Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Shortcuts

The Executioner and Her Way of Life FAC

The article The Executioner and Her Way of Life is currently at FAC. If anyone would be interested in reviewing the article, which has undergone a peer review, verification of translations, and FAC mentorship, I'd really appreciate it. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tora-Con

Notice

The article Tora-Con has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOSCOPE; all coverage is from local Rochester media, RIT's own publications, or event directory listings (AnimeCons.com), with no significant national or international coverage establishing notability independent of the host institution.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting, I've opposed the proposed deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ranma ½ 1989 series and Hell Teacher: Jigoku Sensei Nube

I have three questions

First: is there anyone able to work on Ranma ½ (1989 TV series) from Ranma ½? Because 2024 series has been finished already

Second: is there anyone keeping the eye on List of Hell Teacher: Jigoku Sensei Nube characters? Because i just finished the outdated mistakes due the absence of sources and very mess and i spend hours to fix this

Third: is there anyone able to add volumes and chapters titles of Hell Teacher: Jigoku Sensei Nube sequels (Neo and S) and spin offs (Kai and PLUS) on List of Hell Teacher: Jigoku Sensei Nube chapters? Because there are missing on chapters list Venom5122 (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't get banned sooner, I might take care of Nube, since I only recently discovered the series and still remember the lore more or less well. But I can't guarantee anything. So, depending on what your request is, I might look at it after February 19th. I also wanted to ask, do you only need help on the original Ranma anime? Solaire the knight (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i need the help because splitting between two series had already began Venom5122 (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't guarantee anything since I'm in a difficult situation, but if after the 19th you still need additional help, I'll try to see what I can do to help. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Solaire the knight ok good luck Venom5122 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Taiwan Love Story⁵ § Title name?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Taiwan Love Story⁵ § Title name?. Saimmx (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Yumemakura and his works (with template too)

is there anyone able to add the works of Baku Yumemakura with the creation of his own works template? Because he became popular in Japanese literature like Osamu Tezuka

Here are some his works with adaptations i found them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baku_Yumemakura Venom5122 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kochikame voice cast on list characters problem

Is there anyone to fix voice actors of List of KochiKame characters? Because unfortunately is very mess and outdated Venom5122 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Love Get Chu

Please add sources. It is at risk for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list turned to redirect

The episode list for Candy Candy was boldly turned to a redirect for being unsourced for too long, it contains a lot of info, so it would be nice to try and save that I think. I will try to look in the coming days as well, but maybe some people here know a few easy sources we could add (current location List of Candy Candy episodes). Ajheindel (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese wiki lists offline sources: jp:キャンディ♡キャンディ#放映リスト. Google translate: Kadokawa Shoten "Complete Anime Software Catalog 1994" page 155, Animage January 1979 issue page 80 "List of all major works broadcast in 1978", Animage February 1980 issue page 47 "List of all major works broadcast" --Mika1h (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I went ahead and added it, I will keep my eye out for additional sources as well. Ajheindel (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added in a few English-language sources I found. Apparently there was a massive legal battle around the series which lasted for years, so ANN had a couple articles. Historyday01 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing article name

I have been improving the 100 Meters (manga) article based on the new film released. The article was written before the film was made, so having 100 Meters (manga) made more sense, but since the manga is not well known (hasn't even been officially translated to English) compared to the film, I think it would make more sense to rename to 100 Meters (2025 film). I have also written the article about the film, not necessarily the manga. Does anyone else here have any experience or opinions on the matter? Since there is already a 100 Meters (2016 film), it might be less confusing to stick with the manga tag as well. Ajheindel (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajheindel: I fear doing that would constitute article hijacking since the manga and the anime film adaptation are two separate topics. That being said, if there is enough coverage of the film, creating a separate article for the film is an option and there are several cases of this happening like Ghost Cat Anzu vs Ghost Cat Anzu (film) and Look Back (manga) vs Look Back (2024 film). Link20XX (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct, this wouldn't be hijacking. The manga and the film are not completely different topics, they are closely related. See WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The manga on its own would be non-notable or barely notable topic. The film is covered considerably more in secondary sources. --Mika1h (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the manga is notable. For one thing, if the film is notable, then the manga would meet WP:NBOOK 3, which says The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to ... a notable or significant motion picture. Not to mention that a quick search found some good sources in Japanese ([1], [2], [3]). If the film is independently notable, maybe a separate article is best. Link20XX (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to hijack anything, I saw the page on User:Link20XX/Plot summaries and added the plot summary. I decided to flush the page out with available information, but that mostly includes information related to the film. I was following what was done on the Miss Hokusai, which I feel is similar in terms of available information compared to the manga and film, and it summarizes everything compactly within just the one article. Look Back (manga) and Look Back (2024 film) feels like a bad comparison because there is significantly more coverage for both, the anime and manga were both highly acclaimed. 100 Meters is closer to Ghost Cat Anzu and Ghost Cat Anzu (film) in terms of coverage, but personally I don't really like the manga page, the entirety of that article could be summarized in a single paragraph on the film page and is mostly comprised of information about the film anyways. 100 Meters would be the same, everything is neatly included in the manga section and the table. I agree that the manga would be notable and could have it's own page, but that doesn't mean it should. I think splitting it up just makes both articles worse when it is not cumbersome for both to be included in the same article, but that is just my opinion. Ajheindel (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to accuse you or anyone else of any bad intentions, I was just concerned about whether that action could be seen as hijacking. In any case, it is true that just because something can have a separate page doesn't mean it should (see WP:NOPAGE), but I don't really think that would be the best outcome, since there seems to be enough content to have substantial articles about both topics. The current article is a bit short, but, as I showed above, there is room to expand it. Link20XX (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Doraemon (2005 TV series)#Proposal to standardize episode numbering and segment alignment

