Template talk:Infobox animanga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Infoboxes  
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Parameter for budget and gross for anime films[edit]

Similarly to Template:Infobox film, is it possible to add fields for budget and gross to the template's film infoboxes? Morgan695 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconding this. Budget and gross parameters would be nice, as some anime films have documented such. lullabying (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support this per lullabying, would be very useful. — Goszei (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just added support for "Budget" and "Box office" fields. The "type" parameters for which the fields are enabled can be seen in this diff: Special:Diff/1017991620/1033038512. I considered adding budget support for OVA/ONA, but I thought that may be too broad. — Goszei (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Print parameter order proposal[edit]

The current parameter order for print works (manga and novels) looks like this:

  • Written by
  • Illustrated by
  • Published by
  • English publisher
  • Imprint
  • Magazine
  • English magazine
  • Demographic
  • Original run
  • Volumes

My main problem with this is that it fails to be chronological, which is a more logical ordering that enables smoother reading. Here is my proposal:

  • Written by
  • Illustrated by
  • Published by
  • Magazine
  • Imprint
  • Demographic
  • Original run
  • Volumes
  • English publisher
  • English magazine

(1) I moved the English-language publishing info to the bottom, since everything above that is (typically) information on the Japanese run and volumes, and mixing these in breaks that continuity. English versions also typically happen chronologically after the JP run and volumes are done, so placement after "Original run" and "Volumes" seems logical. I also think there is value in placing the fields right next to each other, since they are closely related. (2) I moved "Imprint" below "Magazine", because that makes more sense chronologically for the vast majority of cases; collected editions under an imprint usually start after serialization begins in a magazine. (3) I think that "Demographic" can remain after both Magazine and Imprint (instead of being directly under Magazine) because the imprint usually has the same associated demographic. I am open to moving Demographic under Magazine, however.

To see how the proposed order looks when used in an article, you can preview "Infobox animanga/Print/sandbox" in place of "Infobox animanga/Print" in any manga article. Thoughts on this proposal? — Goszei (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: If this proposal goes through, there is potential for a similar reordering of the Licensee and English network fields for Video works. — Goszei (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"English network" parameter[edit]

I find this parameter questionable for a couple of reasons. The first is that the wording in the infobox implies "television channel that the programme broadcast on in England" and not "English-language television channels that the programme was broadcast on", which seems needlessly specific and is confusing if television channels from outside England are listed (while it is implausible that an anime would only be broadcast in England and not Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, it probably is possible with the different ITV regions). Secondly listing off all the different television channels that broadcast a programme in English seems like it could quickly become unwieldy, if it had to include channels from the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, India, Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Ireland, etc. I don't know what should be done about the latter issue, but at the very least the wording in infoboxes should be changed to clarify that the English language is being referred to rather than the English geographical area. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To say "English-language" instead of simply "English" would make the infobox parameter text take up more space and thus be harder to read for no real reason. It should be fairly obvious given the context, and the fact that often many of the networks that anime are broadcast on are of United States or Canadian origin, that the text refers to "network broadcasting programming in English." If the intent was to specify that the network(s) are of British origin, then it would say "British network." If anything, the parameters should perhaps be altered to "Network (EN)" and "Network (JP)" since these take up less space in the infobox and are clearly explicitly referring to the language of the network(s) in question. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggesting a parameter for webcomics[edit]

This suggestion comes to my mind when expanding the article Room Camp that I created before. This manga is only published on Comic Fuz, a manga service by Houbunsha available online and through an app. This manga is only published online (no print publication) so I find it difficult to see Comic Fuz be on the "magazine" parameter despite being not a magazine whenever I visit this article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. A lot of manga magazines are going digital now so it might be worth looking into. Pixiv also has its own exclusive online publising service. lullabying (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Creator" parameter is not really applicable[edit]

Recently a minor dispute between myself and another editor arose regarding the accreditation in the infobox on the page for RWBY: Ice Queendom. Previously, the infobox listed both Gen Urobuchi (the series planner for Ice Queendom) and Monty Oum (RWBY's original creator) as the "creators" of the series in the header. The editor in question, Aoito, removed Oum's name from this field, making the argument in their edit summary that "Monty Oum is not the creator of this anime. "Creator" and "Based" are not the same thing." I, disagreeing with this assessment, reverted their edit on account of the fact that Oum is commonly regarded as the original creator of the RWBY franchise in general, and therefore, can be reasonably called a creator of this anime. Aoito in turn reverted my edit, demanding to see a source, which I provided in the form of the official staff and cast list on Ice Queendom's English website. As this template lacks a "based on" parameter along the lines of what is seen in Template:Infobox film, they then edited the infobox's "creator" field yet again to say "Created by Gen Urobuchi, based on RWBY by Monty Oum."

