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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Project-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles 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.
 Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Not a community guideline[edit]

As stated above, MOSAM is not a community guideline. It never went through the paces and it has been clear that it has been disputed for many many months. If this is to be a guideline, it needs to go through the RFC with the community input. It failed to do so and the Wikiproject does not want it to be controlled by the community, hence it is NOT a guideline by the actions of its members and the fact that it was merely placed with the guideline upon creation. These two things cannot exist together; since the Wikiproject doesn't want to be stuck to the rules and order of the community it must remain as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as these processes that you are demanding that it go through so your argument is moot. I have never seen an RFC to prove a manual of style has the clearance to suggest the style guide it describes.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:Advice pages and WP:PROPOSAL - if some here believe there is a problem pls read over WP:HISTORICAL and get wider community input....keeping in-mind there have already been a few talks about this and the "Status quo" has stood. -- Moxy (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Where was the discussion to promote this to guideline status? You can't just declare something a guideline, there are processes for that. Dream Focus 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This guideline has been around now for years, the fact that it has remained in place shows taht it is a guideline approved by editors back when it was made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Or simply ignored or not noticed except for a handful of people who bothered to participate in it. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles has been viewed 1922 times in the last 90 days. Meanwhile the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style has been viewed 78960 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Where are the discussions that promoted anything to guideline status?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been at RFC which had that sort of discussion. Search the RFC page archives for that. Dream Focus 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

From the RFC: "The wording to guideline was changed to guideline back in 2006 by Squilibob.[1] No discussion was ever made about it becoming an official guideline, but Kunzite cleaned up the wording to make it more "official".[2] Then when it was split off from ANIME by Nihonjoe.[3] When Nihonjoe created the page he took the "guideline" and applied the template to it, carrying in the "official" capacity despite no consensus having previously done so.[4]" We've had numerous ones on MOS aspects throughout Wikipedia's history.[5][6] But given the situation and the RFC it is best that it follow WP:PROPOSAL given the circumstances. Many of these are picked apart and wordings and such are brought up like MOSFILM's infobox discussion that cause a fair amount editors to jump in. But going against other MOS and pushing a novel assertion of notability even after an RFC says it cannot shows that the grounds for MOSAM to be taken as a "guideline" is highly contested. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need to be officially vetted? Can't the fact that people haven't had any major problems with it be enough? Why is it suddenly when you want to make all these split off articles that this cuases problems?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
People have major issues with it. Your split off argument is not even in MOSAM so stop acting like it is or trying to change the subject. Several people have repeatedly stated the arguments. You just aren't listening to what we are stating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A very small handful of people have expressed distaste in a very short period of time. The only thing causing issues was the DBZ merge and now you want to discredit the whole thing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant. More people acknowledge it as "broken", "weird" or ineffective then people who drafted it. And I don't think more than half a year counts as a "very short period of time" and even so, what of the issues raised? People like Adam Cuerden, WhatamIdoing, OnlyinDeath, A Certain White Cat, and others like myself have all weighed in about the actions and/or MOSAM itself. This actually forms a majority and their issues are much stronger than "but it has been this way for so long". Policy, procedure, and arguments made are all reasons against this being "a guideline" and the RFC showed this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The system is not broken, it follows policy well, but there are two methods of doing it. and the method we chosen is to make it so that we don't have too many specific articles regarding extremely similar subject, and any differences such as production of an anime can be moved to separate list articles. it's nothing new, and most definitely not exclusive to anime/manga as several TV shows do the same with animated TV series/comic series. The problem is that one is practice gets in the way of what this method accomplishes.Lucia Black (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Make a guideline then?[edit]

What would be necessary to make it one then? I'm mostly interested in the MoS's part which states "Licensed title over translated title" which I think everyone has no problem with? Hopefully, that part can be solidified at some point. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly haven't looked at the Case Closed/Detective Conan matter, but isn't that more of an issue for the existing policy? This is a manual of style and it shouldn't try to answer such questions. It should only reflect the existing consensus of issues from other policies and advance the style as decided here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
That issue has to do with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.-- 01:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding Anglo-bias[edit]

I added this part because I sometimes see these kind of sentences in articles about Japanese media:

Do not include statements such as The series was never released in the USA. or The manga has not been translated to English., as these imply that Japanese and English are the only two languages, or that Japan and the USA are the only two countries. Instead, use phrasing such as The anime was never released outside Japan. or In 2011, French and Italian translations of the manga were published.

