Wikiafripedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Archives, no archives yet (create)

What do you think about capitalization of cocktail names?[edit source | edit]

Normally, we don't capitalize the names of drinks. E.g., "strawberry milkshake" or "lemonade" aren't capitalized. Nor are some cocktail names like the margarita, gin and tonic or vodka soda.

So why would the rules be different for, say, Long Island Iced Tea? Why would it be considered a proper noun rather than being Long Island iced tea? It's true that with some branded products, like Coke, we might say, "I grabbed a Coke," but we wouldn't say, "I grabbed a Cola" because it's not a proper noun when it's generic like that.

Anyway, the {{IBA Official Cocktails}} uses proper noun capitalization for most mixed drinks, but even there, there are exceptions, like the champagne cocktail or Irish coffee. I can understand, though, that for some cocktails like Sex on the Beach, a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization, so that people know what you're referring to when you say, "The Sex on the Beach I had yesterday was amazing." On the other hand, if you capitalize Irish Coffee, then people might think you're referring to Irish Coffee (band) or Irish Coffee (TV series) when you say, "I enjoy Irish Coffee."

Any thoughts on what the standard should be? Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should try to establish a standard beyond following how each individual drink is named in reliable sources. The examples listed above demonstrate that there are disparate linguistic pressures on different cocktail names that lead people to establish conventions tailored to the specifics of each drink's name. Attempting to standardize this further doesn't have a clear benefit IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend down capsing the lot unless some part of the name is proper i.e. Long Island iced tea and Irish coffee but rather sex on the beach (unless that's about sex on a beach, in which case sex on the beach (drink) seems preferable). We've firmly rejected using capitals for disambiguation purposes in the similar WAP:BIRDCON case. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we use a (cocktail) disambiguator for a lot of drinks, like azalea (cocktail), batanga (cocktail), blinker (cocktail), etc. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Lowercase except where proper name status is supported by sources. As for "a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization", that is inconsistent with our style as spelled out at MOS:CAPS. As for evidence of what's a proper name, one really does have to look for "consistent" capitalization in sources. Many cocktail names make it to "majority" capitalization in sources just because there are so many sources (such as this mixology guide) that have a style of capping all cocktail names (including "Brandy and Soda"), and therefore juke the stats but provide no evidence of which ones are considered to be proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree; the List of IBA official cocktails sources are the same way. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
See below. The sources linked there have the names of the cocktails in ALL CAPS. Not really useful to solving our problem, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 15:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Lowercase. There is absolutely no reason for cocktails to be seen as proper names or exceptions to our usual naming conventions. This seems to be some sort of conceit of cocktail fans, just as military fans and police fans (in particular) support the conceit that all military and police terms should be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it just makes people feel more important to say, "I drank a Tequila Sunrise" so that they're at least on par with those who can say, "I drank a Budweiser" (which is capitalized because it's a brand name). Now, in the case of the Hand Grenade, it would actually make sense to capitalize it because it's someone's intellectual property. The more advanced cocktail aficionados must feel terrible that these elaborate concoctions of theirs would be lowercase while the most stigmatized, low-effort two-ingredient cocktail, the Jack and Coke, is capitalized. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Jack and Coke are proper names, even if they do make a common crappy drink. Our capitalization guidelines don't say to consider the feelings of people who may have an interest in the promotion of their concoctions. Let's stick to arguments related to guidelines and sources, OK? Notice that tequila is not a proper name, and plenty of books use lowercase "tequila sunrise". Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Normal English rules of capitalization apply. Thus, if the name contains elements that would otherwise be capitalized, we capitalize those. If the name contains elements that would otherwise be lowercase, we lowercase those. For example, in "Long Island iced tea", the correct capitalization is to capitalize "Long Island" (because that is a place with a proper name that gets capitalization under normal English rules) but not "iced tea" (because iced tea is not a proper name, and so gets lowercase under normal English rules). Other variations such as "Long Island Iced Tea" or "long island iced tea", or "LoNg IsLAnD ICd teA" should not be used. --Jayron32 14:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Title case It's a proper noun. First, it's not iced tea, so it is not a style of tea. Second, let's follow {{IBA Official Cocktails}}. --evrik (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not really useful here, since the IBA source, Here uses ALL CAPS. Are you seriously recommending we use LONG ISLAND ICED TEA because that's how the IBA does it? --Jayron32 14:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
How is it a proper noun? It's generic. It's not proprietary; anyone can make one and call it and sell it as a Long Island iced tea. It's used everywhere. It is not in any way a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case: per MOS:CAPS, WAP:NCCAPS, Wikiafripedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikiafripedia. This is the substantive criertia for determining the question, as arrived at by a broad community consensus. In the case of Long Island Iced Tea, by this n-gram, it does not meet the threshold to be capped in full. Others may. An arguement to follow IBA style falls to WAP:SPECIALSTYLE and is even more inappropriate if that style uses all-caps. Arguements to MOS:TM have merit, where the name is a brand/trademark etc in full or part. Parts of a phrase which are themself a proper noun, tradename or like will be capitalised but it does not confer capitalisation on the whole name phrase. There is an often perceived but false equivalence between proper names and capitalisation - the former being a matter of grammar and the other, a matter of orthography. There are lots of things that might be capitalised that are not proper names. Proper names are not descriptive. Any arguement to capitalise brandy and soda (or similar) is just BS, where the name is descriptive of the ingredients. It would also be very debatable, where the name is metaphorically descriptive - ie "tequila sunrise". There is some merit in the arguement that names like Sex on the Beach are titles for the recipes and should be written in title case, where such names are not descriptive. It is quite another matter to assert that because title case is used, a title is a proper name. However, the proof whether a name is actually a title lies in usage and the guidelines - MOS:CAPS, WAP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case per Cinderella157. Some cocktails have names that should be fully lowercase (gin and tonic), others have names that should be in title case (Harvey Wallbanger). In some cases it's not going to be obvious which one and discussion will be needed - and Long Island Iced Tea is a good example (but per Jayron32 "Long Island" should be capitalised regardless). Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit source | edit]

