3005:, it seems to be staffed primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant to use them if there's a better source, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives. Considering the niche nature of anime though and approved sources (such as ANN) also having inexperienced/younger writers without qualifications / EiC without journalism qualification / etc which seem to be used as arguments against in other areas, I'd consider using them.
774:, and so on. I did some searches to verify her contributions to these publications, but haven't yet found them (it doesn't really help that her bio being copied everywhere into the footer of articles she wrote for other sites already mentions means that searching for them tends to yield those articles). I'm also not sure how much of them I'd be able to access since at least a few of the purported sources that she's supposedly written for or been reviewed in might be print sources or paywalled journals, but I'll keep looking on that front.
940:). I think it's a little misleading of her to say these count as "writing for" those outlets, but whatever. The Quora answers are also totally unrelated to her media reviews, mostly consisting of her espousing her views on social topics, and the original listing of her did already caveat that she's generally only reliable for anime/manga-related reviews and interviews and shouldn't be used for controversial topics, so this might not really change anything. I guess I'll leave that to others to have an opinion on.
35:
1397:- ANN was recently acquired by Kadokawa. While they have stated that they will remain independent, it may be worth keeping an eye on if approved. Both for increasing the ads and pressures to be positive about Kadokawa work. This isn't anything new for a website to be owned by an industry company or otherwise to receive money from them such as advertising, but issues have occasionally been highlighted before for other sites. A notable case being the
2270:. It doesn't look like they've covered much anime in any level of detail, but their website design is terrible enough that it makes finding it difficult and much of the stuff listed under reviews are actually just release blurbs. That said, some of their reviews aren't much more than a description with few lines of opinion added either. Is there further information that suggests it's reliable in the Knowledge sense?
1539:). And while it is true that Knowledge perhaps relies too much on ANN, I think this is just simply a case of ANN being really the only major anime-dedicated website in English. Regarding their recent partial acquisition by Kadokawa, while I am skeptical, ANN has been partially owned by Bandai for quite awhile and still reports fairly neutrally on that, so I am giving ANN the benefit of the doubt for now.
1221:. However, that discussion was based on just the first two articles posted to that feed (which happened to be of low quality), and only one person in that discussion (Dinoguy1000) affirmatively said that warranted a label of 'unreliable'; everyone else was either just bringing up the question for debate (Farix) or providing contextual information (AnmaFinotera, Shiroi Hane, Calathan). Looking at the
2596:). But anyways, looking into their anime articles, it seems like the vast majority are written by John F. Trent and Nerdigans Inc. However, for Trent I honestly could not find a single other publication he has written for (which is bad considering his page claims he is their editor-in-chief) and for Nerdigans Inc, they wrote one article for
1404:- While not an issue with ANN itself, the writers there do seem to typically fall politically left and are often negative about sexual topics or fanservice. This isn't a problem with ANN, but some articles seem to almost exclusive cite ANN without providing any opposing views to the point that there has been at least one (presumably false!)
399:, respectively. Generally, for reviews at least, this, Screen Rant and Game Rant are fine sources I guess. On the other hand, Comicbook.com, especially those articles by Megan Peters (which are not few), are usually based on leaks, unconfirmed rumours, random posts on Twitter and similar stuff, so I don't think that they are reliable.
1831:, it seems to be staff primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives.
2349:, Begin asking for public review submission, which eventually led to the birth of the Editorial team. MJ Review Team officially formed, it was later renamed to the MJ Editorial Team, with Firedog heading the team as its Editor-in-Chief. On April 17, 2006, Manga Jouhou launched ComiPress, a spin-off site to expand its news coverage
1411:- Just generally that as with any source reliable or not, it should be scrutinized and used carefully when it comes to evidence for points to include on the Wiki page - that something being on ANN doesn't mean it's the definitive fact, and that it does report on opinions and based on limited sources in some articles. The
3045:
But yes, we should be thorough and take extra care if citing them. Their news posts seem to list the sources clearly, so it's just a matter of scrutinizing them. Interviews cite the interviewee and reviews are more a matter of extending a level of trust regarding accuracy of information and that it's
2857:
2578:
It's worth noting that the gendered language in the subtitles are the main topic of the article. The censored video elements of Onimai were done by Japan, but the subtitles may be another matter, so this may not be inaccurate. @tomoyo_0810's portfolio doesn't list whether they work for
Crunchyroll as
2556:
They make sweeping statements showing their bias and my gut feeling is unreliable after reading the articles unrelated to anime that were linked, but I could see arguments against it being subjective rather than unreliable as the actual information the anime posts are based on seems to be correct for
1852:
Regarding Latest Anime News, I dismissed it as unreliable because their contributors are completely unverified and it seems like they allow anyone to write for them, which means they have little to no editorial control. As far as Anime Corner, I admit that I am not very familiar with this website, so
1690:
a lot more often than the the specialty sources), so we can't rely on them for our sourcing. What matters, ultimately, I think, is that the people working on these sources have at least done a basic degree of due diligence and they get the things that matter to us right, most of the the time, when it
1140:
This is an openly political resource with a rather open and clear intention of reviewing and studying the media from the point of view of a certain ideology, then the question is obvious. But at the moment I haven't seen them being cited around that as an undeniably objective source, so I don't quite
541:
I suppose that citing ComicBook.com is fine as long as their reports are not based on leaks, comments, and posts from random people out there. I personally just know them for news articles, so if better, more reliable sources reporting the same stuff are available, I don't know for what other purpose
2400:
Sorry didn't get back to this sooner - I'm not seeing anything in the history link for MangaJouhou that helps make it reliable. Just the nature of scanlation and anonymous staff makes it difficult, since they're not qualified in a measurable way or in professional positions. It doesn't really confer
1820:
I'd not want to dismiss a source immediately for something along those lines unless it's necessary, and considering some of the common practices in academia and the occasional self-published website that's considered reliable, it does make me wonder if anything directly states that only paid writers
1434:
I tried finding ANN's or some third party's characterization of differences between the different feeds, but couldn't find any. Based on the staff section, they do appear to be different "departments" with different editors. Every article on the "News" feed reads like it was taken directly from some
1871:
I do agree that Latest Anime News are unreliable. There's no statement of editorial control, there's a lack of consistency in some ways that imply a lack of editor (for example of three news writers, one always links
Youtube, one Twitter, and one nothing for videos), no experience or qualifications
1816:
for reliability? A lot of anime websites run on volunteer writers, to the point that if it doesn't directly state that it does pay, it might be more likely that it doesn't than it does (and most don't seem to state either way). The same issue exists in gaming, with many websites 'paying' by sending
1284:
As a participant in that discussion and a frequent questioner of ANN as a source, I don't mind as long as it is sufficiently attributed and objectively described. I mean, I don't mind using the site as a news source, a source for original articles like Frog-kun's stuff, or a source for reviews, but
3087:
publication (he did a Makoto
Shinkai interview with them). I think besides some of those cases, ANN is a good comparison since I think a good number of the writers from there gained prominence/"notability" through their tenures with ANN rather than already having experience (even some of the older
1661:
has often been cited, has a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues that I can see. But it seems to be staff primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere. Would that disqualify
798:
My take would be that she's probably fine as a source of opinion, at least, and maybe okay as a source of facts in interviews, so long as they're not about anyone uninvolved, but likely wouldn't count towards notability. Still, I'm not completely certain, especially since I've not yet been able to
1898:
Like I said above, my problem with Latest Anime News is not that they don't provide monetary compensation, but rather their (pretty much) lack of any real editorial control. The way their apply page is worded makes it sound like they let pretty much anyone write for them without any experience in
1469:
On the topic of reader polls, I think
Knowledge does a poor job of reporting and summarizing general audience reaction to a work, focusing only on professional critic reactions to the exclusion of all else. Any reliable sources that report substantively and accurately on what regular people think
304:
Well, as far as I know anyway, their news at least are based on primary sources or reliable secondary sources, never based on leaks, random
Twitter rumors or something like that. The nickname thing maybe it's just me being nitpicking, so if no one has an issue with that, I see no problem with the
1694:
And particularly for opinions (which is what was initially being debated at the Onimai page), I'd say that there's generally a lot less to be concerned over in practical terms- the verification for the writer of a review having an opinion on a piece of media is self-evident in the review itself,
1650:
which is another issue sometimes brought up over there to dismiss a source as unreliable. I'd agree. It seems that their standards don't really apply here. In general, a lot of their reliability criteria also comes from a dynastic view of having worked for another website that's deemed reliable,
1553:
Regarding ANN being relied upon too much, I think you're correct for the reasoning. My concern is mostly around editors seeing ANN now marked as
Reliable, and increasing this even further. This isn't a reason for ANN not to be included, but just a concern that some editors may treat the list as
1474:
as advertising, whereas the former is just "something cool/interesting that the writer found and wanted to share with their audience". I can envision valid use cases for the former in a
Merchandising section along the lines of " was a popular source of licensed products including water bottles,
988:
on her website! For some reason it didn't click that her title of "writer" was a link to her writing credits. This doesn't include the Quora answers, but it does seem to include all the other things, so, there we go. I guess I can still email her if we need a fuller list, but that's probably
1642:, it was mentioned that what the Video Game Project Editors think of reliably may not apply here. Considering that over there things such as hiring university students as writers would be used as a factor of unreliability, but also apply to our main sources such as the Anime News Network (
722:
consensus is too old and based on flimsy justifications. After a look at the discussion in question, I think I agree on that front. As such I think it's probably worth asking the question of if
Friedman (and the yuricon site overall) still qualifies as a reliable source for such topics.