Any comments? -- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we need to clarify that a certain series never released outside of japan.Lucia Black (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
By coincidence I was just pondering the same issues. I agree with you on both points, Brainy J. Eventhough this is an English language Wiki I think it is better to note it in the way you suggest if a comment is made in an article. If other language translations were published they should be briefly mentioned and/or referenced/ linked in the articles, imo. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Lucia in that we shouldn't be saying anything to the effect of "The anime was never released outside Japan" as this is impossible to cite; i.e. How can you cite something that doesn't exist?-- 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
You cite the source that says it won't be released in English; of course! Though its best not to put such emphasis on the Angelo part. Lucia's right; remove it and cover as necessary - the result should be obvious upon the conclusion. Especially, if it is not licensed outside Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The template for Template:Infobox animanga currently has no explicit guidance for inserting info for other publishers beyond Japanese and English. There is however an hidden category at the bottom of many Manga and Anima articles which refers to an error occurring in some of the info boxes. Category:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX other parameters. I've just updated one article and substituted publisher_other = (often accompanied by a flag icon tag) with other language parameters - for examples: publisher_fi = [Sangatsu Manga]] and publisher_it = [Planet Manga]] etc (pipes and square brackets removed for illustration purposes in this feedback comment only). Is that the proper way to resolve a bit of the question BrainyJ asked above and to resolve the error messages generated by some entries regarding other language publishers in info boxes? If it is proper to do it that way, can the guidance for Anime and Manga info boxes be updated with some hints about how to enter other language parameters? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no guidance because such information was entirely unsourced, was not mentioned in the text of the article, took the focus away from the original publisher/studios and often bloated the infobox. Even the XXX_en parameters should have been removed, but due to the systemic bias of many of the participates, there wasn't a consensus to remove them. (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Typically, non-English entries are removed for reasons unknown... no one ever was clear on why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. As a result of the edit in the article the error message didn't reappear but the info about the other language publishers in the info box remains invisible. Am I correct in assuming that there is no policy against -briefly- mentioning and referencing other language translations in the articles? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is, but I believe that other non-English dubs and releases should be included whenever the information and sources are found. It adds to a true comprehensive understanding of a work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
it should only be used when their deemed notable to point out. Usually that's the case when a manga series has not released outside of japan but have released in other countries.Lucia Black (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I know I've explained this to you in the past. Other publishers were only removed from the infobox years ago because of length concerns. No one ever advocated for the removal of other publishers being mentioned in the prose.-- 04:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
While my preference goes clearly towards including such information for the sake of being as comprehensive as possible, it is, I think, important to be aware of the complications. In some cases there have already been so many outdated editions -not always published by the same company, some now out of business - in a single country that listing them all could fill a page. At the risk of stating the obvious there is the question of how practical it is not only to list them for a globally significant manga, animation series and/or animated feature film (especially those with more than one film) from the past but also to keep those listings current for ongoing sagas. Which brings me to something that may be a little more broad. Even though the info boxes (at the top of each Wikipedia article page but also the info panels along the left hand side) direct to other language Wikipedia sites, with corresponding articles, there appears to be an objection to using other language Wiki projects as references in the articles themselves. An objection I don't fully understand or agree with since the corresponding articles at those other language Wikipedia sites have, in principle, the same standards for accuracy in their text articles and requirements for sourcing provided in their reference sections etc. Wouldn't recognising the efforts of the editors for those other language Wikis and recognising the quality of their articles resolve some of the complications? Linking to their work isn't any more nor less reliable as providing internal Wiki links to a different article in the same language sphere. Some English Wikipedia articles here are also quite clearly better written and sourced than other English language Wikipedia articles. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikis can't be cited directly because they are user edited (WP:UGC). This doesn't mean that information on other wikis can't be moved here, provided it can be verified with a reliable source.-- 06:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
For the discussion about the infobox, I want to add that projects aside from anime manga don't list releases in any other language except English in the infobox. (Smallville, The Walking Dead (TV series), The Amazing Spider-Man) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
How is that different for internal redirects to English language Wikipedia articles, though? I can put square brackets around a name, event or item and it can direct to an English stub while a direct to an other language Wikipedia page for a corresponding article can direct a reader to a fully fleshed out and properly sourced article. Especially with automated translations integrated and improving -slowly but steadily- I don't know how useful the prohibition is and I also find it a bit ironic. Porting the references from such articles brings it back to the issue of maintenance and length again. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Late edit. Typo cleaning. Indent added. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Production staff credits for manga and anime[edit]

