Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters

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

Limits of using anime reviews as a source

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've only seen passing reference to this before, but I'd think it'd be best to include both the sources suggesting misogyny (making clear that it's opinion) along with the sources referring to Tomino's explanations of it. That is assuming that there are significant and multiple reliable sources suggesting there is misogyny and it's not a lot of fans but only a single reliable article to support.

Speaking more generally on the topic, I would suggest that reviews could be used to confirm basic facts, but only to show opinion on anything more controversial (and even then, only if it's clear that it's significant and not just a couple of reviewers).

To give an example that caused some complaints online, a reviewer from Anime News Network said two authors were "clearly attracted to kids". I don't believe we could use this as a 'fact' about the authors. Even if it's written as a statement, it's more a fairly loaded opinion. We could however use that source for the basic fact that there are nude transformation scenes which were mentioned. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Like “such and such a scene was criticized by ANN, whose journalist even assumed that the authors were attracted too...” etc.? Solaire the knight (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably err a bit more on the side of caution, and go with something along the lines of sources criticizing the series for a paedophilic nature along with the author for creating it (if various sources supported this) to avoid any BLP issues.

But main point it to avoid the controversial mentions from review sources, unless they're strongly backed up, and even then to make clear it's opinion even if the review may be presenting it as fact. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

And the same applies to other non-obvious points, even if they are not so controversial? For example, when does a journalist engage in a fan debates, or when does a journalist promote some non-obvious reading of the show? In particular, when ANN at the beginning of the broadcast described high expectations about yuri in Aquatope, citing a popular fan meme that visiting an aquarium in female-focused stories is unambiguous yuri symbolism. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd also handle that similarly, only when backed by multiple sources and making clear that it's opinion, since those sort of things are an 'extraordinary claim' / non-obvious interpretation. With that particular example, aquariums are common in anime, with Iruma-kun, Oregairu, and Rent a Girlfriend being a few non-yuri examples that immediately spring to mind (and Zom100 though not a date).

The way I think of it is that while these are considered journalists, it's worth keeping in mind that quite a few people who work for anime or gaming outlets are often just fans who started writing and got hired, and typically don't have any special expertise other than knowing the medium well and writing well enough to get approved by the outlet, sometimes hired before even graduating university. It's typically not going to be by someone who has published studies on yuri or a particularly rigorous analysis, so I'd consider one journalist saying something like this to not be particularly noteworthy for article inclusion or reliable on its own. Even if a more reputable outlet, I'd not find one opinion particularly noteworthy either. As a more general example, we can't infer that something was received poorly because one review was negative. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, aquariums are indeed common in yuri. But for a very simple reason - it is one of the most popular places for Japanese youth dates. Therefore, since yuri readers often tend to read mostly only yuri, they think that when other manga have non-romantic scenes with an aquarium, or even just a plot related to an aquarium, then they think that this is yuri aesthetics. In general, this is a kind of survivor’s mistake. As for the fans, I understand what you mean. This has been one of my main complaints about ANN, as when I was an avid reader of it, I often felt that many of their reviews were describing things too much from perspective of a person of culture, if you know what I mean. Therefore, in my opinion, reviews of moe shows have often been somewhat narrowly focused. For example, they included one Great Race-inspired steampunk anime on their year's "best LGBTQ anime" list simply because of the shipping of its two female leads. It’s clear that I couldn’t refuse a source just because I didn’t like it personally. But I made sure that people did not use this as confirmation of any non-obvious interpretations like in that case. At least without the reservation that this is the opinion of a journalist. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Episode list created too soon again

This seems to be a reoccurring issue since it has happened at least once before, but I noticed a user created List of Gachiakuta episodes, even though the series has not aired any episodes and has no confirmed premiere date sometime beyond next year. Is there any opposition to moving the article to draft space? Link20XX (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It definitely does not deserve an article now. It is not even known how many episodes it will have and the article only has one citation. Xexerss (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Determining the authority of anime bloggers

Can anyone tell me what rules are used to measure the authority and significance of the opinions of YouTubers and influencers? In this case, anime bloggers. It seems to me that in a number of articles their opinion could be an important addition to the dry or superficial opinion of the resources. But I want to know in advance who and how I can use. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUBLISH. --Mika1h (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So, if I want to cite the opinions of anime/manga YouTubers or bloggers, I should either show their importance and authority, or use a reputable source that quotes them? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal

I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Last Quarter

I noticed that Last Quarter originally redirected to Kagen no Tsuki (film) (which I redirected to Last Quarter (manga), but judging from the redirect history, it looked like an anonymous user hijacked the redirect in 2009 without any discussion. lullabying (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Last Quarter (manga) can probably be moved to Last Quarter per WP:DIFFCAPS. Might want to do that through RM, but it seems to be unambiguous ― Synpath 05:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've opened up a move request at Talk:Last Quarter (manga)#Requested move 4 December 2024. Any comments are welcome. lullabying (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Lupin the 3rd Part V: Misadventures in France episodes#Requested move 26 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Lupin the 3rd Part V: Misadventures in France episodes#Requested move 26 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)