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doraemon (2005 TV series)#Proposal to standardize episode numbering and segment alignment. This proposal addresses correcting the long-standing numbering mismatch between broadcast slots and individual segments. MeloMaster (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Taiwan Love Story⁵#Requested move 8 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Taiwan Love Story⁵#Requested move 8 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How should Anime News Network be cited?

Currently, Anime News Network can be put in either the "publisher" or "website" parameter of citation templates. Generally, older articles tend to use "publisher", while newer articles use "website". This affects both the metadata of the citation itself as well as how it appears to the reader. I recently attempted to make this consistent by having the citations default to treating it like a website for reasons explained below. However, I was advised by another editor to seek wider consensus for the changes, so this is somewhat of a request for feedback.

My reasoning for the changes is that:

  • The documentation for general cite templates states: "If the work title as given by the site/publication would be exactly or substantially the same as the name of the publisher, do not use the 'publisher' parameter" [emphasis added]. Note that work title refers to the website name.
  • The documentation for the {{cite web}} template states: "Omit [the publisher parameter] where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work".
  • The guideline on citation use states "fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters" is preferable.
  • ANN is this project's most widely used source, and citing it correctly is important. Thus, if using the "website" parameter is correct, then this can be implemented as a one-time fix.

Skyshifter, who asked me to seek wider consensus, made some important counterpoints which are also worth considering:

  • Anime News Network isn't italicized in the prose of its article.
  • It is common for featured articles, which represent the best of Wikipedia's work, to use the "publisher" parameter for online sources. Thus, practice doesn't necessarily line up with the proposed changes.
  • The documentation pages are categorized as "how-to", which means that: they "explain concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community" and are "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus."
  • Considering it affects many articles, large-scale changes should be discussed and given approval with wider consensus.

As such, any feedback on whether such changes should be made, and whether it's reasonable to do so for many articles, is appreciated. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has also confused me for a long time, and I once asked an editor who has been on the site longer than me and who usually changes the parameter from 'website' to 'publisher' to know their reasoning, but they never replied. MOS:ITALICWEBCITE states Website titles may or may not be italicized in running text depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I have no idea why ANN isn't italicized in its article, given that it meets the criteria of being a news site with original content. I usually list it as a website rather than a publisher when I cite it, simply because it is an online news site and is not available in any other medium. For all these reasons, I would say that it should continue to be listed as a website rather than a publisher; it's not that I'm particularly opposed to the latter, but I don't find the reasons for doing so particularly convincing, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a rule carved in stone. Xexerss (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I usually use "website" because Anime News Network is a news website similar to something like IGN and Natalie, both of which are italicized. ANN does host forums and a user-generated encyclopedia, but these sections should not be cited anywhere as they are unreliable for obvious reasons. The only place it makes sense in my opinion to not italicize ANN is in the external links section, where the encyclopedia is linked. Other than that, though, I don't see how it's any different from other news publications. I can't say why it's not italicized on its article, though. Link20XX (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you two for your input. I checked the MOS:ITALICWEBCITE link that Xexerss provided, and it actually seems to provide fairly clear guidance, albeit in the notes. Quoting from that page:
  • When used by Wikipedia in a reference citation [...] titles of major works (e.g., websites) go in italics, even if they would not be italicized in running text as services, companies, etc."
  • "Whether the publisher name is substantially the same as the work name is immaterial; as the citation template documentation instructs, in such a case the publisher (not work) should be omitted as redundant."
  • "Do not [use] incorrect template parameters (e.g., by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=)) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources."
As far as I can tell, it seems to advise italicizing regardless of how the website is normally formatted (though I agree that ANN does seem to meet the criteria of a news site with original content). It also discourages using the publisher parameter when it's the same as the website parameter, both for reasons of redundancy and proper formatting. That being said, I just want to double check that this is correct, since I use AWB to make a lot of changes and it'd be a pain to change them all back. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I was an active editor, I always used "website" when citing ANN's news articles. It made sense—ANN never had a print edition, so "publisher" didn't fit. At some point, though, someone went through and changed all of those citations to "publisher" without offering any explanation or pointing to any relevant policy or guideline. From my perspective, it looked less like a standards-based correction and more like someone imposing their own personal preference. ~2026-10593-98 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Based on this discussion, it seems that "website" is indeed preferred over "publisher" for several reasons. For reference, I'd been working on using AWB and regexes to standardize citations by wikilinking ANN and changing the parameters, such as in this edit. If there are no objections, then I can probably get the rest of the articles in Category:manga series fixed within a few days, starting tomorrow. However, more input would definitely be appreciated, since the last thing I'd want is to have to deal with an overlooked problem after spending hours editing. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles with no plot

After noticing @Link20XX's discussion about how a lot of animanga articles lack a plot section entirely, I made a script to automatically search for keywords (plot, synopsis, summary, story, premise) in headings and then tag the article with the {{no plot}} template if none are found.