When a graphic novel/manga lists the staff who worked on the volume, should that be incorporated into the List of volumes/chapters section descriptions or just the media section of the main article? Similarly how detailed should anime series credits be listed? Should there be a Personnel section as with music albums? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on how much you find for anime. If there's not much coverage other than listing animators, its not important. However if there is information on a specific key staff member, than I guess its allowed.
For manga, listing staff that worked on the manga sounds odd. What series you referring to?Lucia Black (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well for anime, they have the opening credits for the series, most of which are covered by the infobox with respect to producers, directors, and writers. Listing the animators per episode is too much detail, but I have seen screenplay and animation directors per episode listed here as with non-anime television shows as with the Ah My Goddess TV series episode listings. On the manga side I've been reading through the Rosario + Vampire graphic novels and they have a staff page: 3 staff members, 2 "Help", 2 "CG", 2 "Editing" and one for "Comic" (the 4-panel bonus comics), and there's also names for the English translation and adaptation. The president and general execs for the English company probably does not need to be listed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
As long as the core staff members stay the same, I don't think we need to list them. Also staff members on the maga doesn't sound all that important. Although I have no idea what CG means in manga. It doesn't seem important enough.Lucia Black (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know even what it means, why are you commenting on the matter? Kon was Otomo's assistant on Akira, but by your standards it shouldn't be mentioned. Is it too much to ask that you understand something before deciding whether or not it should be included or excluded? Major sakuga artists should be included whenever possible and their contributions to the work should be noted. Many of these artists are the sole animator for the opening or closing scenes, fights and sometimes entire episodes and they are not in a supervisor or director role. This is like omitting Anno's mecha work... it is detrimental to the article's coverage and depth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Because in general, the author counts the most. Unless the author notes a specific assistant that has helped him/her significantly, i'm not entirely sure its relevant. its like this. Are you going to list the guy who produced the animation, or the guy who designed it? If their not the author, or original designer, they could be on a lower tier. ON the other hand, if there is a key animator in a series and this is an original series, not an adaptation, it could benefit to know who designed them.Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was referring explicitly to Anno and Kon, if you can't give a straight answer on this, then I think the matter is not really something that you should be weighing in on. I think purposely leaving out key industry figures because they don't have some fancy title or being the original author is a really weak argument; because it says that your knowledge of the industry and its function is lacking. So, I see no reason to omit the animator of the Bebop movie fight scenes or Soul Eater's opening simply because you don't find such animators to be worthy of mention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop movie is completely different and if someone weight in on that, they could. Soul eater's opening would have to depend on how much coverage. You also have to consider if their really that relevant. I'm not saying it can't be covered, but this is part of the new criteria in the MOS. If we do cover it, we shouldn't go present it in a superfluous way. However, if the animators change constantly per episode or the ones who produce the manga change constantly.

By my standards we would mention "kon" as a relevant assistant when he is deemed relevant such as an interview where Otomo is saying "Kon helped me alot in certain scenes" or "Kon helped me think of an ending". Plus also note that we don't know who the assistance are or how relevant they are until they are mentioned more than once or they become famous of their own individual work.

