Talk:Free!

Regarding the article name and lead

Seeing as how the novel the anime is based on, however loosely, is finally getting a release in about 10 days, I suppose there should be a discussion on whether to move it to High Speed! or not. Although the novel is technically the original material, WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation suggests "using the most commonly known English titles for article names", and "If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world." It's clear that the anime, with all its previous coverage and hype, has done this already, so I doubt it needs to be moved back.

However, if the article stays at Free!, this could be a problem for the lead. WP:MOS-AM#Content makes it clear that the original format should be introduced first, and this is how it's always done in animanga articles, but although the novel is the original format, it's coming out after the anime premiers, and has a different title, so this complicates things. Should this article just be an exception to the rule, considering it's near-unique circumstances?--十八 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and used Crunchyroll's Official English Title. By the circumstances, since the anime is coming out before the LN, I think this works. <KirtZJ>^Talk 21:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Crunchyroll as a licensor/licensee

This is not what I've seen on most articles on WP:ANIMANGA. I've seen Crunchyroll listed under the infobox licensor parameter as a "liscensee" subset. Most of the time it is even cited as a reference. I would assume Crunchyroll would have to have some kind of license to stream Japanese media, since they probably wouldn't be able to do it without one. Funimation is a network as well, and they are listed as license holders. Both are media distribution services. Don't get me wrong, I'm not contesting you on this, I'm just trying to understand why; CR should be listed. I also get that both are a networks, but they do release products as well. The infobox tag line clearly states the subset "liscensee" - | licensor = English anime licensee | NA = Crunchyroll. <KirtZJ>^Talk 11:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Before this gets a bit technical than I'm catering for today, I'll just put out there, that the "Licensed by.." wording that the wiki-text induces could be interpreted for anything from a licensor to a liscenee, with the difference being made clear in the Media article sections, such as "CR streams the series with English subtitles" etc. or "Sentai Filmworks has licensed (placeholder) in the North America" etc. I would assume this is what the "liscensee" subset parameter as shown above is for and can be justified by this, if not, why else would it be included as a parameter. This is all Semantics. <KirtZJ>^Talk 12:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've seen just as many people remove instances where Crunchyroll is listed as a licensor in the infobox, because they don't physically distribute their media; it's all done online. The comparison with Funimation is lackluster at best; Funimation actually distributes their media on BD/DVD, in addition to having a TV network of their own which broadcasts series they have already licensed. The fact that Crunchyroll is neither a traditional licensor (i.e. no physical distribution) and are not a traditional network (i.e. does not broadcast on TV), leaves it in a gray area where it probably shouldn't go in an infobox (especially if it conflicts with other license holders), but is necessary to list it in the prose. But perhaps more input would be needed from the community at large. In fact, I think the field should probably be renamed "English distributor" to clarify that it should be for companies that distribute their series, and to get it in line with other similar fields that already exist (English publisher, English network).--十八 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The parameter should probably be renamed "English distributor" as you said so that all distribution forms can be listed, but I still feel that the "English anime licensee" sub parameter caters for this as I explained. Again, this matter is just semantics and probably doesn't affect the overall article quality. <KirtZJ>^Talk 21:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Gō vs Gou

I don't see why we should use the romaji version instead of the English version. Don't we already change article titles to English instead of romaji where available? <KirtZJ>^Talk 01:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a romaji/English issue; both are Japanese. This is a macron issue; see WP:MOS-JP#General guidelines point 1.--十八 01:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. <KirtZJ>^Talk 01:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus after 39 days; no discussion in the last 7 days. Moved to Free! (anime) as suggested by some. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club → Free! – Free! is the common name, and Free! currently redirects to the article, so it's not used for anything else. Article editor (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Free!" is the same (except for punctuation) as "Free", which is a long disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support A hatnote to Free is fine, given the apparently lack of other topics that would be referred to as Free! This move is supported by WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE, WP:SUBTITLE, and WP:COMMONNAME. It would be an absurd triumph of bureaucracy if Free! were retargeted to Free as a result of this discussion. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose or better Move to Free! (anime) - this is discussed as " TVアニメ Free! " [TVAnime Free!] in Japanese sources. The anime maker Iwatobi's webpage titles it TVアニメ『Free!』公式サイト and ja.wp disambiguates as ja:Free! (アニメ) while the primary topic for "Free!" in ja.wp is not the anime but the four-panel comic ja:Free!, in en.wp Free! (manga). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise the redirect Free! should redirect to Free dab list. It's probably that one of the 40 odd albums and songs has had a ! attached at one time or another, but also we've just had RMs concluding that ! isn't sufficient to dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Free!" is a unique title, so there would be no need to further disambiguate it with "(anime)". This is why we have Airplane! and not Airplane! (film).--十八 03:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

But Juhachi Free! evidently isn't unique, or ja.wp wouldn't have this TV anime article at ja:Free! (アニメ) with disambiguator (アニメ).

