Talk:Boys' love

Further reading

Removed from the article, but possibly useful to expand the references:

Demographics in the lead

Katsumi 1020, regarding this and this, per WP:LEAD, demographics material should be in the lead. The lead already states that "it is typically created by women for women and is distinct from homoerotic media marketed to gay male audiences, such as bara." But we should note that males read yaoi as well. Per Talk:Yaoi/Archive 2#Sexual Orientation of the Audience, we don't need to get into sexual orientation material in the lead. But making it clear to our readers in the lead that yaoi is not solely for women or is not solely read by women is an important detail. Otherwise, the lead does give the impression that it's just for women, even with "typically" there.

Also, if making big changes to the article, I ask that you consider proposing changes on the talk page first for discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Italicizing

KuroMina, regarding this? Not every instance of "yaoi" or subgenre of it should be italicized. Only the instances where the term is being used as a word should be italicized. See WP:Words as words.

If you reply, please don't WP:Ping me. If you don't reply and don't fix the italics aspect I noted here in this section, I will. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I was following MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, which states that foreign words should be italicized if they "do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." I don't think that yaoi falls under "common usage" in English (unlike "anime" or "samurai"). It's not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which the MOS advised checking, and I doubt that most people outside of anime fandom know what it means. Yaoi, shōnen-ai, seme, uke, etc. are italicized in the majority of the books I've read, too, such as Jason Thompson's Manga: The Complete Guide. However, I still consider myself a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Let me know if I misunderstood something here (very much a possibility; I'm learning every day ^^;). KuroMina (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We might need to get further input on this. For example, from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting and/or WP:Anime. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just posted a request at the anime and manga WikiProject. KuroMina (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with KuroMina based on MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, since it's pretty clear. Flyer22 Frozen evoked MOS:WAW, but it also says: "When italics could cause confusion (such as when italics are already being heavily used in the page for some other purpose, e.g., many non-English words and phrases), double quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words". Certainly, this article has instances when yaoi is used to talk about the genre and others when the term itself is discussed. For example, "The genre currently known as boys' love, BL, or yaoi derives from two sources" is talking about the genre, so italics are okay; "The term yaoi is an acronym created in the late 1970s", on the other hand, is talking about the word, so it should be inside quotation marks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I left a note about this at the other page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: I'm the one who originally italicized the title, though not the whole article due to time. I think it should be italicized per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Yaoi is a non-English term and does not appear in dictionaries (although terms such as "manga" or "shonen" do). Opencooper (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Romanized Japanese should not be italicized with wiki markup (''yaoi''). The correct form is {{lang|ja-latn|yaoi}} → yaoi. Yeah, more characters but writing it this way helps browsers to render the word and helps screen readers to pronounce the word. For MOS:WAW, perhaps: "{{lang|ja-latn|yaoi|italic=no}}" → "yaoi" (not clear to me if the term should be both italicized as non-English and quoted because of extensive use of the italic form of the word in the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Echoing what Lullabying said below: I've never seen the "ja-Latn" formatting before, so thank you for bringing it up! As for foreign words in quotation marks... well, MOS:AMU says we should italicize "foreign-language phrases" in the titles of minor works, enclosed in quotation marks. (The manual gives the example of the song "Ich Bin Ein Auslander.") I'm not sure about foreign words as words, though. KuroMina (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing on the basis of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is appropriate because "yaoi" is a non-English word that isn't used in Western contexts. The formatting that Trappist the monk brought up should be used (and I thank you for bringing that up because I wasn't aware of it until now). lullabying (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a loan word by this point, like burritos or saunas or frankfurters. People who don't know a word of Japanese or have any clue about its etymological origin know what it means. Go to Amazon, look under "Manga", and there's a "Yaoi & LGBT" section. It's on the signage in bookstores, and on the English-language books themselves. We don't need dictionaries to get around to confirming this (though Wiktionary already does)[1]. It should be in roman letters when referring to the material, italic when referred to as a word, and "quotes" when it's quoting a person. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. You could write an article that mentions burritos or saunas (or futons or tsunamis), and you wouldn't have to explain what they are to your readers. Those words are a part of our everyday vocabulary. The same cannot be said for Japanese anime/manga genres. In my opinion, yaoi, shōnen, shōjo, etc. are "specialized" words, as only anime/manga fans know them and seek them out. (Even then, casual fans might not know what they mean.) I mentioned this in another reply, but I looked through articles and books on anime/manga from reliable sources, such as Jason Thompson, Frederik L. Schodt, the British Museum [2], the BBC [3], and The New Yorker [4]. They italicize yaoi, shōnen, shōjo, etc. throughout the entirety of their texts. However, it's true that other reliable sources don't italicize those words; for example, CNN [5] and The New York Times [6]. Then there are sites like Anime News Network, which can go either way [7] [8]. All this to say, even professional publications differ in italicizing Japanese words, so I think we should ask WP:JAPAN for their input, too. KuroMina (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just do it as {{lang|ja-Latn|yaoi}} (the only reason to do something like "{{lang|ja-Latn|yaoi|italic=no}}" would be a WAW case in the middle of a bunch of material that is italicized for a different reason). And yes, it should be italicized and marked up as latinized Japanese, because it is not assimilated into English the way "karate" and "sushi" and "anime" are. It is not "a loan word by this point", not in general English. Virtually no one knows this term but weebs/otaku; it's in the same category as bishōjo/bishoujo and moe and isekai and waifu. The fact that lots of twenty-something gamers and anime-watchers in the UK and US know these terms doesn't make them assimilated loan-words in general everyday English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting,  SMcCandlish. I appreciate everyone weighing in above, but I especially appreciate your commentary since you work on WP:Manual of Style material so much. And now I don't see a need to query opinions at the WP:Manual of Style talk page about this. I did watch a lot of anime in my younger years, but I rarely watch anime nowadays. And I don't read yaoi. Tried it, but not invested. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Most Western women would not be; there's a cultural divide here that will probably indefinitely keep this term (and genre) from being well-absorbed outside Japan.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hi there! I'm sorry for bringing this up three weeks later, but I have some questions about language templates that I hope you can answer (if/when you have the time). (1) Is there any difference between {{lang|ja-Latn|yaoi}} and {{transl|ja|yaoi}} and {{Nihongo|||yaoi}}? Is one preferable to the other? (2) How should we italicize rōmaji in citations since, according to the templates' pages, we're not supposed to use "lang"/"transl"/"Nihongo" in CS1/CS2? And (3) should we also use templates for untranslated manga titles (e.g., Hi Izuru Tokoro no Tenshi), magazine titles (e.g., Barazoku), and people's names (e.g., Fujiwara no Michinaga)? Or is that overkill? Thanks in advance! KuroMina (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KuroMina: I think the ultimate HTML output of those templates is the same, when it comes to the language markup; they just have different options. I would not use {{Nihongo}} for this, because it's a huge and complex template with a lot of overhead; it is better for complex Japanese-related markup like {{nihongo4|vinegared rice|鮨飯|sushi-meshi}}, in the lead sentence of Sushi. I'm not sure {{transl}} needs to exist any longer, given that {{lang}} has been expanded to handle -Latn, though I guess the other template's usage is a couple of characters shorter. In citations, we generally don't bother with this, though it's okay to just use bare italics in a title where it's necessary to italicize a specific element: |title=The Origin of ''Yaoi'' and Its Meaning. But we can't use non-subst'ed (and non-clean-substituting) templates in those parameters. Keep in mind that citations are really a form of very specific metadata (with its own metadata in turn), not regular encyclopedia content; we like them to conform to the style guide, etc., as much as possible, but not if it interferes with their central bibliographic purpose. If you have a title in Japanese, for a work written in Japanese, and add parameter |language=ja, then that should be sufficient. For an English-translated version of the title, there is |trans-title=. For |quote= with Japanese text in it, one could use {{lang|ja}}, but putting quoted Japanese in a citation in English Wikipedia usually serves no real purpose (I could see doing it with a difficult-to-translate expression, to provide the literal original in case Japanese-fluent readers might take issue with the chosen rendering in English). I would use {{lang|ja}} or {{lang|ja-Latn}}, as appropriate, for titles of works. Technically, we should probably also do it (with |italics=no) with personal and place and organization names (at least at first occurrence), but few ever bother. The main potential usefulness of it is that it signals to screen readers what set of phonetics to use in attempting to pronounce it, though exactly how much real-world support there is for this right this moment (and for which languages) is unknown to me, and surely varies from one app to another. Lang markup is end-used in other ways, which often pertain to WP:REUSE; e.g., machine translation of an en.WP article into another language would (or at least should) not try to parse properly marked up non-English material as if it were English, and that will matter for various (usually short) strings like "no" and "fin" (and even some longer ones, like "shampooing" which is a noun in French!) that mean completely different things in different languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC); added note about subst. 06:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

comments on some of the above:

