Reception/impact?[edit]

Shouldn't this be part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, toonami aftermath, it's a new streaming service that's currently running. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toonami links[edit]

Back in fall 2009 CartoonNetwork.com was redesigned with a new look. Most of you may not know that the old CN website still exists along with the last Toonami page from 2008: http://cnvideosvc.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/toonami/index.html So which should be the official site for Toonami in the article? The Toonami Jetstream website (toonamijetstream.com), which has been closed since January 2009 or the 2008 Toonami page.

There's also this video page with Toonami videos, which were recently added at CartoonNetwork.com: http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/video/index.html?episodeID=8a250ab033ff6e93013439459f43013c Can it be added in the external links along with the 2008 page?--Vasko444 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Is there a reason for not having any pictures of the ship/tom/sara or anything like that on this page? If not, I'm think that it would be a good idea to try and find some small pics of at least Tom and the Ship to put in the page. Yenrx (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April Fools '12[edit]

Looks like Cartoon Network is running Toonami again for the night starting at 12am on April 1st. Aleck79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC). It might be back - anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.21.218 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it might just be for the night, though we will have to wait until next week to know for sure. In any case, we might want to make a section for the shows that were aired. To note, so far it has been the normal episode of Bleach, the last Cell episode from Dragon Ball Z, and an episode of Gundam Wing. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for guarding my proper edit, mod(s). 66.108.234.127 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tenchi Muyo, Outlaw Star, Big O, YuYu Hakusho, so far.--만두 (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=302102156529552&id=152361198170316 - just dropping this here to clear up the whole "STEVE BLUM SAID TOONAMI IS BACK FOREVER" thing once and for all. 24.13.43.231 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a miracle, Toonami ain't dead yet baby!! The Country Girl (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone has time, can they continue to add and update the lineup for me. I might be heading to bed soon. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does The_Room_(film) count? they did run the opening credits before introducing Tom 3.0 Protogenxl (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe as a general note or something. The only reason it was run was for a fake-out. Likely, the most it could be added to would be under the "Movies and specials" section with a note saying it was only the opening credits or possibly on the article of the movie itself. Anything else would likely get removed in the end. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note, we do not need the level of coverage Extraxi insists upon. There is no need to have the "robot" quote, or note what TOM said in regards to the DVD releases, the false conception that Evangelion was played (he continued to add this after 6 am EDT), or even the score he gave ME3 in the review. All we need to do as an encyclopedia is state what happened in a manner that is not what the fans care about, but what the general public does.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stay tuned Saturday..." ???

Nowhere on Adult Swim's messageboard do I see anything about "Stay tuned Saturday for a[n] answer [regarding Toonami]." Not to mention, the edits were littered with typos and grammatical errors, not that I don't make them myself, but still. Can we remove this sentence until we have solid proof?:


There's no proof that I can find. PF4Eva (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for final broadcast message[edit]

Is Youtube viable? (Linky) Wasn't sure, so I didn't want to add it. 66.188.10.159 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toonami is back officially[edit]

Toonami is now back officially starting may 26th on Saturdays. http://www.adultswim.com/shows/toonami/index.html 208.54.86.237 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 16 May 2012[edit]

Toonami is back Bitches: http://www.adultswim.com/shows/toonami/index.html

Darsinal (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 17 May 2012[edit]

Toonami returns Saturday May 26th... not 27th

99.101.225.24 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toonami is scheduled to return[edit]

Toonami is scheduled to return May 26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.55 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Request May 22, 2012[edit]

In the section under the heading 'Total Immersion Events' in the 'History' section, 'aired between September 17, 2011 until September 21, 2001' should most likely be 'aired between September 17, 2001 until September 21, 2001' - note the logical change in the first year. Frediloc (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want proof[edit]

Whoever posted the following text under the "2012 Revival" tab in the Toonami article:

"Toonami is considering bringing back One Piece after Casshern Sins ends in November but it depends, if Toonami gets better ratings. So far is doing okay but it can do better. Other shows they are considering include YuYu Hakusho, Rurouni Kenshin and Gundam Wing. New shows such as Fairy tale, Blue Exorcist, Toriko and Katekyo Hitman Reborn! are also being considered. Starting in 2013, Toonami will start at 10PM and will end at 2AM, making it a four hour block, in an attempt to get more viewers."

