Jump to content

Talk:List of Toriko episodes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Should the crossover episodes count as main episodes?

Just thought I'd bring it up since, as far as the Funimation releases are concerned at least, they don't consider the One Piece crossover as the first main episode.Wonchop (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How are they numbered in Japan? Otherwise I could see it just be a pilot episode and remove from the main list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Toriko episodes. 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:

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) 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Toriko episodes. 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:

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) 17:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time, after extensive and extended time for discussion. However, nothing prevents the creation of a separate non-list article on the series as a separate entity, if such an article can be written. bd2412 T 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Toriko episodes → Toriko (TV series) – This is the only article dealing with the Toriko TV series. TV series article should be created at the base series name, and only if they are too big, should be split into sub-pages of episodes/characters/seasons - see MOS:TVSPLIT. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong support – a previous move to Toriko (TV series) was reverted with the edit summary "not enough to make a standalone article, needs discussion first" (which implies that the content should be merged back to Toriko, not moved back to an incorrect article title!), but it is completely contrary to everything we do in WP:NCTV and WP:TV, and this move should be approved. You start with the "TV series" article, and then if necessary you create a "List of episodes" article. You certainly do not create only a "List of episodes" article, and certainly not for a single-season TV series. Bottom line: The current article title is dead wrong: this article is about the "Toriko TV series" and is not just an episode list, and should be at Toriko (TV series) not matter what, as per both long-standing WP:TV practice, and as per WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Create separate article first as with Bleach (TV series) and Dragon Ball (TV series) and which List of episodes still exists as a separate article in that format. For anime shows, the (TV series) or (anime) typically redirects to the #Anime section of the main franchise page (manga, followed by anime). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This needs a more general discussion from WT:ANIME. Many TV series are part of the general franchise article and where the List of episodes are spun off from the main franchise articles because of the sheer number of episodes, yet the description of the TV series itself isn't substantial enough for its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You're basically saying that you can't have a Stub TV series article – why should WP:TV articles be any different on this point? The fact is, the current article is at least 'Start' class anyway, and contains more content than a simple "List of episodes". Once again: there is no such thing as a valid "List of episodes" article for a single-season TV series. IOW, your request isn't valid on its face as this series will never have enough content for a "TV series" article and a LoE article. There is only enough content for the first. So your arguments about those other two series (which ran multiple seasons) don't even apply in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The series has 140+ episodes. It's hardly "one season" but that would have to be determined by the broadcasting. But if you want to put it to TV series first, only to split it off later per TVSPLIT, then at least put in the sections so it doesn't look like a List of Episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually it should merge to Toriko until the episode list is sizable enough to split from the Toriko article. THEN it can be a TV series article. When TVSPLIT warrants a big enough split from that, then create List of episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused – if there are 140+ episodes, how come List of Toriko episodes only shows 22 episodes? Are the other episode listed in another article? Or is the current episodes table just really incomplete?... Anyway, as to your other point, again – there are literally hundreds of TV series articles (for single-season TV series) that consist of little more than a lede or lede and 'Premise' section, a 'Cast' section, and an episodes list: here's Good Grief (TV series), just taking one example at random... So the current content does not even need to be merged back to Toriko, because what's at the current List of Toriko episodes is actually enough for a 'Start' class Toriko (TV series) article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
