Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime and manga

Clarification Needed?

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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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 :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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.

Article names and disambiguation

It has always bothered me that the project's naming conventions are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. While animated TV series like Gargoyles (TV series) and Justice League (TV series) follow the WP:TV-NAME conventions, many anime TV series like Gungrave (anime) and Mononoke (anime), disambiguate by adding "(anime)" when "(TV series)" would be better. We do, however, follow film naming conventions: Only Yesterday (film), Howl's Moving Castle (film), Memories (film)... I think the section ("Article names and disambiguation") merits some updating to reflect Wikipedia's consensus.--Nohansen (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all anime are TV series. I think anime is just as acceptable as manga for a disambig, and far more accurate than TV series. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But the ones that are TV series should use "(TV series)"; the ones that are movies use "(film)"; and the ones that are direct-to-video, "(OVA)".--Nohansen (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree, I think anime is more accurate and is a more than acceptable disambig. No reason at all to go to using TV series, which implies it is an American or regular series, while anime is a clearer disambig. Do you also think manga should be changed to book or novel? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"{TV series)" implies nothing of the sort. Specially since, when necessary, Category:Japanese television series use it. "(U.S. TV series)" implies American.--Nohansen (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a valid reason to go changing all of our articles, or why anime is a bad disambig. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that "(anime)" is bad per se, but that it's not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia... It's not even consistent within the project, since we use "(film)" when appropriate.--Nohansen (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Way I see it, the reason why we have Hellsing (TV series) over Hellsing (anime) is because the Hellsing OVA is also an anime, with the exception that it isn't a television series. Inclusively, Dragon Ball (anime) is used over Dragon Ball (TV series) because it originated as anime rather than a television series. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The first Dragon Ball anime was a television series. What do you mean by "it originated as anime rather than a television series", Sesshomaru?--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't much of a difference is there? Why do the majority of anime articles use "(anime)" instead of disambiguators like "(TV series)" or "(animated series)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the Project decided it that way a long time ago... I guess. It has always been like that, as far as I'm concerned... it was already like that when I joined in October 2006.--Nohansen (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought here. We could have the "(anime)" dabbing for anime that have not broadcast, and use "(TV series)" (or "(animated series)", etc.) for anime that do air, or did in the past. Thoughts about this introspection? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer just plain (anime). Its simple, its clear, and it has worked for years. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it has "worked for years", doesn't mean we can't change. Specially when the change is for the better, since it reflects the conventions accepted by two of our parent projects (not to mention, the whole of Wikipedia).--Nohansen (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. ATM I can't find any examples of anime that haven't aired on public television. Can someone come up with any? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mardock Scramble, a canceled GONZO project based on a novel by Tow Ubukata. Though, with a name like that, a dab wouldn't be necessary.--Nohansen (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Any with an actual page ... and dabbing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced the change is for the better. Doesn't really matter to me either way, but it seems like an awful lot of work for a fairly trivial distinction, when there's a ton of much more productive things we could be doing. I'd suggest asking at the talk page where the TV show convention was created, and seeing if they think it's worth us changing. If the parent projects don't mind us at anime, there's absolutely no reason for us to rename hundreds of pages. Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "hundreds" of articles. It's more like a handful (or two handfuls). I'd even do the job myself if I bot wasn't up to the task.--Nohansen (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How often do we use (film), though? All of the examples above I believe were ones released by Disney, with several to theaters, and which have been put into the Film project and guidelines above ours (which I don't particularly agree with either, but that's another argument discussion for another day LOL). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Although, Memories (film) (also Mind Game (film), Paprika (2006 film), and Wicked City (film)) weren't released by Disney (not that it matters). Also, the fact that they were released to theaters is what makes them "(film)"s. If they were released direct-to-video in Japan, they'd be "(OVA)"s.--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one reason "(anime)" is used is to disambig between manga and anime. Granted many of the "(anime)" articles also cover the manga (for now, anyway), but I'm in the camp that doesn't see any reason why we wshouldn't use "(anime)" instead of "(TV series)". Only TV series which need disambig use it (or at least those are the only ones that should be using it), and the same applies for articles with "(anime)" in the title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, June 4, 2008

As a note, this has been crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons we use anime over TV series is to help distinguish between live action adaptations and animated ones. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish between animated TV series and live action TV series of the same name, the convention is to use "(animated TV series)" and "(live action TV series)"; see The Tick (animated TV series) and The Tick (live action TV series).--Nohansen (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why not go for a shorter dab? Like Spider-Man (1994 TV series)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's the go-to dab. But, if by any chance, two series with the same name (one animated, one live-action), premiered on the same year, that'd be one way, recommended by the naming guidelines, of distinguishing between them. And let me add that, as you can clearly see in Puss in Boots, the anime article is the only one not following the accepted conventions.--Nohansen (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot articles use "anime" when referring to a TV series, and "film" when referring to the anime movie. Air (film) has a section called Anime and film differences, when both adaptations are anime. Bleach (manga) calls the TV series the "anime version of Bleach", when the movies are also "anime versions of Bleach". We can't even get the nomenclature right, and it seems this is related to the "Article names and disambiguation" section (though I can't say which "problem" came first).--Nohansen (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for language that'll be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and all relevant MoS, I've put together the following. I call it Suggestion 1.b, as it would merge with whatever comes out of Suggestions 1-3 above if implemented.

