Template talk:Infobox animanga

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Proposal to deprecate the "Demographic" parameter

[edit]

I don't see the benefit of Template:Infobox animanga/Print including the target demographic of a particular magazine/publishing label on the article's of every single manga/light novel being issued under that label. I would like to suggest that the parameter be deprecated and removed, for several reasons:

  1. It doesn't usually aid a reader's understanding of a particular series, as often the demographic of the magazine or label a series is published in is not a meaningfully WP:DEFINING trait of the series in question. It's also generally of questionable relevance, as the demographics are determined by the editorial boards of the publishing companies, and are not usually commented on in third-party sourcing. If the intended demographic is truly relevant, it can be noted in the article's prose.
  2. The demographic of a magazine or publishing label does not necessarily dictate the content of a particular series, or who it is aimed at or read by. An editor may push for a series outside the norm of what they typically publish in hopes of broadening the publication's audience, an author may intend their work to be read by a wider audience than the publisher intends to target, or an audience that falls outside the typical demographic of the magazine or label may pick up the series.
  3. Following from the above point, I believe that listing the demographic of a publication in the articles for every series they run fails WP:SYNTH, as it gives the impression that because the publication as a whole is targeting this demographic, the series must also be targeting it. This is not inherently true, and it should not be implied without reliable and verifiable sourcing that this is the case for that series.
  4. Similar details on the target demographic or intended age bracket of any particular media are not, as far as I can tell, noted in infoboxes anywhere else on Wikipedia. Template:Infobox book does not include a "demographic" or "age group" parameter, nor does Template:Infobox book series. Template:Infobox film does not include parameters for details about film ratings nor about target age groups. Template:Infobox video game does not include parameters for ESRB or PEGI ratings, Template:Infobox album does not have a parameter for whether or not an album had a Parental Advisory label, Template:Infobox television does not have parameters for TV Parental Guidelines or even for the time bracket in which a series aired (which is usually what determines or influences the target audience).
  5. If a reader is truly interested in the target demographic of a magazine or publishing label, they can simply look at the Wikipedia article(s) about the publications in question.
  6. Finally, the demographic parameter is often the subject of edit wars, with new and anonymous editors frequently changing the demographic to what they think it should be. I see this happen a lot particularly on yuri series, and also any series with a predominantly female cast, that run under publishing labels and magazines targeting a male demographic. I have been involved in many lengthy edit wars over it, and this has led me to question whether or not there is any benefit to including the demographics at all. After careful consideration, I do not believe there is.

To summarize: I think the "demographic" parameter in the Animanga Print infobox should be deprecated because the information is of questionable relevance to many series, violates WP:SYNTH by implying that a series inherits its audience from the target demographic of its publication (which is not necessarily true), is not a standard practiced in any similar infoboxes, creates more problems than it solves as it often leads to disruptive content disputes, and is not necessary, as, if a series is notable on the basis of its target demographic, this can be discussed in the article prose appropriately.

