Jump to content

Talk:Gangsta (manga)

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

Requested move 15 July 2015

[edit]
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?

[edit]

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

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. A few weeks later, Cuchullain's initial close essentially stands, both in terms of the decision and the rationale. It's a fairly close numeric split between the three potential titles. Policy-wise, either the current title or Gangsta (manga) are acceptable, depending on your reading of MOS:TM; the initial proposed title would be an example of unnecessary disambiguation, and indeed attracted the least support. I would recommend against a new RM until after some time has passed. Right now, it looks like a choice between the current title and Gangsta (manga) would be no more likely to achieve positive consensus. But the Gangsta. (manga) title has been fairly well rejected. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Gangsta., 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]
Hmmm ... 'nobody supporting this move has explained what actual problems have been caused by this title' isn't true. I specifically noted, '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.', and others have pointed out that on mobile devices and in small fonts, the "." is insufficiently visible to qualify under WP:DIFFPUNCT because there's effectively no DIFFerence. It thus fails WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE by, for many users, being visually ambiguous, as well as being naturally ambiguous, syntactically, in its use in running prose. That's already quite a lot of "actual problems", and these are not even all of them that have been raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive
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]

"Reliable English sources have been cited using it"? Reliable sources, yes. I acknowledge the protests from editors who note that the string "Gangsta." is used in reliable sources. But there is more to sources than single-value reliability. This article has many reliable sources, reliable for facts, primary sources, and some low-reputability secondary sources, low-reputability because they are fan sources barely out-of-universe of the fiction. There is no scholarship of this subject. The facts are not in question, so the reliability of the sources is not in question. The question is a matter of styling. Go to the original Japanese and see that the Japanese period has no meaning, it is just an example of styling. The sources are not sufficiently impressive for Wikipedia to defer to as a styling guide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a strong argument to use Gangsta rather than Gangsta. in a world where there were no other uses for Gangsta. But that is not our world. In our world there are other uses of Gangsta. The question in this proposal is not whether Gangsta. is preferable to Gangsta, but whether Gangsta. is preferable to a further-unnecessarily-disambiguated form of Gangsta., a question your comment does not even address. --В²C ☎ 15:58, 2 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]
Yes. I noticed. Unfortunate and awkward. The period being so small, I suspect that many have paid it little attention. I submit that there is a clearly developing consensus to remove the period, and to rename to Gangsta (manga) not Gangsta. (manga). I think the nominator, User:George Ho was always in agreement with my reason #1, but had not carefully considered my reason #1 (as I had not during the previous RM, Talk:Gangsta.#Requested_move_15_July_2015). I call upon George to amend the nomination, or at least address the issue of Gangsta (manga) vs Gangsta. (manga). Otherwise, depending on the closer's divination of consensus in this multi horse discussion (note Cúchullain's withdrawn close), consensus may require yet another formal RM after this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I hate to say this, but my goal is only more disambiguation (or precision if you want to call it that way). The period issue is all yours when this discussion is concluded. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, we can say, you don't "oppose" Gangsta (manga), your main focus is to oppose Gangsta.? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... You can say that. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, okay Word strips the period. So what? Why should that even be a consideration in deciding any title? We enter titles once, using this wiki, not Word. I guess I missed that consideration in WP:CRITERIA.