1789:
or use of the source in other reliable sources. Anime Corner is the only one that has a chance, but I still don't believe it meets the bar for reliability. While it has been used in Anime
Trending (which is marginally reliable), it has not been used in any other major sources and while
3232:
Just following up. I missed the About Us page at first and found it afterwards, to which I already replied at the AFD. I think this source is very close to essentially being just a blog for
Beveridge at this stage, but we do treat some authors as sources in their own right. --
2262:
seems to be about Product Design/content marketing/branding and is currently working with AI. No posted editorial standards, etc. The content does appear to be better than the others mentioned, but Knowledge standards for reliability would presumably want some other positive
370:. Regarding CBR and ComicBook.com, from my understanding the general consensus is that their columns and reviews are reliable, but their listicles and clickbait/reaction articles are not, though it could also depend on whether the writer has worked for another publication.
1677:
I think the general issue is just that we don't have a great selection of sources in general. This goes not just for anime but also topics on all sorts of niche pop culture topics (while there's undoubtedly a better pick of sources for gaming topics, I'm sure if you held
289:
Re Anime UK News: Their website's about section does list a lot of contributors, though taking a brief look over their articles, it really appears like only the users with a profile picture write most of the articles, so maybe only articles by those users are reliable?
3019:
Ok, sounds fair to me, but I'd say that we should be thorough with their posts, as I recall that some of them were based on some tweets from randoms users and other unofficial accounts. As long as their reports are based on official sources, I agree with citing them.
2189:
Not the person you were asking, but IMO it's not a good source at all. It's just a random person's blog. No particular editorial standards/professional experience/assurance of quality/etc. Unless it happens to belong to someone who is relevant elsewhere, I'd not use
271:
Otaku USA definitely should be included. Personally, I think that Anime UK News is a reliable source, but to be honest, I don't know if it should be added as General or Situational, mainly due to much part of its staff that just use nicknames instead of their own
2321:
2645:
in several articles. At the moment, I am neither for nor against citing this site, but I'd like to know if anyone knows better about the background of this site and whether it can be considered reliable. On the other hand, however, I have a slight suspicion of
2412:
In terms of the ANN mention, that's a positive side, though it's rather minor. MangaBookshelf I'm not familiar with, but it seems just to be a dead blog run by two people? The American Media one, a radio show by John Biewen and Chris Farrell called Japan's Pop
3042:, though I suppose there may be some I'm missing. I'd suggest that it's relevant in that particular case too, as they're using multiple 'victims' affected as a primary source, rather than the 'aggressor' who'd be extremely unlikely to issue a public statement.
1155:
No objections to this. As Silvia noted, we should be doing that for all sources, but considering there's a clear bias and they often get cited when speaking about the reception of an anime / opinion-based topics, it would be good to have a clear reminder.
3155:) and they do list credentials for their staff in articles they write and their credentials were also discussed in the linked discussion above. Specifically, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by
1875:
It also seems a leap to say that anyone can write for them. Anyone can apply, yes, but not necessarily be approved. And I imagine they're at least turning away the people who can't spell, as a certain minimum quality is there when looking through their
799:
turn up the other sources she says she's written for (although maybe those don't matter if her contributions to ANN and Anifem are enough). No strong opinion on the guest reviews, but I'm assuming for the time being at least that they're not usable.
2042:
is listed as writing for Honey's Anime, Anime Corner, a non-related content writing job and having briefly worked for J-Novel Club. No academic credentials, but a couple relevant websites, a writing position with a company and an industry position.
1370:
loads the website header and news sidebar, but the entire space where the archive would be is blocked as an ad š. At any rate, I have no objection to this additional warning, and it's probably already covered by RS guidelines against advertorials.
2408:
Experts in the field seems a little strong to me... but they do have a few people like writers of a publisher OEL manga. Only three of the team (two retired and non of the current editorial) mention involvement back when it was still MangaJouhou
135:
fan website. I was wondering if it is allowed to use it as a source for a simple basic fact like a release date. I know that they should generally be avoided, but I feel that is always better to support that kind of information with some source.
2844:
CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism
2557:
examples I've seen. ANN has a very left-bias as does a lot of media and we have biased sites such as Anime Feminist often used, so it can be useful to have sources on the other side that discuss censorship, fanservice, and adult content.
2567:
This one shows extreme bias when referring to the 'disrespect' and judgements on why the changes were made. It seems to accurately report about changes between versions though, with video examples, so the information doesn't seem to be
2209:
DarkeruTomoe said pretty much everything I would have said. Also worth noting their about page and most of their articles don't mention the contributors, so it's almost always impossible to know whether they have any actual experience.
2997:
links to NicheGamer, which is specifically listed as unreliable as a website on the video game project. So I'd agree that amount of links don't really add creditability, but are more of an indication of amount of views/popularity as a
2875:
Perhaps the listing should be updated to something along the lines of "pre-2016 reliable, 2016āmid 2023 situational, mid 2023āpresent unreliable". While in the time before AI but after the Valnet acquisition it did resort to a lot of
3049:
I did find one issue. I went through reviews of some titles I'm familiar with and noticed that while they got most things right about Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire, they said there's no fullscreen on PC which there is.
1067:
I don't quite get it, do you have any doubts about her? With an eye to Erica's healthy skepticism and subjectivity like any other reviewer or author, I think Friedman is one of the best yuri experts in the English speaking space.
2594:
2342:
1205:
Hi folks, based on the prevalence of ANN as a source across the encyclopedia, and the numerous references to it on this talk page as a standard against which to compare any other source, I feel like ANN is being treated as
1454:
Limited Edition Whiskey Blend. It does occasionally feature obviously newsworthy topics like the piracy report. Maybe include a word of caution about ensuring the content constitutes due weight if the feed is whitelisted.
1742:
1415:
that I imagine triggered this is essentially whether the article does or does not support the points written on the wiki / whether it's due weight based on the ANN article as an example where it's caused some dispute.
1992:
727:
1320:
In theory, yes. But last year I discovered that many lists like "animated shows with gay characters" are based on the fact that one of the editors of ANN considered, even openly in jest, a certain character as gay.
624:
I support adding these websites and only using their news based on reliable source (hope editors in the future read their news first to judge their source/s). These two will be another case of situational sources.
