Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes

Requested move 14 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus; but the Saga continues (pun intended). No such user (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes → The Saga of Tanya the Evil (TV series) – This will be a temporary placeholder but if this goes to season 2, revert to its old title. Renaming it similar to how Attack on Titan (TV series) fits its naming conventions. 184.146.38.122 (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The standard convention is to have an episode list, then split the list into pieces, like with My Hero Academia (see List of My Hero Academia episodes). For Attack on Titan, the TV series had enough coverage to warrant being split from the main article. Plus, it still has a List of Attack on Titan episodes list. We also shouldn't do anything preemptively per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Link20XX (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support – correct naming convention as per WP:NCTV. !Vote above is the typical one to expected from some WP:ANIME members, thinking that they can flout naming conventions, despite RfC's over the years clearly showing consensus that WP:ANIME falls under WP:TV, including WP:NCTV – anime series are TV series, and their articles should be named as per WP:NCTV. The proper convention as per guideline is "TV series" article first, and then spin-out a List of Episodes article if one is warranted – you cannot have a LoE article without a "TV series" article first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Then shouldn't every list of anime episodes (including some featured lists like List of Naruto episodes) be moved? Link20XX (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh wait MOS:A&M has a section that explicitly states "If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out to a separate article titled List of (series) episodes, List of (series) chapters, List of (series) novels, or similar". Link20XX (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  In addition, I am also of the opinion that the TV series doesn't need to be split from the original article. It was small enough in the original to not warrant it. In larger cases like Rurouni Kenshin it was warranted, but I would say not here. Link20XX (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  The answer to your first question is "YES!" WP:TV editors keep telling WP:ANIME editors this, and they keep acting like what they are doing here is "OK" – it's not. All of those should be "TV series" articles – you cannot have a LoE article without a "TV series" article first – that's what the whole long Attack on Titan (TV series) discussion was about: eventually WP:ANIME created a proper "TV series" article for that. It wasn't enough to have a LoE article by itself. The proper way to do this is have a short summary on the anime TV series at the main (manga) article (i.e. the "main" article is effectively equivalent to a "franchise" article on the overall franchise), then have a longer article on the TV series (which for shorter anime series will include the LoE table there), and then if the anime series runs about 3 or more seasons, to have a separate LoE article in addition to that. That's the correct process. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  If that is the case, this line "If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out to a separate article titled List of (series) episodes, List of (series) chapters, List of (series) novels, or similar." in MOS:A&M should be changed. Link20XX (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree with you there – at a minimum, that needs to be reworded. Best option would simply be to refer to MOS:TV for anime series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  I also don't appreciate you generalizing WP:ANIME members like this !Vote above is the typical one to expected from some WP:ANIME members Link20XX (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  As per the discussion below, I also would support a merge back to the parent article as an alternative to this RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per IJBall. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Per Others" is a WP:AADP. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's silly – this is a long-standing practice in RM and AfD, etc. discussions, because otherwise it requires editors to re-type out arguments that have already been made. And, in fact, that's not even what this is talking about which is talking about "just follow the crowd" votes, which is different from "I agree with X's analysis" votes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  The statement below specifically states "If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good". Link20XX (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  You've clearly misinterpreted AADP. I am not "per others" but "per IJBall" - a specific person making a specific case which I fully agree with. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Scrolling through history, it appears you and IJBall have a history of suggesting this many times. Link20XX (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Horseshit. If you really looked at the interaction history of me an IJBall, you'd see more disagreement than alignment. I suggest you stop the atrocious line and stick to making good policy-based arguments rather than further embarrass yourself by casting provably false ASPERSIONS. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  I did, MOS:A&M. Link20XX (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It appears we have an impass. A WP:TELEVISION participant is advocating for MOS:TV and a WP:ANIME participant is advocating for MOS:ANIME. Neither of us are incorrect, since both standards apply to the topic area, and each has different guidelines. Link20XX (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Though if you ask me, the standard made specifically for anime should have precedence over a general standard that applies to any TV article. I think you should WP:IAR on this one. Link20XX (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2 this discussion has previously come up on Talk:List of Toriko episodes, where the consensus was to not move. I fail to see how this is a different situation than that, to be frank. Link20XX (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment 3 I am going to repeat something Goszei said in 2019 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 73#TV series vs. List of episodes articles, Discussion seems to be populated almost entirely by frequent editors of television articles misapplying their MOS policy to anime adaptations, which differ on a notability basis. The question at hand is not whether MOS:TVSPLIT should apply to the page for a TV anime series, but first of all whether that page should exist at all, under WP:NOPAGE. Under that policy, the answer is no for a vast majority of adaptations; the current structure should be maintained. Link20XX (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: You need to stop this. The standard has been clearly drawn and defined over numerous discussions. There is a clear consensus that the current method should be maintained. Link20XX (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have struk some of my above comments. I would like to ask you WP:TELEVISION participants stop trying to force your standard on WP:ANIME. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (from ping). I believe that editors here are talking past each other somewhat. Firstly, I would like to retract and apologize for the accusatory portions of my 2019 comments that were quoted above. I still believe that the ideas expressed in WP:NOPAGE are very relevant to the case at hand:

• When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it.
• Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page...
• Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page...
• Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

This reflects exactly the situation that often arises with anime adaptations of printed source material. Japanese media very often takes the form of the "media mix", and it is often-said that "the anime is just an advertisement for the manga", and similar. This sort of relation between the source and the adaptation is (somewhat) unique to anime/manga, at the least, it is highly prevalent in anime/manga. I do not think we should be dogmatic regarding the MOS'es, but rather recognize that unique circumstances, when subjected to the aforementioned editorial judgment, can result in unique guidance.