As I find it a reasonable compromise, I don't see this edit worth challenging on its own, but it does raise some faults with this template and specifically the use of the "Created by" parameter, as well as the (faulty) assumptions it implies. The problem appears to arise primarily from two factors:

  1. This template appears to be derived partially from Template:Infobox Television which, being written for the context of British and American television programs, assumes the existence of a showrunner who is responsible for the program's concept and overall creative management. This is generally not the case in anime; there is no role in anime production that can truly be called a singular "creator." It's a complicated chain of command and process, but it usually boils down to that a production committee is formed from various interested parties and they contract the staff (whose creative freedom may be more or less limited depending on the context, but is in general limited according to what the production committee desires) to produce the show. (Some more information here.)
    1. There are some exceptions where a single person may have more creative sway to the point that they may approach something approximating a "showrunner" but even then it's not quite the same. More information on such edge cases, in this case specifically concerning the roles Mari Okada has taken in some productions in which she was involved, can be found in this video by Callum May of The Canipa Effect. (He is listed as a reliable individual source under WP:A&M/RS#Individuals, so this video can be considered to be a reasonably reliable source of this information).
    2. Not to mention the fact that, in any production (be it a cartoon, film, video game, whatever) that has many hands in its creation, there's hardly if ever a single person who can truly be called the sole "creator" but that's a somewhat different discussion.
  2. This issue has likely not been considered or discussed before, given that most anime are based on pre-established works (like manga or video games or light novels) whose narratives they hardly, if ever, significantly deviate from, and as such most of the time the "created by" parameter is hardly used as the creator is assumed to be the original author of the original work (and so that person's name is typically written in the lead of the page, or the "novel/manga" part of the box, so editors aren't likely to consider this matter further in most cases. In cases like this, however, where the anime in question is not a direct translation of a story from one medium to another, but a derivative work in some other way, or if it's an original anime production or part of a media franchise, the issue may become more complicated.

Actual official anime credits (like Ice Queendom's for example), when officially translated into English, hardly if ever credit anyone as a "creator" but rather for the "concept," "original work," "original story," "scenario," or something of that ilk. Given all this, I'd argue it would be much more appropriate to replace this parameter with something along those lines that more clearly expresses the nuance that there is no equivalent "showrunner" role- perhaps "original work" or "original story" as those seem to be the most commonly used terms.

