Talk:Berserk (manga)/Archive 3

Archival note

Below is the first attempt to move the article that is currently located at Berserk (manga) back to Berserk, where it had been from early Jan. 2005 to early May 2006, when an admin moved it, and listed no reason. To see a more detailed... tail on how this article moved around a lot before January 2005 (or how it will continue to move around a lot and cause edit wars untill someone finaly moves it back to Berserk, at which time it will probably be safe for another year and a half), see the top of the page currently located at Talk:Berserk (manga), although I imagine it may, if admins move it, be located at Talk:Berserk (series), Talk:Berserk (anime), Talk:Berserk (anime and manga series), or perhaps, if you are lucky, simply "Talk:Berserk". I have also listed my comments regarding this mess there as well. --Aknorals 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Berserk

Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?

I say that the article should be moved back to Berserk. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Berserk feeds into berserker which is as it should be. GraemeLeggett 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"as it should be"? Mind telling us why you believe that? Also: berserk has only feed into berserker sense the day before you posted this. -Aknorals 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Because berserk comes from berserker - the two words are inextricably linked. The manga takes it name from berserker. A reading of WP:NC also suggests to me that if I wanted to look up berserk the manga on WP I should be typing in "Berserk manga" as a search term, not just berserk. GraemeLeggett 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, it could be argued that you should search for Berserker as Berserker (viking). If you really wanted to, you could come up with more precise term for practically everything. We have no clue which people are more likely to be searching for, and no one was complaining about before this regardless of the location. I support making the main page the disambig page since we don't know and cannot discover which is the more common search term. Primary disambiguation pages are pretty common for generic terms, and as a search for the term "Berserk" on wikipedia reveals, there are a page and a half worth of articles with Berserk in the name. A lot of them are redirects, of course, and it's nowhere near something like Island, but with that many potential searches an individual may be conducting, the disambig page should come first in priority. --Tjstrf 09:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The word berserk is known by a large part of the English speaking population, the Berserk Manga is known to much fewer people. If you go to apple you'll find an article about the fruit, rather than the disambiguation page pointing to Apple Computers, Apple Records etc. And Island is not a disambiguation page either. Nor is Amok. Actually, Apple is a pretty good example because the first Google hits all deal with the computer company. Haukur 10:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Apple? Island? I fail to see how that is even remotly related to what this issue. "Apple" is not primarly used as an adjitive in English, nor is it's usage as a noun in the English-speaking modern-day world relagated to foreign language speakers who are used to useing it as an noun and history teachers (as berserk is). "Apple" is not archeic/oldform in the English language when used as a noun (as berserk, when used as a noun, is). "Apple" is used in the names of many other things, unlike berserk, where only two WP articles would truely conflict with it: berserker (as I said, 'berserk' is not common usage for the noun) and the movie Berserk! (which, as you will notice, has a "!" after it). I'm rather supprised nobody brought up that movie, as in my mind, its the only thing on berserker (disambiguation) that really anyone could confuse easily (provided everyone who even remembers about the 1980 shooter game's existance can remember that it was spelled with a "z"). Most english speakers don't call it an "Appler", as most English speakers call one a "berserker". And one last thing: "Apple" (capitalized) isn't a top selling fictional work that is already spanning several articles, and plans to span several more (once I get the current articles to not suck, which is my next task after this). My main point is this: ease of use for the reader is important. WP:NC says as much. That's why at the top of the Berserk article, along with the rest of the "go to berserker (disambiguation)" I made sure to include "such as berserkers" -- I realise that some will indeed be searching for info on the norse warriors, and that they will be far more in number than the people looking for an old movie (that forgot it ends with a "!") or a 1980 game Berzerk (that forgot it was spelled with a "z"). Perhaps there may indeed be more people using an oldform usage of a word than looking for a top-selling series. But even if that's true, it's only one click away-without having to be redirected to a long disambiguation page (or worse-a different article that links to a disambiguation page) where the article they are looking for is some for is somewhere in the middle (as some of you are proposing). When users (in my way's "worst case senario", as things were from january 2005 to early this month) see that the articles they are looking for has an "er" after it, or that it has an exclamation point a the end, or that it is spelled with a "z", it doesn't add much time or inconvience to type those characters differntly in the keyboard (all of that you can do without even moving your right hand off the mouse, as only the letter "k" isn't on the left side of the keyboard) Really, I don't see the need to make this article harder to type for readers (sense all of the other articles are spelled differently, this is the only issue that I can think of that is left). And before I go to sleep I should probably mention one thing: WHY is an article named Berserk (manga) if it includes all of the info on the anime series and much info on the soundtracks and games based of said manga? (What I mean is that the current title isn't even accurate). (Bah, I'll spellcheck when I wake up) -Aknorals 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making a lot of hay of this noun/adjective issue. My main point is that "berserk" is a perfectly normal everyday English word used in the phrase "go berserk". Normal people may well want to find out about the origins of this phrase, which are explained in the berserker article. But it's really not that big a deal to me and if a disambiguation page will make you happy and able to concentrate on more important work (making articles not suck) then by all means go and make a disambiguation page :) Haukur 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is getting hard to follow - which come sof not using the procedure including step 3 at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#What_to_do_on_the_article_page. Might I suggest that we all try to keep discussion separate from our Oppose/Support statements. I've put a subsection below for it.GraemeLeggett 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Berserk (manga) is no longer an article referencing the manga only. It has everything practically to do with Berserk. Move Berserk (manga) to Berserk then fix the links to berserker if any breaks. Or I'm getting the oppositions wrong.... --Miss Ethereal 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support As the person who originally got it moved to Berserk in the first place (though, dolt I was back then, I listed it in the wrong section), I'd like like to point out that the reason why the article about the anime and manga series entitled berserk is currently at Berserk (manga) is due to a rambo edit by some linguist, and that he did not state a reason for moving the article. I believe this to have been an unadminlike move on his part: he sent many links to the wrong direction, ignoring that at the time, nearly all articles pointing to berserk were referring to the manga and anime series (and no articles were pointing to berserk (manga)). I would also like to point out that the usage of the word "berserk" in the English language is typically referring to the adjective, as in "crazed" or "frenzied", and is usually used in conjunction with the words "gone" or "goes": a usage which does not have a Wikipedia article. The fact that the word "berserk" can be used as a noun to refer to one who fights in such a state is not common usage in English, and most English-speaking people would refer to such people as "berserkers" (singular: berserker). Most English speakers are not even aware that it can be used as a noun. I do not believe it makes sense to redirect such an arcane usage of a word to the more common word when there is an article that could better fill that space. I'd also like to point out that before I had berserk (manga) moved to berserk, it had previously been two separate articles, then merged, then moved to berserk (anime).. then moved to berserk (manga), or somesuch similar nonsensical name-hopping. Sense it was moved to Berserk, it has enjoyed well over a year of staying in the same location until said rambo edit occurred. Not only does the current article have a note about berserk (disambiguation) at the top, but I took the liberty to make the notification include the usage that linguists and "entomology geeks" may possibly use, so they don't have to look through berserk (disambiguation) to find it. I regret not listing this page to be moved several weeks ago when the rambo edit occurred, but I was quite busy with real life at the time. -Aknorals 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