information Note: I just "sectioned" the article to meet some of AngusWOOF's objections, and to further prove the point that this is already a 'Start' class TV series article (that belongs at Toriko (TV series), not at List of Toriko episodes...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, I see now – the series is still on Hulu, and I just checked and "season 1" does consist of 144 episodes (so the current episodes list is very incomplete...). Still, I would argue that this episode list belongs at a Toriko (TV series) article (without a separate LoE) – this should be the standard format for anime, even for anime series with 100+ episodes (in a single season). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is there really material in the article to make such big move? Other stuff is not a valid argument. I would suggest working first in a sanbox about how a Toriko (tv series) article would stand on its own by providing more real world information.Tintor2 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious support per MOS:TVSPLIT. I fail to understand why this even needs a discussion. It's always main article first, and then split off into sub-articles (like ep lists) to reduce the article size. Just having an ep list without a main article accomplishes nothing. – sgeureka t•c 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, article should be made first for the TV show, and then a list of episodes as needed and as per WP:TVSPLIT. Give the show a standalone page and put the episodes there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerFilmNerd (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Except that the main article is the franchise article, which combines both the manga and the anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Franchise → TV series → LoE article. That's the logical and proper order that is followed everywhere else – e.g. Marvel Cinematic Universe/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series → Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. → List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes. And note that the Inhumans (TV series), another single TV season series, does not have a separate LoE article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:TVSPLIT noting that Sgeureka's explanation is a clear and concise explanation of how TV articles are normally created. I see no reason why we should be diverting from that here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, both in the specific case of Toriko and in the general case of anime and manga articles. The vast majority of TV anime adaptations are not notable enough to warrant an article separate from the one covering the source material, considering that that most of the elements that would make up a standalone page are already covered there: plot summary (XYZ#Plot), voice actors (included in List_of_XYZ_characters), and production staff and broadcast/release history (in XYZ infobox). Creating a structure of "XYZ → XYZ(TV series) → List of XYZ Episodes" would be grossly superfluous for most adaptations (there are exceptions, see JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (TV series) for example, where the page and the linked pages for the following seasons basically serve as dividers for what would otherwise be a very, very long episode list). I believe that MOS:TVSPLIT only should apply to the articles for anime original series, for which the policy seems to already be in force. Goszei (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • So are you suggesting that the episode list be merged back to Toriko, as AngusWOOF advocates? Because that seems to be what you are saying. Otherwise, there's no justification not to put this article at Toriko (TV series) over List of Toriko episodes – again, you cannot have a "List of episodes" article without the "TV series" article first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
      • That is not what I am proposing. I suggest a structure that follows the advice of MOS:TVSPLIT, in that long episode lists should be split off from the main article to a new "List_of_XYZ_episodes" page (though I think that 50-60 episodes is an excessively high limit). In the case of Toriko, the structure [Toriko → List_of_Toriko_episodes] would be proper, because the "main article" is Toriko, which includes all of the notable information on the anime adaptation, as I outlined above. I don't quite understand your insistence on the rule that there must be a "TV series" article for there to be a "List of episodes" page. MOS:TVSPLIT itself describes a "main article", and does not necessitate a "XYZ_(TV series)" format. I believe that this argument actually falls under WP:NOPAGE rather than MOS:TVSPLIT, because it is regarding whether or not the "main article" for the anime series should be standalone or not. I say that it should not. Goszei (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposed title is factually incorrect as the page clearly has a focus on the episodes. The main page for the series is Toriko, not enough information exists for a separate article dedicated to the anime. Some franchises are big enough for this, but not this series. The MOS arguments do not apply in a case where a rename would shift a list to an article and put the information provided out of scope as this list acts as a supplement page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The proposed title is not factually incorrect at all. As it stands now this article is really no different to many TV articles that contain a significant number of episodes. Per WP:TVSPLIT we split articles out to LoE articles when the original page cannot support the number of episodes in the main series article. This is not the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