Any thoughts on this proposal? silviaASH (inquire within) 20:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The demographics of each manga is largely related to the magazine they are published in. I do think removing it is stripping it of some vital categories it could be under. For example, if you remove Anyway, I'm Falling in Love with You or Fruits Basket from their shojo category, that doesn't change the fact that they have always been and still are a shojo manga. The demographics don't necessarily indicate the genre. lullabying (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal isn't about categories. Category:Anime and manga by demographic and its subcategories would not be affected by this change, and a series could still be categorized in it if it is appropriate to do so. I'm only saying I don't think the target demographics are a universally notable aspect of every series, hence I don't think it should be an infobox parameter. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't basically half the readership of Shounen Jump girls/women anyways? Whatever the initial logic that targeted boys either already appealed to a wide audience or they morphed their logic to target a much wider audience (it is natural for a business to grow their readership). Shounen, at this point, is a misnomer. It is more a bunch of tropes/vibes that appeal to basically everyone. Maybe back in the 70s/80s the label made more sense. As for shojo/seinen/josei/etc I know less. Shoujo, like shounen, has a deep history and its own tropes/conventions that basically make it a (loose) genre in its own right. I suspect it also has a wide readership, but I don't remember any stats for that.
To me, it makes sense to keep the labels under a header like 'Genre' rather than demographic, but that conclusion is SYNTH. I haven't found a source that shares my view there, not that I looked especially hard.
Anyways, support. I favour removing the property from the infobox if it reduces edit warring (let people waste less time on infoboxes). The editorial bend of the magazine can easily be included in the lead like: Foo is published by the shounen manga magazine Bar Weekly. ⇌ Synpath 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the parameter is useful mainly when it comes to established magazines, where their demographic categorization can be easily confirmed (most of the print magazines from Shueisha, Shogakukan and Kodansha). The problem, in my opinion, is that nowadays the publication of digital manga has been massified, and many times even the categorization from the publishers themselves is not clear at all; for example, How Do We Relationship? was published on the Ura Sunday site, where Mob Psycho, which is considered as a shōnen manga, was also published, but the former has been considered by the publisher itself as a manga intended for female audiences,[1] Monthly GFantasy, according to our sources, is a shōnen magazine, but on Square Enix'sManga Up! website, Toilet-Bound Hanako-kun and Black Butler, series from said magazine, are labeled as shōjo (少女) and josei (女性), respectively.[2][3] According to our article, Champion Red apparently used to be a shōnen magazine, but now it is a seinen magazine (although I personally do not find the sources cited there enough to support this claim). And so there are many other cases where demographic categories are often arbitrary, since there is not much information from the publications where the works appear (I do not have concrete examples of this right now, but I am sure someone will have come across these cases). I am conflicted with this topic; for Weekly Shōnen Jump or Weekly Young Jump series it is easy to find information on the demographic categories of both magazines, and I see no problem in leaving the parameter in those cases, but there are thousands of other cases where this is not so handy and I think it would be better to remove the parameter altogether. Xexerss (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple. Given the current reality, gender-neutral shoujo is often published in shonen magazines to attract not only the target audience, but also guys and girls who prefer male-focused manga. While on the site itself, the title may have additional tags for additional categorization. You'll still have to buy a men's magazine to read a new chapter of Butler or Hanako anyway. The same goes for yuri in particular, which has long been a cross-demographic genre for an obvious reason. Tags in general are a rather confusing issue in recent years. Just look at the same yuri, when explicit lesbian titles remain without a tag, because the author does not consider it the main theme (for example, on MAL yuri fans even had to organize a flash mob to get Gushing over Magical Girls to receive it despite the lack of official categorization), while clearly platonic stories about intimate friendship, on the contrary, receive this tag due to the new concept that yuri is not only about romance, but also about strong emotional connections between girls in general. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards supporting this proposal, though I do have a few questions, like how will this affect categorizing series based on their demographics into categories like Category:Shōnen manga? Will those categories be deleted/reformed somehow or be unchanged? Because if the answer is unchanged, than your argument about edit wars is unpersuasive to me since they could just war over categories instead of the infobox. What Xexerss said above about digital manga is persuasive to me, though. Link20XX (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above to lullabying, this proposal is not about the related categories and I am not petitioning for the categories themselves to be moved or restructured in any way. I do not think categories are as problematic as a template parameter in the ways I outlined, since they are more freeform and also often overlooked by casual readers, and the inclusion of any particular type of category isn't baked in to a page in the way that a template parameter bakes in the assumption of one or more of a particular set of traits being applicable.
Categories for shonen, seinen, shoujo, josei or whatever manga/novels/whatever could still of course be applied if sources evidence that that is appropriate for the series. If there was no basis for adding a category to a page beyond whatever the demographic parameter said in the infobox, it should probably be removed, but we can deal with that on individual articles as needed very easily.
Of course, if changing the categories does show itself to be necessary, the outcome of this proposal would not prejudice against a future discussion being started about that issue (on CFD or wherever) if it's needed. I don't see it being a big deal, however. It makes sense to me personally to keep the categories so they can be used where there is consensus that they are relevant; although the film and book infoboxes do not have demographic parameters, Category: Children's films and Category:Young adult literature exist, and they don't pose issues as far as I can tell. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The idea of deciding categories on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me and our guidelines can be easily updated to suggest when to categorize based on demographic. My one major concern remaining is for works like My Hero Academia, Black Clover, or The Spellbook Library, where their demographics are discussed in the context of their creation or reception. For works like these, their demographics are a big deal and perhaps big enough to mention along with their genres, though that may be my own personal opinion. Link20XX (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can still mention the demographic in the lead of the article in those cases (My Hero Academia and Black Clover already do this) so I don't think it's a problem. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I find your explanation to be convincing, so I support this proposal assuming it takes no position on other issues, like categories or mentioning the demographic in a sentence like in the aforementioned articles. Those issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis unless it becomes clear wider action is necessary, of which for now I am not convinced it is. MOS:ANIME still recommends categorizing manga based on their demographic, but that shouldn't be relevant here. I do think our MOS page is a bit out of date in general, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Link20XX (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As noted, no other media infobox includes similar demographic or rating information, and I don't believe that it's more relevant to and important for manga (not all Japanese media, not even anime — just manga) just because we have loanwords for it. That's not to say the demographic should never be mentioned on Wikipedia, but that it's more appropriate for prose (body or lead) or categories. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a little over a week it seems like there's consensus for this change, so I'm going to file an edit request so that a template editor can implement it. We can discuss updating the MOS later. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter has been removed. I feel that it is now less necessary to assign a demographic category to series where it is unclear whether they have one in the first place, such as Akudama Drive, so I will proceed to remove the category in those cases as well. Xexerss (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the audience for a series is unclear, why not just set it as the default based on the magazine where the manga adaptation is published? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solaire the knight: What I meant with the example of Akudama Drive is that there is no evidence to support the claim that "Renta!" specifically publishes shōnen, seinen, shōjo, or josei manga, so claiming that the Akudama Drive manga is a shōnen (as stated in the article before the parameter was removed) was an arbitrary decision. Xexerss (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese article positions it simply as an online service or manga reader, without any indication of audience or targeting. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2025

[edit]

Remove the "Demographic" parameter from the Template:Infobox animanga/Print infobox, per the consensus to deprecate the parameter that was formed in the recent talk page discussion on the issue. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]