Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Prototype of "Extended" Infobox for Anime Video Works

I put together a prototype infobox example for anime works (infobox script is here). On the one hand, I think it's still as needlessly ugly as Infobox television, but I also think this is more so something the anime project should have as a part of the Animanga Infobox or otherwise (and in theory something any other animation projects should have). I tried to copy and mix the current Animanga/Television infoboxes and include more information.

I tried to include main staff credits from the major departments involved in the animation work oftentimes listed among the staff announcement lists or featured in interviews and analyses of work, which would be the sound director, art director, color designer, and CG director (the photography director/cinematographer is already listed). The addition of other key roles like "character designer" I think is a necessity, and that's something that I took from Japanese Wikipedia which sees it as essential to their infoboxes. "Animation producer" was added as well. I think it's probably the most important production credit besides the director, which is also why I've been including it on various studio pages for a while now. Projects focused on drawn/animated mediums should at least have the core roles in their respective departments, especially when they're always part of the major staff announcements as they are in this cultural niche.

"Developer" and "showrunner" are essentially useless because nothing in the anime industry maps to them, the only times these roles show up is on American co-productions like Pacific Rim: The Black, so they've been omitted.

"Writer" is a strangely vague role, but series composition and screenplay (aka "scenario" or "script") are better writing terms because they're standardized. There's a couple of instances where "head writer" or "chief writer" is used in anime, but these are exceedingly rare and tend to refer to the same job. Unless someone else can find several explicit examples, I can't imagine "writer" would ever be useful.

"Animator" is finnicky in the context of corporate animation production. On the one hand, it's kind of nonsense to read. "Animator - Studio" is a bad generalization, it feels like "Animator" was intended to only be used for individuals like Adult Swim segment animators and not for whole studios, and that this usage is some form of a compromise. "Studio - Studios" makes more sense because it's just an implication of them being production houses making the project and studios don't inherently do the animation. Pierrot is co-credited with Studio Signpost for Kingdom seasons 4-6, but they did absolutely no animation work. A-1 Pictures is co-credited for the entirety of Fairy Tail, but they didn't animate a single episode of the series. Listing them as "animator" seems incorrect. Not every studio is part of the production committee either, so these can't be generalized into that parameter.

To my understanding, an "executive producer" on anime is essentially just a "producer" (representative from a company in a production committee) but in a more senior position. I met with Egg Firm CEO Nohuhiro Oosawa a year ago and he said this was true for "chief producers", if I recall (basically "chief producer" = "executive producer"). Actors, directors, screenplay writers, original creators, and other staff are rarely ever given any sort of "executive producer" role, its usage in this sector is far removed from standard films/TV, so I see no reason to use it.

There's also "based on", "inspired by", and "created by" parameters on Television which I think are pretty hard to map. Romeo x Juliet credits Gonzo with the "original work" since it's seemingly an original story that is "inspired by" William Shakespeare's play, thus Shakespeare has an "original plan/concept" (原案) credit because Romeo x Juliet is not explicitly an adaptation. Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo credits Alexandre Dumas as the "original creator" (原作) because it's an adaptation of his book, meanwhile Mahiro Maeda has the "original plan/concept" credit. RWBY: Ice Queendom isn't exactly adapting any RWBY seasons, but Monty Oum has the "original work" credit while Gen Urobuchi has the "animation original plan" credit for coming up with the story concept. Then, there's the topic of "original character design"--adaptations of light novels, such as Mushoku Tensei (TV series) don't explicitly consider the artists (in this case, Shirotaka) to be the "original creator", instead crediting them "character design original concept" (キャラクターデザイン原案) or something along those lines. We list them alongside the authors, but then we don't normally list them for anime original works such as Moonrise (TV series), or even RWBY where Huke has an "original design" credit. This is a small inconsistency, but I thought I'd bring it up since the idea I had was to lump all of these together into a single "creator" parameter and to have efn notes where necessary (similar to what the Animanga/Header infobox parameter has already been used for). This would also include anime-original story arcs where someone has a specific "original story" credit (rather than using a separate "story by" credit for these rare instances). I don't know if that's a very good option, but the nuances of these credits are a pain in the ass and they're not always consistent.

Including what the original work is based on in the infobox takes up a lot of space, especially if we intend to credit the names like the original character designers and stuff. Listing the source material/what it's based on in the prose is simpler, but I understand if this isn't desired.