We already have a main page for information regarding the television series with Toriko, this list is a splitoff from that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can understand why IJBall wants this list to be re-purposed into an article. there is information that doesn't need to be in the list that suggests it can be turned into an article. I would support it if there was enough reception for it. From my experience, if there is not enough of a reception section, no matter how much information there is, it should not be split. This will need attention from the main Toriko article and expand the reception enough that its completely separate from the manga. For the mean time, i don't agree that "Premise", "Broadcast", and "Production" are needed here and should be placed back in the main Toriko article until there is enough proof that the anime is notable on its own (Reception section).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Amaury • 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: i recommend providing a solid reason. It just appears like WP:TV trying to make changes to WP:ANIME, one RfC at a time. AS of now, there is not enough Reception information to sustain a "TV Series" article. no reception = no article. List articles don't have that issue.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Where are you getting the idea that not having a 'Reception' section means it's not a "valid" TV series article?! Again, there are hundreds of 'Stub' TV series articles that don't have 'Reception' sections, that are still valid TV series (stub) articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Since these series originate in Japan, if there is not enough reception then they are usually deleted per WP:N. You cant have an article with just cruft in it, and this is not like looking up just English language sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:TVSHOW is the controlling notability guideline – you just need sourcing indicating that it went into production and was broadcast to meet that benchmark. Reviews are a nice bonus, but aren't strictly necessary. Again, there are zillions of children's TV show articles that don't have a 'Reception' section because kids shows don't generally get reviewed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Well in this case Fuji Network System seems to be the only broadcaster which covers the Kantō region. These are no sources though present as of now but they could always be dug for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
IJBall Reception can be many things. it doesn't have to be reviewers giving their opinion. How much money it made, if it made any significant ranking, awards, etc. Reception just means recognition. Its most likely something that needs to be brought up with WP:NMEDIA, but you're the only one who wants a stub article out of this over having a solid list article. Right now the information is still significantly small and unnecessary to keep in the list article. Broadcast, premise, and production is so small it can be merged back into the main article. I'm not against the "idea" of having the TV series be split into its own article. I'm just against it the way it is. I've never seen someone attempt to repurpose a solid list into a stub. No one want's to do that unless someone already put in the effort and time to not make it into a start or higher. But why split if it means making lower quality articles? What do readers and editors gain a split for an already easy to navigate article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
That's true – 'Reception' also includes ratings and awards & nominations. As to the rest of your point, it's already been answered, and not just by me but by other WP:TV editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
They are under the false pretense that there isn't a main article that this list is attached to.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly the case, given that the MOS:TVSPLIT policy cited by IJBall and other TV editors refers to splitting "List_of_XYZ_episodes" from the "main article" for a given series. In the case of Toriko and many other manga adaptations, the "main page" is and should be the page for the manga/franchise, which is in this case Toriko. I believe that the editors from WP:ANIME and WP:TV are unfortunately talking past each other here. Goszei (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: Article contents overlap with Toriko, and this is just close adaptation on the manga. There's very little information about the reception of the TV broadcast. lullabying (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Then we handle it with disambiguation. Toriko at Toriko (franchise) and List of Toriko episodes at Toriko (TV series). Simple. Amaury • 23:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't fix the problem. The problem is there is not enough reception to create a TV series article on its own.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Except there is. Infobox, lead, premise/plot section, cast/characters section, production section. We don't need a reception section in order for there to be an article. If that were the case, many of our articles for children's television series wouldn't exist. Amaury • 23:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: That is because IJBall is erroneously trying to turn this into an article even before the discussion happened. The franchise article is the TV series article (please read my response to AussieLegend for more context as to why). Overall this is a list, not an article. Also, I find WP:TVSHOW way too broad in scope to ever be truly beneficial to blanket overall. If anime, educational children TV shows, Online Web series, and others are in completely different leagues than there own, then there is no point comparing them. it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Context is everything.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Article overlap exists everywhere. It's not a reason to oppose a move. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
