Talk:Marvel Anime

Iron Man preview

What exactly was the 'preview' that aired on September 25? Was it an early showing of an episode? Or was it some actual special? -Joltman (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was probably just a 2-5 minute pilot episode. Llxwarbirdxll (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think its Titanium Man SilentmanX (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split of Iron Man: Rise of Technovore

While Iron Man: Rise of Technovore was previously deleted at AFD, that discussion happened before its release. Now that it has been released, it clearly passes the notability guidelines. Rottentomatoes.com lists four reviews [1], and it also has received some news coverage as currently cited in this article. Another user tried to split it today, but that was reverted. I think splitting it makes sense now that it passes the notability guidelines, as there should be enough content related to it to support its own article. Calathan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Against. Releasing it doesn't mean it is notable, coverage does. Reviews are general not usable in consideration for notability as it is routine coverage. Spshu (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what you say, reviews have always been considered non-trivial reliable source coverage showing notability, and numerous articles on films have been kept at AFD due to having reviews. The relevant notability guideline, WP:NFILMS, specifically lists having reviews as one of the criteria on which films can be considered notable (the first criterion listed there). The reviews appear to be full-length (i.e., not one-paragraph blurbs as sometimes would appear in newspapers), and presumably are from nationally-known critics due to their being included in the critics listed by Rottentomatoes. Calathan (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not contrary, you reinforce my point. Not one of the reviewers there are national know. And no just because they are listed at Rottentomatoes doesn't mean that they meet the criteria as "nationally-known critics". That is the in-heritability. And just because they pass AfD doesn't mean that the article is notable as I point this out on another article (where they wanted to edit war over a notability tag) to three admins said they vote how they wanted to vote and ignore the rule. Spshu (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

While nationally-known is certainly a possible concern and reasonable point of disagreement (though I personally think any reviewer listed at Rottentomates is clearly well known enough to count), I stand by my statement that you are entirely wrong on reviews being routine coverage. Instead, reviews are exactly the sort of coverage that should be present in order to show notability of a film. Also, articles being kept at AFD while being on non-notable subjects is extremely rare (though it is far more common that they are kept based on some evidence of notability but without actual sources found). However, in this case there is not merely some evidence of notability, but actual usable sources showing notability (the reviews and the news articles linked as sources in the article). Calathan (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rottentomates reviewers are not clearly well know as even any joe can review at Rottentomates. And the critics, Lyles' Movie Files & Cinema Crazed, really. I have not hear about either of them. Spshu (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Against per Spshu's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Iron Man: Rise of Technovore ‎has news coverage: Wired, Crunchyroll, Comic Book Resources, Comics Alliance, MTV etc.
If Iron Man: Rise of Technovore isn't notable, why a title like Ultimate Avengers 2 should exist? Raamin (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is enough material to justify a split (even links provided here should be enough); as suggested, I recommend another user to split the article. Raamin (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but its routine coverage for comic book & geek websites to cover. Crunchyroll? Hardly well known. Why does Ultimate Avengers 2 article exist, it should not. What is or isn't happening isn't a proper argument for what should be going on. It is an example of why I don't want IM:RoT to have its own article. Note that is marked with a "notability" tag, which I placed there. Go here to see that a replacement is on the way, just need some more work done on the article.

notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," Anime, comic book, tech and geek sites do not make up the "world at large". Spshu (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't simply dismiss a source, because you don't like it. Many anime and manga related articles use these so-called "comic book & geek websites" without problem. Crunchyroll is not well-known? How about Asahi Shimbun? I already added an artilcle from asahi.com to Rise of Technovore. The film passes WP:GNG criteria and can have its own article. Raamin (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are twisting what I said and I even quoted the notability. You can not on the converse allow any source that you like. The film doesn't not pass WP:GNG. "comic book & geek websites" can be used under WP:NNC but not for notability, so your claim that they can be used "without problem" is false. Spshu (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Spshu, I agree with Raamin on this. You seem to be using your own idea of notability rather than the guidelines that Wikipedia actually uses. Sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia if they check facts and have a reputation for accuracy. For websites, that generally is taken to mean that they have a professional editorial staff. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says anything about sources not counting for notability if those sources focus on specific topics (e.g., "Geek" news). On the contrary, such sources are routinely accepted in AFD discussions as showing notability. The guideline WP:ROUTINE that you mention is about not having articles on routine or minor events (e.g., individual regular-season sports games, local weddings, etc.), and doesn't in any way say that sources that regularly cover one topic can't be used to show notability of things in that topic area. It really feels like you are trying to interpret the notability guidelines in such a way that they line up with what you personally think is important or not important, when in fact the notability guidelines don't agree with what you are saying at all. Calathan (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I just point to the section pointing out that non-notable source can be reliable. Also the Audience: "...or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability;..." Sorry, but my "interpretation" was a quote and now quotes from the notability page. So, as I pointed out that you are using your own guideline -- yes other might be using them too -- but they are not WP's notability guidelines. Since, the real guidelines are not being used by you and others, that is why it "really feels like you are trying to interpret the notability guidelines in such a way that they line up with what you personally think is important or not important," that my usage although are correct as they match up with the quoted. The comic book & geek sites are not the "world at large". As I point out re AfD, a few administrators have admitted that they will routine 'fail to adhere to the Notability standard at AfD. Spshu (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ramin, Asahi Shimbun is quoting Anime Anime Japan Ltd. and you should be using the original source, so regardless of Asahi Shimbun's status, it is Anime Anime Japan Ltd. that is the source in question. Spshu (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your claims that these sources are of limited interest are clearly not correct. For instance, Crunchyroll, which you seem to dismiss offhand, has subscribers in 160 countries and was recently purchased for around $100 million by the Peter Chernin / The Chernin Group (according to the news story cited for the purchase in the Wikipedia articles). While you personally may not have heard of it, it is obviously not of limited interest or local scope in terms of what is intended by the guideline you quoted. Wired and MTV are also obviously sources with wide readership and at least national scope. Basically, you seem to want to limit sources counting for notability to some subset of reliable sources that you have personally heard of and personally think are important, rather than applying any objective criteria. Again, the opinions you are stating on what counts for notability are widely out of line with what is regularly used at AFD. And no, that isn't because admins routinely ignore the notability guidelines, but instead is because you interpret the notability guidelines in a significantly different way than the majority of Wikipedia users. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Easily meets notability criteria for a standalone article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

[WP:JNN|Not an acceptable argument]]. Spshu (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The film has over 7 million ghits. Notability is clearly not an issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why I do see a case for notability Google hits in themselves are not a good indication since we don't know whether or not the sites that the hits link to are reliable sources. That said there does appear to be reliable sources (mentioned earlier) so we don't need to rely on Google hits.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

←"... are clearly not correct." Really, anime is not of limited interest as Crunchyroll declares ( The Chernin Group Acquires Majority Stake in Crunchyroll, the Leading Global Video Streaming Service for Anime Content)? Having subscribers in 160 countries means that could be 1 subscriber in each country. So what if the Chernin Group purchased the Crunchyroll, money can be made on niche products or services that may not be notable. Anime is a niche of a niche (comic books/animation), while is larger in Japan and the East Asian. So East Asian dictates world views now? Some how I can distinguish between the world at large and a site of limited interest? You are not applying any objective criteria as nothing seems to fail your criteria. "...with what is regularly used at AFD", so pointing to errors in usage doesn't make it right nor if the majority as Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and you seem to be try to shame me for not following your lead to "join the majority". Spshu (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shame you, and I'm sorry if what I wrote was giving you that impression. I have been getting annoyed that you keep referring to the notability guidelines as supporting your points when instead I think the notability guidelines refute your points. However, you are certainly welcome to disagree with me. Calathan (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, shame may have been the wrong word to use. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Madhouse template already has a link to it, so we should give the movie it's own page like they did with Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher as well as transferring all external links to the movie in question to that page. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:28, January 28 2014 (UTC)

