This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Pokémon universe 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.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
Cartoon Network 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.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Forgive the lateness, but the titling of “Pokémon The Series” used nowadays is enough to justify using the disambiguating phrase already in place
CreecregofLife (
talk)
06:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
"English network" section in infobox
I have removed the "English network" section from the infobox as it was unsourced and it seems very strange to specifically declare that this programme aired on Cartoon Network or Boomerang or wherever in England when that is not the country of origin of the programme. I find it dubious that a programme would be buried on a different satellite or cable channel in England than it would be in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland anyway, and it's unclear why this is more relevant than what channel it was broadcast on in Australia or New Zealand or India or Canada or the US or South Africa or Brazil or Russia or anywhere else.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
14:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The series has aired on several networks from various English-speaking countries which are sourced in the body of the article, I think that those at least should be listed in the infobox. The English network parameter doesn't mean that the series has to be original from any of those English-speaking countries to be added to the infobox, if that were the case, the parameter should not exist for the anime/manga infobox template in the first place. As long as the networks are from English-speaking countries and are sourced in the article, they shouldn't be removed. See
Template:Infobox animanga.
Xexerss (
talk)
14:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
"English network" seems to pretty clearly imply "television channel that the programme was broadcast on in England" to me; if we're talking about "English-language networks" then you'd presumably have a large number of different channels in numerous different countries which could quickly become unwieldy. Presumably this infobox needs to be amended.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't know why you seem to interpret what I'm saying as meaning "England is the only English-speaking country"? I'm saying that unqualified "English network" implies "network from or pertaining to England" and not "network using the English language" since the latter category would presumably have notes about which country each of the different networks was from (ie. "NBC (United States), ITV (United Kingdom), ABC (Australia), etc.").
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
If that were the case, the parameter wouldn't show the
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes from English-speaking countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, etc. In this specific case, they are not shown because only the networks were added, not the countries (which should be added too). -
Xexerss (
talk)
15:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Xexerss: per
MOS:VAR, "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." As
your change did not give any, I will go ahead and restore the previous formatting for now; the MOS further states "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page."
QuestFour (
talk)
14:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
QuestFour: In most good/featured articles I've seen the standard is just mentioning the year (and month at most) in lead (see
Dragon Ball,
Naruto,
YuYu Hakusho or other not anime/manga articles like
2001: A Space Odyssey (film),
Stanley Kubrick (except birthdate and death date),
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly or
Grand Theft Auto V). Now, not completely related, but per
MOS:BIRTHDATE: "[t]hese dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context." I think that this suggestion of low specificity in lead could be extrapolated to all kind of articles about any piece of media or fiction, since lead is supposed to be an introduction and a summary to the article.
Xexerss (
talk)
14:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
QuestFour: Ok? and what's your point?
this,
this and
this for example don't use specific dates in lead. I'm just saying that there's no need to be specific in lead when detailed info can be found in the body of the article, or is there really a necessity? Not saying that this is a hard rule, but since lead is basically a summary, we can reasonably leave things unspecified there.
Xexerss (
talk)
16:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
So basically what you're saying is that your argument is invalid? Read the guideline, none of your reasoning warrants the change, it's entirely arbitrary.
QuestFour (
talk)
17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
QuestFour: You changed the date in lead, I said that is not necessary to be specific, then you reverted my change stating that your change was acceptable without giving a substantial reason for it, despite accusing that I was the one who didn't give a valid reason, but I'm the one being arbitrary. I gave a guideline (from other case though) which I said than can be perfectly extrapolated to this case, but you said that it doesn't apply to TV series because some alleged standard, despite the fact that several good/featured TV articles don't use specific dates in lead, so is not really a standard. By the way, what guideline is the one that I should read? please, tell me where does it say that TV series articles must have specific dates in lead. Anyway, maybe we need takes from other editors to reach a consensus here.
Xexerss (
talk)
17:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Either format is fine with me; I changed it to the other version, also removed the "in Japan" part as it's redundant, so there, hope this resolves things.
QuestFour (
talk)
13:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
QuestFour: Thanks. At least we came to an understanding. I looked for other discussions about specificity of dates in lead, but there is no consensus at all. I just think that, for this case at least, it does make sense to leave information in general way in lead (also the infobox is right beside with the exact date).
Xexerss (
talk)
14:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
SheilaSh11 (
article contribs).