• {{nihongo4}} is merely a redirect to {{nihongo}}
• {{transl}} and {{lang}} differ in that {{transl}} allows editors to specify the standard used to make the transliteration; {{lang}} does not.
• do not use {{lang}} in cs1|2 citation templates except in |quote= or other parameters that do not contribute to the citation's metadata
• in cs1|2 templates, when a book title, book chapter, work / website / journal / magazine / newspaper title is written in using a non-Latin script, use the appropriate |script-<param>= with the appropriate language code; all of these also have matching |trans-<param>=

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and Trappist the monk: Thank you so much! You guys covered everything I wanted to know and more. =) Re: "lang" and "transl": After experimenting with both, the only other difference I noticed is that the former requires an extra parameter to work inside wikilinks. For example, [[Otome game|{{lang|ja-Latn|otome|nocat=y}} game]] as opposed to [[Otome game|{{transl|ja|otome}} game]] to produce otome game. But I think I'll stick with "lang," since it was recommended the most. Thanks again for your help; I appreciate it! KuroMina (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"allows editors to specify the standard used to make the transliteration" – Good point! "requires an extra parameter to work inside wikilinks" – Yeah, wikilink syntax can't handle a category or other wikilink inside a wikilink, so the categorization has to be suppressed. {{transl}} doesn't categorize (at least not by default).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll disagree about waifu, since that's a case where English fans took a regular Japanese romanization and gave it its own new meaning in English. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

So lang italics throughout or just on first instance? How to apply this on tsundere and kawaii articles? What about in infoboxes? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Strangely enough, shojo has a Merriam-Webster definition but shonen does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shojo https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shonen AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

In its current state, the yaoi article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yaoi&oldid=967511588 is italicized with the double apostrophes instead of any of the lang or transl methods. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

BL films

There are also live-action films categorized under the "BL" umbrella that don't have an anime or manga adaptation. Should they also be mentioned here? What about novels? lullabying (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Concerns like these, along with how increasingly anachronistic the term "yaoi" is, has me coming around to the idea that "Yaoi" and "Boys' love" should be split into two separate articles, as they are on the Japanese Wikipedia (ja:やおい and ja:ボーイズラブ). The films/novels/television dramas you're describing are consistently described as "BL" or "boys' love" and never as "yaoi"; I think they should be covered on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it makes sense to cover them in an article on "yaoi". Morgan695 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: The thing is I actually believe the article should be renamed boys' love instead of yaoi, because not only is it inaccurate but recent reporting like Anime News Network is using "boys' love" instead of yaoi. Sure, "yaoi" is the term the West uses, but because this sort of media is Asia-centric in the first place I think we should respect the original terms. lullabying (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: If the choice is between maintaining the status quo or renaming the article I would support renaming, but I'm not sure the discussion would end any differently from the 2018 requested move discussion on this talk page, considering that "yaoi" is still widely used per WP:COMMONNAME. Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: I think if we bring up discussion about recent reporting, the definitions in Japanese, and how BL is not limited to anime and manga, we could make a good case; otherwise we can just draft a new article for boys' love. lullabying (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: I'm fine with launching a new discussion, to either rename or split. In any case, the current status quo isn't tenable. Morgan695 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: I opened a discussion. Feel free to add your comments. lullabying (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move; there is a slow drift towards "boys' love", but the data at the moment doesn't support a move just yet. If the trend continues, it can be looked at again, but at the moment, it's a little premature. Sceptre (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Yaoi → Boys' love – While "yaoi" is used on this article per WP:COMMONNAME due to it being more widely known in the West, I do not feel it is correct to use as the article, as the term is no longer used in Japan and was mostly used to refer to dojinshi. "boys' love" is seeing more usage in recent reporting from Anime News Network as well as other English publications such as Boys Love Manga and Beyond by James Welker. Additionally, Japanese publishing outlets refer to the genre as "BL" and not "yaoi." As this genre is Japan-centric, we should use "boys' love." If renaming is not an option, I propose we split to "Boys' love", as "boys' love" is the more general term and also applies to media such as live-action films and novels that do not fall under anime and manga. lullabying (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum: Here's an article published on Nippon (owned by Japan Echo) written by Yukari Fujimoto that states "yaoi" originated from dojinshi. Beginning in the 1980s, the term "BL" saw wider usage and is used to refer to commercially published works. lullabying (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Addendum 2: "Boys' love" is the term increasingly used in academic articles. Besides Boys Love Manga and Beyond by James Welker, here's a link to another academic article that states "Nagaike and Aoyama avoid attempts at differentiation, pointing out that “many BL researchers use ‘BL’." lullabying (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, per the metrics used in the previous Requested Move:

