Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

I have had storms in my area a while ago - my internet service is still prone to going off unpredictably, sometimes it still goes off for days. --Malkinann (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current other statement shows bias towards other organization over failing NPOV.Lucia Black (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this, Lucia Black altered the wording of one of the statements because she felt it was biased. I reverted her as I feel her revision makes the statement less neutral, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to change others' writing on the request page. I initially misread her change as being to my secondary issue which I supplied based on the wording of the primary issue she actually changed. I notified her of my revision, the subsequent discussion can be seen here. --Malkinann (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really going to look for third party? If your main reason of "othe" vs "appropriate" then I don't care. We can use other or appropriate.Lucia Black (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you no longer feel that "Whether Sailor Moon's structure in separating English adaptations from which the afore mentioned spinout article originates is in violation of NPOV when there are other possible ways of structuring the information." is worded in a biased manner, then it should be sorted. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements you vhave added are bias to your perspective as the ones jinnai has added are nuetral third party view. This isn't plaintiff and defendent.Lucia Black (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only added one statement, and I've tried to word it as neutrally as possible. Could you please suggest ways of rephrasing it so that it is more neutral? --Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for one, obscuring the Notable topic is a subjective issue if mediator confirms it POVFORK. You have to present both sides.Lucia Black (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel that the current sentence structure implies that the topic is notable as a foregone conclusion? --Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that it was unanimous that we all accepted as a notable article. Which is a real discussion. The other implies less bias, but still bias. Meaning it sounds like a complaint. Whether Sailor Moon's structure in separating English adaptations from which the afore mentioned spinout article originates is in violation of NPOV when there are other possible ways of structuring the information. When I changed it to "or an appropriate" suggest the issue is either the current organization either fails NPOV or an apropriate form of organization. If you do not want appropriate the word then we can use valid or acceptable.Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to submit a secondary item for discussion that questions whether the topic is notable. The words "appropriate", "valid" or "acceptable" are all value judgements which imply that your reorganisation is better than other methods of organising the information, and should not be used in the primary statement. "Other" implies no value, either good or bad. --Malkinann (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are looking at it as a complete sentence...you just stop when you see the placement value but there were bigger changes that make it secondary to the primary change. And that being: currect organization fails NPOV or appropriate/valid/acceptable. I even bolded the section.....does everything about my statement goes blank whenever you hear appropriate or any form of place value?Lucia Black (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really under estimate the sentence connector "or" and the tern you are using "when there are". This is a hypothetical example:

Whether Sailor Moon character names fails NPOV or an Appropriate naming format shows both sides equally. Now the form you have shows it like this:

Whether Sailor Moon character names fails NPOV, when there are other naming format

See the difference? Also notability issue is implied in POVFORK/SPINOUT issue. Its pointless to mention it because if they go in favor of sailor moon (english adaptations) being POVFORK, it wouldn't matter if it obscured the topics notability because it wasnt.Lucia Black (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the notability issue is "implied" in the POVFORK/SPINOUT issue, it is not explicitly stated. An explicit statement about its notability would be helpful, as its notability is why I believe the article should not be merged. The way I have it, which I based on Jinnai's wording, is more neutral for all than introducing value-laden words into the mix. --Malkinann (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it, you see it as a separate issue but its a subjective issue if the mediators vote against spinout because they would deem it unnotable. They way you have it is not based on jinnai's wording. Jinnai's shows both sides, yours does not. Place value isn't bias depending on how it is used and clearly you intend to dodge the point. Also if yhou don't understand then maybe you should ask questions to what you don't understand instead of saying you dont. So ill go simpler jinnai = "whether subject A is either Correct or Incorrect". malkinann = " whether subject A is Incorrect when there are things that make it correct". When I changed it, I made it to either correct or incorrect type. Apppropriate/valid/correct may be value based to you but that's not what influences the sentence its the sentence connector "when there are" and "or". You do not present it nuetrally.Lucia Black (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article additions

