Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC

RfC: Should anime and manga adaptations of the same work share a page or be split into multiple articles?

I was going to close this yesterday, but I wanted to give this another read this morning to see if there was any fair way to move forward on how best to approach larger A&M-related articles in the usual case where adaptations follow a manga series. Editors were opposed to implementing either a hard-line "one-article per franchise" or a "one article for each adaptation" rule, which leaves us with consensus to make such splitting or consolidation decisions on a case-by-case basis. I'll note that most editors seem to be in agreement in that for most manga-to-adaptation franchises, a single article usually suffices.

The subsequent challenge was to determine the criteria by which such decisions could be made, or even considered. "Uniqueness" was a term used by some, which while a fair approach, could use some definition. A number of parameters were suggested: Prose size, anime series length, discussion of production for the adapation, the degree of novel content in the anime series compared to the manga, and others. Some of these parameters seem less helpful. For instance, the number of episodes alone seems unhelpful because the studio may simply have a ton of money to create numerous episodes, none of which are substantially novel (e.g. some may be filler/recap episodes). Some may be more instructive though-- differences in major story arcs (i.e. ones worth discussing per the Manual of Style and WP:PLOTSUM and/or significant coverage of the process and news about production of the adaptation.) There was reluctance from editors to agree to any specific metrics on any of these parameters, but I think some principles proposed here are soundly within policy and should be the focus of future discussions in this area:

If an adaptation is a substantial reflection of the plot and characters of its respective manga series, it probably does not require a separate article.
If a substantial amount of nontrivial and reliably-sourced content can be written about an adaptation that distinguishes it from its respective manga series, a separate article on the adaptation is recommended.

In point #2, nontrivial is meant to refer to things like noncritical differences in plot, as described by many editors here.

I realize this has long been a contentious topic area, and I hope this discussion will be helpful to better organize and present A&M content on Wikipedia for the sake of our readers. Editors are welcome to contact me on my talk page with questions or concerns about this close. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is a binding RfC to resolve the issue laid out in the "Background" section, below. Please only edit in Comments section or any sections created below it. Do not edit the background or the statements by Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri.

Please stay civil and on topic. The scope of this RfC is strictly the issue of whether anime and manga adaptations from the same franchise should be covered on one page or several. The conduct issues between those debating that question are NOT within the scope of this RfC.

Background

Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are both long time editors in the area of manga and anime. Over the past several months their disagreement over whether anime and manga adaptations of the same work should share a page or whether they should be split into multiple articles has evolved into a series of increasingly heated arguments, which has led to several AN/I threads and has poisoned the atmosphere around manga and anime articles on Wikipedia. It is important to note that while the primary disputants in this case are are Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, there are several other editors that frequently comment in these disputes, and that some those editors have made comments that have further inflamed the issue.

The purpose of this RfC is to resolve the content dispute that is at the heart of this, with the understanding that if that is resolved, the user conduct issues will fade. Both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri have agreed to hold a binding RfC to resolve the issue. The purpose of this RfC is not to discuss the user conduct issues. While it may seem that the content dispute and the conduct issues are inseparable, but they are. Shifting the focus of this RfC to a 'who wronged whom' discussion will doom the RfC to fail and will do nothing to solve the underlying content dispute, which will continue to cause problems.

The first section of this RfC will consist of statements by Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri that lay out their position on the argument. The second section will be a discussion of their positions, and of any other positions that editors have, with the aim of selecting a resolution to the question that as a broad consensus. If a clear consensus develops for one position or the other, that will be the resolution. If a consensus fails to develop for one position or another, the community should begin drafting compromise proposals and seeing if any of those develop consensus.

Many of the editors involved in this dispute have spent months bickering, and it has become 'personal' for some of them. Because of the potential for this to spiral out of control, the RfC will be carefully monitored to ensure that this does not become another forum for continued interpersonal attacks. Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri have agreed to limit their participation in the second section of this RfC in order to head off the possibility of additional fighting. Please feel free to ask them for clarifications to the points they made in the first section, but don't ask them to comment on each other's positions. That's the place of the larger community to discuss.

