Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Volume link

I've just started wiki-editing and one thing I noticed was the "Volumes" linking to Tankōbon issue, and thought it was inconsistent that it would link to it's definition when "Episodes" did not. Good to see someone's on the case; and so just voicing my support that "Volumes" should link to the chapter list. --Wex Viator (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I have always wondered why it links to Tankōbon as well, rather than simply being unlinked. I could support the link being removed since episodes has no link and the word Tankōbon is usually linked within the article text anyway. However, I do disagree about it linking to the chapter list. When there is a separate chapter list (and the parameter is properly filled in), it links on the chapter count, same as the episode count, which is consistent. (whoa...when did the word Episode also start linking to the episode count? I don't remember it being like that before?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "episodes" was linked over a year ago. —tan³ tx 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow ~wipes glasses~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There is a definite accessibility argument for linking "episodes" and "volumes" to the appropriate lists, too, since (especially with volume counts) just linking the number often results in one-character-long link text, which can be quite hard for people (especially those with impaired motor skills) to click (I have similar reservations about how we currently link episode season lists in our navboxes, but a better solution has yet to present itself). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did we ever consider following TV's example of # (List of episodes) with the link there for both eps and chapters, instead of linking the words volume/chapter? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly, though I believe providing the naked link in a cell immediately below the episode/volume count has been proposed and rejected in the past. The whole issue definitely needs more attention, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ONA/web anime networks

Shouldn't the ONA, or web anime (as they're known in Japan), infobox have a network section to go along with it, denoting the internet broadcast network in which it aired? It is totally different to an OVA release since web anime broadcasts follow the pattern of television broadcasts quite closely, even airing weekly, some even having behind-the-scene specials, and even having advertisements. In that case, the original network in which it aired is quite important, as it would be for TV broadcasts as well. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 07:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Network parameters would also be appropriate for the OVA component (which, when a flag is thrown in, yields the ONA component) because OVAs are often aired on television in Japan and very frequently televised when licensed. In any case, this is addressed in the stalled overhaul discussion above. *starts poking random people trying to get more participation* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, networks such as AT-X and Animax regularly air OVAs and some even have pre airings on these networks prior to being released on DVD in Japan. I would also have to agree with many of the points which you've raised above. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would object to adding a network component for OVAs as they are not originally broadcast on a network. We don't list every network a film is shown on, nor do we list every network on which a TV series is syndicated; we only list the original one. It would get far too cumbersome to list everything like that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's news to me... the anime component has network, network_en, and network_other parameters precisely for the purpose of enumerating all the networks a given series has aired on - see, for example, Naruto, Bleach (manga), and Dragon Ball, all of which have quite large lists of networks in the infobox. More than likely, the film component doesn't list networks simply because {{Infobox Film}} doesn't either, and I doubt it's necessary, but there are certainly arguments for providing the network parameters to OVA components. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether we actually list every airing of a TV series, we don't do so for films, nor should we do so for OVAs or ONAs as that was not their original medium. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out before, though, that many OVAs actually air on television in Japan, and often this happens even before their release as OVAs. In these cases, I think it would be more appropriate to say it's not their "intended" medium, instead of their "original" medium (but then, I'm probably just splitting hairs now). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* I'm wondering if we should even be dividing OVAs from episodes then as it seems the distinction can just be quite arbitrary.陣内_Jinnai 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links on components?

Recently, a bot came through and added/modified several interwiki links on the components. Some of them were moved to the doc subpages by TheFarix and then removed from the components themselves. However, some of them were simply reverted by AnmaFinotera without explanation - in these cases, no /doc subpage exists for the component in question, but the IW links are valid. Is there any reason these were reverted, and more generally, is there any reason not to have interwiki links for each component? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Could have just asked me you know :P Anyway, my apologies if I got happy reverting. I thought all of the templates had been updated to use the subpages...guess some still haven't *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that sounded a bit more snappy than I intended... =/ In any case, yeah, several components still need to be switched over (and I need to decide how best to handle /Header2 and /Footer - all with the same documentation? probably...), I should probably add it to my to-do list. All the components that are using the new system transclude it, so you should be able to tell at a glance. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Single-episode audio drama

Okay, I can't figure out from the documentation how to parametrize {{Infobox animanga/Audio}} for a radio drama that was a single episode. Playing around, the template seems to insist that radio dramas have to have a last as well as first episode, which is ridiculous. (I'm working on the infobox at Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms, if anyone could assist.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the template needs to be updated to act more like the OVA one which, I think, is set up to allow single releases. ~pokes are template gurus~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll implement |released= in a second. Actually, I was looking at the wrong place; released already overrides first and last. I fixed it in the article for you. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, |released= -- that's what I was looking for. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Change in title field

One of the things that I have proposed in my prototype is splitting the title parameter into its own cell. Currently, when titles are long, the display of those titles along with "Manga:" or "TV anime:" can look pretty atrocious. Some example are Bakusō Kyōdai Let's & Go!! and Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, but there are plenty of other articles that are far worse. This is compounded when editors also include the Kanji form of the title or other alternate titles. While this proposal does does expand the infobox a little bit for most articles, I think that it is a better compromise then the method we are using now. --Farix (Talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Having now seen it implemented, I can't say I really like it on separate lines either. Hmm...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda neutral on this; I'm just looking to get *some title* always displayed in each component, to reduce confusion among newer editors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Seperating XXX_list into seperate cell

I never really liked how |episode_list=, |chapter_list=, and |volume_list= were implemented in the infobox. From a usability perspective, the links these parameters generated aren't obvious and they are small targets for a mouse click, usually two to three characters wide. So I'm proposing to move |episode_list=, |chapter_list=, and |volume_list= into a separate field in the infobox. As for automatically generating wikilinks, I've soured on the concept since we can't predicted the types of links that will be used. (See {{anime voices}} and {{anime voices2}}) Using {{#ifexist}} may be used as a temporary solution until the fields can be linked manually. This, of course, will require a new maintenance/cleanup category. --Farix (Talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean format it like the television infobox? i.e. Episodes: 39 (List of episodes)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a separate cell altogether as that will be more obvious. But {{Infobox Television}}'s implementation is still better from a usability standpoint then our current method. --Farix (Talk) 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the {{Infobox Television}} method will be the better method as it doesn't require updating the transclusions. I'll fix then when the title issue is settled. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's reduce link redundancy to avoid confusion

For specifics, please see this edit [1], which has been requested for discussion in the proceeding edit [2].

