Talk:Pita-Ten

	Anime and manga portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

First header

What happened to the pita ten manga page? And what happened to the pita ten anime information? attention should be payed to that.Kurui 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must IMPROVE the Pita-Ten article!! It's one of the best animes!!! PiyokoPyo 00:00 23 March (UTC)

It's on my "Anime I love but can't find the time to fix up the Wikipedia article to do list" --Squilibob 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to improve

Why does each character have it's information here AND on a page of their own? That is totally unnecessary and clogs up the main page. Plus, the character section is a mess. The indenting of information seems a little overused and it's just a block of information.I don't really want to go through it as I've only just started reading the manga and don't want to read spoilers.
Also, the artical refers to it as PitaTen, Pita-Ten, Pitaten and Pita Ten. Shouldn't it all be the same? My copy says Pita-Ten, but I don't think that all do. It might be better if all used said the same version through the article because using variations just adds to the messiess of the page. A section could be made to mention the different versions of the name though. Tartan 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the pages be combined into one page List of Pitaten characters or something similar. We're definitely using Pitaten throughout the article as that is what the name of the article is. --Squilibob 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the character pages as per WP:FICT as a lot of anime article have been merged as such lately. --Squilibob 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shōjo or Shōnen?

A lot of edit warring has been occurring on this article over whether it is a shōjo or shōnen series. Instead of just reverting each others changes please state your reasoning for why it should be classed one way or the other. --Squilibob 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are stating it as a shounen series because the manga was serialized in a shounen magazine. Even so, this is in no way a shounen series in my opinion, and I'm positive most people will agree. The majority of it's fanbase is female, isn't that enough? Do I have a source? Yes, Google. I don't know what it's creator calls it, but if most people think of it as shoujo, it's shoujo. SoulSlayer 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed logic aside (Google should NOT substitute for an unbiased census), shoujo/shounen classifications are defined solely as the intended target audience by the author/publisher. Running a series in a shounen serial makes it undeniably shounen, regardless of subject matter. This is not for debate. -StarCreator 130.85.243.35 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

The opening part of this section has a spoiler in it; it tells how the anime ends.. or, rather I should say it ruins the ending. Repku 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pita-ten?

Why is this not located under Pita-Ten? The manga is licensed in the U.S. by Tokyopop with a dash, thus by wikipedia policy, the article should call it Pita-Ten. --Wirbelwind 05:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Pitaten → Pita-Ten — In the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, #7 states "Names should be romanized according to common usage, which includes unconventional romanizations by licensees....". Since Tokyopop has the manga licensed in the U.S. as Pita-Ten, the page should also be Pita-Ten instead of Pitaten.) Wirbelwind 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support for reason above. Wirbelwind 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Wirbelwind. Many more google hits for pita-ten (500,000 vs 70,000). List of Pitaten characters would also have to be moved and there is a category which could just be deleted now that the characters have been merged into one page. --Squilibob 07:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Tokyopop

Iwant to delee the external link to the tokyopop site,as tokyopop is a fanbased website,and not of the standard of an unbiased informative website.It is purley fanbased,ans as such, we should not be using it as a reference,as it is 'not purely factual'. Can someone please remove it. Wongdai clcheung 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga vs. Anime

I do remember an earlier version of this article containing information about the differences between the two mediums. It was a bit too extensive, but a think a general description should be included.
--Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of characters article still has separate sections for manga and anime for each character. That could perhaps be summarized on the main article. --Squilibob 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television Osaka as a producer