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

While it may seem to be good idea to keep many anime and manga articles together, it is not always ideal. Would you combine all notable adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to one page? What of Hamlet? What of Harry Potter? What of Lord of the Rings? What of Spiderman, Transformers, the list goes on. Each article needs its own notability to stand alone, but that is not questioned in this dispute. It is the presumption that notable adaptations are not worthy of detailed coverage, and that goes against the detail portion of summary style. The dispute is not on cases of small adaptations of 13 or 26 episodes, but sprawling and multi-million and multi-billion dollar franchises. The Dragon Ball manga has sold more books than all 300+ Star Wars novels put together; over 230 million volumes in total. The anime adaptations of Dragon Ball comprise 500 episodes; which have aired in over 50 nations and dubbed no less than 20 times. But not all adaptations are faithful; the anime of Bleach has over 100 episodes of original content – not covered in the manga – and whose plot and production was non-existent because it was deemed unnecessary. Its removal results in a lost of knowledge and the needless limitation of one topic so that the original dominates the coverage or mixes the two together into an incomprehensible and jarring form.

Once notability is established, the adaptation's differences, cast, production, music, and reception are all worthy of discussion. Currently, the all-in-one pages result in the adaptation's coverage being cut or removed until only a “list of episodes” remains. A separate page resolves this content and focus conflict. While there is no need to have splits for every adaptation, actively barring separate articles is bad for Wikipedia and it has been the Anime and Manga WikiProject's stance for years. Even if you do not care about anime or manga – these articles contain many of Wikipedia's most popular pages and the adaptation is the most familiar media to the international audience. Support separate articles for notable adaptations so that they can be detailed and comprehensive without being cut down to a mere subtopic of the original media.

Statement by Ryulong

My position is fairly simple. For ease in presenting topics on anime and manga that only differ in whether one is on paper or on television, a single page is all that is really needed to discuss them. It is not necessary to produce two articles on what is essentially the same topic because there are reliable sources that contain critical reception of one form of the media rather than the other when it is rarely ever critical reception that applies only to that form (such as animation quality or artwork). The only reason that there exists this divide in sources (from what I have seen) is that the anime version becomes more popular in English, thus producing the plethora of sources that solely discuss the English version of the anime adaptation. This should not be a metric by which a new article is produced from what was previously a two-in-one page. And what is left finds its place at the character lists (casting), chapter lists (publishing dates), and episode lists (broadcast dates and for some reason theme songs).

There are also issues concerning the idea of a "franchise page" which I disagree with, but I am not sure about ChrisGualtieri's current stance on this as it is not addressed in his statement on this RFC.

Comments

Please stay civil and on topic. The scope of this RfC is strictly the issue of whether anime and manga adaptations from the same franchise should be covered on one page or several. The conduct issues between those debating that question are NOT within the scope of this RfC.

I am going remain neutral on this matter, as I suggested and coordinated this RfC, so it would be improper for me to take sides now. I would, however, like to make a few observations. 1) The area in dispute here seems rather small. The disagreement isn't over every franchise, but only the largest franchises - the ones with several series of manga or anime within the same franchise, or several manga adaptations of the same series, and so on. I'm not an expert in the area, but there can't be more than a few dozen that are that big. With that in mind, I think it's important to realize that this isn't an RfC on the entirety of manga and anime coverage, but rather of a definable subsection of it. 2) Despite all of the bickering, it's clear that there is a mutual respect and a desire for reconciliation between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, which is the biggest reason why I think such an RfC has the possibility of being successful. As I said at the AN/I thread, these are both long time, positive contributors that are looking to do what they view as the best for the project, and they both have solid rationales for their beliefs. I would ask that participants keep these things in mind, and give the issue the consideration it deserves. Simply regurgitating old arguments will get us nowhere, the involved parties, all of them, not just Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, need to put aside their animosity and look for a solution here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a standpoint of fiction, I would consider how much of a difference there is in the manga and the anime (as well as which came first). If the two works are intended to be close mirrors of each other, which the larger plot is nearly the same in both, but certainly smaller scenes or characters have been dropped due to the brevity of the medium, it doesn't make sense to separate the two, since the plot, concept and themes, and development will nearly the same; the absence of a character can be noted in character list. When the anime and manga diverge significantly, then yes, it makes sense to treat them as separate entities, with the one that was published first considered the "parent" (which I understand is almost always the manga). I would still expect in either case that between all the articles on the anime/manga that there will be a character list, a list of episodes, and a list of books (whether separate articles or not, that doesn't matter). So basically, it should be treated case by case, with no single solution that works across the board. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I know nothing about anime and manga so consider my viewpoint the stance of someone coming to a article to learn something about it. My main concerns are that it is well-written, coherent (all holds together without tangents) and readable. By the last term, I simply mean that it goes into enough detail to be interesting but isn't so lengthy so that it seems overwhelming and I start to lose interest. Assuming the first two factors are solid, in light of your debate, it's really a matter of how much material you are working with. Can it all fit neatly into a page? Then, keep it together. Are you talking about a franchise that has multiple TV series or game lines? That would be too much content for one article so split it up. I'm seriously just talking about a simple word count. Think of your reader and how much they want to read in one sitting.

What I'm arguing against is that there doesn't have to be one decision. I know that because of all of the arguments, there is the desire to make a binding decision that will settle things once and for all but I think this needs to be considered case by case, and you need to get over this idea that it is a polarity ("all together" or "everything separate"). An article on a TV series could have a section on music included within it if it is an incidental factor unless it is substantial enough to warrant a separate article. This just seems like common practice with other TV series and I'm not sure why anime or manga would be any different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, I keep envisioning a page entitled "Bleach" with two major sections, one for the anime and one for the manga. I don't see why these can't be on one page, even if the page gets fairly long in length. That'd be a uniform way of moving forward, and if somebody is looking up a particular anime or manga, why not provide one place instead of two to navigate to? It feels like it's more of a service to have them together, but that's just my take and I understand why there may be disagreement in this issue. GRUcrule (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Anime and manga have a completely different relationship between eachother compared to any other media outside of japan. the majority of the time gaining an anime series based of a manga/light novel series is a milestone for such manga/light novel series. Its much more informative to keep both in the same page connected rather than to keep them separate. In which i believe bring more needed context for such. Also one would argue different media and same plot doesn't cause much for independent information if the reception and majority of the production is still based on the original media's plot. Especially for ongoing series, the vast summary of both would be virtually the same. resulting in a redundant fork that just happens to say their two different medias.

Another thing i find is how based on episode count, which is something completely not relevant to notability. As previously stated, its just systemic bias to base any notability on such qualities that don't really prove anything other than subjectivity. Example: a 20+ episode series adaptation that deviates completely from the original media can be more notable on its own than a 300+ episode series that falls faithful to the original media precisely. Most of the time both manga and anime are considered as mainly the same subject. Another thing to note is that WP:ANIME does revisions and acceptable to avoid any unnecessary splits by moving more specific content that would bloat up the article in more relevant pages.

At the moment, i agree that there should be some leeway for specific situations in a series that deserve a split and is needed to provide more context in the overall series. I don't agree with Chris's method. it's far too broad, and wont provide the context needed. For example: Case Closed is just fine despite having over 22 seasons. Even if the main page needed to expand in order to fit WP:SUMMARYSTYLE it wouldn't be as much due to subsequent list-articles.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with separate articles is that much of the content on both articles would oftentimes apply to the series as a whole (both the manga and anime), so having them separate does not make much sense. The plot of an anime adaptation is almost always faithful to the original media, and unless it is completely different, it would be unnecessary to list the plot on two articles. And besides, even with over 100+ episodes of "original content" in Bleach, those episodes are not important to the overall plot of the series (they're what are known as "filler" episodes for the uninitiated) so you wouldn't include a summary of those episodes in a succinct plot summary of the anime. To put it another way, WP:PLOTSUM recommends cutting anything unnecessary and just provide the main points of the plot in a summary.

Next would be any analysis or critical reception. More often than not, both of these would apply to both media, because they discuss the series' story, so even if you have some reliable source discussing a critical analysis of an anime adaptation, as long as that anime is faithful to the original media, any such comments would thus also apply to the manga, so keeping the information in one article makes more sense. As for the cast info, I believe that should be listed only in the character list (which in cases such as these will almost always already exist), and keeping a separate, smaller list in an article on the anime would be unnecessary. I also don't see why any release information couldn't go in an "anime" subsection in a larger "media" section on one article, and any spill-over could go into the separate episode list. The same would apply with a chapter/volume list for a manga. Even any music information could easily go into said "media" section, and if you wanted to go further, create a list of albums and/or discography.

So the only thing I see intrinsically different would be an in-depth section on production. If such information cannot be provided or is simply unavailable, I see no reason why there should be separate articles on a manga and its adaptation, per what I noted above.--十八 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given my experience as a veteran project member for over 6 years, my contention with anime and manga articles is that even though manga and anime articles are fine together, I don't think it can be accomplished with just adaptations of work being split off. For example, One Piece (English adaptation) was merged into One Piece due to lack of notability and sourcing. Episode count unfortunately does not inherit notability, because most of the time, the anime and manga share the same story. I would agree with Juhachi's comments above as well as Masem's and Ryulong's, I think if the anime/manga adaptations stay fairly close, then we can keep it in an individual article. But if the anime (such as a film) is considerably different to the manga, then it should be a separate entity. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be providing three subheadings for the !votes. With only comments and not subheadings, it will be difficult for the closer to summarize, and more difficult for the participants to agree that the closer has followed consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that anyone wants this issue to go to ArbCom. However, if this issue goes back to the noticeboards again, it will eventually wind up in ArbCom, a less toxic way to deal with it than continuing inconclusive quarreling at the noticeboards. (Continuing inconclusive quarreling at the noticeboards frustrates and angers everyone. An ArbCom proceeding will probably result in the antagonists being topic-banned.) Since both of the antagonists finally want to get this issue resolved, please all help get this issue resolved by reaching a consensus on the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is the difference between an anime series that is 13 episodes vs one with 500+ episodes as far as production and other associated content goes? Does more episodes mean that there is more real world content that is encyclopedic and isn't an extended plot summary? So far, I have not see any indications of that being the case. I can understand why the editors who work on anime and manga tend to consolidate that information into one article, to reduce the amount on in-universe and duplication between articles. And the fact that they split off the list of episodes and lists of characters generally reduces the need to split the main article further. What more is there to summarized that wouldn't fit into the main article or one its associated episode and character lists? Just because other areas of Wikipedia have chosen to create duplicate articles does that mean that such organizational format is always desirable, or even the best way to organize such information. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Bleach (anime) someone mentioned above, I'd like to quote the article where it says "The anime ran for a total of 366 episodes including 111 episodes of original material not based on the manga." So its not just an animated version of the manga. It also has a different production section, information about the music, and a nice size reception section concerning the anime itself, not the manga. No reason to eliminate this anime article just because 2/3rds of the episodes were based on the manga. Dream Focus 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One article per franchise

Agree if the adaptations are not each notable or not distinctively unique. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You shouldn't try to eliminate articles just because you want it all on one page. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources, then there is no reason not to make a separate article for it. That way it can expand over time and have its own reception section. Dream Focus 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dream Focus: the reason is if we really need it to inform the reader the best way we can. Which means why have two, if the majority is still the same subject? the music section is a bit lengthy, but that can be solved. i guess the core is "if its inevitable, then we split".Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material written is different, and wouldn't all fit in the manga article, nor is there any reason to shove all of it there. Dream Focus 00:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles, one for each adaptation

It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation

Support - If the different adaptations are significantly different and each can justify their own article, multiple articles. Notability should not be enough as such if the adaptations are essentially the same. Uniqueness, e.g., plot or character differences, matter. Otherwise one article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply because this is still aligned with 1 article franchise (even though i'm sure that we would argue if we considered it a franchise). I'm sure Ryulong never believed that having one article is absolute.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Depends on the situation. If the anime and manga follow the same plot and have the same characters with fairly minor differences, as is usually the case, there's really not much reason to have a second article. There's also no need for a second article if one or the other has a different plot but is minor sidestory type stuff (in this case, the lesser work should be summarised in the article on the greater work). Less commonly, the anime and manga are truly different and better covered seperately (see Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind for an example). When it comes to huge media franchises with numerous different anime and manga series which tell different or overlapping stories, it's best to seperate them to avoid confusion--a good example of this kind of set of articles is Evangelion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my statement above. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a lot of people seem to be saying here, not every anime/manga is exactly alike. Some anime series follow the manga series to great detail while others start to differ after a number of episodes. Case in point: Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The first anime was initially based on the manga but starts its own story while the second anime follows the manga as closely as possible. While material in the article about the manga also applies to the second anime, it only applies to the first for about 60%.

Now other series would follow the exact same plot as in the manga and it would seem pointless to have a separate article for the manga and the anime since the text is basically repeated. So when it comes to deciding whether a topic requires more than one article it's a judgment call. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per what I said above. My main concern is reducing redundancy and keeping information that could pertain to multiple forms of media (plot, analysis, reception) in one place. I also feel an in-depth section on production would be essential for any adaptation that is split into its own article, lest it desolve into being a repository for in-universe info.--十八 08:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasonings by Juhachi, Lucia Black and myself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone here seems to be on the same wavelength, and since I agree what my fellow editors have outlined above, I won't repeat them. However I will say that it is only logical to decide whether articles be split or merged depending on their own level of uniqueness. Creating a regulation that adamantly dictates whether articles be either split or merged without regard for the aforementioned sounds to me like cutting a puzzle piece to make it fit a spot. Sure, it'll fit—but at the cost of quality. —KirtZ^Message 14:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This issue gets even more complicated when you get into a series like the Sailor Moon franchise, which in addition to anime and manga, has an extensive history of live-action television and stage shows, which may or may not follow pre-existing plots. Like many of these major franchises, Sailor Moon also has video games and soundtracks as well, which adds yet more potential confusion. Sailor Moon does also have an "English Adaptations" section as well, since it's a series that's known to have been heavily modified in the original US English release. In order to summarize all of the Sailor Moon franchise in a single article there is a single primary page that is subsequently spun off into four "See Also" pages and three linked "Main Article" pages. I have used Sailor Moon here as an example, but it's not the only franchise for which there is this kind of proliferation of media. While having a single page for a major franchise can provide a starting point, it's pretty difficult for it to cover all of the information that people may want to access. Metheglyn (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I might interject, with your example of Sailor Moon, only the manga and anime would share a single page. Any other derivative media, like PGSM or the musicals would get their own articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough valid unique content to fill a separate article, that meets notability guidelines, then there is no reason not to have it. Even if an anime was based on a manga, and wasn't filled with a lot of filler episodes, it has its own reception section, information about its music, its voice actors, who released the series, how well it did, and information about it. No one was saying you should just split something simply because you felt like it. If you only had a small paragraph you could think to write about, then it could fit in another article, but that isn't really the case with any notable series. Dream Focus 01:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of the time, the information can be divided and put into a more relevant spin-off article such as List of episodes and List of characters and even more recently, discography/music/list of [series X] soundtracks. Plus the relationship between anime and manga can be explained better together. So unless the information "NEEDS" to be present in the main article, and there's absolutely no way it can't be moved anywhere else, AND the information that inevitably stays it too lengthy, than the split can be done.Lucia Black (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is exactly my view. It’s a case-by-case decision; there should be no absolute black-or-white rule. If an adaptation differs wildly from the original, and both are sufficiently notable, there’s no reason not to have an article on each. —Frungi (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per common sense. Cavarrone 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics or further guidance

There seems to be a pretty clear consensus that this issue should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. While it is certainly good to see an agreement at the broader conceptual level, it would be nice to be able to offer up some metrics or further guidance for the future, as that might mitigate future conflicts. In essence Where should the line be between a shared article and a split one? What kinds of elements contribute to having split articles, and what kinds of elements don't? Should an anime adaptation with filler content not from the manga be handled differently from an anime adaptation with different major plot elements from the manga? Do the size / length / popularity / number of adaptations / amount of scholarly attention / etc. come into play or not? It might not be possible to build a set of metrics; we might end up just having to have talk page discussions every time, but it's worth seeing if we can find common ground in this area while we're here. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I'd like to see a page size of around 50kb with cast, music and other elements of the production. I'd like to see plot deviations discussed for original arcs for works like Bleach. As my focus is on franchises grossing more than $100 million and of comparatively large size; I think this is a sensible and reasonable means of drawing a line. These also include the "big three" One Piece, Bleach and Naruto as well as Dragon Ball. Things like Legend of Galactic Heroes are also greatly impacted by this "all in one set up", but unlike this dispute, there is not enough content to advocate a split until such a time that the production aspects can be covered properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I think such an article isn't necessary. As described above in #Comments, plot summary should be minimal. An article solely dedicated to the anime should not be split off simply because you can produce a production section or because it had a filler arc and pad it with cast (replicated by the list of character pages) or music (which is either given its own discography or list of albums article or integrated into the episode lists). Much of what has been put at Bleach (anime) is redundant to several other pages, and is only at such a length because of the redundancies and a glut of sources regarding production and the English adaptation. This case by case basis treatment should be applied (as it is currently) to pages like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex being separate from Ghost in the Shell and Saint Seiya Omega separate from Saint Seiya.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ryulong. At the moment we should see case by case. I think the line is distinct enough any more and we get to get closer to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.Lucia Black (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how long/notable the anime is for the series. If it airs 1 or 2 seasons, then I'm not so sure it was notable enough to warrant its own article. If it's a long-running one (such as Bleach, Naruto, etc. etc.) then there is PLENTY to work with for another article, including separate plot twists, spin-offs, movies, etc. EDIT: I'll just throw out an arbitrary number: Three seasons. If the anime goes three seasons, give it a standalone unless determined by authors more knowledgeable than myself that its unnecessary. GRUcrule (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the episode lists are for though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what the problem is, trying to find an arbitrary number of seasons or sales that don't exactly cover what makes it independent from the other series. I've provided a very long, specific, yet clear way to do it.

It merely depends on how much new information there is. If there is any large significant amount (i'm going to say about over' 4-3 solid paragraphs per each section such as "plot" and "production" and maybe "reception") of original independent info that can't be moved to either A)List of characters or B) List of episodes C) discography/music/list of soundtrack articles.

So if there is a list of characters, we cover the cast in that list (regardless if it has its own article or not). If there is a large range of soundtracks, we cover them in a list of soundtracks. if there is overarching seasons, we cover them in an overall season page of episodes and divide it by individual season articles.

But this includes true different direction from the original. So potentially Fullmetal Alchemist and Rozen Maiden can be separate their original anime from their manga counterpart if there's enough information provided.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lucia Black's proposal is the best I've seen. I do think some sort of numerical standard (whether it be paragraphs or words of new information, or something to determine notability - some hard-and-fast number for reference) will clear things up substantially, though I know that's difficult to determine exactly what. 3-4 paragraphs of standalone information seems like a solid direction. GRUcrule (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing the subject area, I can't make a statement on what is the "right" size. But having worked with people in disputes (off-wiki), I encourage the adoption of acceptable ranges rather than specific numbers. If you settle on an exact size (like 50kb), there will be subsequent arguments if, say, someone has a page that is 53 kb. Whether it is size or number of sections (as in Lucia Black's proposal), providing a "target range" rather than an exact number will reduce the number of future conflicts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does any one else have another method? or have any issues with the current ones presented so that we can modify them?Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A numerical limit does not solve anything, and in fact causes more problems. Most of the commentors here have already agreed that things should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Why is this now suddenly an option?—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryulong: I agree on case by case, but there should also be an acceptable range to "consider" splitting especially when they are series meant to follow the original plot as close as possible.Lucia Black (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although i would like it only be case by case, its unfortunate that some would attempt to abuse the system if we simply allowed every anime adaptation into consideration. Perhaps Juhachi, Sjones23, Masem, Dream Focus, KirtZJ and Starblind can weigh in their opinion 9and anyone i forgot to mention). Just to speed things along.Lucia Black (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the gist of Lucia Black's proposal, but I think it necessary that said 3-4 paragraphs be reliably sourced and non-trivial. I could write 4 paragraphs about my breakfast this morning if I really had to, and the last thing we need is folks padding out articles with trivia just to justify their existance. As another angle, what if we made having a different creative direction be the standard for a seperate article? Many anime/manga have filler episodes, cut content, or story changes for pacing or censorship reasons but are essentiially the same work in a different medium and best covered together. To use a non-anime example, the original TMNT comic and the 80s cartoon show had the same core group of characters but were otherwise totally different in plot, character, and tone and it would be nearly impossible to write a coherent article covering both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sounds good. And yes, i'm well aware of how "bloated" certain information can appear. but its difficult to cover filler episodes extensively when they can be done to just a couple of sentences per filler season. A good example of a non-notable, media adaptation that doesn't meet the difference this is FLCL and its manga that doesn't follow the exact OVA, and even a completely different art style. but regardless, there is little information on it. if production and release history and reception can be expanded, maybe some extensive plot differences can be too. sometimes highlighting in-universe difference isn't worth it too if there's no out-of-universe information to back up its detailed relevance. So if intentional story-telling differences and significant changes can be sourced, then the plot differences can be explained extensively.Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid I don’t think any hard-and-fast rules or numbers are practically useful here. I don’t think there’s any objective way to determine whether an adaptation is “worthy” of its own article. Personally, if production and filler details were all that a standalone article would have to offer, I’d say to scrap it. But if the adaptation specifically had a massive effect on pop culture, I’d think that alone might be enough to justify an article (which would naturally include production and filler details). —Frungi (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frungi: well, there is a large scale that many fall in the same place, i think we can make a general guide that allows exceptions "on rare occasion".Lucia Black (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I hope so, and I hope everyone can agree to and abide by it. Godspeed. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. By saying "on rare occasions" is meaningless, since people insist on going by the guidelines regardless. It passes the General Notability Guidelines, and there is enough unique content to fill its own article, then no reason not to have an article for it. Simple. Any guideline you pass will be used as an excuse to argue nonstop and eliminate articles someone doesn't like. Dream Focus 08:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue still stands that anything you can say about the anime is essentially what you can say about the manga, other than critiques of animation quality, filler arcs, or theme songs. All of these sources being used to support a separate article on the anime for let's say Bleach are just English language sources discussing the dub casting or English speakers praising the story, when the story is identical to the manga except for the filler arcs, which I don't think anyone has picked out sources saying that the Bount arcs or the Zanpakuto spirit arc were good.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The anime ran for a total of 366 episodes including 111 episodes of original material not based on the manga. I'm sure something could be said about those 111 episodes that wouldn't fit in the manga article. The all important reception section is different, and wouldn't fit anywhere else. The things you listed are perfect valid for a Wikipedia article, and wouldn't all fit in the manga article, nor belong there at all. Dream Focus 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah. You discuss the episodes at the episode lists. And animation quality and theme songs would belong on an article about the anime, if there was anything out there that discusses animation quality in the review or anything beyond a list of song titles and performers. The sheer length of these Shonen Jump anime adaptations should not be a metric to separate their coverage from the manga because it's always just identical plot summary, save for the filler arcs, reviews that praise the story as a whole rather than the animation, and undue weight on the English adaptation. This is exactly what Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball Z, and Bleach (anime) look like.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also to further clarify my previous rendition, multiple paragraph system would work only for specific media. For example, some person failed Fullmetal Alchemist over the fact that it covers the anime in a single article, and part of the reason was that the anime reception section was bigger than the manga's. but failed to realize that the anime reception section contains more than one anime series based on the manga. So there wont be no technicality here if there's multiple series (not seasons) made that would obviously take up more paragraphs all together.Lucia Black (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A&M, as it currently is, is not properly organized or operated to establish GA and FA level articles in a meaningful fashion. I see some of the most backwards and self-defeating actions here that have been instituted by a handful of people who lack any expertise of the subject and have little experience writing GA or FA level articles. Lucia Black has worked with me and Niemti in order to get the Ghost in the Shell (film) to GA status, but it seems that the whole "anime and manga" aspect is a sticking point in the dispute. Honestly, the whole "list of episodes" or "list of chapters" for series of 13-26 episodes or 4 volumes is a little silly. There is absolutely no reason to have Trinity Blood split up with List of Trinity Blood light novels, List of Trinity Blood chapters, List of Trinity Blood episodes. Treat every subject as if it were to be GA or FA level and that would require it to be "a comprehensive stand alone article on the topic". In the most basic and simple of terms; A&M is not like the rest of Wikipedia and it is frozen in a 2007ish era - limiting its relevancy, depth and scope of coverage to preserve a poorly thought out "way" from nearly a decade ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as I can tell your only request is that "Trinity Blood (novel series)", "Trinity Blood (manga)", and "Trinity Blood (anime)" exist instead of the lists. How is that different from what we have now?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, having them individually wont prove much to make them notable, and it will do was merge the lists into their own articles. it really doesn't provide much new individual information. We have several FA enough to prove that articles can be FA if their mainly a collective. I know you would like to keep them all separate, but if there's not enough information, then we can't figure it outLucia Black (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sven Manguard

