Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Custom search engine

As far as I can tell, both sides supported opening the question here, so I opened the thread ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BanG_Dream!_Ave_Mujica#Fan_translation original thread on article page]). Recently, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BanG_Dream%21_Ave_Mujica&diff=1284209613&oldid=1284124460 one user spoke out against the use of a fan/unofficial translation of an director's interview] from the recently ended show BanG Dream! Ave Mujica, which was used as a source to explain the current situation of one of the characters. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABanG_Dream%21_Ave_Mujica&diff=1284230706&oldid=1284226670 user believes that we cannot use such sources in any case, since even if we find a professional Japanese speaker, it will still be an unofficial and dubious translation]. Both because it is impossible to check it yourself, and because there is no official confirmation of the correctness of the translation of this information. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABanG_Dream%21_Ave_Mujica&diff=1284219048&oldid=1284213797 On our part (mine and the author of the original text), we believe that the translation of foreign-language sources does not violate the rules of Wikipedia], including because of the available screenshots of the original text and the absence of non-obvious moments in it that could cause disputes due to the translation. Also, I have seen the use of translation of Japanese language interviews and articles before and have not seen anyone object to it. I apologize in advance for possible errors or misunderstandings, I will invite both users here after creating the topic. So, we would like to ask what the project participants think about such a dispute from the point of view of the rules and whether it can be resolved in accordance with them? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:So, just to clarify the issue in detail:

:* I did not cite a fan translation, I cited a reliable source (an interview with the director of the anime in Megami Magazine- specifically the May 2025 issue, #300) while using two different fan translations ([https://www.reddit.com/r/BanGDream/comments/1jlkomv/director_kakimodos_interview_confirm_that_the/], [https://pastebin.com/mk7WXfe7]) to inform my use of the information. This seemed to me to be well within the bounds of the relevant policy and guidance stipulated at WP:NONENG, WP:OFFLINE, WP:PAYWALL and WP:TRANSCRIPTION.

:** The diff in which I added this information can be found here.

:* User:Apep the Serpent God challenged this citation, saying it was invalid because of the unofficial translation violating WP:NOR, and the print magazine source being inaccessible unless one purchases it and can read Japanese allegedly constituting a violation of WP:V (completely ignoring WP:PAYWALL).

:** A sidenote about Apep: {{collapse|1=I am very confident that they are using an LLM to write their talk page messages and edit summaries. Their messages are extremely stilted and very strongly resemble the overly stiff and formal tone of ChatGPT conversational outputs, as well as failing to acknowledge prior arguments by either myself or Solaire, or take the overall context of the discussion into account. Regardless, their messages carry a very clear WP:IDHT attitude; when told how they are mistaken about policies on accessibility of sources, they simply reiterate their prior arguments with little to no variation in tone, phrasing, or structure.|2=tldr: they were using generative AI text to reply, being dealt with at ANI}}

:* I cited these policies to refute them, but was reverted.

:* Discussion on the talk page went nowhere. Solaire does not see an issue with the usage of the magazine as a source, or doubt the authenticity of the translation, but Apep continually insists that it is not reliable and that any translation must be official, again, contravening WP:TRANSCRIPTION. I've collapsed much of their talk page messages, as, regardless of if they're ChatGPT or not (and GPTZero agrees with me that they are, for the record), they're a huge headache to read on account of the repetitive, recursive, and often contradictory logic.

:* There are scans of the relevant material from the original magazine online if anyone wants a look at the source themselves; although they are mostly uploads by fans on reddit ([https://www.reddit.com/r/BanGDream/comments/1jmctod/kakimotos_latest_interview_raw/]). Solaire has examined these scans and feels there is no issue. If there is any reason to doubt the authenticity of these scans, I have ordered a physical copy of the magazine myself and will be happy to provide my own scans to confirm. This should quash any WP:V-related concerns with their usage.

:For the time being, the relevant details have been removed from the article and will not be readded until and unless a consensus for their inclusion is reached. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Anyway, regarding the question Solaire posed at the opening of this discussion:

::For my part, I do not think that using fan translations of sources to assist in citing non-English material generally should be a major issue, as long as the citation is to the original material and not to the unofficial translation. We already allow unofficial translations for this purpose per WP:TRANSCRIPTION; I see no reason why this should only apply if the translation was done on-wiki, so long as there is no reason to doubt the translation and the original source is available for verification. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::On Solaire's question:

:::- I believe the magazine is fine to cite directly in accordance with the various policies around media not available online.

