Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Case Closed

On the talk page to the article Case Closed, I found this text:

This article is named Case Closed according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) has stated [u]se the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. Any discussion on that policy should be directed to the guideline's talk page.

Isn't this contradicting WP:TIES? This policy says that British English should be used for UK-related topics whereas American English should be used for US-related topics. In this case, we have got a JP-related topic, and the item in question has a Japanese English (en-JP) title which is different from the English title as used in English-speaking countries. Furthermore, the policy ("use the official English titles") isn't clear, since there are two different English titles for the same thing (en-JP and en-US). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I have to agree on your last point. The wording could use some clarification/change. Personally, I've never liked seeing the word official being used in this manner, but whatever... There is no such thing as Japanese English, at least not as far as I'm aware. The series simply has a name that consists of the word detective, which has meaning in the languages English and Spanish, and the pseudonym of its main character. Sorry, not a violation. -- I've you're determined to find a way to get the article moved, try the standard way: review WP:COMMONNAME and provide evidence which shows that Detective Conan is more commonly used than Case Closed. Regards, Goodraise 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about simply editing this policy so that it states that it overrides WP:TIES? Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

and this is also one reason why the sales of americanised ver. of mangas is low due to the fact ... i'll just quote from someone:"The US companies brought the lack of sales for what they do license on themselves through shitty translations, changing the story to suit the moralfagness of western culture, overcharging, and extreme lateness of the releases. So yeah, they are money minded idiots." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.232 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this for?

The manual of style says that titles use the most common names (which are usually the official names). But it says that characters use the official names no matter what, whether they are most common or not; whether the name is most common is only to be considered if an official name doesn't exist.

I don't see how that makes any sense. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes there are multiple official names, though -- such as when a manga is adapted as an anime and the two get translated by different companies. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is, in part, to settle disputes about the proper selling of character names, such as Kukai Soma vs Kukai Souma. Because most manga and anime are fantranslated before they are ever licensed, certain groups of fans will insist that the spellings of names used by the fantransators are the more common names. In fact, I had editors insist that Del Rey Manga misspelled the names of two characters in Shugo Chara, Il and El. They insist that those names should be spelled Iru and Eru respectively. Why? Because that was how the the names were spelled in the scanlations, and most people who knew about the series have read the scanlation. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that the names are derived from devil and angel. The same drama goes on about another character from the same series. Del Rey uses Diamond for Amu's fourth Guardian Character, however some fans insist it's Dia or Diya because that is the name used by the scanlations and fansubs. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's a different argument. You're saying that the fan translation name shouldn't be used because it's not the most common. The MOS says you shouldn't use it even if it is the most common. It flatly contradicts other more general manuals of style, which say that the most common form is to be used. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fan translation/transliterations of names are never going to be the most common if there is a licensed release. Fans who use fansubs or scanlations have a skewed perspective because they become used to a particular name. Once an official licensed release is made, however, it automatically becomes the most common (especially in the current environment) due to the wide distribution of the official version. The overwhelming majority of people who are interested in a particular series are not even going to know a fan translation ever even existed. You seem to really be stuck on this issue, Ken. Is there a particular reason for this? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a rule here called "assume good faith". You have no right to ask "You seem to really be stuck on this issue, Ken. Is there a particular reason for this?". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you've just failed to assume good faith for an honest question. Both Joe and I answered your question, but here you are asking it again, and getting the same responses. You've been told why the MOS is written this way, and reminded that exceptions always exist to the MOS where a case can be made. I think it's fair to wonder why you're continuing to ask -- after all, the answers we gave clearly didn't satisfy you. Doceirias (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an honest question. It was an accusation, which amounts to "you couldn't possibly just be doing it because you think it's right, so you must have an agenda. What's your agenda?" As for the answers you gave, you didn't say anything here, so I assume you're referring to what you saud in the page for the Japan MOS. That was about titles, not character names. Titles are different from character names in that the guideline includes the word "usually", and therefore isn't making the same kind of blanket statement. Ken Arromdee (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Bloat Warnings

Hi there. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think {{plot}} handles those just fine? is there a need to "warn" editors about it? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The advisories I created are intended for users who are disregarding the {{plot}} template or bloating summaries to a degree that the template would then be needed. The lower-level template, IMO, does assume good faith and doesn't assume a user knows what the guidelines are. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it really happen all that often that a single user does that? In my experience, it's often a lot of edits that accumulate over time that are the most pernicious. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't happen all that often, but having the template around can't hurt either IMO (and I ran it past a couple of other editors before posting here). There is the occasional persistent editor who will continue to reinsert the same huge material, however, and none of the existing templates seemed to address this kind of issue specifically...certainly not with links to the pertinent guidelines. Doniago (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing here about the templates as well. My view can be summed up as this: whenever possible (which is almost always, in these types of situations), I'd prefer to notify someone that there's something they may not know rather than warning them that they did something wrong. I worry about the possibility of newbies being frightened by such templates, expecially in escalating levels. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created a thread at Template talk:Uw-plotsum1 copying over all comments made up to this point. Please take any further discussion to the template talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Making reference to WP:FICT?

I believe that referencing WP:FICT in terms of the notability of fictional characters is inappropriate, as it has been in development hell for about the last two years, and in its current iteration is much the same as the GNGs. I feel the reference to WP:FICT should be depreciated in favour of the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

diff for reference. --Malkinann (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. When that was written, WP:FICT was indeed a guideline but is no longer. The reference was kept at the time because it looked like it would return if not soon, at least in due course. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FICT's been dead in the water for ages. I have altered the text to instead emphasize that it's a hazy area. --erachima talk 05:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems the best way of handling it to me. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Point to the GNG. WP:FICT is going to nowhere. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Character lists

So I have a few thoughts related to character lists, and would like to bounce some ideas around.

As it is written now, it seems to discourage splitting off into character lists unless it is impossible to keep the size down. But it seems like in practice character lists are only merged into the article when absolutely necessary or when a cast is small enough to allow it. I've been trying to think of a way to reconcile this, because it seems without a strong community mandate to trim or keep the characters on the main article we end up with these bloated lists that never get above c-class.

I would also like to see a way to give guidance to what kinds of characters should be included in a list. Right now it simply allows some minor characters, which in practice means most minor characters make the list. It doesn't need to be a hard and fast rule, but some sort of collective guidance would be helpful.

And my last concern is be content of the character entries themselves. I would like to tighten up the language to mean that we're not looking for a plot summary but a character outline. Ideally this wording would specify what kind of content is desired here, and where possible that development information should be included. That it shouldn't be a blow-by-blow event summary from that character's perspective, but a summary with a real-world frame. Also if it could be phrased to encourage avoiding repetiton of what was said in other sections.

I realise that it kind of says these things now, but I'd like to tighten it a bit. Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this page isn't as visible as I thought. I'll write a draft of what I think should be here, then put out a notice. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture and trivia sections

Recently, I came across a section at WP:GUN advising to avoid "In popular culture" and trivia sections in articles about various firearms. I was wondering if a similar section should be incorporated into this guideline. I know it would be repeating WP:TRIVIA, but we can also better advice on what types of infomercial is trivial and shouldn't be included in an article as opposed to information that may be suitable for an "influences" type section. —Farix (t | c) 04:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like instruction creep. Punting to WP:WAF should be able to handle most of that.陣内_Jinnai 05:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages_of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft addition to the guidelines - episode lists

Ok - so from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Production_parameters_in_Japanese_episode_list_template.3F, I've cobbled together a draft for an addition to the MOS on the subject of episode lists, which is hopefully something we can all agree needs to happen. Hopefully people will give their input into the wording and make it reflect current best practice.

==Episode lists==


In addition to a list of episode titles, air dates and short summaries, (as covered by {{Japanese episode list}}), real world information is encouraged.   As episode lists should carry the most detail about an individual series, reliably sourced information on the Japanese and English production team (directors, writers, storyboarders, animation directors, dub producers, English adapters, etc.) should be included in episode lists, preferably in prose instead of using the auxillary parameters in {{Japanese episode list}}. Information on Japanese and English releases (VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, BD as applicable) is also encouraged, as is information on opening and closing theme songs of the series.

You'll notice that there is currently not much guidance as to how this information should be presented - just that preferentially information should be in prose rather than using the parameters in the {{Japanese episode list}}. The nitty gritty of how the information should be presented is something that will flow as more people add information about production and releases to episode lists, and it can be revised as practice becomes apparent. --Malkinann (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rephrase air date and replace it with "first release date (usually the first air date) or something like that.∞陣内Jinnai 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have tried a few mental rewordings, but can't quite get the gist of it in there - that might be better dealt with on the documentation for the Japanese episode list template? --Malkinann (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not something as simple as:

In addition to a list of episode titles, air dates and short summaries, (as covered by {{Japanese episode list}}), real world information is encouraged. As episode lists should carry the most detail about an individual series, reliably sourced information on the Japanese and English production team (directors, writers, storyboarders, animation directors, dub producers, English adapters, etc.) should be included in episode lists, preferably in prose instead of using the auxillary parameters in {{Japanese episode list}}. The list should contain at a minimum episode titles, the initial release, either broadcast or via media such as VHS, LaserDisc, DVD or blu-ray, episode number and a short single-paragraph summary averaging 5-7 sentances for a typical 1/2 hour show. Additional release dates, especially English release dates, may be added to the list. However, information on Japanese and English releases should be mentioned in the prose. Other lists such as(VHS,LaserDisc, DVD, BD as applicable) is are also encouraged, as is information on opening and closing theme songs of the series.

