Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime and manga

a question, as asked.

Over by Kakegurui when applying the template. (example A) I see an edit screen as used like example B. Then as advised from here.

example A;

:{{voiced by|[[Actor A]]|[[Actor B]]}}

example B;

:{{Voiced by|[[Actor A]]}} (Japanese); [[Actor B]] (English)

then at example B isn't that redundant? when {{voiced by|[[Actor A]]|[[Actor B]]}} the template will automatically insert the spoken language there. Unblue box (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Example B isn't taking advantage of the template. I've fixed those entries in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's that when usually if some shows had told new casts, for a while I've been seeing the edit screen like example b, other than at Kakegurui. While in any process as number of shows has added the cast/ characters. I didn't see similar edits like that. When it was the fall season. (october to december) Unblue box (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Unblue box: I’m not entirely sure what the question is, but, quite simply: Example B is doing it wrong. Go ahead and fix it (or ask for help fixing it) when you find it like that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I first asked this at the 'wiki help category' then it led to asking the 'help desk'. Then to here, but at the time was there a uptick in edits? And one character had example b, where as out of maybe seven other characters had used example a. But that can be in one page/ article, and later on, who knows if there was more.

Also I'm not that 'keen' on that. Because to a new job shift, etc. (Well being a little busy, from part-time to full time.) Unblue box (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RFC closure with regards to use of (anime) for TV series

An RFC was held at WP:VPP with regards to whether (anime) was a suitable disambiguator. The full discussion and closing statement can be viewed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?. As a result, no change to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) guideline is in order, and any television series of the anime genre is eligible to be moved to titles using (TV series). This change should be incorporated into MOS:ANIME#Article names and disambiguation.

My suggestion is that for any series (i.e. those that clearly aired on television in first run) can probably be moved uncontroversially - with redirects left in place. Some anime series were released direct-to-video, and may need formal WP:RM discussions to determine if they are "(TV series)" or "(film)". I would also suggest full RM discussions for any series with a name that conflicts with another TV series and needs WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 12:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well this outcome is just going to effect big name franchise anime such as Pokémon, so it shouldn't be that big of an impact. Most articles combine all of the franchise into one article as to pass notability requirements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Instructions for lead section for works adapted into multiple forms of media

As I mentioned in my edit summaries, I still disagree with the instructions that the lead section should always introduce the original work first when a title has been adapted into multiple media. That section was last discussed a few years ago (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles/Archive_7#Proposed_change_to_guideline_for_lead_sections_of_series_articles), which resulted in no consensus on that section. I personally think the lead section should introduce the most notable work or media first, even if that is not the original portion of the franchise. This should be judged by coverage in reliable sources. If the series has multiple works that seem equally notable, I think the original work should be mentioned first, but other works in the franchise should also be mentioned in the lead. I believe this would be more in line with the instructions in MOS:LEAD, which says "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences" and "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence". I propose rewording that section as follows:

Articles about series which have been adapted into other media should introduce the most notable portion of the franchise first, as judged by coverage in reliable sources. All portions of a franchise that contribute significantly to the series notability should be mentioned in the lead. If an original work and an adaptation are equally notable, the original work should be introduced first. For example: "Bleach is a manga series which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series based on a manga of the same name."

I think this alternate wording would still prevent people from just listing the part of the franchise they like best or think is most popular, while also being in line with WP:LEAD. As an example of a case where I think an adaptation is significantly more notable than the original work, see Whisper of the Heart. That article currently ignores our instructions, and introduces the adaptation first. I believe that is the correct way to introduce such a work, and we should make it clear that is correct in our instructions. Calathan (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018. This is a requested move looking to establish a consensus on how to name "OVA" series-type anime titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Case Closed -> Detective Conan again

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Case Closed which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_character, in-universe parameters, and consistency between different media

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes about countries/territories relevant to the English speaking world

The MOS states that if there are multiple translations, use the ones that contributed the most to the series being known to the broader English speaking world.

It would be a good idea to find out what countries constitute the English speaking world in regards to officially-distributed English language manga publications, as the project uses those to determine which names used in articles. I found VIZ Media and Shogakukan Asia, which publicly post which countries they distribute to.