I understand why the "original language/original country" parameters there, but I can't imagine the summation to be generally useful outside of rare exceptions like Scott Pilgrim Takes Off or Ancient Girl's Frame, so I personally lean towards not having them (though I've included them here). "Anime" is pretty agreed-upon in Wiki definitions.

There's no "budget" parameter because it doesn't matter, TV anime budgets are never revealed, neither are film or OVA budgets. There are a few exceptions, "never" is hyperbolic, but I don't think it's worth including. I'm not so sure about how

The reason why there's a "Type" parameter is just so that it's easy to use with any format (especially since OVAs used to be popular, and ONAs are currently popular).

As for the lack of prepositions in the prototype ("directed by", "music by", etc.), I don't like them, but I don't have a strong opinion either way (I don't know if this is some sort of MOS standard either). Sarca sc (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If there's no discussion on this, I may as well start documenting it and working on refining and actively using it, then. Sarca sc (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sarca sc: I just took a look at the template I think you did a great work capturing the missing credits that anime usually will include. I would say you can go ahead and create one in the Template namespace since it's more of an extension of the currently widely used TV infobox than a rewrite. Also I've just tested on the infobox and you need to hide the "Related" section if it is not defined. Syn73 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also some params that needed to be changed, maybe it would be better to keep consistent with the TV infobox so migration won't be too hard? I see some changes such as voices to voice_cast and company to production_company. If these changes were to be kept it would be important to note all of these down so user won't have to manually compare and check the missing fields after migrating. Syn73 (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Syn73: These are good points, thank you for taking a look. Sarca sc (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Using the same example as originally:

• I didn't know how to hide the 'Related' parameter specifically, so I just put an autoheader in the script.
• I reorganized a few of the roles to be more... not intuitive, but sensical. The animation producer is now next to the studio, because animation producers are almost always from the studio(s) producing the work, and the producers are next to the production companies, as they act as representatives of those companies. It makes sense to me.
• Per recommendation, I changed voice_cast to voices to fit the already-used infoboxes, as well as production_company to production_companies.
• I considered a "Main_animator" parameter for individuals specifically credited as "Main Animator" or an equivalent role (i.e. Ryouji Nakamori on the first 250-ish episodes of Bleach, or Genichirou Abe/Shinya Takahashi/Maho Kandou on Virgin Punk). I can't add "Animation_director" because the modern industry likes to credit 20+ people on films these days (as opposed to the 1-6 or so pre-2010, don't even get me started on TV series), so I thought it might be a worthwhile inclusion of "important animators" for, well, animated series as I was going on about before. I think the infobox is probably unnecessarily large as it is, though.

I'll start working on the documentation (how to use the parameters and such), but I'm new to this whole process so I don't know exactly what to do. I'll try and figure things out. In my documentation I do intend to include specific roles of usage for what things are generally meant to be used for, or what is "accepted", but I want to keep things open for special circumstances, weird credits, and the like. We already have an index for Japanese credits here on the project, but of course this is specifically to standardize usage of the infobox itself. Sarca sc (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I've updated my sandbox with some page/template documentation stuff. I'm not sure what page I'm meant to publish it on, but I also don't know if I'm missing anything or should change certain things. If anyone more experienced on Infobox creation and documentation, I'd appreciate the assistance. Sarca sc (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I have a page Template:Infobox anime video and documentation page Template:Infobox anime video/doc but I clearly don't understand how to make it, well, work in mainspace. Help:Designing infoboxes might be the single most unhelpful article of all time in that regard(?). I have the script on that page but I'm not really sure what to do with it. Am I meant to make a module with the whole Lua script thing? I'm not sure. Sarca sc (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Update, I figured it out. Sarca sc (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sarca sc I think the template looks great, but I just noticed that for some reason, with this infobox, the article title doesn't appear in italics. For example, in Attack on Titan (TV series), should appear as Attack on Titan (TV series). Please take a look at that if you can. Xexerss (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I added support for automatic parameter pluralization and fixed the italic title issue. If we can establish a decent consensus, it might be possible to automatically convert many existing {{Infobox television}} usages in this project's articles to this template, which would make adding information in the future easier. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:50, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing those. I think there's a few other minor issues I have to touch up, but I'll get to those myself in time. This sounds good, of course I know nothing about automatic conversions to be quite honest, but I'll help with whatever I can. Sarca sc (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help. According to PetScan, there's around 428 uses of {{Infobox television}} for anime series. As far as I can tell, it should be convertable using a script to find and replace parameters and the template name, since no information is lost in converting to the new infobox. I'll see if I can get a proof-of-concept done this weekend (I have a lot of experience with script work), but ideally we should get everything polished and seek wider input from the project before actually doing the conversion run. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the developer= parameter for Infobox television doesn't seem to have a direct equivalent. Not sure what's the best solution for that; perhaps adding support for the parameter in Infobox anime video, while encouraging editors to use a specific parameter when possible? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Crestfalling: Some editors decided "developer" is the best compromise for "series composition", so 95-99% of all "developer" roles on TV anime infoboxes using Template:Infobox television will map to that (which I was petty about for reasons explained in the Big Wall of Text). That "1%" of actual "developers" working on an anime is international collaborations. The only one I can think of at the moment with actual "developers" is Scott Pilgrim Takes Off, I don't know if there are others.

