Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Demographic?

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This section seems to be widely abused and often does not comply with the intended purpose: classify using the standard Japanese categories. For example, Durarara! is classified as Male demographic, but what kind? Shounen? Seinen? Salary-man? Also, in this case, I think such classification is dubious since the story has plenty of elements meant to appeal to females. That is the problem, of course, because without solid sources, trying to categorically say it is aimed at one demographic or another is a matter of personal POV. Where are the reader survey results? The fact of the matter is, the publishing industry is facing financial pressures world-wide. Thus, even traditionally gender-differentiated media in Japan, such as those of male otaku pandering nature, are trying to diversify their appeal. Therefore, why do we wish to categorize based on demographic when we can't say for sure what the demographic is anymore? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

They are meant for articles on manga that are published in magazines historically known to cater toward certain demographics. That is not to say girls don't read Shōnen Jump, but there are academic literature that look into the industry within specific demographic circles. Durarara!! would be an incorrect usage at it is a light novel, and it should be removed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Runtime

Why is runtime disabled for TV anime? For long-running series 22min vs 26min is a huge difference. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it is extremely trivial when compared to the other fields in the infobox and most TV episodes are no more then their half-hour time slot anyways. The only reason to note a runtime is when the episode lengths are more then a half-hour, and those are extremely rare cases. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of what Wikipedia covers is trivial, that doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be included. Indeed, {{Infobox television}} has a runtime parameter. While I happen to think my favorite anime shows are timeless I don't mean it in that fashion. Just because you think it is useless information does not make it useless. Carolina wren (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed removal of ratings

Last year there was a discussion to remove the ratings field from Template:Infobox video game, consensus saying it was unencyclopaedic. I'd argue that the same arguments apply here, and the ratings (classification) field should be removed from the game part of this template. Thoughts? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 11:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the animanga boxes basically follow precedent from other templates, including {{infobox book}}, {{infobox video game}}, {{infobox film}} and {{infobox television}}, it makes sense to update it to conform with how {{infobox video game}} handles it.--十八 21:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done much template editing before so I think it would be best for someone more experienced to make this major-ish change. Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 12:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the field.--十八 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, thank-you very much! DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 00:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the subpages

The component pages of this template (like Template:Infobox animanga/Header) are, under their current titles, considered subpages of the Infobox animanga template, which means that they don't appear in this list of infoboxes, even though they are independent of the Infobox animanga template (which is not transcluded anywhere and serves only as documentation). Would it be possible to rename Template:Infobox animanga/Header to Template:Infobox animanga Header, and similarly move all the other subpages that are called directly in article space?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion for clarification of producer parameter

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Release/released for a future release

Can we add a "release date" or "scheduled release" or even just a plain old "release" parameter to cover those anime/manga that has been announced with a future release date? It just bug the heck out of me to see "released = some future date" in the infobox. One should not use past tense for future event! Thanks. 98.203.247.11 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Imagine how much more work that adds, having to change "to be released" to released parameter, especially considering how bad most anime manga articles are. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Two languages

I used a hack to get a second language in Blade of the Phantom Master, but it would be better if there were a more free-form |native_name= or |name_original= or something. comments? Frietjes (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible idea. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look, it should be using Infobox manhwa. If someone could edit Infobox manhwa to be more like animanga, it would be helpful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording

I have reverted an attempt to change mentions of anime in this infobox to animation, leaving us with wonderful terms like "animation film" and "animation television series". I suspect this is so that it can be used on Korean animation articles, which is outside of this infobox's scope. In any case, a change like this shouldn't happen without consensus to do so first. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Licensing ≠ Distribution

Can we add a "distributed by" field to indicate whether a licence is not being exercised in all the territories to which it applies? For example, if an anime distributor has a licence for North America, but is only exercising that licence in the United States? --  Denelson83  01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think an issue here is that generally there isn't a distinction made between the two. Even if there is, finding reliable sources for it is likely to be difficult. Also "distributed by" is a confusing term as distribution is a term used for the basic moving of goods, IIRC Geneon handled distribution of some titles by other companies that had the licenses and produced the actual releases. Also, announced licenses are not necessarily the full license that company has, especially difficult to know when there are several partnerships between US/EU/AU companies. Take Naruto, published in the UK by Manga Entertainment, but do they own the UK license and simply get the materials from Viz, or do Viz sublicense the series to Manga? SephyTheThird (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Simulcasts

Should there be an additional parameter to indicate that a show is being simulcast during its first run? It is the method these days for all the recent anime shows outside Japan, especially for Crunchyroll which announces such simulcasts, but other services such as Hulu and Neon Alley also pick up on this (Netflix not so much as they don't pick up during the first run but sometime later when all episodes are published). And someone must be providing subtitles and translations for the "official" streams? It doesn't fit network_en as the videos are given multiple language options, and also that an English language version is licensed or produced some time later. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This can take the form of "simulcast=yes" if naming specific networks in the infobox is not needed. If simulcasts are just going to be the norm for all shows going forward (all shows after the year that Crunchyroll declared it would try to simulcast stuff) then a note should be added to this infobox doc to not list them and prompt the editor to just describe the details in the article itself. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about what the details should be, but I certainly think that with simulcasts being almost a given, we should have a separate entry. I would make it a historical entry rather than just during the actual time it's on. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Character Design

Shouldn't there be an additional parameter to indicate character designers for an anime series or film? They are as much as important as those responsible for parts such as music or script. Exukvera (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a very useful inclusion. The character designer is basically the artist of the show since they are the ones who give the characters the look we end up seeing. This is at least as important as the composer or director. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga and page categorization

