Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Shortcuts:
WT:MOS-AM
WT:MOS-ANIME
WT:MOS-MANGA
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Merge "Proposal"

Just in case anyone missed the notice on the front, some nice person has proposed that our MoS be hacked and trashed, AKA merged, into the constantly under dispute WP:FICT under ridiculous ideas that our MoS is somehow unnecessary. Ugh. Feel free to leave your own thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Merge with anime and manga. Mine are obviously pretty clear. :P Collectonian (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think we need to assume good faith. I don't think the nominator had any ill will, but rather thought the two MOS pages were similar enough (or overlapped enough) to be fine if they were combined. I happen to disagree with him (as does everyone else who has posted in that discussion), but we need not attribute malice where there likely is none. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes to animanga infobox

There are some proposed style changes for Template:Infobox animanga being made. Please see Template talk:Infobox animanga#Template style. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification Needed?

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

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

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

Thought it was agreed that we utilize whatever title is used in English-speaking countries. Was this not the case? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is, but it seems that because of the ambiguity of "unless," people are arguing that the original is more common and so the English should be ignored. That's why I wondered if we needed to make the consensus clearer to help stifle the arguments. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I've found, we tend to use the official English titles more often if the primary work is being licensed under a new English name, such as with Dazzle (manga), or in the cases where the English title was provided by the Japanese before a license occurs, as in Spice and Wolf (which is, by far, the most common name for the series I've found). Other times, like with Kimi ga Nozomu Eien or Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, it doesn't work out that well since the primary work (both games in this case) were not licensed and don't go under the English name, despite the anime for both series being licensed under Rumbling Hearts and When They Cry respectively. But also because Higurashi, at least, is known more by its Japanese name rather than its English name, hence the "unless the native form is more commonly recognized" portion in the MOS.
Considering that the primary work of Chibi Vampire was licensed, I think it's therefore customary to go along with the change to the English title. I think that quote up there should also include, therefore, "In the case where the primary work is licensed, always use the official English title for the article name." Other than that, a case-by-case basis would have to be applied to difficult cases where even if the primary work was licensed under a new English name there would still be people contesting it, but I think those cases would be relatively low.--十八 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right Juhachi, we should aim for clarity. I definitely agree with your proposal: "In the case where the primary work is licensed, always use the official English title for the article name." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good clarification to add. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree; I've yet to see a case where the clause as is did anything but prolong the argument. Doceirias (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I think that's easy. The company that licensed the product gets to decide what it's called, and is thus the more official of the two titles. The fact that Animax broadcast it under a different name shouldn't matter. I mean, you could broadcast Fullmetal Alchemist under the direct translation of the original title, "Alchemist of Steel", but the product is still licensed under the name "Fullmetal Alchemist", so it trumps anything else. In the case you provided, Hell Girl should be used since the primary work was licensed under that name.--十八 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But didn't Animax have to license the series to broadcast it? How is one title "more official" than the other? Let me give you another example. Sennen no Yuki: released by Viz Media as Millennium Snow, and by Chuang Yi as A Thousand Years of Snow. Both are English language editions. Which do we choose?--Nohansen (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the same as the whole Saint Seiya VS. Knights of the Zodiac debate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The one marketed and sold to more people? I think we can safely justify giving preference to American editions of things. Doceirias (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, the MOS should reflect that too. My point is that, sometimes, there's more than one official English title; 'cause if I was living in Singapore, the official English title would be A Thousand Years of Snow (not Millennium Snow). Now, if someone could reword the guideline without it sounding biased...--Nohansen (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Any ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Highest circulation official English title? Doceirias (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That could work. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's not so easy to get that info. For example, some Asian publishers publish in English, but their homepages are still in their native language. Furthermore, some publishers don't even disclose that info to begin with. So I don't think that criterion will work.Kazu-kun (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
We're assuming, by dint of common sense, that the American editions inherently have a higher circulation. Doceirias (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem. Assuming is biased. Think about it, If even before establishing the criterion you already assume American publishers have higher circulation then the criterion is there just for show. Let's just say "let's go with American publishers" then. It is biased. If you want the criterion to be valid you need a reliable source for every case; no assuming.
EDIT: IMO there are two non-biased ways to decide between English adaptations. First, choose the adaptation which is valid internationally; some Singaporean licenses are only valid for Singapore, for example. If both (or whatever number of adaptations we're dealing with) are international, choose the first one. That's right, in that case the first publisher to do the English adaptation should be chosen. I think theses two criteria would work just fine for choosing English names for articles. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Singapore publishers are inherently small press compared to American ones. I don't think we need to have sales figures to prove that. Choosing the first edition over the better known and likely more accurate edition seems far more biased. Doceirias (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Then just say "The American adaptation should be used" and try to tell people that's not biased. If you're assuming, the criterion is not valid; you should know that. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with that. I just assumed we'd have to reargue the point less often if we used highest circulation as a code for American. Since the point here is to reduce the number of protracted arguments... Doceirias (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The arguments wouldn't really end; specially since anyone could dig up this discussion from the archives, find "highest circulation" is really code for "American" and claim (with good reason) the guidelines are biased.--Nohansen (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't see the difference between "the version best known in English" and "the title that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world". They seem just different way to say the same. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nohansen, how do you think we should we determine "the version best known in English"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
→ See also WP:ANIME#Naming conventions (Using English?) G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion 1