But this is just like a normal western TV show or Film. there's a reason why we don't list an entire cast.Lucia Black (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand what is even being discussed or even the meaning of the words! You know nothing about this matter and your ignorance is incredibly obvious. Please stop making things up and making excuses, I'm not going to have another instance of the "Puppetmaster/Puppeteer" thing with you. Watch this and get back to me.[7] It will give you the background you need. Perhaps you'll notice why this matters and how it should strike a chord with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
you're using knowledge of animation in general to elevate the importance. but that's not really the case in specific anime and manga articles unless its highlighted for that series. that's the point.
if its highlighted then it can be mentioned "in detail" however, if its only mentioned loosely and the key animators change throughout the episodes for that particular series, then its not a strong mention. I still feel the same thing over puppeteer/Puppet Master but i only given up on it. So don't go around spreading that discussion as if you had the last word because you were right. I simply didn't want to discuss it further with you until i obtained more information.Lucia Black (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, you do not understand the industry. I gave you a link to a valuable English-language resource which throws your argument out the window. We have articles on these key animators and they should be included where applicable. Now, its time for you to drop the stick - on both matters. Cause right now, your comments are bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND. You should not be trying to act authoritative on subjects you don't even understand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly Chris. You're using a method of argument by enhancing the importance by discussion, not by case by case situation in an article and how much is affected. My comments aren't making accusations and claiming i know nothing of the industry. Not only that, but i'm not the one being combatant.
What is that source suppose to prove? that there are notable animators that build the industry? Even so, it really depends on how much they made an impact on each series. They can be mentioned, but it really depends on how much.Lucia Black (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

genres in infoboxes[edit]