I noticed that Poyopoyo Kansatsu Nikki was being placed in the category Category:2015 anime television series, even though it aired in 2012. Looking at the article, I couldn't figure out at first why it was in that category, as it didn't seem to be placed in that category in its wiki-code. Eventually I figured out that the template Template:Infobox animanga/Video was placing it in that category automatically because the start date of the series didn't have a year. Someone had edited out the year, presumably because they thought it would look better for it to say "January 8 – December 30, 2012" rather than "January 8, 2012 – December 30, 2012". I think at the very least this indicates there is a mistake in the implementation of the template, as having a missing year shouldn't make the series be classified into the current year. However, I don't really think it is a good idea to have the infobox be placing pages into visible categories at all (cleanup categories like Category:Anime and manga articles with missing infobox parameters are fine). In my opinion, having the template add categories in the way it currently seems to is confusing and unnecessary. Someone should be able to look at the source code for a page and see where the categories are being assigned and be able to easily edit them. I think ease of editing and ease of understanding the wiki-code is more important that trying to have the infobox categorize pages when people forgot to do so, or whatever the code in the infobox was intended to do. Calathan (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a way to display just the month and day: {{dts|2002-05-27|format=md}} This should allow the date to retain its value (mainly in sorting tables) yet allow for ranges. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on how to do that, but I personally think it looks better the other way in the infobox. Since the start date and end date are on different lines, it looks odd to me when the year is left off of the first date. Calathan (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well at least it seemed to work, unless the category is assessed and populated by some Bot sometime later, then it needs more experimenting. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Composer value add request

Can somebody please add "composer" as a value to this infobox, as well as any missing values from the normal infobox video games? Thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and added all the personal fields from Videogame Infobox to Infobox animanga/game, since I don't see a reason why it should be missing them. Especially so when a lot of articles have people listed, but didn't show due to the template itself not having the fields. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox sub-components are suppose to be slimmed down version of their respective media infobox contain only the most essential fields to prevent template bloat. I have reverted the change because you added 6 new fields, which are not important and are just bloat to the template. —Farix (t | c) 22:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Then adding the same 3 from the main anime infobox wouldn't be any different? It's more inconsistent than bloated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since you seem to be the only one who disagrees, I've just removed all the bloated fields, and kept the ones that every other single sub-box animanga offers has. (yes, even the audio drama one has fields for directors and producers.) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing the discussion to WT:ANIME, which is where is should have been in the first place. You still don't have a consensus to add these new fields to the infobox, and I still oppose them as they don't add anything of importance and are simply bloat. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference in infobox

On several occasions, I have noticed a reference or note being added to the start date within the infobox, which breaks the category transclusions, like at Himōto! Umaru-chan. Is it even possible to have references in there without breaking it? —Xezbeth (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Start and end dates should always be referenced in the body of the article instead of the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Original work (creator) field request

Can the field "creator" or "original work/story/concept" be added to the infobox, since whoever created the work should obviously be in the infobox? The anime infobox in the Japanese Wikipedia has the "original work" field in it and even lists it first above other staff fields. -- Wrath X (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Template moving to bottom

I tried using the Header and Video templates at Anime Himitsu no Hanazono but appeared to have screwed up somewhere because they are jumping to the bottom and are screwing up text by taking out spaces in the first sentence. No idea why it's happening or how to fix it. Anyone know? Ranze (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Pages parameter

This would be useful in the case of a single volume light novel. Can this be input? --Ranze (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, because page count is an extremely trivial detail. We want to avoid such trivia from the infobox because of the length alone. —Farix (t | c) 10:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

image parameter

Does anyone know why the default image size of image parameter looks smaller than before? (probably 10 pixels smaller)

And also, do we really need to use [[File:]] on it? Marlin Setia1 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about categorization

This template contains Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga, even though that category is not intended for article pages. Could someone please either update this template or the category definition? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem

Any idea why this happens? The template will be set at the end of the article even though it's been put on the top. something wrong with the template?◂ ‎épine _talk♬ 02:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Épine: You should probably ask someone over on that wiki. I tried poking around, but I don't read Sorani. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No parameter for number of chapters

This infobox has a place for the number of episodes and the number of volumes, but no place for the number of chapter, isn't that something that should be there?★Trekker (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Network label

@TheFarix: I think we should remove "original" from the network label for the sake of consistency. {{Infobox animanga/Audio}} doesn't say "original station", it just says "station". Also, {{Infobox animanga/Print}} doesn't say "original magazine", it just says "magazine". Its two magazine labels are "magazine" and "English magazine". {{Infobox animanga/Video}}'s network labels should be similar like "network" and "English network". -- Wrath X (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep "Original" in the field description. It makes it that much clearer that only the original networks should be in that field and not networks where the series was rebroadcast. This isn't a problem with audio or print magazine because an audio series never gets rebroadcast and a manga or novel series never get reran in a magazine. —Farix (t | c) 11:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Web novels

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the pages linked from Shōsetsuka ni Narō about half of them include the web novel in the infobox under "Novel series" (the others have the Light Novel as the first entry). Oddly, while the doc page includes "novel series" in the examples, neither the intended usage nor how it differs from "serial novel" is explained (in the instructions for the "type" field it says "novel for a single novel, serial novel for a novel series"). For web novels I would think "serial novel" would in fact be more appropriate since they are serialised online by chapter rather than released as a series of books. Could we either get a usage example included for web novels under one of the existing parameters or a separate web novel parameter added? Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Game revert

I am not sure I would have reverted this change. The fields in question already enjoy a consensus in Template:Infobox video game (if I had the option, I'd deprecate Template:Infobox animanga/Game and see if we can use the video game infobox directly in some way, but that's an aside). I think those are reasonable adds here. What do you think, TheFarix, Burst booster, and others? --Izno (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Add more staff info in anime video templates

Since this is for animation medium, It would be right to add important staff roles like "Animation direction", "Character design", "Art direction". —Panda619 (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Animation direction and character design are both key roles in anime production, and should definitely be included in the template. For the film template, storyboarder should also be included.

The animation direction section should include possible specialized animation direction roles, like action animation direction and mechanical animation direction; these could be indicated by specifying the specialization in parentheses after the corresponding director’s name. Assistant animation directors should probably not be included in the infobox.

Of course there are a lot of other notable roles as as well, such as compositing director and background artist. I’m personally all for adding these, but it should be discussed which kind of roles are important enough to be included. AniDB has a comprehensive lists of production roles involved in anime, in case anyone wants to have a glimpse into them.

In general, I think there is a lot that could be taken from the television infobox, like opening & ending theme and production companies.

--Narcia-chan (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Support I concur and I believe my thoughts are already covered by the above comment. Masum Reza^📞 19:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Since we are talking about animation mediums, character designer and art direction are crucial. Theme songs should also be added too. lullabying (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Support per the above reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

Please change template calls as listed below to avoid the redirect. The calls to those templates are transcluded in over 4,000 articles through being called in this template, so those unnecessary redirects have to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed.