If others think it's worth adding a "developer" parameter for these rare international collaborations, I'm fine with that, but I'm not going to personally push for it. My rationale being: anime has no "developer" equivalent, you'll only ever see it on shows like Scott Pilgrim. Same with "showrunner."

The only issue I'll bring up with this is that I might lean more towards keeping Scott Pilgrim as an {{Infobox TV}} page, because not only do they have showrunners/developers, they also have "executive producers" in the "western sense." In anime, 99% of "executive producers" are just "senior producer", it is nothing like what the American television industry does, you'll probably never see Hiroshi Kamiya as an executive producer like Nicolas Cage. Sarca sc (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. My main concern is that if I'm doing a AWB run to convert infoboxes, it's not really feasible to go to every article and check what the intended use of the original developer= parameter was (assuming 3 minutes per article, that would be around 21 hours for 428 articles). As such, I would lean towards retaining the parameter for backwards compatibility; there doesn't seem to be much harm, and editors can use the more specific ones at their discretion. As for articles like Scott Pilgrim Takes Off, they can probably be excluded from conversion using category search. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I went through the list myself. If possible, ignore these (international collaborations, Japan-outsourced animation, or not anime at all):

• Ulysses 31
• Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds
• Alfred J. Kwak
• Pecola (TV series)
• Saber Rider and the Star Sheriffs
• Dinozaurs
• Around the World with Willy Fog
• Baby Felix
• The King Kong Show
• Saban's Adventures of the Little Mermaid
• Ox Tales
• Once Upon a Time... Space
• The Olympic Adventures of Fuwa <-- Chinese animation
• Afro Samurai: Resurrection
• Scan2Go
• Monsuno
• Ketchup: Cats Who Cook
• Marcelino Pan y Vino (TV series)
• Moomin (1990 TV series)
• Ultraman Geed <--this is a live-action series actually
• Ruy, the Little Cid
• Bakugan: Battle Planet
• Star Wars: Visions
• Star Wars: Visions Presents
• Terminator Zero
• Gundam: Requiem for Vengeance
• The Haunted House Special: The Vampire of Light and the Child of Darkness <-- Korean animation
• The Haunted House Special: Joseon Exorcism Annals <-- Korean animation

Everything else should be fine unless I missed any. If you can't ignore them, we can probably just individually revert these specific ones. Whatever works. Sarca sc (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that should save a lot of time (and yes, I can filter those out). Is there anything else we should take into consideration before I do a test run converting around 25 articles? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. Sarca sc (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I did a dry run (using preview on most articles, and testing an actual change on one). Generally, things work out well, but a two things to note:

• Should the credits be in the style of "Directed by" or "Director"? It might be better to remain consistent with {{Infobox animanga}}, which uses "Illustrated by" and "Published by".
• The infobox doesn't quite support multiple broadcasts (e.g. an original and a re-release) yet. We could probably just use the code from {{Infobox television}} to maintain compatibility, unless you have any other suggestions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 17:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided rerelease broadcasts because I don't think they're worth noting infobox-wise. JA Wikipedia doesn't do it, {{Infobox animanga/Video}} doesn't do it, as far as I'm concerned only what is considered an "original release" is worth adding. You can see how many rebroadcasts Madoka Magica has had, so I don't really see a point in that being infobox-necessary information. I'm not really interested in objecting to it besides that baseline idea, though, so if others find merit, then whatever is consensus I guess.

