Template talk:Infobox animanga

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Genre sources

[edit]

Is there any consensus to provide sources for genres? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? A hidden note is usually left in the parameter that says, Use and cite reliable sources to identify genre(s), not personal interpretation. Please don't include more than three genres (per MOS:A&M). Xexerss (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant... I was wondering if there are archived talk pages of this template or a Wikipedia:Village pump about requiring reliable sources to identify genres. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand better now. I haven't actually checked the past discussions that led to that requirement being established, but given the WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH policy, I assume that at some point that discussion arose in order to adhere to the site's guidelines. Xexerss (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, which all content must adhere to. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2025 – adding "color" attributes to headerstyle & subheaderstyle parameters to address Lint errors

[edit]

Noticed that this template may be contributing to some of the "Background color inline style rule w/o text color" Linter errors due to the headerstyle & subheaderstyle parameters having "background" attributes defined without "color" attributes. Would it be possible to have "color:black;" appended to both parameters as shown in bold:

  • subheaderstyle = background:#CCF; font-size:125%; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold; color:black;
  • headerstyle = background:#DDF; padding:0.3em; line-height:1.3em; font-weight:normal; color:black;

If you believe this is an inappropriate request that's fine, but thought I'd suggest it in case it's a valid/simple option for knocking out a few inherited Lint errors in articles. SirOlgen (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the Template:Infobox animanga/Header btw. SirOlgen (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2025 – apply requested header template change to print template as well

[edit]

Similar request as what I've made for Template:Infobox animanga/Header, but for Template:Infobox animanga/Print to reduce "Background color inline style rule w/o text color" Linter errors related to that template. Would it be possible to have "color:black;" appended to both parameters as shown in bold:

  • subheaderstyle = background:#CCF; font-weight:bold; color:black;
  • headerstyle = background:#EEF; font-weight:normal; color:black;

Thanks! SirOlgen (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2025 – apply requested header template change to video template as well

[edit]

Similar request as what I've made for Template:Infobox animanga/Header, but for Template:Infobox animanga/Video to reduce "Background color inline style rule w/o text color" Linter errors related to that template. Would it be possible to have "color:black;" appended to both parameters as shown in bold:

  • subheaderstyle = background:#CCF; font-weight:bold; color:black;
  • headerstyle = background:#EEF; font-weight:normal; color:black;

Thanks! SirOlgen (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add a chapter and season parameter respectively for manga and anime sections

[edit]

Is there a reason that the manga and anime sections in this infobox doesn't have respective chapter or season parameters to directly correspond with volumes and episodes? That seems like essential and concise information that nearly every animanga title has. Not to mention, it doesn't make any sense to me that the manga section's infobox has a parameter that reads out as "List of volumes", but when you actually click on the article, the title for it is "List of [insert animanga title here] chapters" and then additionally contradicts this title with a "Volumes" section. Has there been any open discussions about these matters before and would anyone support such changes if not? I would like to get more thoughts about this matter from other editors, so reply below. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like to see the "List of X chapters" renamed to "List of X volumes". However, there were concerns that the renaming would prevent editors from adding released chapter titles that have not been collected into a tankōbon into the articles. But outside of "List of X chapters", the number of released chapters is rarely mentioned in an article. Therefore, in keeping with MOS:IBP and specifically "infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." I do not see a need to include a |chapters= parameter into {{Infobox animanga/Print}}.
Now the proposal to add a |seasons= parameter is a bit more complicated. Long running anime, such as One Piece, and Naruto and Bleach before then, do not have formal seasons but instead are divided into arcs. And until recently, there was a trend for each new "season" to get its own unique name or treated as a separate series altogether. It was mainly for that reason (and that most anime only ran for one season) that the |seasons= parameter was left out of {{Infobox animanga/Video}}. It has only been recently that we started seeing anime self-identifying as "Season 2" or "Season 3". So this is a topic worth reconsidering. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'd like to say thanks for responding to my proposals. When proposing the chapters parameter, I was basically visualizing it akin to episodes from TV anime and still think it's worth getting a few more opinions on this proposal. And believe it or not, One Piece actually does have a formal season sorting based on the original Japanese home media release, but for some reason this is largely ignored by the populous. Naruto is kind of a grey area since they called them "stages" in their release and have various season splits depending on the distributor. But back to the topic at hand: If you believe that a TV season parameter is reasonable, then a consensus should be held.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2025: Incorporate some parameters from Infobox television

[edit]