As an example, the redundant links method may result in something that visually looks like "Episode 10" in an infobox for anime/manga article FooBar, where both links point to the same article, titled List of FooBar episodes. One might suspect two links have been created for two different destinations, when in actuality they are simply redundant. —Tokek (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed directly above. In addition to redundancy, the current links are also an accessibility problem; it seems we're generally in agreement to switch to links along the lines of "Episodes: XX (List of episodes)" though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right. Sorry I missed that. —Tokek (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

/Audio slightly borked

Some raw code shows up in the infobox if no |episode_list= parameter is in the /Audio part. Adding an empty parameter fixes it, but given the number of instances that likely don't even have the parameter at all, a code fix is warranted. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed --Farix (Talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Anime?

When trying to edit the unknown anime project on Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn, since it is not announced if it is a TV series or not, I figured there are no options to remove the TV in the infobox. I followed the template and have no idea how to have it display Anime only, without the TV. Is there a way or another infobox for Anime and not TV Anime nor Anime film? (And yes, it is not known if it is an OVA either, so the OVA infobox is of no use also.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythsearcher (talk • contribs) 20:47, June 23, 2009

Really, until its known, why does it even have an infobox? Doesn't seem relevant to have at this point. If it really has to have one, though, best you can do is use the Other box or live with the guess that it is a TV anime. If its going to be released worldwide though, it really sounds like it will probably be a film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I have used the other template. I guess it is there since it seems to be the next big thing on the Gundam series, with at least 3 magazines having 2~3 issues talking about this unknown format Anime. MythSearcher^talk 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One could simply leave |type= blank, though I don't remember which fields are displayed with not type given. --Farix (Talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

novel infobox missing other publishers

The infobox for novels seems to be missing other publishers section similar to the manga section. School Rumble has its novels published into Traditional Chinese, but not English. I don't see a reason why novels should not have this similar field as manga.陣内_Jinnai 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the template, |publisher_other= was defined twice. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-English licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines

I've tried to live with it. I've tried to ignore it. But I'm at a point where even my seemingly limitless hate for this kind of discussion can no longer keep me from bringing this up: It is my opinion that, with the exception of those in the original language of the work in question and those in English, all licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines should be banished from the infoboxes of anime and manga related articles and the corresponding fields removed from the templates.

Here is my reasoning: While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) unsurprisingly fails to state the general purpose of infoboxes, it obviously isn't to contain every bit of information their respective articles provide. If that was the case, I'd be better off reading the article instead of looking at the infobox. Now, a few extra publishers aren't every bit of information, but it's too much nonetheless, otherwise we wouldn't be hiding them behind those little [show] links.

The infoboxes contain too much stuff. Something has to go. (This is where the big systematic bias bat comes into play.) But isn't keeping only the original and English language publishers, (...) bias against other languages? No, it's not. We don't have to translate our articles into 120 languages to avoid them being "biased" against people who can't read English. That's the central point here. Our readers can read English. That is why the English langauge releases of manga xyz are of paramount interest to them, because they can read them.

So much for the hard theoretical core. On to the more practical issues: IP editors are adding these to articles across the scope of WP:ANIME. (Here I'm getting batted again.) But isn't more content good? Yes, it is, but only if it gets checked for accuracy (non-obvious vandalism anyone?) and eventually cited. This is where the problem begins. All those publishers, (...) are hidden outside of view. Infoboxes should contain nothing that isn't mentioned somewhere else in the article, but in practice it's usually the other way around. They get added where you don't see them and even if you did, it's unlikely that you'd check them against reliable sources or even cite them, because that is so increadibly hard and time consuming.

Since the issue of sourcing them came up in a related discussion more than half a year ago, I've on and off spent some time trying to source only those in that one pet article of mine. One would expect that the task was a little easier with a series that is ten years old and still in production than with a series that, for example, ran for two years in the 1960s, but I'm not even finished, even though I've spent days (I sincerely hope that that is an overestimation) searching the web in a dozen different languages.

I already thought that perhaps I'm just incompetent, so I looked at our featured articles. There's just a handful left in Tokyo Mew Mew (I checked the history to find that most were simply removed). In Madlax, I suspect something similar happened, seeing as none are listed. And, last but not least, Serial Experiments Lain is just begging to be tagged with seven instances of {{citation needed}}.

Now, I think I made my point. Only two things left to say: Sorry for the wall of text and have fun bashing me. Goodraise 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In short, I agree. If only because this information is typically copied from ANN's encyclopaedia, and often incredibly difficult (bordering on impossible) to completely check and verify. Not too bad for Europe thanks to people like User:KrebMarkt, but for South America, and Eurasia, very hard. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I also firmly agree. No other media form infobox does this kind of extensive listing of every last language, it is always just the original language and English. It is frequently unverifiable (and I've started reverting anytime someone adds without a source), it bloats the box, and it really adds no valuable information. One reason they are frequently uncited is that it is rarely worth noting in the prose itself. I would support removing the parameters all together and having a bot or AWB run through to remove them from articles where used. The one caution is that any bot/cleaner will need to make sure any English ones are moved to the EN version. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm on the fence right now. Specifically, that if we're going to cite them in the prose anyway, why not keep the flags in the box? Or are you just suggesting to remove all those from the box that aren't cited in the prose? I'm sure you're not suggesting to remove all instances of the other licensors in the prose, but if that were the case, then wouldn't keeping the visual identifier in the box be simple and easy, especially since it's hidden from view? Of course I can understand the rationale, since if they were removed from the box then it would curb others from adding in more, what with the field eventually being removed. But then what about the stuff in the prose?