I am not certain what to do. There have been several AFD nominations at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ending in no consensus, and I have serious concerns about whether the article in question isn't actually violating copyright law. I started a conversation at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Is this list a copyright violation?. However, the AFDs and this conversation seem to be flooded with comments by editors who edit in this area and may be biased because they are fans. I am wanting to just get some neutral people over to this discussion to provide input or better yet experienced editors dealing with copyright concerns. I would feel a lot better knowing if I knew I was getting input from neutral people even if they disagree with me. How do I go about doing this?4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps going through WAP:CP is a better way to deal with copyright concerns than WAP:AFD, copyright experts work in the former area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe... I just don't want to be accused of forum shopping. It would be so much better if we just had some more neutral participants at that discussion.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the forum shopping. You've been told by every other editor that the list is not a copyright violation. Why can you not accept that? oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The line between WAP:ANIME and WAP:TV[edit source | edit]

Recently there has been an upsurge of conflicts between WAP:ANIME and WAP:TV on how to handle Anime television series. Here is the history 1, 2and 3. The common subjects are presented below.

  • Is WAP:ANIME a sub-project of WAP:TVSHOW or is it its own project.
  • Should WAP:MOSTV dictate WAP:ANIME 100% of the time.
  • Should Episode list articles be converted into TV series articles just because there isn't an article dedicated to the anime.

The editors of WAP:ANIME have agreed to open this discussion in WAP:VILLAGE as the best place to find a solution.

ANIME's comments
  • Blue Pumpkin Pie: In my humble opinion, WAP:MOSTV is a good foundation to start with and WAP:ANIME follows the guideline 90% of the time, but I disagree that it should be followed with exact precision and deviation requires context. WAP:TVSHOW sees anime as an independent piece of media that falls within their scope, however the editors of WAP:ANIME views these two mediums synonymous and co-dependent for the majority of the time. The common reader who searches for One-Punch Man would most likely be searching for both the anime and the manga. This also helps WAP:ANIME makes stronger articles and for that reason we do not split the anime away from the manga unless it's guaranteed to be a quality article. For this reason, I don't consider WAP:ANIME a sub-project of WAP:TVSHOW, because the anime can't always be divorced from the original manga and vice versa. Especially light novels as well.
In my humble opinion, i think WAP:TVSHOW is too broad in scope to not allow exceptions or to look for room for change. It covers children's entertainment, young adult entertainment, adult entertainment, series broadcasted over Television and in streaming sites such as Netflix and Hulu. Each one has different audiences, coverage, and standards. In my humble opinion, to try to tackle all of these mediums the exact same way is counter-intuitive and unprofitable for a lack of a better word. WAP:ANIME already follows 90% of WAP:TV anyways. The rules dont change just because. They are altered for anime and manga for a good reason.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: I am in agreement that WAP:MOSTV is very useful and should be followed, but not to the letter when it comes to anime. We allow for all media to be represented in an article with split off articles for things such as episodes. We have many FL listed episode lists that have a brief summary on the main page but are limited to lists of episodes due to excess information portrayed on the main page. My stance is that if it does not help the encyclopedia (Animewise) then it shouldn't be followed strictly by the broad book. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF: (I'll also note that I'm involved in both WAP:ANIME and WAP:TVSHOW projects) I'll add that WAP:ANIME also spans multiple media Wikiprojects such as Comics, Books, Films and video games. Assuming these are adaptations and not the originating series, those projects usually do not require a combined (book series) or (comics series) or (video game series) before spinning off a List of works, example: List of Star Wars books, List of Star Wars video games.
This is not to say that we shouldn't have (TV series), but blanket renaming of the lists to (TV series) is not going to be helpful when the list of episodes are going to be spun off after the (TV series) article is fully developed.
Bleach (TV series) was developed into a separate TV series article in 2013 despite having merge discussions with Bleach (manga). Even back then, the List of Bleach episodes stayed completely separate from that article. While the TV series article had a Series overview box, the list of individual episodes stayed on the List of episodes page.
One Piece (TV series) article was created and spun off since July 2019 without requiring List of One Piece episodes be renamed. That's a major series with 900+ episodes.
Naruto and Naruto Shippuden have enough on the TV series side to create their own standalone article, and you'll have to spin off the List of Naruto episodes after it's been developed afterwards so as not to spam/content fork the list of episode names in the TV series article. One-Punch Man is in a similar situation, now that it's got more than 2 seasons under its belt for TV, but there the TV series can incorporate the list of episodes with names.
Now suppose you have a TV series where there aren't that many episodes or had a "television special" got released directly to video (OVA). Those List of Episode articles should still be merged into the main article under the #Anime or #Television series section.
Bottom line is, that (TV series) articles can be created and populated without requiring merges or renames of List of Episodes. Some can be renamed, others should be redirected or merged. The resulting articles and redirects would satisfy both WikiProjects' MOS standards. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
TV's comments