So you are in favor of making more redundant work? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Claims that there isn't enough content to support a standalone article are quite ridiculous. There is more than enough to support a standalone article the complies with MOS:TV. A simple move is all that is required. Opposition to a move seems to generally be WP:IDONTLIKEIT in nature, with no real policy or guideline support to that attitude. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • reply @AussieLegend: the main franchise article is treated as both the TV series and manga article. What you WP:TVSHOW editors fail to understand is that anime and manga are universally synonymous among all communities. Unlike western adaptations, anime and manga are co-dependent for the majority of the time and often use to advertise the other. This is why it's quite rare to split them apart. We also do this because sometimes the original media isn't always notable due to localization issues (the anime could get an English release, but the manga might take years after) Basically WP:ANIME only splits the manga and anime when there is enough reception because reception helps prove that it's independently notable from the manga (if the manga was the original media). We want to create solid good-quality articles. And what bothers me about this is that the approach you WP:TVSHOW editors are taking. There is no need to re-purpose a list article. If you want a TV show article, you need the necessary information to split it from the franchise article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
A proper franchise article is supposed to be general overview of the subject matter. Again List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series (note: a precious WP:FL!!) shows how this is supposed to be done. Basically, there should only be a few sentences on production basics about the TV/anime series at Toriko, and then more detailed information at Toriko (TV series). In this case, there is no need for a separate "List of episodes" article. And the content currently at List of Toriko episodes – e.g. all the info on the music, and broadcast, etc. actually proves that it's more than just a "simple" LoE article and is indeed a proper "TV series" article. AussieLegend, et al. are completely correct that there is no sound policy-backed reasoning behind current WP:ANIME practice on this (outside of apparently keep some WP:FL statuses, which is exactly the wrong reason to keep doing something contra-MOS...). Note also that, 1) I didn't initiate this WP:RM, and 2) I didn't do much of the recent work at the article – AngusWOOF did – but his recent efforts there further drive home the point that this is a proper "TV series" article, not a LoE one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) What you WP:TVSHOW editors fail to understand - Ahem! Not at all the sort of thing conducive to reasonable discussion. Note that neither the ANIME or TV projects own articles. Where articles are strictly anime related then MOS:ANIME prevails but this is an article about a television program. Whether the content is anime or not, it should conform to MOS:TV. Both projects need to confirm to polices like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NFCC for example. That's how Wikipedia works, whether you like it or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: Not at the expense of the franchise article. And i'm not against a TV series article. I'm just against the approach. I think its terrible to achieve this by converting a perfectly fine list-article into a stub article.
Like i said before, Anime and manga (Japanese comic and Japanese TV series) are synonymous across the majority of media and they are largely co-dependent.
@AussieLegend: My responce remains the same. I believe it is important in the context of WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW to understand the fundamental differences between the two. And if I'm quite honest. It would be very beneficial to reflect on WP:TVSHOW guidelines and see if they are truly beneficial for all broadcasted shows or just a specific type. to split into specific sub-groups with their own guidelines. Or revise it to offer the necessary steps.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Moving this article will not somehow result in a stub article. I don't know why you keep claiming that. It makes no sense. Nor will any move affect the franchise article, although the franchise article does contain more than it should. The differences between this and any other TV article are not as great as you may think. In fact they're virtually non-existent. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Moving the title here would reflect a major shift in consensus that needs a global discussion at the WP:PUMP. Upon doing some research I found List of The Unit episodes, this is a featured article strictly in the scope of Wikiproject Television. There is info on the main page regarding the The Unit as well on the list of episodes article. We also have List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes which is a featured list and a part of a featured topic. Yes I am pointing to other stuff that would be impacted from these proposed changes. The key questions should be.... "is it beneficial to the Encyclopedia"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want a Toriko (TV series) article, I have no qualms with that. I will personally support your endeavors for more good-quality articles. IN fact, i dont think any WP:ANIME editor here has a problem with creating a (TV series) article. it is your 'approach that i do not agree with. Trying to convert a list into an article is not the best method to getting what you want and involves unnecessary work.