• VIZ: Digital Shonen Jump is available in United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Philippines, Singapore, and India. Print publishing and sales done in all except Singapore and the Philippines.
  • Country notes: Most are counted as native English speaking countries, while the last four use English in administration/business but people generally have other native languages.
  • I believe only Shueisha titles are given to the full VIZ area. When I last e-mailed VIZ about Case Closed (a Shogakukan title) to determine whether it is distributed in India, the answer I got was that it was distributed to the US, Canada, UK, and Ireland only. (If you think this has changed, you're welcome to e-mail VIZ again)
• Shogakukan Asia: Its network includes Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei.
  • Country notes: Singapore uses English as its main administrative/business language, English is one of two official languages of the Philippines, and both countries are also in VIZ's distribution network. Malaysia has English as a recognized language as per Article 152 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and National Language Act 1963/67. Brunei is bilingual in English and Malay.
  • While the list also includes Indonesia and Thailand, these countries are not generally included as English speaking countries.

It may be good to find other major English manga publishers and determine which countries they distribute to. I haven't had luck determining if Kodansha USA officially distributes to other countries, and I haven't found Yen Press or Tokyopop's lists...

Note there are other countries and/or territories which have English as am official and/or major language (many in Africa, plus Malta, Pakistan and other South Asian countries, and Hong Kong), but they don't seem to have official distributions from English-language manga publishers. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Characters introduction order in list

About the list of characters, I found that some pages use the official character order (ex. Pokemon Adventures), and some use the character appearance order (ex. Sailor Pluto in Sailor Moon (obviously she is the ninth Sailor Guardian by official character order), and Pop in Magical DoReMi (obviously she is the seventh Witch Apprentices by official character order)) . Should Wikipedia use the official character order? Lucas two (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucas two, this depends on the media covered. If it's originated from a manga, then follow character introduction order in the manga. If it's original from anime television series, then follow anime episode order. MOS:TVCAST For cases where multiple characters are introduced with a single episode / chapter / film, you can follow closing credits order or title card order, or web site, so you don't need to distinguish between when the character showed up in an earlier scene. If there are a ton of characters, as with List of One Piece characters, List of Pokemon, List of Negima characters, List of One-Punch Man characters, you may opt to reorganize in other ways, such as by alphabetical order or number order. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are articles about anime and manga lumped into one big article but other countries' articles are split up per entry?

As an example, look up any anime on Wikipedia (Beastars, for example): It will most certainly direct you to the manga page with tiny sub-sections about any adaptations into other media like OVAs, Anime TV series', Video Games, etc and if there is a separate page, it's usually only a list of episodes and only because the episode list is "long".

Now do the same with any other media made anywhere else, I'll use Mortal Kombat as it's relevant right now with the 2021 movie coming out. Searching "Mortal Kombat" brings you to the franchise page but each and every type of derived media: every video game, movie, TV series, Music Album, and Comic book series has its own page.

Why isn't Japanese media treated the same? When searching, I want to get a high-level overview about the TV show: how it was produced, the history, etc; but when the article is structured so it's 99% about the manga with "here's an episode list of the Anime that was produced years later" that isn't helpful at all and very frustrating/infuriating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:1610:E059:B1D7:26E6:4100:B8F9 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Because there isn't enough information to justify a separate article. You're imagining this project is tossing away information to keep everything in one page, when the truth is there isn't enough information to create one. Look at Bleach (TV series), I would just merge it because all its "production and history" is written in a non-concise way. Other language articles?; No, most of the anime manga articles here, that are in decent quality, have more information and are more concise than the other languages. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What I meant was "Japanese entertainment media articles" vs "Other countries' entertainment media articles". Not "the same article in a different language". That was my fault. I changed the title from what it was cross-posed from Wikipedia:Help_desk. Not enough information? The anime long-form review community on Youtube would disagree with you. They are able to have whole history and development segments for the shows/movies they review particularly if the show is old enough. 2603:8081:1610:E059:CDCF:B189:2216:C6B4 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not enough information is the main issue. Someone has to get the information, show that it is relevant and not a fluff piece, and write it in a way fitting an encyclopedia; many many people fail these steps. Holmes' Revelation is still debatable, but I was able to make it because I presented information the right way. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the manga/anime ones are just that: manga originated, then a short anime series or OAV special, and supporting media. That the anime television show is strongly tied to the manga instead of loosely adapted means it is likely going to the same article. Take Squid Girl for example. It has a long running manga series (22 volumes), and 2 "seasons" of 12 episodes each, and a video game. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The X-Men franchise is a perfect example of this. Long-lived comic that spawns multiple animated adaptations including stories taken directly from the comics. The four American adaptations get their own pages with significant research attributed to them even though they all only survived for relatively short periods. 2603:8081:1610:E059:4D87:EE72:6A0C:7996 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a good example. X-Men is a big franchise. You need to compare these with other smaller "franchises" like Lord Marksman and Vanadis where it is not clear the TV adaptation or manga is that much separately notable from the light novels. Is there a specific franchise you're concerned about splitting up in the anime/manga world? Is it Naruto?

