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)

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)

Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 6 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 7 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 8 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 9 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 10 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Too many quotes and phrases taken out of context in the Reception sections

Hello. This is not the first time I have noticed that users overuse full or partial quoting in these sections, preferring to quote the reviewer's direct speech instead of simply retelling his opinion in his own words. Because of this, I often have to read the original source in order to rewrite the text, since such quoting either consists of formulations torn from different parts of the text, or is simply devoid of any context, giving the conventional reader a few random phrases without understanding the idea expressed by the reviewer as a whole. Does the community have any rules for this case? If not, what can be done? Solaire the knight (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a good idea to read the original source anyway if you're rewriting the text since you'd want to ensure the quotation fits the point that you're rewriting in context.

WP:QUOTE does say that "Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source" so they should be used with an understanding of the idea expressed as a whole but it is not always the case that this happens. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I like this approach, but what if users disagree with each other about the general idea of ​​the review? For example, I recently described a conclusion from a review that seemed pretty obvious to me, but another user challenged it, saying it wasn't obvious and was original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd think in those cases it could be taken to the Talk page to resolve the dispute. I don't think this would typically be an issue as long as it's being based on fairly direct statements in the review but I know how some people can be. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought so too, but the user suggested that if things weren't stated directly, then trying to connect them would be original research. But anyway, you're suggesting that these issues be resolved through normal discussion, if I understand you correctly? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak to this exact situation, but if something is not stated directly, then I would think they shouldn't be used. If there's a discussion over where something counts as stated directly or is inferred by the reader or whether something means the same as the statement made in the article, then best to resolve through normal discussion on the talk page. But more generally, WP:Quote should be used for guidance, along with WP:Cite and other guidance that already have consensus DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The point was that the reviewer predicted an increase in yuri in the show's second season, citing the show's writer's greater exposure to yuri outside of that title. It wasn't stated outright, but I thought it was obvious, plus the reviewer had already made the same point in the first season review. That is, things were not stated directly, but I personally thought it was obvious if you knew the context. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Weed (manga)

Weed (manga) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We need an article for vomic

The word "vomic" appears in 314 pages, but we do not have an article for it or a relevant definition on Wiktionary. Who is willing to create at least a stub article with a few sources? There is a Japanese Wikipedia page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

While I've seen promotional manga videos on YouTube using the term "voice comic" (such as this one), "vomic" seems to be a trademark of Shueisha, as they're the only ones who have used this specific term. I've also seen "movic" (movie comic) has also been used for dTV. Essentially, they function the same as audio dramas in Japan in general. lullabying (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

Statue of Unicorn Gundam is at AfD, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are statutes article for any Gundam. At least use the free image for the series and or character article like the first Gundam, the Nu Gundam or the Freedom. Tintor2 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves of several articles

An editor has requested that Music of Spirited Away be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussions at Talk:The Rose of Versailles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Proposal for character and synopsis section merges?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There's also a discussion on Talk:The Rose of Versailles § Synopsis section if you are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The authority of unofficial/fan translations of Japanese-language sources as sources

As far as I can tell, both sides supported opening the question here, so I opened the thread (original thread on article page). Recently, 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 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. 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 ([1], [2]) 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:NOTENGLISH, 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: 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.
• 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 ([3]). 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)

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)

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

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)