It may also be suitable to have a "series composition" field, as this is also a common role whose duty is distinct from that of the originator of the concept or the episode screenwriter(s), though there may be overlap. Perhaps a "based on" parameter, for cases like this where the source work is not an anime or manga, would be appropriate as well. Joyce-stick (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They way I see it has nothing to do with the "showrunner" credit that American and British television uses-- even if the animanga infobox is a derivative of said television infobox, its usage is by no means the same. As far as it's been used in articles in my experience, "creator" simply refers to the person who came up with the idea for the series, manga, or whatever else; and in these cases, we can categorize them based on the 原案 (original plan/concept) and 原作 (original work/creator) credits, which are almost always attributed to someone in the case of original productions in the credits and in interviews with cast or staff members.
I don't think the comment about production committees is particularly relevant in this case. Yes, committees are the ones with all of the control in anime productions, but committees are groups of producers that end up funding and being somewhat creatively involved in the process behind the scenes-- they have pretty much nothing to do with creating the work itself. For example, Puella Magi Madoka Magica has a committee (Madoka Partners) consisting of Aniplex, MBS, Hakuhodo DY Media Partners, Houbunsha, MBS, Movic, Nitroplus, and Shaft, but not all of these companies are credited with creating the series as far as Japanese productions go-- Magica Quartet (Ume Aoki, Akiyuki Shinbo, Gen Urobuchi, and Shaft) is specifically created for the "original work" (原作) and are commonly credited as the series' creators. In other words, the committee has power of financial production and ultimately own the work itself and decide when to air it among certain creative aspects through their producers (in Madoka's case, Aniplex's producer Atsuhiro Iwakami was involved; but, he's not credited with its conception).
You're right in saying that anime, as well as pretty much all media that features production crews, aren't the results of just one person's doing, but I also don't feel this is relevant either. Director Shinbo, for example, commonly attributes many of the things present in his works to other people; whether it's saying that a particular gag he found funny was the work of Nobuyuki Takeuchi's suggestion, or otherwise, the point of crediting a "creator" isn't to notate that every staff member was creatively involved, it seems to be more or less to notate who concepted the initial world or story that is to be built upon by the staff. The works of Yoshiyuki Tomino can be brought up-- although they are the product of many people, the entire Gundam franchise, as well as pretty much everything he works on as a director, attributes him solely as the original work/creator (原作).
As far as "series composition" goes, that's kind of just what the "writer" parameter of the infobox has been used for (concurrently with "screenplay" when there is no peculiar writer credited for series composition), but a few points of contention could be brought up with that too-- if we do that, then we'd have a separate parameter for "screenplay" itself or we could eliminate screenplay from the infobox entirely and use it only in the episode tables; however, some productions feature no series composition writer, and some productions' screenplays are written entirely by one person, but feature a different series composition writer. There are also cases like Kizumonogatari where an entirely different credit (screenplay composition) is matched with a whole other "screenplay work." Unless we were to somehow catalogue exactly what each credit would match to in one of these projects (screen comp = series comp, screen work = screen), which we could even further expand to include other credits (chief director = director, chief unit director = director), and so forth. Going even further, we could add a separate "animation producer" credit, since that's the person who actually finds all of the main staff for a particular work and manages the project from the studio producing it (making them far more involved than an ordinary producer; see Shuuhei Yabuta's explanation)-- and so forth.
As a fun bit of trivia, you can find similar examples to RWBY: Ice Queendom's case with Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo (based on Dumas' novel (credited as "original work/creator"), but recontextualized into a sci-fi story with new and changed elements by Mahiro Maeda (credited as "original plan/concept")) and Romeo x Juliet ("original plan/concept" credited to Shakespeare, and "original work/creator" credited to Gonzo and Sky Perfect Well Think). If anyone asks why they're different, I think it's because Romeo x Juliet utilizes narrative elements, themes, characters, and some events from Shakespeare's novel, but is a wholly new product (not an adaptation), whereas Gankutsuo is a legitimate adaptation of the novel in a new setting with some other added elements.
In other words, it's just a very complex situation that I'm not sure anyone has an answer to just because Japanese credits have so many different nuances that are dissimilar to the west. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input. Looking more closely at some other pages using the animanga template, it seems like common practice has been to specify these specific role distinctions in notes or parentheses (like on the page for Monogatari (series) for example) which I'll definitely be keeping in mind going forward. I feel it would not make much sense for us to create numerous more parameters for all these distinct accreditations as it'd create confusion and bloat on the reader's end, so instead perhaps it'd be best to codify that current practice in MOS:A&M if it is not already, as well as specify in this template page that a "creator" of a series can also include not only people who directly worked on a series but also creators of the work it is adapting or derived from, if they are credited for "original plan/work" or whatever else.
I've also observed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Film credits glossary exists and seems to already include some of these terms, so I suppose this problem is already partially solved. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think part of the problem is less that there is a significant problem and more that the solution to said problem is tribal knowledge that isn't really indicated anywhere... perhaps? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'd say so. If that's the case, I guess it'd be relatively uncontroversial to try to indicate it, so maybe we can and should edit the template guide/MOS to do so unless further WP:CONSENSUS on the matter is needed. (Pinging User:Sarcataclysmal, as I'm experiencing a technical error with the reply link and am not sure you'll get notified about this.) Joyce-stick (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I didn't even know there was a "reply" feature, I just manually press the "edit" button every time lol, but in trying the edit button I am also getting an error) I think there is reason enough for trying to edit the template guide and indicating these things in words. If you're like to start something over there, feel free to see what the other editors of the project think (and if you'd like my assistance with anything regarding the credits themselves, ping me since I will probably forget to check). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have gone and made some edits to the header and video sections of the template guide, if you're interested in checking this over and refining if need be. I may start a separate discussion at the MOS talk page at a later point. Joyce-stick (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

number of copies sold parameter[edit]

I suggest adding a "number of copies sold" parameter for the manga. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC for removal of "licensee" and "network_en" parameters[edit]

Should the "licensee" and "network_en" parameters from {{Infobox animanga/Video}} be removed?