Referring to Gangsta. mid-sentence is not a problem at all, as this sentence demonstrates. How referring to Gangsta. (manga) mid-sentence is supposed to be better is beyond me. Again the relevance of these points to making title decisions escapes. I repeat, these alleged "problems" with the current title are imaginary. They do not exist. --В²C ☎ 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Referring to Gangsta. mid-sentence, as your sentence demonstrates, is disruptive to easy reading, repulsive to readers expecting good English, and contrary to the MOS. Words with decorative attention-getting characters are sometimes tolerated, but when, as with this decorative trailing period, it interferes with reading, and requires quotes, bolding, italics, or blue-linking, to enable sentence parsing, it is not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we have an article about the Sacramento band !!! and isn't that disruptive to reading? Apparently, reflecting the name of a topic is a higher priority on WP than is choosing titles that are not disruptive to your reading and repulsive to you, another criterion that either I missed, or you pulled out of thin air. --В²C ☎ 01:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, other bad stuff exists. Commercial attention grabbing gimmickry.  !!! is not conducive to readable prose. It is not a title that people would naturally link to. But it least it doesn't have the technical defects of a trailing period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I don't understand is your tendency for citing criteria that is not even implied by WP:CRITERIA - you're just making this stuff up. Characteristics like "commercial attention grabbing gimmickry" and not being conducive to "readable prose" are irrelevant to title decision-making. Why do you even bring this stuff up? As to whether people will naturally link to such titles, the evidence shows that this too is not an actual problem[7].
(I removed too much indention of preceding post.) B2C, you said the current title is free from problems. On the contrary, you said it's not recognizable to non-fans, yet you act as if it's not much of a big deal. The "recognition" criterion from WP:CRITERIA is one of factors for an article title in addition to "consistency" criterion. "Gangsta" is... some kind of alternative spelling of "gangster" and often used in urban communities and hip-hop/rap music. Anybody can figure out what gangsta is (actually, the url is of a random book ;).) As for Gangsta., I wouldn't know what it refers to anywhere in a sentence, even if I read the manga or watched the anime (not yet actually), unless the word "manga" or "anime" is included in the paragraph or same sentence. Too bad I could not find other topics with the same punctuation (or a question mark). (This doesn't count, right?) Still, the whole title itself is of a common word with some punctuation. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(There was not too much indentation; there was just the right amount, to indent one level from the comment to which I was replying. So I'm removing all of it, because indenting to where you indented makes it look like I was reply to George Ho, and I was not.) You are misunderstanding the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY criterion. The goal of our titles is not to make topics recognizable to general readers from the titles alone, which is how you seem to interpret it (recognizable to non-fans in this case). It's so that someone familiar with the topic area (in this case manga animes) would recognize it. The current title clearly meets this requirement. There is no recognition problem. If Gangsta. did not meet WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, then the vast majority of our undisambiguated non-descriptive titles would not either, and this article could not be at Gangsta even if it were the only use of that name. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even a casual fan of the manga (almost typed mange or mage or amg...) or anime would forget that the period after the word exists. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we have redirects from Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta (anime), as well as a mention on the Gangsta disambiguation page. I fail to see how this page is more of a problem than any other disambiguated article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't sticking these proposed titles as redirects frustrate everybody? It's not as if they use different words to search for this anime/manga, especially when titles containing a different word or more do not exist. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it frustrate anyone? And I think you will need to clarify the meaning of you second sentence, since I can't make heads nor tails of it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying, there aren't alternative titles for the manga/anime. --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And...? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Wikipedia is not meant solely for specific demographics, including anime fan community. It is for everybody to read and edit, casual and hardcore included. (Well, a government can control access to Wikipedia (any language), especially in China and Russia, so don't expect them to give you full freedom of speech.) You can read the essay WP:AUDIENCE. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your line of argument is that the period makes this article hard to find (I guess)? Anyway, it's invalid, since as I already pointed out, there are a number of helpful redirects to this page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um... A current title can become a redirect itself, and one of redirects can become an article title for an indefinite time. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you disable the AutoComplete feature, then simply type "Gangsta" to go to disambiguation page, which will be re-edited when the article is renamed. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about what WP:COMMONNAMES says, Jenks24? It says: inaccurate and ambiguous names are often avoided, even when commonly used. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ambiguous? What other encyclopedic topic (or any topic at really) could possibly be being referred to when someone types out "Gangsta."? And I fail to see how it can be considered incorrect when it has been shown that the majority of reliable sources use this title. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean the title is incorrect. I just said a general statement; let's put that aside. As for the policy you cited, it might also mean a title whose subject is familiar to readers may not be a recognizable title. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the policy, an out-of-the-way talk page for a Japanese manga series is not the place to get it changed. Jenks24 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I disagree. I interpreted it this way. I don't see how a word ending with a period makes the subject recognizable enough. On the contrary, you can find it recognizable. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jenks24:
"If you disagree with the policy, an out-of-the-way talk page for a Japanese manga series is not the place to get it changed." That statement egregiously ignores all of the following:
"And I fail to see how it can be considered incorrect when it has been shown that the majority of reliable sources"
Consider that the source quality is pretty shallow, primary sourcing, and reviews catering for the fandom. All the sources suffer from Engrish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: instead of assuming bad faith, you could simply consider the (likely) possibility that Jenks24 was unaware of those discussions. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Possibly the discussion is so long as to reach TL;DR, and so he missed the references far above. On the other hand, as a relister of previous discussion, I expect that he would have read that discussion, which included these links. Similarly, WT:AT may be an energy sink well-avoided, but the post there of 02:53, 21 July 2015 needs to be prominently pointed out to his oppose !vote, given that it is citing the clarity of a policy so clearly and directly challenged by that post, naming this very page in the opening words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really didn't intend to get into a protracted discussion about this; I only commented because I figured after opining at the MRV I was too involved to close. Anyway, I think perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. I have been keeping half an eye on these particular RMs/MRVs and I do have WT:AT on my watchlist so I did know discussion was ongoing there, but I can only say I've skimmed it at best – I certainly didn't participate in the discussion. If you or anyone else felt that I was implying this had not been discussed at a guideline or policy talk page anywhere then I apologise because that wasn't my intention. What I meant is that I haven't seen any sort of consensus come out of those discussions, though please correct me if I'm wrong. It's something that frustrates a bit in general about the intersection of RM and AT – it often feels like some people use individual RMs on largely trivial articles to try and force through a change that they can't get a consensus for at WT:AT so they can then return to the policy/guideline with a fait accompli. It's putting the cart before the horse in my opinion and it generally ends up being a tremendous waste of the community's time. Even if this is closed as moved, will the policy be changed? I'd imagine it won't be, we'll simply move on to having another protracted RM for an article that uses some sort of punctuation mark as disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is my reading that Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Using_a_._to_distinguish_an_article is on the cusp of a consensus that a trailing period is, as a rule, not sufficient to disambiguate a title. The only hesitation is this article, the article used to introduce that superthread. Yes, if this is moved, I am sure that it will lead to a change of text at WP:SMALLDETAILS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sooner the change, the better. I want to invoke WP:IAR, but I can't. In fact, we must consider the clarity of applicable rules. Since WP:SMALLDETAILS isn't clear about this situation, perhaps we must rely on consensus instead. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks24, what about "consistency" criterion? Id est a consistency with those, like Done (song), whose titles are stylized this way. Must a title meet all five criteria to make a title the article title? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
George, that's not an unreasonable argument. Generally consistency tends to only apply articles with similar topics, but I could definitely see how it could be interpreted to cover more broadly the concept of 'disambiguation by punctuation' in this case. "Must a title meet all five criteria to make a title the article title?" No, there are simply cases where it's not possible. It's generally about meeting as many of the criteria as possible. Personally I think the majority of the criteria favour the current title in this case, but I can understand why others think the opposite. Hopefully we get some sort of resolution out of this one way or the other, but I must say I'm pessimistic about it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please note sock In ictu oculi (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ONR, you voted to retain the period and disambiguate further in the previous RM. How and which did arguments change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now feel double disambiguation is unnecessary for this article. ONR (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, ONR, do you oppose the current (non-disambiguated) title? --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I oppose the title, on the grounds of WP:SMALLDETAILS. ONR (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
George obviously means "considered", not literally "added up". If you and I and no one else are talking about what to have for dinner, I can say "count me in favor of Thai food" with the same meaning, and obviously no actual counting will take place. Please assume that people are not suggesting anti-policy and/or stupid things, like treating RMs as a voting process, just because their wording can be forcibly bent in such a direction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87, you supported other disambiguation in the previous RM. Care to explain? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the below and some of the comments presented here I had a change of opinion. Labeling this just a manga series is misleading and inaccurate, I wouldn't be opposed to some things like Gangsta. (Franchise) or maybe Gangsta. (Anime and manga) although the latter is long for a title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, what is your opinion for the current (non-disambiguated) title, Knowledgekid87? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those supporting the move to Gangsta (manga) are arguing that we should Ignore Reliable Sources when it comes to determine the common name of a subject. The reliable sources on the article overwhelmingly use "Gangsta." with the trailing period. In accordance to WP:COMMONNAME, that is the common name of the subject. Secondly, MOS:TM also defers to use whatever form reliable sources use. While I personally view that MOS:TM does not apply here because it deals with trademarks and not titles of work, it clearly states, " When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones)." By removing the trailing period, you are inventing a new trademark.
It doesn't matter whether similar articles does or don't have trailing periods. Consistency for the sake of consistency does not improve Wikipedia. Those articles should use whatever name that is used by reliable sources that cover those subjects. If reliable sources use trailing periods when covering the subjects, then the article names should use trailing period. If reliable sources do not use trailing periods, then the article name should not ether. Whether they create an inconsistency between those articles is irrelevant. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments such as "readers may no recognize the period" or "search engines ignore periods in queries" are either purely opinion, in the case of the former, or completely irrelevant, in the case of the latter. Search engine results should not dictate the name of an article. Neither should "incorrect grammar" dictate the title of a work of fiction or overwrite WP:COMMONNAME.
There has also been attempts to dismiss the reliable sources with the claim that they are "not of high enough quality". However, nowhere in WP:V, WP:COMMONNAME or any other guideline does quality become a favor. That is because judging the quality of a reliable source is entirely subjective and is being used more as a "this source conflicts with my views, therefore I'll ignore it." —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME makes explicit reference to reliable sources sources linking to WP:V. WP:V should not be read in isolation from WP:NOR. Go to WP:NOR and read about source qualities. Or just go to WP:A. This article has a plethora of primary sources. It also has secondary sources, but these are catering for the fandom. Finally, and most importantly, the dot is a thing of styling. It is actually meaningless. Wikipedia does not blindly reproduce source styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that sources used for common name determination should meet the WP:NOR standards for content inclusion is entirely without basis. The only reason the reference to reliable sources was added at all to WP:COMMONNAME was to discount usage in sources like personal blogs and Myspace (yes, it was that long ago). But remember why we even look at usage for the purposes of deciding a title: to get an idea of what is most likely to be recognizable to our users. Popular fluff aside (even that's debatable in my opinion) the quality of sources have no bearing on this measure. Stop acting like it does. --В²C ☎ 17:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis has precedence, especially where, like this, the question of name devolves to questions of styling. Star Trek Into Darkness for example, where it took a recognition of an overwhelming high quality source usage to overcome the MOS styling preference. Here, there is not a large bulk of reputable sources from which Wikipedia should be drawing style cues.
Yes, this is undoubtedly a question of styling. The Japanese period is a fad, is meaningless even in the original Japanese. As a style, it even has a name: Engrish. Wikipedia, in attempting to be a serious reference work, should not be reproducing Engrish or any other pidgin, except for a lede "styled as ..." mention and maybe in table form in infoboxes.
On the question of what is most likely to be recognizable to our users readers, disambiguating with "(manga)" definitely wins on that measure.
Note that this relates to my reason #2 only. Reason #1, a trailing period is inadequate disambiguation for sentence punctuation and technical reasons, is a reason for this move even if you are tolerant to Engrish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87, it's not as if "Gangsta (manga)" won't include anime adaptation (or anything like that) or won't accurately describe the article. It shows predominance of a topic with adaptations retained unless adaptations themselves are individually notable. Any reader would know that there is info about anime, regardless of title changes. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Animé and manga are very closely related. That there is some animé (animated manga) shouldn't mean that it doesn't belong until the title "Manga", especially as it began as, and most remains as, unanimated manga. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Anime" section