Television Osaka is indeed a main producer of the anime series; in the (Snubbed, copyright violation) and ending credits it is as follows: 製作: テレビ大阪、読売広告社、ぴた組, and in ja.wikipedia and some other websites already documented. It is also noticable in the copyright notice of the product: (C)コゲどんぼ・メディアワークス/ぴた組・テレビ大阪. I don't think this is something so controversial that would start an edit war! Furthermore, Animanga infobox in English Wikipedia doesn't have a parameter like 製作= that exists in Japanese Wikipedia to show such details. And then we have articles in Japanese Wikipeia like スマイルプリキュア! (Smile PreCure!) [shows the network in infobox in form of 放送局: ABC・テレビ朝日系列] or マギ (Magi) [shows the network in infobox in form of 放送局: MBS・TBS系列] that are simulcasts and their key stations (as content provider in the network and main producer and investor) are highlighted in the infobox. To highlight the key station in the infobox in some form (what I tried to do) is useful information in my opinion, and I don't see the need to remove it repeatedly. Raamin (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reliable source that Osaka is a producer of the anime, that's all I said. Having it in the copyright notice is not enough. Do not highlight the main station in the infobox for accesibility to general readers. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can see it clearly in the credits in OPs and EDs; How is this something to be ignored?! TV Osaka even hosted the anime website (in contrast to TV Tokyo that hosts websites of anime it produces). These are simple facts; I don't understand the strong opposition to add such an information? Furthermore, why commands like "Do not highlight the main station in the infobox for accesibility to general readers"? I am not violating any ploicy or guideline; is this not true? Highlighting the key station in the infobox is useful in my opinion (I can even provide reliable sources that highlight it), and you haven't provide a good reason to show why I am not allowed to do so. Raamin (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source opening only repeats the copyrighted quote which you pasted. That is not enough. Provide a reliable source which says 製作: (TV Osaka) Ex: ToS staff. Madhouse lists (TV作品（アニメーション制作） TV東京), the second being Tokyo TV which I infered as TXN because of the many channels it premiered on. Because of this, I have to be skeptical of TV Osaka. As for highlighting the keystation, you need to keep in mind the format a general reader sees. The format (TXN (TV Osaka)) does not make sense and is an issue of accessibility. We do not follow the Japanese article's formats and fancruft. For producing studios, use the produced by template of the infobox such as the one at Rozen Maiden. I am going to be away now. Don't expect a reply until tomorrow. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Episodes of Pita-Ten anime series are available on DVD. I quote from WP:RS: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Quote from WP:Published: "A film, video, CD, or DVD distributed to theatres or video stores; a radio program including its contents actually broadcast; a television broadcast; a streaming video or audio source on the Internet; a song recording distributed to a public." Credits in the openings and endings are part of this published material and can be used as a (primary) source. For such simple infos, there is no need for an edit war! If you don't agree with my argument, we could take this matter to WP:RSN. This is word for word from credits: 製作: テレビ大阪、読売広告社、ぴた組, English equivalent would be Production: Television Osaka, Yomiko Advertising, Pita-Group. Japanese Wikipedia uses exactly these credits; I don't see what the problem is.
2. The famitsu link I provided highlights Television Osaka (as the key station) and mentions it explicitly alongside TXN (テレビ大阪・テレビ東京系ほか全国16局). TV Osaka is one the main producers of this series and the key station. I provided a reliable source that highlights TV Osaka; I find this a useful information that helps readers and have the right to add it. I didn't violate any policy or gudeline; you can't revert my edits and remove infos with their sources from the article, just becuase you don't like it. Raamin (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of, I never said primary sources should not be used. I missed the production credits in the opening and had assumed you were only using the copyrighted text as your source, but that picture proves the production credits. Secondary, I had the right to be skeptical about TV Osaka. All the sources in the article, which I had to comb through tons of archives to add, never explicitly stated that fact. Thirdly, the style of highlighting of main network was perfectly debatable. Both styles are not against guidelines. You believe it benefits readers, I believe it is redundant and better summarized as TXN for a general reader and detailed in the prose. It is not wrong here to disagree about this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This seems like a pretty tame dispute for WP:3, but at any rate, I personally think the infobox should actually list TVO alone, not TXN. From what I read from both articles (as well as all the respective articles of the other networks listed), the former appears to be the affiliate while the latter appears to be the parent company, and all the other entries in the infobox are the affiliates. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try to clarify:
1. We should differentiate between a network (like TXN), and a television station (like TV Tokyo); in animanga infobox regional and satellite TV stations are listed in general.
2. If we compare it with USA, the Japanese system is the other way around. TV networks like ANN, NNS, TXN or JNN or not a parent company (like CBS), owning and running local TV stations (like WCBS); these networks are owend by their member TV stations and led by key TV sations like TV Asahi, NTV, TV Tokyo or TBS (these stations I mentioned all are located in Tokyo and only accessible in Kantō region).
3. In Pita-Ten's case, we should mention TXN, because the series was a simulcast on all its 6 member stations (and was also shown on 10 other non-affiliated stations mentioned in infobox). Raamin (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching ANN. THEM was already in the article though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]