Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Articles about anime and Wiki Loves Pride Project

Lately I've noticed that some anime articles with non-obvious or even non-existent LGBTQ themes have been added to the "Wiki loves pride" category as being created or improved by a project of the same name. When I looked at the project page itself, it turned out that it was aimed at improving LGBTQ+ articles. This confused me a bit, as it suggests that the added pages are dedicated to queer anime or have significant queer content, when in fact they are only about potential queer reading by journalists/fans, or even just have brief oblique mention about it, as in the case of the Anne Shirley remake, whose addition to the category was explained by the addition of a review where the author in one sentence called the friendship of two straight girls "an almost romantic friendship" in reference to Victorian tropes/the original book's oblique connection to Class S. So even the user developing the articles within the project was aware of the absence of any (objective) queer content in them, but added them to the project only based on an indirect mention in reviews. What do you think about this? Honestly, I can understand their logic a little, but I am confused by the project's lack of explicit admission of such an indirect connection and I can't help but think that in some cases it may mislead people about the subject of the article (not to mention that potential of this is endless, just think about the amount of all-female and all-male anime with fan shipping or theories). Solaire the knight (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to add the link to the discussion here, so people can join in if they wish to do so: Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride#Improving non-obvious queer articles within the project (participation of those in this WikiProject is strongly encouraged). Otherwise, my more detailed comments are on that forum, rather than this one.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion about the Animanga Infobox template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga § Proposal to deprecate the "Demographic" parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. I have proposed deprecating and removing the "Demographic" parameter from Template:Infobox animanga/Print for several reasons and would like to hear the opinions of editors about the proposal. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Listing chapters in manga

I would like to list chapters in some of the manga articles, but currently, a lot of manga are being published with never-before-seen bonus chapters as an incentive to buy the printed edition. For example, Cosmetic Playlover's first volume has chapters 1-7, but 1.5 and 7.5 are printed in between their respective chapters. Also, how would I go about listing one-shot chapters that have nothing to do with the manga? I had challenges doing this for Coffee & Vanilla and Mink. lullabying (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Fresh additions to the article about Class S

This is not exactly an anime topic, or rather only partially, but I am writing here because this is the most famous and closest to me thematic project. The thing is that yesterday a new user significantly supplemented the article about Class S (culture), but did it too freely, because of which at the moment the article has significantly lost its context and consistency (for example, their addition to the section on origins consisted of scattered facts about the development of sexology in Japan instead of information about the actual origins of the genre itself). I did not delete the text, because this is not a copypasta and not an original study, but at the moment it is just some set of facts without context and a single structure, so now a significant part of the article looks quite disordered. Can someone help me with this? I have set up templates with a request to rewrite the article or sections, but I do not know how long this will hang and it seems the user ignores my requests. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Atari no Kitchen!#Requested move 14 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atari no Kitchen!#Requested move 14 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification at Talk:A_Certain_Magical_Index#Splitting_the_anime_series_into_its_own_article and Talk:A_Certain_Scientific_Railgun#Splitting_the_anime_series_into_its_own_article.

A discussion is happening at Talk:A_Certain_Magical_Index#Splitting_the_anime_series_into_its_own_article and Talk:A_Certain_Scientific_Railgun#Splitting_the_anime_series_into_its_own_article that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- 184.146.187.43 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Again Stop!! Hibari-kun!

Good morning. I'm posting this here to get more diverse feedback. The thing is, the central character is currently described blurry as a transgender woman, crossdressed boy and non-binary character to somehow cope with the situation based on secondary sources and an assessment of the work itself. A number of users cast doubt on transgender identity and female/non-binary pronouns, as Hibari is never called transgender in the work itself and that the author is ambiguous about it, first saying that he "made the character transgender as a joke" but then responding to fans on his social media that Hibari is a man. While I don't think it's that hard and we should just display it in the article, a number of other users think we should ignore the author's later comments as "informal, contradictory, and made many years after the official manga was released." Which I think is blatantly selective citation of sources, but what do you think? Solaire the knight (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the way the article currently describes Hibari seems fine. Avoiding using any pronouns and simply using their name seems to be a reasonable way to avoid imposing any particular point of view regarding the character's gender in the absence of any authoritative confirmation. However, I haven't closely evaluated the sources, so I may be wrong. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like with Princess Knight it had to be done at some point, though I'm still confused by the latter's LGBTQ categories since Sapphire was never stated by Tezuka to be queer, rather than just an androgynous character (at the same time, critics and fans have the right to interpret this "girl with a man's heart" as they see fit). Then how about citing the very fact of the author's inconsistency/variability in this regard? This could also potentially prevent any misunderstandings and edit wars with anonymous users that I mentioned earlier, since Hibari is one of the most famous examples of a culture war in anime and manga. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable addition to the section covering the manga's real-life development. The overall manner in which Hibari is described in WikiVoice should probably not change, but Higuchi's changing thoughts on the issue are probably useful for readers, provided they're accurately described and well-sourced of course. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

He stated this on his official social media, but either way, I think we can also find mention of it in more recent articles about the social context of the title. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Code Geass season 1 for FLRC