It currently reads action is a subcategory of drama. Drama is "Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance". Instead of reading or singing it to you, they'd act it out. So every anime is thus drama. Every single genre would thus be a subcategory of it. So why not just say there is no reason to list drama in the infobox at all? Dream Focus 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It currently reads In general, two or three genres should be sufficient for most articles. Why have that in there at all? When you mention a number at all, people will try to stick to it, whether its valid or not. The number of genres should be the number the work classifies itself in, or that reliable sources do. Dream Focus 07:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The advice is there to prevent "genre spamming". Genre spamming is adding a bunch of genres that are only tangibly present in the work. The "three genres" advice is good for most articles, even if the limit is arbitrary. Any more than that, all the genres should be cited to reliable sources. Ideally, all genres should be cited, but we only need to get particular when there are more than three. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
[8] You added back to the infobox of one article the message "Limit of the three most relevant genres in accordance with MOS:A&M." That doesn't sound advice at all, but an absolute rule. Whatever reliable sources call it, no matter if its three, four, or whatever, is what we should have. Right now there are no references to backup anything listed there. Dream Focus 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The lack of references is a problem and one that should be dealt with. But that is not an excuse to add more genres to the list. Put in the most relevant genres and move one. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Drama as a genre is entirely different from drama as a performance. Under the performance definition, all works that are acted/animated are dramas. But that doesn't mean that they are dramas as a genre. For more insight as to what drama is as a genre, the article on Drama film would be a better reference. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It says "A drama film is a film genre that depends mostly on in-depth development of realistic characters dealing with emotional themes." So how is action a subcategory of that? Be two different things. Need to list it as a drama and also known for its action. Dream Focus 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
List of genres#Film and television genres. As you can see, both action and tragedy are listed as sub-genres. Tragedy is also listed as a sub-genre at Drama film. Either way, placing drama as a genre is redundant to the ones that are already there. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's remove the genre parameter from the infobox. Book and film articles don't include genre, and it has always been very opinionated. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and various music infoboxes like {{Infobox album}} and {{Infobox single}} also use genres. I personally do not think the animanga box should remove genres if other projects include them elsewhere.-- 11:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Musical genres are different from fictional genres. I believe we are better without them in the templates here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually books do have the genre in the infobox {{Infobox book}}, as well as comic books {{Infobox comic book title}}, and while film infoboxes do not, the first sentence always gives the genre; "Gone with the Wind is a 1939 American epic historical romance film..." Xfansd (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The genre's aren't used in the infobox as far as I know. Anime/Manga should just adopt the first sentence introduction. "Case Closed is a shonen mystery manga series" akin to "Tales of Graces is a JRPG" DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As stated above, every other article on creative media states the genre of the work. The way to deal with "opinions" is the same way you deal with original research, require sources. After all, opinion is just another form of original research. In fact, we probably should begin tightening up our requirements to require sourcing. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For Attack on Titan I added in the four genres listed by the official English release for the anime, referencing to it, and eliminating the unreferenced ones. I removed again the nonsense telling people to only add in three genres. [9] We go by what reliable sources tell us, not personal preferences. The MOS suggestion listing any arbitrary number should be eliminated to avoid this problem in the future. Dream Focus 16:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a plan. I support this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Limiting people to three is perfectly fine because it avoids unnecessarily massive lists. Not only that, but "shounen" isn't a genre and your sourcing at Attack on Titan was poor. Why should Crunchyroll's simplistic tagging system dictate what Wikipedia uses anyway?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
And at this point, multiple people disagree with your additions to the Attack on Titan genre list so drop the stick already, Dream Focus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You can't add in three things without any references at all to back them up, while removing my additions that actually have references. As I said on the talk page for Attack on Titan, the article states it is legally released in two English web broadcasters, Crunchroll and Funimation, both of which list Action and Shonen as the genres it belongs in. Dream Focus 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Shonen is a demographic determined by what magazine manga is published in. It's not a style nor a genre as Shonen works cover pretty much all styles and genres in some form. That CR is compounding a common fallacy is not a reason to allow it. It's simply a way for them to tag their own pages. All of the terms like shonen, shojo, josei, seinen, kodomo are actual age/gender groups used to target manga series. They are often associated with particular types of series, but that doesn't make them genre's. As an example X_(manga) is a shojo title because it appeared in a Shojo magazine despite it's rather graphic nature that would be more suited to a seinen magazine. SephyTheThird (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Its listed in the infobox already under Demographic, so it doesn't really matter. Dream Focus 05:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the ANN back cover reference. Is that the small titling in the upper right corner? Is it a quote from an ANN review? Anyway, I found an IGN review of the series which calls it a "fantasy horror/action anime" [10] As for shonen, that's a demographic rather than a genre, which is ok for the print section of the infobox. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
We're having two different discussions here. I think anything about Attack on Titan should be at Talk:Attack_on_Titan#infobox_genres. The ANN quote in the back cover can be seen at [11] where it says "A visceral and fantastically intense action/horror story." - Anime News Network. Dream Focus 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Back on topic, should someone be able to remove referenced genre entries for no other reason than they don't want more than three things there? Dream Focus 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Anglo-Bias[edit]

I just saw this said in the Archives:

