Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Biography

This page was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

The Task force Page needs editing

I only gave it a rough start, I haven't even put in the redirects. Also there is a glitch I can't get around, that is when I change the tag under notes to "Task force" all this other stuff that shouldn't be there appears. Anyone who has a clue can try to fix it.--Hitsuji Kinno 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Order of Business

Osamu Tezuka, while to biography format, needs a bit of cleaning up. Also since this man is well-known, it's a good test case starter to see if people can pull references, clean up the article and get it in order enough to get a better ranking... we can use this as a template and a test page once we get that up, and then split off as need be. What do you think? This one should be fairly easy to pull references for. --Hitsuji Kinno 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Osamu Tesuka is basically the inventor of manga, it's important that the article on him looks good. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in his work as I have only just started to read it. What parts do you think need more references? --Kraftlos (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive?

I would like to lend my support to this taskforce. I've noticed a lot of sub-par biographical articles in the project and I would like to help spruce them up. My main interest are the english-language voice actors. According to the project, voice actors fall within the project's scope if their "principal work is in anime and whose roles are generally notable". This seems rather vague and I would like to see a stronger definition. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Is there a good infobox that is already being used on biographical articles that we should be using with these articles? I think it would look neater to have some basic info in a box, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel... --Kraftlos (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{Infobox Comics creator}} (as seen on Katsuji Matsumoto) and there's {{Infobox Writer}} (as seen on Naoko Takeuchi). There's also just plain {{Infobox Person}}, which may be the best thing for directors. For seiyuu there's {{Infobox Actor}}, and for musical types, there's {{Infobox Musical artist}}. -Malkinann (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riyoko Ikeda

Ikeda's article could use some Bio task force love. After reading about her receiving "France's highest honor—Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur (National Order of the Legion of Honor"[1] I was a bit surprised to find her article was nothing more than stub with some spam links and almost no real content. I'd think someone who got an honor like that would have tons of information out there about them, right? :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her article is actually one of the better of the biographies of the Year 24 Group. There might be some incidental biographical information about Ikeda in Manga Manga. --Malkinann (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Someone said something last week about moving towards individual referencing for voice actor and seiyuu credits articles as we are trying to move away from tertiary sources like IMDB and the ANN encyclopedia. I was thinking perhaps there should be a place on this group, perhaps a sub page, where we can have generic references to the credits sequences of various anime. Granted you should be able to check this yourself before you place it on the voice actor article, but it would be helpful to just be able to copy an paste properly-formatted direct references to the credits and apply them to the various voice actor pages. I was thinking we could do this in the form of a campaign, a la Tag and Assess 2008. Any suggestions would be welcome. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a referencing section for such requests, and an example of one that I've spent a great deal of time to complete. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in Seiyu Articles of Japanese Wikipedia

I moved Hirohito Torihata to Hiroto Torihata, and Fumito Yamano to Fubito Yamano (however, the article was deleted as CSD#A7). Both articles were based on the articles in Japanese Wikipedia, but actually hiragana in Japanese articles were not correct (and I modified the Japanese articles).

I am afraid that there might be similar mistakes in seiyu articles of Japanese Wikipedia, since sometimes they are written without referring to reliable sources. In such cases, other web pages (even in Japanese) might be also unreliable, since they are often based on Japanese Wikipedia articles (e.g. Hiroto Torihata's article in Animate, which seems to be based on another incorrect hiragana in an old revision of the Japanese Wikipedia article).

I believe that referring to profiles in seiyu agencies' web sites will prevent such mistakes in most cases. "Nihon Onsei-seisakusha Meikan 2007" (ISBN 978-4-09-526302-1) or "Nihon Onsei-seisakusha Meikan 2004" (ISBN 4-09-526301-6) can be an alternative, since they are compiled by Japan Audio Producers' Association, in cooperation with Japan Actors Union and major seiyu agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAWASAKI Hiroyuki (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for English dub voice actors

WP:NACTOR #1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"

The question is how significant the role is. My take on this is: Lead or main role in an anime show that is broadcasted on notable national or international networks not associated with the production

Lead or main role should be the equivalent of star billing in live-action shows.
National networks at least for the English/U.S. would be stuff like: Fox / WB, Cartoon Network / Adult Swim, national syndication such as AZN Television, Animax for English-language in Europe, Asia
Streaming / on-demand networks: Amazon, Netflix, Disney+, Paramount, YouTube TV, HBO Max, Anime Network
- associated with the production company (can't use for notability): Funimation, Crunchyroll
- If it streams Japanese dub only and no English dub online, then that doesn't count towards the English VA's significance. Wait until the dub is streamed.

