Talk:Vividred Operation

Reception sections in anime articles

I saw you removed the reception section (again) from Vividred Operation, with the edit summary "Removed Reception section cos there's nothing in it, not to mention they are kinda unneccessary in anime articles." I wanted to mention to you that there is no reason why anime articles should not have reception sections. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Reception). And, like I said after you removed it previously, empty sections can encourage new editors.--Atlantima (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an empty section should exist for the sake of 'attracting editors'. It's kinda like me plonking an empty fridge in the middle of your living room, saying it shouldn't be moved cos someone might possibly want to put food in there. It's just unneccessary clutter. Anime don't tend to get much in the way of Reception unless they get to the Madoka status of earning several awards or something, and even in those cases it's usually just implimented into the Media sections.Wonchop (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your view is not reflected anywhere in the manual of style I linked earlier. If you want to change the way anime articles are treated in Wikipedia, you need to get consensus to change. Current consensus doesn't agree with you, though. Also, don't assume that there is no reception. The anime is licensed by Aniplex and there are already some reliable sources reviewing it: ANN review, UK Anime.

If you want to get rid of Template:Empty section, then you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, but it's pointless to just edit war over its inclusion in this article. Your "fridge in the living room" analogy makes almost no sense: Fridges are not meant to go in living rooms, but anime articles are meant to have reception sections and the empty section template is meant to go in an empty section.

However, I am willing to compromise. I summarized two reviewers' opinions on the show and changed "empty section" to "expand section". :)--Atlantima (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think are is the right word for it. It can have a reception section, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should.Wonchop (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What guidelines would you suggest for deciding which articles should have a reception section and which shouldn't?--Atlantima (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable stuff I guess, such as winning awards or reaching high levels of BD sales (Puella Magi Madoka Magica and K-On! should have good examples) as opposed to general reviews from anime news sites, as they tend to fall more under 'that one guy's opinion' kinda thing than things such as game reviews. Wonchop (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? A Wikipedia guideline? A discussion somewhere? Or just your own opinion? I don't see how anime reviews from reliable reviewing sources should be treated differently than game reviews from reliable reviewing sources.--Atlantima (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anime news network an RS? Seems to me like its "news" section is mostly a blog sourced 2ch news blogs. Shii (tock) 22:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here. I did not use their news section as a source for the review. I used their review column.--Atlantima (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

But to answer your question, yes. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational states that ANN's news, reviews, and release info are reliable.--Atlantima (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( "no reason why anime articles should not have reception sections" ):

Empty sections are not helpful. "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" - from the MOS linked by Atlantima. Don't add sections unless you are able to populate them with referenced, appropriate facts. If that can be done, sure, they're appropriate; if not, no. If you can't decide if references are RS, ask on WP:RSN. If sources are reliable and you're not sure if the information deserves inclusion, discuss it here and - if necessary - ask for a 3O on the specific inclusion. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1. If "empty sections are not helpful" then why does Template:Empty section exist? I believe this template helps users reading the article to know when articles can be expanded.

2. I do not see the sentence "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" anywhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, which is what I linked. Nor is it in the main WP:MOS.

3. This disagreement has nothing to do with whether sources are reliable. It is about whether Wonchop is correct in saying that anime reception should only be noted when they receive awards or get high levels of sales, or if the animanga MOS is correct in saying that reception sections "should concisely describe the opinions expressed about the subject by reviewers, critics, academics, and (if reliable, secondary sources exist) fan communities. Varying opinions, criticism kind and harsh, and controversies should be presented in a neutral tone." The MOS's implication being that it does not have to have won awards or been a best-seller. This makes more sense to me.--Atlantima (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Lots of templates exist; it doesn't mean they should be used. That template was very nearly deleted, but saved after a deletion review showed no consensus to delete it - but, mainly because of historic reasons and possible uses in articles that follow a fixed layout, for example 1950s#Economics.

2. MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Also, from Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Body_sections, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Most guides talk about not having short sections, but I struggled to find one that specifically talks about empty ones - and I think that's because, to most people, it's common sense not to have a section with no content (except in rare cases).