Once again, you're ignoring the obvious problem. You want to create a stub-article with a perfectly fine list. No other Wikiproject would value that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments makes no sense. A Toriko (TV series) article already exists right here. The whole purpose of this RM is to achieve that aim. No unnecessary work is required, just a simple move and a couple of link changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend:Its not that simple. List articles have two classes: List and Featured List. Articles have: Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, and FA. If this was converted into an "article" it would be a stub as is. WP:ANIME won't consider it a Start until it has enough reception. Personally, I think there's too many classes for articles. Personally i think there should be Stubs, C, B, A, and FA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 14 years and have over 200,000 edits on my 2 accounts. I know about classes but I suspect that you don't actually understand what a stub is. Per WP:STUB, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." That is not the case here. There is sufficient content in this article that takes it well beyond a stub. For example, this is a stub. This would be at least a start class article. If WP:ANIME would regard the article as stub class, then its assessment method is flawed. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Here's an example of why this process is not ideal. Gonymm changed List of Hunter × Hunter (1999) episodes into Hunter × Hunter (1999 TV series) and List of Hunter × Hunter (2011) episodes into Hunter × Hunter (2011 TV series). Now this edit looks harmless at first. But if this was properly discussed, it would've been easier to create a brand new article and leave the episode list as is. Hunter × Hunter article has enough broadcast information and Reception for each to have their own separate article and a separate list too. So now the option is to move that information and split it again. This also affects the edit history too.
The ideal solution would've been to create the TV series article separately and leaving the episode list alone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies but I agree with Gonnym's action. There just isn't enough content in the article to justify an LoE page without a main series article. Note that the article is C class, not stub class. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST does not apply because I'm not comparing the article, I'm comparing the circumstances we now have to deal with because of the changes made. This is a very real situation that WP:ANIME editors will have to deal with now because of the choice of repurposing a list. As is for both 1999 and 2011 series, have enough information to keep LoE and main article separate. I can guarantee it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS most certainly does apply as you're comparing what happened at another article to this one. As for the very real situation that WP:ANIME editors will have to deal with now because of the choice of repurposing a list, you're trying to create problems where none exist. Nothing will change. This article will still exist as a redirect to the episodes section of the main series article. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST doesn't invalidate the example provided. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is there to make sure we don't random comparisons, but it even says that there are valid and invalid cases. THis isn't random, it's related to the topic at hand. Hunter x Hunter could've had a TV series article separate from the list. Repurposing the list without discussion makes the situation more complicated and interferes with the page history. and the same goes with this circumstance. We should create a draft and make sure we can make a quality article before repurposing a list. That way the edit history doesn't get tampered too much. As for "nothing" will change. You're in support of changing this list into an incomplete article. An article I know you won't hold yourself accountable to improve to WP:ANIME's standards. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hunter × Hunter (1999 TV series) doesn't have enough content to justify splitting the LoE page to a separate article at this time.
Repurposing the list without discussion makes the situation more complicated and interferes with the page history. - It does neither of those things. Articles are moved all the time. The page history follows the move and only has problems if a required page is deleted, which is why we usually keep redirects.
We should create a draft and make sure we can make a quality article before repurposing a list. - There is absolutely no need to do that. The version of this article that IJBall created contains all the elements needed and will encourage expansion of the article. Doing what you suggest is more likely to split the edit history than a simple move.