For the large majority of cases (the Attack on Titan anime is an exception, which is reflected in the amount and breadth of sourcing), it is "unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about" on the anime adaptation, and this is reflected the availability of reliable sourcing (specifically, availability of production info and reception are often key elements to build an TV series article that isn't (1) a permastub, or (2) duplicative of the parent article). For most cases, such info is not available, and it best serves our readers to cover anime adaptations briefly, and as part of the larger parent article.

As for the case at hand, this is what we see at The Saga of Tanya the Evil#Anime. This brief section is all we have, and by my judgment all we need, to cover this piece of media. The "parent" content is contained entirely in The Saga of Tanya the Evil#Anime, and the list of episodes is the spin-off content. I don't see much benefit to our readers or editors in creating a new article composed only of this terse description and a large episode list. I feel instead there should be some "meat" available like production information or reception before we create a standalone article about the adaptation. If that "meat" is not available, a spin-off list whose parent is a section seems like the setup with the lowest duplication of content and maintenance burden.

In other words, this is not a question of naming convention so much as it is a question of a content split, which is entirely subject to editorial judgment. — Goszei (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and I don't disagree with much of that. But I would say that List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes is actually a really great example of WP:NOPAGE – a 12-episode series should not even have a separate LoE article (under MOS:TV, such an article would certainly be merged back to The Saga of Tanya the Evil), and that specific one should almost certainly not have been split out, as per WP:SIZESPLIT... I won't rehash the rest of the disagreement – suffice it to say that I think a number of us believe that if an anime series has enough episodes to justify a WP:SPLITOUT, then in most cases there will be enough sourceable content (e.g. 'Production' and 'Reception') to justify a "full TV series" article rather than just a plain LoE article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe merging it back to parent is not a bad idea. The episode list is already tagged for long plot, maybe we should shorten them and merge back? We usually wait for a series to have ~24 episodes before doing this kind of split anyway. As a side note, if the proper production information is out there, I will fully support splitting the TV series (see Rurouni Kenshin (TV series) where I contested a speedy deletion successfully). Link20XX (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Rurouni Kenshin (TV series) is a pretty good example of it being done right. I also would potentially support a WP:MERGE in the specific cases of these two current RMs... One comment: a lot of the WP:ANIME LoE articles are not using the {{Episode table}} template (there may be an anime-specific version of this template – I don't remember...) – I wonder if somebody who is knowledgeable in the area might be willing to put in a WP:BOTREQUEST on converting these LoE articles to use {{Episode table}}. (It may not be possible for a bot to do this, but it's worth a try...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That is weird that most (or at least this list) doesn't use the template. I have only created one article with a list of episodes (My Hero Academia (season 5)) and I used the episode table template. Anyway, for now, I Support merge to parent. Link20XX (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in this particular case, that the episode summaries should be shortened substantially, and that there should then be a re-merge if SIZESPLIT permits. In the cases where there is clearly enough content for a SIZESPLIT (as IJBall indicates), I think it is generally true that there will be enough info about Production and Reception laying around, but not always. I will note that language barrier is a big issue as well, where there is existing relevant info but hard enough to crack that we would have a stub for years (a general issue at with anime/manga). Some more judgment here must be made on whether we should wait for someone to translate the content and put it on Wikipedia before splitting, or split first.

My general point is that guidelines and MOS's take us this far, and then we must apply editorial judgement based on the current content we have, and what sourcing is out there. I am very glad to see that editors are now doing so constructively. — Goszei (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This article is an article about the television series as there is no other article about the television series it should be titled as proposed. This is clearly written in both WP:NCTV (which is the only television-related naming convention guideline) and also in explained more in details as to why in the general MOS:TV. As stated above, additional information should be added including but not limited to development, casting, production and reception. Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Per this RfC, it was decided that they can be separate and use separate standards. Please stop trying to force your standard on anime. Link20XX (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment To anyone seeing this RM, this and other similar move requests are also being discussed at ANI here. Link20XX (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is a list episode and an extension of the original article. This list itself is not sufficient enough to stand as its own main article if it was renamed to "TV series" and I'm afraid that by doing so, it's at risk of being merged to the original article (making it too long). This issue has been brought up twice in the past and I remember WP:TV's side was overruled when it was brought up to ANI. lullabying (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per my comments on this previous shitshow here over the exact same issue. See also consensus at village pump here that anime MOS is not subordinate to television MOS. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Before I said I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but I would like to take that back. Since I said that, the series had a second season announced. I would say a merge is now impractical. Link20XX (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as season 2 has been announced. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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.