This template lists the English licensees of anime (television and film). Considering that this is a subcategory of the broader television and films, none of whose templates ({{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox film}}) specifically list English "licensees" or "networks", this exception for anime is incongruous and aberrant with the rest of the enwiki. The information contained herein appears mostly unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and from what I have seen serves no useful purpose but to clutter articles.
Any notable case of release by licensed broadcasters/film distributors can be noted in the article body (if relevant), as is the case for other films and television. I am not including the "publisher_en" counterpart of {{Infobox animanga/Print}}, as it appears to have precedent at {{Infobox book}} (though not at {{Infobox comic book title}}). Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • General support. I personally would include publisher_en and any other _en fields as well. The need to denote regional differences in any of these fields can be accomplished with {{video game release}}, which is what the oft-referred-to-in-documentation {{English anime licensee}} was originally based on many many moons ago. However, "English anime licensee" has languished for years without any updates or improvements, while VGR has been completely revamped with full support for any region and many other features. I realize that VGR's tight relationship with WP:VG makes the naming odd, but I've never quite figured out a good name to propose for it. It's essentially a template for making standardized lists of region/value pairs. (WP:VG's release timeline template, "Video game timeline", eventually was genericized to {{timeline of release years}}) -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was originally going to propose {{English anime licensee}} wholly for deletion but deffered as I am unsure with the handling of print media here on enwiki ({{Infobox book}} seems to have inclusion for English publishers, though the focus there [and in literature generally] is on translators not the publishers). Gotitbro (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {{English anime licensee}} should have been redirected to {{video game release}} and cleaned up years ago, but I suppose that's a matter we can look at separate and later. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps this parameter should be changed to a "distributor" or "distributed by" parameter, since both of the templates you linked to above have one of those. If you are proposing that we remove the information on English distributors entirely, I strongly oppose that; time and time again, the English/international release has been proven to be an important part of the series, like Dragon Ball having a big impact on popularizing anime in the west or series like Tribe Nine that wouldn't exist without the involvement of the English licensor. I neither oppose nor support removing the parameter, but I do feel like the international distributor should have somewhere to go in the infobox. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but I think it would look weird to have just a manga licensor in the infobox and not one for the anime. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see why anime specifically would need an exception, non-English films and television are also released in English by different distributors/licensors but that is covered in neither of their infoboxes. Any notable and relevant information pertaining to international distribution/licensing is generally covered in-text/body of the article not the infobox for other media, as should the case be here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    non-English films and television are also released in English by different distributors/licensors but that is covered in neither of their infoboxes is not always true; WP:FILMDIST says the film distributor parameter can list the foreign distributor if there is only one foreign distributor, which is often the case for modern anime as well. I have no idea if the TV infobox is the same though. Link20XX (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A simple look at how {{English anime licensee}} is used with the corresponding params at anime articles will make it clear that a single licensor/distributor listing is almost never the case and not how this param is generally used. The primary purpose of this RfC to remove this exact clutter from infoboxes. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That template was created awhile ago, when the licensor for different regions was by a different company, which is still the case on some older titles, like Death Note or Naruto. However, that has changed in recent years. Nowadays, it is actually more common for series to be like Uncle from Another World or Blue Lock and only have one distributor. Just because the parameter lists all of them now doesn't mean that it can't be changed to just one. Not to mention that if reducing clutter is your biggest motivation, I find more clutter in the producer parameter, especially on articles like Holmes of Kyoto. I'm not advocating removing that parameter, just pointing that out. Link20XX (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am proposing for removing content that has been proven to be clutter [in infoboxes] time and again (cf. the previous RfC in the nom). Information on international licnesees in infoboxes has never been listed for television and is mostly not for theatrical films as well, both considered generally non-encyclopedic, while the same has not been the case for producers. This is better handled in-body where, if relevant, it can be better justified. Gotitbro (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is somewhat cross-media, though still related, but note that we removed the "Distributor" field from Infobox video game years and years ago as well, for the same reasons. -- ferret (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotitbro, and is mostly not for theatrical films as well I do not see why this is relevant; just because it isn't used often doesn't mean it violates policy when it is used. Not to mention I've seen many film articles list the distributor in the infobox. considered generally non-encyclopedic then WP:FILMDIS would not explicitly allow it; not to mention non-encyclopedic usually applies to whether the content should be mentioned in the article at all, not whether it should be in the infobox. As far as "clutter", in series with only one distributor, how is adding one extra line "clutter"? I understand for series with multiple, but not in my aforementioned examples. As for Ferret, I do note that the video game infobox includes a publisher section, which I see to have a similar use to distributor section in any other article (heck if anything that parameter listing all the different publishers by region is more clutter than this parameter causes). Link20XX (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most video games, especially now, rarely have multiple publishers, and the field has rather convoluted rules to keep it from being flooded with every little company and regional difference. Maybe something similar is needed here. Distributor for us was the company responsible for literal physical distribution, a rather mundane facet of the product that was rarely, if ever, actually covered by secondary sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most video games, especially now, rarely have multiple publishers this is exactly what I have been saying is the case for most modern anime as well. the field has rather convoluted rules to keep it from being flooded with every little company and regional difference is exactly what I am proposing be added to this parameter (though the template documentation for the publisher field states English-language regions and the developer's region should be included, which is all this parameter is intended to include as-is, though I note that it gives guidelines on what to do if the list gets too long). Distributor for us was the company responsible for literal physical distribution now that I can understand why it was removed; for video games, physical distribution (as much as I prefer it to digital distribution) is being phased out and is nowhere near as prevalent as it once was, so I can understand removing that parameter. However, most of these companies (like Crunchyroll/Funimation, Netflix, etc) do streaming as well as physical distribution, the latter of which is the main method for anime consumption, not only internationally but increasingly so in Japan too. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anime warrants an exception because of how the industry works, as explained throughout this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion does not seem to have moved much for some time. @Sammi Brie, Wikipedical, Favre1fan93, Nathan Obral, Mrschimpf, Primefac, and Manche Captain: inviting participants from the past similar RfC here for their input. Gotitbro (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Maybe the fields can be renamed, but I still think it is important to note which English companies distribute anime. Netflix for example "jails" their seasonal anime so that it can't be seen without a Netflix account for 3 weeks before being released to non-subscribers. Also people make choices on which anime they watch based on where it can be found, such as Netflix-only subscribers are unlikely to watch Crunchyroll-exclusive anime through Crunchyroll's platform. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The same can apply to films and television and I doubt readers use Wikipedia for finding the availability of content, also WP:NOTDIRECTORY would go against that (numerous services like Justwatch [personally use this], Yidio, Reelgood etc. exist for that purpose). Gotitbro (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral Sorry, anime is in no way my interest field so I have no opinion here about this infobox. Please do not ping further for this discussion. Nate (chatter) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support I'm not quite sure how much insight I can provide in this field—most of us that got pinged by Gotitbro are not anime people and come from WP:TV broadly—but I did have an experience with {{Infobox television channel}}. I led the two-phase downsizing of that infobox to remove most of the channel name fields and abolish some of the cruftiest infoboxes we had on the encyclopedia. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE prescribes that an infobox shall summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The distribution of media content is a fragmented business by definition—that's why the axe was taken to Infobox television channel in the way it was. Is the distributor of an anime in the English language, or in English-speaking territories, a key fact about the anime that belongs in the infobox of the page? My gut feeling is no. That does not mean, of course, that it can't be mentioned in the body of the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I disagree that the English licensor is not a key fact. In many cases, the English release/licensor is the only reason the series exists or continues to receive new content (see this for instance, along with the aforementioned Tribe Nine example, among a few others I can provide). Link20XX (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