Suggestion 1.b

This section is a complement to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not a replacement. Always consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions when naming a page.

---

If several articles share the same title, disambiguation should be done by media format. For television series, use (TV series). For feature films and television movies, use (film). For Japanese animation originally released on home video, use (OVA). For Japanese animation directly released onto the Internet, use (ONA). For Japanese comic books and graphic novels, use (manga).

When disambiguating TV series or features of the same name and media format, add the year of original release or debut to distinguish between them. In the rare case that multiple series or features of the same name are produced in the same year, include a descriptive adjective, such as animated or live action.

When disambiguating Japanese comic books or graphic novels of the same name, add the author's surname. If further disambiguation is necessary, add the author's full name. If further disambiguation is necessary, add the year of original release to distinguish between them.

Comments

Note that I've removed naming conventions for games, visual novels and musicals. I did this because none of those are within the "complete" scope of the Project, and the relevant projects already have their own naming and style guidelines.

Also, see that OVAs, ONAs and manga must be "Japanese". The way I see it is "OVA", "ONA" and "manga" (unlike the neutral terms "TV series" and "film") are strictly related to media meant primarily for consumption in Japan and we wouldn't want OEL manga or manga-inspired comics calling themselves "manga" (it has happened before, it is happening still).

And I cannot stress enough the opening lines ("This section is a complement..."), which would go right at the beginning of the whole section. I'd appreciate your feedback.--Nohansen (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page layout

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

Resolved. Instead of using a media section, the main article may use the following sections:

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. Seperate articles should not be used for different adaptations.

"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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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 those articles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alternative When the available information justifies it - something like Death Note, for example, this would work very well. For most pages, the existing structure would be more appropriate, but I'm in favor of allowing this as an alternative. (I second Collectonian's argument against making a separate article for adaptations without substantial differences; this is largely unnecessary, but I think that aspect is a separate argument, and should be divorced from this discussion.) Doceirias (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alternative I don't see why this format couldn't work for some articles, just as I suspect there are any number of different formats we could have. Think of all the different possibilities in where we could have decided on a different format way back when which was different from the current format. But would disagree with a splitting of adaptations which should largely in part be kept in the main article aside from chapter/episode/soundtrack lists or the like.--十八 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alternative. I agree with the reasoning put forth by Doceirias and Juhachi. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alternative. I believe that the current styling is not optimal for all cases: Most other projects does not even dictate this; as such alternatives should be allowed. I oppose the creation of separate articles for adaptations, this is an unnecessary split of content; this would also be "in breach" of the spirit of WP:SS. G.A.S 14:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as an alternative. As others have mentioned, sometimes our current schema does not always seem to be optimal -- splitting original and derivative formats into sections of equal weight could be useful, in some cases, in preventing giving derivatives undue weight by giving all formats equal emphasis. Which layout to apply to a given article should be left up to the editors involved, using their best judgment. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alternative I agree that the style is not optimal for all cases. But, from what I've seen both MOS(AM) layout and Nohansen's both have their faults. ---Mangler13- (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Production staff, cast listings and theme songs

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

Resolved

 – Lists containing staff credits should not be summarily removed from articles. These sections can be tagged with {{prose}} for future cleanup (if neeeded). These lists should be removed if redundant—lists are deemed redundant if the information is provided in the article's "list of characters" and "list of episodes", etc, or production section.

I noticed something on Collectonian's cleanup of Madlax and decided to follow up on it. So, since when are staff lists unacceptable? This is happening a lot lately ( RahXephon, Honey and Clover, Cowboy Bebop, Angelic Layer), but I can't remember when the Project decided to remove this information from articles within its scope.

Granted, some of us may find tables unsightly (I'm one of them), but we should strive to WP:PRESERVE what we can... specially when the MoS encourages editors to include this information.--Nohansen (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

March 2008. Refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)/Archive 3#Not to include Cast and Voice Actor consensus?. As a rule the voice actors are credited in the characters section (or "list of"), and the major production staff is credited in the "Production" section, theme song in the media section, etc. Less notable staff are not credited. G.A.S 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What G.A.S. said. Voice actors are in character lists/sections, notable staff (producers, directors, etc are in the leads, infoboxes, and the production section). The rest are not notable and aren't mentioned. This is the same in other visual media. There are generally no staff lists in TV or film articles and they are usually removed on sight when found. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does an older (lengthier) discussion exist? Because Mythsearcher points out there were claims of concensus before that day. Also, that discussion doesn't say we can just remove the lists. Remember the time we tried to remove foreign VA credits from articles? And we had our collective hands slapped by an administrator?

