Jump to content

Talk:Gangsta (manga)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ConstitutionalRepublic (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 2 September 2015 (→Requested move 19 August 2015: The proposal before us does not remove the period). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnime and manga C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Requested move 15 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP guidelines and multiple precedents with similarly styled names. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Gangsta. → Gangsta (manga) – A period is a poor distinction among other topics of the same name. Parenthetical disambiguation should be used instead. Use Janet (album) and Shakira (album) as examples of not using a period at the end ever. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why comparing exclamation mark (!) to a period (.)? Also, why using examples of diacritics? George Ho (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no different between using an exclamation mark, question mark, diacritic, or period to disambiguate between articles. The only case were WP:SMALLDETAILS wasn't enough are those involving capitalization. —Farix (t | c) 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. A diacritic is absent from a US/UK keyboard. Typing it requires an ALT code. As for exclamation mark, grammatically you assume shouting or excitedly express a phrase or a word. But a period... well, it indicates a one-word sentence and is used for advertising or marketing. You don't expect users to type in a period after "Gangsta" to find an album or a TV series or a manga, right? George Ho (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that a diacritic is "hard to type" makes it ok for disambiguation. I would think that argument would make diacritics insufficient to disambiguate between pages. As for expecting users to type a period at the end of a title, that same argument applies to the use of exclamation marks, or any punctuation mark. This is also where hatnotes and disambiguation pages comes it. At it's very core, your argument is inconsistent. —Farix (t | c) 16:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheFarix, User:G S Palmer User:Nihonjoe Having articles that are only disambiguated via minor punctuation differences is VERY uncommon, these are exceptions for special reasons either very famous or simply WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A dot obviously fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for mobile phone readers and hasn't been allowed for several other articles, not just Janet (album) and Shakira (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are so uncommon that these are the only exceptions, why does WP:SMALLDETAILS written in a way to imply that it applies to any article with small details? Also, how does a period fail WP:RECOGNIZABILITY? I don't see anything in that section prevents using a period in an article title or to disambiguation between articles. —Farix (t | c) 03:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheFarix because the editor who recently edited it believes that notable exceptions like Airplane! should be given prominence. Anyone can go and rewrite a guideline, I can rewrite it to say the opposite if you wish. But in reality on the encyclopedia we don't disambiguate with . as . isn't recognizable. The more important issue here is Google Books. I can't find a reference to this comic to see if it is used with . or not, can you help? Even searching with Kohske produces no sources. If there were sources we'd use Janet (album) and Shakira (album) as examples of not using a period at the end ever. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:3, 21 7July 2015 (UTC)
Aren't ! and . just used for decoration to spice up the Romaji letters in among Japanese text? Where are the English sources for using a . as an essential part of the title here? Common sense says this isn't recognisable in English, whatever is done in Japanese. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: if you're looking for sources to support the use of a period in the title, you could start by looking at almost every single source in the references section. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about books, not blogs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: out of curiosity, which of the sources cited in the article do you view as a "blog"? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those which are web pages based on translating material from Japanese, complete with Japanese decorative . and ! etc. Has this comic been mentioned in a paper book? Like the Routledge book on Asian comics? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: "All those which are web pages" is pretty vague. If you're going to make the claim that the article is sourced to blogs (which it isn't, since I avoid them) then please back it up. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anime websites, whatever. The point is that this encyclopedia has other users than just comics fans. Having a . instead of (comics) is a pain for anyone navigating to any other Gangsta article by mobile phone. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: How so? They can still click on the disambiguation page at the top of this article like anyone else - I also find it extremely unlikely that anyone would inadvertently add a period to the end of a search term. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must read WP:RS and WP:V to determine which source is reliable. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I have read both, and consider all the sources I have used in this article to meet both of those guidelines. If you could point out the unreliable ones, or more productively, give examples of sources that don't use the period, it would be wonderful. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blog, forum board, and Tumblr are unreliable. The reliable source not using a period is IGN (pilot review). I'll post more when I find more. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: What are those, just random websites? I thought you were saying I was using unreliable sources in the article. In contrast to your (one) RS, Crunchyroll, Funimation, Anime News Network, Viz, Shinchosha, Gangsta's official website, and AnimeLab (of Madman) all use the period. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying? Pardon me, but I should have said that an unreliable source may be used as part of an argument. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, pardon my misunderstanding. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More specifically I support the contention that a small piece of punctuation like a dot/period is not a reasonably clear and sufficient point of distinction for a title, and that parenthetical disambiguation in this case would improve recognizability. That said, if it is determined that the dot is an essential part of the title, we might wish to consider Gangsta. (manga). ╠╣uw [talk] 09:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gangsta. (manga) would also be okay, either way would help mobile users. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my view on the matter. If you search Gangsta anime or Gangsta manga on Google, this page is the second and third hit, respectively. If you search Gangsta anime Wikipedia or Gangsta manga Wikipedia, it's the 1st and 3rd hit. It's clearly not hard to find with search engines under the current title. Furthermore, I'm sure most people would add "anime" or "manga" to their search, since there are lots of other topics named "Gangsta", and most people would be aware of that.