network_en for OVA[edit]

Can someone enable network_en parameter for OVAs? For example, Strike the Blood OVAs aired on Animax Asia, but this can't be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeagol 17 (talkcontribs) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering there's an open RFC to remove that parameter, probably should wait for now. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 10, 2022[edit]

If can you add more:

{{Infobox animanga/Video
| type                 = 
| title                = 
| director             = 
| producer             = 
| writer               = 
| screenplay           = 
| story                = 
| creator              = 
| based_on             = 
| inspired_by          = 
| developer            = 
| creative_director    = 
| presenter            = 
| theme_music_composer = 
| cinematography       = 
| editing              = 
| music                = 
| composer             = 
| executive_producer   = 
| news_editor          = 
| animator             = 
| layout_artist        = 
| background_artist    = 
| location             = 
| studio               = 
| distributor          = 
| licensee             = 
| released             = 
| first                = 
| last                 = 
| open_theme           =
| end_theme            =
| runtime              = 
| budget               =
| gross                =
| films                = 
| film_list            = 
}} (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion/"Further information" option question[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Is the inclusion of the infobox expansion (labeled "Further information") option automatic after a certain point, and if so, what is that point? How does that part work? —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe there is any formal guidelines to its usage; it is generally done whenever editors decide the infobox has gotten long. Link20XX (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I missed something. What parameter do I include to add it? (I previously checked the template's documentation, and did not see it.) (IMHO Blade of the Immortal could use it.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to add {{collapsed infobox section begin}} before the first element you wish to collapse and {{collapsed infobox section end}} at the end. See A Certain Magical Index or Log Horizon for examples of use. Link20XX (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've bookmarked copies, but it would be helpful if the above information was included in the documentation. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]