Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles

I suggest adding it to the list of unreliable sources per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by the project in the past. I'm not going to read through the entire AfD, but what ferret said about them not having a staff page is incorrect (see here, found under about and here) and they do list credentials for their staff in articles they write and their credentials were also discussed in the linked discussion above. Specifically, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion (too lazy to reproduce them all). Link20XX (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX Thanks. If it was discussed but not added to the ORS list, does it mean there was no consensus on its reliability? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the list as "The Fandom Post". Link20XX (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up. I missed the About Us page at first and found it afterwards, to which I already replied at the AFD. I think this source is very close to essentially being just a blog for Beveridge at this stage, but we do treat some authors as sources in their own right. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to add url (ex. fandompost.com) next to the names. That's what I was searching for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I missed it. I searched for "fandompost", but it's on the list as "Fandom Post". -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarification. Is the "Production Info" on staff review of Anime News Network, reliable source and can be use as source?, because they seem to be not WP:USERG and separated from the encyclopedia. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to objectively point out some fact about the production that is mentioned in a review or to briefly point out some staff commentary regarding some aspect of the production, I think it's fine. Xexerss (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of using this review as a source on Shōgo Yasukawa for being an episode writer of Alice and Zoroku, Do you think this is good source for that? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood your question. It seems that the 'Production info' is based on the user-generated encyclopedia, so I'd say that it shouldn't be used. In any case, Yasukawa credits appear on other reliable sites like Media Arts Database ([1][2]), so you could use these ones instead. Xexerss (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Thanks for the tip though! Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this site has been cited in certain articles. Honestly, at first I thought it was going to be just another self-published blog, but the site has conducted its own interviews and some of its columns have been written by Lauren Orsini, who has also contributed for Anime News Network.[3][4][5][6][7] The site also has its own editorial staff. More evidence may be needed, but so far it seems to me a decent site that could perhaps be added to the list of RS. Xexerss (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oozora Subaru: Can you explain your rationale on why Anime Corner would be a reliable source? The website looks to have an editorial policy but I'm a little unsure about the writers as they don't have a lot of notability overall. lullabying (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, this was discussed back in Feb 2024 and was only very recently archived: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Request to evaluate reliability of source

Arguments used for were things like:

- A clear editorial policy

- A mission with a good focus on accuracy

- Influence to get interviews

- No major issues (but did find at one inaccuracy in their Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire coverage).

Arguments used against were things like:

- Twitter used as a source which I could only find a single example of and it was relevant. Anime News Network (which some hold up as the most reliable anime site) has used less relevant tweets as a source, such as this one which is a screenshot of a Discord server by someone unconnected.

- Young/experienced staff. Again, Again, Anime News Network has the same. Some staff have mentioned being students and their EiC isn't qualified in journalism. Apparently some of the Anime Corner staff do have some experience elsewhere which is mentioned in the previous discussion on this topic.

In my opinion they are not exactly ideal but almost no anime source holds up to the same standards as some topics in many other areas. They do appear to be reliable with the very rare exception, which is about the same as many other sites with more notable staff. There's also not really many people who'd fulfil more standard 'reliable' conditions in the English speaking anime area at all, since that'd tend to be along the lines of the very few people who wrote published books on the topic or for the (almost entirely American) anime magazines. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]