I would like to add Sailor Moon soundtracks (USA) to this discussion, as it is organised as a daughter article of the English adaptations article - someone came along and made a soundtrack list, but only for the English-language soundtracks, so that was how we ended up organising it. I would also like to add List of Sailor Moon episodes (and its daughters) and List of Sailor Moon chapters to the articles, as they were brought up in the discussion as being possible merge targets for the information from Sailor Moon (English adaptations). --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support to list of sailor moon chapters and sailor moon episodes. Oppose to list of sailor moon soundtracks (USA). The article is disambiguated to (usa) when apparently one is originated from canada. Also the article can still exist if sources are found and if mediation goes against sailor moon (english adaptations). List of sailor moon soundtracks (USA) does not affect the current discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold all discussion until the mediator arrives. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of the chapter and episode lists per the concerns by Malkinann, as it has been the target point of merging to the article concerning the English adaptations. However, I am seriously concerned about the merging of the soundtracks. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to mediation

Our first step in this mediation case has been to ask all participants to send a confidential opening statement to us c/o Feezo's email. When we have reviewed all four statements, we will present a neutral summary of the contested points. Once everyone is in agreement on what the issues are, we can begin the discussion. This is the core of the mediation process and the aspect we will likely spend the most time on.

We should also note that mediation policy is currently being redrafted. The current policy Mediation Committee Policy will be in effect during this case (as it is a new page, you may want to bookmark this link).

Finally, we'd like to say that we're pleased with the level of civility and thoughtfulness in the opening statements we've received so far, and want to encourage these high standards in the forthcoming discussions.

Sunray (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (for the mediators)[reply]

Case summary

Sunray and I have reviewed the statements, and have identified the issues and their corollaries as follows:

1. Does the existence (as opposed to content) of the article Sailor Moon (English adaptations) constitute a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:Notability?

If so, the article's worthwhile content, if any, should be added to Sailor Moon.

2. Does the content of Sailor Moon (English adaptations) conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

If not, is it possible for the article to be rewritten in a way such that it would?

If not, then (2) becomes the same as (1).

3. If Sailor Moon (English adaptations) meets Wikipedia:Notability and is not a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, what policy or guideline based arguments are there both for and against merging the article with Sailor Moon?

Sign below if you agree that these are the primary issues that you want to see resolved—but please do not reply to the questions yet. If you think we have not identified the key issues, or if you feel that there are other issues that are just as important, send us an email at Special:EmailUser/Feezo. Again, this is only an attempt to determine the primary issues of the case; related issues such as Sailor Moon soundtracks (USA) can be dealt with later. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (for the mediators)[reply]

I've updated the list with a modification of the issue raised below, as there seems to be a consensus that this is a key topic for mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
∞陣内 Jinnai 23:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issue

I'd like to add the following issue to the issues discussed above by Feezo and Sunray:

If Sailor Moon (English adaptations) meets Wikipedia:Notability and is not a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, what policy-based reasons are there for the article to be merged?

Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how is this an issue?Lucia Black (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we've got this in mediation, I'd like to seek clarification on the "other reasons" the article may still be merged, even if it's determined the article is notable and neutral. --Malkinann (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable to me. An issue is simply a topic for discussion. The mediators are trying to include all issues raised by participants that seem to need discussion or clarification. This was identified in Malkinann's opening statement. Sunray (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say there aren't any other reasons. Unles the nediator can see some potential policybased reasons.Lucia Black (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if we do agree to hear this issue, we will also be looking for policy and guideline based reasons to keep the articles separate. Would you agree to have the discussion on those terms? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah id agree to that.Lucia Black (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is everything resolved? This mediation seems a bit prolongedLucia Black (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone needs to agree to the Case summary or else Malkinann's issues (if any) with that need to be addressed.∞陣内 Jinnai 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry guys - Christmas is eating me alive at the moment, and I can't deal with WP until after it's all over. Thanks for understanding. --Malkinann (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas is over and so is new years. I hope we can start now.Lucia Black (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience everyone - I should be more able to do this from now on. --Malkinann (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other Additional issues?Lucia Black (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working with the mediators. Thanks for your patience and understanding. --Malkinann (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel any more additional issues stem from the ones we alrready have. What more can be worked with?Lucia Black (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning discussion

The mediators think that a good place to start would be with Question #2. Initially we would like to have participants respond to us rather than each other. In your posts, please bear in mind that observations and evidence are what we are looking for.