Also if you are concerned about getting the high level production information, yes, that's the concern too about splitting the TV series from the main article. Usually there isn't much about it other than it was created and broadcast and that it has some theme songs. Nothing special is written about the development of the show, the artwork, the casting, direction, editing, sound, or the portrayal / reinterpretation of the characters. If that's put in to make it separately worthy, then there you go. Otherwise it tends to fit the List of (series) episodes articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The demographic of manga Pokemon Adventures

Just want to ask for help. Regarding the classification of Pokemon Adventures, it should be both a children's and a shonen manga.

I have discussed on the discussion page, but no consensus was reached. The other party insisted that according to the serialized magazine, this manga should only be classified as children's manga. I don’t know if I digress too much on the discussion page, causing the other party maybe to think that I am distorting the facts and ignoring my arguments.

But I also listed many Japanese bookstore websites that classified Pokemon Adventures as a shonen (少年) manga (actually more than what I listed). And the series was also serialized on Sunday Webery an online platform that apparently focuses on serializing shonen manga. And Sunday magazines (the famous shonen manga magazine) has held 55 serial manga projects for the 55th anniversary (2014), Pokemon Adventures Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire is included in them, as I posted on the discussion page. (It was serialized on Club Sunday at that time, an online platform operated by Sunday magazine (Sunday Webery is, too))

Even Japanese, Chinese, Thai, French and Italian, etc Wikipedia classified Pokemon Adventures as a shonen manga for many years (and these pages are constantly being edited.) (this not as a only point of view that I quoted.) And Japanese discuss this manga on the 5ch shonen manga branch for many years. https://medaka.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/ymag/1602078249/l50 2001:B011:C007:5D8D:1867:87C8:1C92:BF38 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, you don’t get. Manga, anime and magazines can’t be two demographics. They only _target one. Coro Coro Comics is a children’s magazine. The sites you read that claim state that it’s a Shone are either wrong or are taken out of context. Regardless, that’s not how it works. In Japan, the rule is, if a manga is published in a magazine aimed for a specific demographic, then that’s what he manga is classified as. Since Pokémon Adventures was published in a children’s magazine, it’s only a children’s manga. In order to be a Shonen it has to be published in a Shonen magazine. SG1994! (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunday Webrey is not a Shonen exclusive site. It features all types of manga published by the company that owns and publishes Shonen Sunday and other magazines. SG1994! (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Web series disambiguation

I think the default disambiguation for web series like Yasuke (anime) should be Yasuke (web series) instead. This disambiguation is already used on other types of series so I think we should implement it too. Link20XX (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Manga and Anime Infobox Image

I have a question regarding images used in the infoboxes. Should we be using the first release (as in the Japanese cover) or the English cover whenever possible? I recognize that some series aren’t out in English yet, but for the ones that are, wouldn’t be more appropriate to use the English language release for the cover art? This is an English based wikipedia after all.NickWX28 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, this is left to the discretion of the editor and/or consensus about which cover is preferred. Even for classic literature, like Crime and Punishment and War and Peace, it goes either way on Wikipedia, although as a general rule, there are probably more articles that use the original language covers of a book than a translated edition.--十八 07:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If the image is a manga tankōbon (a type of book), then use the first edition per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. Xfansd (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I would generally advocate for using the original Japanese cover, since it is the original cover. Not to mention that quite a lot of manga with articles aren't licensed in English yet, so it makes sense for consistency. That being said, there are some cases where I would prefer to use the English cover. For example, when I created The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (manga), I decided to upload the English cover to match the video game article's English cover. Link20XX (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Cast sections

Hello. On the cast sections of certain articles like Gatchaman, Saber Marionette J and List of Area 88 characters, it lists all of the main and minor actors. However, while I agree with most of the additions, what's the best way to handle the lists, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sjones23, I'd get rid of the minor characters and extras / additional voices, and let the external link to ANN encyclopedia handle it. With films it's usually star billing (title card credits) and then some notable supporting characters in a paragraph. Also check their Japanese websites and see what they have listed as notable characters. Since it's Gatchaman, it could be treated like Dragon Ball Z videos or One Piece videos where there's a reference to List of Gatchaman characters. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Applying the MOS in regards to saying a series was not published in English, and proposed slight modification of the MOS

@Xexerss: Thank you for letting me know about the page of the MOS! I was not aware of it at the time.

I think however that there needs to be an exception if a reliable source very explicitly says the manga was not released in English, as in it makes a point in saying the series is not available in that language. In regards to Captain Tsubasa, I will repeat the statement with emphasis added: "Many of these animations are available in English. Alas, the original comic, inexplicably, was never licensed by an English-language distributor."