As to Airplane! "Free!" as an exclamation is common. While Airplane! as an exclamation is is like "Lettuce!" i.e. highly unusual. We normally don't disambiguate on ! as recent RMs have shown. In ictu oculi (talk)

It may not be unique on the Japanese wiki, but that's there, and this is here. We have different standards for articles, and no other article has the title "Free!" and is also notable enough for inclusion, i.e. Free! (manga) is not notable and should not have been created, which the ensuing AFD will show. And I don't think it matters if it's "unusual" or not. Further disambigs are only used if there's a conflict in the title with another article. That's why the Japanese article has "(アニメ)" on the end: to disambiguate it with the already existing ja:Free!. "Free!" itself is not common at all if there are only two currently known examples of it: this article and Free! (manga), and the latter of which is not even notable enough to have an article to boot. And despite what you may say about "recent RMs", Wikipedia has a long history of disambiguating with !, as I showed with Airplane!. And here are even more examples: Them!, Oklahoma!, Berserk!, Oliver!, Burn!, Moulin Rouge!, Mamma Mia!, Tokyo!, Spectacular!. Need I go on?--十八 09:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see you tried to get Free! (manga) deleted by placing a prod on it without telling anyone. We don't normally do that sort of thing in a Requested Move discussion.

Moulin Rouge! is probably insufficient disambiguation per WP:NCF given that 40% of print sources don't have the "!". The other thing you're forgetting is that the others are stable at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club is already disambiguated by subtitle "(Iwatobi Swim Club)". The onus on ambiguation proposals, is to demonstrate sufficient advantage of ambiguating to readers, rather than simply play "hide the article." In this case there doesn't seem to be any benefit from ambiguating the title even if Free! (manga) didn't now exist on en.wp it would still exist in the real universe. In my view User:Anthony Appleyard made a good call here, it doesn't benefit anyone - neither anime fans nor manga fans (nor fans of both or neither) to ambiguate a stable article. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the only reason you created Free! (manga) is because of this discussion. The fact that it lacks notability doesn't change.--十八 10:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I created it because it was primary topic in ja.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• The kana "アニメ" transcribed become "anime". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note - Juhachi has opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free! (manga). I have opposed, but consider it a distraction from what exists in the real world, which should be the primary basis for titling decisions. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• The question here is, what name does the majority of reliable English-language sources use (RE: WP:COMMONNAME)? Without doing too much indepth research, I see Crunchyroll streaming the series under the name Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club[1]. Anime News Network first started off using Free! and then switched to Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club starting with their article on August 2, 2013[2]. ANN also did a review using the title Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club.[3] An explanation for the switch could be that the series was originally going to be titled Free!, but Kyoto Animation later changed it to Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club to avoid confusion with the independent manga series. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per everything 24 said above. —KirtZ^Message 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SUBTITLE. The "!" is sufficient to distinguish the article from Free per WP:DIFFCAPS, and I don't see Free! (manga) as surviving AfD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Free! (anime), to make it more recognizable to the passingly aware. Redirect Free! to Free, as the punctuation is insufficient disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose use Free! (anime) instead per those above. "Free!" should redirect to the disambiguation page -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support--there is no article that would be likely to survive an AfD that has any claim whatsoever to Free! except this one. Also, WP:DIFFCAPS is a policy, just for your information. Red Slash 00:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Free! "Iwatobi Swim Club" is Shonen.

