Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

Characters section

[edit]

As I read the article of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks?, I have redone the character section in Tamako Market yesterday but was reverted for no reason, which can be a future precedent in other anime and manga articles that would need further expansion. Do you guys prefer the old format or the one used on the first article? -- 142.126.251.53 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not standard practice to create tables for character lists, either in sections or in articles, so I have no idea why it is, or should be, formatted that way to begin with in those articles. Regarding what Juhachi said here, I do agree with him; the content should be presented as simply as possible, and creating a separate table for each section seems ridiculous to me, not to mention the inclusion of flag icons. Xexerss (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flag icons represent their respective languages (as seen with Genshin Impact in the past from the 2023 edit), but that can explain everything. 142.126.251.53 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a very good example of why tables should not be used to format information. It's largely unreadable and the flag icons don't provide any immediate context to their purpose. If it suppose to represent language, this is ill advised because many languages do not respect any specific country. For example, English could be represented with an US, UK, Canadian, Australian, South African, and Indian flags to name just the most prominent English speaking countries. Similarly Spanish could be represented by many more flag icons. 216.30.146.154 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone that too often edits tables, tables suck to maintain. The MOS guidelines also state that with Tables should not be misused to resolve visual layout problems. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table ... These practices make the article harder for other Wikipedians to edit, and will likely cause problems when viewed on different display sizes and aspect ratios. - emphasis mine. If there is a particular visual style you want to achieve it is better to use something other than a table. For the most part I see nothing wrong with formatting character lists in line with those like List of Made in Abyss characters or even including an infobox (if there is enough prose) like List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. ⇌ Synpath 23:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a bit to find it, but Cairnpent (talk · contribs) (who hasn't edited Wikipedia in over 3 years, btw) did the original edit to include that table in that article, replacing the standard format that had existed up to then. Either way, it was non-standard back then, and is still non-standard today. The only times I see characters presented in lists are in stuff like Dengeki Bunko: Fighting Climax#Playable characters, where the are multiple, sortable columns needed to organize the information. Or when there are no characters descriptions also included, as can be seen in Akira (1988 film)#Voice cast. Here, in the case of Tamako Market, there's no sorting needed, and as mentioned on WP:WHENTABLE already linked above by Synpath, If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice, as I believe is the case here. Notice how in both of those cases, the tables are used to present the information in a concise and organized fashion. In Tamako Market, the use of tables for the characters in contrast doesn't make presenting the information any more concise or organized than it was originally.--十八 00:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is note a proper use of a table and it also creates accessibility and formatting issues. For example, the table on Tamako Market is misaligned due to the image preceding it. Keeping it as a simple lists avoids these troubles and follows current practices across Wikipedia, including other TV show and movie articles. 216.30.146.154 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoris Recoil

[edit]

Solo Leveling

[edit]

Are sources required if a character's identity is directly discussed in the plot?

[edit]