This matters for two reasons:

• 1. English is a significant global language, and
• 2. Our readers speak English and will want a specific answer of the question: "Is this series made available in English." Omitting mention of English may give people question marks, so to speak.

While the MOS cautions about not implying "that Japanese and English are the only two languages", faithfully following the source would state that the series was released in multiple languages (obviously in multiple countries) and that English was not one of them.

Additionally, I think the MOS should take into account that there are English language publishers of manga outside of the United States (Drawn & Quarterly in Canada, Shogakukan Asia in Singapore, Kodansha's bilingual comics, Kadokawa Shoten's bilingual comics, and Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese bilingual editions in English and Chinese).

I would propose: "as these imply that Japanese and English are the only two languages, or that Japan and the US are the only two countries (keep in mind there are other countries where English translations are published)."

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Sounds reasonable. I don't really oppose this proposal and I have no particular problem with including the statement about no English release in the CT article. I guess that it is fine, as long as there are sources explicitly stating that a particular series has not received an English language release. Xexerss (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding names

Reading the Viz Media translation of Hoshin Engi by Ryu Fujisaki on Internet Archive, I've noticed some discrepancies in terminology between it and List of Hoshin Engi characters (e.g. Taikobo vs. Taikoubou; King Chu vs. Chu O; Hiko Ko vs. Ko Hiko; paope vs. paopei). How should I urge editors to default to the terminology used by Viz Media, not just for characters but also for places and other kinds of names? Which template should I use? YukaSylvie (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to make a MOS emphasis for Japanese titles that are already officially in English.

Do you agree we should make an emphasis on removing any Japanese katakana that isn't the actual official title? For example, since One Piece is written as ONE PIECE in Japan, so there's no reason to bring over the Japanese katakana equivalent as it only serves as reader phonology. Of course, English titles already officially written in katakana would be exempt from this rule, such as Black Clover. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is regards to an issue at Talk:Gamera Rebirth. I guess I'll copy/paste my argument here as well. When you open the Gamera website in new tab on your browser, it includes the Japanese text (as ガメラ リバース) as well as the English one [1]. Anime News Network also lists the Japanese "alternative title" as ガメラ リバース [2]. The Japanese Wiki article also includes the Japanese title (again as ガメラ リバース) in the lead, in addition to the English one -- I was actually emulating the Japanese article's lead.

My adding of the Japanese title in the lead and infobox was based on how many sources actually used the Japanese title in addition to the English one. Although if some are exempt from the rule, like Black Clover, then Gamera Rebirth should be exempt as well. Armegon (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you still not understand this? The katakana is the alternative title for JP readers, not the official title. I don't understand how you are not processing this.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU don't understand? Explain Black Clover? Why does that article get a pass at using katakana but Gamera Rebirth doesn't despite the number of sources that do use "ガメラ リバース" concurrently with the English title... just like Black Clover. Armegon (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because that is how it is officially written in Japan, unlike Gamera Rebirth.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

But again, since you just cited the Japanese articles, both use the Japanese and English titles in their leads. So obviously, both JP articles warrant it notable enough to include both. So therefore, the ENG article should follow by example. Armegon (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I also found a few Japanese sources that also use "ガメラ リバース", [3], [4], [5]. Clearly, the katakana is notable. Armegon (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious right now? 80% of the Japanese cannot read the title as is, that's why it's there. But it's still not the official title, notice how it's enclosed in ( ). I feel like a broken recording having to try to explain this to you every time.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, this is becoming too heated of an exchange. Let's cool down and revisit again in a couple a hours if possible. The last thing I wanted was for this to become an argumentive exchange between the two of us. I respect you as an editor, first and foremost.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks man. I’m sorry if I helped add fuel to the fire. Not my intention. Truth be told, anime/manga is not my main M.O. on Wiki. I’m more familiar with Wiki’s Film Project and their guidelines/protocols. I didn’t find a guideline/rule that forbad adding the katakana, so I thought it was okay to add in the same spirit as adding it to Seven Samurai or Godzilla (1954 film). Armegon (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Those examples are 100% ok, as those are how they're supposed to be written in Japan (although, Seven Samurai's original JP title isn't the katakana script, but another one based in Chinese characters). But the katakana in this particular series only serves as an translation for the 80% of the native readers who cannot read English in its Latin script format, and is by no means the official written format in Japan. Notice how the header, infobox header, and the very first part of the lead sentence in the JP WP version only include the Latin English title in quotation brackets. That's not by design. I understand your confusion, but there really are anime and manga titles written in Latin English in Japan. HUNTERxHUNTER, FAIRY TAIL, ONE PIECE, DEATH NOTE, Dr.STONE: All these titles I just listed are examples of properties that are originally written in Latin English as is. If you go to the JP WP pages, all of them will lead off like this. And of course there are others that are in English too but officially use katakana script instead, like Black Clover, Sword Art Online and the original Trigun, but of course the English titles are used here too because, well, it's English WP.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hope both of you have calmed down a bit. MOS:LEADLANG states Relevant foreign-language names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged; however, is the katakana name relevant when the series has not been released or promoted much under that name? A previous discussion came to the consensus that they were not relevant, and I would agree. For a series like Black Clover that was released and promoted almost exclusively under its katakana title is most certainly relevant, but that is not the case here. While I am aware the Japanese Wikipedia mentions the title, that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the English Wikipedia too. After all, many Japanese articles include a "terminology" section, which has been explicitly rejected by the English Wikipedia. Google hits are a poor indicator for importance and Anime News Network's encyclopedia is user-generated and thus not an authortive source either. And while this is not directly related, MOS:LEAD generally recommends making lead sections as short as possible. Apologies for the wall of text... Link20XX (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it in a professional manner Link20XX. Unfortunately I am not very good at that kind of thing without proper drafting.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this edit okay [6]? Someone added that earlier this month and I felt it'd be best to restore it. Armegon (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ruby-ja should be used either; they aren't included in the title like with Naruto. Link20XX (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately as stated above by Link20XX, ruby-ja can't be used by means of Japanese phonology because some titles actually do officially insert the katakana besides the Latin script English in the official bracketing.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