Free! "Iwatobi Swim Club" is Shonen. 36.83.115.199 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Free! "Iwatobi Swim Club" is Shonen because main characters are boys. 36.83.115.199 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Shōnen is a manga demographic. The anime is an original television production and has no manga demographic. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club" is the anime for males because main characters are boys. 36.83.119.207 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because the main characters are male doesn't mean that the show itself is targeted to males. One can argue that because the characters have a "pretty boy" look, the series is primarily targeted to girls. But without a reliable source stating what its demographic is, whatever we come up with would violate WP:NOR. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonchop's Edits to the Anime Lists

For whatever reason Wonchop does not wish to discuss his incessant edits to the episode lists of this series, which have no problem being in separate lists other than his own opinion. Thoughts? —KirtZ^Message 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to have a completely seperate article for two seperate seasons when they are only one cour each. Those are only neccessary if something is a long-running anime with multiple seasons of large numbers of episodes (such as Yu-Gi-Oh!), or is the series is notably different from the previous season (eg. a spin-off series, or a completely different adaptation done by a different studio).Wonchop (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, List of Free! episodes would make a more ideal setting than List of Free! Iwatobi Swim Club episodes, since it's keeping things to the shortest common name like the main article, and more easily represents both seasons. Wonchop (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a different case. There is no a need to have all combined into a single episode list when both seasons have their own Subtitles and storylines. Individual Yugioh series seasons dont have individual subtitles do they? —KirtZ^Message 17:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because Yu-Gi-Oh! is one big long running series. One cour series that have multiple seasons, (ie. one's that don't neccessarily air immediately after the previous season), have subtitles or other titling quirks since they don't adopt the general 'season X' matter and need to distinguish it from their previous seasons. Case in point, the storyline in season 2 of Free! continues directly from the previous. Wonchop (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt matter. As I said, Free! is the franchise. The subtitles differentiate the media. —KirtZ^Message 7:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All you're doing is making things complicated for the readers. Literally none of the other anime episode lists (Index, Railgun, Hidamari, etc.) use this format.Wonchop (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I like how you are the one trying to be rational when you refused to come here in the first place. Despite my pleas. Take it. I havent the time for this BS right now. I may come back to this later. —KirtZ^Message 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. Other stuff has me stressed right now. For the record you were the one who worked on Railgun and Hidamari so using those to base your argument of simplicity is hardly compelling. Separating them looks much neater. People should't have to dive through an unnecessarily overlong page with tables to find what they are looking for when it looks much neater separately. —KirtZ^Message 17:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Also just look at the Code Geass pages. That is all. Im pretty sure if I turned this page into something resembling those you would take issue as well. —KirtZ^Message 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, these seasons just aren't long enough to warrant seperating into seperate articles. It's less inconvenient to scroll through a slightly long page (which isn't too much of an issue when you have the infobox), than to have to go to a completely seperate page, particularly since you have to repeat a lot of information from the previous article (what the show is about, who the characters are, etc) Ideally, Code Geass probably doesn't need two seperate articles for its seasons either, but at least those are double-cour seasons, and the franchise does have another anime spin-off. Most of the time however, there isn't too much need to go much further than 'there's a second season, we got stuff about dem episodes too'. As long as summaries are kept to a reasonable size, there's no need to seperate them into seperate articles when they're all part of the same overarching series.Wonchop (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments are still shaky on grounds. It seems like it boils down to a matter of opinion. Using the multiple-cour argument is a kind of roundabout way to look at this, because then what is the difference between Code Geass and Railgun, since the latter should be spilt via that logic. Was their some kind of consensus in that using this combined format is supposed to be enforced? Also I think of pages in terms of their classes, and if this page ever goes up for an FLC, a spilt may be necessary. We even have an infobox for pages like this and why shouldn't it be used. I'll clean up the page later as the codes do look horrible. Fear not, I will not revert. Sigh. There is still no consensus though. It is a much bigger topic than simply this page. I started another discussion here. —KirtZ^Message 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't around when Code Geass got its episode list (and since I'm not heavily into the fandom I probably shouldn't get involved), but as far as most series have gone, they've generally been kept to one article per series, mainly because it keeps everything altogether without splitting into too many articles. It's the same as how certain spin-offs (eg. Railgun) don't have a seperate main article from the original series (Index), outside of its chapter and episode listings. The long-running stuff such as One Piece and Naruto generally has to split into multiple articles because of the sheer size of it, but it's generally not neccessary for standard series that only last 1-2 cours. Sometimes it depends on how many episodes and how detailed the summaries are going to be. It's also important to consider that some series receive certain episodes that aren't tied to a specific season, such as a TV special, an OVA original series, or an anime film, which would certainly be too small to warrant listing in seperate articles. It's generally much more convenient to have a single article that covers multiple lists for season one, season two, and any OVAs. There are some cases that would warrant seperate articles, for example as the upcoming Persona 4 The Golden Animation is a retelling of Persona 4 The Animation, it would receive a different episode listing since it's not a continuation of the first one.Wonchop (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold rename following opposition to it in the RM above