:::- Using a fantranslation should generally be acceptable, as long as the editor is confident it is accurate. Guidance doesn't specify for fantranslations posted online but since even machine translations are acceptable under these circumstances according to WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources this shouldn't be problematic. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In such cases, I usually start from whether there are any questions about the translation. For example, typical disputes around the translation of suki as I love/like it, etc. Otherwise, an argument for the sake of an argument, as it seems to me, will simply contradict the spirit of the project rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, that's what I thought. I've been doing this already and wrote an essay to this effect a little while back. It seemed like everyone involved in the case dealing with Apep's conduct surrounding their AI chatbot usage agreed with my interpretation of the policy so that's been good to be sure of.

::::Unfortunately the print copy of the magazine I ordered to verify hasn't come yet because the various customs and postal services in the US have been disrupted lately by all the recent government restructuring chaos but hopefully that'll get here sometime. Still, I'm not expecting to find out much of anything other than that the interview says what we already know it says. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse|1=

:I am responding here to clarify my position and explain why I believe the current approach to this issue is not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Let me outline the main reasons why the claim in question should not be included without proper verification:

:1. Screenshots are not reliable sources under WP:RS.

:They keep referring to the magazine as if it’s automatically a valid source, but a screenshot of printed material is not a reliable source unless it’s published by a third-party or verifiable. Anyone can take a screenshot and crop it in ways that misrepresent the original content, and there’s no way to verify that their screenshot is unaltered unless it comes from a trusted publisher or an established, independent source.

:2. Translations and personal interpretation don’t meet the standards of WP:NOR.

:Even if them or someone else translates the screenshot, this is still original research unless:

:-The translation is done professionally and published in a reputable source.

:-The original content is provided alongside the translation.

:Wikipedia discourages translations of unverified sources because they can easily be misinterpreted, and a personal translation is not sufficient to meet the standards of WP:NOR.

:The burden of proof is on the editor to ensure that the content is verifiable by all users, not just those fluent in Japanese. So, unless you can show a published, independent secondary source that confirms the information, this still fails the test of verifiability.

: Wikipedia clearly states:

:"The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."

:"This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, as well as any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

:3. WP:V (Verifiability) requires sources to be verifiable by all users.

:As per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by any reader, not just those who can access a Japanese magazine and can read the text. Fan translations or unverified screenshots are not verifiable for the average reader. This is why fan translations are never acceptable as sources — they are not independently verifiable.

: Wikipedia clearly states:

:"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source."

:"Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy."

:4. WP:PAYWALL does not apply here.

:They’ve mentioned the WP:PAYWALL policy, but that’s irrelevant to this case. WP:PAYWALL applies to sources that are paywalled, but the issue here is that the source is unverified and based on unreliable fan content. Even if the magazine itself is accessible for purchase, the issue is about verification and authenticity of the content being presented, not the cost of access.

:5. They still haven’t addressed the policy issues about translations.

:As stated in WP:NOR, even a faithful translation does not automatically make the material acceptable unless it is from a reliable, published source. This is a critical part of the policy you are ignoring. A fan's interpretation of the material does not meet the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia unless it is corroborated by a secondary, reliable source.

:6. Personal attacks and AI accusations are not appropriate.

:They are repeatedly accusing me of using AI is disruptive behavior and against Wikipedia’s conduct policies. If this continues, I will be forced to escalate the issue to the administrators.

:7. The Japanese Wikipedia’s exclusion of the claim is significant.

:The fact that Japanese Wikipedia avoids this claim is a significant red flag. If the claim were truly verified, it’s likely that the Japanese-language community, with its access to the source, would have included it.

:In conclusion, the use of screenshots or fan translations does not meet the standards of verifiability and reliability required by Wikipedia’s core policies. Until a verified, published secondary source is provided, this claim should not be included in the article. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

|2=wall of LLM text (they admitted to it at ANI}}

::The Japanese Wikipedia's omission of this information is not a valid argument, actually. Wikipedia pages are not perfect and their editors are not infallible, and it is highly likely that no one got around to adding it yet.