The prominent members involved in the dispute are IJBall, Gonnym, Amaury, and AussieLegend. At this time of posting, they have not acknowledged this discussion and continue to respond here Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. This statement will be revised once the respected members participate in this discussion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This discussion was started because of a requested move at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019, which is the talk page of an episode list for a television program. Those who have commented above are members of WAP:ANIME and believe that MOS:ANIME supercedes MOS:TV in all articles related to ANIME. This is clearly not the case. It is a situation where both parts of the MOS have to work together, MOS:ANIME for the anime aspects of the article and MOS:TV for the television aspects, just as the article also has to work with WAP:V, WAP:OR, MOS:ACCESS etc. The arguments by the above editors have been constantly WAP:IDONTLIKEIT based and some of the editing has been disruptive. For example, one editor sectioned the article appropriately to demonstrate that it is already a main series article and so should be moved,[1] but today, Knowledgekid87 stripped a lot of content from the article.[2] When I removed a file that clearly should not be there per WAP:NFLIST and which fails WAP:NFCC#8,[3] Knowledgekid87 restored the image,[4] which is now at FFD (discussion). All of this seems to have been done to protect "their" article and stop it being moved to Toriko (TV series) per MOS:TV/WAP:NCTV. I believe that this discussion is simply forum-shopping. --AussieLegend () 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • How is this forum shopping when the central focus is the disputed WAP:TVSHOW guideline as mentioned above? The only ones to bring up the move discussion so far are you and Pumpkin Pie (Pumpkin pie in passing and you in detail), and I really don't take kindly to you assuming bad faith. This was brought here before the community in response to a larger issue that has been ongoing with article renaming and how the guideline should apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WAP:TVSHOW isn't really relevant to the discussion. Nobody has seriously discussed the notability of the article. It was mentioned in response to suggestions by anime editors that the TV series wasn't notable enough for a standalone article. --AussieLegend () 13:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we forget about the article with the move discussion and come to some kind of an agreement? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's much chance of that based on your rejection of every policy and guideline based argument at the RM discussion along with the persistent attempts to create problems where there are none. I'd actually prefer to concentrate on the RM, which is why I hadn't posted here earlier. --AussieLegend () 15:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So you are refusing to even address the concerns of other editors here? This is a place to gather a community consensus from outside groups, a local consensus would be a side chat on a talk-page. No... the only thing so far I have seen is complaints about the process here, and a refusal to address the arguments presented. How does status quo improve the encyclopedia? Can you get into content without going after the Anime Wikiproject? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not at all what he said or implied. --AussieLegend () 15:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I will just add myself to AussieLegend's and Gonnym's comments – they said everything that needed to be said, and I fully endorse their comments. This is clearly a case where a WAP:LOCALCONSENSUS has developed, that is contrary to current guidelines, and there is no substantive reason that the existing guidelines can't just be easily followed in this case. This may result in needing to move a few anime articles from LoE titles to "(TV series)" disambiguated titles, but this hardly represents any kind of calamity. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There's nearly 900 pages in the "Lists of anime episodes" category, and my quick inspection indicates that nearly all of them follow the practice of the manga/franchise page being the primary page for the anime adaptation. I don't mean to take a side with this comment, just noting the current state of affairs and the magnitude of the proposed change. — Goszei (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Any anime series that runs more than one or two seasons should have a dedicated LoE article – but in those cases there should be a "TV series" article as well, quite aside from the franchise page. For single-season TV series like Toriko, there should only be a "TV series" page (that includes the LoE table), and no separate LoE page. So my guess is that most of those 900 articles are actually for multi-season anime series, and that most of those probably already have separate "TV series" articles – those that don't need to have one created, as the proper procedure/format is: franchise → TV series → LoE article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
And just so we're clear, the last comment doesn't just apply to WAP:TV, as has been implied here – it's also how MOS:FILM works. E.G. Star Wars (multimedia franchise) → List of Star Wars films & List of Star Wars television series → individual film & individual TV series articles → LoE articles (e.g. List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes). This is the exact same format that WAP:ANIME should be following with it's articles: franchise → manga & anime TV series articles → LoE articles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Goszei: - 900 you say? At this time the only proposed change is to move one page so that it conforms with MOS:TV, joining the other 47,000+ TV articles. Even if the proposal were to extend beyond one page, it's not something that needs to be done straight away. There's no need for anyone to make a mountain out of a molehill. --AussieLegend () 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 1st fallacy: WAP:ANIME is just local consensus.
  • Currently the editors involved in this discussion know how to create quality articles, and at least have experience in contributing articles to the point of I'm mostly from video games, and AngusWoof also contributes to WAP:TV. WAP:ANIME has their guidelines and they are just applying the guidelines that are provided. This is more of LOCAL PHILOSOPHY if it exists. Because the editors on WAP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WAP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality)
  • 2nd Fallacy: WAP:ANIME just wants to go against WAP:TV's rules because WAP:IDONTLIKEIT
  • There is no rule or guideline in WAP:TV or WAP:MOSTV or even in WAP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WAP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article. Even though you are providing guidelines and some policies, you haven't proven how WAP:ANIME is breaking them. They're just interpreted differently. This is a true example of WAP:IDONTLIKEIT. But i do believe that WAP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WAP:TV should comply.
  • Misunderstanding: WAP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list.
  • I explained this in Gonnym's talk page in detail on how anime is part of a larger, and more interconnected industry as opposed to other forms of media. I want to clarify WAP:ANIME does not create a franchise page first. The process is creating an article for the Original Japanese media as the primary topic and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own. Production, Broadcast, and Reception is vital for WAP:ANIME to split an article. IF we follow the principles of WAP:CFORK, it shouldn't be an issue. Not even for WAP:TV. This is my personal theory as why WAP:ANIME isn't just anime, but manga, and light novels, and sometimes video games too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, so many incorrect statements from an experienced editor.