I object to the 18:44, 3 July 2014 page rename by Xezbeth (talk · contribs). This bold move was explicitly opposed in the RM discussion above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The result of the above discussion was actually no consensus. Some supported the addition of an (anime) disambiguator, others didn't.--十八 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's have another discussion, to see if there's consensus to keep this at Free!, or if it should be moved back. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if there was an old move request, I just assumed it was left over from when the article was at a longer title. If the exclamation mark alone is too ambiguous, then Free! should redirect to the dab page and not this article. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Should the article stay at its current title, or should it be moved back to Free! (anime)?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close since I reverted myself. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Free! → Free! (anime) – While I am fine with the new title (or should I say old, since it was under this title that I created the article last year), let's see if there is consensus if the article can be kept in this title, or if it should be moved (again). Also, preferably, this discussion should finally decide where to keep the article for good, since there was no consensus at the previous discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy restore previous RM result - technically that means Support, but this doesn't justify a second discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it can someone fix Free!!. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural revert page moved against outcome of a previous consensus discussion without seeking a new consensus. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• I reverted myself since I should have checked the talk page first. My issue was with Free! redirecting to this page rather than with the article title. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm here, I do think the article should be at Free!. There is existing precedent that X! is a separate term from X. A hatnote to the dab page should suffice. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that Free! should be it, by WP:DIFFCAPS I mean there is an Article called Airplane! which does not redirect to Airplane...

My1xT(a.k.a. My1 (insecure)) 06:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - As the page has been re(re)-moved, let's have an RfC to discuss once and for all what the final title should be (and preferably afterwards the article could be move-protected). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments after the move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should be the title of this page: Free! or Free! (anime)? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think this should have been opened as a new requested move instead of an RfC, since the last one was a procedural revert, so allowing for a new request to be opened following it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment to RfC creator, please ping all the participants of the last two move request discussions, as they may not see the RfC if they're not paying attention to the RfC listings. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Per the IP's suggestion, I've contacted all non-IP users who participated in the last two move discussions (I didn't contact the IPs because it's not sure if any of them are still editing, at least under that IP, making contacting complicated). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Stick with "Free! (anime)" because a single exclamation point seems to me like a stretch to make the page distinguishable. In this case, people know immediately if it is the page they want. Also Free (film) has a disambiguator and seems to be doing perfectly fine. —KirtZ^Message 04:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• I see no reason to violate WP:CONCISE by adding an unnecessary disambiguator. See Airplane! and WP:DIFFCAPS. Red Slash 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Red Slash.--十八 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also agreed. There seems to be existing precedent with Airplane!, as well as Hello!, Them!, Oklahoma!, Berserk!, Oliver!, Burn! and The Informant!. Boom! (disambiguation) is separate from Boom (disambiguation), which suggests the exclamation mark is enough to make it a distinct term. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• I was invited to weigh in. This really should be an WP:RM. But since I'm here, it really should be at Free!. Until a few days ago, Free! already redirected here and there doesn't seem to be anything else at Free (disambiguation) that uses a "!". The "!" distinguishes the article appropriately from other articles titled "Free" per WP:DIFFCAPS. The name also better fits the article title criteria, specifically WP:CONCISE (be as concise as is possible), WP:PRECISE (be no more precise than necessary) and WP:NATURAL (use the subject's actual title if available). I would like to see some English-language reliable sources for the title, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CONCISE does not say "be as concise as is possible".— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

Paraphrasing. What it says is "The title is no longer than necessary" to distinguish the topic. As there's nothing else called "Free!", and in fact the shorter title historically redirected here, adding a parentheses serves no disambiguation purpose, and is further "more precise than necessary" and obviously unnatural.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing had substantially different emphasis to the full text of the policy. ItMy comment on your paraphrasing was intended as a nit-pick.