• User:Ununseti did a Google search on Anime News Network in the 2018 requested move that returned ~13500 results for yaoi and 4480 results for boys' love; same search today has 4,450 for yaoi (1) and 6,560 for boys' love (2)
• User:TheFarix did a similar search of Anime News Network and found 3,650 hits for yaoi and 2,540 for boys' love; same search today has 5,030 for yaoi (1) and 39,500 for boys' love (2)
• User:Katsumi 1020 did a Google News search that returned 20,000 for yaoi and 4,500 for boys love; same search today has 16,900 for yaoi (1) and 9,070 for boys love (2), which goes up to 32,800 if you also include "BL" in the search (3)

I floated the idea of splitting the article into "yaoi" and "boys' love" at Talk:Yaoi#BL_films, but based on these metrics, I support moving. If someone wished to create "yaoi" as a standalone article in the future I wouldn't oppose it, as per my earlier comments, they exist as two pages on the Japanese Wikipedia (ja:やおい and ja:ボーイズラブ). Morgan695 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POV fork. It would be two articles on the same topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that BL or boys' love as a standalone article would be a prima facie WP:POV fork, at least when it comes to the term's contemporary usage to describe pan-Asian television dramas/films/novels/etc that feature homoerotic themes (Guardian, Hello Stranger, Mo Dao Zu Shi, etc). It's a category of works that have a context and history that is influenced by, but separate from, the largely Japanese manga/anime context that this article focuses on. More importantly, these works have only ever been described as "BL" or "boys love" in common usage, but because of the existing consensus on "yaoi", they end up awkwardly lumped into this article. Morgan695 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be an obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POV fork violation. And the vast majority of Wikipedia editors would agree. The terms cover the same topic. That is why the two terms are widely used as synonyms. That is why "Boy's Love" is the WP:Alternative term in the lead. You speak of differences in usage. Like WP:POV fork states, "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." For many Wikipedia articles, we cover differences in usage in a "Definitions" or "Terminology" section, or a section about aspects. And that is what the Yaoi article does as well, with its "History and general terminology" section. We do not create a separate article for that. Yes, we have the LGBT slang article while the LGBT article exists, but they are not about the people the way that the LGBT community article is about the people. Instead, the LGBT article is about the initialism and the LGBT slang article is about slang. They are two different topics. "Yaoi" and "Boy's Love" are not two different topics. It's one topic about a genre with word usage differing depending on certain things, especially culture. We don't have an article for all of the alternative names for "LGBT." That is all covered in one article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is just a philosophical argument for mergism over separatism that ignores the substance of what I'm saying. We could just have cosplay cafe, but we choose to have maid cafe and butler cafe as well. But seeing as you've apparently made up your mind and no argument will budge you, it seems like it's a waste of time for both us to continue discussing this. Morgan695 (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My argument is not philosophical. It's policy-based. Yours seems to be philosophical. I have not ignored your argument. I'm telling you that there is no way to cover the topic of yaoi without covering Boy's Love, or vice versa, unless one artificially separates the two by failing to mention the history and terminological aspects. That is clear from the Wikipedia article. It's clear from the Wikipedia article and many sources that they are the same topic, which is why this is a move discussion and not a discussion about yaoi and Boy's Love being two different topics. We do not needlessly send people to two different articles about the same topic just to learn about aspects of that topic. That is what I am stating. As for the comment of mine you pointed to? That is about whether or not this article should be moved. It's not about creating a redundant fork/POV fork. This discussion I've had with you is about creating a redundant fork/POV fork. But, yes, I stand by what I've stated on that as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Morgan695. BL as a genre has expanded to include live-action films, novels, and television series outside of the anime and manga context. This includes 2gether (article), as well as Japanese BL films Water (link (NSFW) and Kindan no Koi, which are never described as "yaoi" but fall under the category. lullabying (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I replied above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also adding Oxygen, which was documented in news as a Thai BL series (source). lullabying (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the fact that yaoi and Boy's Love are the same topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Opppose per WP:Common name. We went over this two years ago: #Requested move 9 August 2018. The data presented there about what the common name is clear. There is no solid reason to move this article. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga (seen at the top of this talk page) to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Flyer22 Frozen: The data has actually changed in favor of "boys' love" in the intervening two years, per my comment above. Morgan695 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. I think that Google data in this section is flawed. And, per WP:SET#Notability, using quotation marks matters. Also, no need to ping me to this page since I'm watching it.