1240:
Based on these two points, I think it's good practice to promote ANN to the main 'reliable' table (with the warning against the user-submitted part) to more prominently display it as a usable source for editors.
2919:
Due to it not showing up on the current list, I'm wondering if everyone would be able to evaluate whether animecorner.me constitutes a reliable source. It is currently present on several pages, and is currently
1686:, you'd find the former quite lacking). More "generalist" sources, which may be considered of higher editorial quality, don't tend to take a big interest in these culturally niche topics (and when they do, they
653:
I added both websites to the situational section with wording based on how I feel the consensus has shown over various discussions. Feel free to tweak or revert my addition if you have a better wording in mind.
518:
came to the conclusion that the website was situational and should be treated in similar ways to Screen Rant, which I think makes sense. For ComicBook.com, there aren't many prior discussions, though there was
781:
Is Friedman still a reliable individual source of opinion and okay to cite for reviews and the yuri topics she (and the websites she contributed to) says she's an expert in- and, if the answer is "yes", then:
1883:
sources that don't provide monetary compensation, as that was stated as the initial dismissal reason, but doesn't necessarily seem required for reliability. There's few enough quality anime sources as it is.
2508:; the former claim is objectively false and the latter claim is not inaccurate but is misleading as the censorship is actually done in Japan to comply with TV broadcasting standards and not by Crunchyroll (
161:, and saw that there was a controversy section, and in it I saw a reference to Sankaku Complex and removed the entire section. I want to know whether we add them to the page as an unreliable source or not.
2152:
Considering all that, I don't think I see any reason not to consider it at least situational, though I would say I support listing it as generally reliable at least for non-controversial news or opinions.
944:
2469:
68:
63:
823:
730:
on the history of the yuri genre, which was published in 2022 (may or may not be reliable; I don't know anything about the publishing house), has written reviews and articles for ANN and Anime Feminist
719:
1535:
with a note regarding interest and advertorial pieces and its encyclopedia. While from my experience ANN and its contributors tend to have a liberal bias, I don't see that as much of a problem (as per
1438:
The interest feed on the other hand seems to report on more tangential subjects and those not deemed notable(?) enough for the news feed. Examples include reader polls, and reporting on products like "
2562:
2501:
1341:(in addition to the already outlined warning against the encyclopedia). I've seen one occasion where an advertorial was being treated as if it's an authoritative source and not, well, an ad. ~Cheers,
1042:
1013:
857:
1391:
this, with the various guidelines that Knowledge provides kept in mind. While I do have some concerns, ANN is one of the more prolific sources and is known for reliability. It's a source I often use.
2979:
I don't think that's an indication of reliability. I mean, for example, a lot of articles continue to cite the Anime News Network encyclopedia, even though it's expressly listed as unreliable here.
275:
making it hard to know about the background of each contributor. I haven't checked yet Taykoban, but if it has been cited by reputable websites and publishers, I think that it should be included. -
874:, so that book might be notable if another good review is found. I would agree that the guest authors are (unless they can be shown to be subject-matter experts) unreliable. But that's my opinion.
527:
and frequent use of Twitter as a source, so perhaps with an even greater caveat that it shouldn't be used for news? Not quite sure about this one, so I would like to hear what others have to say.
2593:
Those were just some of the first search results I saw, though upon looking into the website, they also described criticizing Crunchyroll's casting in Witch from Mercury as "neoliberal whining" (
1294:
1105:
1077:
515:
1671:
106:
1691:
comes to their focus. What we have isn't perfect, sure, but it's good enough, and sometimes for some topics on Knowledge, good enough is what you have to settle for when it comes to sources.
1188:
356:
1279:
1250:
1721:
2941:
1053:
I think that she is reliable per the reasons mentioned above. I also think that we should just consider her articles valid for Knowledge purposes but not the guest authors contributions.
314:
299:
284:
2481:
1621:
596:
Oh I have no problem with citing official accounts (even Anime News Network does it), what I have a problem with is them citing unofficial accounts like SugoiLite, which they have done
1135:
979:
883:
3122:
3002:
1828:
1357:
1062:
21:
1977:. Their contributors also seem to have a lack of other experience as the only one I could find that had written for any other website was Peggy Sue Wood (their editor-in-chief), who
1425:
1211:
2429:
2395:
2333:
2305:
2285:
2204:
2033:
over on the Video Game Project that seems to be going the way of their recent content being classed as unreliable between recent quality and business decisions/focus on AI content.
1330:
1315:
2748:
article which are considered generally unreliable and situational, respectively. The second link lists a website titled "Sailor Moon Fan Network", which would definitely not meet
2605:), which is a reliable source but one article is not enough to indicate reliability. While I would not be opposed to having more conservative sources, this one should not be it.
1380:
1150:
2860:
where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting.
2356:. ComiPress is a spiritual successor to and branched of the site Manga Jouhou; a quick google search shows references to Manga Jouhou from two English-language manga publishers
2310:
I'm certainly happy to wait for others to weigh in, but I wouldn't have thought any of that mattered much... at least in terms of how Knowledge tends to look at what's reliable.
1527:
2314:
2249:
2184:
2147:
2004:
1484:
1464:
264:
3110:
2869:
1585:
1508:
170:
2817:
2803:
2785:
2761:
2085:
3144:
2735:
1548:
1210:
reliable, with the exception of its user-submitted encyclopedia section. It seems like it would be more effective to just include it as a full entry with explanation in the
862:
I would say she's probably fine as a reliable source (assuming she actually did write for the sources listed) along with her fairly-sizeable contributions to ANN (even as a
2906:
2892:
2614:
2588:
2473:
2401:
any relevance from being posted on insidescanlation either, since that itself was discussed before as you mentioned and seemed to be deemed as only a self-published source.
2219:
2162:
2130:
2101:
2060:
1908:
1893:
1866:
1840:
1563:
1218:
1165:
446:
145:
3059:
3029:
3014:
1967:
833:
of her website again. Apparently she's responsive to emails, so I'll try asking later if she has a list of the things she's written and report back on what that turns up.
379:
185:
2988:
2974:
2573:
2505:
408:
936:
921:
663:
634:
616:
584:
536:
509:
478:
2960:
1699:
standards whatsoever, because then that sets a precedent for citing those sources elsewhere generally, thus poisoning the well. That's my feeling on the matter, anyway.
1226:
337:
3259:
3227:
3213:
3192:
3106:
2678:
2548:
1803:
1613:
677:
551:
492:
3242:
2659:
1932:
1764:
520:
3273:
2853:, which was apparently removed, claiming that most of the news editors who had not already resigned had been fired as the site moved further into AI-driven content.
2837:
2533:
2709:
1232:
1576:, but it is also good to rely more on academic sources when possible. ANN is useful especially when there's something with relatively little coverage in English.
1398:
2290:
Nicholas Shefu has been the owner of Fulvue Drive-In.com for 14 years. He has done a lot of reviewing and has experience. he has also reviewed a number of anime.
2521:
2921:
128:
debuted. I was searching on various archived websites, but I couldn't find enough results from Kodansha or other online bookstores. However, I found this link
2082:
1612:
article, you also have to include in your description that some images have some characters with heart-shaped pupils, I mention it because I've had problems.
3102:
2809:
2777:
2727:
2628:
1235:
2965:
I did some checking and animecorner.me is currently cited as a source on over 50 articles. I think that should lend some weight towards it being credible.
2774:
1516:- Per Axem. I've been using it under the premise that it was reliable, without issue, for the last decade. I use it for video games, not anime, but still.
1083:
935:
which were then apparently republished by those websites between 2012 and 2017. A couple of them are actually two different repostings of the same answer (
918:
3137:
3098:
2752:. But anyways, just a list of articles that mentions every time an organization was covered by any website is not indicative of being a reliable source.
2258:, but it's not exactly a glowing recommendation. I can't see the main staff writing anywhere else relevant and the EiC seems to be an ICT person, while
1631:
Looking at the lack of sources for anime topics, I was wondering; what do you consider as the factors of reliability of a source for the anime project?
