX (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it would be justified in cases where the English title is far from a translation of the original title (like in The Saga of Tanya the Evil, Reborn!, Case Closed, or Zatch Bell!, to name a few), but I honestly don't know if this has been discussed before. Xexerss (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you distinguish when a translated title is too different from the original translated title? This seems like something that should be left to editors' discretion, but that vagueness is the underlying reason for this post. I believe Japanese-language titles should be standardized as either parenthetical statements or, preferably, footnotes. Leaving the gate open to interpretation is already the norm, and I'm a proponent for a standard that's applicable to all anime/manga with English adaptations, regardless of translated title length or semantic differences compared to the original. — Paper Luigi TC 06:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I understand your point, and I apologize if I didn't make myself clear with my answer, but I think this title issue is something that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Take into account that just a few years ago there was a discussion regarding titles with Latin-script title in the original release (e.g. Gantz, D.Gray-man, Bleach, etc.), and whether it was necessary to use 'nihongo template' for these cases (the consensus was no), then it seems to me that there are too many things to take into account before trying to apply a single rule for every anime/manga article. Regarding the translations, I was referring to quite obvious cases, such as the difference between "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure / JoJo no Kimyō na Bōken)" and "The Saga of Tanya the Evil / Yōjo Senki". Xexerss (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, and I understand how titles can differ quite a bit between languages. Literal English translations of Japanese titles were not at the forefront of my post, and it's honestly something I didn't think about until now. That's kind of along the lines of what I was going for, though. Regardless of what the title is in other languages, I wanted to get a consensus on non-English original titles being used in the lead sentence as a parenthetical or as a footnote. This is the English Wikpedia, after all. It seems like the consensus is that it's up to editors, and the criteria is based on title length or comparability to the English title. That's fine if that's what the community decides. I was aiming for a guideline that was a little more uniform, but if non-uniform guidelines are preferred, I will respect that. — Paper Luigi TC 07:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you for bringing this up anyway, as it would be interesting if there were some written rules for each case with some of the aforementioned variations (length, similarity to the original title, etc.) to make it all less arbitrary. Speaking of which, and going a bit off topic, I think our Manual of Style is a bit outdated, and it would be great if someone could add some of the consensus that we have had here in the last few years. Xexerss (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree that we should clean up lede sentences this way, but finding a clear ruleset has proven almost impossible. I personally think we probably pretty much never need to display kanji in the lede sentence, but that's obviously not a big space concern anyway. Any time the hepburn romanization just morphs English words should also be relegated to the notes realm at best. When there's two distinct titles, I think we should always render both in some capacity. Whether to show the Japanese-language (hepburn) title in the lede... Personally I think it should be a case-by-case decision, but I recognize that this will result in some (hopefully minor) edit wars. I think English translations of Japanese titles can probably be relegated to notes as well? Unless there hasn't been an English release, perhaps.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right about the difficulty in finding a clear ruleset. No matter which way the community sways, it's a sure bet that not everyone will be happy with it. Regarding which translations should be included over others, I don't see myself in one camp or the other about it because I'm just not that informed. Really one could come to multiple conclusions about which translations belong in parentheses and which belong in footnotes, and that's pretty much how my thought process went while writing this reply. Since creating this topic, I've bounced around mentally from supporting nearly all non-English titles being included in footnotes (a la WP:JFN) to supporting only very different translations comparable to English titles in the lead to supporting every kanji title's inclusion in parentheses with any other titles in footnotes. Now it seems like I've circled back to where I was at the start of this post–with no idea how to handle this. — Paper Luigi TC 06:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also don't think a universal approach is needed; this should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In my personal opinion, kanji characters that span a line of text (maybe 25+ characters?) would be higher candidates. But then again... everyone's screen size from laptops to PCs to phones, ect... is different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saki Fujita edit

I was wondering if we could give poor Saki Fujita's article some attention, as it's honestly sad to see that her article is a stub, especially considering that her voice is sampled for Hatsune Miku (which is a much better article). She seems to be too important to have her article be a stub. vghfr, harbinger of chaos 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as there are reliable sources, we can expand it per the relevant policies at WP:BLP and WP:V. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move 'Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' edit

(Discussion in Active on Talk:Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!)

  • The poster, and few sources like imdb, this fandom, and Crunchyroll use version with x's (however Crunchyroll source uses one with &'s also).
  • Although cbr, some other fandom, this source, and animenewsnewtrok's encyclopedia mention use the name "Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Chō Collaboration Special!!", with ann's encyclopedia mentioning one with x's as alternative title.
  • Even if the name with &'s is the English title, there is no definitive source in article to prove this, and Toei Animation's official tweet announced the release in English with name in x's. Also the page shall be about original episode, and Japanese's episode's literal translation is one with x's.
  • So what I suggest:
  1. Either move this page to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' OR
  2. Still move the page but reason shall be WP:COMMONNAME OR
  3. Mention the version with x's in English too.

Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Michele Knotz § Photo edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michele Knotz § Photo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project A-ko edit

I've done some searches for reviews of the film, and haven't found many. It's talked about a lot in more recent bloggy anime web sources but I'm searching for more print reviews from the 80's and 90's. So far I found a 1995 gaming magazine review, and a 1998 review in GameFan. I would have assumed there'd be some import reviews, or reviews for the VHS in the 90's. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]