Usually it is those same IPs that give us the information that a certain series is licensed in other languages, and otherwise the info would largely go unknown nor researched. In this way, I actually welcome these IPs since they do the job for us, at least half of it, without going through the laborious act of actually first trying to find if a series is licensed in a certain language, which if you're not familiar with the language, would be exceedingly difficult. And wouldn't a series that is trying to go to FA need to list all the other instances of licensors in the prose anyway? I can't imagine how difficult future FAs would be to promote if this information was not easily accessible beforehand. Of course, you could check on the other language wikis, but only if such an article exists on that wiki, and otherwise I wouldn't even know where to begin to search if a series were licensed in German, Italian, or Korean, without first going to someplace like ANN, but even that's just a starting point.--十八 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FAs need to be comprehensive, but also balanced. To use extreme examples: If a series is distributed in 3 languages, I don't see a problem with listing them all in the prose, but if a series is distributed in 120 languages, listing them all would become cruft and noting that the series is internationally successful would suffice. As for what to do with the infobox items, that's an issue of itself. What matters most to me is that they get out of the infoboxes. If that means that all of them are converted to prose, only those are converted to prose that are already cited, or they get removed completely, including what is already present in the prose, is secondary to me. Personally, I'd remove them fully. I wouldn't oppose an FAC because the information was missing. (See also my reply to Farix below, as I'm elaborating there.) Goodraise 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I actually disagree that international publishing/distribution other than English should not be included in anime and manga articles. A good article should briefly cover the manga's or anime's success on the international market. That being said, this information is probably best presented as prose with accompanying sources in the article instead of in the infobox, which can be extremely messy. I would also remove the English publisher/distributor fields from the infobox as well to counter a systemic bias towards English language distribution, leaving only the original projection/publishing companies in the infobox. It also eliminates the pesky issue with flag icons. As for other area, such as books and films, not including other non-English publication/distribution information, I would suggest that they are the ones that are wrong in not including the information. The articles are incomplete if the information is absent. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking specifically about the infoboxes, not the articles themselves. Sorry if I was unclear there. I do agree that if verifiable and sourcable, a brief mention in the prose is appropriate and it mirrors what other media articles do. Though with films, such information is also generally not included and is not seen as relevant nor necessary beyond noting worldwide gross. Non-English foreign information is only seen as relevant for more detailed coverage where it is notable, not run of the mill. I do, however, disagree that English releases should be removed from the infobox. I do not think it is systematic bias, as this is the English language Wikipedia and the English releases are generally relevant to readers. That said, Films recently chose to stop including the English release info in infoboxes as well for the same reason (though it has not been implemented nor tested for reaction yet) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any time you resort to "this is the English Wikipedia" as a reason to include or exclude specific information, then you are engaged in a form of systemic bias. The real question should be, is it encyclopedic information? —Farix (t | c) 20:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is the English Wikipedia" may be a rather dull argument, but let's also look at the link you provided. The word English appears 34 times there. But the page nowhere states that the English language Wikipedia is biased towards the English language. That said, I agree that English releases of an original non-English piece are equally as irrelevant as those of other languages. However, an "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) article should tell its reader whether the work is available in a language they can understand. If an English version is available, the question can be answered by stating that, as the reader can be assumed to be able to understand English. If not, fallback to other languages. Goodraise 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have actually had this same thought myself, and even before that, the other languages info has bothered me for almost as long as I've been familiar with the infobox. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the fields go away, and it would also allow us to stop using flagicons in the infobox (if done correctly). The biggest problem I see, though, is implementation - I would vehemently oppose simply removing the relevant coding from the components and then nuking the parameters wherever they appear. Instead, I believe a bot run should be possible to ensure that a decent portion of this information is present and sourced in the prose (it might be rather complicated, though), at least for novels and manga series - I can elaborate on this later as necessary. Other than that, I would agree that if a series is widely licensed (120 languages is a rather extreme example, but it would be the most obvious target), it should be sufficient to note it as "internationally successful" in the prose with specific, relevant examples (major manga licensing markets plus one or two randomly-chosen, less-frequented-by-manga markets... or something), but if there are sufficiently few (completely random cutoff of 10 or so), it should be fine noting all of them in the prose. One last thought, should there be any difference between main articles and chapter/episode lists in how these are handled? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate? Goodraise 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For the infobox, I'd say to remove it. It causes more trouble than its worth. School Rumble which was imo overly strict for a B-class assessment considering even FACs seemingly aren't held to that standard, let alone GAN's. I was never able to fully find all those sources and had to have the article IP blocked do to edits routinely re-adding the same content over and over again to the article without sourcing in spite attempts to ask and search for such. It should be notable enough to note that a series like School Rumble is internationally successful; only two instances beyond that even warranted news coverage. The transfer f licensing in the German manga translation and the translations of light novels into Cantoneese because they weren't translated in English.陣内_Jinnai 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise: Don't worry about it, I just got lost in my train of thought when I wrote it... =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the other languages don't bother me, which is exactly why I think they should be removed. It is not notable to an English reading resource, they can be very difficult to source, and the anime and manga project is the only one that currently does it. Even games that are released in Japan only list the Japanese and English releases; the only releases/distributors/publishers that should be mentioned are English speaking and the original source, in this case Japan. Everything else should be mentioned under the previously suggested by 「ダイノガイ千？！」 "this (blank) has been recognized internationally" with the one or two sources supporting the further international release.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Farix on this one. I think this is a good way to counter systemic bias against non-English information. If there is an issue with sourcing the content, we can remove unsourced line items, but I don't think we should remove all of it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its systemic bias not to put that info in the infobox. I'd be more worried about only English commentary and/or English/Japanese sales data rather than whether every T was crossed and I dotted in networks/licensors, especially when other projects don't do that.陣内_Jinnai 17:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled. I'll try to summarize what we have: There is consensus that non-English licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines should be removed from the infoboxes. Two editors also advocated removing English licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines from the infoboxes, only keeping the original ones. That point currently has no consensus and may need more discussion. As for what should be done with the information, there is consensus that not everything should be removed straight out. Cited items should be converted to prose. Uncited items should be converted to prose or removed on a case by case basis. There is also consensus that, if a work is available in [insert arbitrary number] of other languages, it is sufficient to note that fact and unnecessary to list them all.