You're right on most points, but should be challenged on how necessary precision is. "Necessary" is an extreme word. You seem to consider precision to be within the scope of all existing article titles, whereas I think a broader scope is needed, to include all possible subjects that a reader might reasonably expect to find. "Free!" is obviously a play on the word "free", which is ambiguous, and the same play could be made on other frees. Agreed that natural disambiguation is preferable, but with no natural disambiguation on the table, parenthetical disambiguation is not discouraged. If "Free", is "Free!" suddenly recognizable as something different to "Free"? Technically, maybe, but our readers are humans. The period "." could be used to technically disambiguate, but is not acceptable as disambiguation. Note that the first of the titling criteria is Recognizability. The disambiguated title is far more recognizable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion on what I "intended", but what I actually intended was to get across the spirit of the relevant policy points in succinct way. Clearly, succinctness is not going to happen in these discussions.

I won't be convinced that the title is a problem unless we see that some other topic is also regularly also be called "Free!", or that we can expect that readers will type in "Free!" looking for any other topic. Until then, WP:DIFFCAPS notes that exclamation points are fine for distinguishing titles; Airplane! is specifically given as an example and there are at least a dozen other articles that use it too. Given that, the title is clearly more concise, no more precise than necessary, and of course more natural.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I amended my post about my intent to nit pick. I don't think there is a problem with people typing "Free!" not wanting this topic. This is definitely an edge case. A problem is that the exclamation mark generally doesn't work in search engines, and that readers looking for this may not be sure that it really is it, and that people who see a reference to "Free!" may expect it to be something else, noting that this is a very obscure foreign topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misread your comment. Apologies. As for the title, the only thing that gives me pause is that it's not clear from the sources what (if anything) is the show's common name in English. But assuming it's "Free!", the lack of other articles that would be called "Free!", I contend this is the better option.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. In ictu oculi notes that Free!! has been added to the dab page. I have no idea if it's notable or if that name's established in English, but it does muddy the waters as far as this anime goes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Free! (Anime), much as per KirtZJ. It being an obscure foreign subject, someone wanting this page could not be sure that "Free!" brings them here, the disambiguation removes the ambiguity, and is needed to precisely identify the subject. Although "Free!" is technically unique among all Wikipedia titles, readers can't be expected to know that. Also significant, is that "Free! (Anime)" is the title at ja.wikipeia.org. "Anime" is not redundant with "Free!", and so the current title doesn't fail CONCISE, but the undisambiguated title does fail PRECISE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The only reason the ja article has the (anime) disambiguator is because ja:Free! was already taken. And since when does Wikipedia add disambiguators for the express purpose of "precisely identifying the subject" of the article? If that was the case, we'd have (film) after Airplane!, Them!, Oklahoma!, Berserk!, Oliver!, Burn! and The Informant!.--十八 02:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • ja:Free! appears to be a notable topic; we should write an English version.

      As discussed at WT:AT, the "!" is on the boundary of minimal disambiguation. I agree that Airplane! and Oklahoma! are widely recognizable as titles, but am less sure about the others, and very unsure about Free!. Free is a word often written with an exclamation mark. Wikipedia often has disambiguators for the express purpose of "precisely identifying the subject", although it's not usual to express this notion in these words, and especially not where natural disambiguation is found, but disambiguation for precision is exactly what disambiguation is for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