::Also: [https://gptzero.me/ GPTZero] says there is an 82% likelihood that this message was written with an LLM. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse|1=

:::It’s quite amusing that you’re choosing to focus on the Japanese Wikipedia’s omission of this claim as an argument against my position. I’ve already provided five main reasons for why the claim should not be included, which are grounded in solid Wikipedia policies. The fact that you’re clinging to the omission on the Japanese Wikipedia as your primary counter-argument is not only a red herring but also misses the point entirely.

:::Regarding your repeated references to GPTZero and AI: It’s laughable to think that accusing me of using an LLM somehow invalidates the solid reasoning and policy I’ve laid out. Wikipedia policy speaks for itself — it’s not about whether the message was written by AI or not; the facts and policies I’ve cited stand. Personal attacks on my use of AI do not change the rules or the facts that have been presented.

:::At this point, I stand by the five clear reasons I’ve given, and unless you can provide an independently verifiable source that meets Wikipedia’s strict guidelines, the information should not be included. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

|2=further LLM message}}

{{od}} Apep admitted to using LLM to write their messages at ANI. I have collapsed their messages; they did not add much value to the discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

----

I feel like a consensus has been reached: as long as fan translations are not directly cited as sources (i.e., the original magazine is cited instead), it is generally acceptable to use them as references, especially if editors have verified their accuracy. SuperGrey (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. On Sailor Moon season 1, {{user|Pinkbeast}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon_season_1&diff=prev&oldid=1278659055 added a note] while working on the episode summaries, which reads {{tquote|In a typical episode, the Dark Kingdom has a plot to steal life energy from humans using a monster of some kind, but the Sailor Guardians discover the plot and defeat the monster.}} I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon_season_1&diff=prev&oldid=1285021932 removed it as trivia], but it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon_season_1&diff=prev&oldid=1285030936 restored]. The user also raised a concern regarding these changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjones23&diff=prev&oldid=1285031584 here].

Rather than repeatedly reverting the removal, I'm going through the WP:BRD route and opening a discussion here for other editors to give their say. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I rather hope it is clear from the edit summary of the restoration why I have done it, but - this is not trivia, but about half of the plot of almost every episode in a series which is chock full of "monster of the week" episodes. Writing it down once means that the summary of each individual episode has less need to reiterate it.

:These episode summaries have been pretty bad forever because, as I mention on your talk page, they're the - alas - spoiler-free "back of the box" summary very common for episodic series where the setup for the episode is discussed but the ending is not. As I go through a rewatch I've been fiddling with each one a bit, but trying not to radically change existing wording if it's basically OK.

:If you want to embark on a more thorough rewrite (as you have done with episode 1), that's up to you, but these synopses have been basically unchanged for _about a decade_; please don't just trample the efforts of the first person to try and fix them up after that time. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Reasonable concerns. I'm only here to help, same as you. Per the relevant guidelines at WP:TVPLOT and at Template:Episode list#Parameters, we should also make an effort to keep the episode summaries between 100 and 200 words as long as they don't have any problems like scene-by-scene descriptions. The guideline for spoilers on that particular MOS also state that {{tquote|[...] Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers is that an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without a disclaimer or warning.}} Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Update: If anyone's interested, there's a relevant conversation at Talk:Sailor Moon season 1#Summary formatting. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