3183:). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion (too lazy to reproduce them all).
2517:
1456:
222:
3037:
2375:
943:
If we discount those, that mainly leaves The Mary Sue, ANN, Anifem, and her book, as her reliable sources, along with her manga editing work and the
2370:. ComiPress has it's own editorial team, of which some of the editors are notable experts in the field, information for which can be found on their
1285:
Im against the using subjective opinion of the editors of a site (known for a certain political orientation) to substantiate any subjective issues.
1229:
218:
2320:
In terms of existing links, there are currently 256 links for NicheGamer.com on Knowledge, far more than the 40 for fulvuedrive-in. NicheGamer has
715:
2313:
In terms of doing it for a while, any with enough dedication can post something for years, such as Angry Video Game Nerd who started in 2004, but
792:" on her website written by others whom she vetted considered reliable opinions by extension, or is only Friedman herself permissible as a source?
1812:
While I understand payment for articles does add a level of professional credit to a website, is there anything in the guidelines to say this is
1626:
1412:
1171:
129:
2030:
1732:
Since Kenshin 2023 still didn't have reviews by the most common sites, I've been searching other sites but I'm not sure if they are reliable:
2948:
342:
155:
I see that the topic of Sankaku Complex was brought up nearly 8 months ago, now I want to bring it up again. I recently saw the article for
2914:
2273:
Manganews.net looks like a no go unless I'm missing something. Can't see who is behind the site and reviews are just attributed to 'Jason'.
2074:
1794:
boasts about the degrees of its writers, I couldn't find anything by them from other publications, though I didn't check super thoroughly.
871:
699:
83:
2038:
1809:
it states that as a volunteer writer for our LAN (LatestAnimeNews) blog, you will not receive monetary compensation for your contributions
3172:
2701:
2693:
714:
topics, who is not to be used to cite any controversial statements or BLPs. Earlier today I presented Friedman as a potential source at
3168:
1496:
making both the news and interest sections reliable. They're definitely one of the web's pre-eminent anime news sources at this point.
51:
17:
2808:
The second provided link is an original article from Yahoo Entertainment France which sourced an interview by The Natural Aristocrat.
2553:
I'm not sure on this one. More than anything, I'd be concerned that some may immediately dismiss it due to the controversial opinions.
1094:
Take care to ensure that content from constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy
2724:
2114:
1111:
In my opinion we should be kind of doing that anyway, for all of these sources, but yeah, I see no issue with adding such a clause.
2665:
The website seems to cover a variety of topics that happens to include anime occasionally, so I think a more general discussion at
2881:
924:
740:
2710:
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/12/08/japan-society-nyc-film-review-fireworks-should-we-see-it-from-the-side-or-the-bottom/
1470:
should be welcomed. As for the random licensed products, there's a clear line between that and advertorial in that the latter is
938:
909:
97:
wiki article, are Sankaku Complex and Anime Motivation the reliable and independent source for cite the references of any anime?
1879:
I'm not putting forward that they're reliable as said - just want to make sure a precedent isn't set and that we don't dismiss
955:
contributions, but I'm not sure those would make too much of a difference. Overall, I think my opinion is generally unchanged.
889:
748:
2489:
2044:
2119:
226:
2638:
1783:
as a volunteer writer for our LAN (LatestAnimeNews) blog, you will not receive monetary compensation for your contributions
1200:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
912:
237:
Taykobon receives products (books, etc) from publishers, developers, retailers and other sources free of charge on occasion
1599:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1217:
The other facet that made it situational is the presence of the "fan interest" feed, which was deemed to be unreliable in
465:
Since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement over how to treat Game Rant and Screen Rant, would there be no issue with
1352:
2775:
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/5-choses-%C3%A0-savoir-sur-nico-tortorella-la-nouvelle-star-de-the-walking-dead-135347521.html
2136:
1987:, which is not very definitive. For Heroic Cinema, I would have to conclude the same as it has unverifiable authors and
1857:
be okay considering them to be marginally reliable but definitely not a "high-quality source" for controversial claims.
567:: as long as they do report on an information based on reliable sources then they are good third-party sources. For the
2769:
2740:
I am not expressing any opinions towards whether this website is reliable or not, but I do note the first link lists a
2367:
2363:
2254:
Aside from the notable domain, at first glance Anime.com seems like it'd be difficult to verify reliability? There's a
1714:
1639:
1405:
1337:
I have no issues in general, but I'd be much more comfortable if there was at least a minimum of caution against their
1272:
1128:
1035:
1006:
972:
850:
816:
742:
3147:. I'm not going to read through the entire AfD, but what ferret said about them not having a staff page is incorrect (
3080:
214:
1554:
gospel, using sources from it as acceptable and anything not mentioned on it as unreliable without further scrutiny.
604:
3201:
Thanks. If it was discussed but not added to the ORS list, does it mean there was no consensus on its reliability?
1603:
2840:
and pointed out that much of their recent content has not been reliable. A quick summary with a couple of quotes:
2468:
I think it's time we list Bounding Into Comics (BIC) as unreliable. This website's reliability has come up twice (
2109:
2936:
2224:
111:
2379:
1702:
Anyway, I don't know about Anime Corner, specifically. I'll leave that judgment up to more experienced editors.
931:
The thing is, these aren't articles that Friedman wrote for these sites, per se, but rather answers she gave on
915:
597:
1695:
after all. The concern in that case is more that we don't want to let in particularly low quality sources with
745:
150:
2092:. Not sure how much those add for reliability, but it is certainly more credibility than just "I like anime".
1435:
press release with headlines like "X anime cast announced", "X released Y date", and "X manga goes on hiatus".
2831:
2078:
1973:
As for The Anime View, I would lean unreliable; upon researching the website, they seem to be fairly new and
1703:
1635:
1617:
1261:
1112:
1019:
990:
956:
834:
800:
734:
523:, which felt it was situational. I admit that I'm more hesitant to say situational on this website given its
191:
94:
1736:
1326:
1290:
1146:
1073:
3247:
It may be a good idea to add url (ex. fandompost.com) next to the names. That's what I was searching for.
2073:(not sure how reliable that is but I think it's worth noting) and its editor-in-chief, Alfonso Ortiz, was
2766:
The Natural Aristocrat has been sourced by websites like Yahoo, Express, and MSN just as a quick example:
1748:
1745:
might be unreliable but the title reminds me to Sequential Art which we use so I wonder if it's reliable.
3160:
1654:
So is there a clear outline of what makes a source worth considering as reliable for the anime project?
1237:). They also all have attributed bylines, as far as I can tell, so there's no more issue on that front.
1687:
42:
2702:
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/04/29/japan-society-nyc-sailor-suit-and-machine-gun-film-review/
2694:
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/09/22/bill-gates-talks-global-health-at-japan-society-nyc-video/
2383:
3079:
A few of the other writers/contributors do have some experience. From my memory, Jay Gibbs wrote for
2880:, it did have some alright columns that at the very least do have some good perspectives (like maybe
2622:
1727:
927:
367:
2405:
ComiPress has it's own editorial team, of which some of the editors are notable experts in the field
2276:
Unless there's more information you can add, I'd not think any of them would be marked as reliable?
2065:
Regarding Honey's Anime, I did some more looking and apparently Rod Locksley, one of their writers,
1778:
726:
I looked around a bit and, in addition to what's already stated in the RS/N discussion, she wrote a
2813:
2781:
2731:
2632:
2233:
1995:, but I still can't find any real credentials for its writers, so I would have to lean unreliable.
1184:
1179:
I added ANN to the main reliable source table, feel free to update the description where needed. -
600:
2951:, although without a clear consensus. I personally am more leaning towards calling it unreliable.
2725:
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/05/10/george-takei-interview-japan-parade-nyc-grandmarshal/
2500:), but it also does not work in its favor. Regarding its coverage, it has described Viz Media as
2463:
2115:
https://www.siliconera.com/snk-heroines-tag-team-frenzy-will-surprising-characters-yet-announced/
1651:
which would make things more difficult in this more niche area, but is also sometimes done here.