∞陣内Jinnai 02:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your draft - it's given me some new ideas. :) I'm not so fond of the wording "The list should contain at a minimum..." as the minimum does not include production information. Have had a lash at incorporating your ideas, please let me know what you think. --Malkinann (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to a list of episode titles, initial release dates (usually first Japanese air dates) and short summaries,  (as covered by {{Japanese episode list}}), real world information is encouraged.   As episode lists should carry the most detail about an individual series, reliably sourced information on the Japanese and English production team (directors, writers, storyboarders, animation directors, dub producers, English adapters, etc.) should be included in episode lists, preferably in prose instead of using the auxillary parameters in {{Japanese episode list}}. Dates of initial release are preferred, whether that be broadcast, online streaming, or direct-to-video.  Length of summaries should generally be 100-200 words as in the television Manual of Style, and should not avoid spoilers.  English release dates may also be added to the list - a summary of dates should be included in the lead.  Other lists, such as information on home video releases (VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, BD as applicable) are also encouraged, as is information on opening and closing theme songs of the series.

Confusing statements

I find these two statements contradictory; 1: articles should be "primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work" and 2: "Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world".

This causes confusion when both the original manga and the anime have English releases, but the anime is more popular. According to these guidelines we have to set/base the article around the manga, but use the English anime names. Do we use the anime character names only, or do we also use the terminology used in the anime if there are differences from the English manga there as well? This is unnecessarily confusing and one might say illogical. By using the English anime names and terms, the article is no longer about the source manga, contradicting the first guideline I quoted. This is even more so if the anime is not a faithful adaptation of the manga.

It is also not always clear cut which, either the manga or the anime, is the most popular. Personally, I think it is much more simpler to make a change to; if there are English releases of both the manga and anime, then base the article around the English release of the source work. Xfansd (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a series you have in mind? -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I didn't catch the discussions about this—is there a reason that articles shouldn't primarily be about the most popular format (which would more likely be what a reader's expecting)? Of course we shouldn't neglect any version of a work, but why the preference for original over most well-known? —Frungi (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Because otherwise it'd be subjective; there's no objective way in determining which format is the "popular" one. Besides, what a reader should expect is to learn about the entire subject, not just which format of the work is most well-known.--十八 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your latter point, but several policies and guidelines (including this one) say to use the most well-known names for things. Isn't this the same issue? —Frungi (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A name is just a name. The name Oreimo is used for that article because that is the most well-known (WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation) title in English, as it is used for the manga and anime releases in English. This doesn't mean we should reorganize the article to be about "an anime/manga based on a light novel", because without the light novel, the anime/manga would not exist.--十八 20:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not have one specific series to use that would exemplify everything, because there are not many anime and manga that I am knowledgeable in both English releases, but I can name a few that will hopefully give examples of the problems. Tokko's anime is "more popular" than its manga, but the two are very different especially in endings as it seems the manga ended prematurely; rankings by the police members differ, the character Yukino Shiraishi is very different, and the anime adds to the back story. According to the second quoted guideline we have to add the back story and use the anime rankings, making the article no longer about the original work but a mismatch of both, which contradicts the first guideline. These guidelines simply contradict one another.

Currently the Battle Vixens title, the one used for the English manga, is used over the English anime and original title of Ikki Tousen. One would think the anime is better known, as it came out first and a newer "season" was licensed just last year while the English manga publisher has gone out of business without finishing, but a user on the talk page cited WP:MOS-AM as the reason for the Battle Vixen name - a result of these guidelines not being clear. The Beet the Vandel Buster English manga uses slightly different terms than the English anime, i.e. "Zenon Warriors" to "Zenon Squad", but currently the article isn't well developed to determine which is more "popular".

I don't think this has been discussed to death. What has been heavily discussed is using original Japanese names instead of the English name changes. I am not arguing for that but for use of the English names and terms used by the article's primary work in accordance with the first guideline, instead of the ones used in an adaptation based on the uncertainty of determining popularity in accordance with the second guideline. The problem can easily be solved by changing one to match the other and it seems the most logical to change the second to match the first. Xfansd (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion—I meant that the guideline’s recommendation to focus on the original format was probably the result of lengthy discussion. Sorry, also, if I was wrong and some guy just added it one day.

If the original work and an adaptation diverge that much, I would say we should either have a separate article on each, and then each article can use its respective nomenclature; or use the original names, and when introducing the adaptation, describe the changes, and then use those names only while discussing the adaptation. That’s just my gut reaction on how I’d want to handle it myself. As for the title of an article like Ikki Tousen/Battle Vixens, I’d say to abide by WP:UCN and use whichever title is most well-known. —Frungi (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Franchise articles

This is an attempt to bring some clarity to Article names and disambiguation by creating a definition at what point series may enter franchise territory. Currently three articles properly represent a very tight guideline by which this may be applied. I do expect some pushback on this, but please hear me out:

So what is a franchise page? A franchise page is a page which functions as a concise summary of all works under the licensing and scope of a specific topic. A franchise page serves as a base entry point for readers to learn key aspects about what is in and constitutes the franchise as well as provide non-template navigation which goes with those concise summaries.

What articles would this cover? Only complex franchise with a large number of titles or excessive works of distinct nature that bear the same identity. This would not apply to manga and faithful anime adaptions or alterations, a franchise page would ONLY exist if the media warranted it.

Name and explain which articles this would cover?

• Gundam is perhaps the single best reason for a franchise page. If anyone can read this and understand the whole you were at least familiar with the media beforehand. The entire article is excessively long and branches into other excessively long articles which break into actual topics. Gundam is easily the most complex and largest franchise this project has to cover, our current policy does not even know how to deal with this behemoth. A franchise would make short work of it and make it readable. It would help sort the hundreds of items of content into a manageable singular page.

• Dragonball is perhaps the iconic case in which Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT were merged to the original media and given about three paragraphs each, despite DBZ being the more popular media. A franchise page is likely required under policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:SIZE. Furthermore, the hundreds of contents in this franchise are further examples, like Gundam, that our current methods are coming up short.

• Ghost in the Shell is the one I do not want to bring up, but I have to because it represents a type of development and franchise hell that few series can claim to have. At over 20 unique entries with a variety of tangentially and loosely related material, the franchise provides confusion in its naming schemes. The manga, adapted film, unrelated video game all bare the same name, but Stand Alone Complex an alternate universe series has among its insanity two video games bearing the same exact name to different console that are original media and its sequel, the anime series, the manga, some novels and a MMO in the works.

How about ones that already do this? Sailor Moon is a GA example. It is concise, lays out the material and splits off in a natural fashion. While not tagged as such, Fullmetal Alchemist is another wonderful GA example. Both of these articles detail the scope of what exists without dominating with any 'original' material.

Why this is necessary? It provides a guideline that will benefit readability and form of Wikipedia, and improving the encyclopedia is what all editors must do.

Happy debating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not need to set up "franchise articles". This is not a concept used anywhere else. In the case of Gundam it's been going on for nearly 40 years and there are so many iterations that it makes sense to have a central article on the metaseries. And you don't have local consensuses at either Dragon Ball or Ghost in the Shell (despite your constant insistence that WP:UNDUE [which you are falsely quoting] and WP:SIZE) take precedence. And neither Sailor Moon nor Fullmetal Alchemist fit your definition of a "franchise article" as both are primarily about the manga adaptations with articles dedicated to the lists of episodes, lists of chapters, and child articles to the more unique adaptations such as the musicals, the live action adaptations, or the films. I have no idea why Sailor Moon (English adaptations) exists but it should probably go. Your concept of a "franchise" is really hurting the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV, the disproportionate material applied to the original media is a valid criticism. From UNDUE, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The subject here is the original franchise page. The out of balance viewpoint is the original media containing the majority of the content. Also I replied at the talk page about that with Scope section. SeeTalk:Ghost_in_the_Shell#Scope Numerous articles Star Trek, Halo, Mortal Kombat, and Final Fantasy use franchise articles. FMA and Sailor moon do actually give proper weight to their media, and function appropriately. Yes, FMA is a franchise with proper splits to video games and movies like Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa. The way in which FMA is structured and worded is done very well. Your original media argument does not hold water, even Pokemon is about the franchise instead of the original game. The proper scope is hinted at with WP:SS suggesting that broad subjects be broken down as a reverse pyramid, when an article requires such a page to do that, it should do that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop splitting up these discussions on so many pages. WP:UNDUE refers to only featuring a certain viewpoint on an article. It does not mean that an article should not focus on a single neutral subject. With all those other articles they are so more extensive than anything else out there that they require a central article. Sailor Moon, FMA, Dragon Ball, and GITS are all root articles that have branches to the various lists of chapters or lists of episodes or films or other media adaptations. Pokémon has so many god damn adaptations that it's necessary to have a central page just on the concept of what Pokémon is and its overall impact on the world and then have separate pages for the video game series and the anime and the manga adaptations and the card game.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am against "franchise" articles. Simply put, I prefer the current MOS where we, for the most part, focus on the original work and only very different media adaptations get separate articles. I also do not see how you think Sailor Moon and FMA already do the franchise thing, when comparing it to what you've been trying to do at Ghost in the Shell. As Ryulong said, they do not have separate articles for the manga and each anime, but List of chapters and List of episodes. 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Xfansd and Ryulong on this one. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

With the RFC, this is a bad place and it contains undeveloped ideas not meant for actual implementation. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for split matters aside. MOS-AM is serving as a defacto rule. I do not think that a separate point need be raised as a formality, but MOS-AM is a style guide and is not a policy or guideline. I think it is outside the scope of MOS-AM to try and overturn consensus. A wikiproject does not WP:OWN an article and per localconsensus cannot overturn wider consensus like WP:SPLIT, WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF. Minor overlap is allowed as well with WP:DETAIL which includes a minor overlap of scope as it would be half a lede or so on the split article. Instead of "franchise", I'd opt for "topic level". Also, if Pokemon has so many adaptions and based off material, Gundam has it in spades. Improvement should not be held back by unnecessary preference to original media, which is not in the MOS-AM at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises

Greetings! I have initiated a discussion proposing new rules for the treatment of pages that list adaptations, remakes, or other installments of a single multimedia franchise. Please note that this proposal is not intended to delineate how franchise articles should be put together, but merely serves to establish that a list of media within a franchise is not ambiguous, and should not be presented as a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 16:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This was a discussion as to whether or not a manga and anime released concurrently comprise a "franchise" and whether or not they should be made into separate articles or simply contained within a single article with spinoff lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Article content

This is related to my franchise post, but here is a smaller matter. I want to replace this:

"In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or The article becomes too large."