Mathglot, as someone good with Google search data, can we get your analysis on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In the previous move discussion, Zxcvbnm commented on Google Ngrams. I say we look at Google Trends. This Google Trends link comparing "Yaoi" to "Boy's Love" shows "Yaoi" significantly ahead. I tried "Boys Love" with and without the apostrophe. So, again, the above "evidence" in this section seems flawed. And if this article is moved, should the Yuri (genre) article also then be moved? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I won't speak to the Google data until a third party weighs in, but I think comments in the 2018 discussion established that any change to Yaoi wouldn't have an impact on Yuri (genre), as "yuri" has consistently remained the common name for that genre. Morgan695 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: "Yaoi" is an outdated term originating from dojinshi culture and professional outlets and recent reportings use "boys' love" instead. They're not the same things. "Yaoi" would probably fit better as a sub-category of "boys' love." lullabying (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lullabying, again, no need to ping me to an article I am watching. Just like last time, you will not be changing my mind since I'm going by WP:Common name. You certainly won't change my mind with claims about "yaoi" being an outdated term with no reliable sources explicitly backing you on that. And, no, "yaoi" would not fit better as a sub-category of "boys' love." It is a synonym for "boys' love." The vast majority of sources in this article use the term "yaoi". If the article were moved, "yaoi" would belong in the lead the WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an article] published on Nippon (Japan Echo) written by Yukari Fujimoto about the history of the terms. It states that "yaoi" began from dojinshi of Captain Tsubasa and commercial works were later known as "BL." lullabying (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not the same as saying that "yaoi" is outdated. It does not indicate that "yaoi" is not the common name...while Google Trends does indicate that "yaoi" is the common name. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is outdated, because the article also states that BL has been used as the term in Japan since the 1980s. This genre is also Japan-centric. lullabying (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Where does your source state that "yaoi" is no longer used? If we go by the way you are trying to present things, it would mean that "BL" has been the common name since the 1980s. And, well, the literature, including the sources in this article, just don't support that. All the words "has been used as the term in Japan since the 1980s" tells us is that "BL" has been used right alongside "yaoi" since then. There is no proof that "BL" overtook "yaoi" in the 1980s. If it were the case that it did, this article never would have been titled "Yaoi" in the first place. And, regardless, we do not only consider what is primary in one country. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Translated from the 3rd section on the article: "In the latter half of the 1980s, "yaoi" spread rapidly from the boom of derivative works from the shonen manga Captain Tsubasa. It came to refer to fan works featuring male characters from manga and anime in romantic relationships. From the popularity of "yaoi" came the creation of "BL", a turn from "shonen-ai" in pursuit of light-hearted entertainment." On Google Japan, "yaoi" nets 2,750,000 results whereas "BL" nets 1,010,000,000. The third page of the article also talks about the negative connotations of "yaoi", where it's stated that "BL" is a more favorable and popular usage instead of "yaoi." This is because Japanese gay men criticized that because "yaoi" came from fan works, it implied that readers were not interested in supporting gay men in real life. lullabying (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I know what you stated before. You don't need to repeat. I stand by what I stated. And your search is why Google searches can be faulty. You really Google-searched the term "BL" when "BL" refers to a number of other things. If you are going to compare terms, it's supposed to be "Yaoi" and "Boy's Love." What you did is like me using Google Trends to compare "yaoi" to "BL." And that is misleading. I've stated pretty much all I need to state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but you asked me where in my source it states that "yaoi" is no longer used and I was simply answering the question and clarifying out of good faith, even going back to the source I provided to translate. Please don't dismiss my efforts like that. Also, I also did a cursory search on Google Japan with "boys' love" and once again, it nets 19,500,000 which is still a higher number. lullabying (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm dismissing your faulty arguments and searches. I'm not going to keep debating you. You will not change my mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's another definition sourced by Yaoicon that states that in Japan, "yaoi" is no longer used as a genre label, as well as the differences between "yaoi" and "BL." You may point out that the West uses the word differently. However, BL as a term also encompasses work outside the anime and manga sphere. lullabying (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source from the distributor Futekiya. lullabying (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Any move of this article must necessarily also include Yuri (genre) being moved to Girls' love, otherwise it is procedurally invalid._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"Yuri" has been consistently used as the genre though, while "BL" has been used instead of "yaoi." I think we should think of these articles independently. lullabying (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that a name change to Yaoi would necessarily impact Yuri (genre), per User:Ununseti's comments in the 2018 move request. Morgan695 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As the other users said, changing "yaoi" to "BL" would not necessitate changing "yuri" to "Girls' Love". "Yuri" follows WP:COMMONNAME--it is consistently used as the term for the genre in Japan and mostly used as its term internationally. For example Comic Yuri Hime is the most prominent yuri manga magazine in Japan. "Yuri" is also the term used in academic literature about the genre, ex. "On defining yuri", "Sexual and Textual Politics of Japanese Lesbian Comics", etc. Meanwhile, "Boys' Love" is the term overwhelmingly used by the academic literature on that genre, and it is the term used in Japan and increasingly by the West. I don't think it would be a break in consistency, because the equivalency of the term "yuri" with the term "yaoi" is false. They may have four letters and start with "y," but "yaoi" is an acronym, while "yuri" is a reference to flower language. Sandtalon (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Where the term originated, doujinshi or otherwise, is irrelevant. And how the term is used in Japan is also irrelevant since the term is not just primarily used in Japan, but is a common term for this genre used throughout the world. The fact that anime and manga websites, both professional news outlets like Anime News Network and Crunchyroll, and fansites still use the term in 2020 is evident of its staying power even today. And if yaoicon ever comes back, I somehow doubt they'd change their name to BLcon.--十八 03:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree on how the term is used in Japan is "irrelevant" especially since this article is about a Japan-centric genre. lullabying (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Regardless this is the English language Wikipedia so English language sources are still more relevant for the title of this article.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  As pointed out by Morgan695 earlier, "boys' love" is being increasingly used in even English-language reporting and sources over "yaoi." lullabying (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Boys' Love is the term used in Japan for the genre, and it is increasingly the term used internationally. It is also the term most used in academic literature on the genre, especially recently, and including within discussions of international fandoms. ("Counterpublic but obedient: a case of Taiwan’s BL fandom", "Negotiating religious and fan identities: “Boys’ love” and fujoshi guilt", "Queering Democracy Activism and Online Obscenities: Hong Kong Women’s Boys’ Love Protest", "Boys Love Manga and Beyond", etc.) Prominent scholars in the area like Thomas Baudinette, James Welker, Mark McLelland, Fujimoto Yukari, and Kazumi Nagaike all use the term Boys' Love. In fact, when Nagaike was writing an introduction to the literature on the genre for the recent "Japanese Media and Popular Culture" academic source by U of Toyko, she used the title "Boys' Love" and nowhere mentions the term "yaoi" in the body. Also, I know this is partially OR, but in my own observation of Western fandoms, there is definitely a growing awareness of the term "BL," with more and more people using it instead of "yaoi." This is supported by the English-language publisher Futekiya (who focus on the genre and themselves use the term BL), who say in a source already brought up in this thread that "in the past, we might have seen “yaoi” as a more known term in the international community. However, in the past decade, there has been a significant emergence of the word BL in markets around the world, even in the non-English ones." Sandtalon (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