I tested the script (without saving my edits) on a sample of 100 random articles from Category:Manga series (excluding ones already in Link20XX's list), and it correctly tagged 24 of them. If this category is completely processed, it'll probably involve tagging around 1400 articles and adding them to a maintenance category, which is way more than I expected when I made the script. For comparison, Link20XX's list currently has about 390.

Since I don't want to embark on mass tagging without consensus that it'd be of use to this project, input on whether to proceed would be appreciated. Courtesy pinging Link20XX, who started the original discussion, as well as @Tebus19, @Ajheindel, @SimonLagann, and @Venom5122, who contributed to the existing list. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a maintenance category is certainly more efficient than what we have been doing now, as long as we were confident it was accurate. I am not sure how much this would help, but I don't think it would cause any issues. So far there hasn't been much of an effort to add plots to articles, just the shows airing soon since they have more traffic. For adding plots to pages with shows airing soon, I don’t think the category would help, the list Link20XX made will be easier to coordinate which shows are coming out that still need summaries. Ajheindel (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - it's great to see everyone making progress at filling the list, but this would be an efficient way to do it (it would take an estimated 5 hours), since once I finish tagging the articles, I could generate a list of articles from the category and then add it to Link20XX's list. I'm fairly confident the script accurate, since I manually reviewed the 100-article sample and there weren't any false negatives or positives. What Link20XX is doing with shows coming out soon is very useful (since it allows them to be prioritized), so this is really just meant to supplement this. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't mind creating a maintenance category or something like that, I just opted for the list so I could visually see which ones had an upcoming anime, which I am generally more interested in working on personally. Unfortunately, the backlog of pages is so great that I fear that the few people we have working on this are unable to make any real difference in the total amount, though we have now written one for all of the upcoming anime aside from the media franchises, which is good to see. Link20XX (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television#Requested move 17 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television#Requested move 17 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 08:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for Draft:Dog Ningen

Hello, HorseBro the hemionus here and I require assistance of creation of Draft:Dog Ningen as it is a notable comedy manga. However, I am completely inexperienced as I only create Military History related articles and no prior experience on Anime and Manga so could you guys please offer me support to the creation of the page? Thanks. The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 11:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseBro the hemionus: What evidence is there that it is notable (notable under Wikipedia standards)? This is a self-published comic, and there does not appear to be much coverage from independent sources. Also, as far as I know, this work was created by two non-Japanese authors, so it is not manga. Therefore, this is not the appropriate place to seek help regarding the draft. Xexerss (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pages need to plots

Is there anyone help me to add the plots of Chiruran: Shinsengumi Requiem, The Death Mage, Isekai Executioner: The Serial Killer in Another World, Record of Wortenia War, Biblia Koshodō no Jiken Techō, Hollow Regalia, Battlefront of the Great Powers and Vlad Drăculea (manga)? Venom5122 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Surely important. Just piggybacking off previous efforts, I checked the User:Link20XX/Plot summaries page and all of those are already listed there. So, I'm sure there will be someone to help. Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately, that page has gotten so long I think we're going to need more help to work through it. If there are any editors with free time, please help us. Link20XX (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to do some more, but some on the list are quite hard to find any info on, many don't even have summaries on the japan wiki. Ajheindel (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles need to create

Is there anyone able to create two manga series Pumpkin Night and Mikazuki no Kuni: Osman Senya Ichiya (or maybe this manga name is Land of the Crescent Moon: Ottoman's Thousand and One Nights)? Because i have noticed that both became more popular on social media (first manga about many homages from horror media works like Halloween, The Shining, Friday the 13th and more multi horror franchises, while the second manga became popular about featuring Islam Cultures set in Ottoman Empire that Turkish and Muslim people like this from famous author who cares about Islam religion like ramadan and other works that need to check out about author official account from Twitter/X) Venom5122 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Television series premiering online first

How should we handle the situation of television series that premiere online first? At least for series where the difference in days is not so great (say, no more than a week), I feel it would be fine to indicate the television premiere rather than the online premiere, but with Do You Like Big Girls?, the series will premiere online on March 13 and on television on April 6, almost a month apart. What I did was adding a note in the infobox reflecting this, but I don't know if it should be the other way around, prioritizing the first release date in the 'first' parameter, or listing the television premiere date. Xexerss (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the earliest date should be prioritized, and the note can mention the later television premiere since it is a bit non-standard. I know for films they put the earliest premiere date in the infobox (which is usually a festival or something like that), which is earlier than the larger release date. Ajheindel (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked WP:WPTV if they had similar situations and how they handled it? ~2026-14501-33 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ANIME