With this:

In general, do not create separate articles for faithful adaptations of work to a different medium unless they meet the criteria for WP:SPLIT. A separate article should be created if the plot, characters, or key characteristics are sharply different and/or if the article becomes too large.

While it may not appear to be too different, it uses the term 'faithful adaption' to denote the majority of manga-to-anime productions, it places emphasis on the content as needed under WP:SPLIT. Basically, if it can't be split by policy it is not MOS-AM which takes the role, removing the defacto 'MOS-AM rule' and attributing directly to the established consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update:

"In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or The article becomes too large."

I am opting for the removal of this section under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the scope that as a Manual of Style, MOS-AM is not able to over rule established guidelines and policies as relevant by WP:SPINOFF, WP:DETAIL, and WP:SPLIT. The reason is this comment, and the fact that MOS-AM notes correctly, "Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long. Follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style when creating subarticles." Which is easily overlooked and contradictory to the above mentioned section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The current wording seems fine.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Explain with arguments rooted in policy. Citation of policies, guidelines and community consensus to topics are standard, this an example of wording being used to try and over rule existing ENWP policy, which is a violation of WP:OWN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How the hell does it violate WP:OWN? WP:OWN is when a single person attempts to prevent anything from happening. Not when a group comes to a decision that they don't want to adhere to one guideline out of the hundreds on this website.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record: Wikipedia:OWN#Multiple-editor_ownership, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, as you stated this is in connection to your wanting to create "franchise" articles, which we should not do either. Xfansd (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated to remove the section per this comment. See my argument above and in answer to Ryulong's OWN comment. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is valid and applies to Wikiproject standards explicitly. Call the franchise argument and other ad homineum attacks moot. This section is contradictory and in opposition to WP:OWN by defining a distinct 'do not do this'. This argument has previously been used to delete content and merge pages despite meeting inclusion criteria. While many manga and anime adaptations are faithful and should be together by scope and relevancy, a minority are distinct and different. And given MOS-AM follows other policies like WP:SS, this section is in conflict with editing guidelines and policies. And a Wikiproject cannot locally decide to ignore guidelines or policies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on the above proposals

A centralized RFC discussion on the article content and franchise article proposals is occurring at village pump. Please comment there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC has closed and the decision that the material was WP:CREEPY. This overturns the now-redundant RFC at Talk:Dragon Ball. The concerned text will now be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

But you can't override a consensus that formed prior. You have to form a new consensus. If the majority of the site thinks that a separate page is not necessary, then it does not have to be split just because you suddenly forced an official close to the discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I struck through the comment about the other RFC. While I did ask for a close, it not a requirement for obvious consensus. Nathan Johnson has stated, "When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary." [1] I asked for it to be closed because of the history of the matter and its repeated use as a 'policy' to merge pages; something which it is not allowed to do as a manual of style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not a style issue

Why does a page that calls itself a part of the Manual of Style page contain a section about notability? MOS pages should only contain style advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question but it doesn't really say anything that isn't at WP:N or WP:GNG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. It is now removed. We already covered this type of thing in the previous RFC about MOSAM dictating notability, even passively. The line "Consultation of the general guideline and possibly your fellow editors is advised." has been used to remove articles that meet N and GNG on "consensus". And secondly its N or GNG, not Book Crit or whatever for mangas. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal on the grounds that the section points to other policies in place and guides new editors on how to handle Anime and Manga on a notability scale. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm no. A MOS has no grounds to do this or set its own criteria for N and what it wishes to identify with. N or GNG, not Bookcrit and definitely not "ask other editors". No more WP:CREEP and more drawing arbitrary conclusions on this thing. It needs to be completely rewritten. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This MOS points to WP:N not defines it, if you want to rewrite it then do it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It does more than point. There is no need to even move it towards such a basic policy; we don't need to cite BEANS all the time, but I think we should follow WP:MOSTV and leave it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you really feel it does more harm than good then remove it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and I did. The standard notice at the lede should be enough. Which I will now add. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You were really grasping at straws here though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A page that calls itself part of the Manual of Style contains a section about notability because it is commonly used as a reference for editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia's byzantine policy network. Also from what I can gather this whole fight seems to be about someone's crusade to make a different page for the Fullmetal Alchemist/DBZ anime? Because if so, that is incredibly lame. --erachima talk 13:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on your fellow editors. This page is not an official community MOS and WhatamIDoing is absolutely correct in that MOS is a style guide and should not assert a selective notability standard that is to be used. Please see the discussion at the Village Pump. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read the discussion at the village pump, and it's primarily made up of editors telling you that 5+ years of consensus is not overturned simply because you don't like it, nor due to protestations about it violating some imaginary "proper protocol". There is nothing selective about the notability links given here, they are the general + all salient subject-specific ones. --erachima talk 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but three editors here seem to be in agreement and I don't know who you are and why you seem to be so hostile despite having no interaction with you. Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, but you seem to be hostile and pointing this all to me when I did not start the VPP discussion and I am not alone. Which begs the question, why are you assuming bad faith and ignoring the fact that three editors (not I) have issues with it. Also, this notability aspect while I did make an RFC months ago on one part, it is WhatamIdoing that made this section. How is this all "me"? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say this was all about you, I said this was about "someone's crusade to make a different page for the Fullmetal Alchemist/DBZ anime". Is that you? --erachima talk 14:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, who said anything about DBZ or Fullmetal Alchemist? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You did.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles: your first post brings up the "out of process merger of Dragon Ball anime based on "MOSAM" back in 2008", and then several others reiterating that MOS:MANGA is bad because it opposes splitting up Dragon Ball.
And then on this very page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Franchise articles, you make another post mentioning how Dragonball should be split up, and then the resultant discussion with RyuLong keeps bringing up Dragonball.
It's a pretty strongly recurring theme --erachima talk 14:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That is months old and I dropped that long ago - Wikipedia doesn't need more instruction creep. MOSAM cannot make up its own notability guidelines for inclusion and supersede wider community consensus; it was removed by the communities decision. You are referring to things that have no relevance here. Dragon Ball is even a good article now and DBZ is next. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The large time gap is precisely why I characterized this as a "vendetta" in the first place.
Nowhere in this page are any new notability guidelines made up or asserted. We're arguing entirely over whether a redundant link set is helpful explanation or useless repetition. --erachima talk 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS are not supposed to comment on notability though. And I made the lede with the link to N, but specifying a specific type of N guideline to follow for a type of media (like Bookcrit) is outside a MOS's directive. It would be helpful if you could explain your stance on this and how your reinsertion is within that reading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only is there no rule that a Manual of Style cannot explain what the relevant notability standards are to various articles, doing so is standard practice. See MOS:TV#Cast information (which links to an essay, not even a guideline), MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, etc. etc. --erachima talk 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with that interpretation of a "style guide" as does WhatamIdoing, I think it is irrelevant at this time, provided such development can occur as a Wikiproject guide. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the sections you linked, and they contain very brief mentions of notability as a means of explaining what should and shouldn't be included in an existing list. (Some lists use notability as their list-selection critieria.) They do not outline general notability standards for articles like this one did. I think you want to create a {{WikiProject notability essay}} out of this information, and probably link it here (maybe under ==See also==). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This article does not outline general notability standards for articles. It briefly lists off and links the relevant guidelines for each of the various types of articles that can fall under the WP:ANIME project's scope. This precisely parallels WP:FILM's referencing music standards for soundtrack articles. (Though FILM goes further and editorializes that people "should" create articles on all notable film soundtracks, which is generally unnecessary.) So, seeing as referring people to subject-relevant guidelines is demonstrably a normal thing for a manual of style to do, and I believe it is a good thing for them to do, I believe we should keep the information and links.
Your complaint appears to boil down to that the notability links are collected under a single heading rather than included in the discussion of specific article types. This could be resolved if the guideline were expanded to discuss how to write and format all relevant article types, but is currently impractical since it only discusses series base pages and character pages in detail. --erachima talk 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's compare the two:

MOSAM

FILM#Soundtrack

Notability The subject of an anime- or manga-related article must pass the notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. In particular, for an anime, follow the guidelines for a television show or film, as appropriate. For a manga, the series must meet the criteria listed at guidelines for books. For a person, follow the guidelines for real people. For a character or other fictional element, editorial discretion will be necessary. Consultation of the general guideline and possibly your fellow editors is advised. Follow the guidelines for organizations and companies for anime studios, manga publishers and foreign licensors and music for songs and albums related to anime. When you create an article, be sure you at least state (if not verify) what makes the subject notable or it may be deleted.

If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see notability guidelines for albums), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article.