Is that an adequate summary of the discussion? Goodraise 03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so... it seems to me that the two most salient points to be taken from this discussion are that non-Japanese, non-English info needs to be removed from the infoboxes, and that we can't just do so with a "shotgun" approach. Does that sound about right? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so unless the item was translated into say French but, not English.陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Move non-Japanese, non-English informations into article talk page to preserve informations. If that/those informations is verifiable with Reliable source then it should be brought back inside the article in prose form. With licensors information, we should stick with a strict reading of WP:V not verifiable not in the article. However notes should be left in articles talk page to allow research of RS. --KrebMarkt 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, with that, KrebMarkt has just outlined the perfect plan of action. Goodraise 08:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I still have to disagree on issues where the item was translated into non-English languages, especially if that's what most of the references are from. I think however the infobox should disable one or the other, prioritizing English. So other lanugage translators can be added, but if an English one is there, it those will not be shown. They can then be kept and viewed essentially as notes for the possibility of looking for RSes for them.陣内_Jinnai 08:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather depricate eng and keep other noting in the template to use English ones only if english exists, but still allow for say that French tanslation, but i think i appear to be in the minority here.陣内_Jinnai 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

English licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines

Seeing as the above discussion is complex enough already, it's probably best to split this issue off into a new section. So, should English licensors, networks, publishers, and magazines be displayed in the infoboxes? {{Infobox Television}} contains no such information, nor does {{Infobox book}} or {{Infobox comic book title}}. In the above discussion, some have argued in favor of removing them because of systematic bias concerns. Though I don't agree with their reasoning, I do agree that we should remove the entries. What company publishes a manga in a particular country is not key information in regard to that manga. The information is useful to a reader who may want to purchase the manga, but Wikipedia is not a catalog, so lets remove it. Also, as an added benefit, it would eliminate the need for flag icons. Goodraise 09:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to this - the three infoboxes cited as examples are maintained by projects which have not only a strong English bias, but a strong U.S. bias towards their respective media - it is hardly surprising, therefore, that those infoboxes would not have any way of natively handling cases where a title originated in another country/language and was imported into English. Because we focus on media that originates almost exclusively in another country and language, we have never had this same type of bias problem. In addition, at least for the major companies, knowing which licensor has a series' English distribution rights can often tell you quite a bit about what the English translation is going to be like; something that goes beyond WP:NOTCATALOG. I believe that we may be able to get rid of flagicons as well even if we don't get rid of English licensing info in the infobox; it'll just require some experimenting to figure out how. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe English should be kept in the infoboxes (and FYI, Infobox book DOES have some of that that information - translated title, english pub date; see also Template_talk:Infobox_Book/Archive_4#Translated_books_case_study). I think its an important part of the summary/highlights for most manga articles, in particular, as almost no unlicensed manga are notable for inclusion, and we emphasize the English release names, and information in the chapter lists/episode lists. If we are going to drop them from the infoboxes, it would seem that they also should not be noted in those lists as part of the table if it is not considered "key" information. In the infobox, it isn't catalog information, but a important part of the manga's title. I would, however, say it should be limited to current licensors (if the license was lost, it comes out of the infobox and is just noted in the prose). But, of course, it is. The flag icons are unnecesary in either scenario, but that's another discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite follow you in this post. If I recall correctly, being licensed doesn't help towards notability. And how do you get from infoboxes to table entries? Tables are the lists' equivalent of prose. Why would we remove information from them just because we don't put similar information in the infobox of the series' main article? I don't see the connection. As for keeping only current licensors: If we were to only keep one licensor, we should keep the first, not the current. In keeping with the lists anology, that would be like only listing the next airdate of every episode, instead of the first. (Then we'd finally have reached our goal of making Wikipedia a television guide.) Goodraise 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

However Goodraise those infoboxes you site above all have one major thing in common; they all are from various language soruces as their origin. Anime/manga has one language source — Japanese. That in and of itself makes it important enough to note when a title is translated as it can help show a level of notability (it is commonly assumed that wikiprojects can be more exclusionist in their content than the GNG and SNGs).