Let me add another point. You stated that you though the English Wikipedia was written for English speakers. That is not correct. The English Wikipedia is simply written in the English language. Ideally, the content of articles should represent the broad consensus of reliable sources throughout the world, not just those of a specific language subset. However, this can sometimes be difficult to achieve because of the lack of non-English contributes working is specific areas in the English Wikipedia, such as anime and manga. (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am a non-English contributor. And the last time I tried to counter Anglo-Bias, I was outright told that since this is the English Wikipedia, it should only include information about original versions and English-language adaptations, and met with harsh resistence when I refused to agree with that.
Also, the Tokyo Mew Mew article was quite well internationalized until the group of editors I was part of, mostly collapsed due to most members of it disappearing because of real-life reasons, the other group I mentioned above took over, and instead of keeping the information and finding sources for it, proceded to remove it all completely. The group of editors I was part of, was fully international, we had Americans, Italians, Hungarians, etc. The group of editors that came after us however seems to solely consists of people from the Anglosphere.
I think it would be beneficial to have non-English adaptations mentioned to, at least ones that are unique and not redubs/retranslations of the English ones. I can help find sources if needed, I speak several languages and I can help with those I do speak.
On a related matter, it is for reasons of countering systemic Anglo-bias that I recommend using original names instead of official English names of both series and characters. Sure, the official English translations are going to be the most widely known in the Anglosphere, but consider that most people outside the Anglosphere speak English too and are probably never going to see an official English translation of a manga or anime in their life. It is much more likely they are going to be familiar with fan-translations (most if not all of which simply transliterate the original names anyway) and the originals. OBrasilo (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is something alot of other articles face, not just anime/manga related articles.
I don't consider it anglo-bias at all. it really depends on what info you're trying to give. Now theres nothing wrong with mentioning that the series has been released in other countries, (look at Sailor Moon) but its about giving focus to it. And i think the bigger problem is that some people put too much information just on foreign releases. Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This is really two separate things. Non-English releases are certainly worthy of being included in an article if they can be given reliable sources (sometimes they get different titles, which can be worth noting in an article, or they may be especially popular in an individual market). Repeated removal of them could constitute vandalism. I don't think it's necessary to include every release of the series or give to much focus to it, but it can benefit some articles more than others.
As for Anglo-bias with names of series and characters I'm going to have to disagree. First of all, fan translations will never be considered reliable, so familiarity with them is not a concern. While official translations are not always well liked they carry weight as official names and often have to go through approval by the Japanese licensor anyway. Besides, for the most part the names don't change between Japanese and English outside of stylialisation (i.e. the basic name is the same just spelled differently, or maybe some L/R swapping) - especially with newer series. It's really only quite old series that are affected by changed names beyond stylisation. Ultimately though, this is the english wikipedia and so it's only natural that we give priority to official releases and names in that language and note the Japanese as well. It's less to do with Anglo-bias and more to do with practicality. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot, characters, cast, voices[edit]

It looks like this is confusing folks, so we should probably discuss this in the light of most recent article conventions:

When the article has a separate List of X characters, most articles have gone with {{Main|List of X characters}} lines in the Plot section and introduced main characters in prose, as with Naruto, Dragon Ball, One Piece, and recently Psycho-Pass, the last of which is Main'ed under the Story subsection under Plot. There isn't any mention of voice actors on the main article.

Films look like they use a Cast or Voices section such as with Spirited Away or Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film).

-AngusWOOF (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I think films use the cast/voice actor lists is because there isn't a separate character list already containing that information. Obviously, as in the articles you cited, you can put the voice actors on the character list to free up the space on the main article for more pertinent information. I don't think we need to list the voice actors on the main article if they're already on the character list since this would just be redundant.-- 01:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Or because it was my intent for the films to have an appropriate cast list whereas the three series that were also mentioned go to excessive length for both main characters and even minor ones. We are talking more than 60-80 major characters for them for starters, a bit impractical, but smaller casts for series could also work. Voice actors are important parts of the media and should be afforded a section whenever possible, for their talents are not transient. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose clarification to page layout section[edit]

Per the discussion about article structure at WT:ANIME#We need to make reforms (MOSAM fix proposal 2.0), I like to propose the following change:

Current wording

Article structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects, but the following structures should suffice in most cases.

Proposed wording

Article structure should be flexible and responsive to the content and context of the individual subjects. The following structures are those that many editors find useful when developing an article, but alternatives to the outlined structures are acceptable on a per article bases.

The reason for this change is quite simple. MOS:AM never prohibited alternative article structures from those defined by the MOS, however, some editors have interpreted this as if it did. There has also some minor issue with GA reviews thinking that if a particular structure is not defined by the MOS, it does not meat the quality standards for GA and by extending FA. An example of this misunderstanding is Uzumaki‍ '​s GA nomination as well as at Puella Magi Madoka Magica were an editor mistakenly thought that the MOS didn't permit the article's alternative structure.[12][13] This change is to clarify that such alternative structures—like "Broadcast history", "Publication history", "Release history", or similar—can be used if the subject warrants those top level sections. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, finally a simple and easy to understand proposal that isn't delivered in a confusing manner. Yes, by all means have flexibility depending on what each individual article requires.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I admit I misunderstood the MOS and it needs to be placed that things should be flexible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A great proposal that delineates what the Manual of Style is really all about: format suggestions. Given the mixed media surrounding many works and equally many minimal works, requiring a single "one-sized fits all" format impedes the natural organization and flow of an article. I cannot find any fault with this proposed wording. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to guideline for lead sections of series articles[edit]