Again, we may not like how the tables/lists look, but I think articles that don't have anything else in the way of a "Production" section (like Cowboy Bebop), should keep their staff lists until the section can be fleshed out.--Nohansen (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can defer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information, as they must have gone through a similar issue. Can you imagine how film articles would look that have literally hundreds of staff if they were all named here? At most, only provide notable staff, and if possible in prose, and in the relevant section. If the sections do not exist yet, create them and add the information there. You might find {{anime voices}} useful in this case. G.A.S 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Films precident does seem compelling, I admit. Does anyone know if WikiProject TV also took on this guideline (and was it formulated indepedently or by direct influence)? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, TV project has not had it in either the early non-MoS version of their style guideline, nor was it even considered something to include in the current official WP:MOSTV. This is looking at the last year or so of active editing. How it was decided they didn't belong, though, I do not know. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably one of WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE? G.A.S 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to include the most important ones (which are not always listed in the intro or other places). If there are prose sections with the info, then I'm fine with leaving of the lists (for cast and staff), but if there is no prose, I see no problem with leaving the cast lists and the main staff there. I generally go by what is included in the JAWP for staff lists as they tend to have 10-20 staff at most. Any more than that and you start getting into the less well-known people. The main 10-20, though, are generally going to be found on many, many lists of credits and are likely notable enough to have their own articles.

Since I'm sure someone is going to ask, the 10-20 would include producers, executive producers, production studios, music composer, character designer, animation directors, script/screenplay, series directors, episode directors, original creator/author, art director, editor, cinematographer, sound effects director, audio director, developer (for the film stock), distributor, director of photography, backgrounds, and planning. Most listings will only have 10 or so listed. I agree that we don't want it to list absolutely everyone, but I think these are the most important ones.

As for theme songs, I think these should always be listed. They don't take up much space, and most people I know of who are interested in one show or another are also interested in who did the music, the name of the song, etc. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I generally object to putting the staff lists in tables. Since they are generally so short. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on both. For staff lists, see G.A.S.'s post. I think all of those cover good reasons such lists are pointless and add absolutely nothing to the article. For theme songs, covering them in the episode lists as is being done now is cleaner and works fine. If put in the main, it should go in the anime section as part of the lead out to the episode list, but not the horrible bulleted lists, whole sections, and/or tables seen in some articles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are not "horrible". You may not like them, but they do have a point and they do add information to the article. My main point is that they should not be removed UNLESS they are being replaced with a prose section with the same information. This wholesale removing just for the sake of removing them is what is pointless as it's removing perfectly useful and encyclopedic information from articles. As for the theme songs, please provide an example of how they are "being done now" as I have no idea to what you are referring. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale removal is perfectly fine when the do not belong in the articles. Both other projects that deal with this issue agree, staff lists are pointless, trivial, and falls under WP:NOT beyond what is in the infobox. Notable people should be in the prose in the lead and in the production section. Not a list, bullett, table, or anywhere else. This has also been supported by AfDs of split out lists of staff/crew which always close with pure delete, never redirect or merge. For the themes, see any of our featured episode lists for examples of how it is being done now (List of Black Lagoon episodes, List of True Tears episodes, List of Rental Magica episodes are the three most recent). See Tokyo Mew Mew, current FAC, for one example of the theme music incorporated into the prose. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing a small list of staff as part of an article to an article which is only a staff list is like comparing apples and oranges. I never said they should be split out into their own articles. Ever. I just said that wholesale removal of a small staff section (10-20 listings AT MOST) is counterproductive and damages the encyclopedia by removing valid encyclopedic information. I don't want huge sections devoted to staff lists, which is what WP:NOT and all those other apply to. A small list of the important people is perfectly acceptable. Yes, having it in prose is best, but having a small list in an article is not the end of the world, nor is it ugly or horrible. The main people in charge of the creation of something are just as encyclopedic as the people who play character voices. I would say they are even more important and more encyclopedic than the voice actors in many ways since the work they do takes far longer and far more work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Trimming down to the credits that need to be reworked into prose is fine, but removing the information that should be preserved in the articles, albeit in a different format, seems counterproductive - of course, it takes two seconds to rewrite that yourself. You don't even need any special knowledge. Doceirias (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If its needed. Most of the time it isn't. They are just redundant. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it redundant to include staff lists? If you're talking about redundant with the infobox, that's perfectly fine as the infobox is supposed to present a brief overview of what is in the article. It's not meant to completely replace article content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Its redundant because most of the ones that have it already have the actual relevant, notable folks mentioned in the production section. Context. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost now - I thought we were talking about removing a staff list from articles without a production section, when we should be converting the main aspects of that staff list into a prose production section. Doceirias (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Both happens. When I said "If its needed. Most of the time it isn't. They are just redundant." I was specifically refering to articles that already had a production section and/or the relevant folks mentioned in the lead. Nihonjoe seems to feel that we should have them regardless of their being a production section or anything else. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting my position. As I stated above, I only object to wholesale removal of the staff lists without replacing them with a prose version with the same information. If the same information is included in a prose production section, then there is no need for including a staff list, too. I do feel strongly that the jobs I listed above are the ones which are considered to be the most important, and most or all of them should be included in any complete article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) According to Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles, lists within articles should be avoided (certain exclusions apply, of course). As such, I believe that we should strive to convert these to prose, or move them to appropriate places in the "list of" articles. They should not merely be removed. G.A.S 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Prose is definitely better, but lists should not just be removed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus: How about tag the section with {{Prose}}, and do not remove it? G.A.S 06:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll time!