As for licensors, I can see your point, but only for each country. The first licensor of Britian should not discount the first licensor of North America or Australia as those will almost always be different. We should probably list them in order of licensing. We do after all list multiple title translations.陣内_Jinnai 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply being licensed doesn't help towards notability, but it makes it immensely easier to demonstrate notability - this may be what AnmaFinotera actually meant to say (not that I'm trying to put words in her mouth or anything). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a difficult topic to discuss, considering there is no guideline telling us what kind of information infoboxes should contain. Then there's this whole issue of alleged bias. Some editors argueing that it's bias to keep the information, some argueing that it's bias to remove it... I've made my point about that issue in the topic above, so I won't repeat it. I'll go another direction: It's fine with me that we cover in the prose, who publishes the English version of the work in which English speaking country. It's not fine with me that we put that in the infoboxes. Why not? Because it changes. First airdates and publication dates will always remain the same. In 200 years, Akira Toriyama will still be the author of Dragon Ball, but Funimation will probably have ceased to exist. Then we look into the infobox of Dragon Ball and see twenty entries followed by (former). If you people find it so valuable if the infobox shows that a work is available in English, lets have it show that in another way. Include a field for English release dates of OVAs, English original run for manga, and so forth. Goodraise 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, when I clean up infoboxes, I remove such tags - that is the type of thing best handled in prose, where greater detail can be provided. As far as I'm concerned, the infobox shouldn't have to note that a series used to be licensed by company X (much less that the license was from e.g. 1996 to 2003), and that now it's licensed by company Y. Simply list licensors in the order of their license (if available) or alphabetically and be done with the infobox. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise, first licensors won't change. You can't un-become the first. Second, the releases for infoboxes still change. We add new volumes when they are released, new episodes, etc. The fact that it changes is not a reason to not put it on there otherwise who the Japanese publisher would have to be removed as that can change.陣内_Jinnai 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Who publishes a work is very much subject to change and the volume comparasion is flawed. If a series has 20 volumes and a new one is released, then the series still has 20 volumes. That said, if the removal of modifiers like (current) or (former) has consensus, then I'd see that as a definite improvement. That leaves the question: Why list any English publishers beyond the first? Consider a book that was written 200 years ago. You may want to know who published it first. You may want to know who currently publishes it (so you can get yourself a copy), but who the second publisher was or the third or the fourth or even the fifth is of significantly less interest. Goodraise 08:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When there is a 1st publication in a new region. Take your example. A 200 year old book first published in English in Britian. Then it was republished 150 years ago in United States. That's notable. Furthermore, say the book was published under a different name 100 years later in Britian for whatever reason by a different publisher. This makes reasons for every one.
Now lets say you have another 200 year old book published in France in French and at the same time in Britian in English. Both those publishers would be listed by that above context. Now what is 200 years later another French publisher publishes the book in French in France? What if it publishes it in English? or German?陣内_Jinnai 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Who first published a notable (as in "meeting WP:N") book is definately notable (as in "worthy of note"). Subsequent releases may be notable or they may be not. Whether they are depends on various factors. A release in another country/language is of greater interest than a rerelease. What also matters is the total number of releases. If the complete publication history of a work would fill a whole article, then corners have to be cut (meaning: the level of detail reduced). And that's just what I'm suggesting. Only because a release of the work is worthy of note in the article prose doesn't make it worthy of note for the infobox. Goodraise 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a distinction to be made between a 200-year-old book and a 200-year-old serialized work, and between a book originally in English and one originally in a non-English language. For both of these, the latter case means that subsequent publishers are of significantly greater interest - in the first case, because different publishers may publish different parts of the overall work (e.g. publisher X releases parts 1-7, and publisher Y releases parts 8-15), and in the second because different publishers will usually perform their own translation prior to publishing. In manga's case, both of these are true, and for most series, there is actually little incentive for a publisher to translate and release a series, so most translated series are released by only a handful of publishers for whom such releases comprise a significant portion of their publications. I personally doubt there is any case where the same manga series has been licensed by more than four or five different English publishers, and that is counting all English-language book markets in the world together. These same principles can also be applied to anime series, albiet probably somewhat less rigidly. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental difference between the 200-year-old book and the 200-year-old serialized work. If publisher A is the first to publish the whole work X, then publisher A is the first publisher of work X. If publisher A is only the first to publish the first half of work X and publisher B is the first to publish the second half, then both share the honor of being X's first publisher, same as if they joined forces to publish the whole work at once.
I think we are giving English versions more weight in our article because our readers can read those versions, not because their publishers were willing to pay for the creation of a translation. If that was the case, then we should give considerably more weight to translations into languages with smaller markets, because they're so much less likely. Goodraise 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My analogy there really didn't work very well, because serialized manga is a somewhat unique format among published material. I was trying to say that when a book gets republished, it is almost always the whole book as one unit which gets republished (anthologies are another matter entirely, and it depends if they are written as a series of sequels to the original book and themselves (many novel anthologies) or if they are written as one unit broken up for the sake of readability and usability (encyclopedias et al)), whereas a manga series could be republished in any of a number of fashions (different ranges of volumes is most often, but, especially in older licenses, you also see the chapters rearranged between volumes). As for my point of two publishers each releasing half of a series, that again didn't work so well. This is the type of thing we see a lot when one publisher stops releasing a manga series partway through for some reason and another picks it up, although it is also not unusual for the other to attempt to get the license for the volumes that the first publisher originally released. It actually seems to be fairly rare that a series gets released in its entirety by one publisher before another picks up the license in the same region and rereleases it (the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Parasyte). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It actually seems to be fairly rare that a series gets released in its entirety by one publisher before another picks up the license in the same region and rereleases it - I'd say that's not as common as you think. Reprintings occur a lot, but I've found many series to be stable. Ranma 1/2, FE.陣内_Jinnai 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for removing the information. None at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit surprising. The combination of these two comments made me assume you'd be in favor of this proposal. My mistake, I guess. Anyways, nobody suggested removing any information from any article. This thread is only about the amount of detail the infoboxes are supposed to provide in comparasion to the article prose. Goodraise 11:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So we have a consensus to deprecate the |xxx_eng= and |xxx_other= fields? —Farix (t | c) 14:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, we only have consensus to deprecate |xxx_other=. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be no consensus to deprecate |xxx_eng= at this time. Goodraise 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Discourage modifiers in the documentations

In the above discussion, Dinoguy1000 said that he routinely removes modifiers like (former), (current), and similar from infoboxes. I suggest we discourage such modifiers in the documentation subpages of the infobox parts by adding something like "Separate mulitiple XXX with <br/>. Do not remove or mark former or current XXX in any way." to the relevant parameter descriptions. Goodraise 07:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the first part, "Separate mulitiple XXX with <br/>." Are you trying to say that each country or group of countries with separate information should go on its own line? I could see it misinterpreted as "every company gets its own line", and I've seen some inexperienced editors actually switch to this format. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually i think that has precident, both removing "former" and seperating them. See Chrono Trigger.陣内_Jinnai 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be separated on Chrono Trigger because they are documenting different console releases in the same infobox (i.e. they are seperated by console). We don't do anything remotely like that in our infobox, so I'm not sure it's really applicable. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking around at various infoboxes that relate to ficitional content, it appears there is a move to separate are much info into different lines as possible, possibly for easier reading.陣内_Jinnai 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Dinoguy's initial question, at the time of writing, I wasn't aware that not placing every company on a different line is the predominant form. In this case, yes, that's what I'm saying. I wasn't aware that I was proposing anything, but yes, that's what I'm proposing. Goodraise 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, your initial comment says that you're suggesting a change, which is really just a degree of interpretation from proposing a change. =) Personally, I would be against listing each company in the same country/group of countries on its own line, because it seems to encourage people to duplicate the flagicons at the beginning of each line as well (I will, of course, have to reassess my position once we've phased out using flagicons =) ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full protection?

I just got done semiprotecting and full-move-protecting all components of {{Infobox animanga}}, but I am wondering if there are any strong reasons to not just full-protect everything. I doubt there will ever be any large-scale changes done to this template again, and there are a number of admins watching it as well, so any necessary changes would be quickly addressed. AnmaFinotera seems to agree with me, as well. Any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to oppose full protection. We still need to subset the deprecated passthroughs and then turn them into redirects and I absolutely hate having to go through someone else to modify these templates. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind /Header, /Header2, /Footer, /Video, and /Print, at least, being full-protected? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I just simply hate having to go through someone else to do any type of modification to a template. I feel that such a step is completely unnecessary. —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence that this template needs full protection.陣内_Jinnai 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support full protection. I don't see any need not to have it. True, the templates have not been badly mauled of late, but the problem is it is too easy for anyone to change them when a change effects hundreds, sometimes thousands, of articles. Most other major infoboxes are full protected for the same reason. In particular, as we are a smaller group of watchers, this template has changes noted at a slower pace than something like the film infobox. Isn't it better to have a very mild inconvenience versus potentially having a horrible edit breaking every anime/manga article for hours until someone notices? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full protection isn't "mildly inconvenient". More like a total PITA. I hates it with a passion. —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you "don't see any need not to have it." There is no need for pages being editable. It's just Wikipedia philosophy to have things editable anyways. Me likes being able to edit things. More so, me likes people being able to edit things. So let them. Goodraise 01:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose full-protection, at least for now, is a no-go, then. I would like to point out, though, that if any component manages to get enough transclusions (lower limit is currently hovering around 9800), the infobox may be cascade-protected via Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items (of course, I think the header is currently only transcluded on around 3000 pages, so it's got quite a way to go before that would happen). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated components

