This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead of trying to hold the list/article back we as editors for the good of Wikipedia should be trying to develop this list/article. I ask you do not revert each other and do not remove valuable information from the published version because it doesn't suite your viewpoint in light of the closed RM. Instead both projects should work to develop the list/article. Don't push editors off into draftspace to support your viewpoint. First off develop the basic sections and see if the content needed for an article can be sustained with the list of episodes. If a particular MOS (like MOS:TV or MOS:ANIME) is requiring the need for a "Reception" section to create a TV series article and you can't find any possible reception anywhere then it would be time to re-evaluate that particular MOS. A reception section should not be the almighty crux if a TV series article gets created or not. Speaking of which Anime News Network has 5 Shelf Life articles on the home video releases as well as 2 anime preview articles which mention Toriko that can be used as reception. Even reviews like this can help develop the reception section. This article is also good where Funi UK said Toriko will not be streamed there (which isn't mentioned in the franchise article or here.) I found all of this within 5 minutes of searching. So instead of bickering try collaborating with each other and develop the list/article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?12:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which guideline you meant by your Reception argument, but if you meant Wikipedia:Notability, that isn't a topic-specific guideline. If there are no RS that talk about a specific thing, then that thing isn't notable by Wikipedia standards for an article. This is not meant as a comment about Toriko, but a general one. If you think that WP:N is wrong, then try changing it, but I personally fail to see how you can call something "notable" if no RS talk about it. Regarding the specific issue of TV series, then WP:TVSHOW also does not mention "reception" as any issue. It says that if it airs nationally then it's (probably*) notable for an article. To this specific issue, Toriko passes this as well. (*As WP:TVSHOW does not conflict with WP:N, it does say that the presence or absence of RS reflects the notability of the show). --Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I wasn't making an argument or specifying a particular guideline my comment (which is why I used both MOS:TV and MOS:ANIME general examples.) I was making a general statement since reception came up as an issue during the RM discussion. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?13:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough content to creating a stand-alone article with substantial reception and production information that guarantees a or higher, I'm in favor of a separate article. And if that gets approved, i would still prefer that the history of the TV series gets split off the content instead of renaming this list into an article. Toriko is still a 147-episode series. It deserves to be a separate list on its own regardless. And that list won't help make a better article for the TV series. If we can agree to that, then i'm in support for whatever changes come to this list. The end result will still be that this list remains.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is quality. So if you can guarantee quality articles, then I'm on your side every single time, and I'm sure other WP:ANIME editors will be on your side too. If this was any other series with 24 episodes or less, we would've supported either merging the list back to the main article or creating an article of its own if there was enough information. But for a 147-episode series? No matter what scenario happens, trying to make this into a TV series article will require a second split. So why try to make this into an article in the first place if the episode list won't help make it a quality TV series article? The method WP:ANIME is to expand the main series article first, and if the franchise article has substantial anime information, and the main page can stand on its own, then the split is done (without affecting the edit history too much). This method helped minimize low-quality articles.
(edit conflict) Blue Pumpkin Pie you are missing the whole point of a collaboration here and your making it harder to work with the editors of WP:TV. If a separate TV series article is created it doesn't have to be or higher. In general a new article can be or higher. Now taking a look at Toriko which covers both the manga and anime it currently sets at on WP:ANIME's assessment scale and whoever reviewed it for compliance with the class criteria said it only failed B1 (referencing and citation) which is not the case. Toriko currently is lacking a reception for the anime and therefor it fails the coverage portion of B2. If Toriko mainly covered the manga with the anime being covered under Toriko (TV series) then Toriko would pass B2 while Toriko (TV series) would fail B2. So even if WP:ANIME fixes B1 on Toriko in its current form it still isn't class material since it covers the anime and manga as it "is still missing important content" and is "useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Since Toriko covers the anime right now and is acting as the parent article to List of Toriko episodes that technically falls under the scope of WP:TV as well and their assessment scale. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard 16: You're asking to compromise my entire philosophy on quality over quantity. And that kind of compromise i'm just not physicaly capable of doing. If you're ok with and with no guarantee of potentially becoming or higher, then why are you asking me to collaborate when in reality it is just to submit to their view. You haven't provided a reason why i should do that. Right now there is no consensus to create this into a TV series article.