I don't think that "precisely parallel" is a very accurate description of this comparison. Now that you can see them side-by-side, do you still think that's a good way to describe them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again I do not see what the big deal is it looks like a helpful and friendly portion of a guide to someone new to editing anime and manga articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It matters because it is the community's formal policy that policies and guidelines should "stay in their own lanes" ("maintain scope and avoid redundancy"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. Only a fool would compare raw size rather than nature of content. If you're concerned about backdoor policy rewrites, "one should be created" is the only even potentially problematic thing in either of those sections. If that's not what you're concerned about, then I'm afraid you have yet to explain what you think the problem is. --erachima talk 21:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't think I was reading the page wrong, but this confirmation is indeed good to hear. As for A&M notability guideline, I think this could be problematic and even more contentious because editors have previously opted for "Angelo notability" as for notability stemming from English sources. Though that is a discussion I rather not get sidetracked into. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why did you once again state this page is something that it is not? This is not a community MOS, it is a Wikiproject MOS, it never passed the process and I did not make that change to Wikiproject MOS myself either.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CREEP says: "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm. There has been a broad consensus within this project to keep it added per reasons given doing away with it I feel would do more harm than good. When writing about anime and manga editors tend to make lengthy non notable in-universe lists, just look at Earth Federation and Anaheim Electronics. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This relies on two readings though. The first is that before creating an article people read the MOS; that's not happening. Secondly, the issue is already covered by N and this goes against the policy and people unlikely to read N are unlikely to read the even more obscure MOSAM. I've also put the Anaheim Electronics page up for deletion... the Earth Federation can squeak by if you pull mags out. And I am getting rather upset by these non-discussion uses of MOSAM to redirect articles without discussion. Here's the first Emmy Nominated anime being redirected (the art director did win for his work... maybe it counts too?) because of MOSAM. Afro Samurai: Resurrection: Redirect per MOSAM[3], undo by editor[4], reinstituting the redirect without discussion "per MOSAM" [5]. Even Ryulong did this today with the Dragon Ball anime, but instead of MOSAM he used " not enough references to support a separate page".[6] These out of process removals in the same vein as Dragon Ball Z (under MOSAM) have been invoked for removing content an entirely out of process and detrimental way. MOSAM has been a reason to abuse the process for years with this notability aspect; it is probably for the best a very strict reading of the policy page be followed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be the editors at fault too for misinterpreting MOSAM and MOSMANGA as well policies can and do get abused. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of these editor helped write it and defended the Dragon Ball mergers "per MOSAM" along with dozens of other pages. I am still attacked even today for my questioning of that MOSAM line which was removed after the first RFC at VPP. Do you regret its removal? A&M has a LOT of problems. I don't want to sift through every single page for "keep, merge or delete", but if we can come to an agreement between all parties and rework the MOS or abandon it for the other existing guidelines, than I'll be glad to make a concerted effort to fix all these non-notable character pages, but things like Jutsu (Naruto) are better kept than deleted under SPLIT. All and all, we got tons of work to do and collaborating and not infighting is the only way to begin moving forward with gusto. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging does not require any sort of special process except to maintain attribution. Jutsu (Naruto) is 90% fansite garbage whose relevant content should be in character pages on notable characters, or in the case of the content that's being used to justify the page's existence, the Naruto page itself. Also I see you've stopped denying that this is all about you hating page mergers now. --erachima talk 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks and insulting me. This is your final warning and I've made the same warning on your talk page. I have not had any interaction with you and your comments are not constructive and very abrasive. Do not put any words in my mouth again; do not post on my talk page and no more personal attacks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that you hate this page because people appeal to it when making mergers you disagree with is not a personal attack. It is an accurate and relevant summary of your position in this debate. As for your continued complaint that I don't know you, you are on a site on which all your behavior is publicly documented. Do you not know that people read the logs to figure out who they're working with? --erachima talk 21:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is a personal attack. MOSAM is not able to make merger or deletion rationales, it is a style guideline and the community agreed. I want to fix MOSAM and make it work, you are spreading suspicions and malice with those lines. You will stop this tirade and these baseless accusations or I will take it to ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability should stay in the MoS because historically too many contributors in anime/manga area think that "spin-out is the solution to every problems" not giving a fuck to notability until they get caught by the patrol and their excess of spin-out ending in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga. The remainder to notability is acting as a fair warning sparring contributors disillusion. I should also note that often those spin-out are also ill motivated as a way to go around English Wikipedia Fair Use restrictions --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree this space has problems, Wikipedia:POLICY#Content says that this is outside the scope of a manual of style. This was also brought up by editors in the last VPP discussion and while the localconsensus for A&M's own notability guidelines are gone, the section here does seem to be more than a reference to its existence and states a guideline to be followed for what media - instead of N itself or GNG. Perhaps we can come to some agreement about the text to better reflect it? I see no reason for removing any mention of N or GNG, but this should be a single line, stating "Articles in the scope of A&M must meet N or GNG." And that should be about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POLICY#Content does not prevent the mention of other guidelines or policies. Indeed, the "maintain scope and avoid redundancy" point says that redundancy should be minimized, and "When one policy refers to another policy, it should do so briefly, clearly and explicitly." Boiling the entire section down to just N or GNG is like saying WP:BK, WP:BIO and WP:ORG should not be taken into account, or even mentioned, which is pretty ridiculous. If we have guidelines on the notability of books, people and organizations already in place, it makes sense to point new editors to them if they are not familiar with them.--十八 22:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying we should use such things, but does it need to be more than referencing it? We not just mention N and its relevant splits as well? All this can be done with a single sentence or two and that should be it. Also GNG and BK are different, some may not meet BK, but will meet GNG. Like Cybele. Though you could argue BK for all of Tezuka's work. While those things do exist, detailing "for this, use that" is more outside the MOS. I liked MOSTV's way so its why I added it to the lede, but I do want some mention of N/GNG and such on this page, just not a subsection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The current page's content in no way goes beyond referencing it. We have seven notability guideline links in eight sentences. All further compression would do is make the page's prose worse. --erachima talk 23:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Erachima, eight whole sentences is not what POLICY means by "briefly". The notability section is 5% of this page's contents. That's too much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how anything that's merely 5% of a whole could be considered anything but brief.--十八 01:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Any perceived conflict between one notability sub-guideline with the more broader WP:GNG is a non-issue. BK is meant to add more specifics regarding the notability of books, but that does not in any way invalidate GNG. The first point of BK even echoes what GNG says (BK's "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" vs. GNG's "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), so I can't fathom how anything could "not meet BK, but will meet GNG" as you say. Even if I'm wrong, as long as a subject meets some notability guideline, whether its the more broader GNG or some sub-guideline, it really doesn't matter which notability guideline is applied to prove notability.--十八 23:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said. If the concern is that mentioning BK at MOSAM could reduce manga notability compared to GNG, then the point is moot. #1 of BK is essentially GNG. Besides, MOSAM doesn't define notability and just links to guidelines. That BK applies to manga is an unavoidable fact that no change at MOSAM could alter anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: per these two, comments, one of ChrisGualtieri's arguments against notability in MOSAM is the "abuses" from editors redirecting articles without discussion. The problem is, I can't see what this has to do with MOSAM; if some users incorrectly cite MOSAM it's their fault, not MOSAM's. Let's not forget that per WP:ATD-R, "any user can boldly redirect to another article", and whether MOSAM mentions the various notability guidelines or not, this won't change, these users just have to refer to WP:ATD-R and redirect all the same. On the contrary, having MOSAM briefly pointing to the relevant notability guidelines can help deterring inexperienced users from creating non-notable anime and manga-related articles, as KrebMarkt pointed. I really can't see any benefit in "hiding" notability guidelines from MOSAM, but I can see plenty in having them.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I wanted N/GNG in the article, if others want mentions to the essays, go for it. Let's just not have a subsection on notability and keep it short and to the point. Can anyone propose something we can mull over, since you probably don't want my version. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem with not having a whole section for it. Agree with the mentions being short and to the point.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to create detailed sections for seiyu/mangaka, studio, and music articles, we can of course fold the notability references into these more specific sections. Until that point, however, keeping the links collected together is likely the best approach. The current coverage of topics that aren't a series or a character are primarily an afterthought. --erachima talk 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO the appropriate way to handle notability issues is to give them their own page. Don't put a WP:COATRACK on this page about notability. Write a full explanation of notability issues, including the reasons for splits and merges, on its own page. Then you can focus this page on style issues (but with a link to the full explanation for notability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire to rewrite WP:FICT in projectspace, and see no need to create another entire page where a paragraph will do. --erachima talk 00:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're misusing the spirit of WP:COATRACK, which is about unnecessary details that obscure an article's content. There is nothing unnecessary about a brief mention about notability, nor is it excessive to do so.--十八 01:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense instructions

“ Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed. ”

This statement is borderline nonsense. An article on Bleach the anime should not begin by talking about the manga, but is set out as if this could be used as a general principle. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This project is called wikiproject anime and manga and the articles thus combine the two. Seeing that in most cases the manga comes first and an anime is adapted from it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha. No. That is not what this means. Not in the slightest. If you wanted a textbook example you should call it by the art style or geographical origin - we do not combine articles because the Wikiproject simply covers media which bears the style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris the majority of articles would not pass WP:GNG if not for the other and wise/versa. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If there was a standalone article on Bleach (manga) as an anime then by all means it would start with "Bleach is a Japanese anime based on the manga of the same name" but that isn't the case now is it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Adam, Chris, there is no consensus to change the entire wording of this entry to this massive block of text:

The introductory sentences to articles on franchise should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed. However, if multiple works are covered in an article, make clear the full scope of the article in the opening sentences (e.g. if you want to write a general article on Bleach, you could begin "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series and other works", but should not mislead the user as to the content of the article by talking at length about the manga series in the lead before the first mention of the other works.