The phasing out of {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} is a little over 50% complete. Only 1,000 transclusions remain. Afterwards, I'll work on {{Infobox animanga/Novel}}, focusing on the light novel transclusions first. —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a little late for this, but I'd personally never intended to phase out the old components; I had always seen them as simply being used as "presets" for the main two templates. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Better in the long-term to have less code.陣内_Jinnai 22:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Flags

The discussions above agreed on deprecating the other licensor/publishers, but the flag issue was pushed side, so thought it would be good to revist that. Thoughts on removing all flag icons from the infobox? For multiple Eng publishers, we can either reduce to the first, or add country names (similar to what Films does in the infoboxes). The Japan flags are purely decorative, from my view...if it isn't published in Japan, it isn't manga/anime and if its an OEL, it can be noted without the flag. If they are kept, I think we need to proper comply with WP:MOSFLAG, which notes that the country name should be listed on first appearance of each country in the box. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well as i use it a lot, i think going with superscript initials like video games do it is fine. See Popotan. JP=Japan NA=North America, EU=Europe, etc. Only problem we might have is with Australasia (Australia and New Zealand). AU usually = Australia which does not automatically include New Zealand.陣内_Jinnai 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese flag should definitely be removed from the infobox. We will take care of the other flags as the information is sourced and moved into the text of the article. —Farix (t | c) 12:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are basically 4 main regions and a few lesser regions.

1. Main:
   1. JP = Japan
   2. NA = United States and Canada (North America)
   3. EU = Europe
   4. AU = Australia & New Zealand (Australasia)
2. Other
   1. India
   2. Singapore
   3. China (Hong-Kong)
3. Special
   1. United States (for hentai releases per Canada's laws).
   2. Great Britian (for anime/anime video games released only in GB - many items in Europe are released with English version across Europe).陣内_Jinnai 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that OEL manga shouldn't be using this infobox anyways. The Japan flag, I always felt was more for consistency than anything, but I'd be fine to see it go. And any abbreviations for countries/regions that replace the flagicons should be linked to their respective articles (if full names are used, however, such linkage is excessive). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Abreviations are preferable as they take up less room. The only reason I suggest removing flags is that with certain regions the number of flags shown in some articles can be distracting. Since, anime is always from the same source, ie Japan, that means we'd need multiple flags for each article if its translated.陣内_Jinnai 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few rare cases where anime (and manga) wasn't actually originally released in Japan. There are also cases where it is dual-released in Japan and one or more other countries (I've only ever seen dual-releases in Korea, but that doesn't mean there aren't others). The flags have actually bugged a lot of us for a while (and their use probably technically goes against MOS:ICON), but we've never been able to come up with an alternate method that's not insufferably worse than them until now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that much of a pain in the butt if it is kept or not? I think it adds some class to the article if anything the flags. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG states not the emphasize nationality using flag icons when possible, and their use in the infobox does just that. Just because there are other fag icons in the infobox, most of which are hidden doesn't mean that we aren't going to have to deal with them sooner or later. In the discussion above, we've already reached a consensus to deprecate the |XXX_other= parameters and move the information into the text with sources. Unfortunately, with several thousand articles, that is going to take a lot of time. So those icons are staying for the time being. We are still trying to figure out a way of how to handle English publication/release information the infobox without the flag icons if the information isn't removed entire. And finally, if you look at the other media inforboxes, they don't use flagicons either. —Farix (t | c) 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up?

I believe we have consensus to remove the flags from the infobox, so I think it might be a good idea to come to an agreement on how the countries should be listed instead, then have a bot go through and clean out the flags. As it is now, while we have agreed to the removal of flags, many articles still have them, and we have multiple styles of countries randomly implemented. By coming to an agreement on how it should be done, and having a bot do the clean up, I think we can solve some on-going issues with various anon and less active editors who are unaware of the change of guidelines so they just point to other articles that still have flags and say "see, its fine." Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On formatting, I myself have been doing company name country(s) after the film infobox styling, but open to suggestions.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently employing {{Tooltip}} for Twin Spica but am not sure whether its usage complies with the policy on accessibility. I have also used the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes in Summer Wars. {{Vgrelease}} also seems to be a popular option. Arsonal (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to anyone watching this page but not WT:ANIME, most discussion seems to be happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Infobox Flag Clean up Proposal. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be helpful if the deprecated elements were no longer shown in the box. This might help stop the issues we're having with people "restoring" them after they have been cleaned up. It would also end any arguments of "but X has them!"-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was debating that, but thought it best to wait until April (~6 months after they were marked deprecated) before removing them from the template. —Farix (t | c) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Plural flag?

Another thing I noticed while doing some clean up of InuYasha, is that the licensor and English publisher fields are all singular, even when there may be multiples. Thoughts on adding some kind of flag to indicate it should change to licensors/publishers? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I rather not make the templates any more complex. The simpler solution would be to change the labels to licensor(s), publisher(s), and etc. —Farix (t | c) 12:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Farix - in addition, different parameters for singular vs. plural (or flag parameters just to pluralize the words) would be needlessly confusing. The wording itself should be changed, probably as Farix suggested. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Publishing label -> Imprint