I know this topic has been brought up here before, but due to yet another debate, I have to do it again. Am I right in thinking that if an anime or manga directly and without subtext/ambiguity discusses and explores a character's identity, then we don't need additional sources? For example, in Call of the Night, several characters directly flirt/exhibit attraction to characters of both genders or explicitly discuss it. Do we need sources for this? At the very least, can we provide a manga chapter or anime episode as a reference? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of topic, it might be useful to cite the chapters where the characters' sexuality is explicitly shown or mentioned, or even better, if there's a statement from the author. In any case, citations may not be entirely necessary if this information is found in the work itself (i.e., the primary source), but they would help avoid a potential edit warring. Xexerss (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if a character shows bisexual attraction, it would be enough to find chapters where either it is discussed directly, or where the character directly flirts with other girls and guys? For now I've linked to a review of an episode where it's discussed that the character at least exhibited same-sex attraction, but I'll try to find the chapters if needed. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could work, but a secondary source, like the review you mentioned, would be better. The more explicit, the better. While a character attracted to both girls and boys could be interpreted as bisexual, stating this in the article could be classified as original research if the work never refers to them as such, however obvious it may seem. Xexerss (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the clarification. So, if the case is not super obvious and some terms are not used, is it better to limit it to a general queer? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, it may be sufficient to simply describe what is depicted in the work. For example, that the character is attracted to both girls and boys or only to girls, without using a specific label, unless there is a source that clearly defines the character's tendency. Xexerss (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll try to wait until the anime reaches the right moment in the manga so that I can refer to the review of the new episodes (three left). But if not, I'll change the term and look for the right chapters. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now wait a minute. Are we talking about something that is clearly laid out in the plot or is this entering the realm of "interpretation". If it is the latter, then you will need a secondary source. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about interpretations. We were talking about things that are shown and explored directly, but perhaps don't have specific terms. For example, a character directly discusses being attracted only to people of the same gender, but doesn't directly say "I'm gay" to the screen. And their entire character arc is based on this and how loving another woman solves this "problem". Is it an interpretation that she is gay? Solaire the knight (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think because circumstances like these are so ambiguously stated, there is some wiggle room for different interpretations, which leads to original research. For example, one of the main characters in The Cornered Mouse Dreams of Cheese describes himself as straight despite being in a relationship with a man. Even though he can be interpreted as bisexual, the narrative (and attitudes of people both in fiction and in real life) insist that he is straight, and that this one relationship is an "exception." lullabying (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under the "if it's you, I'm okay with it" trope, where in some works the characters declare that they are straight except for a specific love interest. You can see a deconstruction of this in Bloom into you, where the characters' teacher insists that she is straight except for a lesbian relationship with her female lover. But either way, we're going to have to remove a significant number of the inclusions in these lists, since in 90% of anime or even Western animation, the characters almost never talk about their identity or LGBTQ directly, instead preferring things like "I love him as a man" or "I've always felt like the opposite gender". Do we really need another extra source to tell us that if a female character is only attracted to other girls, then she's a lesbian? Solaire the knight (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the character says explicitly "I'm bi" then we can source "[Character] is bi" to the work. If the character dates both men and women without explicitly saying anything about it, we can source "[Character] dates both men and women" to the work, but not "[Character] is bi", since that's interpretation. Loki (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regular text, yes, but this is a list of animated shows with LGBTQ characters. So we should at least write "queer". Solaire the knight (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think unless the narrative or the creator directly state the character is queer, it would be best to avoid making such direct statements as Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. lullabying (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works for certain identities like homosexuality or transgenderism, but I highly doubt that a character who acknowledges same-sex attraction or non-cis gender identity can be taken outside of an LGBTQ context. I mean, how many yuri or BL do you know where the characters directly talk about identity outside of just discussing attraction? Solaire the knight (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can't take a character's acknowledgment of same-sex attraction of same-sex identity outside of an LGBTQ context. After all, characters don't always directly say "oh, I'm a lesbian" or something (in fact, that's what made I'm in Love with the Villainess so unique because Rae Taylor openly said "I'm gay", unlike many others, although other characters have openly said the same, but it isn't always common). I would say the narrative and characters can speak for themselves, and reviewers usually pick up on that as well (and the official websites of series can do this as well), so we don't *necessarily* need the character to directly talk about their identity outside of just discussing attraction to add it to the list, not at all. Historyday01 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. So as long as it's not a pure matter of subtext or readings and characters are directly and explicitly discussing same-sex attraction or lack of attraction at all, let alone gender, I don't see much of a problem here. Sure, we still have Naoko Yamada, who rejects any canon 90% of the time (even in Tamako Market, where one of the characters is almost openly shown to be hopelessly one-sidedly in love with Tamako), but that's a special case. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no secondary sources talking about it, it is probably not notable enough to include. It's just presenting some in-universe information without any out-of-universe context. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the key point here. Like Senpai is an Otokonoko falls under the queer umbrella, there have been multiple ANN reviews for it (they did a review on each episode of the 12-episode anime adaptation), and there have been various other articles. As such, Saki Aoi and Ryuji Taiga are listed as "queer" on the List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2020–2024 page. Historyday01 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the case where queer is preferable to gay/bisexual, because despite the direct discussion of attraction to people of your own or any gender, the context is too vague to say exactly what sexuality other than straight one is being discussed. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Creation of the article Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? (TV series)

[edit]

The reason I created the proposal is to split the anime sections of Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? into its own article: Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? (TV series). We know its popular, but enough sources is way needed.