But you raised an important point: Does Toriko serve as the TV series article? If it does, then why have we been debating with WP:TV editors? The common practice is to expand the main article until there's enough information for a split. Why have WP:TV been trying to convert this list into a separate TV series article if they already have one?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I'm gonna try it this way, I'm not asking you to abandon your philosophy on making a good article however stubs can be good articles. In order to grow the encyclopedia stubs are needed for this to happen. There is a thing as good stub articles. To answer your question no Toriko does not serve as a TV series article however it is currently serving as a de facto TV series article because that is where List of Toriko episodes is linked from. The thing is editors have to work on the articles and editors have to work together to see them grow. Your not even trying to help develop any of the Toriko articles right now in any form. The editors from WP:TV and myself are at least trying.
Just as a proof of concept for you I have a sandbox demo of what this list would look like split. Here is the TV series article and here is the list of episodes. The information in the TV series article is only 13,896 bytes while the episode list is 108,926 bytes together they are 122,822 bytes enough to be a single article. Even split the TV series article contains more information about the actual anime than Toriko currently does and it can be expanded upon. Really is my sandbox version of a potential TV series article that bad? Is that what you are afraid of? (Btw any editor can edit my sandboxes I don't mind as long as it is constructive.)
Also there are a lot of other anime articles that can be split or merged in some form. Tokyo Ghoul can actually have the anime split from the manga into Tokyo Ghoul (TV series) for example. That show is popular enough in the West and has way more reception available that is easy to find than Toriko. Meanwhile Angel Links has no reason to even have a separate standalone list of episodes and should be merged into its parent article. Attack on Titan (TV series) could actually benefit from having its episode list split from its parent TV article to improve readability. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?15:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard 16: I'm sorry, but I do not see stubs the same way you do, and I never will. I think it is impossible to have a "good stub". The only good stubs are the ones that the potential for it to be a or higher is immediately apparent. I understand they are inevitable in some circumstances, but they're still just the lowest tier of quality according to Wikipedia. If a stub or start article can be avoided, i will choose that option every time without question. By Wikipedia's own definition they are labeled as "un-encyclopedic". So if you're asking me to accept the creation of stub articles, you are asking me to abandon my philosophy on editing.
In regards to your sandbox. I'm not exactly convinced it's ready for official WP space. But if it means not touching trying to convert a perfectly solid list into a stub or start-class article, then as a one-time exception, I will bend the knee on its creation. Especially because we're doing the method that we wanted from the beginning: Create a separate space for the article where everyone can contribute. This is what we wanted from the beginning.
Also, how do you know I've not attempted to assist? You haven't seen me edit because the WP:TV editors wanted to convert this into an article. My goal was to expand Toriko until there was enough information because I disagreed with that idea. During this entire debate, I've been looking for more production information. There is barely enough reception based on reviews and TV view rankings and so I didn't prioritize on it. I haven't found a single interview and most likely the coverage will be in magazines. The lack of production information is what made me more adamant to not convert this list into an article.
As for Tokyo Ghoul we would need more production and reception information to become . I rather see the articles get expanded first before creating a new article stub/start. The anime at the moment lacks production and reception. Reception shouldn't be too hard to find, but I would need to see a draft or a sandbox before I immediately support it. Toriko has been a struggling debate, but i still expect the same process we've been using first: expand the article we have now, use as proof of concept for splitting the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support Alucard 16's proposed TV series article. It won't take much away from the main Toriko article which is C-class anyway so the quality isn't going to suffer. Agreed on Angel Links and other more direct-to-video presentations too. Some manga/anime articles aren't going to have enough information for a split. In fact, the Angel Links LoE one is small enough to merge back to the main article, only 13 episodes and not elaborate multi-part titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: I was the one that restored all deleted content back into the article because I was unsure which side did what for a particular reason. I saw an edit where some content was removed with the rationale of a MOS and to prevent edit warring I attempted to restore the article to a neutralized state that didn't disrupt any applicable manual of styles. The verifibility issue with the music already existed within the article when the information about the music was part of the lead prior to the start of the whole move discussion. Typically in cases like this content deletion should not be the first step unless it is an obvious WP:COPYVIO violation, WP:BLP attack, hoax, etc. In the case of the music this can easily be rectified by citing the opening/ending credits of a respective show. The credits don't have to be in English if an English source isn't available just as long as it is a reliable source. So in the case of Toriko anyone wanting to verify the music that can read Japanese and live in the United States can pull up any of the episodes on Crunchyroll (other fine legal streaming services also available) and verify them. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?09:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: The way the list of episodes for an anime TV series is formatted is not the issue that kickstarted this whole mess of RMs, RfCs, and a MOS:TV change discussion. In fact List of Toriko episodes followed the format of the lists you mentioned more closely before this whole thing happened. In a nutshell this is the issue at hand:
Some editors from WP:TV believe that MOS:TV in relation to article splitting is not being followed properly. They argue that a TV series article should be made first and the respective list of episodes should be contained within that TV series article until it becomes a point the article is too big and the list of episodes needs to be split from the TV series article.