    • Because the editors on WAP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality - Not TV editors, but en.wiki's own guidelines support WAP:STUB. Feel free to to start an RfC on that and change it.
    • WAP:ANIME isn't OK with it - since when was WAP:ANIME exempt from WAP:OWN? Please provide me a link to that discussion which resulted in a consensus to disregard an en.wiki policy.
    • There is no rule or guideline in WAP:TV or WAP:MOSTV or even in WAP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WAP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article. - That is correct, if by that, you mean you choose to ignore the whole MoS which TVSPLIT is a small section from. Please re-read the MoS, especially WAP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure, which explains the article structure. Notice that the "parent article" should have all the sections listed.
    • But i do believe that WAP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WAP:TV should comply - to ignore a MoS guideline you need community consensus and not local consensus.
    • and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own - just like the first point, ANIME is making up rules that contradict en.wiki. See WAP:TVSHOW which clearly states Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television station. See again WAP:OWN why you don't decide what has notability.
--Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the editors on WAP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WAP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality) - This is certainly not good faith and doesn't make sense. As explained at the RM discussion, moving the article doesn't change its quality. In fact the changes that IJBall made and which were later reverted improved the quality. There is a strange belief amongst the anime editors involved that moving an article somehow turns it into a stub. This has been addressed at length at the RM discussion.
  • There is no rule or guideline in WAP:TV or WAP:MOSTV or even in WAP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WAP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. - The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this. As explained at the RM discussion, in a reply to you,[5] I wrote WAP:TVSPLIT, which is part of MOS:TV, says "When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikiafripedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account." It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikiafripedia. Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
  • WAP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list. - Nobody has said that. What has been repeatedly said by ANIME editors is that franchise articles are the parent articles to LoE pages, for example, that Toriko (a francise article) is the parent of List of Toriko episodes. --AussieLegend () 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I recommend you read WAP:STUB. WAP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation. In the first sentence of the guide, it says "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." Wikiafripedia is an encyclopedia. They are tolerated because they're an inevitability, i'm sure there are thousands of editors creating articles in good faith, but doesn't mean that stub articles should be created at the expense of lowering their quality. It really depends on the community whether they should be tolerated or endorsed. There are Wikiprojects that don't care about stubs, and there are Wikiprojects that make campaigns to remove stubs or reduce the numbers. Not every Wikiproject has the same philosophy but that doesn't mean they are against "en.wiki" or their guidelines. See meta:Conflicting Wikiafripedia philosophies for examples.
I've re-read WAP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure and i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list. The objective of the MOS section you provided is a guide to to help organize the content. Is it uncommon from anything outside anime and manga? Yes. I agree on that. But this is where context is everything.
We generally don't split the information from the manga because most readers search for both content at the same time. The industry and sources cover both of them and considers them synonymous.
@AussieLegend: "moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose List of Toriko episodes into Toriko (TV series) because you believe that is what WAP:MOS demands. A list is not the same as an article. They have different standards, assessments, and quality scale. So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true. The content doesn't change, the standards and assessment will. No MOS explicitly states what WAP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong.
The Japanese entertainment industry is far different from any "western" industry out there. Manga, anime, light novels, and sometimes video games are all supported by the same industry and are often co-dependent. Sources and secondary sources often cover both at the same time. There is a reason there aren't separate WikiProjects for manga and light novels. WAP:ANIME has found it far more beneficial to create a single good-quality article first and have all lists link to it until there is enough content to split the article into its own quality article. For example, Resident Evil and Resident Evil (film series) are for the same franchise, but they are supported by two completely different industries and the sources covering each one are from different industries. This example is more common in western Films and TV series. For Anime/Manga/Light novels the majority of the secondary sources cover all of them and compare them. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WAP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation. - Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WAP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikiafripedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
I've re-read MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure - I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WAP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list. - Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WAP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
"moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose - Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikiafripedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
A list is not the same as an article. - True, and this version of the article is clearly not a list. Even as it stands now it's not a list, which is why the move has been proposed. The lede, for example, doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD.
So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true. - That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
No MOS explicitly states what WAP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong. - MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikiafripedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
The Japanese entertainment industry - This is not about the Japanese entertainment industry, it's about one requested move discussion that has gotten the noses of a small group of editors out of joint.