190.167.47.248 has swapped the Template:Infobox television template that was used from two Urusei Yatsura TV series in exchange for Template:Infobox animanga template. Which is better to have it? I prefer for the article Spy × Family (TV series) to use the television template just for the additional details; although that template should bring back the distribution company part. Hope this helps! 184.144.90.165 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:What additional fields are there being taken advantage of on the television infobox? If those are useful, maybe they can just be added to the animanga infobox parameters as well? silviaASH (inquire within) 12:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::There's Executive Producers, Voices, Producers, etc... It can also be seen on Knights of the Zodiac: Saint Seiya as well. -- 184.144.90.165 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Is there any compelling reason why those articles use the TV infobox template instead of the regular animanga infobox template to begin with? Not that I am particularly opposed to this, but I would like to find out the reason for that, if it goes beyond a simple matter of personal preference. Xexerss (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Template:Infobox animanga states that {{tq|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.)}}. Spy x Family (TV series) article's {{tq|media type of its focus}} is about the TV series only, hence Template:Infobox television is suitable. Centcom08 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. This should be applied to any anime series that has its own article and those that do not have any manga or light novel adaptations. I'm proposing that articles such as Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba, Dragon Ball GT, K-On!, Persona 5: The Animation and Attack on Titan to use the Template:Infobox television template. 184.144.90.165 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I also wouldn't object to any inclusion of the {{tl|Infobox television}} template. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball has been a defunct task force since January. I asked about it on the WP:HELPDESK and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&diff=1286467435&oldid=1286467011#Defunct_work_groups_on_WikiProject_talk_page_templates asked] to open a discussion here.

Can we remove any or all defunct projects from the {{tl|WikiProject Anime and manga}} template if it's possible? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Sjones23}} I would just tag the following as historical for any future reference:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Bleach
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Haruhi Suzumiya
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yu-Gi-Oh!

:The only reason for task forces is to get all of the related articles up to GA or FA status. Sadly, I think the editors that are inclined to do so are long gone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I really hate to have a discussion targeted towards one particular editor, especially one that I know is acting in good faith, but I have some serious concerns over the massive amounts of article creations from {{u|AnimeDoki2069}}. While I understand the desire to create articles, their creations largely show a disregard for WP:NOTABILITY, one of the website's core policies. Take D-Genesis: Three Years after the Dungeons Appeared as an example; the article is almost completely primary sources, and the few independent sources it has are just carbon-copies of press releases, which are not considered strong enough to count towards notability. If this was an isolated incident, I would just nominate the article for deletion and be done with it, but then I found several other articles they wrote with the same issue: They Don't Know I'm Too Young for the Adventurer's Guild, Peddler in Another World: I Can Go Back to My World Whenever I Want!, To Another World... with Land Mines!, The World's Least Interesting Master Swordsman, among others. Sometimes they include an award, but this only counts towards notability if it won the award and if the award is notable, which is rarely the case. While I'm not saying that none of these series are notable, I think AnimeDoki2069 needs to do a better job showing their notability. Link20XX (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've noticed this, but I haven't chimed in yet because I've been quite busy and haven't had the time to check each article individually to assess their notability. While I assume good faith on AnimeDoki2069's part as well, we shouldn't create articles just for the sake of it, which is the same point I've made when others request articles for series with little to no coverage. Xexerss (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've had a cursory look at their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/AnimeDoki2069 page creations], and, yeah. There's a handful of these I'd say are possibly worth redirecting to lists, particularly the ones that have like a couple sources of WP:ROUTINE Japanese coverage, or draftifying as potentially WP:TOOSOON since some of them (like KitaKimi) are quite popular with the readership of the magazine they were in and stand a non-zero chance of getting adapted to anime. The vast majority, though, can probably be safely deleted as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looks as if the majority of these articles have only ever been edited by AnimeDoki and don't even come with a plot summary, which I'd say, for a work of fiction, should be the absolute minimum of information to be included for the article to be remotely useful for readers. (I mean, if you can't even say in your own words what the series is about yourself, then do you actually care?)

