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

Case Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is this for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoS naming style

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

Plot Bloat Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC which could affect this MOS

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

Making reference to WP:FICT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

In popular culture and trivia sections

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

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

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

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

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

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

Draft addition to the guidelines - episode lists

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

pre

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

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

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

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

Why not something as simple as:

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

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

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

pre

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