1480:
1376:
1347:
1322:
1286:
1246:
1142:
1069:
157:
2851:
CBR founder Jonah Weiland shared a post, shared by another former CBR editor, of the CBR account
2850:
2048:
3264:
That's how I missed it. I searched for "fandompost", but it's on the list as "Fandom Post". --
3055:
3010:
2902:
2865:
2584:
2513:
2425:
2329:
2281:
2200:
2143:
2126:
2056:
1889:
1836:
1667:
1559:
1522:
1421:
1161:
514:
Now that that's settled, let's discuss ComicBook.com and Comic Book Resources. For the latter,
863:
732:
469:
adding them to the situational section (which should also be converted to a table), correct?.
176:
I have gone ahead and added it to the unreliable list since no one seems to be opposing this.
3164:
2970:
2387:
2297:
2241:
2176:
1959:
1938:
1581:
1460:
1362:
LMAO I opened that link and it appeared as a completely blank page for me. It turns out that
352:
166:
1974:
1225:
today, I see plenty of articles of comparable reporting quality as the main news feed (e.g.
2025:
2015:
1983:
1739:
seems to be related to the Anitrendz site which is often acknowledged by winners of awards.
1504:
1311:
418:
392:
333:
3180:
2706:"Japan Society NYC Film Review: āFireworks Should We See It from the Side or the Bottom?ā"
2338:
1643:
8:
2932:
2741:
2120:
https://techraptor.net/gaming/reviews/sword-art-online-fatal-bullet-review-fatal-mistakes
1647:
1300:
1180:
630:
580:
505:
442:
102:
2718:), you'll find they linked to an interview The Natural Aristocrat did with George Takei:
2687:) you'll find that they link to The Natural Aristocrat for the following three articles:
2509:
1096:. Would there be any objections to adding a similar sentence to Anime Feminist's entry?
3223:
3188:
3156:
2888:
2799:
2757:
2745:
2674:
2647:
2610:
2529:
2267:
2215:
2158:
2097:
2089:
2000:
1904:
1862:
1799:
1544:
1476:
1372:
1367:
1342:
1242:
1101:
879:
785:
Are articles on her website admissible as evidence of the notability of article topics?
737:
659:
612:
532:
474:
375:
295:
260:
245:
181:
2255:
1824:
All that said, I don't really see any indicators of reliability for Latest Anime News.
207:
needs no introduction and I think the reasoning for that addition is self-explanatory.
3253:
3207:
3131:
3051:
3025:
3006:
2984:
2956:
2898:
2861:
2655:
2580:
2544:
2421:
2325:
2277:
2196:
2139:
2137:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdy73/hikikomori-hiding-from-society-hong-kong-japan
2122:
2052:
1928:
1885:
1847:
1832:
1760:
1663:
1555:
1517:
1417:
1157:
1058:
673:
572:
547:
488:
404:
310:
280:
251:
141:
118:
2770:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cormac-mccarty-author-heavy-books-225042597.html
2029:
itself may not be reliable. I know we have different standards here, but there's an
1366:
had blocked the entire page's content because it was just all ads. Similarly, their
708:
Erica Friedman is listed here under "Individuals" described as someone reliable for
3269:
3238:
2966:
2341:
you can read all the history and information about Manga Jouhou site. the site has
1817:
review codes, if less so there with sources we might look at outside of niche ones.
1577:
1536:
1408:. This could be a concern for comprehensive reception sections and misrepresent it.
789:
413:
348:
162:
132:
2794:
and just copies articles from other websites, which is no indication of anything.
2715:
2603:
1786:
2924:
for possible use on another article pending an investigation on its reliability.
2791:
2360:
2036:
For Honey's Anime, I've not fully looked into their writers, but I am aware that
1785:. Sequential Art seems unreliable too; I couldn't find any other major work from
1499:
1306:
434:
329:
3101:) to the website as a freelance writer, though I'm not part of the team itself.
3094:
2259:
1338:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2925:
2497:
2485:
2110:
https://kotaku.com/dragon-ball-pachinko-machine-probably-wont-happen-1828571545
2066:
641:
626:
591:
576:
501:
466:
453:
438:
384:
For CBR, I think that is a case-by-case situation; Hannah Collins, for example,
98:
3088:
writers are probably in a similar boat), and I think it's a similar case here.
2516:). They also have some questionable reporting on topics not related to anime (
1092:
usually includes the following sentence on entries about sources with a bias:
893:
3219:
3198:
3184:
3148:
3116:
2884:
2795:
2753:
2670:
2666:
2606:
2525:
2477:
2417:
2240:
website appear to be reliable and cover the news as well. What do you think?
2211:
2168:
2154:
2093:
1996:
1900:
1858:
1795:
1540:
1363:
1222:
1097:
1089:
1018:
I updated the wording of her entry on the list; hopefully there's no issues.
875:
655:
621:
608:
556:
528:
497:
470:
424:
396:
371:
363:
291:
256:
177:
116:
I was trying to find sources for the release date of the March 2003 issue of
347:
I want to know if any of these websites can be considered reliable sources.
3249:
3203:
3176:
3127:
3021:
2980:
2952:
2749:
2684:
2651:
2540:
2023:
both since they're all listicles so not exactly quality journalism, and as
1924:
1772:
1756:
1299:
Using subjective opinion for the author's opinion is standard practice per
1054:
669:
648:
543:
484:
460:
400:
306:
276:
240:
137:
90:
2352:
As mentioned in the discussion it was a project started people ComiPress,
2193:
2172:
239:, which means publishers are willing to work with them. The back cover of
3265:
3234:
2598:
2047:
has various other journalistic experience. The outlet also seems to have
2010:
1978:
985:
430:
388:
3163:) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even
2877:
2493:
2353:
2230:
These two website should be in the list of Anime/Manga reviews sources.
1988:
1646:, who is well regarded by many here), along with their Managing Editor
1260:
this change, as I see no issues with it for all the reasons mentioned.
524:
2849:
This is very much rumor mill right now, but this morning on Twitter,
2366:.Manga Jouhou was a hub of the scanlation community according to the
2070:
204:
2236:, also i think should in the list, but I'm not sure. the reviews on
385:
273:
196:
I have three suggestions for new websites to be listed as reliable:
3152:
2642:
2357:
888:
I did a bit more searching. I did find Friedman's Mary Sue article
830:
751:
124:
3123:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character)
2574:
Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime
2506:
Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime
1991:. Honey's Anime is the only one I balk on since that website has
1956:
867:
701:
200:
3084:
2524:). Honestly I think that's more than enough to depreciate BIC.
2051:, which doesn't always mean reliability, but is a good factor.
1872:
are mentioned and it all seems pretty unprofessional generally.
1791:
1609:
2698:"Japan Society NYC: āSailor Suit and Machine Gunā Film Review"
2690:"Bill Gates talks Global Health at Japan Society NYC (Video)"
2371:
2266:
I can't find much info on fulvuedrive-in.com and I can't see
932:
2563:"displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media
2502:"displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media
232:
1951:
892:, and even another article on the site that referenced her
710:
210:
3121:
I suggest adding it to the list of unreliable sources per
1946:
1658:
3083:
and Marcel Kober who has written for the German-language
870:. It is also worth noting that she wrote a book that ANN
213:. They have been cited by Anime News Network frequently (
2721:āGeorge Takei Interview: Japan Parade NYC Grand Marshalā
2416:
It'd be good to have a more experienced editor such as @
1821:
should be considered reliable when considering a source.
3175:. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at
2539:
I agree. It should be added to the unreliable section.
387:
has written for other websites like Anime Feminist and
2293:
Some Knowledge articles have also included his reviews
1214:, with a warning not to use the encyclopedia section.