• {{ifempty}} to {{if empty}}
• {{YesNo-No}} to {{Yesno-no}}
• {{Str find long}} to {{Str find}} (12 occurrences) Colonies Chris (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I generally think of this sort of request as entirely pointless, and the claim that those unnecessary redirects have to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed is simply false, but I've  Done this, except for a transclusion of {{ifempty}} which I was unable to find, because Template:YesNo-No is only semi-protected and templates should never call templates with a lower protection level. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery:Thanks for this, but please explain why the redirects don't have to be followed. Other admins have not raised any question about this with similar requests. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Error categories

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This template has a couple of references to Category:Anime and manga articles using flag icons, which has been deleted several times and appears to have been deprecated in favour of the more general Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters. Could someone change this template appropriately? Current examples are The Doraemons and Moribito II: Guardian of the Darkness. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Transliteration lang tag

Please change the line

#if: {{{ja_romaji|}}} | <br />(''{{{ja_romaji}}}'')

to

#if: {{{ja_romaji|}}} | <br />({{transl|ja|{{{ja_romaji}}}}})

This will add lang=ja-Latn to the romaji under the kanji. This would in line with other templates:

• {{nihongo}}; example: gakuen (学園)
• {{lang-ja}}; example: Japanese: 学園, romanized: gakuen

Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

I suggest adding a "label13" for a parameter named "Seasons". What do you think?

|label13 = {{
  #switch: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }}
  | tv series
  |tv
  | series = Seasons
}}
|data13= {{
  #switch: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }}
  | tv  | series
  | tv series = {{#if: {{{seasons|}}}|{{{seasons}}}
}}
}}

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For what purpose? --Izno (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno For the reader to be able to know how many seasons are there for a particular anime. I think this addition is necessary as we have a parameter for number of episodes. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no set meaning to a "season". Some shows, a season is 13 episodes. Others call 26 to be a season. Some have only 9 in one season and 12 in the next. The various makes the statement "Seasons: 3" less meaningful. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

I propose adding a parameter named "Seasons" to the Template:Infobox animanga/Video. This parameter will appear in the article if the "type" entered is either "tv", "series" or "tv series". I think this edit is necessary as we already have a parameter for number of episodes. I think the reader needs to know in how many seasons the episodes are split into. The suggested code is shown below:

|label13 = {{
  #switch: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }}
  | tv series
  |tv
  | series = Seasons
}}
|data13= {{
  #switch: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }}
  | tv  | series
  | tv series = {{#if: {{{seasons|}}}|{{{seasons}}}
}}
}}

What do you think? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Stage plays?

Stage plays and musical adaptations have become a bigger thing now that the Japan 2.5D Musical Association as been established. A lot of big titles have received stage adaptations... Is it possible to implement a sub-box for this information? lullabying (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Two edit proposals

I have two proposals for this template:

1. Location of demographic field

Currently, the print media sub-boxes display the demographic field (shonen, seinen, josei, etc.) before the imprint/magazine.

However, the template documentation for the parameter explains: "[The demographic] is established by the Japanese magazine in which the work was originally published."

For clarity, propose that the field be displayed after the imprint/magazine to avoid confusion about what the label applies to (the manga? the publisher? etc).

2. Parameters for web-published manga

Currently, there is no suitable way to display serialization information for manga published through the Internet.

Most of the articles in Category:Japanese webcomics struggle with where to put the name of the website (Imprint? "Magazine" is definitely wrong).

Example: It is misleading/inaccurate to list the magazine for Sewayaki Kitsune no Senko-san as "Comic Newtype", when the service is only an online portal affiliated with Newtype magazine.

Not sure what the best way would be to fix this is; I am open for ideas (new parameter? maybe a new sub-box?)

— Goszei (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I support #1 and agree with #2 that there should be some way of handling web manga. Opencooper (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree for both, especially the second one. --Lord Yeager (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Opencooper, Lord Yeager, and Gabriel Yuji: How exactly do template proposals get implemented, and by whom? I am not clear on the process. — Goszei (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

I have proposed two changes higher up on this talk page that have gained some consensus from members of WP:A&M; this edit request concerns the first one. There are currently five boxtypes in Template:Infobox animanga/Print: Manga, Novel, Novel series, Serial novel, and Light novel. In each of them, the "Demographic" field should be moved to display just below "Magazine" (except for Novel and Novel series, where it should be displayed just below "Imprint"). — Goszei (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Listing multiple seasons in single infoboxes

There's a current debate about whether anime consisting of seperate series/seasons (the example in this debate being New Game! and its new season New Game!!) should be placed under one infobox, like how long-running series like One Piece won't use seperate infoboxes for each season. While I do believe that information about the airdates and episode counts of single-cour seasons should be seperate, considering that they each have different airing times with large gaps inbetween, different titles, and potentially different staff, all of which is hard to relay accurately in one infobox, I do understand that users don't neccessarily want articles to become riddled with infoboxes. Thus brings up the problem of how to properly describe each season without needing additional infoboxes. I think what we need is a way to list, at the least, the title (if available), airing dates and episode count/list link for each season, in a similar manner to how multi-part episodes have multiple English/Kanji/Romaji sections for each part's title. That way, we can avoid needing to duplicate stuff like the studio and director, and simply elaborate in those sections if there's any differences between seasons. Basically something like this:

| type = tv series
| director = Yoshiyuki Fujiwara
| writer = Fumihiko Shimo
| music = Hajime Hyakkoku
| studio = Doga Kobo
| licensee =
| network = AT-X, Tokyo MX, TVA, MBS, BS11
| seasons = 2
| titleA = New Game!
| firstA = July 4, 2016
| lastA = September 19, 2016
| episodesA = 12 + OVA
| episode_listA = List of New Game! episodes
| titleB = New Game!!
| firstB = July 11, 2017
| lastB =
| episodesB = 1
| episode_listB = List of New Game! episodes#New Game!! (2017)

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonchop (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Title display

Many of our articles have disambiguated titles, like "Foo (manga)". When using {{Infobox animanga/Header}}, if no title was specified, the article title is used, parentheses and all. I propose that we use a template, {{PAGENAMEBASE}}, that automatically strips those out, so the title would simply be displayed as Foo if not specified.