::I'd say also that, speaking anecdotally, this issue does not stop at AnimeDoki- a significant amount of articles about manga and novels under the purview of this WikiProject are extremely threadbare, just containing a plot summary, list of volumes, and an award that it may or may not have won, and only ever get edited when/if they get an anime adaptation. I know it's difficult for us to find high quality sources about a lot of popular series, but I'm not even sure these articles are being created because the series in question are popular, it feels more like they're just being created just because they exist. We all should really be more discerning about what articles to start in general. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a doubt I have. Can't series on their own have their own articles? I know characters have more strict guidelines but I never saw that case when it came to series. For example, the same happened with most of the One Piece characters who barely have references in their reception but I want to stay away from it as last time I tried reverting stub character articles, I was personally attacked. Tintor2 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think having a standalone article for any given series is generally fine as long as there's at least a few good pieces of RS secondary coverage to prove notability for it. A standalone article for a fictional character will naturally have to meet a higher standard to prove that there's more to say about them that can't adequately be covered in the main series article. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Here I'm just concerned about notability. While a plot summary is important for an article about a work of fiction, it's not required to meet notability. I don't doubt that some of the articles they created are notable, but they should do a better job establishing that is what I'm saying. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I understand that a plot summary isn't relevant for establishing notability, but it is nonetheless true that an article with a plot summary is going to be more useful to readers in Wikipedia. An article that just lists the name of the series and the number of volumes might as well just be a store listing. All other things being equal, the article with a plot summary definitely has a higher chance of getting my support than the one without. Even if a series is notable, I'd rather the article be being created by someone invested in writing out at least the basic details in prose, rather than just filling it out like it's a database entry. The fact that many of these articles do resemble database entries isn't irredeemably damning, for sure, but it definitely doesn't help the situation. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm really sorry, but some user requested me to create some of these articles. AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:: You don't have to create every request you get; you can decline them or ask that the requester create the article. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, what Link said. Someone requesting an article doesn't mean it's automatically notable, you should be making sure of that yourself before creating it rather than trusting that the person you asked made sure for you. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And I didn't know this thing was so serious. AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not that it's "so serious" really, but keep in mind that by getting stricter about the notability guideline it's more likely that other editors will start nominating the articles you've created for deletion and it will probably happen to a lot of them, which would be a shame, regardless of the reason, because of the time you spent creating them in the first place. Xexerss (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think we should have a notability guideline now for anime, manga, and light novels, similar to the guidelines found in :Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Centcom08 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not certain we need them. I feel like all relevant guidance is already established in WP:NTV, WP:NFILM, and WP:NBOOK. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with SilviaASH; I don't think we need a specific guide for manga and light novels when WP:NBOOK lays it out pretty clearly. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:It seems like we're all in agreement that there is an issue here. The question then is what action should be taken? Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::What do you mean with that? AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hopefully AnimeDoki understands the issue now and won't create articles without showing notability anymore, and we won't need to have this conversation again.

::As for what we should do now, I'd say handle these just like we handle any cluster of articles with questionable or unclear notability. Improve the ones that seem to satisfy WP:NEXIST (or park sources on the talk page with {{refideas}} and throw a {{sources exist}}, on it), AfD the ones that don't, and otherwise just carry on as we are. There's no urgently pressing need to remove all of these, we'll clean them up in time when we have time.

::Ideally we should keep better watch over new articles getting tagged with the WikiProject Animanga template and more quickly respond to the ones that have obvious problems. The Video game WikiProject talk page gets semi-automated periodic updates notifying that WikiProject's editors of new articles so that they can be centrally discussed if need be. We could try doing something similar if it might be helpful. Individual editors can also try watching relevant categories and keeping track of the notifications of new articles getting added to them in their watchlists. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That sounds fine with me. I'll go through a couple of them and see what I can do. Also, we do have Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anime and manga articles by quality log which lists the new articles in the project for watching new creations. Link20XX (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Generally speaking, are light novels that have been licensed in the West considered notable, or it's a case-by-case thing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Case-by-case thing. Not every light novel that's been published in English will have received reliable source coverage. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