The viewpoint from WP:ANIME is that first the franchise article is created. For most shows this starts off with the manga then as other forms of media are created (anime TV series, films, video games, etc.) this main article will house all the information relating to them. If the article becomes too big the next step is to create a list of characters, list of chapters and list of episodes. A base article for the anime TV series may come at a later time or not at all depending on what information is available.
For the supporters of this viewpoint they often refer to Bleach (manga) as an example of this creation path. List of Bleach episodes was created on March 3, 2006. Bleach (TV series) on the other hand while created on December 12, 2005 experienced an AfD where it was redirected back to Bleach (manga) on May 18, 2007. Bleach (TV series) in its current form actually began on October 4, 2013 where another attempt at deletion began on November 2, 2013 which ended in no consensus. Since then Bleach (TV series) has currently developed into a class article in accordance with WP:ANIME's assessment scale. This is why they often argue a "TV series" article should not be a pre-requisite for a "List of Episodes" article.
My particular objective was to get the two sides to work together on Toriko because it is the perfect test case. For those from WP:ANIME they are the experts when it comes to anime instead of fighting with WP:TV try and go find information on development, reception, etc while leaving all the technical aspects (i.e. reorganization of structure, MOS article layout compliance) to WP:TV. If the end result is a poorly developed new TV series article or converting a decent "List of Episodes" article into a poor TV series article then that would be cold hard proof that in some cases you don't need a TV series article before a "List of Episodes" if an existing franchise article can better handle the information.
Your timing couldn't have been worse @Alucard 16:. The RfC above ended with no consensus to move, so any attempts to try to change this into an article would be against that. WP:TV's only concern is pushing their own personal preference on how WP:TV articles should look like. And as the discussion has continued in WP:VPM and in WT:MOSTV, more editors outside of WP:TV and WP:ANIME have voiced that this doesn't need to be the case. I don't understand why you came in with the promise of working together when the result you're actually looking for is more in WP:TV's favor. Regardless, I support the idea of a separate space for a TV series article in the condition that list remains a list. WP:TV has to at least recognize that no matter what scenario, a list of episodes is going to be required for a Toriko TV series article so there's no point trying to do this the messy way when we can create a Toriko TV series article much more elegantly and cleaner (your sandbox or a draft).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I wash my hands of this as I have better things to do. If you have read my ongoing replies over at this discussion you will clearly see I favor no sides in this whole ordeal and in actual fact personally have no issue with the current structures of the anime/manga related articles. Clearly you have your viewpoint on how things should work, don't want to even consider what others are saying, their proposals or the good things that could come of it. You demand others to create B-Class drafts without putting in any involvement before you would even consider their ideas. That is not what Wikipedia is about. I'm not wasting my time on this anymore or responding to future comments or pings. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?09:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read my ongoing replies over at this discussion you will clearly see I favor no sides in this whole ordeal and in actual fact personally have no issue with the current structures of the anime/manga related articles.
The previous RfC was about trying to turn this list into a TV series regardless of the quality. the RfC closed as no consensus to move. Your attempts at mediating between two wikiprojects after the RfC is to do the very thing that caused the RfC in the first place: use the list as a TV series article. If you have no issues with the current structure of anime/manga related articles, why are we making a mess out of the list of episodes?
Clearly you have your viewpoint on how things should work, don't want to even consider what others are saying, their proposals or the good things that could come of it.
I don't understand where this is coming from. In previous comments, you acknowledged that quality is a valid concern WP:ANIME has and why they didn't support changing this list into a stub/start article, and now you want to create an article regardless of quality. So if your goal is to work together, why are you asking WP:ANIME to make all of the compromises?
You demand others to create B-Class drafts without putting in any involvement before you would even consider their ideas. That is not what Wikipedia is about.
I stated before, I've been doing my own research for the sake of the discussion to be over. It would be a blessing if i found all the necessary information to create a TV series article and not worry about the quality. I used the resources in WP:ANIME/RS and [archive.org] and looking for anime/manga scans that have covered Toriko in the past to look for more production information. Anime is much harder than video games. Toriko is even harder for some reason. I'm not demanding others to create a B-class draft because I'm not demanding a TV series article yet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wash my hands of this as I have better things to do. - Welcome to the club.
you will clearly see I favor no sides in this whole ordeal - While I disagree with some of Alucard 16's actions and comments, he does seem to generally favour no particular side and is at least attempting to be positive.