I have nominated Code Geass season 1 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I have also nominated Code Geass season 2 for FLRC. The discussion can be found here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)#Requested move 20 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)#Requested move 20 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a valid dabpage

I noticed Sonic Anime and have doubts that it a is proper, since while all the entries are Japanese animations related to sonic, as far as I can tell none of these entries are called or even known as Sonic Anime meaning I have doubts that it’s valid. I’m also planning to mention this at WP:VG since there is some overlap. 67.70.101.124 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This should probably be either deleted or redirected to Sonic X. The OVA and X are two reasonable possible targets, although I'd argue X is the obvious primary topic of the term. The opening movies of CD and Riders... that's definitely pushing it. Those aren't distinct topics, those are just cutscenes in video games that happen to be produced by Japanese animators, in which case, why not also include the cutscenes of every game that has ever been developed by Sonic Team? Anyway, I've boldly redirected it to Sonic X; if someone disagrees, they can revert and start an AfD on it. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Cosmetics and beauty in anime and manga

I'm considering creating a new category for anime and manga by topic to sort the amount of "beauty-related" manga I've seen, but I was wondering what it should be. "Cosmetics in anime and manga" would be a good fit, but maybe "Beauty industry in anime and manga" to be more inclusive of other beauty-related topics like hairstyles? lullabying (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

After thinking, I decided to create "Beauty and cosmetics in anime and manga" as a category. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Beauty industry in anime and manga. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Article split at At 25:00, in Akasaka

There is a proposed article split discussion at Talk:At 25:00, in Akasaka#Article split regarding At 25:00, in Akasaka (TV series). Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Contrasting the original author and secondary source analysis in anime articles

While discussing Hibari-kun once again, Plifal raised an interesting question. In their view, if the dominant position among secondary authoritative sources contradicts or opposes the author's views and statements about the meanings and themes of their work, then we should perceive it as a "consensus among authoritative sources" and describe it, if not as fact, then at least pay close attention to it in the description of characters, meanings of the story, etc. I fundamentally disagree with this, since to me it seems like a substitution of the author's original intentions for secondary analysis of their work in the spirit of Death of the Author, but a user thinks that this is how authoritative criticism should work. What do you think about this? I have not yet seen such a radical case, but it seems to me that applying such rules to anime articles will quickly lead us to abuses, when headcanons of Western authors gain prevalent meaning over the original authors. The simplest example is Naoko Yamada several times denied her intentions to write Kumiko and Reina as more than friends, but with this approach her opinion will simply become equivalent or less important than a review of the show on some ANN. And that's not even mentioning more serious cases like Rose of Versailles or Sailor Moon, where critics really go off the deep end with their analysis of the characters' sexuality and gender identity. I am not against the analysis itself, interpretations or literary/cultural studies of works. There is no reason not to write about it. But in my opinion there is a significant difference between the description of various analyses and the real context and intentions of the author. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

i only see an issue in this instance since there seems to be a lack of definitive coherence between the subject's identity in the fiction and the author's. in 99% of cases these will align, but in the case of ambiguity i think it's a good idea to see what secondary literature says. in the case of stop!! hibari-kun! though, there doesn't seem to be a clear answer, so we should probably leave the article as-is (i.e. without the use of gendered pronouns). on the talk page i make the comparison to using secondary sources to describe the events of documentaries or reference works, while not 1:1, it seems to be a non-alien practice on wikipedia to understand and interpret primary material using secondary sources. important to this is that in no way do i believe that the author's perspective should be removed (or even given lower/equal weight) to scholarly consensus on this matter, rather it should entirely be context-dependent. i'm also unfamiliar with any past discussions or policies that may be prescient to resolving this question.--Plifal (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

If by understanding and interpretation you mean a separate description beyond the fact that the author is inconsistent in it, then I'm fine with it. It's just that criticism nowadays so often speculates on the identities of characters that hyperfocusing on it could indeed be an excuse for abuse. For example, when I read old analyses of The Rose of Versailles or Sailor Moon, I was surprised whether the journalist or researcher even understood what was meant. But of course, I'm not against describing it as a whole. For example, the same Princess Knight is not a queer work in itself, but it can be viewed through a trans reading in the 21st century, given all these tropes of "woman with a man's heart" etc. Either way, the Hibari article really seems to need a section analyzing the portrayal of gender and sexuality in manga, since people out of context don't seem to understand why it's even a question. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

i agree that a section dedicated to the analysis of gender is warranted. the difference i see with, e.g. princess knight is that the protagonist specifically (and consistently) identifies with womanhood throughout the manga, even if there is room for queer readings, i think the character within the text itself (as well as tezuka's intentions) are clear. this clarity does not exist for hibari, where even though the mangaka's intentions are known to us, the character's are not. hence why i see occasions where the intervention of secondary sources that have formed a consensus may be used to clarify such issues.--Plifal (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Understanding why the author doesn't consider the character trans despite the writing might help here. His answer might also bring some clarity to the perception of the character themselfs. But for that, you'd need to interview him or ask someone to respond to this on Twitter. For example, in a similar case from One Piece, Yamato considered herself a man because her femininity was suppressed and she was forced to have a great male warrior as a gender ideal and reference point. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)