754:
claims she wrote for various other sources including
2496:, which itself is not enough to make it unreliable (
1475:
computer cases, shaving razers, foo, bar, and baz."
2897:I think that'd be a fair statement for the listing
1943:Are these three sites reliable for anime reviews?
1777:Latest Anime News is definitely unreliable; in its
603:, even sometimes passing it off as official in the
571:using a tweet as their source, as long at it meets
437:, they can be a fine third-party reliable sources.
777:So anyway, I think the questions I have would be:
2322:repeatedly been declared as not a reliable source
1989:describes itself as a loosely-connected community
1975:still trying to obtain proper editorial standards
1572:I think a way to deal with this is to say ANN is
1084:Adding a sentence about the use of Anime Feminist
435:do not obtain information from unreliable sources
2049:industry access with a good number of interviews
2716:https://japanparadenyc.org/media-coverage-2022/
1648:not having a journalism/writing related degree
3097:a few articles (interviews and reviews; also
2683:Hi, On Japan Society's official Press Page (
1627:When Is A Source Reliable for Anime Project?
1406:claim of ANN staff being the one adding them
718:, and was disputed, on the grounds that the
2106:They've also been used as a reference here:
2009:I'd personally not even count Peggy Wood's
249:also features a quote from their review of
1923:Thanks for the comments. I won't use them.
343:CBR, Comicbook.com, Screen Rant, Game Rant
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
3046:a relevant person from a relevant source.
2915:Request to evaluate reliability of source
2384:here too on American Public Media Website
896:. However, the only references to her on
3218:It is on the list as "The Fandom Post".
3034:I've only been able to find one example
2838:discussed over on the Video Game Project
2685:https://japansociety.org/press-coverage/
2714:On Japan Parade's official press page (
2354:link to InsideScanlation from ComiPress
2194:https://thepenandthebook.wordpress.com/
1172:Moving Anime News Network to 'Reliable'
14:
2374:. The site has also been mentioned by
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3250:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
3204:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
3128:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1751:but this is the one I doubt the most.
1450:Keyboards, and my absolute favorite:
3145:discussed by the project in the past
2579:a contractor or a Japanese company.
2324:(and has been around for 10 years).
1196:The following discussion is closed.
391:, which are considered reliable per
84:Sankaku Complex and Anime Motivation
29:
2315:is said not to be a reliable source
1688:tend to get things wrong about them
235:. According to their about section
27:
3143:The Fandom Post's reliability was
2856:I saw them recently mentioned for
28:
3293:
2993:Just to add, there are currently
500:Yes, there wouldn't be an issue.
2836:Just wanted to note that it was
1595:The discussion above is closed.
33:
2317:, despite being rather notable.
1899:writing or the anime industry.
1749:There is also Latest Anime News
1644:one example being Kim Morrissey
2947:Its reliability was discussed
2561:it has described Viz Media as
2430:17:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
2396:13:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
2334:22:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2306:22:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2286:09:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2250:07:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2220:03:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
2205:07:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
2185:05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
2163:17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
2148:17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
2131:17:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
2102:16:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
2061:16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
2005:03:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
1968:14:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
1957:https://www.heroic-cinema.com/
947:. Only missing things are her
559:I'll say the same thing about
146:22:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
13:
1:
3111:09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
3060:16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
3030:22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
3015:12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
2079:2021 Crunchyroll Anime Awards
2019:towards potential reliability
1604:Heart-shaped pupils in ahegao
1303:, there are no issues there.
338:17:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
328:is a no-brainer to include.
186:00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
171:10:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
95:The Rising of the Shield Hero
88:Speaking of the edit wars in
2989:18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2975:18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2961:17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2942:16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2907:18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
2893:22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2870:10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2818:23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2804:23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2786:23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2762:23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2736:22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2679:22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2660:21:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2615:15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2589:13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2549:22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2534:18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2296:So it is not so unreliable.
2268:the owner's LinkedIn details
1452:Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid
1394:Potential concerns would be:
739:) and been cited by others (
368:WP:VG/RS#Situational sources
112:Fan websites for basic facts
7:
3149:see here, found under about
2368:InsideScanlation page on it
989:unnecessary at this point.
908:that I can find are these:
516:a discussion at RSN in 2022
151:Bringing up Sankaku Complex
10:
3298:
2832:Comic Book Resources (CBR)
2343:been discussed in the past
2171:, What do you think about
1993:been discussed in the past
1136:23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
1120:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
1106:22:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
1063:22:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
1043:04:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
1027:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
1014:03:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
998:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
980:03:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
964:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
884:22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
858:21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
842:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
824:20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
808:(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)
678:13:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
664:04:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
635:03:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
617:03:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
585:03:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
552:01:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
537:00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
510:23:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
493:23:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
479:23:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
447:22:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
409:17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
380:13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
357:12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
107:16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
3274:15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
3260:00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
3243:21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
3228:02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3214:01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3193:23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
3138:22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
3093:Re, the COI notice: I've
1933:19:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1909:16:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1894:16:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1867:15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1841:15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1804:22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
1765:21:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
1722:11:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
1672:10:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
1219:a discussion 13 years ago
668:Looks pretty good to me.
2744:article and a post-2013
2382:in the reviews section,
1952:https://theanimeview.com
1636:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4
1622:00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
1597:Please do not modify it.
1586:14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
1564:10:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
1549:02:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
1528:22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1509:05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1485:01:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1465:01:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1426:23:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
1381:01:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1368:advertorial archive page
1358:00:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1331:06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1316:05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1295:23:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
1280:22:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
1251:21:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
1198:Please do not modify it.
1189:15:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
1166:03:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
1151:23:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
1088:Hey all! I noticed that
1078:23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
984:I did eventually find a
2081:. The website has also
1947:https://honeysanime.com
1413:ongoing G-Witch dispute
866:), Anime Feminist, and
315:01:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
300:01:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
285:01:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
265:00:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
158:Reincarnated as a Sword
22:Online reliable sources
3001:On Anime Corner, as I
2643:The Natural Aristocrat
2623:The Natural Aristocrat
2227:and fulvuedrive-in.com
1827:On Anime Corner, as I
1728:Possible anime reviews
1399:Kane and Lynch scandal
542:they would be useful.
2858:an inaccurate article
2504:and has written that
2490:a notorious supporter
2378:, Also mentioned by
1501:Satellizer el Bridget
1308:Satellizer el Bridget
483:That's fine with me.
366:. For Game Rant, see
362:For Screen Rant, see
192:Three new suggestions
46:of past discussions.
3165:cited it as a source
2650:regarding the user.
2464:Bounding Into Comics
2026:Comic Book Resources
2016:Comic Book Resources
1984:Comic Book Resources
1792:its contributor page
1682:to the standards of
561:Comic Book Resources
419:Comic Book Resources
1979:wrote four articles
1614:Aurelio de Sandoval
1223:human interest feed
986:proper bibliography
906:The Huffington Post
772:The Huffington Post
201:Otaku USA's website
3167:on occasion, like
3157:Anime News Network
2641:) has been citing
2376:Anime News Network
2256:mention of it here
2090:Anime News Network
2031:ongoing discussion
1939:anime review site?
1684:The New York Times
1472:literally paid for
1323:Solaire the knight
1287:Solaire the knight
1199:
1143:Solaire the knight
1070:Solaire the knight
756:Animerica Magazine
752:bio on her website
700:Is Erica Friedman/
246:Sayonara, Football
2669:would be better.
2572:has written that
2488:. The website is
2420:chime in though.
2364:Icarus Publishing
2039:Brett Michael Orr
1781:, it states that
1743:Sequential Planet
1718:
1707:
1276:
1265:
1197:
1141:see the problem.