I've been thinking of chaining the filed "Publishing label" to "Imprint" for the following reasons. First, imprint is the actual term for the brand name under which a work is published. An example is that Del Rey Manga is an imprint of Random House. Second, the term "Imprint" takes up less room in the infobox than "Publishing label". Next to "English publisher" and "English magazine", which I hope will be deprecated sooner or later, it is one of the longest field names in the infobox. In addition to using "Imprint" as the field name, |imprint= will be added as an alternative to the existing |label= parameter. —Farix (t | c) 19:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the label/imprint really that relevant? Most of the time, its not mentioned in the article either. The publisher is just listed as Del Rey Manga not, the Del Rey Manga imprint of Random House. And I'd hope the English fields are never deprecated. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The imprint field is used more for Japanese novels and light novels than for manga, the former sometimes is mentioned in the lead section. The Del Rey Manga example was simply used to illustrate what imprints are using an imprint that most English editors would be familiar with. —Farix (t | c) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also issues for items released without an imprint, like Dark Horse Comics.陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of changing it to imprint (as I have been doing this in articles for some time now), and would be opposed to removing the field, simply because most Japanese novel/light novel imprints do not have articles, so you'd still need to list the original publisher anyway. For example, ASCII Media Works has six imprints, but only three have articles.--十八 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this as well, but am curious to know if there is any difference at all between "[publishing] label" and "imprint". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 10:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there isn't. This is backed up by the fact that publishing label is a redirect of imprint. —Farix (t | c) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how this will work with items like Dark Horse Comics. The current format still works for Imprints, but the change will not work for non-imprint publications.陣内_Jinnai 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The "imprint" filed is for Japanese imprints. It has nothing to do with Dark Horse Comics. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but what happens in the future if we have Japanese printed material released by non-imprint?陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean when a publication is published under the publishing company's name? Then leave it blank. —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Another question though, do we just list the first imprint? I will use Viz as an example. A lot of their titles have been printed for some time under their Shonen Jump imprint. However a lot of them are now reprinted (sometimes changed mid-series) to Shonen Sunday or Shonen Jump Advance. Since the publisher is still the same, do we put all version for the imprint or just the first?陣内_Jinnai 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an actual case? —Farix (t | c) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball.陣内_Jinnai 16:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only see one imprint mentioned in the article, and that is for a couple of art books (which we don't list in an infobox). —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball, not Dragonball Z (as far as i know), was originally printed under Viz Media directly with a whiteback. They were later reprinted under the Shonen Jump imprint with the redback.陣内_Jinnai 16:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, did you miss where I said that the "imprint" filed is for Japanese imprints? —Farix (t | c) 17:11, 024 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, yea i missed that. However, even given that there are still exceptions such as Kyō Kara Ore Wa!! which was originally published under Shonen Sunday Super and later moved to Shonen Sunday. There is also School Rumble which was simultantiously in 3 magazines.

If this is meant only for the tankōbon volumes, then I will admit I cannot think of any and ifso that's fine.陣内_Jinnai 17:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Shonen Sunday Super and Shonen Sunday are magazines. They are not imprints. —Farix (t | c) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, regarding Jinnai's point, I'll bring up Hayate X Blade which used to be published under the Dengeki Comics imprint by ASCII Media Works, but is now published under the Young Jump Comics imprint by Shueisha.--十八 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Other_XXX parameters after effect

Hi,

I happened to find editors moving the contents of others_XXX parameter into the XXX parameter like here. I think a possible solution is to tweak the infobox to state that it's the Japanese publisher, magazine, network, etc... The parameters themselves don't need to be renamed just the rendered results need to be refined to not let any loose end for infobox stuffing. --KrebMarkt 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the fields altogether. The problem with add "Japanese" to the field is that it will wrap, causing the field to take up more space. The best course of action is to remove non-Japanese info from these fields when you see them. If an editor precises with re-adding the information, point them to the documentation. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Serial novel param problem

In articles like Da Capo II that use the serial novel parameter, the novel box is seemingly merged with the box immediately preceding it (in this case, the game box and one of the manga boxes). Can someone please fix this?--十八 11:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, but it's protected for some reason. Goodraise 11:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

About the protection, I just read this related discussion. Maybe it's time to think about renaming the template. Goodraise 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

/Prose ? Doceirias (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

/Book, I think, makes a certain amount of sense... Also note that, while it doesn't resolve the underlying issue, if you have a version to replace the template with, you can drop a message on my main talk page for me to log in and make the edit, since I check that page with some regularity. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help with making edits to protected templates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

important people fields

When I was updating Popotan to add Akio Watanabe as the lead animator for the original and director for the remake of the visual novels, I realized that we do not have a way of adding him nor other key indivsuals like similar templates do {FE: Dragon Quest).陣内_Jinnai 03:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database

It seems to me that {{Infobox animanga/Video}} could use an optional IMDB parameter to expand into an invocation of {{IMDB title}}.

It's not completely trivial, because you need the ability to pass a hand-coded title (and optional suffix). (You can't always infer the title of the page at imdb.com will match either {{Infobox animanga/Header}}'s name= parameter, or Video's title= parameter). I don't know whether you'd prefer three separate IMDB[_id]=, IMDB_title= and IMDB_description= parameters, or a single IMDB= parameter with a composite argument.

Thanks, hope this helps. AHMartin (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a standing guideline against links in infobox except for first-party links. And exactly what benefit is there in adding such a link in the infobox instead of in the external link section. Template:Infobox film doesn't link to IMDb, even though film articles have more reasons to link to IMDb than an anime/manga article. (discussion) Neither does Template:Infobox television. If there are any "third-party" links that could go into the infobox, it should be to Anime News Network's encyclopedia, which is far more complete and more accurate than IMDb. But ultimately, we shouldn't promote a particular website in the infoboxes. —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Essential parameters

I'm adding in some checks for the presents of certain parameters that are deemed "essential". What this means is that the parameter must be defined even if it is empty. So far I have checks for the following parameters

• {{Infobox animanga/Print}}
  • |author=
  • |publisher=
  • |first= or |published=
• {{Infobox animanga/Video}}
  • |director=
  • |studio=
  • |network= (if |type= is defined as "tv series", "tv film", "drama", or "special")
  • |runtime= (if |type= is defined as "tv film", "special", "ova", "ona", "live video", "film", or "live film")

Infoboxes missing one or more of these parameters will be added to Category:Anime and manga articles with missing infobox parameters. Are there any other parameters that should be checked as well? —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please attach the italicization template.