Technical details: in the line | {{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name|}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}, PAGENAME would be changed to PAGENAMEBASE. Opencooper (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Opencooper: Support. However, I see a possible issue: the documentation for that template shows the example of Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) being reduced to Sweet Dreams. This would be an issue for work titles that end with parentheticals, and don't have a specified title field (is there a way to search for these exceptions? I imagine there isn't too many, and they can be manually fixed). — Goszei (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up that concern Goszei. Using Petscan, I generated a list of articles that use the header template and have parenthesis in their titles. Of those 702 pages, the only ones I found which have parenthesis as part of the actual title were: Bond(z), Di(e)ce and ES (Eternal Sabbath). This is how the template handles them: Bond(z), Di(e)ce, ES. For the last one, the page title has already been overriden as Eternal Sabbath. Opencooper (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

I have proposed a change higher up on this talk page that has gained some support from members of WP:A&M. I think it can be implemented by either 1) cloning the "Manga" box, renaming it "Web manga", then replacing the "Magazine" and "English magazine" fields with "Website" and "English website". 2) Alternatively, adding a parameter (maybe web=yes) that will change these fields when it is included. — Goszei (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Deactivating 'til it's clear which you want, you have tested it, and you have consensus. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the portal link in the footer

Go Go! Encyclopedia Girls
Wikipe-tan and her sisters
いけいけ! 百科事典娘 (Ike Ike! Hakkajiten Musume)
Genre	Action, Romance

Currently, Template:Infobox animanga/Footer places a link to Portal:Anime and manga at the bottom of every anime/manga infobox by default (example shown on the right). I propose that the footer's default parameter of portal=yes be changed to portal=no to suppress the display of this link. My justification:

• Inconsistency with similar infoboxes. Other comparable media infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox television, Template:Infobox film, etc.) do not link to their respective portals.
• Undue prominence. I don't think a link to the project portal in every infobox is particularly useful for most readers. Media articles are mainly "pick-and-choose" for readers; they visit the articles they want to read without needing help. I think the idea behind portals (guiding readers between important subtopics) is best served by the sidebar navbox, which appears on the articles that do have a topical connection (i.e. history of manga, demographic groups, fandom, etc.)
• Redundancy. There is already a link to the portal on every anime/manga article, albeit on the talk page; it is part of the project banner placed at the top. Additionally, the template {{Portal|Anime and manga}} is placed in the "External links" section of many articles, though not all.

For these reasons, I support hiding the default display of the portal link in the footer. Thoughts? Opinions? — Goszei (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Goszei's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Being inconsistent with other infoboxes is not itself a good reason. Nor is "it's on the talk page" -> portals are for readers and readers do not read talk pages. Your second reason is reasonable, however. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Producers in the Infobox

Regarding the "producers", the current correct credit seems to be that those who go in the "producer" section of the infobox have the プロデューサー credit in Japanese (for example, see Land of the Lustrous, Psycho-Pass, No Game No Life, Puella Magi Madoka Magica, take your pick of any Studio Ghibli film, and ect.). So, this is what appears to be and has been the "standard", I suppose. But there are a multitude of other "producer" credits that can be given, and I would like for some confirmation on this: no other "producer" credits belong in the infobox, correct? Examples of what I mean include: Production Generalization (制作プロデューサー), Executive Producer (エグゼクティブプロデューサー), Associate Producer (アソシエイトプロデューサー), Assistant Producer (アシスタントプロデューサ), Chief Producer (チーフプロデューサー), Line Producer (ラインプロデューサー), and the list goes on (there's more than 17 different producer credits, and I for sure don't know all of them, so I won't go out and try to list all of them). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Some background information. This discussion is raised due to an edit war in Deca-Dence (a good original anime btw). I do not understand why "chief producers" are not "producers". While it seems to be a norm not to include non-"producer" producer-like staff, I wonder whether it is correct. Take Deca-Dence as an example. The two chief producers are consistently referred as "producers" (プロデューサー) in interviews and press. Besides, as you may see in the Production part of the article, they surely participated in it instead of just supervising it from a very high level. -Hijk910 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok but we can't just add everyone who is referred to as a producer プロデューサー outside of the series' credits, because then that slippery slopes into adding all 17+ other credits as well, and a majority of these, including chief producer, aren't understood credits. Deca-Dence's chief producer's level of involvement works anecdotally, but compared to other series' producer predicament, the "chief producer" role loses all sense of what Deca-Dence portrays it to be. For example, it's not really known what Kouji Yamamoto's work on Psycho-Pass isn't fully understood, or let's look at Haikyu!!, which had 9 producers throughout its 4 season run, and it's had 5 chief producers throughout 3 of those seasons; for the 4th season, the chief producers, and some of the producers, became "executive producers"... why? Is Haikyu saying that chief producers are no different than executive producers? I have absolutely no idea, but it complicates what either of these credits are supposed to instigate, and knowing this, I would rather stick to not adding either "executive", "chief", or whatever other random producer credit the anime industry throws at us than potentially be completely incorrect due to a lack of understanding of these credits. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is an anime having all 17+ types of producers. (I see "assistant director" in the infobox of Haikyu!! though...) Unlike other types of producers, "executive producers" and "chief producers" are with relatively clearly meaning - the "producers" more senior than the producers, instead of those specialized for specific functions, nor with unknown meaning (at least to me) like "Production Generalization" or "Produce". Do you agree to give a pass to "executive producers" and "chief producers"? -Hijk910 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking into the actual responsibility of the "chief producer" through various articles in an attempt to decipher what it means, I have found that the role is basically just another name for someone who is an "executive producer" (to which my Haikyu statement supports). Executive producers and producers already aren't the same, as they have usually vastly different roles, powers, and responsibilities which vary depending on who and what the project is (and as we've seen in media, sometimes it's just given to a famous person for financing something), according to The Program Doctor. Ordinary "producers", on the other hand, usually have more creative influence and hands-on jobs when it comes to the projects they work on, as described in this excerpt from a MasterClass article "The executive producer does not get involved with the day-to-day of a production like a producer does." So, with the understanding that these roles are quite different, and that chief/executive producers arent just "more senior", I cannot support the notion that they should be listed alongside "producers." Now, if "executive producer" was added to the infobox template, as a separate entity, like on the television series infobox template, then I suppose I could agree to that, but otherwise no.