We could do "Directed_by" etc., though I intentionally avoided utilizing prepositions in my design. Even though it would be consistent with other infoboxes, I think it would be inconsistent with itself: i.e., we aren't going to do "series composed by" or "animation produced by" because those terms simply don't make sense. I consider the prepositions generally to be a vestigial format of TV and other "western-centric" designs due to the explicit usage of "Directed/Written/Produced by" credits in American/European film and television, which is fine, but they're absent in this context. In English-licensed anime, the translated credits often avoid "Directed by" in favor of "Director/Chief director/etc", at least these days? Every credit in the original language, i.e. (監督), is simply the credit on its own with a name underneath (in this case, "Director."), which I think is a cleaner design either way. Ignoring the bizarre translations of the credits, you can see that here. Of course, I might just be very biased about this and looking at this from a non-Wikipedia lens as far as intuitive design(?), but I maintain my position. Sarca sc (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The prepositions seem fine, the parameter displays can always be changed using the template itself if anything comes up. As for re-releases, I think it depends on the article, as sometimes re-broadcasts can be relevant (for example, if it contributed to the anime becoming popular), and sometimes it's just trivia.

A few more things that came up during today's test run:

• Should "writer" be changed to "series_composition"? (leaning yes, personally)
• Should "animator" be changed to "studio"? (this seems to usually be correct usage of the parameter)
• I would personally prefer to keep executive_producer, as it seems to be quite commonly used in infoboxes and I had to skip a lot of articles to avoid loss of information in conversion. It's also been used in anime-focused reliable sources to describe credits (see this search from ANN, for example). Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Individually:

• Writer can be generalized to series composition for the most part.
• Animator can be generalized to studio for the most part. Technically, Infobox TV says you shouldn't do that, but I guess the Animanga editors did not care (lol)
• The reason I don't want to include "Executive producer" is because it's kind of a pain.
  • The first problem: The general "executive producer" (エグゼクティブプロデューサー) credit is the same as "chief producer" (チーフプロデューサー), which is what I see more commonly used, and it's essentially the same as producer (プロデューサー) but just in a more senior position. It would make more sense for this to be grouped with the "producers" than given its own parameter considering what the job entails. It is explicitly different from any definition of what an Executive producer does.
  • The second problem: There are a handful of roles like production executive director (製作総指揮) which is very close to or the same as how we use it in the west, so we could have an "executive producer" parameter for these instances, i.e. Noriyasu Agematsu's role on Princession Orchestra, but you wouldn't want to mix up this and "chief producer"-esque roles. I do not like the idea of mixing these things together, and it's kind-of counter-intuitive, so I don't know if editors would generally bother.
  • The third problem: Individual production committee credits (製作) are often translated as "executive producer", i.e. if you take a look at Takeshi Yasuda's ANN Enc page, you'll see "Executive producer, planning" for Is This a Zombie?, while his individual credits are planning (企画) and production (製作).

Sarca sc (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I see. Do you have any suggestions for what should be done with the info in the executive_producer parameter? Right now, I have to skip any articles with it to avoid an unknown parameter error in the new template. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd say just remove it. Mushoku Tensei had one for (制作統括)) this credit, which I think is better translated as "production supervisor", and I just removed it entirely.

If you or others are particular about having a useable "executive producer" field instead of outright removing it, I may be able to write a strict usage description as to where/when it's used with the "accepted" credit types laid out. If I was to do that, I could manually overlook the infoboxes that are currently using it and decide where it would be applied, as well. I've been thinking about doing this but changing the parameter name to something other than "executive producer", but I don't see any good alternatives, so I think this really warrants really thinking about it. Sarca sc (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

In general, I'm a bit reluctant to remove information outright with semi-automated tools (based on my experience, the practice is highly discouraged due to the difficulty of reverting en masse if consensus later changes). One possible compromise is to move the name to the "producer" field and add a parenthesized (executive) after it, but perhaps there are alternative possibilities as well. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks great! One thing I noticed is that in Template:Infobox television, it uses list_episodes while Template:Infobox anime video uses episode_list (which the new infobox uses). Should we have the new infobox accept both of the params? Syn73 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I didn't even notice that myself. We can add some other parameter alts if anyone can think of any that would be quality of life improvements. I'll probably make cinematography accept both cinematography and cinematographer because I constantly forget which one I wrote/the other infoboxes use lol Sarca sc (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I added support for those as alternative parameters, though I think "cinematographer" and "episode_list" should be preferred in the documentation (the former for consistency with every other parameter, and the latter because {{Infobox animanga}} uses it). Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding mechanical designer and machine designer parameters and later entries of Gundam, or Future GPX Cyber Formula or anything using designer credits like "Gundam designs" (seen in RG XARX-ZERO) and cyber machine design (seen in Future GPX Cyber Formula: ASURADA) or original yoroi gear designer credit (as seen in Yoroi Shinden Samurai Troopers) is it possible if it can be added in the first place? SBF2004 (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a "designer" parameter? I'm not sure if that'd be clear enough, though; open to any other suggestions, especially if you find examples of how reliable English-language sources name the credit. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