I propose an alteration to the second paragraph of the section called "Lead" under the "Layout for a series article" heading. That paragraph was added by Erachima almost a year ago with the explicit purpose of countering Anglocentrism, and no real changes have been made to the paragraph since, although Erachima tagged the paragraph with a "disputed – discuss" warning in recognition that the paragraph was not generated by way of a consensus-building discussion. I can appreciate what Erachima was doing in writing this paragraph, and I agree that the leads of these articles should not foreground "the format of the work most popular in English", because doing so is Anglocentric. My concern with the paragraph as it currently stands is that it recommends that the first sentence of these articles, which are about franchises encompassing multiple forms of media, should be a statement that suggests that the article is only about one of those forms of media (namely, whatever form appeared first). While I concur that this solution is better than starting the article with a statement that the article is about the media most popular in English, I would argue that it is far more preferable to start these articles with a statement that the subject is a franchise and not just one form of media that spawned other forms of media. I am not recommending any changes to any of these articles beyond the very first sentence, which would be far more accurate if the franchise nature of the article was indicated. I propose that the relevant paragraph be reworded as follows:

Articles about franchises that include multiple forms of media (ie. anime, manga, etc.) should begin with a statement that the article is about a franchise rather than about only one of the forms of media. For example: "D.Gray-man is a Japanese media franchise encompassing a manga series written and illustrated by Katsura Hoshino, an anime series, two video games, three novels, one fanbook, and two art books", NOT "D.Gray-man is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Katsura Hoshino."