The bottom line is that should be broadcast/streamed as a dub as a major title, not as part of a huge library available on the internet. Direct-to-videos and boxsets are much lower on the list for significance and would have to be on the level of The Land Before Time to get a mention. And amateur/filler dubs should have zero significance. Films would be similar. Ideally they should be shown in the theater as an English dub and reviewed as such. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding appearances in anime conventions. They should be national or international conventions where they headline / guests of honor. If they just appeared as part of the company booth, then maybe not. An American actor who travels to Europe or Australia to do their con appearance would be much more notable than going down the street to their hometown convention or local festival. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming from your comment at the Greg Dulcie AfD that you'd like my participation - so I'll share my perspective. First, two questions on your intention in this discussion - for outcome, are you looking to (at least, at some point) propose this become a set policy at a wikiproject/WP:NACTOR, or are you looking for support to continue to self-enforce this standard? As far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me) but, it looks like you have operated under this criteria for some time. If so, may I ask - why are you only seeking a discussion on it now?

Regardless of your reasoning, I'm going to go point-by-point as best as I can below, and try to keep it at least semi-organized. Your view poses a lot of questions and nuances, so this will be a long comment.

1. To start, you are seeking to define "Significant" under WP:NACTOR, very specifically. NACTOR appears to be intentionally vague - given the wide breadth of people and professions it covers, so defining it imo, needs significant justification. Do any other wikiprojects, MOS or otherwise, define what "Significant" means, that can be used as precedent? Some examples, (and how they define Significant in particular) would be important context for this discussion. While precedent would be helpful, even with it - I'll reiterate that I'd like some pretty good reasoning for why English anime dub voice actors in particular need to be specifically singled out from all other actors and entertainers, to enforce a significantly tougher standard than actors in most, to any other category?

2. You are seeking to disqualify roles for NACTOR if they are not aired on network/cable television, or the right streaming service, but there's a multitude of complexities and issues with this.

2.1. You are seeking to exclude Funimation and Crunchyroll, the indisputable leaders of anime licensing, from qualifying if they produced the dub themselves and the only reasoning is because they have a large catalog of anime, and are "filler" dubs? While Funimation produces most of their dubs themselves (w occasional outsourcing) and Crunchyroll not making any at all (they have been a similar if not identical model to Netflix for the dubs they produce, outsourcing to the same companies Netflix does). Because Funi and CR are so dominant, this criteria would exclude the vast majority of licensed anime from qualifying (and allow Sentai Filmworks' HiDive, a far smaller player, to count?) indiscriminately - I don't understand how it makes sense to specifically single out the market leaders in anime, and immediately rule out any show they've made a dub for... Is it because they are too "niche"? What precedent can you cite for this?

2.2. I'm sure you're aware - anime on traditional television is nearly dead. The only notable player left is the odd kids show on a kids network (per ratings, watched by next-to-no-one) or Toonami - whose ratings have gotten so disastrous it's a wonder they're still on the air, with their latest ratings crashing to another all-time low, 1/5th of their total viewership in their prior heights. Besides any benefit of saying it aired on Adult Swim, I do not see how it has actual tangible benefit on its notability. [2]

2.3. "would have to be on the level of The Land Before Time to get a mention" as in a mention at all in an article? - I can't even begin to wrap my head around the extra work that would take, and how inherently arbitrary that is.