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

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

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

I think I made it less interpretative and more clear. Though maybe it's a bit too much...?
Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, avoid using names from limited-licensed adaptations (for example, most Asian adaptations in English can't be sold outside the country of origin). Instead choose names from releases that can be sold internationally, such as those from North American publishers/producers. Avoid also names specific to TV broadcasts, as these are restricted to the area of broadcasting. DVDs in contrast can be sold internationally (again, provided the licensor acquired an international license). The goal is to use the official English title best known and that has contributed most to the product's becoming known in the English-speaking world. Kazu-kun (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd replace "version" with "official English title" in the last sentence - just to make it absolutely clear the title used by the fan translations can't win out, even if they argue that is the version that made it famous. Doceirias (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Kazu-kun (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I can definitely go for this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things: (1) That's awfully wordy; and (2) Don't you think the suggested change could be interpreted as creating a consensus? We all remember what happened with the instructions on excluding non-English/non-Japanese voice actors. And, like Collectonian pointed out, there's been quite a few rename discussions recently. It might seem like the Project is making 'rules' so that those who disagree will have nothing to argue because "WP:MOS-AM says so".--Nohansen (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the whole point of this discussion to ultimately lead to a consensus though? And I like the new addition, though agree that it's rather wordy (though I doubt that will be avoidable and still be crystal clear as to what we mean).--十八 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That was actually kind of the purpose, to solidify the project consensus. That's part of what the MoS is all about...here is the project's consensus, in conjunction with Wikipedia's overall guidelines, policies, and MoS, on article format and content. Right now, the statement is too ambiguous causing confusion, especially with newer editors, and causing some editors to throw back the "unless" to argue against even clear cases where the English name should be used. By expanding and clarifying, we are basically putting down in writing what the existing consensus is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument could be made (by an administrator, no less) that because the decision was made by, what, six users (am i counting right?), it isn't really a consensus. That it's more like a bureaucracy.--Nohansen (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not like we're forming a cabal or anything (or are we? *shifty eyes*).--十八 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is taking place in a public place. Once consensus is established, it can always be challenged, and discussed again, as it was in that case. The consensus page even says that silence signals consent. Doceirias (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the active folks in the project watch this page, but if you're really concerned it isn't enough of a consensus, we can always post a note on the main project page noting the on-going discussion and inviting comments. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Toss me in as supporting this, too. I've been at a convention running an art show, so I wasn't able to participate in the discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, I support it. I've been busy lately, and havent had a chance to check Wikipedia till now (and my watchlist is frighteningly long for it too =P ). —Dinoguy1000 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't think consensus has been established yet; a good amount of the community hasn't voiced their concerns (or else they're too lazy to comment and/or don't care). Either way, we should at least let the word spread some more; it's been only a week since this discussion started.--十八 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose at this stage — I believe more input is needed. The proposed wording is also too complex.
I would rather simplify it to: Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. Always create redirects for alternative names and spellings and provide.
I need to mention though that Wikipedia:MOS-JP#Names of companies, products, and organizations states "Honor the current romanization used officially by that party (i.e., Kodansha rather than Kōdansha, Doshisha University rather than Dōshisha University). If the entity no longer exists, use the most commonly used format. If this can not be determined, use the Hepburn romanization as defined here."
G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
→ See also WP:ANIME#Naming conventions (Using English?) G.A.S 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the simplification. It doesn't address the issue that caused the need for this discussion, and add "should list all common names by which its subject is known" is excessive. We should not list any much less all fansub spellings just because they dont' like the offical names, Japanese nor English, or badly translated them. Also, this discussion started here first, so the one over in WP:ANIME should really be pointed here (and preferably merged all together to get it all in one place). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
All the common names to which a subject is known don't belong in the lead; it would merely clutter it up. If, say, the manga is licensed under one title, and the anime another, than use the manga title as the title of the article, and then when you bring up the anime say "...anime adaptation under the title X by...". Also, this should be done separately in the media section in the article. Other titles from less-widely-distributed or less well known material such as drama CDs, light novel adaptations, or video games should also be in the media section unless it's necessary to list it in the lead. This is especially important for series with a shit load of media types.--十八 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to moving the discussion here; the link was to mention that there is a similar discussion going on there.
"All common names" did not mean to include all fansubs names, just the more common official names.
In the example; it seems to me that we should only mention the names for the major media, probably the common name for the anime and the common name for the manga. (e.g. "Naruto"), without the taglines, subtitles (etc.).
By common name I meant the official name(s) for the franchise (if applicable).
G.A.S 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another concern