As to the period being insufficient disambiguation, I can't agree with that. This is why we have disambiguation pages and redirects: to make sure that people can easily find any article they might want if they accidentally search the wrong term or click on the wrong link. To add unnecessary disambiguation to the end of the title, such as with Gangsta. (manga), would be pointless, and to change the title to Gangsta (manga) would be wrong and incorrect. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: In what circumstances would this be misrecognized? I'm sure that any link to the article would have sufficient context, and if someone accidentally types in the wrong search term, then there is a disambiguation page link at the top of the article. There are also a number of redirects designed to help anyone having trouble finding it. (Or are you saying they might fail to recognize the article while reading it - they'll finish reading and think they just finished an article about the Bell Biv DeVoe song?) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May think it is another before downloading. You are way too quick to be so sure about context elsewhere making up for title brevity here. Have you encountered the Wikipedia category system, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chininazu12: if I understand correctly, you are criticizing the use of a period as part of this series' title. However, the period is an integral part of the title, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources, and should not be removed under any circumstances, even if (unnecessary) parenthetical disambiguation is added. G S Palmer (talk • contribs)
The discussion that SmokeyJoe is trying to link to is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Japanese words spelled with the full stop (permalink). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)thank you --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles are to be decided based on reliable sources, not some editor's personal opinion. And the overwhelming majority (all, in fact, other than IGN listed above) of the sources use the period. So even if you believe that the period is "not a detail of any importance, but a styling that should not be preserved in translation", your opinion doesn't really matter. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out a) that the information you have cited comes from an unsourced Wikipedia article, and b) that the period is actually not used in the Japanese title, but only in the English title, which is the one used in Japan. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Other points to consider is that this article contains no good sources, no reliable independent secondary sources. So usage, in the connected sources, is to be taken with a grain of salt. But sure, sources do use the period, and so Gangsta. (manga) is a good title, but I no longer object to Gangsta (manga). Importantly though, there should be no repetition of "Gansta.", including the period, in running text, because the period is no more than a styling matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Sorry, I'm going to have to call bullshit on your claim that the article doesn't include any good sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is an abundance of reliable sources, good enough for sourcing facts, but not good enough to direct Wikipedia styling. None of the many sources are what we'd call quality sources for an encyclopedia. Mostly they are published facts, not secondary sources, and those that do contain commentary are clearly written for fan audiences, certainly not academic writing. There is no cross-comparison of genre or themes. Accordingly, all the sources replicate the product's styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fad" or not, Gangsta. is the title of the work. According to WP:COMMONNAME, we are to use the name that is most frequently referred to by English-language reliable sources. Those sources are already present on the article, but you want to dismiss them as "irrelevant". —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTM does not apply here as we are dealing with the title of a work. WP:MOSTM applies to trademarks, which identify products, services, and companies. Also, you want to change the title of that work based on your own personal preference, not on what English-language reliable sources use—which would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. There have been no technical problems presented by using the period and readers searching for the article will have no problems distinguishing it from other similarly named articles or the disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 02:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
skate., Se7en, and Alien3, are also the titles of works, and they are examples that are explicitly included in MOS:TM, so it applies. We also have other guidelines that explicitly say not to always follow the original author's styling in various ways for the titles of works (see MOS:CT). Properly, MOS:TM applies. skate. is particularly relevant, as it is another example of a title of a work that includes a terminating full stop. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good example for WP:AT?