In all discussion to date, MOS:TV has been quoted numerous times. I have not seen the the same from MOS:ANIME. --AussieLegend () 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Please do not insert your reply into the middle of another editor's post as you did here. It is inappropriate as it confuses readers and misrepresents the comments by another editor, which is contrary to talk page guidelines. By all means restore the content, but do not edit my post to do so. Reply after this post and quote the text that you are replying to if necessary. --AussieLegend () 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Aussie: Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WAP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikiafripedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
Blue: Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner. Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic. And Wikiafripedia is defined as a multilingual online encyclopedia. Thousands of new and old editors create thousands of stub articles every day. They can't be avoided. Wikiafripedia's efforts to track and organize stubs is not endorsement to create more stubs. Its to help manage them. The reason i brought this up is because i'm trying to convey to you and IJBall that WAP:ANIME isn't violating any MOS or policies. What is actually happening is that a group of editors have a shared philosophy and it goes against another group of editors. Wikiafripedia doesn't condone or endorse either philosophy (yet).
Aussie: I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WAP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
Blue Your point has nothing to do with the discussion. Please set a better example by actually being civil.
Aussie: Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WAP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
Blue This is the first time you're advocating for common sense. To WAP:ANIME, its sensible and practical for why there is a list of episodes but not an individual TV series article,it can be because the TV series isn't notable on its own, or the original media isn't notable on its own or the information is too redundant if split. Common sense requires context.
Aussie: Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikiafripedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
Blue that's because moving is a simple name change. But not every name change creates the same outcome. You want a list to become an article. Thats the point i'm trying to say. WAP:ANIME wants to avoid tampering with list articles and instead prefer creating the TV series article separately when theres substantial information.
Aussie That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
Blue May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too. List articles have different standards and different assessments. There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists. Only list and featured list. Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect.
Aussie MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikiafripedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
Blue your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to. No one has ever said WAP:MOSANIME is law. No one is against the fact that Wikiafripedia is a collaborative effort. All i'm saying is that WAP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines. WAP:ANIME has admitted they use the other MOS as a foundation. If you're going to quote me, make sure your reply correlates to what i'm saying.
Aussie The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this.
Blue I disagree with that statement. But even if this was true, there is a reason for it. And we're following with MOS, and we're getting better articles because of it. Why is it an issue?
Example text
Blue Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WAP:ANIME follows the quote pressented. It just chose to make the main page the franchise page for good reasons.
Aussie It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikiafripedia.
Blue We already established that WAP:ANIME follows the MOS.
Aussie Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
Blue WAP:ANIME follows the process.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner - I have debunked a number of your arguments, even when you've said the same thing twice. As this has happened your responses have become less and less sensible. Stating that your responses are sillier is a statement of fact.
Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic. - That doesn't mean that stubs are not acceptable. This is an example of something that you've said more than once and which has been debunked more than once. as I said earlier, you have a strange misconception that moving a list article that is not a stub to a different name will turn it into a stub. That is sa silly belief.
Your point has nothing to do with the discussion - It's entirely relevant when you keep linking to the wrong thing. You clearly haven't read what you are linking to.
This is the first time you're advocating for common sense - And???? There's been a distinct lack of it demonstrated, especially what constitutes a main article. You believe that because something isn't explicitly stated then it's not a rule. To prove that this is incorrect I challenged you to find a single LoE page in the TV project that did not have a TV series article as the main/parent. You refused to do so, which doesn't bode well for your opinion. You'd rather keep your misconception alive than prove that you are wrong.
that's because moving is a simple name change. - That's an example of the above.
not every name change creates the same outcome - That's not at all relevant to your claim that a move is not a move but a repurposing, even when Wikiafripedia doesn't have repuposing "thing".
May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too. - From your latest post it seems that you intent raising the uncivilised card every time you can't rebut a particular point. That's a very poor tactic.
There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists. - This repeated argument is completely irrelevant. Your claim is that moving a list will turn it into a stub and it clearly will not.
Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect. - It's absolutely incorrect to claim that moving List of Toriko episodes to Toriko (TV series) will turn it into a stub. As has been explained to you multiple times, it will be at least "start" class based on the assessment criteria.
your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to - actually it does. MOS:ANIME seems to think it can structure articles whichever way it wants without regard for an established process that is even linked to at MOS:AM#Scope just because MOS:TV doesn't go into intricate detail about how articles should be created. Again, I chellenged you to find this for yourself and you refused to look for articles or to read the MOS.
All i'm saying is that WAP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines. - WAP:ANIME has ignored the way that articles are normally created on Wikiafripedia, not just by the TV project but by every project.
I disagree with that statement. - Disagree all you want but anime editors have repeatedly said that the franchise article is the parent for the Toriko LoE page.
Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WAP:ANIME follows the quote pressented. - without following the way that all TV articles are created, where the parent article is the main series article. You clearly haven't read the MOS, only the parts of it that suit your point of view.
WAP:ANIME follows the MOS. - You claim to follow the MOS but you do not, as the Toriko LoE page demonstrates.
As I said at WT:TV, I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere and your post, restating what has been countered multiple times, convinces me that is true. --AussieLegend () 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Dictators — what is going on???[edit source | edit]