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

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

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

Very resistant to this. Tag the manga section as a stub, try to figure out which characters are anime original, and make a plot summary that works for both, or clearly points out where they diverge. Easily handled. Tag it as needing expert attention if it really needs a glance over to focus on the original work. I'd agree something can't really become a good article with that kind of lopsided arrangement, but the information is never so hard to obtain that it is worth splitting out the anime into a separate article. Doceirias (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The splitting has happened once before: "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)". And it was worth it, since we have one more good article to be proud of instead of a messy article on the original novels and its adaptations. The problem with the current guideline is that it suggests we can't write an article on an adaptation unless we write one on the source material first or the article on the adaptation is attached to the article on the source work (like Elfen Lied).
I think it's better to write a good article on an adaptation (Giant Robo (OVA)) when you know next to nothing about the original work (Giant Robo). It's better to have an "Elfen Lied (manga)" stub article if we gain an "Elfen Lied (TV series)" GA-article (the current doesn't look GA-quality, to tell you the truth) with a real possibility of being featured. It's wrong for users to add plot details from Black Jack 21 and Osamu Dezaki's OVA series to Black Jack (manga) when those plot points they add aren't canon.
But it's not their fault. That's the reality we live with: it's easier to find someone who's seen the series or the movie than someone who's read the manga or light novel. I think the guidelines should acknowledge that and not force editors to write articles on books they haven't read.--Nohansen (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What about current policies prevents splitting where appropriate? Obviously, if the material is justified as a stand alone article, then it should be split out. Since the material isn't in the articles you mentioned, I assumed you were talking about simply making the only article about the derivative work. With Elfen Lied or Chibi Vampire, I don't see that a split is necessary. With something close to a good article except for being largely subsidized to a stub/start class article on the source, a split would be a natural conclusion, and I believe that's full supported by the MOS as is. Doceirias (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
With the current guidelines (not policies), articles introductions are primarily about the original format of a work. This leads to plot and characters section that derive their information from the adaptation, information that doesn't necessarily hold true on the original work, effectively pretending the article is about the original work as well.
With the current guidelines, three users opposed splitting the article on the Elfen Lied TV series. Two because it there's not enough information on the manga, and Erachima because my proposal went against accepted style. But we can't expect someone who's only seen Total Recall to write the article on We Can Remember It for You Wholesale if they haven't read it. It's the same with animanga articles.
It's not about the guidelines preventing splitting (although they kinda do, but I'll argue that later). It's about the guidelines preventing articles on adaptations, which is what article 2 of the Content section is doing and why Elfen Lied is lopsided.--Nohansen (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As well they should be (opposing that is). The guidelines should prevent splitting articles out on an adaptation when there is no significant difference. There is no reason to have the same article on the same series, with duplicate plots, character lists, etc. We don't hide the problem, or even the lack of information, but shuffling off the "bad" version into another article while trying to make the one version we are familiar with more significant. If the article, such as Elfen Lied, is missing information, then the solution is to find it and add it, not break out the anime that some people are more familiar with. Such a split would only set a dangerous and inappropriate precedence.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
But we already have a precedent: "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)" and "Giant Robo (OVA)". Both are GAs and there's nothing dangerous or inappropriate about them.