This alteration is in keeping with the broader Wikipedia guideline on the first sentence of lead sections, which states that "the first sentence should give a concise definition" of the subject of the article. In the case of media franchise articles, the subject is a media franchise, not a single form of media. Neelix (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose These article are really not about multi-media franchises, but about the original work. The content we seek in order to promote an article to a quality article—such as summaries of the plot and characters and information about the production/development—all originates from the original work. That a series may have other related media is more of a side note. And other than an anime adaptation, the other media is more about merchandizing than anything else. And finally, guidelines are a description of commonly accepted styles and practices. The change proposed is a proscriptive one and will require an extensive rewrite of thousands of articles. —Farix (t | c) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I will also note that this will affect more than just anime/manga articles. Several GA video game articles—such as Kanon, School Days (visual novel), Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, Steins;Gate, and Tales of Symphonia will also require an extensive rewrite. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose: We do not need this "media franchise" garbage filling up articles. This only serves to push people to create separate articles for all versions of the anime or manga, or even separating discussion of the anime and manga entirely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are occasions where a franchise is planned specifically as a multimedia franchise but these tend to be limited to a small number of childrens works with toy lines. In those cases, writing the lead like that may be appropriate. However most franchises start off as a series of adaptions from an original work that was developed in isolation. Besides, as the lead should be a summary of the entire article, it will usually mention important adaptions and spin offs later in the lead. Your example is overly specific and implies these other items are all of the same importance. It's also worth noting that for anime derived from a manga, the anime is often said in reliable sources to exist for the purpose of promoting the original manga. Therefore stating something was a manga and then adapted into other forms seems much more appropriate. Our articles have long been written on the view that the original work comes first, and adaptions treated as such.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:BEGIN is about telling the reader what the subject is. The subject of most animanga articles isn't the franchise itself, but typically the original media that later spawned various adaptations. Why is the subject not the franchise itself? Because typically, the plot, production and reception all rely heavily (if not entirely) on material that pertains to the original media, so that's what the subject of the article defaults to.-- 09:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that an article that focuses prominently on the entire franchise should have a lead sentence about the franchise (and thus be added to WP:FRANCHISE), I disagree on your example of D.Gray-man as that is predominantly notable for being a manga series and that the anime is still an adaptation to the manga, not particularly notable on its own. Better examples would be Pokemon, Gundam, Tenchi Muyo, and even Robotech. Even then, it doesn't need to be clarified in this wikiproject further. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll add that most of the manga/anime articles do mention their adaptations and eventual media franchising starting with the second lead paragraph. Putting it in the leadfirst sentence implies it was marketed as a franchise to begin with, which implies simultaneous releases of the manga, the anime, the video game, and merchandise. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC), updated 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This begs the question of how do you identify a media franchise while still complying with WP:V and WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH. If no one calls something a media franchise, on what bases can Wikipedia claim it is a media franchise? Are there any reliable sources that calls D.Gray-man a media franchise? What about Bleach or Sailor Moon? —Farix (t | c) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think calling something a media franchise is the sort of obvious statement that doesn't need a specific source to comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. If multiple works have been released for a series, in various mediums (e.g., manga, anime, video games), then it is a "media franchise" by definition of the term. However, saying that something was specifically planned as a media franchise, and didn't just end up developing into one, would require a reliable source stating that it was planned as a franchise. Calathan (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is obvious, there should be a reliable source stating it. However, to add such statements without a reliable source is applying our own interpretations, which is at the core of WP:NOR. It's the same type of problem when we have random editors claim that something is "obviously" in a certain genre, but cannot provide a single reliable source to back up their interpretations. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have to have a source that uses the phrase "media franchise" specifically before we categories a franchise as such on Wikipedia; that isn't what WP:NOR means. As that policy states, "articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." If we have a source that states that there are multiple forms of media (ex. manga, anime, etc.) all pertaining to the same fictional universe, then that source is stating that there is a media franchise, whether the source uses that phrase or not. Neelix (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I also disagree with a lot of what has been said in the replies. Unless the article is specifically about a franchise (in cases where there is one article about the franchise as a whole, and then separate articles for the various components of that franchise), then the lead should describe the subject as being about the main component(s) of that franchise. I don't think the lead should note all the less significant parts of the franchise as if they are equals, or refer to the subject as primarily being a franchise. However, in cases where the anime is as notable or more notable than the manga it is being adapted from, I think it would be fine to mention the anime prominently in the lead (perhaps along the lines of "D.Gray-man is a manga series written and illustrated by Katsura Hoshino, which was adapted into an 103 episode anime television series.") I always find it nonsensical how we focus on the manga even when the anime adaptation has received as much or more coverage in reliable sources as the manga. The coverage of the different portions of a franchise in our articles should be based on what proportion of the sources available focus on that part of the franchise, and not on what part came first. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    The anime adaptation usually gets more coverage because it's the only material that the Western audience gets its hands on and decides it's worthy of critical remarks. I don't know if I've ever seen anything for any of the JoJo arcs that aren't presently an anime other than that one guy who works at ANN who's really into JoJo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ignorance of what is, by definition, franchising is, happens to be a problem. The issue is that opposition comes from a simple fact: Most people do not have a definition for media franchises and simply do not know what they are talking about. I rather not get into a long-winded debate over what constitutes a franchise and what doesn't, but as a basic explanation of a rule - a manga with an anime adaptation and a movie or two is not a franchise despite all the trinkets, toys if the effective marketing time table is measurable within a decade. I am deferring to Roger Iger's stance which defines franchising in media content production as "something that creates value across multiple businesses and across multiple territories over a long period of time." For those of you unfamiliar with the differences in American and Japanese productions, Cartoon Network creates media franchises left and right, but the definition is relatively novel and new. Cross-media marketing and merchandising has been around for decades, but that is not what most people identify as a "media franchise". Until a nice word comes into use to describe this enduring and developing aspect with brand identity - its not a franchise in a layman's perspective or terms. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: MoS changes[edit]