Okay, we've got a couple competing proposals up above. Time to reduce this down to what seems to be the alternatives batting about. Sign your name to the summary that comes closest to your position. Feel free to explatiate on why. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hate all of them - we don't need to establish a numerical limit, simply a limit based on actual notability. Director and Writer, certainly, and lesser positions as appropriate, depending on availability of sources. Kaiba, for instance, would have more than most series, because that show has things like an episode entirely animated by one man. Most shows probably don't require that kind of depth. Prose always preferable to list, and easily converted, so not real excuse for having the lists. Doceirias (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is similar to how I feel. I would be more comfortable discussing which staff titles to include rather than a numerical limit, and even then I'm not sure if that's all that needed. When's the last time we could even find crew information on some coffee-boy or otherwise really unimportant crew member. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Which staff members are important depend largely on the series. "Mecha" anime and manga should include whoever designed the robots, for example. "Production" info on Code Geass would be lacking if we didn't note that CLAMP did the original character designs. The animators in something like Kaiba or Noein are definitely noteworthy... But, in the end, it depends on how much info is available.--Nohansen (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking of, once we get a consensus ballpark number of staffers, to then start talking about what titles are in those those most important N people. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on where: If you have different directors/writers per episode or per season, they can be listed in the list of episodes, as is done on List of Smallville episodes, and I am fine with it, same with the voice actors in the character list. G.A.S 05:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No more than a couple staffers beyond overall director, in prose

• Support, mostly. Director, producer, screenwriter, and any notable enough to actually be mentioned in prose (such as, for example, music producer), or maybe editor. Always in prose, never in a table/list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, for the main article only, see above. G.A.S 05:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The ten or so most important staffers, in prose

• —Quasirandom (talk)
• I support this one once there is enough information to create decent prose. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I should note that I recommend 10-20, as each show will have a range that will vary in size for its important staffers. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The ten or so most important staffers, in list/table

• I support this one until it is replaced (not just removed) by prose. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note my note above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The thirty or so most important staffers, in list/table

• Ten is waaaay to small, and if it's in list form it takes up hardly any space (we can even use multi columns for more space saving, and hide/show tabs). Thirty might be more than needed, but it doesn't strike me as excessive, not when we list every manga chapter title as the norm. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've seen that about 20 is as much as you need. Once you get to about 20, you start moving into the assistants and such, who generally don't need to be listed here, whether in list form or in prose. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably, but we might need to address the positions themselves rather than a number. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Another option

I think we can all agree that the production staff information should be included (in one way or the other). So, the best way (I see) to handle it is this:

• Don't remove staff tables/lists: rephrase it, turn it into prose. If you cannot turn into a fluent and cohesive prose, leave it as is.

Different editors will include the information in different ways: some will write a coherent "Production" section, most will copy the staff credits as they appear in ANN (or other databases). There's no reason to alienate the latter.--Nohansen (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I support this option as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Same here. —Dinoguy1000 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that in violation of copyright?? G.A.S 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. That would be like saying listing an artist's albums in that artist's Wikipedia article is a WP:COPYVIO because the same list already appears in the artist's official website. We're just crediting the people involved in the work's production (the same as ANN or imdb). No database owns the copyright to the staff lists, specially when they themselves copy them from the work's opening or ending credits.--Nohansen (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of items (or in this case, people) can not be copyrighted. Only prose can be copyrighted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support ---Mangler13- (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone keeping score, I believe this option also counts with G.A.S' and Quasirandom's support, since G.A.S' comment ("How about tag the section with {{Prose}}, and do not remove it?") is essentially the same as "Don't remove staff tables/lists: rephrase it, turn it into prose"... but I could be wrong.--Nohansen (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are right. The problem is, embedded lists are usually not acceptable for FA status, as it messes the presentation up. The issue is though, not all staff will be/should be listed, refer to any of the featured films or featured TV shows. G.A.S 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another option