A good goal to keep in mind is to aim for a discussion based on evidence and backed up with either specific statements of policy, sources or diffs. Another goal is to ensure that comments are focused on content, not the contributor. If you do need to mention something about another participant please stick to observations (X said... Y did...) and I-messages rather than judgements or criticism.

Would each of you be able to make an opening statement about #2 now? Sunray (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjones23

As a regular on Wikipedia since December 2006, I try to edit anime articles to bring them up to Wikipedia standards to get it for FA or GA. However, I am concerned about the use of fan sites sourced in the articles, which have downloads as well on the page in question. I am also seriously concerned that the neutrality of the article has been disputed for at least 4 years now. As everyone knows, fansites are generally not considered reliable sources and may include information published by other people who are fans of the series as a whole, therefore these statements may count as original research. Observing the discussion with the people involved in this dispute, Lucia Black and Jinnai suggested that we should merge the article to the main one (a similar discussion happened at Talk:One Piece (English adaptation), which is now merged with the main article). I am thinking that we should merge the article in such a way not to damage the quality of a Good Article. If not, we should re-write it to comply with Wikipedia quality standards. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lucia Black

As Sjones said about the sources used. The article in question merges several aspects of the main article and several daughter articles. The aricle seems rather intricate in detail aspects along with original research and questionable sources. The article mirrors the main article only splitting the english aspects from the original. Overall the article is about the same media. Manga, Anime, and future development which seems to be a mixed bag of trivial information. Its a very straight forward POVFORK in my eyes. The article will need alot of clean up first in order to merge it as it is heavily inticate and wordy than it needs to be.Lucia Black (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jinnai

The content of Sailor Moon (English adaptations) has its own NPOV violations that are wholely unique to the article itself. The first one I'll address is a more subtle POV issue and one which could be completely unitentional. The article goes against normal Wikipedian practices for neutral structure by putting the anime adaptations first rather than the manga. If one looks at other FA/GA articles with a manga original work that then has an anime adaptation, one can clearly see how the article's structure gives more emphasis to the anime without giving a good reason up front why the change is done.

The second one can be one that is hard to grasp for some editors. That is the issue of summarization, or rather the lack thereof. The anime has significantly more info on it (beyond the production section) such as the North American broadcasting. That one gets substantially more weight than even the other anime ones. While I know articles are WP:IMPERFECT, things have only gotten worse and will likely continue to do so unless outside pressure like this mediation is put on it.

Third, the last section "Future developments" implies a POV that we, Wikipedian editors, are predictors of the future. The section is poorly worded and outdated. It by its very existance with such a name is a POV-violation.

Fourth, there is a lot of empahasis on this page on minor items. I'll take the afore mentioned section as an example. First, there is the Toei poll which the info seems to have no bearing at all about an English adaptation of Sailor Moon, just the Japanese one. My guess is that it's trying to say Japanese popularity = English popularity by association that generally it has been popular outside Japan. Either way, that's a POV-pushing there boarding on WP:SYNTHESIS. Then you have info about fan group polls (not to be confused with the official funimation one), which we almost never cover, takedown notices on youtube, which were (and still are) common practice for any copyrighted video. To top it off it ends with with a dubious source, an unamed SM Italian website, claiming to be an authority on North American SM licensing practices. Even if that were true, its taking the word of a non-English, non-Japanese fan site.∞陣内 Jinnai 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from mediators

Thanks for these statements. There is plenty of material for discussion in the points raised, above. The mediators are ready to begin that discussion as soon as Malkinann has re-joined us. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have heard nothing more from Malkinann and she doesn't seem to be active on Wikipedia right now. If we don't hear from her within the next week, we will have to close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any word of Malkinann?Lucia Black (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]