First, I noticed Snooganssnoogans campaigning for "dictators" to be described as such. Then, I noticed a campaign for Mao Zedong to be labelled as a mass murderer. The proposed text links "mass killing of landlords" to the under-developed Chinese Land Reform page, where there has been an incredible amount of activity lately. Clearly, Wikiafripedia needs to detail the bad sides of historical figures, but it also needs to be encyclopedic and neutral. I also think there seems to be evidence of a concerted campaign, which is a bit concerning.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus among RS is such, go with it. See, for example, the discussion about labeling Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist, which was accepted as consensus due to the number of sources that describe him as such. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiafripedia Asian Month 2019[edit source | edit]

Please help translate to your language

WAM logo without text.svg

Wikiafripedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikiafripedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.

Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikiafripedia Asian Month 2019!

For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!

Wikiafripedia Asian Month International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Introductions too long for mobile users[edit source | edit]

Hello
I came across this edit recently (I've discussed it with the OP already): It raises an interesting point, ie. whether the length of the introduction in some articles are too long for mobile phone users. If so, it is going to be a problem across the project. Has this issue been raised and discussed already somewhere? ( I couldn't see anything in the archive, but that doesn't mean much...)I know we have a size rule, which was possibly more relevant when computers had less capacity; is it time to re-visit that principle? Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Helping readers is one thing, but helping people who don't want to actually read anything is not our problem. Google already provides a condensed version. WAP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - in fact many more leads are too short than too long. Editors should realize that the majority of readers never get beyond the lead, and don't finish long ones. Far too many seem to think readers dutifully read every word they write - they don't. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you (both) for replying. I'm not sure what you mean: The edit in question just split the introduction into a lead sentence and an outline section (which could be an elegant solution). I'm raising the issue because it does conflict with MOS:LEAD. And I'm asking if there's anyone already looking at problems mobile users may have; is there? Also, what is the condensed version you mentioned; I'm not familiar with it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't elegant at at all - it reduced the lead to a single sentence, which isn't enough. If you just want that, stay on google. Johnbod (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:: So, what is this condensed version provided by google you've mentioned? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should overly cater to mobile at the expense of desktop. WAP:LEDE has pretty good explanations of what the size of the lede should be relative to the article, and I would think that on mobile, the lede should sufficiently summarize the article without having to expand any sections. The lede is NOT the same as a brief definition or explanation, which is what that change looks like. --Masem (t) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not to say that there aren't leads that are too long, there certainly are. Any article tagged with {{lead too long}} will be included at Category:Wikiafripedia introduction cleanup. Helping out there may be the the best way to address the OP's concern. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - 1 November 2019 - Is WAP:ANIME subordinate to other projects?[edit source | edit]