I want them to send a message to my talk page showing a link to an article showing that this is true. NO SPAM or ANY OF THAT SORT!! Eleventhblock (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed[edit]

I removed the stuff under the "2012 Revival" tab in the article due to the fact that there is no reliable sources proving that is true. Eleventhblock (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toonami Wiki External Link should not be removed.[edit]

There should be link to Toonami wiki in the External Links section-it has more information about Toonami than this article,there are other pages that a have an interwiki link and just because Toonami wiki is one of the newer wikis doesn't mean it shouldn't be represented.Toonami Wiki as a large ammount of good articles and information about Toonami,it's still a work in progress as me and the other Toonami wiki members haven't fully restored it yet but we have made alot of progress and will be there very soon.Even the staff of Toonami themselves gave us praise about our work on Toonami Wiki- [1].I see no real reason why the single external link to Toonami Wiki should be taken down without any debate about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.95.85 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Multiple "One Piece" entries[edit]

Considering the minor issue we had with IGPX's double listing, I'd like to ask why One Piece has three entries. I know everyone likes to think of the different dubs as different shows, but the article doesn't have two entries for syndicated Dragon Ball Z and in-house FUNI Dragon Ball Z, or even syndicated DiC Sailor Moon/Sailor Moon R and Cloverway Sailor Moon S/Sailor Moon SuperS. The other reason being at no point do any of these three entries re-tread each other's ground. I fully understand Naruto and DBZ having separate uncut listings because Toonami ran those series a second time with zero editing. The One Piece uncut entry is there even though Toonami does not advertise it as such, like it has with the former two, and it is not running old episodes that had previously run edited. One Piece is definitely unique in the fact that it is the only series that went unfinished on the original Toonami, and was brought back to resume on the present Toonami. So maybe there can just be two entries, separated by episode groups. One can say (1-167) and the other can say (207+). Heck, I wouldn't even mind just one entry. --Tv's emory (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the third ("Uncut") One Piece listing, because Toonami does not list it in their promos or schedule as such. || Tako (bother me) || 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can live with this. --Tv's emory (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check Toonami Tumblr. The Toonami team confirm it is uncut. The reason why it is not advertised that way is because the episodes that are currently being aired have not been released in the United states before. Eventually, they will be airing episodes that were already broadcast by Cartoon Network. 70.208.146.214 (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you say it's on their Tumblr, mind sharing the post? Their Tumblr is rather massive with all the Q&As they've had and you seem to know where it is. They don't mention it in their announcement posts. And no, they haven't announced any plans to run the old episodes. They already have several hundred to plow through IF they even make it that far.
"The reason why it is not advertised that way is because the episodes that are currently being aired have not been released in the United states before." also applies to Bleach, Soul Eater, and Sword Art Online, of which the former two have so far aired uncut. We can also say that for Samurai 7 and Casshern. Also Inuyasha is re-airing uncut with brand new masters replacing the old edited-for-content Adult Swim Action eps, but the article doesn't cite these. When a show is advertised as uncut in promotional spots, it's a guarantee. One Piece is not guaranteed. --Tv's emory (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here. http://toonami.tumblr.com/post/56971494684/why-isnt-one-piece-advertised-as-uncut-like-naruto If it's already been on Toonami it should say uncut. If you can source the Inuyasha, I think it would be great to add that. I was not aware they were mastered tapes. One more thing - Soul Eater, Casshern, and Samurai 7 have been aired before on other channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.140.92 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that the episodes haven't aired before makes me say that we shouldn't label it as Uncut. Toonami does not label them as uncut, because the episodes are new airings. The new airing is not a separate entity from the One Piece airing, it's just not edited for the audience it was for at the time. Basically, it's just absolutely pointless to re-list them, no matter if they are cut, uncut, new tapes, etc. It's the same show, it's aired before. Unless Toonami gives it a new title, or it's a new production (dubbing company changes), it's not really a new premiere.|| Tako (bother me) || 01:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked them on their Tumblr more specifically. Here is a source. http://toonami.tumblr.com/post/59874789512/i-know-one-piece-is-not-advertised-as-uncut-on-adult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.149.57 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IGPX and One Piece on Programs list[edit]

The sections are divided between Adult Swim Toonami and Cartoon Network Toonami. IGPX and One Piece ARE new on Adult Swim, so should they be added for this section? In my opinion, whether they were aired on Cartoon Network before or not, they are new to Adult Swim. --74.110.166.48 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think IGPX should be added cause it is curently being aired and the FLCL isnt it will be in the few weeksShanedragonsteel (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. The list is about shows that arrive on Toonami, and not which side of the channel fence Toonami is on. --99.153.248.105 (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. It's like you are deciding to completely ignore that these shows were even on Adult Swim's Toonami in the first place. --70.208.140.84 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Program List[edit]