3. Conventions. I briefly questioned why this mattered on the Marissa Lenti 2nd AfD, but to tackle it properly - why does a convention appearance make someone more encyclopedic? It can certainly help editors who are looking for interviews, or I guess as a jumping off point to hunt for roles - like here? But outsourcing notability to something as arbitrary as a fan convention is something I still do not understand. And again, why does this additional criteria need to be applied to English voice actors, and no one else?

Conclusion - I'm positive I've missed some stuff and didn't get every thought I have on this out there, but I hope this serves as an acceptable starting point. In sum, I do not understand: Why these criteria need to be applied above and beyond NACTOR; how it is reasonable to exclude the vast majority of new voice actors because they haven't been hired in a Netflix dub; and ultimately, what benefit all this additional criteria brings to anyone. Extra work + barriers in creating / updating articles; more AfDs for articles under this workgroup's care; and reinforcing arbitrary reasoning without much encyclopedic purpose. The only result I can see coming from this policy being adopted is an increase in AfDs, and a decrease in quality of coverage. There's barely anyone in this work group in the first place, and I speak from experience that there are plenty of articles which have been neglected for a decade. That, in my opinion, should be the priority. But alas - here we are, I plead with you AngusWOOF, to explain this approach further. If there's any aspect you find confusing, please ask me to clarify. All the best, Canadianerk (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, NACTOR is intentionally vague, but you also notice in other projects, for live-action television and film actors, it is their star billing in the show and not their guest star roles that count as significant. However, if they have a significant recurring role in the show like Larry Thomas (actor) is known for portraying The Soup Nazi or J. G. Hertzler portraying Martok, then you should see coverage of that in reliable sources. In music talent shows WP:MUSICBIO #9, the contestants are not considered significant unless they made the finals, and for music in general, getting a song or album charted goes a long way. In sports, WP:NATH they have to have played at the highest level of competition, such as the Olympics or the top tier leagues. If they're in the minors or only qualified for regionals, they usually don't get a page. They also have to get past WP:ROUTINE coverage. For theater actors, originating the role or playing it on Broadway (or national equivalent) is more notable than being on the tour years later, or performing the version for the local community playhouse.

Also note the multiple shows and films. There are a ton of actors that don't get pages because they only have one major role, and they get tagged as WP:TOOSOON until they land a second role. Look at Olivia Rodrigo; she didn't get her page until she landed her second major role (High School Musical The Musical TV series), and now she's vastly more notable for her music.

2.1 + 2.2 Regarding focusing on networks and Funimation, my concern was whether their network is comparable to the other streamers nowadays as they can certainly release a bunch of "exclusive" shows like Netflix does. Broadcasting outside of their internal network has more chance of showing notability for their voice actors though, that's mainly what's I'm getting at.

As for Crunchyroll, my concern is when they supposedly do in-house filler dubs on shows until the official one is released by Funimation/Sentai/Bang Zoom/Studiopolis on home media. If they list voice actors for that interim period, then great, they can be credited, but otherwise who knows who was posted there for that time. And most of the shows posted are for subs, hardly any dubs.

2-3: direct-to-video. this is mainly concerning those non-notable shows and series that don't even have a Wikipedia page. It's why WP:PORNBIO got merged into WP:NACTOR as they have actors who star in hundreds and thousands of direct-to-videos.

A lot of this can be bypassed by meeting WP:BASIC or WP:GNG "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." You get those objective newspaper and magazine articles that aren't tainted by the producers/retailers and it's like gold for notability.

I hope this helps clarify where I stand on this. You might want to ask some of the other editors from the AFDs on how they view NACTOR, but there are tons of folks who try to make pages here who say they're Wikipedia notable because they "starred" in some film, and you go the film's wikipedia page and they're playing a non-billed character way down in the credits list where the "additional voices" and loop groups / wallas / extras reside. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also flip it the other way. How notable is the person in Japan if they voice dub a random TV show released in the U.S.? You wouldn't know they voiced it from the papers, and would only see it if they appeared in cast lists or their resume. But other than that, no coverage, no reviews. Those are hard to get them for Wikipedia articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Most of that I understand, thank you for clarifying - you didn't link to a specific discussion where consensus agreed to define Significant as you've written it, but that's alright at this stage. However, I hope you would agree that "Lead or main role should be the equivalent of star billing in live-action shows." is not enough to clarify all the context you provided in response to this point. It seems that how the original post words things needs some asterisks attached, as these broad generalities are what genuinely made me concerned. (and I'd hope, others - less I be going solo against consensus) - do you understand where I'm coming from on this, how your post was written has far deeper / frustrating implications.