Is WAP:ANIME subordinate to WAP:TV, WAP:FILM and WAP:COMICS, and therefore should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects? --AussieLegend () 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes (as nominator). There is no doubt that WAP:ANIME is a valid sub-project and MOS:ANIME should be followed where aspects are strictly related to anime but WAP:ANIME should be following MOS:TV, MOS:FILM and/or MOS:COMICS, and parts of the MOS superior to those where and when applicable, when it comes to things like article heirachy, structure etc. MOS:AM#Scope even says This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikiafripedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikiafripedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikiafripedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable) and later also Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga. --AussieLegend () 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as per nomination, and as per my various comments on the subject over the preceding months. P.S. This also obviously applies to naming conventions as well, as one of the bigger issues lately has been trying to get WAP:ANIME to conform to, for example, WAP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
IJBall, the naming conventions issue was already settled. Are you asking to bring that up again for RFC? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm saying I want WAP:ANIME to actually follow the proper naming conventions. The WAP:RM that spawned this RfC, and One Piece (anime), are two prime examples where WAP:ANIME is still not following that RfC result. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a non-issue. I'm sure a bold move to One Piece (TV series) wont cause any problems with any editor.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected. That said, interconnected guidelines should not conflict... and if one gets out of sync with the others, it needs to be amended to bring it back in sync. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. WAP:ANIME is a valid group, but it is more of a multi-project task force than a high-level WikiProject. Their MoS, while created in good-faith, is sadly an example of WAP:CFORK. Almost (if not all) of their content is already covered by one of the 3 top-level WikiProjects AussieLegend has mentioned in the RfC question - TV, Film and Comics. Anything else is probably found in other related guidelines, and anything missing should be added to those guidelines. Forking those guidelines to create an Anime one has caused a lot of issues. When discussing guidelines and WikiProjects, one should remember that a more specific topic should not contradict the more general one. For example, WAP:TVSHOW should supplement WAP:NOTABILITY and not contradict it. This however has not been the case with the WAP:ANIME project, as they have argued that they an anime TV series has different standards of notability. The same has happened with article structure (which don't follow MOS:TV), and naming conventions (while their MoS does follow, common practice does not; see also this, and this). Hopefully this RfC will help integrate Anime into the wider editorial community. --Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Question in the RfC presented is misleading. WAP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WAP:TV and WAP:FILM or even WAP:COMIC. The reason why this RfC is happening is because WAP:ANIME structures their articles hierarchy differently (but still within WAP:MOSTV and WAP:MOSFILM guidelines).
WAP:ANIME's process is to create article for the original media as the primary topic and continue to add information such as adaptations and supplementary media. To prevent making redundant, and low-quality articles, instead of spinning out an entire subject for a single media, WAP:ANIME just spins out the lists portions and keep the original article as the main topic for size reasons. For example: Rising of the Shield Hero original media is the light novel with manga and anime adaptation. it has List of volumes and List of The Rising of the Shield Hero episodes. Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information. WAP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split. WAP:ANIME isn't against TV series articles altogether. Here are example of anime adaptations that were spunned out from the original media: Fullmetal Alchemist (TV series), Sailor Moon (TV series), Bleach (TV series), and Dragon Ball (TV series) and Dragon Ball Z.
What AussieLegend, IJBall and Gonnym want to achieve by this RfC is to do a mass campaign to re-purpose List of Episodes into TV series articles for those that don't have a TV series article and only a "franchise" article. And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to. The reason why i'm voting No is because WAP:ANIME is more than just a different type of comic, TV series, and movie. All three are part of a unified industry in Japan. The primary, secondary, and tertiary sources all recognize this industry with manga and anime at the top of the pyramid. English Television, Films, and Comics although make adaptations they're not unified like Anime/Manga's industry. I also believe this will do more harm than good.
These three editors believe if the RfC goes in their favor, then that means these editors now have the consensus they need to make the changes they desire. Nothing in the RfC suggest anything substantial or specific of what they actually want to achieve. Just because i voted No doesn't mean these editors can't tackle this issue directly or be more specific with the RfC. It doesn't change the fact that WAP:ANIME is still following MOS guidelines of their respected Wikiprojects too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
WAP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WAP:TV and WAP:FILM or even WAP:COMIC - Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.
Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information. - Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.
WAP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split - Wow. Again with your WAP:OWNERSHIP claims.
And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to - You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. They are also, in their current state, not high quality or good articles. Some also have redirects from the base name. Changing their name via WAP:RM does not change that fact. Ni ether does re-purposing those articles as the actual main TV series article create bad articles. On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true. All you have to do is quote an actual MOS that explicitly states "Episode lists can only be spun out from standalone TV series articles and not any other type of article". As of now, WAP:MOSTV only clarifies it an be done from the main article. There is no MOS that says the franchise article can cover the TV series either.
Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours. Comment disregarded due to incivility. moving onto next statement.
You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. No. i'm not ignorant to Facts. I'm only seeing personal opinions and personal interpretations from you. But WAP:ANIME objectively did not go against any MOS. Even then, i rather use Common sense argument than Policy is law.
On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. First time i hear you make this claim. But i think this is up to personal interpretation and opinion. If you say its a bad list and needs to be formatted to be a better list. Then i can understand. But trying to say a list is a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article? I'm sorry, but you haven't given me enough time to accept an idea. To me, this is a stretch of an idea.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I forgot about WAP:BIO as well, of course. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate. Quite frankly, this whole thing is mountain made out of a mole hill. Calidum 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected - Just because they cover similar ground does not automatically make one subordinate. WikiProjects shouldn’t be subordinate to one another unless created that way by design. If there is any debate when you even have to ask the question, then the answer is no. (Full disclosure - I was notified of this discussion, but the person did not notify me of their stance prior, and I formulated this response before reading their stance.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected: seconding off AngusWOOF's reasoning. Spinning off longer series into their own article is nice but it risks creating lower quality articles for short-running series. lullabying (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate per AngusWOOF and Sergecross73. I would be interested in what prompted AussieLegend to make this RfC (links to previous discussions, etc.). In some ways, WAP:ANIME has a far broader scope than WAP:TV, WAP:FILM, or WAP:COMICS, covering content even beyond those three. If anything, it's subordinate to WAP:JAPAN since everything within its scope would also fall under WAP:JAPAN, and it already works well with WAP:JAPAN. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WAP Japan! 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a related section above on this page that gives some background. Calidum 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate. per above arguments raised by AngusWOOF, Sergecross73, and Nihonjoe. I would further argue that WAP:ANIME's very existence reflects the fact that anime/manga topics often reflect a distinct union of the above-mentioned media categories, demanding a different treatment of hierarchy and structure than outlined by those overlapping WAP's. — Goszei (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with this statement. I've attempted to clarify what Goszei stated multiple times.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that you are using viewpoint this as a license to ignore all of the other WAP's MOS's, which is not what the other editors are saying. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No MOS is being ignored. All MOS are being considered. At the moment the way WAP:ANIME operates, it does not systematically go against WAP:MOSTV. Its just a small faction of WAP:TV who have their own personal philosophy on how an article should look like and desperately trying to attach it to an MOS. Please stop using MOS unless you find definitive proof that WAP:ANIME breaking the MOS systematically.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
off-topic
Please stop attacking WAP:TV editors. All of the editors you are attacking have had a lot more experience editing TV articles and articles in general than you've had in your time at Wikiafripedia. We all have extensive experience in creating and maintaining TV articles than you have in your time here. Your persistent attacks are disrespectful and bordering on being personal attacks. --AussieLegend () 22:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
If my comment is a personal attack, then IJBall, Gonnym, and yourself are guilty of it for far longer. You don't get to push another editor around and use WAP:CIVIL when you've pushed them too far and lost patience with you. it doesn't matter how long you've been here, i wont allow that again. If you want to give me that warning you better give it to IJBall aswell.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk)
Sorry for butting in, but what do you mean by "personal attacks"? He seems to just be disagreeing with you and other editors and disliking the route that this RFC is heading, but none of his comments seem to come anywhere near WAP:NPA levels. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologise, your participation in the discussion is more than welcome. At the RM discussion, in the discussion above this RfC and in the RfC itself he is constantly attacking TV editors and making the discussion a WAP:ANIME vs WAP:TV thing, when it is definitely not. While individual attacks may not strictly be personal attacks, the constant attacks are, at the very best, gross incivility to the point where they've crossed the line. --AussieLegend () 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle black @AussieLegend:. editors from WAP:TV have done the same thing and were the first to be hostile, you can see in user talk:Gonnym. I also provided an olive branch afterwards. So bringing up the RM now is pointless.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yet another uncivil comment. I don't know, nor do I care, what allegedly happened on someone's talk page. Looking at the RM discussion, which was my first involvement, the incivility started with your post which said "What you WAP:TVSHOW editors fail to understand".[6] Regardless, someone being hostile to you is not an excuse to be hostile yourself. --AussieLegend () 09:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate - As per Angus the scope of Anime and Manga goes beyond just WAP:TV. I agree with Joe when he says if anything that the subordinate project would be WAP:JAPAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate - As per above. Also, having read through most of the discussions all over the place in regards to this User:AussieLegend and the others appear to be set in stone on their opinion that WAP:ANIME should be subordinate to the others and seem to be unable to accept that Anime, Manga, and Light Novels operate differently to western media and so need to be treated differently. There was also a discussion a few weeks ago in regards to the infobox used for TV Series vs the one used for anime series, which as far as I know ended without a consensus of any kind. During all of these discussions, it seemed like some users were unwilling to accept that people had different interpretations of the Manual of Style and other guidlines and that most of these can and do coexist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu Project guidelines are quite weak per WAP:BURO and WAP:OWN. Each case should therefore be judged on its merits and our global policies are what matters. Anything less than a firm policy is too loosey-goosey to require formal treaties and borders between projects. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The crux of the matter[edit source | edit]