I'm not sure where to get this information but I know from personal memory that Eureka Seven, Inuyasha, Trinity Blood and Code Geass were all shown before 2012. Code Geass and Trinity Blood aren't even on the list. I'm sure there are more gaps in there. If someone can tell me how to get this information I'd be happy to add it in it's correct spot.--Jacksoncw (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are thinking of Adult Swim Action, not Toonami. Toonami was an action block on Cartoon Network before it was rebooted on Adult Swim. When it was rebooted, it replaced Adult Swim Action. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm thinking of the Toonami on Adult Swim that I watched every Saturday night for like 10 years. I'm not really sure what you mean.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were not watching Toonami. You were watching Adult Swim Action. --99.153.248.105 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those shows did not air on Toonami; besides E7 which aired in 2012-2013.|| Tako (bother me) || 18:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorporating Kids' WB program list[edit]

I want to add a section to the programs list showing the Kids WB lineup shows. Integrating them directly into the existing list is rather difficult for two reasons: 1.) Kids WB's Toonami aired some shows that never aired on CN's Toonami. 2.) Some of the Kids' WB Toonami shows later made their debut on CN's Toonami (example: Jackie Chan Adventures). However since the page acknowledges the Kids' WB block, I think the shows should be acknowledged as well. Just not sure how to do it. Anyone have any ideas? --Tv's emory (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A complete list of shows aired on Kids WB Toonami does not exist, and there's no source confirming that shows mentioned on the article even aired, so that might be problem. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding fan links[edit]

On the toonami website they have 3 links to toonami fan sites. should they be added to the page?

I have used this website For looking to see what hastags have ranked on sat and sun on twitter and such, and seeing viewership ratings for all the shows not just toonami but also adult swim http://toonamifaithful.com/

This website looks like it is just for viewing bumps and other things http://toonamiarsenal.com/

This is one I have not ever used before but it is listed on toonami's website. http://toonamifan.com/wp/

172.243.195.233 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We shouldn't be using fansites as references. Generally they don't meet WP:IRS requirements. No reputation for fact checking, anonymous authors of content. They may post info that does have a reference so can use their reference if it is a reliable source. Treat fansites like Wikia, also a fansite. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I seriously do not get the gist from both Electric and you Gerald, since their is not as many Anime Websites that mention Toonami news, outside of Otaku USA, Anime News Network, and Crunchyroll. The majority of the Toonami info when it comes to the marathons tends to be on Toonami Faithful or better yet Toonami's Tumblr page. To be Frank, I disagree that any source regarding Toonami should be removed indefinitely, but if that's how both of you want to follow the guidelines, then have it your way, but I disagree that every Toonami related source needs to be removed!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Verifiability is not a guideline, it is policy. If there is a question of whether or not some source is reliable then it should be brought up and discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Generally stuff written by anonymous people such as most fansites, wikis of all types, won't be judged reliable. A bit more credence is given to authors who are real people and sign what they write with their real names but still they should have an established reputation as expert in the field to be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clutter[edit]

The history and events section for Toonami, specifically the paragraphs dealing with Adult Swim Toonami, seem too cluttered with information about show and marathon announcements and schedule changes. Both schedule changes and marathons are covered in the Toonami lineups list on the "List of programs broadcast by Toonami" page, so is all of that information really necessary on the main page? If so, perhaps a separate section could be set up for all of them. - CaptainStarwind (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is mostly composed of indiscriminate information in the form of "On <date_a>, <show_a> started airing. On <date_b>, <show_b> stopped airing. On <date_c>, <show_c> started airing. On <date_d>, <show_d> stopped airing." Additionally many of the descriptions appear to be original research, particularly the different Toms. Bright☀ 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I totally agree with this assessment. Only major developments should be on this page. All that trivia needs to go. I'm going to start trimming it. Amsgearing (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Running Times[edit]

If you are going to continue reverting and removing the times slots Grapesoda, then stop doing it already!!! Here are the sources for Toonami"s time slots!!!!