      • First of all, Free! (manga) did not survive its previous AFD. Secondly, WP:NATURAL suggests using a natural disambiguator first, and then only using a parenthetical one "if natural disambiguation is not possible". If this was not the case, we would have (film) attached to every film, or (book) attached to every book, but we don't. We only add those disambiguators when there is a conflict in the title because of a pre-exisitng article (or disambig page if there is no primary topic). I've been on Wikipedia long enough to see how disambiguators are used, and I've never seen it common practice to add further disambiguation to an article title when it's already naturally disambiguated with the addition of something which sets it apart from other, similar titles; i.e., the exclamation point in this case.--十八 08:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Juhachi. I'm not sure what your point to me is about WP:NATURAL. You appear to be telling me that if foo is available, foo (dab) gets moved to foo. I am aware of this old and current practice. It doesn't apply in this case, where Free! should redirect to Free, because Free! fails the test of PrimaryTopic. We do have (film) and (book) appended to many titles; I really don't follow your third sentence. Your fourth sentence, however, is the crux. Is an exclamation mark sufficient natural disambiguation? Sometimes it is, yes. Is it always? I think not. In this case, unlike "airplane" and "Oklahoma", "Free" is a word typically exclaimed, and so the exclamation mark is not better than a period, and a period is never sufficient natural disambiguation. The second paragraph of WP:DIFFCAPS applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah, common sense has to be applied to these situations. I don't think it's probable that someone would look for anything else by typing in Free! except, perhaps, the manga that was deleted at AFD. I suppose reasonable minds can differ? Red Slash 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • No one should want to type in "Free!", because the "!" is not accepted as part of the search query in the Wikipedia search function or google. Anyone wanting this page, surely they know it is anime, would want to type "free" and "anime", capitals and punctuation irrelevant, syntax virtually irrelevant. So is the desire to anticipate poor search queries? It is far better to let the search engine learning algorithms do their job. Search engines are very clever, and intelligent human judgement help is best provided in the form of the DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Are you unintentionally setting up a strawman? Nobody is suggesting the deletion of this redirect, and of course when someone types in "Free anime" in the search bar, they'll find this page with no problem at all! Red Slash 04:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure what you mean, I don't think so. I think I was pointing out that people interested in this topic are systematically discouraged from using the "!" when searching. A tangential small point. I think I may also not completely understand your previous point of 20:23, 8 July 2014. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Remain at Free! (Anime) per previous RM result, as per KirtZJ and Smokey Joe (1) this is an obscure foreign subject, more than Airplane! (2) a ! in Japanese romaji titles is not the same thing as Airplane!, (3) Free! is more likely to be an exclamation than Airplane! (4) Airplane! itself is dubious even in English, some books miss the !. (5) ja:Free! is a different manga, (6) Free!! now exists in en.wp, (7) this isn't even the full title anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Remain at Free! (Anime) I was also invited to be apart of this discussion. For disambiguation purposes I think it is appropriate to keep the title the way it is now. Especially per Xezbeththe's note, an "exclamation mark is enough to make it a distinct term." Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Free! (Anime)]] per SmokeyJoe. No harm in adding the (Anime) part and it will prevent future issues.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Character section comments

Character list should be split between Main and Supporting as the anime series only highlights seven characters: [4] Dictionary definition can be retained. Also, how important are the "young" voice actors for the series? Are they recurring, where they have regular flashbacks? They aren't listed in that anime profile. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. I dont know about the minor VAs. Havent watched this series since episode 6 last year. But from what I can tell, there are a few flashbacks so it shouldn't be a problem. I have no idea from where they are sourced though. —KirtZ^Message 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the "young" voice actors as not notable. Also adjusted the main character list count to 8 per the latest anime website profiles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations help for Oricon figures

The link for the Oricon monthly chart figures for the singles and soundtracks becomes obsolete within a month or two after they are published, so need your help to update this with archive urls. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free! (anime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608014855/http://iwatobi-sc.com:80/product/cd.html to http://iwatobi-sc.com/product/cd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208013750/http://iwatobi-sc.com/product/cd.html to http://iwatobi-sc.com/product/cd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free! (anime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130902074918/http://iwatobi-sc.com/character/rei.html to http://iwatobi-sc.com/character/rei.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609070412/http://iwatobi-sc.com/radio/ to http://iwatobi-sc.com/radio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iwatobi-sc.com/product/cd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Article name

I respectfully disagree with this change as I don't find any other anime television series listed as "TV series" as you have now deemed it. The show is an anime by definition, despite arguments that the novel preceded its inception. It is also how most fans view the title and will search for it. Listing it as an anime also respects its cultural roots as a Japanese creation. As you yourself stated, the title should reflect its most commonly used and understood format; and anime is how it has been known for years. Please revert. luxartisan 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)

Requested move 4 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See enough support in this debate to move this title away from the "anime" qualifier to the "TV series" one. While local support is roughly sufficient, there are also the community consensuses in the guidelines cited, WP:NCTV#Series television and MOS:ANIME#Article names and disambiguation that support this request, as well as the RfC, which clearly stated:

There is no consensus here to override, amend, or otherwise supplement Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Series_television (which describes "(TV series)" as the default community-wide case in this situation).