If a good article on the original work isn't feasible but one on an adaptation is, why doesn't the MOS consider that option? Guidelines may be advisory and not rules, but the advice they're giving has spawned messy, lopsided articles like Elfen Lied.--Nohansen (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you blaming the MoS for people ignoring it? Haruhi passed GA a year ago, and is frankly not a good example of a "good article." The formatting is horrible, even the infobox doesn't follow basic guidelines. There are unreferenced statements, dead links for references, and some of questionable reliability. And please please tell me that is not a copyvio online video being used as a REFERENCE?? It would not pass GA today, and I'll be putting in on notice, same as I've already done for Elfen Lied, to be fixed or be delisted. It also is not a split from the light novels, but from Haruhi Suzumiya (franchise), and can be considered a size split rather than the one that we have more info on. Giant Robo (OVA) is a fine split because IT IS significantly different from Giant Robo, not because we have more info on it versus the original. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's our own fault. WP:FILMS doesn't demand an article on a film's source material before having an article on the film itself. Neither does WP:TV. But the combination of these two guidelines ("In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise" and "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work") that's essentially what we're doing.
And let me add that when I split "Giant Robo (OVA)" I did do because I had more info on the OVA than the manga since I've never read the original. You shoulda seen how it looked before I rewrote it ([1]). Not very pretty, is it? *shudders*--Nohansen (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Films and TV also are mostly originals, with fewer items set on a source material. The source material is also considered distinctly separate, and, usually the film/TV series bares little resemblance to it source material. They also, are not us and we have different criteria of notability and different article guidelines that also incorporates WP:BOOKS and WP:JAPAN. I think situations like Haruhi and Giant Robo are the rare exceptions for our articles, and we should not upgrade the guideline to make it seem like it should be more. Sure, those of us in the project who will sit here and discuss this stuff for hours, days, and weeks on end (*grin*), are likely not to abuse such a change. However, it would just be an open invitation for more casual editors to justify splitting an article just because they don't like how its being edited, our formatting guidelines, only wanting to right about their preferred media (which is the likely cause of the largest majority of these imbalanced articles), or just wanting to have two articles detailing all the minute details of the the two media despite their being not so different. I'd rather we leave such splits to a discussion that can be justified within our current guidelines: significant difference from the source, rather than a lack of resources about it. Its an exception, exceptions shouldn't be written in the guidelines, but a consensus back exception for slightly ignoring the MoS.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I felt like I addressed his concern in the article talk page. That problem is more of an issue of the article needing cleaning up, same as having too much plot or missing the basic sections. I don't think we should cater the name of the article to the whims of people going against the MoS or who may unaware of the MoS. I've run across quite a few like that, and with some work have fixed most of them as well. I don't agree with his saying our putting the anime voices is somehow making the article all about the anime. We could, I suppose, make a second anime voices template that changes the wording to note something like "In the anime adaptation" rather than just saying voiced by. While we should focus on the main, we don't completely ignore the others as we do note differences and include episode lists. For Chibi Vampire, I've done most of the fixing for it, I think, though I can't fix the plot summary myself as I'm still reading the manga (well, I could redo it up through volume 8, but then it wouldn't be complete). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I fixed a bit. I think a lot of these problems come from overly detailed plot summaries; I don't see why we need to tell the whole story, or have character descriptions telling everything that happens to a character. Why not just explain the basic concepts? Unless there is a sourced analysis talking about events later in the series, this sort of thing serves no real purpose. Doceirias (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summaries