One issue with anime and manga coverage in Japan (and this is in general and not about this specific case) is that almost all Japanese coverage about the industry is basically churnalism. For example, if an anime is announced, the same article (I think basically a press release) is word-for-word published across multiple sites (for example Oricon and others). Actual genuine coverage for manga, light novels, or anime is hard to come by and as far as I can tell almost never exists outside of these word-for-word copypasted articles. This basically means that finding non-routine or significant Japanese coverage for almost anything in the anime/manga/light novel industry is almost like a fool's errand. This doesn't mean such sources should be discounted, of course, but it's at least something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:A few sources recycling a press release is at least evidence that there's some assumed interest about a given series, so while it might not be enough to justify an article, it probably is enough to justify redirecting the title to a list. In general I'd say any articles based solely off of such coverage should be draftified so that they can be updated and published if sources are found for them, and then their titles redirected to an appropriate list entry in mainspace if any should exist, either for their genre, author, or publication that serializes them. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, manga and light novels can also be notable through the SNG WP:NBOOK, particularly WP:BKCRIT 2 (won an award) and 3 (a notable adaptation, which I usually interpret to mean anything with an anime or live-action adaptation). Additionally, ranking in a notable bestsellers list also counts as significant coverage per BKCRIT 1. Link20XX (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I hate to have to revisit this discussion already, but I noticed that AnimeDoki2069 has created two articles while this discussion was ongoing that still have all the problems I listed above (The Tanaka Family Reincarnates and Pens Down, Swords Up: Throw Your Studies to the Wind). Additionally, another user, {{u|SimonLagann}} has done the same thing (see Zilbagias the Demon Prince: How the Seventh Prince Brought Down the Kingdom and Nakamura-san, the Uninvited Gyaru). Link20XX (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just to add, the same issue occurs with visual novels and light novels as well as anime and manga, all of which are covered by the anime project. The Japanese coverage wouldn't be what we consider reliable. English-language coverage is hard to come by too. This includes even series with large fanbases. So it'd be helpful to make sure we're proactively checking and responding on the Reliable Source discussions which often just don't get responses. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given the lack of activity there, I feel like at this point we might be better off bringing any particularly questionable sources to WP:RSN. However, the four sources that were most recently brought there (Anime Recorder, Febri, Eplus and Lis Ani) by User:SuperGrey all appear reliable as far as I can tell. They often interview high profile creators and industry figures and I've used each of them myself in articles.

::I've also been checking on some of the series in my sphere of interest to see if they warrant the articles they have. I couldn't find any meaningful sources about Kitanai Kimi ga Ichiban Kawaii, which could probably redirect to Comic Yuri Hime since it's listed there, My Girlfriend's Not Here Today seems to be barely notable off the back of its award and the author being interviewed in Febri, though that could change, and There's No Freaking Way I'll be Your Lover! Unless... seems to be in much the same boat, although it's almost certainly going to get covered more when its anime comes out so it's probably fine to keep.