Since the community appears to overwhelmingly support replacing "anime" qualifiers with "TV series" ones, this "giant mess" will have to be handled right along with all the other messes. Isn't that what editing Wikipedia is all about? – rhet. Perhaps someone should actually give Wikipedia:Bot requests a shot. All they can say is "yes" or "no". Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Free! (anime) → Free! (TV series) – Per the community-wide RFC directly on the topic, (anime) should not be used as a default. Naming conventions at WP:NCTV and MOS:ANIME#Article names and disambiguation document this. Since there are no other TV series to further disambiguate from, this page should use the default disambiguator - (TV series). -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as per the RfC, and the fact that we don't disambig. by "genre" under NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Listing the page as Free! (anime) follows the disambiguation rule of using the most commonly accepted usage of the title, as has been stated before (among other reasons). I had hoped for a courteous discussion before asking for administrative assistance, but no reply was provided at any time until now. I make no further comment on the reasoning behind this lack of courtesy. Any change of page name of long usage is subject to community discussion before requesting the change, as was done in 2014 when it was decided that Free! (anime) should be the proper title of the topic with reasons cited. It is even more relevant at this point in time, given the fact that there have been four feature films added to the franchise, all of which utilize the term "OVA" or "Original Video Animation" -- an extention of the term "anime" -- to describe themselves. This, alone, makes the term "TV Series" confusing and inaccurate to describe the article's contents. Moreover, the term "anime" is used to describe all other anime television series of Japanese origin throughout Wikipedia; American animated series may differ. Ergo, there is no reason to make an exception with this title for this specific cultural art form as it would be disrespectful of said culture. Moreover, the discussion of Feb 2018 cited as "decided" was actually tabled re: the community-wide RFC directly on the topic. No consensus was reached. luxartisan 00:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose I support the move in theory, but should they not be done all at once? Doing them peacemeal is not WP:CONSISTENT and it feels shady to me. I think there should be a consensus to move every series with (anime) disambiguation to (TV series) by bots._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Zxcvbnm: - There is not typically any need for a move discussion, as the RFC was the broad discussion - there is already consensus to replace (anime) with (TV series) by default. This move request is only done because the RFC-based move was reverted against that consensus. It would be almost impossible and a giant mess to try to batch them all and handle by bots. -- Netoholic @ 01:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed Page Name Change: I've read the transcript of that discussion in full and it seems that it generated more questions than answers with no consensus. If you can point to the place where it says in the discussion: "this is the consensus and Wikipedia will now follow it across the board," I'd be interested in seeing it. Without that, it's an interpretation. And if, in the end, it is decided to go with TV series, Wikipedia must make that change for every anime on Wikipedia no matter how "messy" a job that may be; otherwise, it is an unfair decision inconsistently applied based on personal whim. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate, ne? luxartisan 03:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Bd2412:I notice that the request to rename the page has been relisted. I maintain that the current page name remain due to its long-standing and common usage among the community, along with other Wikipedia naming conventions WP:CONSISTENT. Discussion can continue here unless a third-party mediation or arbitration is initiated. luxartisan 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• To editor Ouranista: - please don't vote twice (I've striked it for clarity). Also, please sign your posts using ~~~~ and thread your responses. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• To editor Netholic: - Thank you for a direct response as one editor to another editor. I have removed the second vote highlight as I wasn't aware that it counted as a vote of any kind having never before engaged in a Wikipedia discussion. I'm a self-taught wiki editor who has learned "on the fly" over the years. I have also replaced the non-signatures with tildes, as suggested. Naturally, editing a wiki isn't the same as editing Wikipedia, which requires a sophisticated level of wiki-speak, which you seem to possess and I am still learning (even today, so thank you). My goal in this particular matter is to provide accurate content in a manner that is respectful to the culture from whence it originates. If acknowledging these distinctive Japanese art forms in their language of origin is deemed irrelevant for purposes of disambiguation, there would be no need for Wikipedia's Manga and Anime portal, as all series could simply be designated as "comics," "tv series" or "films." True, there are now several cross-culture efforts (e.g. Netflix's partnerships with Japanese animation companies) that may confuse the matter, but I am simply addressing one purely Japanese anime with dubbed versions in multiple languages. luxartisan 19:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move