You're in support of changing this list into an incomplete article. - There are no complete articles. everything is subject to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the record this has been taken to WP:PUMP for broader discussion among the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I find some of the opposing arguments logically flawed. Some have argued that the "anime" TV programs are not notable for standalone articles. If that is the case, then the TV program's list of episodes are certainly not notable by themselves. Some have argued that the manga page is enough for the TV program. That however, is not how every other TV article on en.wiki works. If it is notable, then it can have its own article, even if it is a stub. Some have argued that anime does not need to follow other TV related guidelines. This is based on what? Your personal preference? Time and time again have community discussion shown that anime is not their own walled of garden, but part of a larger set of articles. --Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is basically broken down into changing a list of episodes into an article when the central information is available on the main article. Episode lists have been shown to be notable per the FA examples out there. You can call this article "Boaty McBoatface" and it will still be about the list of episodes with the information provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:MOSTV says that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
MOSANIME doesn't say there needs to be a TV series article in order for a list of episodes to exist. It just says if the list is too big, it can be split. if you want to question WP:ANIME's guidelines and manual of stlye, you can. But in a more appropriate placeBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ANIME isn't the head honcho here, it's MOS:TV. And your repeated WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments aren't going to convince people otherwise. Amaury • 02:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Why should WP:MOSANIME be disregarded and WP:MOSTV favored? Where were WP:TV editors when WP:MOSANIME was created and why isn't anyone challenging the MOS in WP:ANIME? WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply. if anything it seems to be the reverse. WP:MOSTV doesn't establish that List of Episodes can only exist if there is an article dedicated to a TV series, only if it's connected to a "Main article" which WP:ANIME considers that to be the franchise article. I explained that changing the list into an article changes the criteria it's evaluated. I explained that it is no longer considered a quality article once the move is made. And let's say hypothetically we find enough anime information to have an anime article and a separate list. Splitting the list a second time will make it more difficult to trace the page edit history.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Why should WP:MOSANIME be disregarded and WP:MOSTV favored? - That is not what is being suggested. Since this is an article about a TV program, MOS:TV very clearly applies. MOS:ANIME still applies to the anime aspects of the article but things like the name, structure etc are still governed at a higher level by MOS:TV.
WP:MOSTV doesn't establish that List of Episodes can only exist if there is an article dedicated to a TV series - WP:TVSPLIT, which is part of MOS:TV, says "When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikipedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account." It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia. Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
WP:ANIME considers that to be the franchise article - That's not how TV articles work. A franchise article isn't created until there is an actual franchise. Then the franchise article becomes the main article for the overall franchise but not for individual elements. The franchise article simply ties the elements together.
I explained that changing the list into an article changes the criteria it's evaluated. - And you were wrong. I suggest that you actually read the assessment scale, which is the same for all Wikipedia articles. This article clearly meets the "Start" criteria. At least the version created by IJBall did.
it is no longer considered a quality article once the move is made - It's not a quality article now. It's just a list.
let's say hypothetically we find enough anime information to have an anime article and a separate list. - There's plenty of content now for a single series article. Once more content is added to the prose, it may be time to split the article into a separate LoE page but there's not enough overall content for that now. This article will remain as a redirect to Toriko (TV series)#Episodes so the episodes are still directly accessible.
Splitting the list a second time will make it more difficult to trace the page edit history. - No it won't. We've had plenty of TV articles where an errant LoE page has been moved back to the other and then later split out again. As long as you comply with WP:CWW it's easy to follow the history. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