First, this project does not use the "franchise" wording that you two seem to adore so much. Second, it places too much emphasis on the fact that other works exist when articles are generally about the manga first (another point of contention for you two) and an animated version happens to exist as well. I don't get what it is with you guys and this "franchise" concept.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If the article is meant to cover both a manga and an anime, then it's a violation of WP:LEAD if the lead doesn't accurately summarise that. A Wikiproject's recommendations cannot violate actual guidelines. Note I never said that you couldn't combine them in articles,in my rephrase or anywhere else, but it's absolute nonsense to take a rule that applies to some articles, and state it as a general rule. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the last discussion this was brought up and Ryulong is clearly edit warring again to keep his preferred version in clear contradiction to wider Wikipedia policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"if the lead doesn't accurately summarise that" The quote used is "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", in addition the lead usually covers licensers, where the manga first was published, what anime the company was picked up by ect... I would say that it accurately summarises it if you follow the guideline here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Chris, Im sure you would find not just Ryulong reverting edits here with no consensus first. (WP:BRD) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleach is a franchise with numerous movies, video games and novel adaptations. The article on Bleach is a travesty and labeling it as anything less than what it encompasses is not only inaccurate, but completely wrong. Now the root of the matter is that LEDE goes against this MOSAM; LEDE wins. It is not really debatable; you present the articles as they are and cover and do not deliberately par down a vast body of works to the format of the original. Star Wars is not just a film and Bleach is not just a manga; its a franchise and it should be called that right in the first sentence. And BRD does not apply selectively. His revert was undone, that does not mean reinstate your revert without just reason. Ryulong is edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Adam is the one who began the fucking edit war. He boldly added content. I reverted him. That is when WP:BRD should have started, not after he reverted me reverting him. And you need to stop obsessing over this concept of a "franchise". It's not working, particularly when you keep comparing a manga has had a television series, films, and video games with a series of films that have spanwed similar media.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't list Bleach as a franchise in the lead sentence unless the specific article is about the various products that have come from Bleach. The main article should mention the manga first, then the second sentence can talk about how Bleach has been adapted into a long-running anime series, spawned several movies, video games, merchandise and even a musical. On the flip side, if the item is a planned product launch like Pokemon, Digimon, Yu-Gi-Oh, then list it as a franchise first. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, LEDE. There is to be no localconsensus that says otherwise. Please explain how doing it this way does not violate LEDE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the lead must summarize the article's content. It does not say anything about the first sentence summarizing the article's content. So as long as the lead contains the necessary information, it does not all have to be in the first sentence. The guideline as it was written did not violate WP:LEAD in any way as long as the lead summarizes the article. Don't try to bloat the first sentence; it's bad practice and even worse writing. WP:BEGIN even explicitly states the first sentence should be concise and redundancy should be kept to a minimum. What's more redundant than introducing an anime adaptation in the first sentence and then expanding on it further down in the lead?--十八 05:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And here you are again, Chris, selectively applying policies and guidelines when the whole does not in fact support your argument.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, you too have to stop unilaterally changing this manual of style without discussing it. These changes should be reverted and discussed first and you know very well that I cannot do it otherwise I will be in violation of WP:3RR so this is just you gaming the system again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And Adam Cuerden, {{disputed}} is not even meant to be used outside of article space. You two need to stop misusing things to your own advantage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"It can be used to indicate an unresolved dispute and a talk page topic about the dispute, e.g. an issue at a guideline or WikiProject page. {{Disputed-inline}} should not be used without also raising the issue on the talk page." - Template:Disputed inline.

You are obviously wrong. And it rather surprises me that shortly after saying you'll be over 3RR if you revert again, you reverted again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And now I've self reverted so now it's moot. This still does not excuse the behavior on your side of this debate which fostered the edit war in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean making a change, then, when you reverted it, tagging it as disputed and going to the talk page? Can you please explain, what bad behaviour, exactly, you're accusing me of? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I fucked up. There is no gaming the system here. There's only ChrisGualtieri's completely inappropriate restoration of questionable wording and me making an ass of myself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It happens to everyone, don't worry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at my major issue with this.

Alright, let's presume a work with a manga and an anime, and maybe some other adaptations, manga coming first, and look at how we apply this rule.

Let's start with review of the relevant policies.

First of all, let's review WP:LEAD. Compliance with this is required for Good articles (WP:WIAGA section 1a) and is linked (and the relevant issue quoted) in WP:Featured_article_criteria 2a. Here's the relevant bits:

1. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, [etc]."
2. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is."
3. "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist."

Now, if the article is solely on the manga - summarising the adaptations, but linking to other articles on them, the rule is so obvious as to be unneccesary. If the article is on the anime, the rule can't apply at all.

So, when using this rule, what we're looking at is an article that covers both the manga and anime, and, in itself, this rule isn't that bad. However, the problem is how it's applied.

In this situation, generally speaking, the subject isn't "the X manga", it's "X, the manga and its anime adaption". Since there's no dedicated article on the anime, any well-done article on such a subject will generally spend quite some time covering reception of the anime, plot differences of the anime from the manga, reception of the anime, etc.

Now, in this situation, we don't have a seperate article on the anime. A person looking for information on the anime should be reading the article they're already reading, and, as such, the subject of the article needs to clearly explain to them that the anime is included as part of the topic. Per WP:LEAD (second quote), the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is.

This surely can't be particularly controversial; it's a basic navigability issue. People looking for something should be able to determine if they've found it, and not be misled into thinking they haven't.

So, with this in mind, have a look at Fullmetal Alchemist, Sailor Moon, and Excel Saga. Both cover their respective animes in detail, Fullmetal Alchemist's lead doesn't mention the anime at all until the second paragraph (and nowhere in the lead gives any indication that the anime will be about 1/3rd of the article.) Sailor Moon, similarly, takes until paragraph three to bring anything but the manga in; the manga makes up maybe a third of the article. Excel Saga... well, that shouldn't even be trying to be this sort of article, as the anime follows a completely different plot (not summarised). Nonetheless, the article is actually primarily on the anime by length, but doesn't mention it until the second paragraph

As we've seen, WP:LEAD requires us to make the subject clear from the very first sentence. And the subject of both of these is the manga and all adaptations of the manga. And, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, particularly with Sailor Moon, where the anime appears to be quite faithful to the manga.

Now, while the article is hardly perfect, Galaxy Angel is a good example of a lead done right. From the very first sentence, you know exactly the scope of the article, and what you'll learn by reading it. The article has some issues (It looks like someone attempted to spin off some content, but left references in to removed content) but its lead is not one of them.

So, a number of very prominent articles in the project are of this type of work. Most of them are in violation of WP:LEAD's rules on the first sentence, and thus can't ever progress above B-class.

The current suggestion gives valid examples, but seems to be getting interpreted inappropriately, and in a way that's going to screw up articles for the future. Let's clarify it sufficiently. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy Angel should mention all three in the first sentence as the anime and manga were launched in the same month, and the first game a year later. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this on my talk page towards Adam Cuerden, but I think that we simply do not need to include all of this information within the first sentence of the article. It's obviously necessary to touch upon all of it in the lede but it can be divided amongst several sentences in a format such as this:

[title] is a manga by [author], first published in [magazine] on [insert date here]. [Short plot exposition sentence]. It was later adapted into an anime [TV series/film/film series/etc] on [insert date]. There have also been [other media like video games].

—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense if you have numerous adaptations and becomes very bloated quickly, and probably runs afoul of BEGIN where the definition should be given upfront and properly in that first sentence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how listing every single piece of media in the first sentence is any better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Define the scope in the first sentence, not later, if this means calling it a franchise, a film series or serialization, by all means use the best word to describe the topic as is defined. If you need a "manga, anime and game series" than so be it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If I might point out, that's actually required by WP:LEAD. It's why I quoted a good bit of the "first sentence" requirements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, since WP:DUE is not optional for any article, wouldn't it make more sense to have this instruction say "Article introductions should be primarily about whatever format of a work happens to be discussed most by reliable sources, and not automatically about either the original format or the most popular format of that work"? If good sources tend to ignore the original work, then we should, too; if good sources tend to ignore the most popular format, then we should, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what WP:DUE is all about. In relation to animanga articles, it would pertain to adding in all relavent reviews of a work, whether they be good or bad. For example, only adding in good reviews would give undue weight to the reviewers who felt a series was good while ignoring any reliable reviews that felt a series was bad. The fact that DUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV should have made this clear.--十八 22:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• RE: "If the article is on the anime, the rule can't apply at all.", which appears to be the crux of this and preceding arguments: the article is almost never and should almost never be about the anime. Animated adaptations do not need separate articles beyond their lists of episodes. It is an extraordinarily rare series that needs separate articles and those exceptions shall not drive the guideline. --erachima talk 02:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • • To be perfectly clear, that is not the crux of my argument, I am simply dismissing the possibility so that I can move on to the common situation for which the rule could apply. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations only need N/GNG to apply and you are not changing that. It was overruled by the community twice already. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true. And policy is absolutely clear about the lede and its structure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can, not should. Should is a matter of editorial judgment, but any article that is primarily a duplication of another article should not be made. Almost every anime adaptation article is a redundant fork and should be merged and purged. --erachima talk 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that even if you can create a separate article on an adaptation, unless you have some actual substantial content (production, analysis, reception), there's really no need to create the article. Older and/or the top 1% of popular series may have such content available, but the vast majority will not; I believe this is what erachima meant by "exceptions". Just because you can create an article doesn't necessarily mean you have to, especially if the article that results will be an underdeveloped, content-forky permastub.--十八 04:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Believe it or not Franchise built articles have existed on the project long before all these arguments begun. Take Haruhi Suzumiya for example. This is one of those uncommon cases where the anime adaptation and such were so big that it warrented it's own article. So big in fact that it got it's own (Now defunct) workgroup. This is rare in the project here so in the majority of articles the lead includes all the combined aspects of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This has already veered off from the main section, but remember it is N/GNG and NRVE is also valid. If the subject meets this, than it can have its own article. Especially since even the minimal material in differences would include production and cast for even the most faithful anime. Mangas can be analyzed in a number of fashions, but could still support ample development and themes sections as well as its own reception and release section that need not be compounded with a confusing or poorly done anime series. Rather than abiding by policy, because the subject matter is foreign, people are pushing a local consensus that has already proven to be detrimental which results in limiting and paring down of content. This is unacceptable. If this wikiproject actually banded together to fix articles than perhaps you would realize that plenty of high quality articles can be easily made, including separate pages for anime and manga. I find absolutely no reason that Bleach (anime) redirects to the manga page. It is absolutely absurd and any argument against its creation flies in the face of N/GNG. Sorry, but no more LOCALCONSENSUS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've already been told that your constant cries of "LOCALCONSENSUS" do not have any basis in policy. You also keep bringing up how Dragon Ball Z and its related properties were "harmed" by the decision to merge several years ago. The majority of this group does not believe that separate articles on the anime adaptations of popular manga are warranted in most cases. Obviously, things can be analyzed on a case by case basis, but for the most part the way things are set up presently, one article on a work of fiction, splitting off into list articles for chapters and episodes, is working perfectly fine. An article on the anime adaptation of Bleach would be short and impossible to build up into a fully fleshed out article that is not plagued by unnecessary padding around a reception section that only features criticism of the anime itself because of its intrinsic links with the original manga. This also delves into the whole concept of setting up "franchise articles". You can argue that a subject is notable for inclusion unto itself till you're blue in the face, but that does not mean that the concept of the work of fiction as a franchise does as well. You may constantly point out that WP:DAB or WP:PRIMARY suggest that if there is no clear primary topic then this "franchise page" is suitable, but to be frank that is an opinion you only really hold. The majority of the editors of anime and manga pages do not find this set up to be in any way condusive into creating decent articles. This is why many have decided that WP:PRIMARY is satisfied by being the originating work of fiction within the group of anime, manga, video games, and films, seeing as most adaptations thereof are usually already disambiguated (Evangelion and Ghost in the Shell somewhat being exceptions, although we've seen how that's panned out thus far). Again, you can keep haranguing this project to change its ways because you can find single sentences within WP:N, WP:GNG, and other policies that you seem to quote every so often that supports your argument (when usually the whole of the page suggests otherwise), but you can't force your mindset against a group of people who think that it does not need to be done for these pages due to the unique nature of the media.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is circular and petty. You advocate violating policy for LOCALCONSENSUS despite the RFC and a wide body of peers saying otherwise. Posture and pound the table, but arguing with you gets nothing done and you are not willing to do the work. See you at mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:VPP does not mean that people are now forced to agree with your way of thinking.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