Stated Protest to Decision Made: I find it sketchy that Netholic, who initiated this page name change without giving notice or initiating discussion, is a non-registered Wikipedia user. This is suspicious in the extreme as it could very well be a front for Wikipedia insiders who are changing the system from within and awarding decisions in favor of themselves. Neither will I be asking a bot to change every other anime to be a "tv series" as that would enlarge a bad decision into a larger disaster. Let's call it a quiet coup d'etat. Sound far-fetched? Not really. Wikipedia needs money to operate and ad revenue can be gained if its format is simplified to accommodate vendor needs. It's already happened at Wikia (now totally unrecognizable as the ad-oriented Fandom), so why not here? At least I've made an attempt to respect the art form's cultural heritage and unique audience. It's all just a matter of time before ads begin to appear on Wikipedia. Wait for it. luxartisan 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)

First of all, WP:Assume good faith. Second, User:Paine Ellsworth initiated the discussion, not User:Netoholic, and they're both obviously registered Wikipedia users since they have usernames instead of IP addresses. Third, if anything I think "anime" would be more helpful to advertisers than "TV series", since the fanbase for anime is quite different from that of other TV series. Raymond1922 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To editors Luxartisan and Raymond1922: just a small correction: Netoholic did indeed initiate this requested move discussion, while I merely closed it. There was clear consensus of the community for the outcome, as I mentioned in my closing statement. Best to you both. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of information

@Ouranista: Regarding this edit, I moved it to the body paragraph because this seems like extra commentary and promotional talk, which isn't appropriate for the lead. I did not remove this from the article altogether. What is your rationale for including it in the lead? lullabying (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I put this information in the lead for several reasons: 1. all info re: the films' debuts has been placed there; 2, those interested in the series would want to know sooner than later whether or not the current films were, indeed, the final chapters of the series since many media outlets kept proclaiming that they were; and 3. to be fair, I have replaced the initial quote with your wording which is more concise. I hope this compromise is acceptable to you. I believe this information it is important enough to be in the lead and I do not wish to engage in an edit war. Thank you for your consideration. Ouranista (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ouranista: "those interested in the series would want to know sooner than later whether or not the current films were" -- regarding this statement, it would be a good time to remember that Wikipedia isn't geared towards fans == we have Wikia for that. As previously stated, this information is still promotional talk. There have been plenty of times where series have ended officially only to be brought back years on, and this is not a unique situation. lullabying (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is still pertinent information because this is a case where the series was "assumed" ended when it was not. In addition, may I respectfully remind you that I originally posted a direct quote which you edited to a brief statement that I accepted. I understand your point of view but still feel the information is properly placed, especially in its present form. 74.101.118.190 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I see there's a citation, but the citation is only points to information about the issue and not the interview itself. I think it would be best to cite the actual interview because currently, the citation does not confirm whether the statement was said. I am also not saying you removed the information completely -- I am stating that this simply does not belong in the lead. Future projects have not been announced and the statement Kawanami made (based on what you wrote) is just promotional talk for "we'll bring back the series in the future whenever we want" which is pretty common. lullabying (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence now omits all reference to the quote and is rephrased to indicate that only mass media, not the originating studio, speculated that the series was over which was gossip that required correction in the name of facts. This is why I feel the facts should be stated up front, in the header where the most current information is housed. I have offered several compromises, all of which show good faith on my part. I am willing to take this to arbitration, if that is the correct procedure at this point, and let an impartial party decide the matter. I will abide by their decision. Is this how you wish to proceed at this point? Ouranista (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, this just sounds like weasel wording at this point. I am not doubting good faith on your part but I just don't think it's appropriate. I have already posted the discussion to WP:ANIME to get feedback. lullabying (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the feedback. 74.101.118.190 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the use of not necessarily is what makes this feel MOS:WEASEL. There's no confirmation of an actual follow-up project, just a broad indication that follow-ups may be produced in the future, which is typical of most popular long-running anime franchises. Certainly note the statement in the article, but until such a follow-up project actually occurs, it feels speculative to mention it in the lead. (Also, the sentence in the lede Both films cover Haruka's experience with global competition makes no sense, as at this point the article has not introduced who "Haruka" is.) Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. After due consideration, I think it best to omit all statements in the official article regarding the future of the series. Thus, I have removed all reference to outside coverage that the duology received and left only the debut dates. The now unused quote from Director Eisaku Kawanami, however, is genuine regarding the continuing future of the series. Ouranista (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote from Eisaku Kawanami can be used — it's just not appropriate for the lead as it gives undue weight to a particular part of the series. I'm not opposed it being used as long as it's in the body paragraphs. If you can, use Template:cite magazine to cite the original interview. lullabying (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)