Tl;dr the roles are too different and Im against listing them together. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

While I really want to get a one-off pass for Deca-Dence only (and maybe some other works if their involvement is proved anecdotally), it seems that it may incur edit wars in other articles. I give up. I agree with your edit. -Hijk910 (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Still, there should be a proper definition for what the "producer" spot is for future reference. Considering the lack of understanding of the other credits, and the clear differences between producers and chief/executive producers, at the very least (for now) I believe the aforementioned articles listing プロデューサー should be followed as some sort of a standard (a written one, rather than unspoken). Or, if other credits are to be listed, that should be confirmed here too, through discussion (like how "chief director" was discussed, and it was decided it'd be allowed with "director" over at the film infobox template talkpage). Such discussion here would be beneficial to organization on the Wiki, in my opinion. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Then more people should be involved in this discussion? -Hijk910 (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Preferably, but not for our own little predicament (which we've solved), just in a general discussion. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:ANIMANGA § Producer lists in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga § Producer lists in infoboxes. — Goszei (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Runtime in video infoboxes

Is it possible to add a runtime parameter for the television dramas? Some run for 30 minutes while others run for 60 minutes. lullabying (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Play

There should be added Infobox animanga/Play or animanga/Theatre. For example, for Oh! Edo Rocket. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree and have requested this before. Lately, almost every series is getting a 2.5D musical. lullabying (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Automated categories

Hello, is it possible to remove some of the automated categories that were created by the templates? For example, Threads of Destiny and Kanojo ga Suki na Mono wa Homo de Atte Boku de wa Nai use the automated category Category:Japanese television dramas based on manga when both original mediums were novels. lullabying (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding a "number of copies sold" parameter for the manga, what do you think? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

translator field

Moved from Template talk:Infobox animanga/Print

 – — Goszei (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Could a "translator" field be added? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Update category names

A recent move was made for Category:[year] anime television series to Category:[year] anime television series debuts. It's time to update Template:Infobox animanga/Video since the old category name remains despite articles being moved to the new one. Harushiga (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Please change {{ #time: "[[Category:"Y "anime television series]]" | {{{first}}} }}}}{{ #ifexpr: {{ #time: Ymd | {{{first}}} }} to {{ #time: "[[Category:"Y "anime television series debuts]]" | {{{first}}} }}}}{{ #ifexpr: {{ #time: Ymd | {{{first}}} }} since all of the Category:Anime television series debuts by year categories were moved. Link20XX (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This edit is for Template:Infobox animanga/Video, whose talk page redirects here. Hense why I requested here. Link20XX (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You had a semi-protection request at first, thus the canned response for that. Your current request should get you the assistance you need, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Relaunch run" field?

Is it possible for Infobox animanga/Print to have a second field that lists relaunch/revival serialization dates for manga? Several series (The Rose of Versailles, Supinamarada!, The Poe Clan) ended their print runs only to be relaunched years later, but there's no real way to communicate that in the infobox. It creates a situation where the infobox ends up implying that a series like The Rose of Versailles ran continuously from 1972 to 2018, which is inaccurate. Morgan695 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Add a second instance of the manga component of the infobox. If it's years later, they are not the same series. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

For a revival, that feels like a lot of redundant text when the only practical new information is the publication dates. Not sure a second instance of Infobox animanga/Print is a desirable fix here, especially when Infobox animanga is already a template that tends to get bloated very quickly. Morgan695 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please update the documentation

Greetings and felicitations. I had to dig Template_talk:Infobox_animanga/Archive_5#Hiding the portal link in the footer out to find out what had happened to portals on the anime articles I just checked (e.g., One Piece, though it was Nintama Rantarō that started this). Please update the template's documentation to reflect this change (which I would have been against had I known about the proposal, since the footer saves having to add the Anime Portal to every anime-related article). —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind—I updated it myself. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"English network" parameter

I find this parameter questionable for a couple of reasons. The first is that the wording in the infobox implies "television channel that the programme broadcast on in England" and not "English-language television channels that the programme was broadcast on", which seems needlessly specific and is confusing if television channels from outside England are listed (while it is implausible that an anime would only be broadcast in England and not Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, it probably is possible with the different ITV regions). Secondly listing off all the different television channels that broadcast a programme in English seems like it could quickly become unwieldy, if it had to include channels from the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, India, Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Ireland, etc. I don't know what should be done about the latter issue, but at the very least the wording in infoboxes should be changed to clarify that the English language is being referred to rather than the English geographical area. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

To say "English-language" instead of simply "English" would make the infobox parameter text take up more space and thus be harder to read for no real reason. It should be fairly obvious given the context, and the fact that often many of the networks that anime are broadcast on are of United States or Canadian origin, that the text refers to "network broadcasting programming in English." If the intent was to specify that the network(s) are of British origin, then it would say "British network." If anything, the parameters should perhaps be altered to "Network (EN)" and "Network (JP)" since these take up less space in the infobox and are clearly explicitly referring to the language of the network(s) in question. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Creator" parameter is not really applicable

Recently a minor dispute between myself and another editor arose regarding the accreditation in the infobox on the page for RWBY: Ice Queendom. Previously, the infobox listed both Gen Urobuchi (the series planner for Ice Queendom) and Monty Oum (RWBY's original creator) as the "creators" of the series in the header. The editor in question, Aoito, removed Oum's name from this field, making the argument in their edit summary that "Monty Oum is not the creator of this anime. "Creator" and "Based" are not the same thing." I, disagreeing with this assessment, reverted their edit on account of the fact that Oum is commonly regarded as the original creator of the RWBY franchise in general, and therefore, can be reasonably called a creator of this anime. Aoito in turn reverted my edit, demanding to see a source, which I provided in the form of the official staff and cast list on Ice Queendom's English website. As this template lacks a "based on" parameter along the lines of what is seen in Template:Infobox film, they then edited the infobox's "creator" field yet again to say "Created by Gen Urobuchi, based on RWBY by Monty Oum."