At least you are addressing the concerns provided and I thank you for that even if we disagree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The reason that WP:MOSTV should be followed in this situation over WP:MOSANIME, is because MOSTV is the high-level guideline for anything TV-related. If a sub-guideline is created for any reason, it should not conflict with the parent. This is the same situation with MOS:TV following WP:V, or WP:N. It cannot contradict the policies just because a group of editors want to; it can only supplement it. Also, following on from community-wide discussions, look at these discussions about disambiguation, season article naming and exactly the same situation as above. In all of these discussions the result was to follow TV guidelines. Even Anime's own MoS says to follow WP:NCTV. At some point you have to realize that just because your shows come from Japan, it doesn't make them any more special or unique than any other show from any other country. --Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually no, guidelines don't need to work together. Each guideline should ideally work on a single topic and not re-create the same topic on a different page. When you do that, you WP:CFORK. What Anime should have done is just linked to the TV guidelines in their TV-related sections and not fork the content. Also, while consensus can change, it changes based on guideline arguments and not local consensous. So far that is entirely what anime's arguments were. --Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see that, you have editors here saying that most of the time the project does follow the guidelines set out by WP:MOSTV. The core issue is about layout issues that can be discussed and worked out. The reason why a discussion at the pump was made is to discuss that bit, not the whole guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
In other words, another WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Amaury • 23:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my points. Where did I say to "keep it this way because I like it?" I strongly recommend that you actually read the policies you link to Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
This gets to me here as it can be seen as ignorance and doesn't assume good faith on the part of others who are actually arguing points provided. Its easy to gloss something over and lump it into a WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Satellizer: The nominator has supplied an entirely valid rationale for moving and there have been several policy and guideline based explanations as to why the article should be moved in accordance with MOS:TV. The program has no main article, despite your claim. Also as pointed out, Toriko is a franchise article, which is a main article for the franchise overall but not for individual elements, such as the TV program for which this article is a list of episodes. Claiming this to be a "listicle" is not entirely accurate. This version of the article demonstrated that it is an article that includes a list and as such, should be a main series article, not a list. Moving this article would bring it inline with 47,000+ other TV articles and 136,000+ film articles (both projects follow similar principles - anime is the odd one out!). Moving the article would have no effect on articles such as List of Toriko characters and List of Toriko chapters. Naming of those articles is consistent with other TV articles. Please demonstrate the consensus that you claim in order to show that this claimed consensus is not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Your point regarding List of V (2009 TV series) episodes is not obvious. The main article for that episode list is V (2009 TV series), not V (franchise). I see nothing in your oppose that justifies a "strong" opposition to a proposed move in accordance with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend, if you're going to use WP:MOSTV, then you're going to have to quote it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to indent, you need to indent properly because your reply looks like you are responding to Amaury, not me, even though you mentioned me. What part of MOS:TV do you want me to quote this time? Have you considered reading it yourself? You'll get a better understanding of how television articles are created than you will if only parts of it are quoted. You might also like to read WP:NCTV, which reinforces what the MOS says. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking you to find the evidence to support your argument by actually quoting the MOS yourself. If you can find in MOS guideline that it explicitly states "Episode lists cannot be spun out unless the main article is a stand-alone TV article". I'm asking you to do it, because i already read WP:MOSTV, and it doesn't say that anywhere. If you have any good faith at all, you would do what i'm asking rather than pawning off people to read it themselves and not establish anything.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You're not going to find that exact comment in the MOS. I suggested that you read the MOS itself, and NCTV because, upon reading and understanding those you will see exactly how TV articles are created. MOS:TV has undergone a lot of changes in the past few years after lengthy discussions by multiple editors. Let me ask you this, find an LoE page in the TV project that doesn't have an associated main series article. Actually, since the TV project has considerable more episode articles than anime, you should try to find 50. Anyway, I've already quoted the MOS where it talks about creating episode lists, both here and at the village pump. Have you read either? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I got the answer i needed. You outright confirmed that the way WP:ANIME has been doing has not gone against WP:MOSTV. So i suggest you start using another argument. I'm not going to look for episodes in WP:TV to prove. In my honest opinion, WP:TV is flawed and has poor standards. But that's not what this discussion is about. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If that's what you got from what I wrote then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, as you've gotten everything so wrong.
I'm not going to look for episodes in WP:TV to prove. - Of course not, because you won't like what you find.