Having a link in the Madhouse template doesn't address its notability as it can easily removed. Black Widow and Punisher qualifies or doesn't qualify separately from this movie and vice versa. Even the notability standards don't say a notable subject must get its own article while not spelled out when this might be decided. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HF1TIyRL to http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-07-23/marvel-anime-to-run-on-g4-in-the-united-states

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marvel Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-07-23/marvel-anime-to-run-on-g4-in-the-united-states
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g4tv.com/schedule/index.html?datetime=07%2F23%2F2011%2013%3A30%20PM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618060450/http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/36875/toonzone-goes-to-wondercon-2011-updated-apr-7-945-am to http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/36875/toonzone-goes-to-wondercon-2011-updated-apr-7-945-am

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929183531/http://www.scifitv.com.au/Blog/2011/07/iron-man-wolverine-coming-to-sci-fi-in-august/ to http://www.scifitv.com.au/Blog/2011/07/iron-man-wolverine-coming-to-sci-fi-in-august/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Future Avengers spliting off

Future Avengers is not notable as it is not covered outside niche news website to be cover by main stream media. As Anime! Anime! and Anime Times are the primary sources for this subject. Crunchyroll and Anime News Network give them as their original sources. Crunchyroll being a streaming site (not a news site) and Anime News Network being editable by any one who register. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In the time since, notability has been established, details are well sourced, and episode details are filled in. Also, as it stands, Future Avengers takes up more than half of the article, which doesn't make sense considering it's not part of the "Marvel Anime" series. It might not be perfect, but it's totally suitable for splitting now. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability has not been established. Details are not "well sourced" particularly the unsourced episode details. With the removal of the unsourced episodes and cast, it doesn't take up half of the article. The topic falls in "Marvel anime". It is not suitable for splitting. Spshu (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It does NOT belong here, as this article is for the specific "Marvel Anime" subline, which includes four television shows and two films. Just because it is an anime series about Marvel characters does not mean it is appropriate to be a focus of this article. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of being diplomatic, I've asked for a third party mediator to look at the section (WITH the episode list intact) and determine if it is sufficient for splitting. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It is appropriate. Readers would find it here. It is not a focus of this article - except for the unsourced material added, which I have since removed. Spshu (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. This article is for shows and movies branded "Marvel Anime". It refers to a specific set of media projects. It is not a catch-all for every Japanese animated series to feature Marvel characters. Therefore, it does not make sense for this to be the primary home of this information. Also, if readers were looking for it, they would search by name. It doesn't need any more here than a passing mention and link to a separate article, just like Disk Wars. It's like putting every Batman cartoon on the Batman: The Animated Series page. You can't change what the page is and was created to be just to make it what you want to be -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The net effect of split off of the Future Avengers and Disc Wars Avengers and the actually related DVD movies is that they do not meet notability. Move the article then and you can make a redirect. Some one who can explain Future Avengers' status as not being notability will explain it to the hard way with a deletion. Yes, you can change what the page is. I done it several times (Disney Channels (international) → Disney Channels Worldwide and still tracks all international Disney Channels). I done it from scratch so there doesn't have to be say separate articles for Marvel on TV (in live action and Marvel Television. Just by having a background section on Marvel TV article, it takes care of that. Spshu (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But Disney Channels (international) to Disney Channels Worldwide is fundamentally the same page subject under a different name. Whereas in this case, you're trying to turn a page for a specific product line into a page for a concept. That's just not done. And you're being awfully presumptuous about what does and doesn't qualify as notable. Again, I say we both stop editing the page back and forth, leave it at revision 959028161 (which is the version I wanted evaluated), and see what the mediator thinks. (You should also really fill in your side of the dispute so we can get this done properly.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

←It is not fundamentally the same. Disney Channels (international) is about only Disney Channels internationally not Toon Disney channels, Disney Jr. channels, Disney International, Etc. Disney Channels Worldwide is about the Disney Channels Worldwide units (international and US) including Disney XD, Playhouse Disney, Disney Movies channels. So that is not the same page subject. I am not being presumptuous about notability; most want their beloved project, just because, to be considered notable. That is just what your statement: "...notability has been established..." with no reason that it is. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Anime News Network sourcing issue

According to WikiProject Anime, Anime News Network is considered a reliable source for news. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

First, your version was not place on this article as it basically discarded sourcing, thus your version is not an improvement.