Is this a good example to list at WP:SMALLDETAILS? I thought it was, but it was reverted as "contentious" [1]. Okay, I jumped the gun. but we'll see the result when it closes. I think it's pretty clear that consensus is that titles like this are perfectly consistent with policy, guidelines, conventions and community consensus. Given the apparent confusion by some about this, shouldn't the policy be clearer about this? --В²C ☎ 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2015

Gangsta. → Gangsta. (manga) – I can't believe the decision from previous discussion was overturned per move review. If the period can't be removed, at least just add "(manga)" beside it. I'm not gonna use crystal ball as an excuse in favor of further disambiguation. However, I won't let the current title stay as is and be inconsistent with Janet (album), Melody (Japanese singer), and other similar titles. Alternatively, you can vote to replace the period (.) with "(manga)", id est "Gangsta (manga)", but that would be overturned again. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Per my comments in the previous move discussion and especially WP:CONCISE. The purpose for disambiguation is to resolve naming conflicts between two subjects that have the same name. In this case, the period resolves that conflict between this article and other uses of Gangsta. The closing was rightfully overturned as there was clearly no consensus to support the move. And when there is not consensus, things are suppose to remain as they are. —Farix (t | c) 10:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE says nothing which would justify a dot meaning (manga) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my previous oppose and follow-up arguments in the previous section. To add parenthetical disambiguation to a title that already has natural disamgiguation would be unnecessary. Also, I find the period to be easily visible even when the page is greatly reduced in size. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, however, I support Gangsta. (manga) more than Gangsta (manga), as the lesser of two evils (I think the latter should not be used under any circumstances). Better to add unnecessary disambiguation than remove part of the actual title. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) I have decided to strike this, since a number of opposers' comments have made me reconsider. I still prefer Gangsta., since the period was adopted by both of the English publishers, but Gangsta (manga) would be preferable to Gangsta. (manga). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gangsta (manga) per MOS:TM: skate. (and Se7en and Alien3), Fun (band), India Arie, Janet (album), Melody (Japanese singer), Shakira (album), the generally low quality of the sourcing in the article, the general undesirability of having confusing punctuation in titles, and the general undesirability of using decorative styling (which is a marketing trick used by various people as a way of trying to attract special attention). Note that the comments in the closing of the move review did not necessarily say that the outcome was wrong – only that the way it was closed did not seem appropriate (or at least that is my reading of those remarks). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per BarrelProof's reasons and examples which we had consensus with Melody. Keep the period, add (manga). Ensure "Gangsta." redirects to this article and not the disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into too much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Bakuman has a period in its stylization as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so does Kobato.. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons, all instances of the Japanese fad of terminal periods translated into Engrish should be renamed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. As for the MOS:TM argument the guideline actually states "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words...or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject" (emphasis mine). As demonstrated in the prior move request, reliable sources generally use the period in this case. This is in contrast to the examples provided above, because in those cases reliable sources generally stick to standard spellings. I'm sure we can list examples where a special character is or isn't used until the heat death of the universe, but all that's relevant here is how reliable sources treat this particular title (and I'm sure those backing this move would decide to move on to other pages with special characters they feel they should unnecessarily disambiguate if they were listed here). As for any "emerging consensus" at WT:AT, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are meant to reflect standard usage across the 'pedia and not the feelings of a handful of users in a smokey room per WP:NOTBURO. You can't change the rules just because you don't like the outcome (well, unless you're the Baltimore Ravens). Calidum T|C 23:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the title suggested by BarrelProof above. Confusing punctuation is bad. Rather than repeat what you can already see, I'll add another relevant example: our article on the manga Bakuman, which is not located at Bakuman. or Bakuman。 (after edit conflict) I see my point is already covered. We actually do have an existing consistent style for these sort of titles. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for two reasons.
(1). The period "." is too small to usefully disambiguate. This is even achieving consensus at WT:AT. The period is ignored by search engines, including the Wikipedia search engine. Many programs, word processing, browsers, strip the terminal period from urls, as it is inherently ambiguous with sentence-ending punctuation when the url is used at the end of a sentence. Terminal periods are welcome in Wikipedia titles only where the title without the period redirects tot he title with the period (foo --> foo.) is incoming links will frequently upload the period-truncated title.
(2). The Japanese period, which is coded as a different character, is a stylising fad without the meaning of the English period. Fan sources (yes, they are reliable, but they are not high quality reputable secondary sources discussing the subject objectively) reproduce this styling, into Japanese Engrish. To maintain quality English, we have, and should use the MOS:TM, which speaks against using periods in titles and text, as it is highly confusing with the use of the period for punctuation.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reason #1 does not distinguish between Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta. (manga), but
Reason #2 clearly prefers Gangsta (manga) over Gangsta. (manga), and the implication that wikilinking pipe Gangsta not Gangsta..