::I'd like a lot of these series to be able to have articles, but I expect when I dig deeper I'll find a depressing number of series that fall to WP:BFDI degrees of "sure wish this was notable but it sure isn't" going on. Of course it's possible that any of these could have more coverage we're missing in print sources, but, not holding my breath for anyone to find any. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do hope you guys could voice your opinions on the RS talk page, even if it's just "Ditto." Source checks are important, since we'll be using them as the basis for notability discussions. SuperGrey (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no article called List of Love Live! characters, but will anyone here create one in the same vein as List of BanG Dream! characters? The Love Live! franchise needs to get some major restructuring from there. -- 184.144.90.165 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not opposed to this if anyone feels like doing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:One list that consolidates all the characters would likely devolve into the inclusion of fancruft, and would likely be poorly sourced anyway. Having the character lists in the series' articles has worked fine up to now, so I don't see any reason not to continue with that. Besides, it would make some articles like Love Live! Nijigasaki High School Idol Club extremely small without the character list, because the episode list and discography have already been split from it. Plus, these characters are self-contained within their own series, so it would make more sense from a reader standpoint to keep the characters lists similarly self-contained.--十八 00:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with Juhachi. This would be creating a long list of characters for a franchise with many series already aired, and would most likely be filled with superfluous and detailed ser talkinformation, which is not what these articles are intended for and most, unfortunately, don't seem to understand that. EDIT: By the way, I just took a look at the BanG Dream! character list article and noticed that most citations are just primary sources about scenes and dialogues. Xexerss (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::So, I think after seeing the argument against the Love Live character list, my opinion has changed, and I agree it probably isn't necessary. The Bang Dream characters list makes more sense since the series isn't broken up into subfranchises the way that Love Live is. I also think the sourcing can be improved; there's plenty of commentary about the characters available in secondary sources and interviews, and we can add that to the list while removing any in-universe details that are too trivial. I'll have a look at it later. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I tend to disagree for a bit, but creating the character list could group the franchise into schools in the same way like Girls und Panzer, Dragon Ball and Urusei Yatsura does. We could group the characters into the following sections: Otonokizaka High School (μ's and A-RISE), Uranohoshi Girls' High School (Aqours and Saint Snow), Nijigasaki High School (Nijigaku), Yuigaoka Girls' High School (Liella and Sunny Passion), Hasunosora Girls' High School, Takizakura Girls' Academy, Supporting and Other characters. Although I object to Juhachi's opinions, somebody needs to also include Japanese sources in detail as well to incorporate the concept of the characters. 184.144.90.165 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I also agree with Juhachi. To do so would significantly cut the sizes of some Love Live! articles, and there would be a high risk of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:POORSRC if the list of characters were to have its own article. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose' – Creating a character list ongoing franchise like Love Live! would be too long. It's best to put them on the Characters section of each series. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I do not know the reason to object the proposal, but it would be too large. Instead, it should be split into its own article although I have no objections how it is going to work. However, the proposal that @SilviaASH should see that the articles here should be created as follows:
• :* List of Love Live! School Idol Project characters
• :* List of Love Live! Sunshine characters, include the Yohane spin-off profiles
• :* List of Love Live! Nijigasaki High School Idol Club characters
• :* List of Love Live! Superstar characters
• :Would you able to entertain the idea if those are created? 184.144.90.165 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::My suggestion is, instead, that you expand the existing cast sections of the articles with WP:DUE real-world information about the characters informed by reliable sources if you have access to any such sources and see room to do so. If the information you add is of quality and quantity enough to make a credible case that a WP:SIZESPLIT should take place, then that could possibly be discussed. However, as things stand, I think Juhachi's argument is fair and such articles should probably not be created. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I worked on The Devil Does Exist a while back and feels it is no longer stub-quality as stated on its talk page. Because I worked on it myself, I don't feel comfortable with giving the reassessment myself, so I'm kindly requesting someone here to do it instead. Thank you! lullabying (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:All set. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I proposed the following pages to be created: List of Lycoris Recoil characters for the characters and List of Lycoris Recoil episodes for the anime episodes itself including the six two minute short films that are now currently airing. This could downsize the article for a bit while the animanga infobox would be moved to the "Other media" section while the main infobox be replaced by the television infobox. Sounds cool or no? 184.144.90.165 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:The list of characters isn't extensive enough to justify a split. MOS:TVSPLIT recommends having over 50 episodes before considering a split. I'm aware that several episode list articles with a smaller number of episodes exist, but just because they exist and no one bothers to discuss it, I don't think it justifies continuing to do so (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and with only 13 episodes so far, a split doesn't seem warranted. Also, including two infoboxes, one at the beginning and the other in another section, seems to me totally unnecessary, when the purpose of an infobox is precisely to summarize the existence of the works belonging to the franchise. Xexerss (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would proposed, in terms of the 13 episodes, not a split, but there should be description of the episodes in the short animated series, right? I was thinking of putting that together soon., and adding that to the page. Historyday01 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, that would be fine. Xexerss (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::See also List of Mayo Chiki! episodes for reference despite having 12 episodes. 74.14.70.11 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That should be merged back to the original article. Link20XX (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Did you read WP:OTHERSTUFF? Xexerss (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::At this point I feel like this IP's behavior is starting to border on WP:IDHT. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:As Xexerss said, this does not seem necessary, and as with the Love Live proposal already discussed above I think editors are likely to question the utility of such articles. The current revision of the article does not, to me, look in need of a WP:SIZESPLIT. If more seasons of the series are produced, it may be warranted, but as of now I do not see the point. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I completely agree. Historyday01 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If Takina or the rest of the characters can prove their notability like Chisato Nishikigi's article I guess.Tintor2 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would think Takina can, but I'm not sure about the others. I know that the special Blu-ray edition has a booklet noting many of the characters (i.e. providing bios) so that would help, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Considering Takina and Chisato are both the dual protagonists, I find it possible they share real world information since they are always together kinda like when I wrote about the two protagonists from Heavenly Delusion, Maru and Kiruko. If you want to try a Takina article, I recommend trying it in a sandbox or draft and try seeing if some sources from Chisato can be used in Takina. I mean, I remember Hideo Kojima wore a Takina shirt to promote the anime. Tintor2 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

As I friendly reminder to suggest, if there's an article that says "Crunchyroll" on the text, I updated the UniteUp! article because Aniplex of America owns the rights to the series. Any AoA shows needs to be updated accurately.