Clearly you have your viewpoint on how things should work, don't want to even consider what others are saying, their proposals or the good things that could come of it. - This I agree with and I think BPP's treatment of Alucard is inappropriate.
The previous RfC was about - BPP, you really need to try getting your terminology correct. You were calling WP:TVWP:TVSHOW, which is a guideline, not the project name. Now you've confused, several times, "RM" with "RfC". These are two different things. What happened here was a requested move (RM), not a request for comment (RfC) and your mislabelling is confusing for readers who haven't been involved for the whole debacle. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend: you're using a straw man fallacy. The point is that the discussion was closed with no consensus to move this list. So why did Alucard come in, act like he was mediating between two groups after the discussion was over, to only propose the very thing that caused the discussion in the first place?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using a strawman fallacy at all. It is a fact that you've been getting terminology wrong. Your posts demonstrate that. You talk big about wanting articles of high quality but your posts are certainly not. Sometimes you just have to accept your mistakes rather than criticising others for pointing your mistakes out to you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From this point forward, i wont contribute to your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I will only respond to the topic at hand. I will ignore all accusations of personal attacks, or what you define as appropriate and stick with the facts. I also will not respond to any arguments that are not relevant. Such as the confusion of RfC/RM and TV/TVSHOW. Honest mistakes, its been several days since. Afterall, this issue was dragged out onto three different venues already, an RM, an RfC, and another discussion in MOSTV. All three resulting in similar consensus.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone objects, I'm thinking about holding a split discussion on the main Talk:Toriko page to see if the production and reception sections (both of which usually don't belong on anime episode lists) needs to be moved to a separate article (akin to Dragon Ball Z, etc). Thoughts before I proceed to do so? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied to you at the current time its best to leave this alone for now as the two sides are working on a compromise. The end result will either result in all TV series info being split from the list of episodes into its own article, the list of episodes being reorganized as the TV series article or the extra applicable TV series content should just be merged into Toriko. Currently there is no reception section for the Toriko anime all the reception is about the manga and it is located in the main Toriko article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?09:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list should just stay a list and the TV info merged back into Toriko per the norm that we have gone by. The idea that episodes cant have their own lists goes against current consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The parent article covers all TV-series related content. Toriko may be light on content, but it is still the default main page until there's substantial information to make a solid, good-quality TV series article. I'm trying to find information for the sake of this discussion to be over, but Toriko TV series is a hard topic to find. I can't find any production information at all. The previous "RM" had no consensus to move this list. the RfC in WP:VPM closed with a lot of comments acknowledging that not every article can be created the same. Now if you still want to pursue a TV series article, at this point it would have to be elsewhere since there was no consensus to turn this list into one.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the default main page, it is the default franchise main page. There is a difference. If you still refuse to understand it and keep wanting this the way you want it, see Power Rangers (disambiguation). There's a page for the franchise, and then a page for each generation—for example, Dino Charge and Ninja Steel. That's followed by List of Power Rangers episodes and then a season article for some Power Rangers generations—or seasons—where appropriate. There is no reason this should be any different just because it's anime that, as it is, has been following the wrong practices for years. Amaury • 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed this. The RM is closed. The RfC in WP:VPM is also closed, and the discussion in WT:MOSTV in attempts to control what should be considered a main page is not in favor of that idea. Right now, we're attempting to create a TV series article separately from the list. We need to drop the stick and move forward.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alucard 16 already created a sandbox. I have no issues with the draft, or sandbox space used to incubate an article. The debate diverted on when we should allow the article to be part of official WP space. Should we allow it to be once it is a stub or start, or close to B-class.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but he speedily deleted the draft after he washed his hands of the conflict. For now, we should work on my draft until it's at least close to a B-Class or so, then we can post it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: I deleted my drafts because in the short amount of time they were in existence you were the only one to edit them besides me. I had every intention of working on the TV series draft by creating a character section in accordance with MOS:ANIME#Characters and also adding a receptions section with the links that I had found that were from WP:A&M/RS when I got home from work. For the TV series you don't need my draft anymore as this is better and more along the lines of what I hoped editors would do. If you feel it would be beneficial or needed I can ask for a WP:REFUND for the draft of the standalone list. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?22:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm confused by the question. As it stands, the article has become a series article with recent edits but it doesn't follow WP:NCTV, which is what resulted in the recently closed RM. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