Therefore, Support Gangsta (manga). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: what exactly about the move review was inappropriate, in your view? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks nevermind I completely misread the above , I somehow thought it was moved to "Gangsta" but it was wasn't, I think I'm losing the plot . –Davey2010Talk 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; use Gangsta (manga) instead. "Gangsta. (manga)" would be "double disambiguation" for which there is no support in WP:AT policy, but which is countermanded by WP:CONCISE. The idea that Gangsta. is sufficient per WP:DIFFPUNCT has been challenged by too many editors for that to be a consensus view in this case, so use Gangsta (manga) per WP:AT#DAB. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Japanese words spelled with the full stop: It turns out that this addition of a "." to Japanese names rendered in the latin alphabet is an "Engrish" stylization fad. Mimicking such stylizations violates MOS:TM, so we would not use Gangsta. to begin with, much less Gangsta. (manga). Furthermore, use of titles that end in "." impedes the ability of readers to parse the sentences we write which contain them, so this form of stylization in particular should be studiously avoided.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'm effectively rescinding my comments in the original RM. My argument to not change the title of the published work is weak in the face of these later arguments, and in that the original title is actually something in Japanese (ギャングスタ, phonetically "ɡiyangusuta", with no ".", and obviously a Japanesation of "gangster" or "gangsta"), while Gangsta. is a stylized retranslation that could be rendered any which way by the publisher. There's no need for WP to mimic its stylization details. Agree with Huw below that there's evidence that sites that know their manga and are even closely associated with this work do not consistently render it as Manga., with the dot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had not spoken directly against "Gangsta. (manga)", thinking "Gangsta. (manga)" is at least better than "Gangsta.". However, I agree with SMcCandlish on all points, and support only Gangsta (manga). Having subsequently looked at this a lot more, I have changed my mind with respect to my post of 05:26, 24 July 2015. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TheFarix, G S Palmer, Calidum, etc. All I can add is that the full stop in the title makes it unique; a unique title is not ambiguous, by definition, and thus eliminates any need for disambiguation. The current title meets all WP:AT criteria; there is no good reason to move. SmokeyJoe claims the period "is too small to usefully disambiguate". To make this claim, he has conjured the concept of "useful disambiguation" out of thin air, as if there is such a thing. What does that even mean? Disambiguation is needed only when two articles share the same title. That is not the case here; the period alone is sufficient to make the title unique. Therefore no disambiguation can be useful here, because there is no use for disambiguation when the title is unique. He also claims that the period will cause some kind of confusion, but fails to even identify a hypothetical case in which that could occur, much less any actual evidence. --В²C ☎ 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adiminstrator's comment: I closed this discussion as "no consensus", but per request I'm reopening and relisting for further input. My original closing statement can be read here. I'll reiterate what I said there that the close will be based on the strength of arguments, not counting !votes, and that arguments from last month's discussion should be taken into consideration as well.--Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only Gangsta (manga), largely per the reasons provided by SMcCandlish. We must remember that this is an encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per SmokeyJoe et al. The phenomenon exhibited in this title — a name distinguished only by a single trailing period — is one of those relatively uncommon cases that calls for more than just a mechanical application of a rule, which seems to be what supporters are generally appealing to; instead it requires us to consider what's sensible. It's sensible to recognize that otherwise identical titles which differ only by the presence or absence of a single trailing period may not be sufficiently distinguishable, particularly given the awkwardness of such a convention in an English sentence.

    Perhaps because of that, some English language sites that generally recognize the "GANGSTA." stylization seem unable to follow it consistently; see for instance Crunchyroll [2][3], MangaFreak, etc. (Even the manga's wikia site omits the period from its site banner, and in its article on the manga itself discusses "the GANGSTA characters".) Some other places omit the period entirely[4][5][6], and also differ on whether the title's all-capped or not. Put simply, I consider it better to add the disambiguation and err in favor of clarity rather than omit it and err in favor merely of strict adherence to a rule. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The standard for WP:NATURAL disambiguation is not that the alternative natural use be consistently used by sources, or even most commonly, but that it be commonly used. Nobody disputes that Gangsta. is commonly used by reliable sources to refer to this topic. There is no other use for Gangsta., and nobody supporting this move has explained what actual problems have been caused by this title differing from other titles by only the WP:SMALLDETAIL of a period. What we have supporting this move, folks, is nothing more than the quintessential WP:JDLI argument. People seem to forget that if not were not for the fact that WP titles are reflected in the urls used to locate the article pages, that titles could be identical, as they are on some other online encyclopedias. Why anyone thinks there is a benefit to titles being distinguished more than is necessary for the urls to be unique remains a mystery. --В²C ☎ 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is contrary to the MOS to use the title in bold face (which I note you need to do to make your post readable), just as it is contrary to the MOS to use trailing periods in names.