When AAN indicates some other site as the original source then you need to use that source not AAN.

• ANN "Marvel Future Avengers Anime Reveals Cast, Staff, July 22 Debut": "Source: Animate Times."
• A New Generation of Heroes Arise in "Marvel Future Avengers" "Source: Animate Times"
• "sMarvel Future Avengers Anime Gets New Season This Summer": Source: Anime! Anime! Spshu (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not how that works. Those other sources are not verifiable sources under WP:A&M/ORS, and thus should not be the source used. However, being reported on by ANN, a reliable source, is what makes them verifiable. That's how sourcing (and journalism in general) work. Furthermore, per WP:A&M/ORS, "A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. [...] In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards." There is a user-submitted section, yes, but that's not the part that's being cited. Their news stories are, and that's what's reliable per Wikipedia. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it works. If AAN sources unreliable sources then makes the AAN article unreliable. AAN cannot white wash the unreliable sources just by publishing a translated rewrite of the not verifiable sources. Journalism and WP doesn't work that way. Spshu (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, "ANN". Second, the articles ANN is sourcing are unverified, not confirmed unreliable. There's a big difference between the two. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Animate Times is not unreliable; they're part of Animate. Also, ANN has a lot of industry professionals working in the staff and has been considered a reliable source by WP:ANIME. To my knowledge, only the encyclopedias and forums are not reliable. lullabying (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I only say they're not a reliable source because they're not listed on WP:Anime's list, while ANN is. The crux of this argument is that despite WP:Anime saying ANN is a reliable source, Spshu still refuses to acknowledge it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anime News Network doesnt function any different from GameSpot or Giant Bomb (video game news sites). They all have their own respected sections that allow any user to make edits, but only the editorial staff such as news and reviews are handled by their editorial staff.

For example: if there is a release date that can only be verified by the wiki page that editors can input their information, than it cannot be used. If one of their editorial staff reports the release date, then it can be used.

I dont understand what this editor is trying to achieve. Remove an article because they dont consider a news source reliable or verifiable?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 10:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

←Well as far as the original discussion was about splitting the Future Avengers section off into its own article. Thene the issue of ANN article arose of not being the originating secondary source as they indicate these other article at the bottom with "Source: article link". Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (which Cyberlink has disclaimed) and the use of Google Translate, the originating sources should be sourced not ANN. However, Cyberlink wants to say that those sources are no good. Which would then also invalidate the ANN article give those article are the ANN article sources. Spshu (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And that is something you are going to see a lot. Some reliable sources may choose to cover a topic and their source may not have proven to be reliable in the past. But since the second-hand source has proven itself to be reliable, then it can be covered in Wikipedia. If ANN recognizes a source as reliable enough to be covered, then it might be worth reviewing if the original source is reliable instead of trying to prove the second-hand source has unreliable.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 13:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Once and for all, ANN is not the original source per the article thus are redunate after reading a translation of the original source and adding them as a source. ANN is NOT the source in these case regardless of its recognized status else where. The fact of the ANN articles that ANN articles disclaims being the source. Do you understand the concept of duplication, which isn't needed in sourcing. WP:OVERREF: "If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability." Spshu (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's for avoiding having two citations of the same information on one page. That says nothing about ANN's verifiability or acceptance as a source even if it is not the "original". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Animate Times is listed as a reliable source at WP:Anime's list, under the Japanese subheading. O-dog222 (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"X-Men (New Tv Series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect X-Men (New Tv Series). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)