...I know I'm repeating myself, but WP:N/WP:GNG govern if an article can be created, not whether it should; the latter should be decided by consensus. If a community of editors agree by consensus to merge an underdeveloped article into another article, you can't just say "OMG LOCALCONSENSUS" and suggest that it violates policy. There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that say you can't merge articles together. There are also plenty of articles on Wikipedia that merge together notable topics into a single article if the information is better suited for a single article, or if consensus agrees to doing this. WP:CON encourages editors to work together and form a consensus, not just dump Wikiacronyms down each others throats until we're all blue in the face. This is why any merging or splitting should be done on a case-by-case basis on a given article's talk page. This is how it's always been done.

To put it another way, WP:CONLIMITED says "...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Using GNG as an example, this would mean a WikiProject cannot create its own general notability guidelines on what is and what is not notable. This is not what WP:ANIME has done in the past. What this project has done is decided, by consensus, whether certain articles that could potentially meet GNG should or should not have their own article, and there is nothing about that that goes against any policy or guideline. GNG does not mean every article that meets it should be created, it just means that any topic that does meet GNG could have its own article.--十八 08:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine argument to make, but we both know that in practice that pages were robbed of that right by the local consensus of MOSAM. Most done without even a discussion or a hasty "per MOSAM" before being written off. This is where the onus is on the opposition to prove it is not suitable for a stand alone article and at minimum, that involves questioning the appropriateness of even a stub's inclusion. In practice and in form, I've not seen any these articles remain at a stub level and most certainly should not remain at one with the inclusion of a minimal plot, casting, and episode list and reception and release sections. The more complex, development, adaptation differences and themes are harder to work on, but are not barriers to creation. Your argument assumes mediocrity and should not be a reason for merging than covering the work at all. This is why Wikipedia cannot compare and their is a dearth of coverage on even the most popular works because of this mentality. Excuse me, but I believed I have proven time and time again that improving these articles are not only possible, but manageable if anyone puts in a little work. I think we can test on the Bleach anime. Any objections? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm cautious of getting involved here. but although I do believe that these articles should be expanded, there is a fine line. GNG says that such articles can be created, but it doesn't justify their creation. Any decisions about merging or not merging will need to be done based on the individual needs of each article. Consensus lets you do this, and crying LOCALCONSENSUS will not let you ignore what others have decided based on the needs of that article alone (and for that matter, probably the best decision given it takes into consideration the needs of the articles). Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I object to it Chris. There is no way that you can possibly pad the section on the anime as it is and the two paragraphs about reception regarding solely the anime into a decent article. This is why this project decided against such set ups. You did the same thing to Lucky Star (manga) and this was the best you could do after you copied more than half of the other articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And you redirected it out of existence in violation of proper etiquette and procedure. People who have no desire to work constructively or together on content, should have no say in deletion of said content. Much less enforce your views by actively removing content in the process of expansion and updating. Don't revert the Bleach (anime) article out of existence when I make it; lest you want another ANI - you know its AFD when contested or going to be contested. So let me put this clearly, if you do revert it, I'll put it back and if you revert it again, I'll report you to the edit warring board. Your ignorance about the topic and negative view as to its ability to have a decent article does not preclude it from being created or its improvement. And I have pointed to policy for this and previous wide Wikipedia consensus for such actions. Your interpretation and application stands in the way of improvement and WP:IAR in spirit and practice would be just one of half a dozen reasons why your preclusion argument is invalid. Case by case, as you say, so be it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not impose WP:NOEDIT on Ryulong. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri went ahead and made a "Bleach (anime)" article, and as he boldly did this I am going to revert and then a proper discussion is had about it per WP:BRD. The content was 50% plot summary, with the content regarding release and reception of just the anime and most of the plot summary copied wholesale from Bleach (manga) (the only new text was concerning the anime filler arcs). This is why the project members here think everything should be kept together. These articles do not work as standalones even if there are enough sources that would satisfy WP:N and WP:GNG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And he reverted me. I can't even raise this issue at WP:ANI because it'll just look like we're sniping at each other again and it's just going to end up where no one is going to be able to edit any of these pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are actively preventing improvement to Wikipedia, clear improvement that is unquestioned and you did it by tagging to make me hit 3RR and modifying text to do so, even when the "in use" was on. Again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleach break

I have no idea what you're going on about. Every edit I made to the article after tagging it was beneficial. I added the Japanese text to the lede, fixed a piped link, fixed a red link, and restored content you added and then self-reverted under this idea that I'm trying to goad you into violating WP:3RR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm at 3RR and I can't work on it regardless of your intentions. So much for actually getting some important work done. Franchise or not, I can't edit because of the situation even if it is constructive. You won't bury the axe and such drama results in only more problems. But you didn't care about my feelings the last time either, so why would you start caring now. You just have to have it your way in the end; even if I take your side and agree with you on a majority of things - you simply can't let anything go or be negotiated. You expressed a bad attitude about mediation even, but yet I can't work on that and the article suffers - this stupid mess is why I can't even improve articles in this region anymore. You'd be a good colleague if only you did as what you meant what you said. Whatever differences you perceive between us are just a viewpoint; I see you as overly critical and deleting while you seem to see me as something of a inclusion monster. I don't know what to do anymore; I can't even do the most simple things without this dramas. It's tiring and petty, but you don't want to work together. So Wikipedia suffers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I still fail to see how editing the page at the same time as you in good faith constitutes preventing you from working on it further at threat of violating WP:3RR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing was undone. Information was only added to the article. I do not get where you're coming from.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris is right here, if you had reverted one more time you would have broken 3RR, I agree though that a consensus should be in place first though and it should have been taken to the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No he is claiming that he will break 3RR if he edits the article again. He did this long before I restored the edit that he self-reverted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake then, well if he does that then he will be blocked or warned by an admin, even if you feel you are right it says that 3RR is a thing that shouldn't be done. I feel that we should keep the drama here I don't want to see anyone blocked over this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already spilled into Bleach, ANI, and RFM. How are we supposed to contain it? Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I made the from redirect article, you reverted, I reverted it, you tagged, I made an unrelated edit, you altered some of my text. My edit beyond that would be 3RR if I didn't revert it. Changing from redirect to article counts as my first. Your revert and my restorations is my second. Making an addition after you tagged the article, even unrelated to your edit counts as my third. You corrected a link and the other edit and as I did not get an EC my addition to the voice actors was 4RR and I had to revert. So yes, I can't edit it, regardless of the intention because only the appearance will matter if someone sees it. Even if they were not reverting each other and were good faith. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter, and it seemed to be a direct shot back from this page with MOSAM where you said I wanted you at 3RR so you couldn't revert my additions to MOSAM. I rather work together, but I can't force you to and I can't do anything anyways with the opposition and the dramafest. And KB is not helping. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I will drag you to ANI for personal attacking me. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are threatening me and giving incorrect policy advice. I'm not making a personal attack by saying you are wrong and citing the policy. Now stop involving yourself with me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Something that should help solving the issue, from WP:PAGEDECIDE, a subtopic of WP:N (maybe it was quoted before but I'm reluctant to peruse the battleground this thread has become): "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. [...] There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context [...] Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page [...] Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas."