Your WP:JDLI argument depends on your WP:IDHT approach to the simple and sound reasons mentioned above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet some of the supporters here are accusing the opposers for being the mindless rule-followers. Anyway, the applicability of MOS rules to titles (like Gangsta. - is that better?) is itself in dispute. What's not in dispute is the applicability of WP:AT and WP:D. This title meets the WP:CRITERIA better than the proposed title. --В²C ☎ 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: You seem to overlook what WP:COMMONNAMES says: a commonly used title shall be used as long as it is neither ambiguous nor inaccurate. Does a mere period distinguish a manga from other subjects named Gangsta? Does a mere period help non-fans recognize that it's a manga or anime? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: 1) yes, it does, since their are no other Gangsta.s. 2) This is a ridiculous argument. Presumably, if they are already on the article page, they could read the first sentence or two to figure out what it is about, and if it's not what they want, follow the link to the disambiguation. Neither are they likely to find a link in an article somewhere that provides absolutely no context - and even if they did, we're in the habit of piping links to parenthetically disambiguated pages to remove the disambiguation, so it wouldn't be any worse than if they ran across any other Gangsta topic without context. You continuously argue that this title is an impediment to comprehension, but you have yet to provide a single example of where that might be the case. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, hatnotes can be removed, and introductions can be re-edited. Speaking of intros, a reader may recognize that it's a manga when "manga" is in it. Same with "anime". A mere period wouldn't make much difference as readers would have assumed it to be a hip-hop song before they go to the article. As for examples, would Janet (album), Shakira (album), and Melody (Japanese singer) count? If not, I don't know what you mean "single example". George Ho (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say, as far as examples go, was examples related to this article. And in response to your first comments, the hatnote might be removed as vandalism, but it would soon be replaced. Same with the lead: even if we included (manga) in the title, we would still need to explain that it was a manga/anime series in the lead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about Gangsta? (Tinchy Stryder song)? There is a question mark alongside parenthetical disambiguation. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF that needs to be corrected as well, as that is the only use of Gangsta? on WP. --В²C ☎ 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would a reader know that the mere current title is of a manga or anime, ConstitutionalRepublic? George Ho (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a test? By reading the opening sentence of the article. Gangsta. (anime) is currently a redirect to this page. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean "opening sentence", ConstitutionalRepublic. If you were referring to a hatnote, it doesn't count. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence is the first sentence of the opening paragragh. I hope that clarifies the issue. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would a title alone help readers recognise the anime or manga without or before reading the whole article, ConstitutionalRepublic? --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, it is not the purpose of a title to necessarily make the subject so recognizable that it is inherently unambiguously recognizable from all other uses.

