Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2019-12-22

Which articles should be considered top-importance?[edit]

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.Blue Pumpkin Pie 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)
@Sandtalon:  DoneGoszei (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of (Manga Entertainment) interview[edit]

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of an interview on, 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 WP:RSN § Mangauk. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Anime networks conflict[edit]

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? @GalaxyFighter55: @Aerkdude: 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.-- 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)

List of Bleach characters[edit]

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)

@TTN: 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)

Graphic novel list template update[edit]

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[Talk] 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Themes in character articles[edit]

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.

@1989: 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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)

@Knowledgekid87: 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)

Anime and manga controversies[edit]

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)

Cover date vs actual release date issues problem[edit]

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, Onidere's cover date in the 2008 18th issue (when the series began) is April 16, 2008,[1] 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,[2] but the series began in the 2008 19th issue of WSS, after Onidere, so it wouldn't make sense to have Onidere's 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.[3][4] 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,[5] 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)


  1. ^ 週刊少年サンデー 2008年 表示号数18 (in Japanese). Agency for Cultural Affairs. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 24, 2020.
  2. ^ Wakaki, Tamiki (2008-04-09). 4/9:孫悟空の髪の毛のごとく。 (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^