I like to request an edit to incorporate a couple of parameters from Template:Infobox television. While the studio stays, please kindly add the list of parameters: "Voices of", "Opening theme", "Ending theme", "Executive Producer", "Editor", "Cinematography", "Runtime", "Production companies". These would be very useful for a multimedia franchise such as Lycoris Recoil and Girls und Panzer since they never used the Infobox television template. 142.114.210.241 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no prior discussion that has determined a consensus justifying this addition, and you cannot just come and ask for it because you want it. Xexerss (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a discussion can help. It has not be done for years now. 142.114.210.241 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are frivolous parameters that were purposely left out of {{Infobox animanga/Video}} because the information is trivial and, due to the nature of the infobox itself, would cause excessive template bloat. {{Infobox animanga/Video}} is suppose to be a stripped down version of {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox film}} and the fields in the infobox should only be the most relevant for that reason. If the details are relevant, they can be mentioned in the article text. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum Another thing about an infobox is that it is suppose "to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article". (MOS:IBP) MOS:INFOBOX goes on to state, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Again, the fields that IP user 142.114.210.241 wants to include are not what I would consider "key facts" but falls into the area of trivia and should generally be left out of the infobox. Especially since most of the information in these fields are rarely mentioned in the article text. And in the case of OPs and EDs are better covered by the article text, especially for multi-season TV series. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Music to my ears. Speaking of which, the music sections on some articles on any series that have major recognition deserves to have its own article. It worked for Music of My Hero Academia for instance. 142.114.210.241 (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above. Infoboxes are intended to contain specific, summarized information about the work in question and its related works. They are not intended to detail every additional aspect related to them. For example, including all the musical themes for a long-running series would make the infobox excessively long, thus contradicting its original purpose. Xexerss (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Would that be possible to add the ANN links on each anime TV series to the external links section? Those have more prevalent details containing each staff member and production committees involved, vice versa. 142.114.210.241 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The links to Anime News Network entries are there because they host news articles, reviews, and other content related to each series. They are not there for encyclopedic information, which is user edited and therefore unreliable and should not affect the editing of our articles. Xexerss (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although these are user edited, most of them are sourced from the Japanese credits in their official anime websites, which is mostly in Japanese which is not a hard task to translate into an English language. 142.114.210.241 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to the ANN Encyclopedia is off topic for this discussion, however, I believe the principals on linking to official websites outlined in WP:ELMIN should likewise apply to the ANN Encyclopedia. ANN Encyclopedia articles are already interlinked, so one link from Wikipedia is all that is necessary. We should not be creating multiple links to the ANN Encyclopedia in the same article. --216.30.146.154 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add network when adding live-action television films to the template

[edit]

Is it possible if the network information can be added when a tv film is added into the template since even when I add the network information, it simply disappears. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The animanga template has several parameters that deal with international licensing and release: | licensee, | network_en, | publisher_en and | magazine_en. The first two are under Template: Infobox animanga/Video, the latter two are under both under Template: Infobox animanga/Print. I suggest that these parameters be deprecated and removed, for several reasons:

  1. Unlike other parameters that list historical fact (studio, original network, etc), a licence is in the present — and things can change. Agreements expire, companies merge or go under. Patlabor was originally licensed by Central Park Media, but since they went out of business, it's been picked up and distributed by Maiden Japan. Yotsuba&! was published by ADV until they exited the manga business and then picked up by Yen Press. Pumpkin Scissors was licensed by ADV until they went bankrupt, picked up by Funimation for its final releases, and is now under Crunchyroll following corporate restructuring. And so on and so on. If it's older than, say, a decade, chances are it's been released by more than one company. It's similar with English networks: shows can always get picked up for a broadcast years down the line, by different stations, which get to be their debut in that region. So this is a much more complicated parameter than the others, and one we actually need to keep up with.
  2. Licensing deals can get complicated. Some titles are licensed to different companies in different regions (Baccano!, Pokémon Adventures). Sometimes the streaming and video rights go to different companies (Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken!). Sometimes a company will sub-licence it to another party for distribution and whatnot (Super Dimension Fortress Macross). Sometimes all of that seems to happen at once (Vinland Saga (TV series)). It's not impossible to display all of this, but…
  3. … franchises that have passed through many hands get lengthy, especially if they've done so in multiple regions (just check out how long the list of licensees is for Gunbuster, or the English networks for Cowboy Bebop). So that immediately raises the question of how best to present this info. Do we list every licensee? Just the current one? Maybe the current one with a footnote? All three of these approaches have been used in one of the examples above. While we could decide on a standard here and now, I think each has its shortcomings: listing all of them is lengthy (and will only get longer), but only listening the latest ignores that the previous licensee might have played a larger role in its international release (translations are often reused), and relying on footnotes is kind of like sweeping it under the rug. There also isn't really any way to cut back on regions unless we decide that certain regions are simply unimportant… which isn't a good look.
  4. Finally: other media infoboxes don't do this. Template:Infobox book doesn't include international publishers, (eg: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), nor does Template:Infobox television (The Killing (Danish TV series)). Template:Infobox film does have a "Distributed by" line, but the documentation says it's only for the country or countries that produced the film — not for anglophone distributors (and if no American company was involved, then they just don't get listed at all). This also leads to something a little strange: because anime films typically use the film infobox, rather than the animanga infobox, we get situations where the franchise page lists the English licensees but an independently-notable film does not (eg: Akira (manga) and Akira (1988 film), or Revolutionary Girl Utena and Adolescence of Utena). If a reader goes from one to the other, they might even be left with the impression that the film never left Japan (at least if they don't read the page fully).