Put notable staff (other than voice actors who are provided in the character list) in the infobox (in a hideable section), not in a seperate list. (And in prose, when very notable.) G.A.S 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I feel neutral towards this option. G.A.S 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are you thinking in terms of limiting it to just the current infobox parameters or expanding that? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have not considered the logistics yet. G.A.S 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Refer to Jurassic Park (film) for an example. G.A.S 06:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Fan romanization vs Official spelling

I was wondering which should be used. In this case, it's about Vampire Knight. While it is more popular to use "Yuuki" as the romanization of the name of a character, the official romanization on the Japanese website, the English manga and convention uses "Yuki". Which one should be used? Why? - plau (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Always the official English romanization which is Yuki. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy as always, Collectonian. I concur with you. The MOS-AM specifically says to use the official English romanization. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it states at WP:MOS-AM#Characters: "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)."--十八 07:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:MOS-JAPAN#Names of modern figures, and Wikipedia:MOS-JAPAN#Names of companies, products, and organizations. Also refer to WP:UE which states "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." (own italics). As such, official names should be used. G.A.S 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I was merely showing the inconsistency this project holds. Nihonjoe said this MOS says to use the official English name, but you had to go to other guidelines and the Japan MOS to prove the point; this shows we have problems with consistency.--十八 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That guideline refers to the article's name, it seems that section incorrectly refers to it, as the guideline seems to say: use Sailor Moon (character) instead of Usagi Tsukino. In any case: The guidelines seems to be inconsistent. G.A.S 08:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there are a few more names I want to clear up, If someone looks at the article Vampire Knight and List of Vampire Knight characters, they use fan translated romanization instead of the official spelling. In some cases, that's because the manga and anime have different romanizations. But most of the time it's stuff like "Ruka" and "Luca", where the official romanization is "Luca". I changed them once but they keep getting reverted. The people who revert them argue that it's against consensus. So I don't know which one I should use. Any ideas? - plau (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to look at the official romanization, take a look here. It's the official anime website. - plau (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be using the official spellings from the Viz release of the series. That is consensus. Fan translations are never the correct one to use. Now I go smack the article because I could have sworn I fixed all those names once already. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the official JP anime website, and not the English published manga. We've already noticed considerable differences between the two. That website is unreliable for official english romanizations. If you want to use the official English version, at least use the official English manga.

Also, it would've been better if the OP had mentioned to the people here that this is concerning an edit conflict which was being discussed at Talk:List_of_Vampire_Knight_characters#Official_English_Names from the beginning. Of course, the OP has suddenly decided that he no longer wishes to speak to me to the point where he is disregarding my suggestions because they must clearly be selfserving and putting him into a trap. (This is what he said of my suggestion to use MedCab or MedCom if he needed a third party to resolve the dispute. Now, I do like this choice much better anyway, but his rationale for not using MedCab or MedCom was simply bizarre.)

My position lies with WP:MOS-AM#Characters, but, moreover, I don't even see the point of this argument in that I already mentioned that between minor variations from Yuuki/Yuki and Kiryuu/Kiryu, while I prefer the former, I don't mind nor would I edit over it if someone chose the latter. The main issue was with the more unusual changes, the most egregrious being Kuran/Clan which can introduce confusion. I'd like to note that there have also been other editors who have similarly edited it to the most popular version of the name. For what WP:MOS-AM#Characters is worth, I notice that the spellings Yuuki/Kuran/Ruka/Kiryuu/Aidou are the most common on the following places [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. I do note that Yuki and Kiryu are also used somewhat popularly. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely none of those count for determining popularity (and I have removed one as it violates WP:COPYRIGHT. We do not use fansites to determine most popular spelling, nor does popularity matter in this case. It is licensed. The official English names used in the Viz release of the manga will be used, period. Not the ones used in fansites, not the ones used by scanslations or fansubs, but the official spellings used in the actual legal English language copies of the series. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that's ludicrous. First, to determine popular spelling, fansites are exactly where you find how laypersons write. Official sources are not a representation of how something is popularly written. They are a representation of how it is officially written. Delegitimizing fansites for determining what's popularly used is one of the most outrageous thing I've heard on Wikipidea. Sorry, but it's true. Next, I have reintroduced the AnimeSuki link. It's a link to the forum, not to torrents, and if you believe mentioning AnimeSuki violates WP:COPYRIGHT, I recommend you RFD the whole AnimeSuki page with that rationale, along with The Pirate Bay, Suprnova.org, eMule, Kazaa and articles on other tracker websites, etc. as well. The point is simple: You do not delete information because it has the capacity to be put to illegal use, given that the primary purpose of the information was not such. I recommend you not delete them again and if you do I will go to ArbCom to determine whether it is acceptable to delete another person's references simply because they could also be used to perpetrate copyright infringement. Next, WP:MOS-AM#Characters overtakes standard romanization for naming conventions, imo. Furthermore, there are multiple standards for romanization, and that mode of Hepburn romanization is still standard. And one more thing, I have never claimed ownership over the list and I know perfectly well how the GNUFDL works. I have no idea where you came up with that I was claiming ownership.