@Xexerss, @Historyday01, @GalaxyFighter55 - what do you y'all think? 142.126.251.53 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the size of the article and if they can stand on their own. I did the same with Vinland Saga and Heavenly Delusion's adaptations Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it’s time for both of them to switch to Infobox television template and that should be used for that article that can be made. 142.126.251.53 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the true purpose of your proposed split, just so that you can use {{Infobox television}} instead of {{Infobox animanga}}? --216.30.146.154 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It works for the Gridman series. 142.126.251.53 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then your proposing a split for all the wrong reasons instead of a reason that complies with WP:SPLIT --216.30.146.154 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote @Centcom08 back in April: “Template:Infobox animanga states that if an article's primary topic is not an anime or manga series, and such series do not receive more than an incidental mention, the article should use the infobox designed for the media type of its focus (e.g. articles on novels and novel series should use {{Infobox Book}}, articles on films should use {{Infobox film}}, etc.).”
The proposed split of this article’s anime section into its new article is about the TV series only under the media type of its focus, hence Template:Infobox television is suitable regardless of your statements. — 142.126.251.53 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that completely. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good amount development information in the article, but six paragraphs isn't nearly enough to warrant a split. If we can get a somewhat extensive reception sub-section going, and perhaps some information about how the manga and its anime adaptation differ, at that point a split might become more useful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maplestrip, the article can still be split. All we have to do is translate the source this article off from the Japanese Wikipedia (WP:TRANSLATE) because they have a large number of sources there. 184.144.128.189 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, feel free to start up a draft :) — I might enjoy trying to help out with translations, but really I would not be any better at it than anyone else as I hardly speak a word of Japanese. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that article is just song titles, production staff, and broadcast history. There are only two sections that are worth moving over, and those can be used to help improve the main article instead. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias have articles for the anime series at ja:ダンジョンに出会いを求めるのは間違っているだろうか (アニメ) and zh:在地下城尋求邂逅是否搞錯了什麼 (動畫), respectively, so yes, I believe the anime can have a standalone article. Writers can use the Japanese and Chinese articles as guides to write the English article. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese titles for the Re: Monster episode list

[edit]

On the anime episode list for Re:Monster there is only the English titles for episodes can someone add the Japanese titles please i cant seem to access the referenced page on there due to a geoblock (assuming that website only works in Japan as its Japanese) Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar about the show, so I can't talk much about it. If the title is entirely not in Japanese, there's no need for Romanization. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the official website, there appears to be no official Japanese titles for the episodes. When the episodes were aired, they were broadcast with English titles only. In such cases, I do not think it is appropriate to include a Japanese translation of the English titles. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. We've previously discussed this matter before with animanga titles originally written in Latin script and agreed that adding katakana script translations are not only unnecessary on English Wikipedia, but also misleading because it would suggest to our readers that the original title is primarily written in katakana in Japan (this differs from glossed katakana ruby text for Japanese readers who either have a hard time or flat-out can't read anything in Latin script). Naturally, this also applies to any volume, chapter, season or episode title also primarily written in Latin script. Only if the title is primarily written in katakana script is it then added. In this title's case, all of its titles are primarily in written Latin script English.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the title is primarily written in katakana script is it then added. Yes, see List of Kids on the Slope episodes as example, where most of the episode titles are written in transliteration of English ones. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 190.167.12.171