As to your earlier questions, the current title is neither ambiguous (in the sense that matters on WP, per WP:D, when the title "refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia"), nor inaccurate. Yes, a mere period does distinguish it from other uses of Gangsta. No, a mere period does not help non-fans recognize that it's a manga or anime. But so what? Again, doing so is not the purpose of an article title. Please stop burdening our titles with a purpose they were never meant to serve, for good reason. The vast, vast majority of our titles do not alone identify the topic of the respective article to readers unfamiliar with the topic, unless they happen to be disambiguated. This can be verified with the SPECIAL:RANDOM test - keep clicking on SPECIAL:RANDOM, skipping disambiguated titles, and keep track of how often you land upon a title whose topic you can recognize from the title alone. Just a dozen clicks (again, skipping disambiguated titles) should be more than enough to persuade any reasonable person that creating recognizability like that is clearly not a purpose of our titles. Why you and a few others keep arguing as if it is is beyond me. Perhaps your expectations have been deceived by the titles that are disambiguated because the must be disambiguated. Disambiguation does of course enhance recognizability, but that's a byproduct of disambiguation, not a goal. The typical plain unrecognizable-to-most name of a given topic meets our title requirements with flying colors. Gangsta. certainly does that too. --В²C ☎ 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titles also serve to prove their existences as creations, especially when people type in words as part of titles. Titles can change as long as consensus approves change. Or they can stay as is if consensus don't want change. True, titles aren't usually meant to tell readers what they are about. They consist of just either one word or phrase. Of course, if there is more than one person or thing of a similar name, we can see whether that subject is a primary topic or not. If not, either a natural or parenthetical disambiguation would do for readers. Somehow, WP:NATURAL is not absolute and should not be interpreted strictly; id est natural disambiguation should not be used very strictly as any rule can't be interpreted strictly can't and shan't be overused. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and don't understand how you're responding to anything I said. Sure WP:NATURAL is not absolute and should not be interpreted strictly. But that's not happening here. We have a simple, natural and unique title. There is no actual problem with it. No title, including the proposed one, meets the WP:CRITERIA better. --В²C ☎ 22:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no actual problem with it"? The period is so small it is missed visually, the period is striped by applications, the period interferes with sentence flow, the period is a poor transliteration and an intrusion of Engrish? Your WP:IDHT approach as above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about "consistency" criterion? --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, these are imaginary problems. It doesn't matter that it's missed visually (assuming it is); the url is unique with it included. If it's missed and read "Gangsta" instead of "Gangsta.", so what? That's what you want it to be anyway. What's the problem. It's not a problem, except in some people's imaginations.

I don't know what you mean by "striped by applications". Stripped? What applications strip it and when, and, again, how does that create an actual problem? In what specific context?

The period interferes with sentence flow? In what sentence? Example, please. Where?

"Poor transliteration"? According to whom?

An intrusion of Engrish? Nonsense. Reliable English sources have been cited using it. They decide, not you. All these supposed problems don't actually exist. What a colossal waste of time and energy. --В²C ☎ 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call the problems by adjectives OK that's your opinion, but to explicitly deny their existence is rude, and WP:IDHT, aka disruptive. Disruptive to honest conversation.
You are asking questions already answered above. You should read more of the above.
An example of an application that strips the terminal period is Microsoft Word. Some browsers do it too. Downstream reuse implications are not unimportant. Urls with terminal periods are ambiguous. foo. is only acceptable if foo redirects to it.
Sentence flow. Any sentence where "Gansta." would appear mid sentence without quotation marks, italics, bolding, or other visual queue. Well-discussed above.
Poor transliteration and Engrish. As written above, see Japanese_punctuation#Words_containing_full_stops. It is a styling fad, which does not mean the English period, only mis-transliterated into Engrish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the proposal before us does not remove the period? ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Anime" section

Shall we split the "Anime" section to a stand-alone article? As for titling the anime, we'll decide later. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A separate anime article would be redundant as the content will be pretty much the same, save for the reception section. And it is often through the anime's reception section that the overall topic establishes its notability. This is why almost every anime/manga article covers both mediums in the same article. —Farix (t | c) 10:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its only 12-episode anime and as Farix previously said the content is almost the same. Maybe the last 2 episodes are going to be anime original. I think that List of Gangsta. episodes should be made after anime ends. Cheers. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Unnecessary. As Nightwolf87 says, once the anime has finished airing, the episode list should be split into a separate article. However, past precedent clearly indicates that the manga and anime should both be covered in the same article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, however, it could be split off to "List of Gangsta. episodes" (with redirect for List of Gangsta episodes) should the episode count and summary detail warrant it. 12 episodes aren't much but a second season might do it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to wait on the title of the anime? The anime already has a title, and it's the same as the manga. Are you waiting for it to be licensed in English? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the normal way to do it, in the rest of Wikipedia. Where comics have separate articles from the TV cartoons, and cartoon films have separate articles from the comics. Also WP:NOTPAPER Wikipedia is not paper, we don't have to have everything in one article. And WP:NOTABILITY if the TV show is notable, it can support an article. Unless we violate WP:NOTPLOT there shouldn't be overly much replication between the articles. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that was a very rapid closure by an involved party in the direction of the opinion of the involved party. This was not a unanimous oppose so it wasn't SNOWing. It wasn't even open the usual 7-to-10 days. Seems inappropriately rapid, being just 4 days of discussions. The requested move above that was opened before this discussion is still open after the closure, seemingly making this really quick. The list split seems to have support, but again, still only 4 days of discussion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above question and discussion was improperly closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you G S Palmer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gangsta_(manga)&oldid=679034801"