If you wish to use the official English manga's spellings, given that they're not too dissimilar, I have no real problem with that.-192.235.8.2 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it is not ludicrous. Fansites and fansub distributers are NOT reliable sources, period. They do not count. Their having articles does not mean they can be linked to from other pages, only that they are notable enough for an exception. And yes, we do remove links because of their capacity for illegal use, hence the AniDB template and all links being removed. This was already discussed awhile ago, and threatening to go to ArbCom is, frankly, ludicrous. They wouldn't accept the case because it is stated real nice and clear in WP:COPYRIGHT that we do NOT link to illegal content, and from the lack of other dispute resolutions. Go ask at copyright or the RS noticeboard...oh, wait, we did and they said no, you can't link to fansubber sites as a "reference." And no, Characters does not mean you get to decide that Viz is wrong and you will use whatever romanization you want. It supports the use of the official English language names, same as the rest of the MoS and the project. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Fansites and fansub distributers are NOT reliable sources, period." When we discuss popular usage, we use sources where normal people determine which usage they prefer. (You seem to be of the opinion that the only popular usage that counts is official usage, even though the two are not necessarily one and the same.) Next, sorry, find me the exact line where it's written that it violates WP:COPYRIGHT, I couldn't find it. It only said not to link copyrighted works as a reference. I am not linking a copyrighted work, I am linking websites which possess copyright violations elsewhere on it, and I am not linking it in its capacity as a fan-altered copyrighted work, but instead in its capacity as a fansite denoting popular usage. If there's a history somewhere, please link it. It's unfair that I am simply to take your word on it being officially so. Also, that wasn't a threat to go to ArbCom. It's perfectly simple: If there's a rules dispute, ArbCom can deliver effective final words on the matter. Moreover, you state Characters doesn't mean I get to decide Viz is wrong and the popular name should be used, but it says "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known [ie. popular] name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)." In other words, it says exactly that a popular name does get to supercede Viz's official name and WP:NC(CN) explains that a common name does take precedence over what may be determined as the most "scientifically correct." You still haven't explained why that mode of Hepburn romanization is invalid, by the way.

On a side note, we have somewhat transgressed beyond arguing about the actual article (since I have already declared that I'm fine with whatever edits to the names you wish to do, assuming they're not too problematic) and have now entered arguing rules theory. Considering how the impacts of this discussion seem to be largely nonexistant for the time being, I just might wind up randomly excusing myself from it at some point or another. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why there is a proposal above to deal with some of that stuff, but we could never come to consensus and discussion seems to have stopped. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had come to an agreement, and assumed the change had been made. Changing the name of the show text would naturally lead to fixing the character sections as well. We need to get this settled; these arguments are a major distraction from getting actual work done. Doceirias (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, see above. There were disagreements over the specific wording. :( -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've actually have a similar problem over at the Shugo Chara! articles. When Del Rey Manga released volume 4 states-side, we learned the official names of two of the Guardian Characters were El and Il (as in AngEL and DevIL). However, random IP editors keep changing the character names back to Eru and Iru because that is how the names are pronounced by the Japanese VAs do to the L sound does not existing in Japanese phonics, and subsequently translated by the fansubers. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the fan romanizations appear to be mistranslations, it's probable that the fans will correct their romanizations to the official romanizations in due time. In that case, I would simply wait until about a month after the official romanizations are out, and then switch it over to the official romanizations because at that point the official romanizations should have gotten more popular, and the previous fan romanizations less popular. Also, I'd recommend using one to refer to the character at all times, but when listing names, to put the other romanization in parentheses like (officially known as "X") or (unofficially known as "Echys/Ekisu"), etc. next to whichever one you are primarily using. Whichever one's used less goes into parentheses and once it's hardly used at all, you get rid of it. Anyway, that's how I would resolve it. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)Am I correct in making the following conclusions, and additional comments, following the discussions above?

• The official English names should be used, if available.
• Revised Hepburn romanization (and Japanese text) should be provided per WP:MOS-JAPAN, using {{Nihongo}}.
• "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions." should be clarified, see my example above; naming conventions does not apply to spelling.
• As always, redirects should be provided for all variants of names.

If this is the case, this discussion will be closed as such.