[edit]
  • information Administrator note the IP editor who posted this section has been blocked; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Silence of Lambs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so confused, what exactly happened here? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP 76.71.63.55 is a sockpuppet of User:Silence of Lambs, who was blocked a year ago for disruptive editing in Japanese manga topics, and has been evading that block with sockpuppet accounts and logged-out edits pretty much the entire time since the block. The second IP 190.167.12.171 sussed out their most recent IP, reported it to me, and I blocked it. The comment removals that Solaire the knight referred to in their comments were eligible for removal per WP:BANREVERT, but @190.167.12.171: if you are reverting a sockpuppet you should say so in your edit summary, or report the user and wait for an admin to act.
    The blocked user's opinions on content don't matter (per WP:BMB) so I don't think there is anything more to do here, and as such I have collapsed the thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the IP 142.126.251.53 who made many comments in sections above is also a Silence of Lambs sockpuppet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem. Out of context, I simply saw an edit war between anonymous users, with large amounts of text being removed and loud accusations being leveled. Simply reverting someone else's edits with the comment "rv vandalism" is the worst way to explain something, as regular users often get caught up in edit wars with accusations of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of the project's rules. Especially considering that the second anonymous user has no edits outside of this dispute, and I still don't understand how they ended up involved in an edit war over user who was blocked a year ago. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP massively requested several of the proposal to split anime sections for the creation of their own pages here in this forum, and has been blocked for abusing multiple IPs used by this sockpuppet. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And even then, it has separated each section to any article it touches, it placed photos of English dubbers of any series and deliberately and repeatedly linked between "streaming service" to "anime distribution company" which is very confusing and even tires me out with the topic of article expansion that the IP was always doing all this time in secret. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were directly involved in this dispute and you know its nuances, but what can we say about people who are seeing for the first time how you, with minimal or no explanation at all, reverting the addition of a large piece of information or remove a topic in the discussion created by another user? At least a link to this discussion would be a good start. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I wasn't directly involved in this dispute between the blocked user and the other IPs that I used daily, only I have reverted many of his edits because I realized that the expansion of sections that the sockpuppet made were, like, quite disruptive and look at how many messages they have left on the respective talk pages, some proposals to split many of the articles that he has always touched and even the templates that should have been made very badly and nobody responded or they abstained or I don't know.
    I mean the most recent ones for example: 1, 2. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And these too: 3, 4, 5. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the view history of the article Reborn as a Vending Machine, I Now Wander the Dungeon there were dozens of revisions with or without leaving edit summaries, maybe it would be this and this or maybe this and this. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're again counting on other people either being deeply immersed in the history and writing of these articles, or ready to do so immediately upon encountering an edit war between anonymous users blaming each other. But I'm surprised not so much by this fact itself, but by the fact that such in-depth work was done by an anonymous user without any edits outside of this dispute. However, I don’t even want to touch this, it’s enough for me that checkusers checked it. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous disputes over licenses

[edit]

Can someone stop this? Situations where anonymous users undo each other's edits and accuse each other of vandalism around information about broadcasting anime outside of Japan are becoming all too common. Often this is done without any context at all, ultimately leading to such edits. As you can see from the discussion above, a couple of days ago this already led to an edit war across three or four articles and more mutual accusations, which was ultimately clarified only thanks to checkusers. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot now reverting citations of Anime News Network encyclopedia

[edit]

I am pleased to announce that a bot will now revert additions of Anime News Network's encyclopedia by unregistered and new users. Consistent with WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK, this is now on XLinkBot's revert list at Special:Diff/1315166831, and on XLinkBot's revert references list at Special:Diff/1315166980. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to identify existing references to ANN's encyclopedia so they can be removed? 216.30.146.154 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@216.30.146.154: Any references to the encyclopedia that were input and not removed before this change will need to be removed by users. XLinkBot will revert new additions. We have to remove existing references. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&oldid=1315287908"