|
I don't want to start an edit warring in the article, so I want to discuss here the issue with this section. The arguments made by @The Sweet Jack: to keep the section seem just WP:OTHERCONTENT. Apart from Bleeding Cool, which is considered reliable, the other websites are not. Also, the "controversy" would be worth mentioning if Yen Press at least had actually addressed the issue and had made some statement, but making up a "controversy" based on some random complaints from Twitter is simply WP:UNDUE. - Xexerss (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why there are other articles that report issues basing on massive complaints on Twitter and social media (and no, they're not "random", as I explained) and why suddenly the other sites with editorial staffs and non-deprecated are now not reliable or acceptable since they are used in other Wikipedia articles and not only on Wikipedia English? Why only for this particular case they're suddenly not acceptable or reliable? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't like what I smell, no offense and with all due respect.
- Other articles report controversies when something actually happens as a result of the controversy, like My Hero Academia being banned in China, not when all it is is fans complaining and nothing else. As for the sources, Bleeding Cool is reliable but it just says that they changed the title, not why or that it caused any controversy. The other sources are blogs and Bounding into Comics, which is a known Comicsgate supporter and generally unreliable for stuff like this per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics". As it currently stands, I agree this is WP:UNDUE and based on questionable sources. Link20XX (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @The Sweet Jack: As I mentioned before, the fact that other articles have X thing doesn't mean that is automatically ok to make the same thing in other article. Wikis, MyAnimeList or Anime News Network's encyclopedia, for example, are not reliable sources, still, there are various articles citing them simply because no one has taken the time to remove them; it's not an overstatement to say that Wikipedia has more poor written articles than acceptable ones. What other language Wikipedia articles do is not our concern. Any website can make up a controversy based on some user-generated comments and complaints on the web and that doesn't automatically mean that it is notable and is worth mentioning in the article. Also (I'm repeating myself now) "attacked furiously" is WP:TENDENTIOUS and Yen Press never said "we changed the title due to politically correct reasons," no, that is a fan interpretation and shouldn't be treated as a fact. More evidence of why fan complaints alone are not enough to make this kind of sections. - Xexerss (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Can I rewrote the part about the change of the title in English without mentioning this time the announcement on Twitter and the criticisms of fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sweet Jack (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @The Sweet Jack: It seems that you still don't get the issue. As Link20XX said above, a controversy (regardless if the content doesn't have its own section now) is worth mentioning when something actually happens as a result of the controversy. Yen Press haven't addressed the issue, so all that is here are some fan complaints on Twitter and nothing else. Secondly, the sources you're adding are unreliable, just some blogs and a biased website with poor editorial control. The fact that some other articles have cited them doesn't mean a thing. At least two editors here gave their reasons why they are unreliable and you're only argument is (again) based on WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you still want to prove that these websites, for whatever reason, are trustworthy, you could discuss it on the WP:A&M/ORS talk page (since you're editing a manga article). - Xexerss (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @The Sweet Jack: The original title is mentioned in the lead of the article with its respective translation. The official English title alone implies that it was changed from the original, so what else is there to know? Xexerss (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
And it seems - no offense - you didn't read carefully what I wrote. I said without mentioning any controversy and not even recreating that specific section. Only the title change in the West and difference compared to the all the other publications, that's all. The Sweet Jack (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @The Sweet Jack: Sorry, I replied to your comment before the editing. I replied to your new question below the other response. Xexerss (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I personally don't see why is relevant to note that the series kept the "Slave" part of the title in the other countries where it was licensed. - Xexerss (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I believe is pretty relevant. This is the text I want to add below 'Manga': "The American localization of the manga for its English publication by Yen Press replaced the word "Slave" in the title (present in every other publication around the world, including in the original Japanese title and even written in English language, while in Europe the manga is titled Demon Slave) with the word "Soldier". This change is bizarre especially because Yen Press' new title seems a different manga going against the lore of the series." — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sweet Jack (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- We're not supposed to give our value judgments on this site. Maybe you think the change is bizarre due to the reason you gave, but maybe someone else thinks that the change is fine, I have no idea. The only fact is that the English title doesn't include the word 'slave' and that's all, both titles are listed in lead anyway. Xexerss (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
- On another note, as far as I know the first volume has not even been released yet, but why are you so sure that the change of the title will affect the lore of the series? Yen Press has the synopsis of the first volume on their website , where they explicitly include the word "slave". Do you have any evidence that they will effectively censor the manga and change several terms? Xexerss (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
|