As I find it a reasonable compromise, I don't see this edit worth challenging on its own, but it does raise some faults with this template and specifically the use of the "Created by" parameter, as well as the (faulty) assumptions it implies. The problem appears to arise primarily from two factors:

1. This template appears to be derived partially from Template:Infobox Television which, being written for the context of British and American television programs, assumes the existence of a showrunner who is responsible for the program's concept and overall creative management. This is generally not the case in anime; there is no role in anime production that can truly be called a singular "creator." It's a complicated chain of command and process, but it usually boils down to that a production committee is formed from various interested parties and they contract the staff (whose creative freedom may be more or less limited depending on the context, but is in general limited according to what the production committee desires) to produce the show. (Some more information here.)
   1. There are some exceptions where a single person may have more creative sway to the point that they may approach something approximating a "showrunner" but even then it's not quite the same. More information on such edge cases, in this case specifically concerning the roles Mari Okada has taken in some productions in which she was involved, can be found in this video by Callum May of The Canipa Effect. (He is listed as a reliable individual source under WP:A&M/RS#Individuals, so this video can be considered to be a reasonably reliable source of this information).
   2. Not to mention the fact that, in any production (be it a cartoon, film, video game, whatever) that has many hands in its creation, there's hardly if ever a single person who can truly be called the sole "creator" but that's a somewhat different discussion.
2. This issue has likely not been considered or discussed before, given that most anime are based on pre-established works (like manga or video games or light novels) whose narratives they hardly, if ever, significantly deviate from, and as such most of the time the "created by" parameter is hardly used as the creator is assumed to be the original author of the original work (and so that person's name is typically written in the lead of the page, or the "novel/manga" part of the box, so editors aren't likely to consider this matter further in most cases. In cases like this, however, where the anime in question is not a direct translation of a story from one medium to another, but a derivative work in some other way, or if it's an original anime production or part of a media franchise, the issue may become more complicated.

Actual official anime credits (like Ice Queendom's for example), when officially translated into English, hardly if ever credit anyone as a "creator" but rather for the "concept," "original work," "original story," "scenario," or something of that ilk. Given all this, I'd argue it would be much more appropriate to replace this parameter with something along those lines that more clearly expresses the nuance that there is no equivalent "showrunner" role- perhaps "original work" or "original story" as those seem to be the most commonly used terms.

It may also be suitable to have a "series composition" field, as this is also a common role whose duty is distinct from that of the originator of the concept or the episode screenwriter(s), though there may be overlap. Perhaps a "based on" parameter, for cases like this where the source work is not an anime or manga, would be appropriate as well. Joyce-stick (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

They way I see it has nothing to do with the "showrunner" credit that American and British television uses-- even if the animanga infobox is a derivative of said television infobox, its usage is by no means the same. As far as it's been used in articles in my experience, "creator" simply refers to the person who came up with the idea for the series, manga, or whatever else; and in these cases, we can categorize them based on the 原案 (original plan/concept) and 原作 (original work/creator) credits, which are almost always attributed to someone in the case of original productions in the credits and in interviews with cast or staff members.

I don't think the comment about production committees is particularly relevant in this case. Yes, committees are the ones with all of the control in anime productions, but committees are groups of producers that end up funding and being somewhat creatively involved in the process behind the scenes-- they have pretty much nothing to do with creating the work itself. For example, Puella Magi Madoka Magica has a committee (Madoka Partners) consisting of Aniplex, MBS, Hakuhodo DY Media Partners, Houbunsha, MBS, Movic, Nitroplus, and Shaft, but not all of these companies are credited with creating the series as far as Japanese productions go-- Magica Quartet (Ume Aoki, Akiyuki Shinbo, Gen Urobuchi, and Shaft) is specifically created for the "original work" (原作) and are commonly credited as the series' creators. In other words, the committee has power of financial production and ultimately own the work itself and decide when to air it among certain creative aspects through their producers (in Madoka's case, Aniplex's producer Atsuhiro Iwakami was involved; but, he's not credited with its conception).

You're right in saying that anime, as well as pretty much all media that features production crews, aren't the results of just one person's doing, but I also don't feel this is relevant either. Director Shinbo, for example, commonly attributes many of the things present in his works to other people; whether it's saying that a particular gag he found funny was the work of Nobuyuki Takeuchi's suggestion, or otherwise, the point of crediting a "creator" isn't to notate that every staff member was creatively involved, it seems to be more or less to notate who concepted the initial world or story that is to be built upon by the staff. The works of Yoshiyuki Tomino can be brought up-- although they are the product of many people, the entire Gundam franchise, as well as pretty much everything he works on as a director, attributes him solely as the original work/creator (原作).

As far as "series composition" goes, that's kind of just what the "writer" parameter of the infobox has been used for (concurrently with "screenplay" when there is no peculiar writer credited for series composition), but a few points of contention could be brought up with that too-- if we do that, then we'd have a separate parameter for "screenplay" itself or we could eliminate screenplay from the infobox entirely and use it only in the episode tables; however, some productions feature no series composition writer, and some productions' screenplays are written entirely by one person, but feature a different series composition writer. There are also cases like Kizumonogatari where an entirely different credit (screenplay composition) is matched with a whole other "screenplay work." Unless we were to somehow catalogue exactly what each credit would match to in one of these projects (screen comp = series comp, screen work = screen), which we could even further expand to include other credits (chief director = director, chief unit director = director), and so forth. Going even further, we could add a separate "animation producer" credit, since that's the person who actually finds all of the main staff for a particular work and manages the project from the studio producing it (making them far more involved than an ordinary producer; see Shuuhei Yabuta's explanation)-- and so forth.

As a fun bit of trivia, you can find similar examples to RWBY: Ice Queendom's case with Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo (based on Dumas' novel (credited as "original work/creator"), but recontextualized into a sci-fi story with new and changed elements by Mahiro Maeda (credited as "original plan/concept")) and Romeo x Juliet ("original plan/concept" credited to Shakespeare, and "original work/creator" credited to Gonzo and Sky Perfect Well Think). If anyone asks why they're different, I think it's because Romeo x Juliet utilizes narrative elements, themes, characters, and some events from Shakespeare's novel, but is a wholly new product (not an adaptation), whereas Gankutsuo is a legitimate adaptation of the novel in a new setting with some other added elements.

In other words, it's just a very complex situation that I'm not sure anyone has an answer to just because Japanese credits have so many different nuances that are dissimilar to the west. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Looking more closely at some other pages using the animanga template, it seems like common practice has been to specify these specific role distinctions in notes or parentheses (like on the page for Monogatari (series) for example) which I'll definitely be keeping in mind going forward. I feel it would not make much sense for us to create numerous more parameters for all these distinct accreditations as it'd create confusion and bloat on the reader's end, so instead perhaps it'd be best to codify that current practice in MOS:A&M if it is not already, as well as specify in this template page that a "creator" of a series can also include not only people who directly worked on a series but also creators of the work it is adapting or derived from, if they are credited for "original plan/work" or whatever else.