*Support per Sandtalon's reasoning. I did a quick lookup in Japanese sources and found that "Yaoi" is indeed a Japanese leaning term. In Thailand "Yaoi" has also been called "Y-series". This was eventually going to happen as globally widely used terms are often translated into x as a common name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, are you arguing that the article should be titled "Boy's Love" because "Boy's Love" is international while "yaoi" is mainly a Japanese thing? I ask this because Lullabying has been arguing for what is the prominent term in Japan and that it's "Boy's Love", while opposers have been arguing for what is the common name in general, not just in Japan. For example, Juhachi argued, "Where the term originated, doujinshi or otherwise, is irrelevant. And how the term is used in Japan is also irrelevant since the term is not just primarily used in Japan, but is a common term for this genre used throughout the world." This Wikipedia article also speaks about differences in usage among western societies and makes it clear that western societies commonly use the term "yaoi."

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am just going to stay neutral on this one as it looks hotly debated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with the arguments already stated by Flyer22 Frozen, ZXCVBNM, and -十八. Just as other searches on Google can (and will) return false drops, searches on Google Scholar, Google Books, or any other Google product are not wholly accurate when it comes to this topic, just to be clear. Additionally, WP:DIVIDEDUSE states that hits from search engines "are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another," even when they can suggest that "no single term is predominant in English." That is not the case in this instance.A search on JSTOR using the terms "Boys' Love" and "Yaoi" together brings up 96 results, while a sizable number use "yaoi" and "boys love" in their articles. However, this may also have have false drops. The same could be said for results in the Journal of Popular Culture for both terms. We can wrangle about which one is more used. Sure, "boys' love" is being used a good deal, but that doesn't mean that yaoi is not being used. While yaoi is obviously part of Japanese popular culture, sources on en.wikipedia are meant to be, primarily, from English-language sources. As stated by WP:ESTABLISHED, "if a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." I oppose the renaming and the second option of spliting to "Boys' love." I think the fact it (boys' love) is a redirect is fine, as it covers the fact that both terms are used in English-language media.Historyday01 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above opposition, nicely summarized by Historyday01. It's simply too soon to advance a move like this. If the usage becomes much less divided, then there'll be a move case. And, yes, what a term originally meant in Japanese, and whether current Japanese writers are using something else to refer to this subject now, has no bearing on what to call it in English. A large number of things borrowed from one language into another end up shifting in meaning in their new host language. Also, "boys' love" is too naturally ambiguous, so a move to that would actually have to be to "boys' love (genre)". I also don't buy the stats being promoted above. Search Google (with your settings set to return English-language results) for yaoi manga -wiki -Wikipedia -forum -blog then search for "boys' love" manga -wiki -Wikipedia -forum -blog, and you find about a 126:7 ratio (and also find that spelling of the latter is not at all consistent, with various results having "boys love", "boy's love", "boys-love", etc., and further searches without the quotation marks reveal many others such as "boyslove", "boylove", "boy-love", etc.) This doesn't tell us what only the reliable sources in particular are using (though it excludes the most obvious chaff sources). But it does tell us what the cultural Zeitgeist on this is in English. It's essentially statistically impossible for most English writing to have shifted to "boys' love" when the usage ratio remains this skewed across English-language writing in general. Similar searches of Google Scholar (which pretty much is constrained to reliable source) also show yaoi leading. It's important to keep in mind that many of the sources will contain both terms. In particular, sources that mostly use yaoi and other Japanese-isms are very likely to include explanatory all-English alternative terms, but those using just-English preferentially already are less likely to include transliterated-Japanese alternatives, especially if actual usage in Japan has shifted or was a bit off from how English borrowed that Japanese term in particular. Thus, even though the Scholar results show less skew toward yaoi over "boy['s|s'][ |-]love" than general usage, appearance of the latter is artificially inflated by secondary rather than preferential use. All that said, I will join others in disagreeing with the proposition that "Any move of this article must necessarily also include Yuri (genre) being moved to Girls' love"; that's clearly not actually how WP:AT and WP:RM work (since language doesn't work that way, either; any term can drift on its own, and we consequently have to treat each subject separately. Multi-page RMs should only be undertaken when it is certain that the cases are in fact parallel, and this is usually for WP-internal reasons like a change in the style guide (e.g. "Foo Bar Jr." versus "Foo Bar, Jr.") or new disambiguation terms applied across a category.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The newest issue of the journal Mechademia just dropped (a themed issue on "QUEER(ING)"), and of all the article titles that mention the genre, only one uses the term "yaoi," while seven use the term "BL". The Google scholar search returned a lot of "yaoi" because that was how the genre was often referred to in the past; however, it is clear from the leading anime/manga studies journal in 2020 that "BL" has now become the term predominantly used by scholarship. Now, I won't be totally unreasonable: I'll concede that in non-academic circles, "yaoi" is still used a lot. (Though in fandom usage, the article title isn't quite correct either: as the article itself notes, it's often used to refer to pornographic works and set against "shõnen-ai", which in this fan usage, is SFW.) However, even the predominance of the word "yaoi" is changing, and when English-language BL publishers and scholars use the word "Boys' Love" along with an increasing number of fans, it might be a good idea to change the primary title of the article. After all, if the title was changed, "yaoi" would still remain as a secondary term in the lead, and searches for "yaoi" would redirect to the article, so considering the increasing use of the term in English (and especially its predominance in scholarship), I don't think changing the article title is such a bad idea after all. Sandtalon (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. In the previous move discussion, I initially was in favour of keeping 'yaoi', but actually did change my !vote to Neutral after digging into it a bit more. So I was personally undecided on the article title choice even 2 years ago. Nowadays, I honestly think BL is the more commonly used term. It's the term I personally tend to use these days, and it's the term I see used in a lot of places. Seven Seas Entertainment uses "Boys' Love" and "Yuri" as genre listings, side by side. So if we change this article to BL, that doesn't mean that we have to change Yuri to GL as well (usage of yaoi and yuri have different history and connotations, so they should be considered separately). On anime/manga article pages, you know how we have that policy of Genres should be based on what reliable sources list them as and not on personal interpretations. Limit of the three most relevant genres in accordance with MOS:A&M? I glanced through a few of the entries in List of yaoi anime and manga at random and it just seems kind of strange to me that the genre indicated in the infobox is "yaoi" but the cited source almost always says "BL". Yes, yes, we could always use redirects, but to me, that is an indicator that perhaps BL is a better choice of article title. -- Ununseti (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Coming soon... Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Commentary on data after the close