This is something I've been a bit confused about (indeed, I mentioned it just above.) How much plot is too much, how much is too little; how complete is it required to be to be representative of the series? When I write plot summaries, I invariably take an approach a bit more like the dust jacket; give the concept of the series, the basic parties involved, and any detailed needed for the character descriptions and theme discussions to make sense. But I've seen several editors cite the no spoiler tag policies to suggest that we are required to discuss the entire plot, beginning, middle, and end. I've no objection to that - I agree with the lack of spoilers - but I tend to think it isn't always necessary, and often leads to excess detail. If the themes section doesn't discuss the ending, then do we need to discuss it in the plot section? Right now, we tend to have basic introductions for the main characters on the main page, and more detailed versions on the character page, which might describe the eventual fate of the characters. Likewise, if there is a list of episodes or some other complete summary, the plot section seems justified in doing a more brief general overview of the story. Confusing question - since I am pretty muddled about it - and I don't want to seem like I'm arguing something I'm not, but I thought it might be worth discussing. Doceirias (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good point to bring up, as the MoS isn't clear and articles are tackling it both ways. I feel that a full plot isn't required just due to the no spoilers clause, but that to really give encyclopedic, and comprehensive coverage. The plot summary should ideally include the beginning, the major plot points, and the ending. This is more some of our related projects, like the the Film MoS, and I believe the TV MoS (too many tabs open to check at the moment). If we only do a partial summary, it becomes something of a longer teaser (much like a DVD dust jacket). In that case, we are basically requiring those unfamiliar with the series to go read/view it to get the full picture, but as the dust jacket requires you to buy the DVD to actually find out what will happen. For what happens in a specific episode/chapter, then yes, their respective lists should fill that need with greater detail. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But granted an exposition of plot info on an episode list will only work for anime-original series. The same could be applied to manga-original series with chapter lists though (and I suppose light novel-original series by the same token). Also, a good amount of our material haven't ended yet, so it's not like we can provide an account of the ending. In my experience, we shouldn't try to write overly detailed plot info. Collectonian also cited an older version of Air (visual novel) as having too much plot, so I don't see why she's advocating for a more detailed plot summary to use in articles. In the end, the most we can do for the majority of articles is provide a brief overview of the series' premise, major characters, and main plot points, and anything beyond that would not only be too excessive, but would go against WP:NOT#PLOT.--十八 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Detailed and comprehensive does not have to equal lengthy. Air's was too long for the media and included more minute details than were needed. Just as with film and television articles, we shouldn't do blow by blow, but over all major plot points. One should easily be able to cover the major plot points and ending within a reasonable amount of words, and the plot section should be not take up the majority of the article. The plot should be from the primary work, with differences in adaptations noted in a separate paragraph or a separate subsection under the plot. In the end, we are saying the same thing, I think. Cover the start (general a major plot point), the major plot points, and the ending (also a major plot point by any definition). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But as I said, a good amount of manga, anime, and light novels have no ending, so your third point can't be applied universally. Even so, taking into account all the manga and light novels that have ended, what are the chances that we're going to get an editor who has read the entire series and can even provide the information about the ending? No matter what, it's infinitely easier to write about the beginning than the end, and it's very hard to find editors who have knowledge of a series' ending as it is. Not to mention I'm unsure how many editors would like being prematurely spoiled about a series' ending they plan on reading (or else why would they even be interested in editing the article of the series half the time?). Plus the vast majority of these series don't even have translations, making it even harder. I just think you're trying too hard to apply WP:TV and WP:FILM guidelines to WP:ANIME in regards to providing an ending. For a single book, or a single movie, or a TV series that has ended (including original-anime that have ended), writing a summary of the ending is easy, but that applies to a very small percentage of the majority of series under this project's scope.--十八 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to read a manga series nor viewed an anime series that doesn't have some sort of ending, even if its just "and they continued on their journey." Obviously an on-going series would not have an ending yet, but one should be added when it does end. We're not here to avoid spoiling people. Don't want to be spoiled, don't work on the article. There is a reason I do little to no work on Fruits Basket and could do little to help with the FB character list. That's a personal choice to risk spoilers or not. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to "shield" readers nor editors from the ending just because they make the choice to go to the article knowing what Wikipedia is. It also isn't the responsibility of other editors to do the same. I have to really disagree that only small percentage of series for which we have articles that have endings. I'd say its the reverse. The greater majority are for completed series, and such there is an ending and writing a summary of the work is relatively easy. For unlicensed works, unless the series was unknown (in which case, its unlikely to have a plot at all), finding the ending is also relatively easy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No that's not what I was getting at. I didn't say that the minority of series weren't complete; as you said, most of them are complete. But (BIG but), the vast majority of the time, we won't have anyone who even knows what the hell happened at the end for series that:
  1. Have never been officially translated or distributed in English in their entirety
  2. Are very long (Urusei Yatsura), and therefore it would be hard to find anyone who knows what happened at the end and be willing to write a summary. Anyone else who hasn't read the series may not want to be spoiled, so they don't look up for forums on the net that have people discussing the ending.
So even if an ending exists for the majority of manga and light novel series that have ended, it's unthinkable to expect that an ending would be able to be written for all of them. This of course doesn't apply to anime-original series since it's so much easier to provide an ending there.--十八 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem there is, that by that reasoning, its also unthinkable to expect us to every have GA or FA articles, because in reality its only a handful of editors willing to do the necessary work to do it. The lack of editors at the time something needs addressing shouldn't be an excuse not to have it. Baring all other options, an editor can go read the manga themselves (or at least the last volumes if its a long, licensed series). While I'm not a fan of scanslations, I've also grabbed some to be able to provide a plot summary for its article. Like on Elfen Lied. People wrote about the anime because its licensed, but the manga is extremely easy to read online (though its translation is still on-going). The manga was also released in Spanish, second language of the US, so it isn't unreasonable to think that there are editors who have read the whole series in either format. Quite a bit of the time, especially for anime and manga, its just a matter of expending the necessary effort. Now untranslated light novels, yeah, its real hard because they aren't generally fantranslated in any form, but there are not many series that started as a novel.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Not many series that started as a novel"? I think you need to take a look at Dengeki Bunko and MF Bunko J. Granted there are a lot of redlinks in both lists, but imagine if all those had articles, and that's only for two light novel imprints.--十八 07:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant relative to manga and anime series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chapters vs volumes

I've noticed a lot of manga articles give the number of chapters. While this isn't completely pointless for a serialized medium, I tend to think it should be discouraged since that number goes up on a weekly basis and most pages don't get updated that often. Doceirias (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Only the weekly serials though; I think most manga are serialized in monthly or bimonthly publications. Granted, I've only seen the use of chapter number in the infobox in articles that are serialized weekly (Bleach (manga)). I think it'd be okay to do something like, "As of MONTH YEAR, NUMBER volumes have been sold in Japan, compiling NUMBER chapters." This way the chapter number only has to be updated every time a volume is released.--十八 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also...who thinks about the chapter number? You might think about the magazines issue number, or the volume number for the tankobon, but unless you're reading scanlations, most people wouldn't consciously notice that they were reading chapter 101. I tend to think the chapters numbers are just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a similar discussion on this awhile back that didn't really go anywhere... I kind of like the chapter numbers myself, but wouldn't mind in the least omitting them. —Dinoguy1000 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least one application for the chapter number would be for a series that has already ended to show the total chapter count.--十八 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Once a series has ended, there's even less reason to include a chapter number, since it is then of relevance to no one. Doceirias (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why not in the prose. Then why do we list episode numbers instead of just DVD volumes?--十八 03:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because people do watch an episode at a time - very few people read a chapter at a time. Maybe for a book like Sayonara Zetsubo Sensei, where every chapter is stand alone... Doceirias (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the chapter count needs to be in the infobox, but in the prose where available I think its appropriate to mention the series spanned X chapters while discussing its serialization information. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Doceirias (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest that, but you beat me to it... Needless to say, I'd support that as well. —Dinoguy1000 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine either way, though unless there's a real good reason for including the number of chapters, I don't really see a need for including them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. -- Collectonian (talk · 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? -- Collectonian (talk · 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. -- Collectonian (talk · 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. -- Collectonian (talk · 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). -- Collectonian (talk · 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). -- Collectonian (talk · 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)