yes but still a parameter for mechanical designer or machine designer can move forward but regarding this..... idk about later entries using "Brand Name" designs for marketing purposes. SBF2004 (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples for reference? I'm not very familiar with mecha anime, so some context would help when it comes to understanding how such credits usually work. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam (79): character designs by Yoshikazu Yasuhiko and mechanical designs by Kunio Okawara

Ronin Warriors (Yoroiden-Samurai Troopers): character designs and chief animation direction by Norio Shioyama and Yoroi designs (branding) by Hideo Okamoto

Future GPX Cyber Formula: original character designs by Mutsumi Inomata, animation character designs by Takahiro Yoshimatsu and machine designs by Shōji Kawamori (Studio Nue) (branding, cause this show is about cars, for the OVA sequels, "machine designs" continued to be used while "Cyber Machine design" is used for the 2027 short movie (ASURADA) and mainly for branding purposes also regarding that movie).

Mobile Suit Gundam RG: XARX-ZERO: original character designs by STATO, animation character designs and chief animation direction by Minoko Takasu, "Gundam" (branding purposes alert) designs by Eiichi Shimizu. SBF2004 (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

and also regarding distributors, is it possible if a distributor parameter can be added to this template? SBF2004 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding distributor. Regarding "designer", you'd basically have to do some kind of "mecha design" credit specifically, you can't generalize it to "design."

• You don't want to start mixing in "art design" (美術設定) credits (this is a background art pre-production role). Fate/Extra Last Encore is a great example because it has "level design" (第[]階層デザイン) credits (related to art design), "seraph lettering design" (SE.RA.PH文字デザイン)) which is kind of an art-design role but for a specific thing, and a bunch of others like a "chakravati design" (天輪聖王デザイン) which... I don't really know where that would fall into honestly.
• There are also "firearm designs" (銃器設定) and "weapon designs" (武器デザイン) which you could argue might fall into "mechanical designs" in some instances; but these are probably more closely related to "prop design" (プロップデザイン)

Maybe a vague "mecha designer" with instructions as to specifically what is to be included in the template instructions (vehicles, robots, mechas, etc.). I'm thinking about how other editors may interpret these ideas. Sarca sc (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

does this include "brand name" design positions like for RG XARX-ZERO (Gundam designs) and Yoroiden-Samurai Troopers (Yoroi design). SBF2004 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I would include those, yes. As to how they would be concretely defined in written instructions, idk Sarca sc (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

there would be a custom parameter for either gundam designs, yoroi designs or machine designs in the infobox for each series entry.... SBF2004 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I would not use a custom parameter for these things at all. It would have to be an all-encompassing parameter with either a parenthetical or a footnote attached explaining what the credit/role actually is, but the "custom credits" would warrant inclusion in that kind of a parameter. That's what I meant. Sarca sc (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure genre-specific parameters that would only be used on a small fraction of pages is a great idea for an infobox. If it warrants a presence in the infobox, it seems to me better to do it in the form

• Jane Doe
• John Smith (machine designs)

in the designer parameter. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution to me; it's easy to use and would also allow editors flexibility to include custom credits without making the template too complicated to maintain. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@SBF2004: I've added distributor as a parameter, I'm still unsure of how to handle the design parameter. Sarca sc (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

On executive producers

Creating a section for deciding what to do with or without "executive producers", I've voiced my thoughts on it somewhere in the above but essentially, the primary "executive producer" (エグゼクティブプロデューサー) credit seen in anime is an extension of the "producer" credit for people in a slightly more senior position. Rarely is it used otherwise, but you'll see it now and then like on Moomin (1990 TV series) There are various credits that are translated as "executive producer" by reliable sources which are not really "executive producer" roles (the same thing happens with ordinary "producer", as well), such as (製作). On top of that, there are other credits that do generally mean "executive producer" in a similar way to how it's described on the executive producer page and what it's "meant" to be, like (製作総指揮).

