Talk:Pokémon (TV series)

message: You can't redirect Pokémon anime here, you rename this aritcle Pokémon (anime). Bratny (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article had to be called Pokémon (anime), no Pokémon (TV series) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: England is not the only English-speaking country, no idea where did you get that from. Xexerss (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: By the way, see the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes valid for Template:English anime licensee. In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many networks we add to the list as long as they are correctly sourced. Xexerss (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English network" section in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The standard for television show articles is to state the full date of the show's premiere and/or conclusion (see Wikipedia:Featured articles#Television shows for reference), therefore the examples you provided do not pertain to this case. QuestFour (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Date formatting style  

message: — Assignment last updated by SheilaSh11 (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: Should they come from the official English website? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode summaries are written by the editors, copying them from official website would violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 04:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Summaries