I've also observed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Film credits glossary exists and seems to already include some of these terms, so I suppose this problem is already partially solved. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is less that there is a significant problem and more that the solution to said problem is tribal knowledge that isn't really indicated anywhere... perhaps? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so. If that's the case, I guess it'd be relatively uncontroversial to try to indicate it, so maybe we can and should edit the template guide/MOS to do so unless further WP:CONSENSUS on the matter is needed. (Pinging User:Sarcataclysmal, as I'm experiencing a technical error with the reply link and am not sure you'll get notified about this.) Joyce-stick (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(I didn't even know there was a "reply" feature, I just manually press the "edit" button every time lol, but in trying the edit button I am also getting an error) I think there is reason enough for trying to edit the template guide and indicating these things in words. If you're like to start something over there, feel free to see what the other editors of the project think (and if you'd like my assistance with anything regarding the credits themselves, ping me since I will probably forget to check). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have gone and made some edits to the header and video sections of the template guide, if you're interested in checking this over and refining if need be. I may start a separate discussion at the MOS talk page at a later point. Joyce-stick (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Parameter for budget and gross for anime films

Similarly to Template:Infobox film, is it possible to add fields for budget and gross to the template's film infoboxes? Morgan695 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this. Budget and gross parameters would be nice, as some anime films have documented such. lullabying (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this per lullabying, would be very useful. — Goszei (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just added support for "Budget" and "Box office" fields. The "type" parameters for which the fields are enabled can be seen in this diff: Special:Diff/1017991620/1033038512. I considered adding budget support for OVA/ONA, but I thought that may be too broad. — Goszei (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Support 08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Print parameter order proposal

The current parameter order for print works (manga and novels) looks like this:

• Written by
• Illustrated by
• Published by
• English publisher
• Imprint
• Magazine
• English magazine
• Demographic
• Original run
• Volumes

My main problem with this is that it fails to be chronological, which is a more logical ordering that enables smoother reading. Here is my proposal:

• Written by
• Illustrated by
• Published by
• Magazine
• Imprint
• Demographic
• Original run
• Volumes
• English publisher
• English magazine

(1) I moved the English-language publishing info to the bottom, since everything above that is (typically) information on the Japanese run and volumes, and mixing these in breaks that continuity. English versions also typically happen chronologically after the JP run and volumes are done, so placement after "Original run" and "Volumes" seems logical. I also think there is value in placing the fields right next to each other, since they are closely related. (2) I moved "Imprint" below "Magazine", because that makes more sense chronologically for the vast majority of cases; collected editions under an imprint usually start after serialization begins in a magazine. (3) I think that "Demographic" can remain after both Magazine and Imprint (instead of being directly under Magazine) because the imprint usually has the same associated demographic. I am open to moving Demographic under Magazine, however.

To see how the proposed order looks when used in an article, you can preview "Infobox animanga/Print/sandbox" in place of "Infobox animanga/Print" in any manga article. Thoughts on this proposal? — Goszei (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: If this proposal goes through, there is potential for a similar reordering of the Licensee and English network fields for Video works. — Goszei (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

number of copies sold parameter

I suggest adding a "number of copies sold" parameter for the manga. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

network_en for OVA

Can someone enable network_en parameter for OVAs? For example, Strike the Blood OVAs aired on Animax Asia, but this can't be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeagol 17 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering there's an open RFC to remove that parameter, probably should wait for now. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting a parameter for webcomics

This suggestion comes to my mind when expanding the article Room Camp that I created before. This manga is only published on Comic Fuz, a manga service by Houbunsha available online and through an app. This manga is only published online (no print publication) so I find it difficult to see Comic Fuz be on the "magazine" parameter despite being not a magazine whenever I visit this article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of manga magazines are going digital now so it might be worth looking into. Pixiv also has its own exclusive online publising service. lullabying (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC for removal of "licensee" and "network_en" parameters

Should the "licensee" and "network_en" parameters from {{Infobox animanga/Video}} be removed?

• Proposing this for {{Infobox animanga/Video}}, and coming here after the successful implementation of Template talk:Infobox television channel#RfC for removal of "Availability" section.

This template lists the English licensees of anime (television and film). Considering that this is a subcategory of the broader television and films, none of whose templates ({{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox film}}) specifically list English "licensees" or "networks", this exception for anime is incongruous and aberrant with the rest of the enwiki. The information contained herein appears mostly unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and from what I have seen serves no useful purpose but to clutter articles.