The obvious problem is how editors, and people who read Wikipedia, might utilize this field for substantial, relevant information about a project, and combine these roles anyway. I really don't think we should have a parameter that encompasses all of these different roles in a single "executive producer" generalization. At the same time, I think there is a case for shows like Princession Orchestra or movies like Boruto: Naruto the Movie where (製作総指揮) or like credits are utilized and are highly contextually relevant as part of the infobox summation. While I want to ensure the infobox has a little room for elasticity in what credits fit where, if we are to consider this parameter addition, I think it should strictly be defined per the specific Japanese-language credit, or through contextual relevance as supported by a reliable English-language (or generally non-Japanese) source that does more than just describe someone as an "executive producer" (whatever that means). Sarca sc (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Pen names

Hiroya Oku recently announced that he is the author of Thunder 3. Given this, I'm wondering how this should be reflected in the article. Should the article change the author from Yuki Ikeda to Hiroya Oku and include the pen name as a footnote or in parentheses, or should we do the opposite, leave the name under which the author is credited in the work and include the real author's name as a footnote? I was looking for similar cases, such as Shin Kibayashi, whose works appear under the respective pen names that he used rather than the author's real name, so I'm not sure how to proceed here. WP:NICKNAME doesn’t really clarify things for me either. For now, I left the following in the lead: written and illustrated by Yuki Ikeda—later revealed to be Hiroya Oku under a pen name, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary to include this clarification in this way, or rather, to phrase it this way. Xexerss (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The lead could simply state written and illustrated by Hiroya Oku under the pen name Yuki Ikeda, with the reveal being mentioned in the "Manga" section (maybe include the date of when the reveal happened). The pen name should be kept in other sections such as the infobox. My point of comparison for this is musicians who have released material under an alias, such as Porter Robinson ("Ghost Voices"). Harushiga (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll go ahead and do that. Xexerss (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Ditto this. See examples such as "Taiyō no Uta (song)" (performed by Erika Sawajiri but released under the name Kaoru Amane), "Renai Circulation" (performed by Kana Hanazawa but released under the name Nadeko Sengoku). lullabying (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the clarification in the prose is good. Regarding infoboxes and leads, I tend to like crediting the person's real (or, mainly used) name and listing the penname as a footnote. I.e., the screenwriter for Bio Booster Armor Guyver, the second director of Ushūboro Tobigumi, Toshiyuki Tsuru on Naruto (TV series), etc. In the event that the person has a Wikipedia page, I like to either do that or leave it under the penname but hyperlink to the actual person. I'm not particularly consistent with this since, as you mentioned, there is no standard way of handling these cases, so I have no special opinion besides that. Sarca sc (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest doing the opposite because listing the real name and hiding the penname under a footnote will create inconsistencies with published information and cause confusion. For example, the writer of the Ojamajo Doremi 16 novels is Takashi Yamada, but he publishes them under the name Midori Kuriyama, and never has he been credited under his real name for those novels. Likewise the creator of Horimiya is Hiroki Adachi but they publish the comics under the name Hero. lullabying (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it ultimately depends on the context and what the page editors think. For Horimiya, this makes sense; if it's like, say, a one-time penname that a director or writer uses, I would use the other way. I'm not picky, though. Sarca sc (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Lolicon has an RfC

Lolicon has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Tokyo Anime Center

Is this facility notable? If yes, please add more reliable sources. If not, then please send it to WP:AfD. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming anime television series

Tinyirnfist0 (talk · contribs) has started removing Category:Upcoming anime television series category from articles concerning anime adaptations with new seasons set to premiere. Personally, I don't have a firm stance on this, but I do think this user should have started a discussion first before just doing whatever they wanted. So I'd like to hear more opinions on whether this practice should continue or whether the user's edits are justified. Perhaps a description in the category would clarify things. Xexerss (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really see a purpose for these edits without an existing basis. Sarca sc (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I removed them from upcoming anime television series because those shows were already airing. I thought being put under upcoming was pointless because further episodes were presented as under seasons or as part of the same show rather than separate series. If I didn't remove an anime franchise or series from upcoming anime television series, that's because the upcoming anime was presented as a separate series rather than another season of the same show.Tinyirnfist0 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable sources in classifying the genre of a given anime/manga