Speaking of UniteUp!, has anyone created the List of UniteUp! episodes article? -- 74.14.70.11 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Valnet section of project page. Z. Patterson (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Ungeek. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Not too long ago, there was a discussion about featured lists for television seasons at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 2#FLs for television seasons. Given that the first ten season lists of the Bleach anime were demoted from FL status a few months later, I think we should start a discussion on what to do with the remaining anime season FLs here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Devil May Cry episode list can be saved but I need somebody to revise its prose Tintor2 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that several articles, mostly the ones included in :Template:DraDra Sharp and :Template:Monthly Dragon Age, indicate that the series are published by Fujimi Shobo, but, as far as I know, the company/imprint has not been operating for more than 10 years, and titles like The Demons Are Planning Something Good, are actually published by Kadokawa, not Fujimi Shobo.[https://natalie.mu/comic/news/554753] I've been confused about this for quite some time, and while I can understand that titles before 2013 list the company as a publisher, I don't understand why more recent titles still list it. Should we correct that or am I missing something here? Also, as I understand it, the company currently operates simply under the name 'Kadokawa' and not 'Kadokawa Shoten', but I haven't looked into this further. Xexerss (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Xexerss}} For newer titles, I think it is safe to assume that we should correct them to Kadokawa, as that company now owns the assets of Fujimi Shobo. Z. Patterson (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to write and partially translate Draft:The Future I Saw, but the infobox is too complicated for me to understand. (it's midnight right now) If someone can help me do the infobox correctly, because ISBNs are not showing up, help would be appriciated. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 15:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:For starters, the infobox we customarily use for pages within our scope is {{tl|Infobox animanga}} rather than {{tl|Infobox comic book title}}. Additionally, we don't usually put ISBNs in the infobox; those generally go in the {{tl|Graphic novel list}} templates in a section for volumes. (See for example the status quo at Bloom Into You#Manga.) Good luck with editing your draft! silviaASH (inquire within) 15:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, that helps a lot. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@SilviaASH, do you think the draft needs more than it's current form? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There's definitely some interesting information here, but I'd say it needs some more context. At minimum I'd like to see an overview of what the manga itself is about somewhere above the details about the background and reception/cultural impact. The latter section is also missing details on the manga's reception from critics; if any such commentary can be found in reliable sources it'd be worth incorporating.

::::Also the practice of embedding the volume list in the header infobox isn't really standard for articles about manga; MOS:MANGA says to include that in the "Media" section. I would move it to a subsection titled "Volumes" with a small bit of prose about when the manga was serialized and by whom; for example like it is at the GA-level article Your Lie in April.

::::In general, while I'd say this is a good overview of the cultural impact of this manga series and makes a strong case for why it's notable, more context about what the series itself is and what people thought about it would be warranted. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::"The book is a set of manga of Tatsuki's dream, according to her diary. The second part of the book also included Tatsuki's mystery manga prior to her retirement following the publication of the book. The reprint includes additional messages and context about the book's background." Is all I managed to find. Since the book is a set of manga written by her and not a single story, it can't have a plot section making everything difficult.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If you have access to a copy of the manga, you're allowed to read it and then write up a plot summary of it yourself and do not need any secondary citations to do so, per WP:PLOTCITE. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not really, and my relatives would think I have gone crazy if I buy the book for myself, so that's all I can do. Considering the book has sold a lot in Japan recently, other wikipedians in Japan might have it though... AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 11:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of BTVA and it's use to support BLP details and DOBs. Any input would be appreciated, see WP:RSN#Restrictions Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure if genre-based anime and manga lists (:Category:Lists of anime by genre) are really needed. While genre-based lists may be helpful for less common genres like cooking or music, these lists often include series arbitrarily or with unclear standards. Additionally, many reference WP:USERG sites such as Mangadex, MyAnimeList, and Anime News Network; for instance, List of music and performing arts anime, List of playing cards related anime and manga, and List of action anime; the latter is almost MAL citations only. Xexerss (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)