Any notable case of release by licensed broadcasters/film distributors can be noted in the article body (if relevant), as is the case for other films and television. I am not including the "publisher_en" counterpart of {{Infobox animanga/Print}}, as it appears to have precedent at {{Infobox book}} (though not at {{Infobox comic book title}}). Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• General support. I personally would include publisher_en and any other _en fields as well. The need to denote regional differences in any of these fields can be accomplished with {{video game release}}, which is what the oft-referred-to-in-documentation {{English anime licensee}} was originally based on many many moons ago. However, "English anime licensee" has languished for years without any updates or improvements, while VGR has been completely revamped with full support for any region and many other features. I realize that VGR's tight relationship with WP:VG makes the naming odd, but I've never quite figured out a good name to propose for it. It's essentially a template for making standardized lists of region/value pairs. (WP:VG's release timeline template, "Video game timeline", eventually was genericized to {{timeline of release years}}) -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was originally going to propose {{English anime licensee}} wholly for deletion but deffered as I am unsure with the handling of print media here on enwiki ({{Infobox book}} seems to have inclusion for English publishers, though the focus there [and in literature generally] is on translators not the publishers). Gotitbro (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  {{English anime licensee}} should have been redirected to {{video game release}} and cleaned up years ago, but I suppose that's a matter we can look at separate and later. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps this parameter should be changed to a "distributor" or "distributed by" parameter, since both of the templates you linked to above have one of those. If you are proposing that we remove the information on English distributors entirely, I strongly oppose that; time and time again, the English/international release has been proven to be an important part of the series, like Dragon Ball having a big impact on popularizing anime in the west or series like Tribe Nine that wouldn't exist without the involvement of the English licensor. I neither oppose nor support removing the parameter, but I do feel like the international distributor should have somewhere to go in the infobox. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but I think it would look weird to have just a manga licensor in the infobox and not one for the anime. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see why anime specifically would need an exception, non-English films and television are also released in English by different distributors/licensors but that is covered in neither of their infoboxes. Any notable and relevant information pertaining to international distribution/licensing is generally covered in-text/body of the article not the infobox for other media, as should the case be here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  non-English films and television are also released in English by different distributors/licensors but that is covered in neither of their infoboxes is not always true; WP:FILMDIST says the film distributor parameter can list the foreign distributor if there is only one foreign distributor, which is often the case for modern anime as well. I have no idea if the TV infobox is the same though. Link20XX (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A simple look at how {{English anime licensee}} is used with the corresponding params at anime articles will make it clear that a single licensor/distributor listing is almost never the case and not how this param is generally used. The primary purpose of this RfC to remove this exact clutter from infoboxes. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That template was created awhile ago, when the licensor for different regions was by a different company, which is still the case on some older titles, like Death Note or Naruto. However, that has changed in recent years. Nowadays, it is actually more common for series to be like Uncle from Another World or Blue Lock and only have one distributor. Just because the parameter lists all of them now doesn't mean that it can't be changed to just one. Not to mention that if reducing clutter is your biggest motivation, I find more clutter in the producer parameter, especially on articles like Holmes of Kyoto. I'm not advocating removing that parameter, just pointing that out. Link20XX (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing for removing content that has been proven to be clutter [in infoboxes] time and again (cf. the previous RfC in the nom). Information on international licnesees in infoboxes has never been listed for television and is mostly not for theatrical films as well, both considered generally non-encyclopedic, while the same has not been the case for producers. This is better handled in-body where, if relevant, it can be better justified. Gotitbro (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat cross-media, though still related, but note that we removed the "Distributor" field from Infobox video game years and years ago as well, for the same reasons. -- ferret (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Gotitbro, and is mostly not for theatrical films as well I do not see why this is relevant; just because it isn't used often doesn't mean it violates policy when it is used. Not to mention I've seen many film articles list the distributor in the infobox. considered generally non-encyclopedic then WP:FILMDIS would not explicitly allow it; not to mention non-encyclopedic usually applies to whether the content should be mentioned in the article at all, not whether it should be in the infobox. As far as "clutter", in series with only one distributor, how is adding one extra line "clutter"? I understand for series with multiple, but not in my aforementioned examples. As for Ferret, I do note that the video game infobox includes a publisher section, which I see to have a similar use to distributor section in any other article (heck if anything that parameter listing all the different publishers by region is more clutter than this parameter causes). Link20XX (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Most video games, especially now, rarely have multiple publishers, and the field has rather convoluted rules to keep it from being flooded with every little company and regional difference. Maybe something similar is needed here. Distributor for us was the company responsible for literal physical distribution, a rather mundane facet of the product that was rarely, if ever, actually covered by secondary sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Most video games, especially now, rarely have multiple publishers this is exactly what I have been saying is the case for most modern anime as well. the field has rather convoluted rules to keep it from being flooded with every little company and regional difference is exactly what I am proposing be added to this parameter (though the template documentation for the publisher field states English-language regions and the developer's region should be included, which is all this parameter is intended to include as-is, though I note that it gives guidelines on what to do if the list gets too long). Distributor for us was the company responsible for literal physical distribution now that I can understand why it was removed; for video games, physical distribution (as much as I prefer it to digital distribution) is being phased out and is nowhere near as prevalent as it once was, so I can understand removing that parameter. However, most of these companies (like Crunchyroll/Funimation, Netflix, etc) do streaming as well as physical distribution, the latter of which is the main method for anime consumption, not only internationally but increasingly so in Japan too. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Anime warrants an exception because of how the industry works, as explained throughout this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion does not seem to have moved much for some time. @Sammi Brie, Wikipedical, Favre1fan93, Nathan Obral, Mrschimpf, Primefac, and Manche Captain: inviting participants from the past similar RfC here for their input. Gotitbro (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: Maybe the fields can be renamed, but I still think it is important to note which English companies distribute anime. Netflix for example "jails" their seasonal anime so that it can't be seen without a Netflix account for 3 weeks before being released to non-subscribers. Also people make choices on which anime they watch based on where it can be found, such as Netflix-only subscribers are unlikely to watch Crunchyroll-exclusive anime through Crunchyroll's platform. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The same can apply to films and television and I doubt readers use Wikipedia for finding the availability of content, also WP:NOTDIRECTORY would go against that (numerous services like Justwatch [personally use this], Yidio, Reelgood etc. exist for that purpose). Gotitbro (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral Sorry, anime is in no way my interest field so I have no opinion here about this infobox. Please do not ping further for this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm not quite sure how much insight I can provide in this field—most of us that got pinged by Gotitbro are not anime people and come from WP:TV broadly—but I did have an experience with {{Infobox television channel}}. I led the two-phase downsizing of that infobox to remove most of the channel name fields and abolish some of the cruftiest infoboxes we had on the encyclopedia. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE prescribes that an infobox shall summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The distribution of media content is a fragmented business by definition—that's why the axe was taken to Infobox television channel in the way it was. Is the distributor of an anime in the English language, or in English-speaking territories, a key fact about the anime that belongs in the infobox of the page? My gut feeling is no. That does not mean, of course, that it can't be mentioned in the body of the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the English licensor is not a key fact. In many cases, the English release/licensor is the only reason the series exists or continues to receive new content (see this for instance, along with the aforementioned Tribe Nine example, among a few others I can provide). Link20XX (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

December 10, 2022

If can you add more:

{{Infobox animanga/Video
| type                 = 
| title                = 
| director             = 
| producer             = 
| writer               = 
| screenplay           = 
| story                = 
| creator              = 
| based_on             = 
| inspired_by          = 
| developer            = 
| creative_director    = 
| presenter            = 
| theme_music_composer = 
| cinematography       = 
| editing              = 
| music                = 
| composer             = 
| executive_producer   = 
| news_editor          = 
| animator             = 
| layout_artist        = 
| background_artist    = 
| location             = 
| studio               = 
| distributor          = 
| licensee             = 
| released             = 
| first                = 
| last                 = 
| open_theme           =
| end_theme            =
| runtime              = 
| budget               =
| gross                =
| films                = 
| film_list            = 
}}

179.215.208.123 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)