  • If a question like this even comes up, it sounds like the guidelines used by projects are overly prescriptive (and of course the answer must then be "no"). WikiProjects are not hierarchical, and there is not the One True Way to do everything. Try to write good articles instead of enforcing more "consistency" than is appropriate. —Kusma (t·c) 22:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, part of the problem here is that the guidelines aren't prescriptive enough. Because MOS:TV does not explicitly say that the main article for a television series should be a TV series article, WAP:ANIME has decided that franchise articles are main articles. However, this is not the case for any of the 46,000+ TV programs that Wikiafripedia covers. --AussieLegend () 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not part of the problem, this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have. Its a conflict of philosophies, not guidelines. Despite this, i still recommend to use common sense. And in order to use common sense, we need context. What are the fundamental differences between Anime TV series and 46000+ TV programs you claim? I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises. Maybe 1000-1500 articles, but that is being generous. Here are other fundamental differences:
1) The average reader is looking for both anime and manga series.
2) The Japanese entertainment industry is co-dependent of each other and are created systematically. When the success of the original media rises, the industry demands an adaptation that is either a manga, anime, or light novel. 90% of the time Japanese franchises are made up of all three. Light novels have been trending this decade, but before it was mostly anime and manga. Unlike western franchises where it is not nearly a guarantee.
3) 90% of TV anime are adaptations are co-dependent to the manga or light novel.
4) 90% of the original media its adapting from is not notable on its own. This may be due to lack of reliable sources talking about it, or coverage.
5) If the original media is notable and can be a good-quality article on its own, the anime TV series may not be able to stand on its own as a good-quality article and is more beneficial to be left merged with the original media's page.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WAP:ANIME follows the current process.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have - More incivility.
46000+ TV programs you claim - Actually, the number of TV series articles using {{Infobox television}} is 47,682 right now.[7] There may be some TV programs that don't use that infobox.
I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises. - They aren't, but that's not at all relevant. Whether or not they are part of a franchise, the TV series article is always the main article for a TV series, as already explained to you multiple times. Franchise articles are usually created later. For example, NCIS originally started with a single series. After other series were started, a franchise article was created to tie the franchise elements together but the individual series articles remain the main articles for each series. This is how it has always been done.
Maybe 1000-1500 articles - Where did you get that number from?
The Japanese entertainment industry - As has been explained to you previously, we're not talking about the Japanese entertainment industry.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WAP:ANIME follows the current process. - And yet it's not. Nothing you've written justifies stepping away from the article hierarchy that is standard for all TV programs. --AussieLegend () 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid. I'm opting for common sense and common sense requires context. If you want to dismiss that context, its up to you and you are welcomed to do so. I presented my points and i trust other editors know the correct choice to make.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid. -- And therein lies the real problem. You constantly put forward unsupportable claims and irrelevancies and when they are debunked you either attack the other editor or ignore them while presenting no valid justification yourself. Case closed. --AussieLegend ()
Actually if you look above my comment, this is what you're doing. I've responded respectively and in detail in the past. you call it irrelevant, but other editors pointed out similar statements.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Help requested on drive page[edit source | edit]

Hello, I have created the NHLtoGA Drive which focuses on bringing all current NHL teams to Good Article status. Any tips on how I can improve the page, promote the drive, and be successful? Any tools I could use? Also, should I move it to WikiProject/Wikiafripedia space when I finish the page? Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)