1132:
1121:
1116:
1039:
1028:
1023:
1010:
999:
994:
976:
965:
960:
945:CBLDF manga guide
854:
843:
838:
820:
809:
804:
252:Your Lie in April
119:Monthly Afternoon
81:
80:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
3289:
3256:
3210:
3134:
3085:Deadline Magazin
2393:
2390:
2347:insidescanlation
2303:
2300:
2247:
2244:
2182:
2179:
1965:
1962:
1851:
1784:
1776:
1712:
1705:
1640:Onimai Talk page
1525:
1520:
1502:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1309:
1270:
1263:
1126:
1119:
1114:
1095:
1033:
1026:
1021:
1004:
997:
992:
970:
963:
958:
848:
841:
836:
831:the "about" page
814:
807:
802:
652:
645:
595:
575:then it's okay.
464:
457:
238:
133:Yukinobu Hoshino
77:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
3297:
3296:
3292:
3291:
3290:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3258:
3254:
3212:
3208:
3136:
3132:
3119:
2940:
2917:
2834:
2792:news aggregator
2627:I noticed that
2625:
2466:
2391:
2388:
2345:, According to
2301:
2298:
2245:
2242:
2180:
2177:
1963:
1960:
1941:
1845:
1782:
1770:
1730:
1634:Speaking with @
1629:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1523:
1518:
1500:
1444:Persona 5 Royal
1442:baking soda", "
1353:
1348:
1343:
1307:
1202:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1174:
1093:
1086:
720:RS/N discussion
706:
704:still reliable?
646:
639:
589:
458:
451:
345:
324:Adding on that
236:
194:
153:
114:
86:
73:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3295:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3248:
3245:
3202:
3126:
3118:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3103:Sarcataclysmal
3090:
3089:
3077:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3047:
3043:
3003:mentioned here
2999:
2930:
2916:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2833:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2810:Thestylesclash
2778:Thestylesclash
2772:
2767:
2728:Thestylesclash
2722:
2719:
2712:
2707:
2704:
2699:
2696:
2691:
2688:
2681:
2629:Thestylesclash
2624:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2576:
2569:
2565:
2558:
2554:
2551:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2380:mangabookshelf
2350:
2318:
2311:
2294:
2291:
2274:
2271:
2264:
2231:
2228:
2191:
2135:Also on Vice:
2117:
2112:
2107:
2034:
1940:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1877:
1873:
1829:mentioned here
1825:
1822:
1818:
1810:
1753:
1752:
1746:
1740:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1715:inquire within
1700:
1692:
1628:
1625:
1605:
1602:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1567:
1566:
1530:
1511:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1448:Street Fighter
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1409:
1402:
1395:
1392:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1273:inquire within
1203:
1194:
1181:Knowledgekid87
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1153:
1138:
1129:inquire within
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1065:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1036:inquire within
1007:inquire within
973:inquire within
941:
929:
860:
851:inquire within
817:inquire within
796:
795:
794:
793:
786:
705:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
554:
495:
411:
393:WP:A&M/ORS
382:
344:
341:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
268:
267:
243:'s release of
230:
208:
193:
190:
189:
188:
152:
149:
113:
110:
85:
82:
79:
78:
71:
66:
56:
55:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3294:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3257:
3251:
3246:
3244:
3240:
3236:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3225:
3221:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3211:
3205:
3200:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3190:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3166:
3162:
3158:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3135:
3129:
3124:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3092:
3091:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3075:
3074:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3048:
3044:
3041:
3039:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3000:
2996:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2938:
2934:
2929:
2928:
2923:
2922:in discussion
2908:
2904:
2900:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2879:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2854:
2852:
2846:
2841:
2839:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2776:
2773:
2771:
2768:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2726:
2723:
2720:
2717:
2713:
2711:
2708:
2705:
2703:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2692:
2689:
2686:
2682:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2644:
2640:
2637:
2634:
2630:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2601:
2600:
2595:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2577:
2575:
2570:
2566:
2564:
2559:
2555:
2552:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2394:
2389:M.A.LasTroniN
2385:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2304:
2299:M.A.LasTroniN
2295:
2292:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2272:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2243:M.A.LasTroniN
2239:
2235:
2232:
2229:
2226:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2195:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2183:
2178:M.A.LasTroniN
2174:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2138:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2111:
2108:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2045:Zeke Changuis
2041:
2040:
2035:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2022:
2018:
2017:
2012:
2011:four articles
2008:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1966:
1961:M.A.LasTroniN
1958:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1849:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1780:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1750:
1747:
1744:
1741:
1738:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1723:
1720:
1719:
1716:
1709:
1708:
1701:
1698:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1657:For example,
1655:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1632:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1598:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1521:
1515:
1512:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1495:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:Axem Titanium
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:Axem Titanium
1369:
1365:
1364:uBlock Origin
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1351:
1346:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1310:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1267:
1266:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:Axem Titanium
1238:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1201:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1001:
1000:
995:
987:
983:
982:
981:
978:
977:
974:
967:
966:
961:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
937:
934:
930:
928:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
859:
856:
855:
852:
845:
844:
839:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
822:
821:
818:
811:
810:
805:
791:
790:guest reviews
787:
784:
783:
780:
779:
778:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
746:
743:
741:
738:
735:
733:
729:
724:
721:
717:
713:
712:
703:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
650:
643:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
623:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
593:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:ComicBook.com
566:
565:ComicBook.com
562:
558:
555:
553:
549:
545:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
462:
455:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
432:
427:
426:
425:ComicBook.com
421:
420:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
316:
312:
308:
305:inclusion. -
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
248:
247:
242:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:Anime UK News
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:
197:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
173:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:
148:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
127:
126:
121:
120:
109:
108:
104:
100:
96:
93:
92:
76:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
3177:Anime Boston
3120:
3052:DarkeruTomoe
3035:
3007:DarkeruTomoe
2994:
2926:
2918:
2899:DarkeruTomoe
2862:DarkeruTomoe
2855:
2847:
2842:
2835:
2742:WP:FORBESCON
2635:
2626:
2597:
2581:DarkeruTomoe
2467:
2422:DarkeruTomoe
2346:
2326:DarkeruTomoe
2278:DarkeruTomoe
2238:manga Jouhou
2237:
2234:manga Jouhou
2197:DarkeruTomoe
2140:DarkeruTomoe
2123:DarkeruTomoe
2053:DarkeruTomoe
2037:
2024:
2020:
2014:
1982:
1955:
1950:
1945:
1942:
1886:DarkeruTomoe
1880:
1854:
1848:DarkeruTomoe
1833:DarkeruTomoe
1813:
1754:
1731:
1711:
1710:
1704:
1696:
1683:
1679:
1664:DarkeruTomoe
1659:Anime Corner
1656:
1653:
1638:over on the
1633:
1630:
1607:
1596:
1573:
1556:DarkeruTomoe
1532:
1519:Sergecross73
1513:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1471:
1451:
1447:
1446:LED Lamps",
1443:
1439:
1418:DarkeruTomoe
1388:
1387:I generally
1339:advertorials
1305:
1304:
1301:WP:RSOPINION
1269:
1268:
1262:
1257:
1239:
1216:
1207:
1204:
1195:
1158:DarkeruTomoe
1125:
1124:
1118:
1113:
1087:
1032:
1031:
1025:
1020:
1003:
1002:
996:
991:
969:
968:
962:
957:
952:
948:
905:
901:
897:
864:podcast host
847:
846:
840:
835:
813:
812:
806:
801:
797:
776:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
725:
709:
707:
568:
564:
560:
429:
423:
417:
414:@SimonLagann
346:
325:
323:
250:
244:
241:Kodansha USA
195:
156:
154:
123:
117:
115:
91:Black Bullet
89:
87:
74:
47:
41:
3095:contributed
3081:ComicsVerse
2967:Rockman1159
2790:Yahoo is a
2746:WP:NEWSWEEK
2648:WP:CONFLICT
2599:Comics Beat
2067:has written
1787:its writers
1737:Animecorner
1662:them here.
1578:WhisperToMe
1457:CandyScythe
521:this at RSN
431:Screen Rant
416:As long as
389:Digital Spy
349:SimonLagann
163:SimonLagann
131:which is a
40:This is an
3255:reply here
3209:reply here
3133:reply here
3117:Fandompost
3076:COI notice
2878:churnalism
2568:incorrect.