1. Cartoon Network's Toonami programming cut down to 3.5 hours --AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnimeDisneylover95: I never needed a source. I never thought you were lying about the time changes. I'm just saying we don't need a history lesson of the blocks time-slots in the infobox, its unnecessary. That information can be listed elsewhere in the article. Grapesoda22 (✉) 18:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grapesoda22:Let me be black and white about with you Grapesoda, every website and every article whether it is Wikipedia or anywhere else when citing information: NEEDS TO HAVE A SOURCE!! Secondly I really don't understand why change the timeslots every time the change that Toonami made in January of 2015 to run for 3 1/2 hours was made because Jason DeMarco it was a relief from the 5-6 hour block they used to have. But really I really don't think it was necessary to remove the timeslots Grape.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AnimeDisneylover95: Its awkward to only list ONE of the previous time-slots. If you had one old time slot you'd almost have to list them all. We used to list them all and it got ridiculously unnecessarily long [2]. The information can be mentioned in the text. But for the infobox it just gets too long. Grapesoda22 (✉) 18:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Grapesoda. Timeslots other than the current one don't need to be listed in the infobox. There's another page on Wikipedia where all the Toonami schedule changes are listed. CaptainStarwind (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Disagreed CaptainStarwind, but that page is centered ONLY on Schedule changes, and I see ex-nay mentioning on timeslots!! I just am frustrated with how you are being so reluctant and ignorant on how you see things and what you think is right and wrong!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning former runtimes isn't really crucial information. Having that in the infobox doesn't really help the article and its not information most readers would care about. Most other programming blocks (including Adult Swim and Kids WB) don't bogg down their infoboxes with a long laundry lists of former times. It still makes no sense to list one of the many former runtimes alongside the current runtime. Grapesoda22 (✉) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toonami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Oral History of Cartoon Network's Toonami[edit]

History of Cartoon Network's Toonami. --Great overview of the history of the programming block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.221.228.59 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exhaustive log of scheduling changes[edit]