2.1+2.2 - You are right, a show or film being available on multiple platforms is a valid marketing strategy that some shows, including anime, undergo (ex: D4DJ) - but to varying levels of success. Regardless, a Netflix show's lead cast certainly has access to a larger general audience than a Funimation show's lead cast - just like how a lower tier cable network has an objectively lower audience than an over-the-air broadcast network such as CBS - it's no contest. However, that does not account for anime-specific audiences - and I know the press have certainly been treating this as a more level war than pure general subscriber numbers imply. Examples: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/23/21003549/anime-streaming-wars-netflix-amazon-att-sony-crunchyroll-funimation https://observer.com/2020/11/animation-netflix-crunchyroll-apple-hulu-hbo-max-sony-att/ https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3121528/anime-streaming-wars-japanese-films-gain-fans-worldwide-sony https://comicbook.com/anime/news/disney-plus-anime-streaming-original-series/ Ultimately, I still strongly object to the idea that the difference in notability is so substantial that Funi/CR exclusives are not qualifications for NACTOR - presence on Netflix or other general streamers as you list does not guarantee a show's success. And this standard in my opinion, is unfair - Funi/CR arguably have far more notability as platforms than many others with exclusive content that have dedicated pages on Wikipedia. Is it not more reasonable to just stick with "if lead/main (sometimes reoccurring in circumstances that need better definition) character, in a show with a Wikipedia article", can count a role towards NACTOR? If so, I've already been holding myself to that standard for articles I've created from scratch and generally agree - our main difference in opinion appears to be whether NACTOR alone is enough for an article to stay up + how "recurring" roles should be defined. And of course, the blanket elimination of hundreds of roles/credits for qualifying for NACTOR as your original post implies.

On Crunchyroll dubs - now, I'm not an expert, nor a member of the industry- but to my knowledge, Crunchyroll does NOT produce "Filler dubs" of any kind - at least recently. I couldn't find any mention of them in searches, either. However, I'm quite confident that the cast featured on the version of the dub on Crunchyroll, should be near-identical to the one which is presented to viewers on home video - their primary profit/incentive is the streaming release, not Home Video. There has been some cases where there has been the odd recast in the broadcast/simuldub version of Funimation shows - because of time constraints, (the actor was sick, busy, or otherwise unavailable) so another actor substituted in for a few episodes and the original actor returned for the home video version. But this is rarely the case, and to my knowledge has not occurred on a Crunchyroll project. I'm positive though, that they do not just have a group of CR employees rush a dub out, and then hire Studiopolis/otherwise to completely/mostly redub the show from scratch on Home Video. That model, if it was implemented at some point, is simply a bad idea from a business perspective. Most Crunchyroll shows were not receiving home video releases at all (exclusives, not Funi-CR shared titles) until 2021.

I'm aware that NACTOR can be bypassed by BASIC / GNG, and objective newspaper/magazine article coverage of an individual person is key to those qualifications. I've told you this repeatedly - but as you are aware, that kind of coverage is scarce for this subset of actors - it is a problem that many other actors face (hence why NACTOR exists?) but you've raised it again so it seems worth reiterating for emphasis. It is not fun just hoping that NACTOR can fend off articles. If I had found the right sources to secure every article I worked on under GNG/otherwise, I would do so in a heartbeat. There just isn't a dedicated publications interested in covering these peoples' stories like there used to be. Certainly not the in-depth reporting that the top actors receive in the premiere New York Times or otherwise. You've pointed me to examples before - but I cannot produce sources which do not exist.

Does any of this help clarify/get us closer to understanding, AngusWOOF? Canadianerk (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]