In short, it perfectly acceptable for MOSAM to recommand that some anime and manga be treated together in the same page, and to provide general criteria for the decision, and also a particular style to follow when that happens. ChrisGualtieri thus needs to stop labeling any effort in this way as a "local consensus".Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with you except MOSAM cannot per WP:POLICY and the RFC on the matter. Also your argument was actually used by me as support to make separate pages in the first place. Namely the first and second points, but also the third point as well. Just because a page can be collected into one doesn't mean it is necessary to force removals or prevent detailed splits. This is covered under WP:DETAIL which says that there is no artificial limitation on the depth of an article beyond the ability to discuss the topic or subtopic in a summary style. An old comparison is the "Lake Tahoe" and "Aquatic species of Lake Tahoe" or "Ecology of Lake Tahoe"; theoretical articles that share a same subject, but approach specific topics that are not the same (the correct application of redundant). DETAIL uses two FAs, but the point is the same, a broad topic and a specific topic are not a violation of CFORK in any aspect. My splits are in good faith and I have a history of actually making lots of merges to the point people attacked me as being a deletionist. The counterpoint I am trying to make is that the ability to address ANY topic in detail cannot be precluded or removed by mere objection. This is covered at WP:BLAR for the case of the Bleach anime; a specific part of the Bleach media that is not the same topic as the whole topic of Bleach. Let's not debate RELART and other aspects on similarity in plot and point; adaptations are clearly related and has been shown to not be a valid argument. Go try it on the Harry Potter movies. Book to movie, meets N/GNG, why not redirect that out as "redundant/CFORK". Because it is not. You may not like my opposing stance, but let's focus on the content and not the editor. I think we could come to a clear agreement on this matter rather quickly if that was done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is clear agreement on the matter, Chris: Clear agreement by everyone but you that we don't need a fork of the article. --erachima talk 02:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no WP:POLICY preventing "Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages" to "provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas". As a consequence, the RfC on the matter is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among an ultra-minority of users that we have every reason to ignore. I do not doubt you have previously acted in good faith, but now you're surely aware that a good proportion of users do not agree with your recent splits on anime/manga articles and that you've failed to gather consensus here around your idea of systematically splitting an anime and a manga of the same name. As such I encourage you to stop labeling any effort (whether in the actual pages or in general advice at MOSAM) of grouping together anime and manga as "local consensus", and to refrain from unilaterally splitting pages before discussing it and obtaining a consensus as you did with Bleach, lest you should become WP:DISRUPTIVE. Final word: per WP:PAGEDECIDE, yes, some notable topics are better covered seperately like the Harry Potter books and movies, but some other are better grouped together and that's the case for a lot of anime/manga per the particularity of the medium, MOSAM has the right to provide users with guidance in that respect, and participants of WP:ANIME have the right to consensually agree that some specific anime/manga, such as Bleach, are better covered together (and I'm not gonna repeat arguments already made, if you failed to gather a consensus for the splitting of Bleach on the talk page, there's no point in forum shopping here or at DRN, and WP:BLAR does allow users to reach consensus without needing an AfD). I think everyone got it that you don't agree, but if you keep bringing the topic up ad vitam nauseam while you systematically fail to gather a consensus around your ideas, you're gonna get on a lot of people's nerves and that won't bode well for you. If you want to obtain agreement, then I advice you to focus on trying to find compromise rather than adopting an uncompromising and confrontational stance at multiple venues.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wider wikipedia consensus > local wikipedia consensus. You have no policy to stand on so all you can say is "consensus" and ignore the actual issue. BLAR says it goes to AFD, not revert it out again. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you cannot overturn POLICY, N/GNG or BLAR. The RFC into it was absolutely clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one not standing on policy, I quoted WP:PAGEDECIDE, pretending you didn't see it isn't constructive behavior. BLAR does allow users to reach consensus without needing an AfD. That Wikipedia isn't a democracy doesn't mean that it has to become your dictatorship. It strongly suggest that you drop the subject and stop attacking users when you fail to gather consensus around your ideas, before too many of us lose patience. Things are not looking too bright for you right now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Chris) There is no "wider wikipedia consensus" here. You want to talk policy? WP:CON is policy, and discounting consensus is discounting that policy. I might as well repeat myself and also mention that WP:CONLIMITED refers to a WikiProject unilaterally discounting and/or replacing some policy or guideline. It says "Consensus among a limited group of editors...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.", yes, but the only way you determine if anything on Wikipedia is "community consensus on a wider scale" is by what policy or guidelines, that have been approved by a wide community of users, say. One RfC, with only a very limited number of editors who participated, hardly demonstrates the kind of consensus that a policy or community-generated guideline expresses.

Even if MOSAM cannot, by itself, be used as the one-all-be-all rule against the split of an article into multiple smaller articles (as you constantly remind us from the RfC), the general consensus of other editors in WP:ANIME cannot be discounted, per what Folken has stated already at WP:PAGEDECIDE. The RfC merely said that no guideline should unilaterally block the creation of articles. That does not mean that the creation of any article that satisfies GNG should always be created; it just means it could potentially be created if there was consensus to do so. Seeing as the general consensus of project members is not to split the Bleach anime into its own article, the only thing left to do is try to get other editors to see your side and compromise.--十八 21:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Chris is completely justified in saying that a page he's working on should not be deleted without an AfD, and can't see why you can't just let him restore it, then nominate it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It was merged back into its parent article. You two need to stop whining about "deleted without proper discussion" when it's never been a deletion. Merges can happen without AFD. In fact if you go to AFD asking for a merge they tell you "AFD is not for merge discussions".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MERGE calls for a proper discussion. And may I point out, Ryulong, that once again, you're attacking me for my very first comment on the subject, which you said you'd stop doing? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We had the discussion. It was in favor of a merge. And I am so tired of this crap that I can't keep up with who has said what.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a proper discussion, Chris is never justified in copy-paste content forking pages, and the article was userfied so that he can work on it if he believes it can be made a worthwhile independent article. That he immediately stopped editing it once it was out of mainspace speaks volumes as to the disruptive intent behind his page creations. --erachima talk 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on the editor and stick to the content and argument. Emotional reactionism aside, if you seriously believe I am acting in bad faith than the problem is not me. If you stop assuming good faith, the objective view is out the window, followed shortly by civility and any chance of understanding. I ask you retract your accusations of bad faith because it is a barrier to civil and productive discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My objective, evidence-based assessment is that you never learned how to deal with being denied your own way growing up, are a tendentious editor, and will likely need to be topic-banned from forking anime articles so that Wikipedia can maintain your useful contributions to other subjects, done as an alternative to blocking you outright. You are of course welcome to start proving me wrong about any and all of those points whenever you feel like. --erachima talk 02:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When you want to AGF, at bare minimum. Let me know. We will can talk then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ryulong: If there was a discussion, could you please link me to it? Because I did look, and couldn't find any evidence of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Refocusing discussion

Anyway, we are supposed to be working on a consensus here. So, as I said above, WP:LEAD requires the first sentence sets out the topic of the article. For a lot of articles, though, the topic is presented as being the manga of X, but, if you read the article, it becomes clear the subject is generally something like the manga, and the anime, and video games based on it. That violates WP:LEAD, and, as such, and as this is a widespread problem, I think we should give advice for making sure the article is in compliance, making it clear the first sentence needs to make the full scope of the article's topic clear.

As things stand, the actual examples given are fine, but the practice... is not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The primary topic is usually just the work of fiction, regardless of media, and article editors tend to go with whichever version came first before going onto other media. I don't see any problem with that. "Bleach is a manga by Tite Kubo. It was later made into a television series." "Eureka Seven is an anime television series by Studio Bones. A manga adaptation by [whoever I don't remember] followed."—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Adam I think that WP:CFORK trumps WP:LEAD here, the majority of articles in this project would not benefit from having them split apart. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh. This doesn't make sense at all. Please explain because I can't even fathom how you arrived at that conclusion of "WP:CFORK trumps WP:LEAD". They are not even in the same scope. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge appears to be conflating this with the article forking problem. To address the question you're bringing up, Adam, there is no conflict with WP:LEAD here. The topic of the article is the subject, and information about adaptations of the subject are part of the subject, so a first sentence that makes no mention of the adaptations is still perfectly appropriate under LEAD. There is of course nothing sacred about the current wording, and if you have an idea for better wording that satisfies the same goal of discouraging recentism and Anglo-centric bias in articles about manga that have currently-running anime adaptations (which is the problem that portion exists to address), you're free to suggest it, but the current guideline does not violate LEAD. --erachima talk 20:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It violates BEGIN. So it does indeed violate LEAD. The subject must be declared in the first sentence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Then explain how. --erachima talk 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. As I said, no conflict. Better wording may be possible, but this is a spurious objection. --erachima talk 21:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe the issue lies in the dispute where Knowledgekid says "CFORK" when the lead covers a manga and no anime page exists. You cannot say an article is a CFORK when the topics are not the same. One is the manga, one is the anime. The two articles are not a violation and CFORK's "Redundant Fork" clause are for only the exact same topics in two places. I.e. 9/11 and 11/9 and other variations which concern the September 11th attacks, or the 11 September attacks. We had over a dozen such articles at one point; these were redundant content forks and that is what that part of CFORK covers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept that adaptations of a subject may be covered as part of the subject is completely off-topic. Save it for your MedCom case. --erachima talk 21:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