I've removed a huge chunk of clutter, which was previously addressed in this talk page as a problem on this article, because I believe it's a crystal clear example of what Wikipedia is not. (see WP:NOT) It makes zero sense to include every single minor schedule change that the programming has ever undergone. The perfect place for all of that info is the Toonami fan Wiki. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has clear policies against that nonsense. I'd appreciate it if other editors discuss the problem here, rather than just re-adding all that junk. Amsgearing (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, that was info on what changing on Toonami, including events or any other special thing that was announced. It was even cited to make sure it wasn't fake. Nuobgu (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You waited - five hours before adding back in the exhaustive list? It's not what Wikipedia is here for. Please read WP:NOT. It doesn't matter if it's cited. Can you imagine if someone went to the NBC article and starting adding every single programming change that the network has ever had? This is a routine listing, and it doesn't belong in the article. If there was a cancellation or addition that received significant coverage from multiple sources, then fine, but these 200 insignificant programming changes are not that. Not by a long shot. Amsgearing (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You definitely need to do an WP:RfC before making such a massive removal of information on the article. Also,for an account that is only a few months old, you seem to know more than usual about Wikipedia policy. Please note that if you have edited here before under a different account and you made this one after that is known as WP:Sockpuppetry. R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly watch over Black Clover, but from some MoS, if a ref is from twitter. (If only it has a blue check; right next to its name, as seen at WP:Twitter-EL.) that can be used as a ref. As while ago, when I looked at the refs from twitter that was under "Toonami News" it did not have a blue check. (those could be removed, and it wouldn't take that long to find a different one, right?) But the one to their facebook info/ page it has a "blue check", but I don't know if that applies under the same MoS category? If you look a little higher at the same article/ page where it also lists "WP:Twitter-EL".
When I had to find a different ref/ source to Black Clover's episode list. When the show skipped a week, due to a marathon of them showing a different show, or something else. So some chunk of the refs/ sources that might have to be removed if it does not have that "colored check." From twitter or whichever chunk of info "looks too big/ much." Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey R9tgokunks, I had an account here years ago under a similar user name which wouldn't be too hard to find, but I have no idea what the password is regardless. And no, I've never edited this article before. Even if I hadn't had an old account, I didn't know that much about policy until I started reading about it recently. Yes, in the last few months I've read the guidelines and policy pages a lot. I've learned quite a bit from that reading, and I would say that my knowledge when I registered this account was 5% of what it is now. Sorry if that's quicker than you feel comfortable with. I'm still learning new things every single day. But thanks for accusing me of WP:Sockpuppetry.
I do know that no one here, in over a week, has offered any reason why this exhaustive list belongs in a Wikipedia article - again, do you see lists of every minute schedule change on the NBC, or CBS, or MTV, or any other channel's article? If there's a major change that gets covered by secondary sources, okay, it should be included. A one-time mention from a twitter feed or a fan page doesn't even come close to qualifying. Again, you can put all of this at the Toonami fan Wiki and I'm sure they would be happy to have it. But until anyone offers a sound, policy-based reason to include it here, it's gone. It's been a week of asking for discussion and the only answers have been "uh because it was there, I'm putting it back." That doesn't wash. It doesn't belong, and it's getting deleted for policy-based reasons. Amsgearing (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main concerned was, if the info was restored, there is still one part where it shown a few "WP:Twitter-EL" that were used as a ref/ source. But at the time, I didn't knew about it, until from the other day (May 22). When I was browsing around/ reading some MoS info. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Tainted-wingsz, I appreciate the link to WP:Twitter-EL, I had not seen that before. It's useful. From my understanding of Wikipedia, not only does something have to be true, and verifiable from a reliable source, but it also has to be significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article; i.e. it can't be trivia, or an exhaustive listing of minor things that don't receive any coverage in secondary sources. That's my basis for the removal of the minor scheduling changes.
I get that fans of Toonami that may have added a lot of text to the article would feel defensive about their "work" being erased due to it not being appropriate, but I also feel strongly that that's not a reason to keep the list in the article. The article is not for fans to add whatever tidbits are available from the entire web; as I pointed out before, the Toonami fan Wiki serves that purpose quite well. This site is an encyclopedia. Amsgearing (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As my previous message, when I was reading some MoS, I came across WP:Twitter-EL and from the show "Black Clover". (That's where I'm likely at, than here) I applied a few ref/ sources on the days where the t.v. channel/ t.v. network's block, didn't shown the show, and I used it from their twitter. But from the MoS if it has a check to its name it is o.k. to add that. Then from the other day, "May 22" was when I read the info and their twitter name did not have a "check." So I switched it and found a different ref to use. As when I did that, while editing I "pressed" Toonami (as its a blue link) and it was around the time, when there was a "pre edit conflict" or some matter in opinions... Going on over here.
And also from their list that part of the wiki has some ref/ sources from twitter. But going through that, feels a little too much of my time. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), I seek advice in this. Amgearing (talk · contribs) has removed a large chunk of information from the article believing it is against policy and non-notable. Three different users (Nuobgu (talk · contribs), Harmony944 (talk · contribs), and myself) have reverted the edits directly which according to WP:Consensus at least hints that there is consensus at least on the face in opposition to these edits. I would assume that per the multiple editors objecting to them that this content should stay up until the discussion is fulfilled. Yet, user continues to revert before consensus is reached. R9tgokunks ⯃ 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, I agree that it needs to be condensed, but what I disagree with is leaving long gaps of block history between what was it, April 2013 and April Fools Day 2018? Mentioning nothing of the Samurai Jack and FLCL revivals explicitly for Toonami? Not even brief mentions of the TIEs with direction toward later in the page. Hell, when they stopped doing Tumblr Q&As might be worth a line in the section (if it fell in the timeframe. I forget). My point is it is idiotic for over 5 years of Toonami history to just have one line describing something from the very beginning of it. That's why I put the April Fool's Day 2018 part on it, especially as it was the first April Fool's late Saturday/early Sunday since the prank that revived the block six years earlier. But not even that is enough to cover five years of airing--Harmony944 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure why you're asking for one particular editor rather than asking for mediation or starting an WP:RFC. I agree with User:Amsgearing that this more than 30,000-character chunk of WP:INDISCRIMINATE fancruft is inappropriate. This is not a fan site, but an article for general-reader information.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this strikes me as odd, too, as does this edit that was done by a brand-new editor and is their only edit. For the record, the latest edits by R9tgokunks, which added only some significant info that is well-sourced, appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. I'd also like to thank Tenebrae for weighing in on this. Amsgearing (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

So, after six weeks of their latest TIE, Toonami has unveiled their new look, including a new logo. This is the cleanest logo I could find. It's from the wallpapers section of their redesigned website. But I don't have enough knowledge of copyright that I could confidently upload it correctly. — Gestrid (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combining infoboxes[edit]

Should we combine both Cartoon Network and Adult Swim infoboxes for accuracy or leave the CN box in its own section? Zodiackillah (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cartoon Network and Adult Swim versions target two completely different demographics, and are different from each other in many ways, it's best to keep the infoboxes separate. ShadowCyclone talk 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories