Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: No consensus. The discussion was reopened below.

---

Considering some of the recent rename discussions, and the arguments often brought up, should we consider rewording:

"Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

To be clear and to better explain what defines "more commonly recognized" and what the general exceptions are to using the official English names where they exist? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought it was agreed that we utilize whatever title is used in English-speaking countries. Was this not the case? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, but it seems that because of the ambiguity of "unless," people are arguing that the original is more common and so the English should be ignored. That's why I wondered if we needed to make the consensus clearer to help stifle the arguments. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've found, we tend to use the official English titles more often if the primary work is being licensed under a new English name, such as with Dazzle (manga), or in the cases where the English title was provided by the Japanese before a license occurs, as in Spice and Wolf (which is, by far, the most common name for the series I've found). Other times, like with Kimi ga Nozomu Eien or Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, it doesn't work out that well since the primary work (both games in this case) were not licensed and don't go under the English name, despite the anime for both series being licensed under Rumbling Hearts and When They Cry respectively. But also because Higurashi, at least, is known more by its Japanese name rather than its English name, hence the "unless the native form is more commonly recognized" portion in the MOS.

Considering that the primary work of Chibi Vampire was licensed, I think it's therefore customary to go along with the change to the English title. I think that quote up there should also include, therefore, "In the case where the primary work is licensed, always use the official English title for the article name." Other than that, a case-by-case basis would have to be applied to difficult cases where even if the primary work was licensed under a new English name there would still be people contesting it, but I think those cases would be relatively low.--十八 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right Juhachi, we should aim for clarity. I definitely agree with your proposal: "In the case where the primary work is licensed, always use the official English title for the article name." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good clarification to add. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I've yet to see a case where the clause as is did anything but prolong the argument. Doceirias (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We also have to consider what the MOS will recommend when there are two official English language titles. Something like Jigoku Shōjo: released in North America as Hell Girl, but broadcast as Jigoku Shoujo: Hell Girl in Animax Asia's English language feed.--Nohansen (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's easy. The company that licensed the product gets to decide what it's called, and is thus the more official of the two titles. The fact that Animax broadcast it under a different name shouldn't matter. I mean, you could broadcast Fullmetal Alchemist under the direct translation of the original title, "Alchemist of Steel", but the product is still licensed under the name "Fullmetal Alchemist", so it trumps anything else. In the case you provided, Hell Girl should be used since the primary work was licensed under that name.--十八 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But didn't Animax have to license the series to broadcast it? How is one title "more official" than the other? Let me give you another example. Sennen no Yuki: released by Viz Media as Millennium Snow, and by Chuang Yi as A Thousand Years of Snow. Both are English language editions. Which do we choose?--Nohansen (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the same as the whole Saint Seiya VS. Knights of the Zodiac debate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The one marketed and sold to more people? I think we can safely justify giving preference to American editions of things. Doceirias (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the MOS should reflect that too. My point is that, sometimes, there's more than one official English title; 'cause if I was living in Singapore, the official English title would be A Thousand Years of Snow (not Millennium Snow). Now, if someone could reword the guideline without it sounding biased...--Nohansen (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Highest circulation official English title? Doceirias (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's not so easy to get that info. For example, some Asian publishers publish in English, but their homepages are still in their native language. Furthermore, some publishers don't even disclose that info to begin with. So I don't think that criterion will work.Kazu-kun (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We're assuming, by dint of common sense, that the American editions inherently have a higher circulation. Doceirias (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. Assuming is biased. Think about it, If even before establishing the criterion you already assume American publishers have higher circulation then the criterion is there just for show. Let's just say "let's go with American publishers" then. It is biased. If you want the criterion to be valid you need a reliable source for every case; no assuming.

EDIT: IMO there are two non-biased ways to decide between English adaptations. First, choose the adaptation which is valid internationally; some Singaporean licenses are only valid for Singapore, for example. If both (or whatever number of adaptations we're dealing with) are international, choose the first one. That's right, in that case the first publisher to do the English adaptation should be chosen. I think theses two criteria would work just fine for choosing English names for articles. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore publishers are inherently small press compared to American ones. I don't think we need to have sales figures to prove that. Choosing the first edition over the better known and likely more accurate edition seems far more biased. Doceirias (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then just say "The American adaptation should be used" and try to tell people that's not biased. If you're assuming, the criterion is not valid; you should know that. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I just assumed we'd have to reargue the point less often if we used highest circulation as a code for American. Since the point here is to reduce the number of protracted arguments... Doceirias (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The arguments wouldn't really end; specially since anyone could dig up this discussion from the archives, find "highest circulation" is really code for "American" and claim (with good reason) the guidelines are biased.--Nohansen (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Since a change in the naming guideline would apply to TV series, films and manga, I checked what the other projects recommend. WP:NCF says "if the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world use the most common title throughout" but doesn't give a suggestion as to how to determine which is the most common title. WP:NC-BK says "if the original language does not use the Latin alphabet, the title is normally translated; However, when a transcription or transliteration of a title originally not in Latin alphabet is better known or less ambiguous, that version of the title can be used". It goes on to say that when the version best known in English can't be determined, we should stick to the title that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world. WP:NC-TV provides no guidelines for foreign television shows.--Nohansen (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "the version best known in English" and "the title that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world". They seem just different way to say the same. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nohansen, how do you think we should we determine "the version best known in English"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

→ See also WP:ANIME#Naming conventions (Using English?) G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Reading through the discussion, and trying to synthesize it into a single rework that still meets guidelines, I offer forth this first draft of a rewrite:

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, use the version best known and that has contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world.

I'm sure the grammar needs some work, but figure its a place to start :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it less interpretative and more clear. Though maybe it's a bit too much...?

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, avoid using names from limited-licensed adaptations (for example, most Asian adaptations in English can't be sold outside the country of origin). Instead choose names from releases that can be sold internationally, such as those from North American publishers/producers. Avoid also names specific to TV broadcasts, as these are restricted to the area of broadcasting. DVDs in contrast can be sold internationally (again, provided the licensor acquired an international license). The goal is to use the official English title best known and that has contributed most to the product's becoming known in the English-speaking world. Kazu-kun (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd replace "version" with "official English title" in the last sentence - just to make it absolutely clear the title used by the fan translations can't win out, even if they argue that is the version that made it famous. Doceirias (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kazu-kun (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely go for this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: (1) That's awfully wordy; and (2) Don't you think the suggested change could be interpreted as creating a consensus? We all remember what happened with the instructions on excluding non-English/non-Japanese voice actors. And, like Collectonian pointed out, there's been quite a few rename discussions recently. It might seem like the Project is making 'rules' so that those who disagree will have nothing to argue because "WP:MOS-AM says so".--Nohansen (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of this discussion to ultimately lead to a consensus though? And I like the new addition, though agree that it's rather wordy (though I doubt that will be avoidable and still be crystal clear as to what we mean).--十八 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That was actually kind of the purpose, to solidify the project consensus. That's part of what the MoS is all about...here is the project's consensus, in conjunction with Wikipedia's overall guidelines, policies, and MoS, on article format and content. Right now, the statement is too ambiguous causing confusion, especially with newer editors, and causing some editors to throw back the "unless" to argue against even clear cases where the English name should be used. By expanding and clarifying, we are basically putting down in writing what the existing consensus is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The argument could be made (by an administrator, no less) that because the decision was made by, what, six users (am i counting right?), it isn't really a consensus. That it's more like a bureaucracy.--Nohansen (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not like we're forming a cabal or anything (or are we? *shifty eyes*).--十八 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place in a public place. Once consensus is established, it can always be challenged, and discussed again, as it was in that case. The consensus page even says that silence signals consent. Doceirias (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the active folks in the project watch this page, but if you're really concerned it isn't enough of a consensus, we can always post a note on the main project page noting the on-going discussion and inviting comments. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Toss me in as supporting this, too. I've been at a convention running an art show, so I wasn't able to participate in the discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I support it. I've been busy lately, and havent had a chance to check Wikipedia till now (and my watchlist is frighteningly long for it too =P ). —Dinoguy1000 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, do we have consensus for this wording update, or should additional comments be solicited at the main project page to ensure most project members will have seen it? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think consensus has been established yet; a good amount of the community hasn't voiced their concerns (or else they're too lazy to comment and/or don't care). Either way, we should at least let the word spread some more; it's been only a week since this discussion started.--十八 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage — I believe more input is needed. The proposed wording is also too complex.

I would rather simplify it to: Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. Always create redirects for alternative names and spellings and provide.

I need to mention though that Wikipedia:MOS-JP#Names of companies, products, and organizations states "Honor the current romanization used officially by that party (i.e., Kodansha rather than Kōdansha, Doshisha University rather than Dōshisha University). If the entity no longer exists, use the most commonly used format. If this can not be determined, use the Hepburn romanization as defined here."

G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

→ See also WP:ANIME#Naming conventions (Using English?) G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the simplification. It doesn't address the issue that caused the need for this discussion, and add "should list all common names by which its subject is known" is excessive. We should not list any much less all fansub spellings just because they dont' like the offical names, Japanese nor English, or badly translated them. Also, this discussion started here first, so the one over in WP:ANIME should really be pointed here (and preferably merged all together to get it all in one place). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All the common names to which a subject is known don't belong in the lead; it would merely clutter it up. If, say, the manga is licensed under one title, and the anime another, than use the manga title as the title of the article, and then when you bring up the anime say "...anime adaptation under the title X by...". Also, this should be done separately in the media section in the article. Other titles from less-widely-distributed or less well known material such as drama CDs, light novel adaptations, or video games should also be in the media section unless it's necessary to list it in the lead. This is especially important for series with a shit load of media types.--十八 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to moving the discussion here; the link was to mention that there is a similar discussion going on there.

"All common names" did not mean to include all fansubs names, just the more common official names.

In the example; it seems to me that we should only mention the names for the major media, probably the common name for the anime and the common name for the manga. (e.g. "Naruto"), without the taglines, subtitles (etc.).

By common name I meant the official name(s) for the franchise (if applicable).

G.A.S 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another concern

Looking over the discussion on Chibi Vampire, I see that Samatarou made a point that has not been addressed here. Samataro said the article "pretends to be about the manga" and yet "most of the body of the article is about the anime". This is a problem that has been perpetuated by the MOS, when it asks "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." I'm all for that, but there are times when this is not feasible.

I brought up a similar concern regarding the Elfen Lied article two months ago. Many articles claim to be about the original work but are really about the most popular adaptation (most of the time, the anime adaptation). Eternal dragon said on Elfen Lied's talkpage "there's simply not enough information out there to write about the manga", but the current wording forces users to do just that or worse: pretend they're doing just that.

If articles are really about the anime, they should be named after the anime. I know this goes against the accepted style, but perhaps it's time for a change.--Nohansen (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very resistant to this. Tag the manga section as a stub, try to figure out which characters are anime original, and make a plot summary that works for both, or clearly points out where they diverge. Easily handled. Tag it as needing expert attention if it really needs a glance over to focus on the original work. I'd agree something can't really become a good article with that kind of lopsided arrangement, but the information is never so hard to obtain that it is worth splitting out the anime into a separate article. Doceirias (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The splitting has happened once before: "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)". And it was worth it, since we have one more good article to be proud of instead of a messy article on the original novels and its adaptations. The problem with the current guideline is that it suggests we can't write an article on an adaptation unless we write one on the source material first or the article on the adaptation is attached to the article on the source work (like Elfen Lied).

I think it's better to write a good article on an adaptation (Giant Robo (OVA)) when you know next to nothing about the original work (Giant Robo). It's better to have an "Elfen Lied (manga)" stub article if we gain an "Elfen Lied (TV series)" GA-article (the current doesn't look GA-quality, to tell you the truth) with a real possibility of being featured. It's wrong for users to add plot details from Black Jack 21 and Osamu Dezaki's OVA series to Black Jack (manga) when those plot points they add aren't canon.

But it's not their fault. That's the reality we live with: it's easier to find someone who's seen the series or the movie than someone who's read the manga or light novel. I think the guidelines should acknowledge that and not force editors to write articles on books they haven't read.--Nohansen (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about current policies prevents splitting where appropriate? Obviously, if the material is justified as a stand alone article, then it should be split out. Since the material isn't in the articles you mentioned, I assumed you were talking about simply making the only article about the derivative work. With Elfen Lied or Chibi Vampire, I don't see that a split is necessary. With something close to a good article except for being largely subsidized to a stub/start class article on the source, a split would be a natural conclusion, and I believe that's full supported by the MOS as is. Doceirias (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

With the current guidelines (not policies), articles introductions are primarily about the original format of a work. This leads to plot and characters section that derive their information from the adaptation, information that doesn't necessarily hold true on the original work, effectively pretending the article is about the original work as well.

With the current guidelines, three users opposed splitting the article on the Elfen Lied TV series. Two because it there's not enough information on the manga, and Erachima because my proposal went against accepted style. But we can't expect someone who's only seen Total Recall to write the article on We Can Remember It for You Wholesale if they haven't read it. It's the same with animanga articles.

It's not about the guidelines preventing splitting (although they kinda do, but I'll argue that later). It's about the guidelines preventing articles on adaptations, which is what article 2 of the Content section is doing and why Elfen Lied is lopsided.--Nohansen (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As well they should be (opposing that is). The guidelines should prevent splitting articles out on an adaptation when there is no significant difference. There is no reason to have the same article on the same series, with duplicate plots, character lists, etc. We don't hide the problem, or even the lack of information, but shuffling off the "bad" version into another article while trying to make the one version we are familiar with more significant. If the article, such as Elfen Lied, is missing information, then the solution is to find it and add it, not break out the anime that some people are more familiar with. Such a split would only set a dangerous and inappropriate precedence.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But we already have a precedent: "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)" and "Giant Robo (OVA)". Both are GAs and there's nothing dangerous or inappropriate about them.

If a good article on the original work isn't feasible but one on an adaptation is, why doesn't the MOS consider that option? Guidelines may be advisory and not rules, but the advice they're giving has spawned messy, lopsided articles like Elfen Lied.--Nohansen (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you blaming the MoS for people ignoring it? Haruhi passed GA a year ago, and is frankly not a good example of a "good article." The formatting is horrible, even the infobox doesn't follow basic guidelines. There are unreferenced statements, dead links for references, and some of questionable reliability. And please please tell me that is not a copyvio online video being used as a REFERENCE?? It would not pass GA today, and I'll be putting in on notice, same as I've already done for Elfen Lied, to be fixed or be delisted. It also is not a split from the light novels, but from Haruhi Suzumiya (franchise), and can be considered a size split rather than the one that we have more info on. Giant Robo (OVA) is a fine split because IT IS significantly different from Giant Robo, not because we have more info on it versus the original. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's our own fault. WP:FILMS doesn't demand an article on a film's source material before having an article on the film itself. Neither does WP:TV. But the combination of these two guidelines ("In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise" and "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work") that's essentially what we're doing.

And let me add that when I split "Giant Robo (OVA)" I did do because I had more info on the OVA than the manga since I've never read the original. You shoulda seen how it looked before I rewrote it ([1]). Not very pretty, is it? *shudders*--Nohansen (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Films and TV also are mostly originals, with fewer items set on a source material. The source material is also considered distinctly separate, and, usually the film/TV series bares little resemblance to it source material. They also, are not us and we have different criteria of notability and different article guidelines that also incorporates WP:BOOKS and WP:JAPAN. I think situations like Haruhi and Giant Robo are the rare exceptions for our articles, and we should not upgrade the guideline to make it seem like it should be more. Sure, those of us in the project who will sit here and discuss this stuff for hours, days, and weeks on end (*grin*), are likely not to abuse such a change. However, it would just be an open invitation for more casual editors to justify splitting an article just because they don't like how its being edited, our formatting guidelines, only wanting to right about their preferred media (which is the likely cause of the largest majority of these imbalanced articles), or just wanting to have two articles detailing all the minute details of the the two media despite their being not so different. I'd rather we leave such splits to a discussion that can be justified within our current guidelines: significant difference from the source, rather than a lack of resources about it. Its an exception, exceptions shouldn't be written in the guidelines, but a consensus back exception for slightly ignoring the MoS.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I felt like I addressed his concern in the article talk page. That problem is more of an issue of the article needing cleaning up, same as having too much plot or missing the basic sections. I don't think we should cater the name of the article to the whims of people going against the MoS or who may unaware of the MoS. I've run across quite a few like that, and with some work have fixed most of them as well. I don't agree with his saying our putting the anime voices is somehow making the article all about the anime. We could, I suppose, make a second anime voices template that changes the wording to note something like "In the anime adaptation" rather than just saying voiced by. While we should focus on the main, we don't completely ignore the others as we do note differences and include episode lists. For Chibi Vampire, I've done most of the fixing for it, I think, though I can't fix the plot summary myself as I'm still reading the manga (well, I could redo it up through volume 8, but then it wouldn't be complete). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a bit. I think a lot of these problems come from overly detailed plot summaries; I don't see why we need to tell the whole story, or have character descriptions telling everything that happens to a character. Why not just explain the basic concepts? Unless there is a sourced analysis talking about events later in the series, this sort of thing serves no real purpose. Doceirias (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrites

Okay, let's keep this discussion going. It is becoming a more frequently asked question in the main talk, so I hope everyone can agree that some clarification is needed. We now have three suggested wordings for the naming section to address these questions, as well as the original wording. Please offer your thoughts/support/oppose or each. I've sectioned them off for individual consideration, using the fairly standard "RfC" style. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Original

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.

Support

Oppose

Comments

Suggestion 1

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, use the official version best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world.

Support

Oppose

Comments

1. I would support this with the addition of "official" before "version best known." Right now, this will lead to people arguing the fansub version is best known, and argument that tends to lead to stalemates, since neither side can prove anything. As our goal is to reduce the number of those arguments in favor of actual work on the articles... Doceirias (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. "Version best known" only applies when the work is "licensed for English release under multiple titles". So "version best known" means the "version best known" among the various official titles. Out of the three, I like this one the most (but I'm not voting just yet).--Nohansen (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you decided which, if any, version you like best? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, avoid using names from limited-licensed adaptations (for example, most Asian adaptations in English can't be sold outside the country of origin). Instead choose names from releases that can be sold internationally, such as those from North American publishers/producers. Avoid also names specific to TV broadcasts, as these are restricted to the area of broadcasting. DVDs in contrast can be sold internationally (again, provided the licensor acquired an international license). The goal is to use the official English title best known and that has contributed most to the product's becoming known in the English-speaking world.

Support

1. I like this version best; I do agree it seems excessively wordy, and would be happy with Suggestion 1 as well, but this also has the least amount of phrases open to interpretation. Doceirias (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Also support. While longer, sometimes it just plain out helps to spell it out fully and completely, especially for newer editors.

Oppose

1. Because of the KISS principle. Too many instructions. Editors will just stop reading halfway through of decide to ignore it all together. Also, a case could be made on the grounds of WP:BIAS because of the instruction to use titles as defined by the "North American publishers/producers". Furthermore, I don't see why broadcast titles can't be used for TV series (which are primarily meant to be broadcast, on released on DVD).--Nohansen (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. I've never understood the purpose of "unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form". To tell you the truth, I don't even understand what the MoS means by that. Related to "North American publishers/producers": I've seen articles within WP:VG's scope that don't use NA titles and names because they're titles and names only used in NA. Like Dark Chronicle and Sega Mega Drive. I believe that's their way of pleasing the most people and avoiding any semblance of WP:BIAS.--Nohansen (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. Always create redirects for alternative names and spellings and provide.

Support

Oppose

1. This version does not address the problem we were trying to clarify, and will just lead to even more arguments over which title to use. Doceirias (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Article structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects".

The way I've being doing with the articles I'm involved with is, instead of dumping info under a "Media" section, arranging to reflect the content. For example, in an article for a manga series, I used the section "Publication" instead of the "Manga" sub-section of media. Inclusively, I place the adaptations under an "Adaptations" section, instead of an "anime" or "movie" media sub-sections. I use "Media" for miscellaneous media like video games or Drama CDs.

I don't expect everyone to see it this way, but it's silly to rename or remove section because the MoS doesn't consider the possibility. Like I told Collectonian, that would mean articles using a "Design" section would be "violating" the MoS.--Nohansen (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The MOS-AM is merely a guideline, and if you have a good reason for veering from what it says, I don't see a problem. There should be a good reason, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't. He just doesn't like the MoS and is running around reverting attempts to bring articles in line with it. What is the point of having a MoS if the only "good reason" is that Nohansen (and Nohansen alone) doesn't like it and wants to do stuff his own way irregardless of project consensus. He is totally going against the established consensus of the project regarding article formats (i.e. this MoS) and displaying full ownership over the article she works on by refusing to allow anything. As for the design section, as I told you in the same conversation, there IS consensus for having one (and I did not remove that section from ANY of the articles you reverted). No one has bothered to write up a proposed draft for adding it to the MoS, including you. Flexible for having additional sections is NOT a valid reason to ignore the listed ones. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being too inflexible here. The guidelines are constantly evolving due to new ideas and even better ways of doing something. While people should generally stick to the guidelines, WP:IAR says that they shouldn't get in the way of producing good content and a better encyclopedia. If Nohansen has a way of formatting an article which doesn't exactly fit into the current MOS-AM, but it still follows the spirit of the MOS-AM (which is to produce articles which are useful, informative, well referenced, and understandable), I see no reason why an exception can't be made (or the MOS-AM amended) to allow for such a deviation. And if you want to talk about WP:OWN issues, you do have a tendency to cruise through articles and blatantly ignore what anyone else says because (from my perspective, anyway) you seem think your interpretation of the MOS-AM (or whichever other MOS) is the only one which is correct. This discussion here is a perfect example of that. Please try to allow for the possibility that other people have perfectly valid opinions on any given matter, and that you may not always be correct (or at least only equally as correct as the other person) in the discussion. As for ignoring sections listed in the MOS-AM, if there's no valid reason for the section being there, or there's an even more valid reason for the section to be replaced by one which works better, then (again), the guidelines should be ignored. As I stated before, there needs to be a good reason for ignoring the rules/guidelines. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, be reasonable, and listen to what you're saying. This is a guideline, and by it's very definition it's not binding by any shape or means, no matter what or else it would be policy. The reason we have guidelines is so that we have at least an established convention on how to format articles, but it is one of many that can work. Plus, I don't think you should be throwing things around like WP:OWN when you only think that's how Nohansen is acting, since it can insight problems in reaching a common ground. Further, it doesn't seem illogical to format an article, which has a basis as a manga series, with a publication section, and then list adaptations. Just because we merely have formed consensus on this format does not mean that we couldn't have formed consensus on something else, and since we do not want to clutter the MOS, it wouldn't make sense to "propose a draft for adding it to the MOS" since that would only further confuse people: "Do I go with this format, or this one, or that one, or what about another which doesn't exactly suit any of them, but is a combination of them all?" I mean, this is how video game articles are structured, and novel articles, so why not anime and manga if it works just as well? If anything, I'd be willing to bet this project is the oddball which utilizes a Media section more often than not.--十八 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see nothing reasonable at all in deciding "well, I like this better so screw the MoS." Its a complete pain in the ass for other editors who are cleaning up articles to follow the MoS and fix numerous other issues. They see someone else just doing what they want, and it becomes an easy excuse to do the same. And no, I don't think it is how he is acting. He reverted every MoS clean up I did this morning for no other reason than because he likes "his" format better. It is own, because he only does it on his own articles and while yes "consensus could change" he's never even brought it up. He just does his own thing on "his" articles, and ignores all else. For proposing a draft, I meant specifically on a design section. We got one for themes, but since it referred to a design section we had no draft for, it hasn't been added. Actually, our format is more in line with TV and Film's MoSes. If people think we should change to model novels or VG, fine, propose it and get actual consensus for the new version rather than just ignore the current established consensus just because "you can." If MoS is so easily ignorable, we wouldn't have any, not this one, not the general ones, none. Just let people do what they want if consistency is irrelevant. But it isn't, and following the relevant MoS is an FA criteria. Its no wonder we have only FOUR FAs and why we have so much trouble with new editors if even our active editors don't follow the MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It might just be my view of things, but I believe the main reason we have MOS' is so that editors can reach a common ground on an accepted format so things aren't totally chaotic, but all I am saying is that if it works so well for video game articles, why do you think it's unreasonable to use a similar format for anime, manga, TV, and film articles? Using the "oh well, here's the MOS, so there" argument is cheap to me at this point since editors who sign up in 10 years wouldn't have been around for the debate which decided on that consensus, and this is a guideline anyway, not policy.--十八 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't automatically have an issue with Nohansen's formatting. I think it might be worth having a discussion about; Publication, Adaptions, Other Media seems an equally logical page layout to the one recommended now. Why don't you draft a proposal for a new set of guidelines following that format, and have us discuss that, divorced from the argument you and Collectonian seem to be having? Doceirias (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are examples of three articles with Nohansen's preferred formatting: X Manga, Honey and Clover, The Big O. Follow the next diff of each to see redone to see them redone per the existing MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Either format works. But we do have guidelines - if someone has an article format they think works better than the one in the guidelines, they should propose that as an additional option or a replacement for the current system. Willfully ignoring the guidelines is not an acceptable option. I think Nohansen's format is good enough that it should be proposed and discussed, and I think he should do that rather than having revert wars. Doceirias (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to replace the current layout. I think the best way to help is by example, by making sure the articles I've worked on are "Good", so other editors can use them "as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to GA level". But if someone else feels the current article structure needs a little updating, and would like to take what I've done into consideration, then that's good too.--Nohansen (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to replace it; it could just be an alternative. Honestly, if you aren't big enough on your own article layout to propose it as an alternative structure, then why are you fighting attempts to bring it in line with the MOS? Doceirias (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I like my layout just fine. I like it better than the one the MoS recommends. But since the layout was achieved through improvisation and trial-and-error (just look at my first successful GA), I don't know how to begin to explain it. If someone else gets the ball rolling on the proposal (Quasirandom, maybe?), I'll help too.--Nohansen (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least stop reverting the redos unless/until consensus actually agrees with you, particularly on one in which policy violating WP:NONFREE images were also removed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that since no one else actually opposed, I could restore the layout. Guess you won't let me.--Nohansen (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And this sort of debate is exactly why I emphasized the need for flexibility, and freedom to adapt depending on circumstances, when I drafted the character article guidelines. The idea of splitting the current Media section into two, one for original format and one for all adaptations, is an intreiging one. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's flexibility in series articles, too. Like others said, this is just a guideline (not binding, in any way). And the "Page layout" section starts by saying Article structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects, but the following guidelines should suffice in most cases.--Nohansen (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects, not to the likes and dislikes of an editor. None of the articles you have implemented this on have any unique or exceptional aspects that require this new format. That line is intended to allow things not covered in the MoS, like design sections, where they can be reliably sourced and are critical to the series information, or to setting sections where, again, its an important part of the work.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said at the top, I layout the sections to reflect the content of the article. It just doesn't make sense (to me) to lump info on the original work, the adaptations and extraneous media at the bottom of the article, when some stuff (like a manga's publication or a TV series' broadcast) deserves much better (or at least, be higher in the Table of Contents).--Nohansen (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is still just your personal preference, not a unique need. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And like others said, the MoS is just a guideline (not binding, in any way). Juhachi said "the reason we have guidelines is so that we have at least an established convention on how to format articles, but it is one of many that can work." Nihonjoe said "if [I have] a way of formatting an article which doesn't exactly fit into the current MOS-AM, but it still follows the spirit of the MOS-AM (which is to produce articles which are useful, informative, well referenced, and understandable), I see no reason why an exception can't be made (or the MOS-AM amended)". Doceirias said "[my] format is good enough that it should be proposed and discussed", but when I try to, you shut me down. I'm not a newb, I know what works and what doesn't. No one but you has objected to the way "my" articles are organized. Perhaps you should try not being a such a stickler for rules from time to time, Collectonian.--Nohansen (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks also said that if you want to change it, then change it first rather than ignoring it and doing your own thing. Also, no one said, eh, go ahead, they said it should be PROPOSED AND DISCUSSED. So if you actually believe your version is better, then propose it for discussion. And sorry, but no, the rules are there for a reason. It is when people stick to them that we have harmonious editing in a cooperative editing environment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Collectonian, you are being way too rule happy here. And they are not rules, but guidelines. Guidelines are just that: guides for doing something. However, guidelines are just that: guides for doing something, not hard and fast rules that must be followed at all costs. Nohansen does not have to propose something before doing it if it follows the spirit of the guidelines. What you are doing is trying to enforce your own POV onto how others are doing something. You are not allowing any give at all in the guidelines. If there is a good reason for doing something differently than what the MOS-AM says, then there is no reason to be so adamantly against it. Guidelines are not policies, and are there only to guide how things should be done. This "rules Nazi" attitude is becoming disruptive. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I started to when I wrote (#Break 2) a description for the "Adaptations" section. You shut me down almost immediately. Where's the "harmonious editing in a cooperative editing environment"? Sure it was only two lines, but the "Adaptations" section is the only real difference between what the MoS recommends and what I do. Also, I don't believe in saying more than you have to (which is why I oppose #Suggestion 2). I believe simple instructions, complemented with GA and FA-level articles other editors can use as guides, are more than enough. Anything more would just complicate things.--Nohansen (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

I like what WP:NOVSTY says on "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations", so I guess an "Adaptations" could be described the same way: The adaptation section should detail any notable information about the work's adaption into other media. If information on any given adaptation is extensive, consider creating an entirely separate article for this information. I don't think we need to say anymore than that; do you?--Nohansen (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Its already covered by the existing production information and the media section. Nor should be encouraging the creation of multiple articles for the same work (and yes, I know you disagree on that too). Our MoS already states it far better for anime/manga, which may have multiple adaptations, versus a novel which, if it has any, usually only has one. The novel MoS is not useful guidance for dealing with adaptations. That is also not how you have been using it instead. You put the "big" adaptations, like anime series and films in there, then shove everything else in the media section. If you want to rename media to adaptations, that's one thing, but splitting them seems biased, excessive, and rather silly. As a reader, its just annoying to be reading adaptations, then big block of other stuff, oh and then here are some more. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was just a thought. I'll try come up with something better next time. Although, I fully expect you won't like it either.--Nohansen (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is one idea I had while I was working on cleaning up Madlax, which may or may not be any good, but for the Media section, for the primary work, have no header. So rather than have:

Media

Manga subsection

content

Anime subsection

content

we'd have

Media

Primary work content

Anime subsection

content

This could make it visually clearer that the others are all adaptations of the first, without having the information needlessly split through out the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clearer than having an "Adaptations" section. And on the subject of "having the information needlessly split through out the article": in your attempt of bringing The Big O in line with the MoS, you'll see you broke the flow of the Production and broadcast information. Now Big O's "Production" stops short and doesn't go into the part were "staff was informed the series would be shortened to thirteen episodes" and that it was "positive fan response internationally that resulted in a second season". Readers now have to navigate the article to find out the series full production history, where as before all info was neatly packaged under one heading.--Nohansen (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an easy fix, and really they are different sections that shouldn't be mushed together under one heading. The broadcast and distribution has nothing to do with production. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, they obviously do have something to do with each other. Again, if Nohansen has a good reason for doing something a particular way (and apparently does, given the discussion above), then I see no reason why it can't be done that way. The guidelines are only guidelines, and shouldn't get in the way of producing good content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Page layout proposal

(Hopefully not breaking protocol here, but I split this off into a new section in case people were overlooking it.) Doceirias (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, here it is:

Production

The production section should detail the making-of the work. Included here should be a history of the work's background and development, from its inception to the final product, and any and all people involved in the process.

Design

The design section should detail the abstract, creative elements of the work, such as: influences, style, themes and motifs, among others. All information must be well-sourced and cited to avoid original research.

Distribution

The distribution section should detail any notable information about the work's release. For manga series, this would mean serialization and collected volumes. For TV series, it would mean broadcast and DVD releases. For feature films, include the film's release on cinema and home video.

Adaptations

The adaptation section should detail any notable information about the work's adaption into other media. If information on any given adaptation is extensive, consider creating an entirely separate article for this information.

What do you say?--Nohansen (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose I prefer the media section we have no and disagree with splitting media into distribution and adaptations. I think our media section works great. I STRONGLY oppose giving the greenlight on making separate sections on adaptations like that. If we're gonna split, stick to the wording already in the media section strongly DISCOURAGING such unnecessary repetitive articles. Design seems okay to me, if we add in the already proposed themes section (now archived) as well. (and really, this should have been break 2, not break 1...chronological order of talk pages and all) Would have also been nice if you'd actually waited for responses before once again reverting t