Several TV series such as Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob SquarePants has its italicized title so please try to put an italics on it. See Template:Infobox television for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3oWh pF0wHz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Apply italics to what, exactly? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think an infobox template should be altering any aspect of how a page displays. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it has become common usage. Many other infobox templates are adding this. The VG template just implimented. As to what, I'd say series titles and all specific media titles.陣内_Jinnai 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I don't see a problem with doing that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Code to add

Looks like this is the code which would need to be added:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{italic title|¬}}}}}
 |¬|no       = <!-- no italic title -->
 ||force|yes = {{italic title|force={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{italic title|}}}}}|force|true}}}}

As well as this:

| italic title= {{{italic_title|}}}

The first part is in Template:Infobox, but we don't call that template, instead using Template:Infobox/row. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have modified the code in Template:Infobox animanga/Header. See the difference. Should there be any problem, please discuss here. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Serial novel category now exists

I created Category:Japanese serial novels, so we can update the serial novel template tag, which now defaults to Category:Japanese novels. Since the template is protected, I can't do it myself. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it's better to phase out the auto-categorization of the templates in place of manual categorization. I've already did that with some of the smaller categorize, though I haven't removed the code form the template yet. —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that. I think the manga novels should be a separate subcat of "Japanese novels", and manual categorization would make that distinction easier. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Has the auto-categorization been phased out yet? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not has of yet, and probably won't for a while. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lavender field shadings

Hey folks,

Most infobox templates did away with providing background shading on their label fields several years ago: it gives an incongruous striped effect to one side of the template, and the bold on the labels themselves already makes them distinct from the text. This should be trivial to remove from the various sub-templates: are there any particular objections to doing so? This won't effect the headers, just the labels on the left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now pushed this change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Production field

I noticed that a |Production= field has been added to the video component. I don't support this because the field can get very spamy with information and will bloat the overall infobox, since there are always multiple companies involved in the production. The edit summary that added the field points to its existents in the Japanese Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it is any less excessive detail or appropriate for the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that there has been no other comment about the field—even after WP:ANIME has been notified—and that there was no discussion to include the field in the first place, I will remove the field from the template. —Farix (t | c) 01:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I added this parameter, because in my opinion this information is actually important for works like Dennō Coil or Space Battleship Yamato 2199; it makes clear which entity produces and invests in the show (note that in these cases the animation studio just works on a contract for other (big) companies behind the project) and who holds the copyright on the product. Information about the copyright holders and investors shoud be present in the article; eitehr in the body text or in the infobox; I would say the infobox is a good place for adding such info. --Raamin (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should be a concise summary of vital information about a particular series. Not all companies involved in the production of an anime are mentioned by reliable third-party sources when they cover the series. Generally, they stick to the main production studio. That is because most of those companies aren't actually involved in the production side of the anime beyond financing it and receiving a take of the profit. And since the exact roles of these companies aren't reported, they shouldn't be included in the infobox. Besides, the infoboxes are bloated enough and this is just excessive detail. —Farix (t | c) 16:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely not excessive detail. These production companies are generally listed in the OP or ED of works (what ja.wikipedia uses I presume; for such works like Oda Nobuna no Yabō where the producers aren't mentioned, ja.wikipedia doesn't list company names) and as I said earlier are copyright holders of the work; not the animation studio hired. Companies like Aniplex, Geneon Universal Entertainment or NHK Enterprises are actually the main forces behind works they produce; they decide who does what, they own the copyright, they are the one promoting and publishing the works they produce. These are big names (in the industry they are active) and should be mentioned properly in respective articles; I am of the opinion that infobox is a good place for this information. If you are against adding the information in the infobox, what other methods do you suggest? Adding an extra section in the body text of every article, like ja.wikipedia ("スタッフ" section)? --Raamin (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention one important point: Sometimes things become more complicated. There are cases, when an animation studio is part of the Production Committee, but isn't involved in the animation directly, and another studio does the animation work which may not be part of the Production Committee. Some examples: Casshern Sins: Tatsunoko is part of the Production Committee and the original copyright holder of the franchise, animation work is by Madhouse; Space Battleship Yamato 2199: Production I.G and OLM are part of the Production Committee, but the animation work is done by Xebec and AIC, and AIC is not part of the Production Committee; The Princess and the Pilot: TMS Entertainment is the producer, but only Madhouse is credited with the animation production. This was actually the main reason to add the "Production" parameter in the infobox; We should differentiate between these roles. "Studio" is a vague term and leads to confusion in these cases; I have seen that some users even erroneously add companies like Aniplex or Genco in the "Studio" field. Japanese wikipedia uses the term "Animation production" in the infobox; Shouldn't we use the same term to avoid these complications? --Raamin (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2012

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm not able to edit this template anymore as I can still edit all the other sub-tempaltes under the {{Infobox animanga}} suit, but the following lines needs to be removed.

    | novel        = [[Category:Japanese novels]]
    | serial novel = <!-- [[Category:Japanese serial novels]] --> [[Category:Japanese novels]]
    | light novel  = [[Category:Light novels]]

All articles have been manually categorized and this line isn't needed any more. —Farix (t | c) 12:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the following check needs to be added somewhere in the error checking section.

{{ <!-- Check for confusion between serial novels and novel series -->
  #switch: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }}
  | serial novel = {{
    #if: {{{magazine|}}} | <!-- Do nothing -> | [[Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters]]
  }}
}}

—Farix (t | c) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done I've also determined why you cannot edit this page anymore: in February 2010, all "/Print" subpages were protected using the Title Blacklist to prevent vandalism of widely-used templates that would only show up in the new "Books" feature. In March 2010 you were given the "account creator" group, which includes the tboverride user right, presumably so you could edit this page. In June 2012 the "account creator" group was removed from your account, since you are not actually active in the account creation process; they apparently did not realize that your membership in the group was a hack to allow you the tboverride right so you could edit this page. Anomie⚔ 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The template is now messed up; please fix it. See any animanga article; Little Busters! for example.--十八 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be much easier to be able to edit this template again. But in the mean time, replace with the version in the sandbox. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Found the problem. "". In short, I didn't close the comment properly. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You might find this interesting. Goodraise 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought to use the little-known Title whitelist to un-blacklist this page, since it's not actually a /Print subpage. You should be able to edit it now. Anomie⚔ 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU! That will make things soo much easier. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done a infobox on a article in my own User Space. But when I am previewing/done with it it comes up on the bottom than the right. Help please? XRGExChaos (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That is because you are not using the header and footer. However, seeing that you are drafting an article on Yu-Gi-Oh:The Abridged Series, you MUST have citations to reliable, third-party source. That article has been deleted over a dozen times before under various names for lacking coverage. And currently, your draft doesn't appear will fair any better. On top of that, it contains a fair amount of original research in the "Running Gags" section. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 November 2011

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Video/doc

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add a | character design = and a | background = category to the Infobox animanga/Video template for all anime (TV, OAVs, films).
These are very important categories in anime. For example the reknown Akemi Takada was character design on many anime and deserves credit.
I'm specifically trying to add them to the Gu Gu Ganmo article at the moment. But hope to add many more too. Princess Ribena (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm willing to do this, but I want to see first a discussion of the project who maintains this template with a consent on this. Please link to a discussion after gaining consent and then I'm willing to add such fields. mabdul 21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)