I recently noticed Z. Patterson's removal of some of the relevant genres for the BanG Dream! Ave Mujica article, which is fairly understandable since no sources corroborate the genre classifications. I want to reinstate the changes since they do give an idea of what Ave Mujica is tackling, but that made me first wonder which sites that classify a given anime/manga's genre are considered verifiable and trustworthy enough. JT0219 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@JT0219: Any source that is reliable and preferably independent and secondary needs to support the inclusion of the genre. All content must be verifiable. Please see MOS:AMCAT and WP:V. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

As I see it, Z. Patterson removed the genres because they were citing a source that is explicitly listed as unreliable. As for valid sources, these include those listed in WP:A&M/ORS, or primary sources such as the official distributors or publishers of the series would also work (although secondary sources are preferred). Xexerss (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

A genre classification from Anime News Network's specific work page (i.e. the thriller genre classification from Ave Mujica's ANN page) would still be considered insufficient, yeah? JT0219 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

ANN's news and review articles are reliable, but its encyclopedia is not, since, as WP:A&M/ORS states, it is user-edited. Xexerss (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Use of Template:Nihongo on lead section

User:Messhyu began transferring the Template:Nihongo from the subject that is on the first sentence of the first lede, which shares the article title, to the subject's alternative known titles, as what they did on Laid-Back Camp and Room Camp articles. I have reverted them and started a discussion here because per their edit summary, "should use nihongo template for original name". I have read the MOS:JAPAN and MOS:LEAD guides and I cannot find nor pinpoint where it says what the user said. Or maybe I missed it somewhere across the Wikipedia guides that we currently have. Centcom08 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV seems to apply here; [d]o not include non-English equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names. Also, the content in the Nihongo template is independent of the English title, so there's no particular reason to transfer it from one title to another. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this ok with Case Closed (Detective Conan) currently?

• Case Closed, also officially known as Detective Conan (Japanese: 名探偵コナン, Hepburn: Meitantei Konan; lit. 'Great Detective Conan'), is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Gosho Aoyama.

Messhyu (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Centcom08 Could you explain why the Template:Nihongo is used for English title while also being accompanied by the phrase "also known as (in Japan)" later? How does this differ from simply repeating the same information from Japan twice in a row? Messhyu (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

It is not simply repeating the same information... twice in a row. That is the definition of "also known as", because we have the official English title as the article title and the subject of the first sentence of the first lead paragraph, but also they have common names/titles that is commonly used somewhere (see MOS:LEADALT and WP:OTHERNAMES). User:Crestfalling already pointed in MOS:LEAD guide about the MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, so your edit made me confused as to why all of the sudden the non-English equivalents (in this case, the use of Nihongo template to introduce Japanese texts) are placed on the alternative name instead of the subject. Centcom08 (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The main reason I moved template from "Laid-Back Camp" to "Yuru Camp" is this original name ゆるキャン△ (Yurukyan) is spelled for "Yuru Camp". Both "Yuru Camp" and " ゆるキャン△" are appeared in Japan version. This is as same as Case Closed (Detective Conan). It would be more appropriate to apply the template Nihongo here to show spelling "Yuru Camp" rather than "Laid-Back Camp". Or remove this "a.k.a", use Template:Nihongo foot. May be I have violated any rules, but in terms of sentence structure, the phrasing here is rather poor because it repeats information from Japan twice. Messhyu (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Using Case Closed article is a bad example in our case because "Case Closed" is just the title used for English release due to legal issues with using "Detective Conan", the original title in Japanese when transliterated in English. That is why I agree the Nihongo template is placed on "Detective Conan". In our case, キャン was translated as "Camp" but retained the first part as how you read them (ゆる for "Yuru" and へや for "Heya") when romanizing the Japanese title. I think I get your point so I might edit the articles with better sentence structure, but still keeping the alternative names in the sentence since reading WP:OTHERNAMES, [a]ll significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. We currently have Yuru Camp and Heya Camp pages redirecting to their parent articles, since not all readers when searching "Laid-Back Camp" and "Room Camp" will use the official English titles. They might prefer their alternative names to look for them. Centcom08 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any problem about WP:OTHERNAMES. However, this bad practice is Template:Nihongo is explaining Japanese name for English title due to be article's subject, but this sentence later shows a alternative name later is a anglicized name which original from content in this template.

• Laid-Back Camp (Japanese: ゆるキャン△, Hepburn: Yurukyan), also known in Japan as Yuru Camp...

It repeats same information and spelling from Japanese twice ("Yurukyan" and "YuruCamp"), clutters this sentence.