G.A.S 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reopening the naming discussion

It seems to have scrolled off people's radar. Did anyone have any objection to this version? Doceirias (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Version 2, above, was the only one that got supports at all, so I'd be more inclined to want to use it out, though this one is fine too. Also, when implemented, the character section should be updated appropriately to reflect the same idea. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Version 2 was also opposed, so I went with this one. Doceirias (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this version. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by sentence two - it seems to repeat the first part of sentence one. And does the second half of sentence one contradict the first half? Other than that it looks great. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No real contradiction. A good example is Kimi ga Nozomu Eien and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, though in both cases the primary works were never distributed in English. And the second sentence is there to make sure that if the primary work is released in English, that that title must always be used; the first sentence does not specify this, and leaves it ambiguous. Anyway, I'm okay with this version, but I did like the much longer version slightly more only because it made everything crystal clear.--十八 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now - thanks. While I agree with what's stated, I think it should be reworded to be less ambiguous. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it needs disambiguating, but with that, support. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this too, mostly just because we really need to get *some* version of this agreed upon and in the MoS (lovely reasoning, eh?). —Dinoguy1000 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to make this more complicated, but what if the official name was changed during the serialization? Say, if the translation made a mistake and put down an incorrect transliteration on the first few volumes, then corrected it to say the original Japanese author's romanization of the name? In this case, the first one would likely be both official and best known, but the second one would be the new official term. MythSearcher^talk 09:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This has happened, in Tokyo Mew Mew, for example, where the first volume used different transliterations from the remaining volumes. In this case, if it is corrected after the first few volumes, or in reprint, then go with the corrected spellings, particularly if there is a sourcable explanation for the changes. The prose or footnotes should note the alternate spelling. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After correcting the name, the first one is no longer official. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just phrasing it "Use the most commonly known title and mention any notable alternative titles where appropriate. In the event that an official title and unofficial title are similarly popular, the official title shall be preferred."? It seems to effectively encapsulate all of the above. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this version. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This version may be open to more interpretation. What constitutes popularity? How can you be sure one title is more "commonly known" than another without going through Google or other fansites? I can just see the debates that this version would cause.--十八 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same debates WP:NC(CN) usually spawns and resolves. -192.235.8.1 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So...nobody seems to have any objections to the general spirit of the change, but we don't seem to have quite reached the momentum needed to actually change it. Anyone who wanted the wording of the proposal I quoted above changed, step up and offer an alternative, or I'm going to assume silence signals agreement. Doceirias (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If we need to simplify, what about, Use the most popular official English title. If there is no official title, use the name most commonly known. Sort of taking the same approach as the suggestion above, but removing the possibility for arguments claiming an alternate title is better known than the official one. Doceirias (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think that is slightly too simple, though it certainly does remove most of the room for argument. For balance (and to also more pointedly address characters, how about:

Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world. If there is no official title, use the most commonly known name. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles.

-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely what I was driving at. Really like this version. Doceirias (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this version.--十八 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's beautiful and clear. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this one, though it might be good to have something like "(not just in fandom)" after "in the English-speaking world" in order to discount fansubs and scanlations. While we may know about them, I'd bet that 90% of actual consumers have no idea they even exist or how to get them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's only when there are multiple official titles. Only official titles are being considered there. Doceirias (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Easy to understand, and clear enough. G.A.S 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, we really need to get *something* agreed upon and into the MoS (and besides, this is a really good version). I'll make it double if we can add a statement about creating redirects from alternate official names as appropriate. —Dinoguy1000 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna call that enough support to go and have updated. Nihonjoe, to try to address your concern (which I share), I changed "English speaking world" to "broader English speaking world." How does that work for you? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's close enough, I guess. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Magazine Layout Proposal

From my work with Shojo Beat, Shonen Jump, Weekly Shonen Jump, and PiQ, including studying other magazine articles, discussions on those pages with other editors and a peer review on SB, I've come up with a possible addition to the MoS for a recommended layout for anime/manga magazine articles. Thoughts on the proposed layout and on the proposed addition here? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems much too personalized for this project. How about generalizing it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism?--十八 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say manga anthologies represent a unique challenge that makes it worth having a project specific set of guidelines. I'm not sure we'd need one for PiQ. Doceirias (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what about magazines that aren't just manga magazines, but serialize manga like Dengeki G's Magazine?--十八 01:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because its too specialized for Journalism and they don't even have a general guideline. As Doceirias notes, most of our mags are anthologies which has the added challenge of dealing with serial titles, and either way, nothing wrong with having our own guidelines tweaked to us. If we didn't want to repeat, we wouldn't have a character guideline either :P. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme songs

The section where this was discussed above mostly deals with staff lists instead of theme songs, so I thought I'd bring this up again as a specific section. I've always felt that having a music section in articles that simply listed the theme songs for anime to be a lot more handy for quick referencing rather than the way it's being done now, which is to have this information scattered about in episode lists. I can see this info being split off from the main article if a show is particularly long and has a metric ton of different themes like One Piece, but otherwise it's just kind of bothersome to look up and down a big episode list for a song mention. Spitting the music out of the main article doesn't particularly help it look any better or worse either. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Theme song lists are primarily trivial. The themes themselves should go in the episode list (and anime section of the main article) as prose. It doesn't require loking "up and down" as it should be in the lead of the episode list, not scattered throughout it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the show has a ton of theme songs, in which case it's impractical to have all of them listed in the lead of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case they should still be listed before the actual episodes, like the One Piece list has it. I definitely think having a list is better than prose if there are more than three or four. Doceirias (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationale needed

This suggestion does not imply any change of the current MoS.