It is with a great deal of sadness and significant frustration that I am announcing my departure from this RfC. At this time, I do not believe that the RfC will be successful in resolving either the content or the conduct issues that I set out to resolve when I started the proceedings. While I had hoped to avoid what looked like the imminent filing of an ArbCom case, and the predicted topic or site banning that such a case would bring, I am no longer confident that this issue can be resolved at any venue other than ArbCom, and indeed have come to the conclusion that filing a case might be in the best interests of the project.

A few days ago, when it looked that this discussion had slowed down significantly, I had planned on gathering some admins that are not involved in this area to help me close this discussion. At the time, things were looking mostly positive. While there were no concrete metrics that could be pointed to, there was some consensus about the broader issue, and it looked like ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong were interacting with each other with an appropriate level of civility. I, however, got sidetracked by the ArbCom elections and neglected to make any progress in closing the RfC.

Unfortunately, based on recent on-wiki events such as this and private conversations, I no longer feel comfortable standing by my rosy outlook from a few days ago. It is clear that significant animosity exists between ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong, which extends beyond this content dispute. It is also clear that, as soon as communal attention drifted away from actively trying to resolve this dispute, the interactions between ChrisGualtieri and Ryulong took a turn for the worse.

If an uninvolved admin or admins would like to close this RfC, they should feel free to do so. I, however, no longer feel that I can deliver a neutral and levelheaded close (something that I felt capable of doing at the beginning of these proceedings), and therefore have no choice but to recuse. Since I am now of the belief that it is no longer a matter of if, but a matter of when, an ArbCom case will be filed, and since I am taking the failure of this RfC to reach an amicable resolution rather hard, I would prefer not to talk further about this issue until the ArbCom case opens.

To everyone that participated in this discussion, and tried to help it reach a resolution, you have my deepest thanks. I wish that your efforts could have amounted to more than they did.

Yours sincerely, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute regarding the content of race in America should not end this discussion at all, partcularly when the accusations made in that thread you link to at WP:AN3 are entirely unfounded and were taken entirely out of context by another party. And I refuse to go through ArbCom. I had high hopes for this discussion, as plenty of previously uninvolved people seemed to make statements that both sides agreed with up until recently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't close it Sven Manguard, all you have to do is find someone else to close it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did so immediately after posting this statement. As I said above, I have no desire to further discuss this issue, as it has burned me out, so I will not be responding to any further comments left here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I called it out from the start of this whole thing and am surprised that nobody has been topic banned yet. The first RfC between Chris and Ryu did not work so what made you think this would? No what needs to be done is agreement or topic banned because something has to give here to avoid any more disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu and Chris aside, we've made enough of a consensus to make a decision with WP:ANIME. And it would be a a shame to close this as no-consensus simply because the main disputers are having issues. Even if either were temporarily banned. the consensus that was reached here should remain.Lucia Black (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave that determination to someone else. Your point is valid, however, assuming that the closing admin finds there to be a workable consensus. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early close

A request to close this RfC was posted recently at WP:ANRFC. Would there be any objections if I closed it today or tomorrow? Also, if the participants would rather than an admin close it for any reason, that's perfectly fine. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the last comment made by a human before you was on 19:51, 26 November 2013‎ (legobot edited on 8 December 2013‎), I don't see any issue with you closing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.