Therefore, I want to fix it to:

• Laid-Back Camp, also known in Japan as Yuru Camp (Japanese: ゆるキャン△, Hepburn: Yurukyan),...

This sentence will show spelling "Yuru Camp" only once. If you think this is too long or unreadable, apply Template:Nihongo foot to hide the Japanese texts. Messhyu (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

You are repeating the same edit you did that got reverted and resulted in this discussion in the first place. I'm planning to do it as Laid-Back Camp (Japanese: ゆるキャン△, Hepburn: Yurukyan), often titled as Yuru Camp. I used "often titled" instead because when the original source, when adapted in anime series, the TV logo uses "Yuru Camp". If you still insist on your edit version, kindly follow WP:Consensus. Centcom08 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Not blame me. You reverted my edit and started this discussion simply because it wasn't to your liking. The situation is essentially the same as with Case Closed. No matter how much I explain, you are clearly determined not to understand. Regardless of how you try to justify it in the case of "Camp", the English-language release title "Laid-Back Camp" is still different from the original title in Japan, and the content "Yurukyan" in template is matching pronounciation with the "a.k.a" term "Yuru Camp" which is showing later, repeating the same information from Japan twice in a row and cluttering this sentence. I will not explain any more. Messhyu (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I started the discussion to avoid an onset WP:EDITWAR. I will just remove the also known as... from those articles since you keep believing that they are repeating the same information twice. That will be the WP:COMPROMISE. Centcom08 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding year of publication to short description

Around 90% of manga articles seem to have the short description "Japanese manga series", which is perfectly accurate but not as informative as it could be. Almost every other type of media on Wikipedia (books, films, music, etc.) have the year of publication/release. Is there any particular reason not to add that info to existing short descriptions, such as, for example, "2015 Japanese manga series"? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular reason, other than not using too many characters, but as long as the count doesn't exceed 40, as the guideline suggests, I suppose there shouldn't be any problem with including the year. Xexerss (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Use of logos in the Infobox

Recently, in the infobox for the Dandadan (TV series) article, the image of the original language's logo was replaced with the one used internationally. I looked for previous discussions on the matter or a manual of style, but there doesn't seem to be anything substantial. Some articles of non-English-language series use the original logo (such as Der Pass, Money Heist, Call My Agent!, Go! Live Your Way, and Better Than Us), while others do not (such as Generation War, The Eternaut, Tear Along the Dotted Line, and Girl from Nowhere). In my opinion, I feel that a logo, or an image containing the logo, should be used based on the original language in which the work was produced, just as WP:BOOK prefers the use of first edition covers. This discussion probably belongs in the television project, but I'd prefer to discuss it here first for a more focused approach. Xexerss (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Given the fact manga and anime originate in Japan, I concur that the original Japanese logo should be used in infoboxes. I believe use of the work's original language should apply in all circumstances. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

No question, use the original. There is only one WikiProject that insists on English infobox images regardless of the work's country of origin, every other one realizes how ridiculous that is and uses the original as the norm. Xfansd (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

What if the series' name was changed in Western regions? It has happened to several manga like X, Fuuto PI o Rave Master.Tintor2 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why that would matter. A work whose English release uses a completely made up English title shouldn't be treated any differently than a work whose English release uses a faithful translation of the original. In the case of any manga, the infobox image should always be the original first edition per WP:BOOK. Xfansd (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The original has precedence; I'd put an alternative English-language logo elsewhere in the article if it's important, imo Sarca sc (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

A draft about an Anime character

Welcome! I created a draft about Aki Hayakawa, a main character in Chainsaw Man, I hope there is an editor can review it soon. If you can review it, or if you can help me in develop the draft, or just want to develop it, you can participate and contribute. Thanks :) ألفريدو (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good but I have often been told in reviews to avoid quoting and instead paraphrase Tintor2 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Tintor2: but what do you think the draft needs? Do you think that it is ready now? ألفريدو (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

try revising appearance to be more objective. Tintor2 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome @Tintor2: I checked your hidden messages in the draft and revised all the problems, except for one because I didn't understand it, can you explain it? And can you check my edits to see if they was accurate and good or not? Thank you for your helping :) ألفريدو (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

looks well. Make sure every paragraph has a consistent subject like a formal letter. One paragraph could Focus on what is the appeal of Aki while the next ones on his most notable relationships. Three paragraphs looks like a nice goal. Also try referencing the appearances section with either the manga volumes or a third party sources that discuss it for better accessibility. I can see it become an artícle Tintor2 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)