English Air dates

Hello, do we add English airdates for when the dubs are released or for when the episodes air on a North American channel like for example Adult Swim? Because these days animes are mostly licensed by streaming platforms for North America and even global (except some regions in some cases) like Crunchyroll and they always drop the episode on the same day as the original one. Also sometimes they release the dub on the same day too. So I'm asking whether we add it based on when the dub releases (on whatever platform like Crunchyroll or a North American channel) or when it will only air on a North American channel like Adult Swim. To better say, does it need to be released on a North American broadcast channel or we just use the air date of dub on whatever platform it is like Crunchyroll, hidive or a North American broadcast channel like Adult Swim. Parham.es (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This has come up with some of the My Hero Academia seasons in the past. English air date is only used when it actually aires on a television channel (like Adult Swim) and not on a streaming service. The same is true for the Japanese air dates, even though many have an early premiere on a streaming service. Link20XX (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Parham.es (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What if the early premiere was also on a television channel? An example would be My Daughter Left the Nest and Returned an S-Rank Adventurer where it had an early release on AT-X (September 28) before premiering on Tokyo MX (October 6). Harushiga (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a footnote to explain the situation should be used. Link20XX (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Diffrent Date Style

So I just saw two articles with different date style in compared to their main articles and for the sake of consistency I tried to match the date style like others did before me but it keeps getting reverted so I was wondering isn't it better to have a matching date style with the main article? I know that Consistency is only needed within articles, not across articles but that doesn't mean since we have that rule then change any articles we want specially since that article is kinda part of a big group of articles and by that I mean the list of episode of X kind of article. The two articles are these: List of Oshi no Ko episodes and Spy × Family (TV series) If you check the history of both article, both of them were edited by other editors bunch of times and every single time they were reverted back by the same person so the way I see it, most editors want the Date Style to change and be as same as the main article. Just wanted to make sure If I should keep pressing on this matter or just leave it be. Also by Diffrent Date Style I mean something like this: June 2, 2020 and 2 June 2020 which in my opinion looks bizarre for articles that are part of the same family like the ones I mentioned above. You jump from the main article to for example the list of episodes and suddenly Dates have different Style, I don't know, maybe I'm nit picking here but since other editors had the same idea as me then I wanted to ask others about their opinion in here. Parham.es (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:GalaxyFighter55 for handling the matter in Spy × Family (TV series). To be honest I don't really care how the date style is either but technical issues aside, it looks strange and weird to me when we have the main article and possibly other related articles with American date style and just one single article (which is totally related to the other ones) with a different one. Parham.es (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've usually seen, articles just tend to use the first established format. For example, the Boruto article uses dmy format, but the episode list article (and seasons) use mdy format. Personally, I am unaware of any MOS that indicates that there has to be consistency in the date format of an article and its derivatives. I understand that this can be kinda weird, but it is not technically incorrect. Xexerss (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So long story short, just let it be? Alright, it's just that I saw too many editor to not like it and since I was one of them I came here to ask about it, thank you. Parham.es (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)