Seeing people are still arguing on Talk:Case Closed even after I gave a polite note that they should look at here, I think a line of rationale is needed for the statement of controversy: "Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article," which many anime fans-- especially those who don't come from the Anglosphere-- did not particularly understand. Although, IMO, it came from the misunderstanding that en:WP is for everyone that knows English rather than for every Anglophone, this has to be clarified.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

TV MOS?

Shouldn't we more decisively link to WP:MOSTV as providing guidance for anime television shows? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure we really need to. Our MoS supercedes that one for anime television shows. The only time someone should need to turn to MoS TV is for doing episode lists (since our having our own was rejected), and maybe for episode articles (which I think we have like two of). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So ... we shouldn't be using the TV MoS guideline for how long an episode plot summary? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That falls under the episode list part, so yeah, that part we do use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We should probably be more explicit about where to look for which things. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How does this MoS supersede the TV MoS, exactly? Isn't the idea to have all MoS work together, avoiding contradictions and redundancies between them?--Nohansen (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall article structure is decided by this MoS, not the TV MoS. The TV MoS (or for films the film MoS) fills in gaps, but is not the main MoS. In areas where they may differ, this MoS should be the decider. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But again, how? Or more to the point: why? If the project is the offspring of the Film and TV projects, why can "our" MoS trump the Film and TV MoS?--Nohansen (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we aren't just an offspring of them, but a stand alone article that encompasses multiple media formats. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it the other way around: Articles on anime TV series, for example, should follow WP:MOSTV and look to WP:MOS-AM to "fills in gaps" of what is expected in article dealing with Japanese animation. But since the structure recommended by WP:MOSTV is not that much different from what "we" recommend, my point is moot in this regard. But take the Comics guidelines, which mainly deal with articles on superheroes (something of no use to editors looking to work on a manga article). Now this is one of the times where I see this MoS as the "main" MoS (because the Comics MoS is no help at all).--Nohansen (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The TV MoS just does not speak well to most of our series, particularly those with multiple releases, nor does it speak well to most of our articles which start with a manga. I also tend to go with the view of whichever infobox is most appropriate dictates the predominate MoS. Anime series articles carry the anime infoboxes, not the TV series one, hence the anime MoS is the predominate one, with the TV one filling in gaps as needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Collectonian on this subject. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I as well, though we do try to have consistency where it makes sense. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, there should never be a need to choose one MoS over the other. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and our MoS is specifically geared to our own needs, and serves them much better than the TV MoS, though it certainly has its place and should not just be ignored. —Dinoguy1000 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Magazine field in the manga infobox

This was mildly discussed before, but no action was taken. In the manga infobox currently, there is a single magazine field. The instructions for the infobox are fairly ambiguous about what goes there "Magazine or anthology in which the manga was serialized in." This opens the door for every magazine the title is ever serialized in to be included, resulting in some less than tidy infoboxes, such as seen at Naruto. Should we do for magazine what we've done with publisher, and have the main one purely for the original serialization, a second one for English serializations, and a third collapsed one for other languages. Or, should we simply change the instructions and specifically limit the field to the original magazine (or the original and English language ones), with other serializations left to the prose. Per personally, I'm inclined to learn towards the latter, similar to the studio in the anime field, but I'm open to either if it cleans up those articles where a title has been serialized all over the place. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That makes perfect sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I should clarify: I think adding the magazine_en and magazine_other fields would be good. I doubt it will get any more cluttered than the fields for networks and licensors in the anime boxes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We'd need to clarify that if the original serialization switched magazines, include all of those in the magazine= field. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support either option, but I think if we go with listing non-Japanese/English serializations only in the prose, we should do the same with the licensor, network, and publisher fields as well. This would also be a good time to raise the question of how we want the English info handled - should it stay in its own separate infobox row, or should it be combined with either the Japanese or other language rows? —Dinoguy1000 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better in the infobox as it would be somewhat clunky in the prose, especially when you get several of them for each. This is one place where the infobox makes things much cleaner as it just lists them, which is all that really needs to be done with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it should always be in the prose as well, and expanded upon to note the dates and all with sources, otherwise its unsourced stuff. But we seem to have lots of quite a bit of other stuff in the infoboxes (particularly aired networks). :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)