But WP:BEGIN does not say that the first sentence must act as a sub-lead and summarize the entire article by itself and encourage redundancy and first-sentence bloating. As it currently stands, the subject of the majority of animanga articles is the original media, because without that media, there would be no adaptations, no matter how popular those adaptations may be in recent years. So addressing the topic's original media first, and then following that up with its adaptations does not violate WP:BEGIN. You and I simply have different interpretations of the clause, and while both may be right depending on how you look at it, neither is wrong.--十八 21:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point I think that this whole thing should just be dropped as no consensus, we have been at it for a month now and I see no end in sight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That would likely just mean the usual suspects resume edit-warring on the 10th. --erachima talk 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• So wait. You are saying SAO can't have an anime page? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• List of Sword Art Online episodes. And again, off-topic. Though how the lead sentence of that list should be formatted is perhaps relevant to this discussion. --erachima talk 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually this is rather relevant, because if you ignore LEAD than you are tangentially arguing that any new page creation is CFORK which is what was "used". These have a direct relationship and if editors are going to make that argument, this must be discussed properly. Ignoring LEAD to cover adaptations to push CFORK is a gross violation and it seems to have been done repeatedly; as this was in MOSAM and it was removed by community consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the lead of Sword Art Online. A separate anime page would be subject to the same rules and debate that govern a Bleach anime article. And I thought we were trying to refocus the discussion and not go off on these tangents?--十八 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry. It seemed like you interjecting a new discussion point that concerned the past (and current) application of MOSAM. Does this mean that "is a franchise based on the original X" or "is an anime and manga series originally created by Y" is a no go? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I see the latter as more of a problem because if a series is a manga first and you say "is an anime and manga created by X" it would confuse people as to which media came first and who created what. As for the former, calling a series a franchise is really up to the editor; some may agree to this wording, others won't; that's why we have debates. There seem to be a few editors who agree with that wording, but it seems most of the others in this project do not at this time.--十八 22:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Again, we are completely off-topic. But to answer your question: the distinction that has to be made here, Chris, is between "a series that has been franchised" and "a series that IS a franchise." Franchise is an appropriate primary description for properties like Transformers and Gundam. It's not an appropriate description for, say, Sword Art or Naruto. An intermediate ground would be Yugioh. But we're delving into particular cases here, and particular cases can always be exceptions. --erachima talk 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Juhachi: Good point, but could we just modify it with "X is an manga series created by Y; it has been adapted into an anime by Z studio." Or some variant wording that allows it to both be clear and in accordance with BEGIN? Or we can bury the hatchet and simply go with no "dual-topic" articles as done by the visual novel FAs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first point makes me wonder if that's where it would end. Many series, like SAO for example, have novels, manga, anime, and video games, and others like Naruto are even more convoluted. If you put the original media and anime in the first sentence, what about the novels? Video games? Films? Audio dramas? There'd be no end to it. And I don't know what you mean by "no 'dual-topic' articles". There are no visual novel FAs. If you meant video game articles, many of those deal with adaptations by listing them in their own section, like Tales of Symphonia, where the lead and article is structured around the video game. The video game model is, essentially, what WP:ANIME has done for years.--十八 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Or we can bury the hatchet and just agree to do what I want without question?" I couldn't agree more!
To reiterate once more, Chris, the dispute is not and has never been about whether separate articles are forbidden. There is no dispute that there can be cases where a separate article for an anime is warranted. The disagreement is that your personal opinion of when they are warranted flies in the face of the consensus view of when they are warranted, and you refuse to accept that. ---erachima talk 23:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Juhachi: True... for the more complex ones, I'd just prefer to label it a media franchise as the definition applies. Some like Clannad (visual novel) are at or beyond the limits of their scope. This is what Adam seems to be indicating; an article should be about one topic and one topic only. If the topic is the broad whole, then it should cover the broad whole and simply be addressed in the most relevant word as it applies. Everything else is secondary and irrelevant because the topic must be declared first. It is acceptable to say that adaptations exist and cover them as sub-topics, but as long as they aren't the main topic, it is LEAD compliant. That means "is a manga series" is primarily about the manga. Do you agree? And if so, do you want to propose a rewording of the segment? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"X is a manga series" is primarily about the manga, but that's just like how "Y is a video game" is primarily about the video game, and yet video game articles, while structured around the video game with sections such as gameplay and development, will often also discuss the adaptations, like in Tales of Symphonia, or to a lesser extent, like in Halo: Combat Evolved#Adaptations. By the same token, an article that is structured around its original media (whether it be manga, anime, novel, or whatnot) will also discuss its adaptations, especially when animanga adaptations are often so intertwined with the original media. There might be more that is said about an anime adaptation than its original manga, but that is because of the nature of anime (more people/companies involved than a manga), but just because you can say a lot about something does not automatically make it a part of the "main topic".

Also, I don't see why "an article should be about one topic and one topic only". That would be like saying WP:MERGE is forbidden. One of the WP:MERGE#Reasons for merger is about overlap, and specifically says "there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept". This has been pointed out before by others because there is often a large amount of overlap between a manga and its anime adaptation(s).--十八 01:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is impossible to have one FA article on a combination of the anime and manga instead of two separate articles; if the subject is all the media, or one over the other, than it would be more accessible and understandable. Related or not, I think that splitting hairs over LEAD's application is a bit much. Could you propose some better wording for Adam? I tend to be bad at such wordings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion has been moved to VPP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• No it has not. Neutral advertizement for input is fine, but attempting to move the discussion because you don't like the outcome at one location is forum shopping and unacceptable. Discussion shall remain centralized here, and we are currently waiting on Adam to make a suggestion of how he thinks the wording should be changed. --erachima talk 17:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion is too long and needs to be summarized properly for those editors; there is a pre-wikiproject discussion phase and a RFC phase following the no consensus. Calling it forumshopping is inflammatory and you are clearly involved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Moving the discussion because it didn't end well is the literal definition of forum shopping, Chris. If you are concerned about the discussion needing a summary, we have several options. If you would like to write a neutral summary, collaborate on a summary, or even write competing summaries ala RfC, we can do that, and then archive the summarized content as necessary. What we cannot do is try to "reboot" the discussion on another noticeboard, because that violates policy. --erachima talk 17:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Funny, your side didn't present one policy argument and resorted to name calling and rude remarks and other personal attacks instead of discussing in relation to policy. A gang of editors working together to selectively ignore and (ab)use policy is not representative of consensus. It is just more OWN from the project's members that refuse to work with other projects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the above comment is reportable to WP:ANI per W:AGF and WP:NPA.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Excuse me, but these are unfounded accusations. No one is "working together" to ignore policy, nor is any OWNing going on. Each side is offering their opinions on the matter. Just because there are a bunch of editors who don't agree with you does not mean we're "working together" to subvert you, even if you might see it that way.--十八 21:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, you think that's bad? Check these out: [7] --erachima talk 18:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This will have to wait, I'm not going to prevent mediation from moving forward. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for having this go off track. I think Knowledgekid87 is correct about the situation. It should have been left as that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Either two things can happen, we can try and set things in place for a solid consensus that will affect articles on a more broad scope (Because doing this article by article makes little sense as each case is no the same) or just drop the whole thing as no consensus. My thought is that mediation is going to be good short term but not for long term things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article, and therefore the lead sentence summarizing the subject, must be based upon how the reliable sources cover the specific subject of the article. And thus, the structure of the lead cannot be mandated by fiat from the project to do anything other than respect the weight of the reliable third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• You are correct that undue weight is the crux of the issue, but otherwise failing to grasp the point. Let me give an example: Shingeki no Kyojin is, to the Japanese, a best-selling and award-winning manga series that happens to have gotten a middling-quality anime adaptation. In the Anglosphere, it's the most popular new cosplay-bait anime of Summer 2013. The MOSAM rule helps enforce WP:UNDUE here by not allowing the adaptation's transient spike in popularity to displace the original's longer-term fame. --erachima talk 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell mediation

As all of this is very clearly intertwined with the dispute that has been ongoing at the Ghost in the Shell pages since earlier this year, I believe it is within this project's best interest to help everyone come to a satisfactory decision on what should be done at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Primary vs popular

Let me preface this by saying I’m not trying to change anything. I’m simply looking for the rationale behind it, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with it.

I believe it has long been the consensus that “Articles about series which have been adapted into other media should introduce the original format of a work rather than the format of the work most popular in English.” I have never understood why this is. Isn’t this encyclopedia written for English speakers? So why shouldn’t an article be primarily about the work in the format that English speakers are most familiar with? Or if the article is, why should it be framed as if it weren’t?

If this is explained elsewhere in project space (I would be astonished if it wasn’t), please point me there. And it would probably be a good idea to mention it in the guidance, too. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Popularity and notability are not the same. Manga almost always come first in Japan and articles should really say "Hey this is a manga" before it goes into any detail on the anime adaptations which for whatever reason get ultimately more popular in the west. You would not present the article on (as an example) Iron Man as the following: "Iron Man (Tony Stark) is a fictional character portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr., in the Iron Man film series. He is based on a character originally created by Stan Lee of Marvel Comics." This is why the guideline suggests this, as it is facetious to present the more popular version of something first because popularity is ephemeral. Bleach, Death Note, Attack on Titan, etc. may be popular as anime but their notability was established while still manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I gave the basic explanation immediately above this thread: it's an issue of undue weight in a subject with difficult sourcing hurdles. For the vast majority of manga which are adapted into anime, their English-language popularity is a flash in the pan and based primarily on the anime, while their Japanese-language popularity is more enduring and based primarily on the manga. As a result, both our choice of what to give coverage to --which is of course unavoidably directed by what is popular among English speakers-- and our easily accessible sourcing tends to be biased.
The introduction rule was written after a number of cases where people had attempted to sideline the source material entirely, and helps counteract this bias by ensuring that, at the very least, the lead section is encyclopedic, and remembers to introduce Yugioh as a manga, rather than as a card game and the basis for a parody video series. --erachima talk 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll add on to Ryulong and Erachima and point out that popularity is rather subjective and almost impossible to objectively verify. Similarly, you can't reliably verify what format English readers might be most familiar with. Attack on Titan is both very popular as a manga and an anime, but which is more popular? That's really not something Wikipedia should be asking, so the original material is used as the focus, as this is the most neutral and objective way of approaching a subject.--十八 10:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me add another point. You stated that you though the English Wikipedia was written for English speakers. That is not correct. The English Wikipedia is simply written in the English language. Ideally, the content of articles should represent the broad consensus of reliable sources throughout the world, not just those of a specific language subset. However, this can sometimes be difficult to achieve because of the lack of non-English contributes working is specific areas in the English Wikipedia, such as anime and manga. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for stating that; the bias is systematic, but that does not mean our coverage be augmented to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)