[edit]

There has been no additional discussion for two weeks now, as someone who is uninvolved here I am going to close this as No consensus - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

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]
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.

Time to apply WP:TITLE to title?

[edit]

It's been 8 months, this still sticks out like a sore thumb against en.wp practice and the "Gangsta is" test doesn't even register one hit in Google Book WP:RS. It needs fixing, but should this be an RM or RFC? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to open another RM once the one at Talk:Kobato. is completed. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, what is the significance of the Google Books search? No, the series doesn't have coverage in books, but is that exactly rare in TV shows, or, more relevantly, anime, which doesn't get much English coverage as it is? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's precisely the significance, English TV shows and cartoons would have book coverage. Sometimes from books we can pick up and confirm unusual stylism. But this topic has no reliable English WP:RS. So we'd be (we currently are) disrupting en.wp MOS for something with no reliable English sources for what we are doing. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, ANN is considered a reliable source, as has already been pointed out on this talk page. Thus, the English sources that we have covering the subject do use the spelling used in the article title. For another thing, you can't state that this is a violation of the MOS, since that is (obviously) a matter of debate. And for a third thing, I'm sure I could find plenty of English TV shows with little or no coverage in books. (Plus, why are books the only RSs that you are willing to consider? There are plenty of other types of media listed at WP:RS.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2016

[edit]
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. Number 57 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta. → Gangsta (manga) – Eight months passed since the proposal was rejected twice a while back. Now that Kobato dropped the period (.), time is now for this title to do the same. Instead, use "(manga)" to elaborate the title. I don't think I need to provide other precedents than "Kobato", do it I? George Ho (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a recent consensus to move Moon. to Moon (visual novel).--67.68.21.106 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2016 (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.

Review

[edit]

Otaku USA G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More manga reviews:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gangsta_(manga)&oldid=1200810530"