2494:Comicsgate
2480:and once (
2372:about page
2358:Dark Horse
1779:apply page
1440:Oshi no Ko
1212:main table
573:WP:TWITTER
525:churnalism
330:Opencooper
2927:HapHaxion
2260:the owner
2225:anime.com
2173:this site
2088:twice by
2086:mentioned
2071:Univision
1755:Any idea?
1706:silviaASH
1537:WP:BIASED
1264:silviaASH
949:Animerica
788:Are the "
642:Centcom08
627:Centcom08
622:@Link20XX
592:Centcom08
577:Centcom08
557:@Link20XX
502:Centcom08
498:@Link20XX
467:WP:BOLDly
454:Centcom08
439:Centcom08
326:Otaku USA
205:Otaku USA
75:ArchiveĀ 3
69:ArchiveĀ 2
64:ArchiveĀ 1
3220:Link20XX
3199:Link20XX
3185:Link20XX
3099:this one
3038:this one
2998:website.
2937:contribs
2885:Link20XX
2796:Link20XX
2754:Link20XX
2671:Link20XX
2639:contribs
2607:Link20XX
2526:Link20XX
2418:Link20XX
2263:markers.
2212:Link20XX
2169:Link20XX
2155:Link20XX
2094:Link20XX
1997:Link20XX
1901:Link20XX
1859:Link20XX
1814:required
1796:Link20XX
1541:Link20XX
1208:de facto
1098:Link20XX
876:Link20XX
872:reviewed
829:Checked
656:Link20XX
609:Link20XX
605:headline
529:Link20XX
471:Link20XX
372:Link20XX
292:Link20XX
257:Link20XX
233:Taykoban
178:Link20XX
125:Historie
122:, where
99:Kurogaga
20: |
3022:Xexerss
2981:Xexerss
2953:Xexerss
2652:Xexerss
2541:Xexerss
2498:WP:BIAS
2486:WP:VGRS
2409:though.
2077:at the
2075:a Judge
1925:Tintor2
1773:Tintor2
1757:Tintor2
1608:In the
1533:Support
1514:Support
1494:Support
1389:support
1354:Parasol
1258:support
1055:Xexerss
868:Yuricon
750:). Her
702:Yuricon
670:Xexerss
649:Xexerss
544:Xexerss
485:Xexerss
461:Xexerss
422:(CBR),
401:Xexerss
307:Xexerss
277:Xexerss
138:Xexerss
43:archive
3266:ferret
3235:ferret
2949:before
2667:WP:RSN
2478:WP:RSN
2413:Power?
1876:posts.
1610:Ahegao
1524:msg me
1115:silvia
1090:WP:RSP
1022:silvia
993:silvia
959:silvia
953:Eureka
904:, and
902:Forbes
837:silvia
803:silvia
768:Forbes
760:Eureka
716:an AfD
428:, and
397:WP:RSP
364:WP:RSP
272:names,
229:, etc)
2848:: -->
2843:: -->
2750:WP:RS
2571:: -->
2560:: -->
2484:) at
2476:) at
2404:: -->
1855:might
1808:: -->
933:Quora
898:Slate
764:Slate
601:often
598:quite
16:<
3270:talk
3239:talk
3224:talk
3189:talk
3181:link
3173:here
3171:and
3169:here
3161:link
3153:here
3151:and
3107:talk
3056:talk
3026:talk
3011:talk
2985:talk
2971:talk
2957:talk
2933:talk
2903:talk
2889:talk
2866:talk
2814:talk
2800:talk
2782:talk
2758:talk
2732:talk
2675:talk
2656:talk
2633:talk
2611:talk
2585:talk
2545:talk
2530:talk
2426:talk
2362:and
2339:Here
2330:talk
2282:talk
2216:talk
2201:talk
2159:talk
2144:talk
2127:talk
2098:talk
2083:been
2069:for
2057:talk
2013:for
2001:talk
1981:for
1929:talk
1905:talk
1890:talk
1863:talk
1837:talk
1800:talk
1761:talk
1668:talk
1618:talk
1582:talk
1574:good
1560:talk
1545:talk
1481:talk
1461:talk
1422:talk
1377:talk
1327:talk
1291:talk
1247:talk
1185:talk
1162:talk
1147:talk
1102:talk
1074:talk
1059:talk
951:and
894:here
890:here
880:talk
728:book
711:yuri
674:talk
660:talk
631:talk
613:talk
581:talk
563:and
548:talk
533:talk
506:talk
489:talk
475:talk
443:talk
405:talk
395:and
376:talk
353:talk
334:talk
311:talk
296:talk
281:talk
261:talk
182:talk
167:talk
142:talk
103:talk
2995:262
2883:).
2492:of
2392:910
2302:910
2246:910
2190:it.
2181:910
1964:910
1881:all
1680:IGN
1349:Ton
1344:Ten
3272:)
3241:)
3226:)
3191:)
3125:.
3109:)
3058:)
3028:)
3013:)
2987:)
2973:)
2959:)
2935:/
2905:)
2891:)
2868:)
2816:)
2802:)
2784:)
2760:)
2734:)
2677:)
2658:)
2613:)
2587:)
2547:)
2532:)
2520:,
2512:,
2472:,
2428:)
2386:.
2332:)
2284:)
2218:)
2203:)
2175:?
2161:)
2146:)
2129:)
2100:)
2059:)
2003:)
1931:)
1907:)
1892:)
1865:)
1853:I
1839:)
1802:)
1763:)
1697:no
1670:)
1620:)
1584:)
1562:)
1547:)
1483:)
1463:)
1424:)
1379:)
1329:)
1293:)
1256:I
1249:)
1234:,
1231:,
1228:,
1187:)
1164:)
1149:)
1104:)
1076:)
1061:)
926:,
923:,
920:,
917:,
914:,
911:,
900:,
882:)
770:,
766:,
762:,
758:,
747:,
744:,
736:,
676:)
662:)
633:)
615:)
607:.
583:)
550:)
535:)
508:)
491:)
477:)
445:)
407:)
378:)
355:)
336:)
313:)
298:)
283:)
263:)
255:.
225:,
221:,
217:,
203:.
184:)
169:)
144:)
105:)
3268:(
3252:|
3237:(
3222:(
3206:|
3197:@
3187:(
3179:(
3159:(
3130:|
3105:(
3054:(
3040:)
3036:(
3024:(
3009:(
2983:(
2969:(
2955:(
2939:)
2931:(
2901:(
2887:(
2864:(
2812:(
2798:(
2780:(
2756:(
2730:(
2673:(
2654:(
2636:Ā·
2631:(
2609:(
2602:(
2583:(
2543:(
2528:(
2522:2
2518:1
2514:2
2510:1
2482:1
2474:2
2470:1
2424:(
2328:(
2280:(
2214:(
2199:(
2167:@
2157:(
2142:(
2125:(
2096:(
2055:(
2021:,
1999:(
1927:(
1903:(
1888:(
1861:(
1850::
1846:@
1835:(
1798:(
1775::
1771:@
1759:(
1717:)
1713:(
1666:(
1616:(
1580:(
1558:(
1543:(
1479:(
1459:(
1420:(
1401:.
1375:(
1325:(
1289:(
1275:)
1271:(
1245:(
1183:(
1160:(
1145:(
1131:)
1127:(
1100:(
1072:(
1057:(
1038:)
1034:(
1009:)
1005:(
975:)
971:(
878:(
853:)
849:(
819:)
815:(
731:(
672:(
658:(
651::
647:@
644::
640:@
629:(
611:(
594::
590:@
579:(
546:(
531:(
504:(
487:(
473:(
463::
459:@
456::
452:@
441:(
403:(
374:(
351:(
332:(
309:(
294:(
279:(
259:(
227:4
223:3
219:2
215:1
180:(
165:(
140:(
101:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.