Just noting here some commentary on data by Mathglot. It can be useful for future discussion.

Also, something I've noticed, as mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga before (seen here), is that the terms "Yaoi", Boy's Love" and "BL", and "Yuri", "Girl's Love" and "GL" are not only used for Japanese works. I never did get around to adding something to Wikipedia about this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating article re: consensus on "yaoi"

As the consensus for the foreseeable future appears to be that all Japanese and Japanese-influenced homoerotic romance media should exist under the banner of "yaoi", over the last few weeks I have attempted to reorganize and expand this article in my sandbox; barring any major objections, I'll be uploading this version to the article mainspace in the coming days.

The primary change has been to split History and Terminology into their own sections, in order to provide a better overview of the terms used to describe works of this kind, and how these terms have changed over time. Some of this content is new, but much of it is pulled from the existing article, which at the moment is somewhat poorly organized (e.g. the yaoi ronsō is not mentioned until the final section where it is discussed alongside scholarly criticism and analysis, when it really belongs in a history section). It also incorporates feedback from the 2013 GA review that was abandoned by the nominator.

One area that would benefit from expansion in my current draft is the Media section re: Japanese publishing, which the GA review identified as underdeveloped (e.g. major Japanese publishers, data about revenues/sales/distribution in both commercial Japanese publishing and the doujinshi market, etc). Newer stats on the economic impact of yaoi broadly would also be beneficial, as the figures currently cited in the article are a decade old. Morgan695 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It was mentioned above that boys' love as a genre of live-action television (and film) could probably be covered in a separate article. Given the amount of coverage in scholarly[9][10][11] and journalistic[12][13][14][15][16] sources (these examples are English sources focusing on Thailand alone), it very well seems notable enough as a stand-alone topic. It's hardly covered in the current article, though. (The additions by 27.110.188.106 on 4 October are very limited and don't quite capture the big picture.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the best course of action for now would be to have this material in a new "Live-action television and film" section under "Media", perhaps moving down some content from "2010s–present: BL in international media" where it makes sense. If the section ends up becoming unwieldy, then we can examine splitting it into its own article. Morgan695 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I've added the new section with the sources you provided; please feel free to expand. Morgan695 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)