In my honest opinion, WP:TV is flawed and has poor standards. - You have a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong you are. As I've said, MOS:TV has undergone many changes as the result of much documented discussion between many editors. I'm pretty confidant in saying that all of them, or at least the vast majority of those editors who participated, would disagree with you. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You already said the most important thing here. That MOSTV does not have a rule that an episode list cannot exist without a standalone TV article. This was the entire basis of your argument. WP:ANIME is not violating WP:MOSTV. Case closed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, please learn to indent properly. As I have explained elsewhere, not everything that happens on Wikipedia is explicitly stated. You have to try using common sense, which you clearly are not doing. I've given you the opportunity to find an episode list that doesn't have a TV series article as the parent article and you've refused to do that. Clearly you are scared that you won't be successful and your argument has already failed. Only the existence of multiple LoE pages without main TV series articles would even come close to disproving what I've said. You haven't proven anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Common sense requires context. do you want more context or do you just want to make it a competition of who is the loudest?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Good point about the WP:SPINOUT. The example there shows that lists can be spun off without having to create any intermediate articles. I still believe that both can be done with enough content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is more for deletion arguments and pure opinion rather than size split concerns. Content forks WP:CFORK are more when the same information is placed in both articles without any chance of making one look shortened or different from the other. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Only if you ignore how "franchise" articles are supposed to be structured. And multiple examples of these have been offered. Here's another one: Descendants (franchise) → Descendants: Wicked World → List of Descendants: Wicked World episodes. Again, no one here has offered a shred of tangible reasoning why Anime/Manga articles shouldn't follow this formatting, nor has anyone provided a single justification why the LoE anime articles, nearly all of which contain significant content beyond just a simple list of episodes, shouldn't either be at, or have, dedicated TV series articles. As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to "It's always been done this way", which is pretty dang shitty justification for a contra-MOS practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I did. multiple times. i explained why multiple times and it was never even acknowledged. No one made a response to it. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You only think you did. The fact that none of the WP:TV editors are buying the arguments that you guys are making should concern WP:ANIME. The fact that Gonnym and I have been coming across bad WP:ANIME practices for months, which have pretty much always resulted in those practices being changed in favor of following the MOS, should also concern WP:ANIME. The fact that has not been WP:ANIME's reaction just further reinforces my view that ANIME is a WP in desperate need of some (outside) oversight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
This comment proves you had no respect for WP:ANIME editors from the beginning.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I respect that the idea of an ANIME/MANGA WP is a good idea. But I can't say that I respect a lot of what that WP's editors have been doing, as much of it has been contra-MOS, and has indicated that the project's editors view it as a "walled garden" without regards to things like overarching MOSs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
So i'm sorry you feel that way. But at the same time, don't you think you brought this on yourself? You've been editing under the radar on behalf of WP:TV and you haven't even attempted to tell WP:ANIME about the necessary changes. Don't you think your responce would've been welcomed to WP:ANIME if you given them the respect they deserved and told them these issues? Instead editors have to see comments like this:
I want to talk with you in a civilized manner, and i want to address all of your concerns in a respectful manner. All i ask is that you address ours as well. We want to create good-quality articles. And its frustrating that someone wants to spin-out an article in low-quality and we're expected to clean it up.
And when i hear the question, "Why is Anime treated differently from other TV shows", i treat this as a genuine question and i try to answer this as respectfully as possibly. So i find it insulting that my answer isn't treated with the same respect. We need a new approach.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

More relevant discussion in WP:VILLAGE that needs attention before addressing this RfC

@AussieLegend:, @Gonnym:, @Amaury:, and @IJBall:, if you're just trying to enforce a guideline that another Wikiproject does follow with exceptions and you disagree with that wikiproject, and you have intentions of participating in more discussions in the future to push that consensus one article at a time in spite of how Wikiproject handles their efforts, that is considered disruptive and helps no editor. It creates animosity, and doesn't allow editors to work together.

If you want to work with WP:ANIME, then the best place to have this conversation is in WP:VILLAGE. Here are the benefits for going to WP:VILLAGE. more third-party opinions are welcomed outside WP:TV and WP:ANIME and can have a nuetral perspective. WP:ANIME will respect the decision made just as we expect WP:TV to respect whatever WP:VILLAGE decides.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing this will not end the move discussion nor invalidate the result, but it would be nice if members from WP:TV come to the talking table over at the WP:PUMP. Its better to come to some kind of agreement than sticking to your guns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As assuring as that sounds, we actually can't guarantee that. depending on the results in WP:VILLAGE, the tone and focus will be different, that much is obvious.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Toriko_episodes/Archive_1&oldid=1091627205"