3. I talked about reliable sources, to try and suggest normal guidelines for inclusion of content - in essence, if there is information that is directly relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject, and there are reliable sources to support the information, then it belongs in the article. I was speaking in general terms, because a 3rd opinion can't deal with lots of questions at the same time; that's why I suggested that if there is a specific thing you think should be included, but cannot agree with another editor, then ask for a 3O about that specific inclusion. Remember that MOS and the topic-specific MOS are guidelines only; the actual content of any specific article can vary, depending on consensus of editors discussing it right here.

To summarize my 3o;

• Don't have empty sections.
• If you think something should be included, discuss that one specific piece of text in a section, here. "I suggest we add <this sentence> with <these references>." See if there is a consensus to add it. If you can't agree, ask for a 3O to help resolve that specific disagreement.

I hope that helps. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed this specific 3O which was "when should an anime article have a reception section?".--Atlantima (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The question about reception is a hard one, and depends a bit on whether you are an Inclusionist or a Deletionist. Myself, I waffle between the two opinions. On the one hand, one quote from Anime News Network that is itself a review, hardly qualifies as a summary of the "reception." A review is a primary source; a site that cites several reviews and says "Critics seem to generally feel excited/ambivalent/hatred about this show" is a secondary source, and is better suited to provide a good idea of the reception of a work. Citing the primary reviews and calling it a "reception" section borders on original research. A reception section should have more of the synthesized reviews, not individual ones. If synthesized reviews don't exist, the article probably isn't a good candidate for a reception section. If you're adding a header for "Reception," please at least do a quick search to find if something suitable exists. In summary, A "reception" section, if it exists, should include links that synthesize reviews, not individual reviews. Providing several links then synthesizing the result is original research, and should not be done on Wikipedia. A "reviews" section is completely and always unnecessary for any film, song, or series. This is Wikipedia, not Rotten Tomatoes. Empty sections, like living room refrigerators, ought to be left out. Things that violate WP policies (OR, RT-style "reviews" sections) should be fixed. Questionable things that don't violate policies (Anime News Network reaction, an empty "Reception" section) should be basically left alone, especially if another editor disagrees strongly. Find something better to do with your Wikipedia time. As it is, you're risking your very own monument on WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find some of your argument laughable, to be honest. Yes, synthesized reviews might be more broader, but there's no restriction on individual reviews, and calling them OR is the height of ridiculousness. Reception for a fictional work is clearly something needed for articles to achieve at a minimum GA status. Go to any GA/FA article on any fictional work, and you'll find a reception section with individual (non-synthesized) reviews from reliable sources. If someone wanted to bring this article up to GA or further in the future, it would be wise not to prevent this by preventing reception from being included. Passing (novel) recently got passed as a GA, and it included many individual reviews. Are you saying this is in error? (Note that this question is merely rhetorical, and why I would have to point this out to someone who's been on Wikipedia for 4 years is beyond me).--十八 08:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article you cite proves the point perfectly. From the "Passing" article, beginning of the "Reception" section: "Passing was published in April 1929 by Knopf in New York.[24] Sales of the book were modest—Knopf produced three, small print runs each under 2,000 copies—and while early reviews were primarily positive, it received little attention beyond New York City.[25]". The article then provides supporting examples from The Washington Eagle, and W.E.B. DuBois. Next sentence: "A criticism made by many was the suddenness of the novel's ending." Exmaples from the New York Times and New York Book Review follow. The next paragraph begins, "In modern scholarship..." and proceeds to discuss the reception of the book in modern scholarship.

That's exactly what a reception section ought to look like: well-sourced statements, including examples. It's not an indiscrimiate Rotten Tomatoes-style collection of reviews. I never said that including individual reviews was bad; in fact, I specifically said that the Anime News Network reaction should stay. I only said that the synthesis should also be present, and that it should be cited from independent sources, not synthesized by Wikipedians. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled network

Animax Asia is a Southeast Asian pay television channel operated by Sony Pictures Television which broadcasts Japanese language anime programmings and English-language feeds in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. It is a regional version of Japanese BS channel Animax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.84.231.167 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Vividred Operation on Animax Announcement

In the new Animax Asia In December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.161.11 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)