Ultimately this just doesn't seem like something worth having in the infobox. It's out of step with similar boxes, and a bit of a headache to deal with. I can understand why this was put in the template when it was first made, since the international anime and manga business was still relatively new (and it was rare for something to have been licensed by multiple companies, or aired across multiple stations… if at all)… but these days, it's much more complex, and complexity leads to bad infoboxes.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not advocating that this information be removed from articles entirely. International licensing can, and should, be discussed in the body. One of the benefits to covering this info in prose is that it the more complicated licensing agreements (sub-licensing, multiple companies having streaming rights, etc) can be explained in proper detail instead of crammed into footnotes and parentheses.

Let me know what you think. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed a few years ago, but ultimately didn't create consensus to make any change; see here. All the stuff I wrote then still applies, so I would largely oppose this. Link20XX (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So as I understand it, the main argument in favour of these parameters is that the English licensor often plays an important role in the series' international popularity. I fully agree with that. But where I disagree is that this parameter is the best way to communicate that information, or that it even is communicating that. Look at Cowboy Bebop: the infobox lists Crunchyroll (formerly Funimation) as the English licensee. That's accurate information as to who holds the license in 2025, but it was Bandai Entertainment who originally brought it to North America, whose translation and dub is still used to this day, and who is fundamentally responsible for its popularity — Funimation only scooped it up after Bandai went out of business. But looking at the infobox, a reader wouldn't know about Bandai's role at all, and misattribute it to Funimation (or hell, even Crunchyroll!). You might say that, well, let's just put Bandai in there too, with "(former)" in parentheses… but as I said, listing every company quickly leads to excess and bloat. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the past discussion, I advocated for changing the parameter's documentation so that only maybe one or two companies should be listed there, and if more is needed, perhaps we could say something like "see below" or omit it (kinda like the film infobox). Link20XX (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate Even back when I was are regular editor during the 2010s, I had issues with the |XXX_en= parameters and thought they promoted an inherent systemic bias towards English language publications in the articles. We already have enough problems with systemic bias in the reception sections; we shouldn't have it in the Infobox too. The former can be resolved by introducing reviews from reliable foreign-language sources. But the latter can not be resolved in such a manner. The |XXX_other= parameters were deprecated in 2010 because of usability, sourcing, and general vandalism. Kawnhr brings up good points about how the |XXX_en= have become similarly unwieldy and that there are no equivalents in other corresponding Infobox templates because of their systemic bias. Anime and manga aren't unique nor special compared to films, comics, or television series to justify having English-specific information in the Infobox. It's time to remove them to eliminate one more point of systemic bias. 216.30.146.154 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with many of the statements here. Including English releases in the infobox is the standard for books and video games, plus films sometimes include it too, so it's not unprecedented or unusual. In general, the parameters are not that long either. There are a few bad cases, but the majority of the time it's just one or two lines, which is shorter than most other parameters. Vandalism should be reverted on a case-by-case basis and does not require us to remove a piece of the infobox. Another point which I brought up in the previous discussion is that these licensors often help produce or otherwise fund the title, like in Tribe Nine. Link20XX (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No offence, but this seems like an exceptionally bad use-case. There is nothing about the infobox on Tribe Nine that indicates Funimation co-produced the series, because the infobox looks identical to a series like, say, Revolutionary Girl Utena (a series that did not receive funding from its English licensor). If you hadn't mentioned this about Tribe Nine, I genuinely never would have known about Funi's role in the series (well, until I read the #Anime section). If we feel this is an important thing to note, then perhaps we need to have a | Produced by parameter, because using one parameter to indicate something else is not at all clear to anyone not already in the know. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposse: The main purpose of the infobox is to summarize the information in the body of the article. Therefore, I think that licenses in English-speaking markets are relevant enough to not be omitted from the infobox. I find it, however, unfortunate that the infobox often contains information not supported by sources in the body of the article, including licenses and networks (especially these) that are there simply because some editor decided to add them, but this is solely the editor's fault, not a problem with the templates. As long as the licensing information corresponds to what is shown in the body of the article and is properly cited, I think it is useful to maintain these parameters. Also, they are useful for allowing readers to quickly see if these series have been or not (by omitting parameters) released in English. Xexerss (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]