from WP:NC: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." -Aknorals 12:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• When I search for "the berserk" on books.google.com I get 676 hits. All on the first page use the word as a noun and none refer to the manga series (which I had not heard of until today). By comparison a similar search for "the berserker" gives 837 hits, a search for "the berserkr" (Old Norse singular) gives 48 hits and a search for "the berserkir" (Old Norse plural) gives 110 hits. To me it looks like berserk/berserker/berserkr/berserkir should probably all direct to the same page. This leads me to oppose the proposed move. I do sympathise that unexplained Rambo moves are annoying - especially when Rambo doesn't take the time to fix the links :) Haukur 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hint: books.google.com does not seem like a good place to look for info about comics. Try some other manga-related searches- it's not very usefull at all. Try doing an amazon.com search for berserk. If you aren't convinced of notablility, I can show you sales charts showing that it is one of the top selling manga series in the US for months that it was released. -Aknorals 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Case in point - I just did a search for "Trigun" (another best selling manga series in the US) on books.google.com, and got no relevent results. And see the little word "beta" there? Also: in what way does usage in printed books (many of them history books, no doubt, or using berserk as an adjective, which is the most common usage -- technicly, if berserk should be a redirect at all, it should redirect to Running amok) indicate that the average english speaking reader of wikipedia will know that "berserk" is a noun that can mean what they would normaly call a "berserker"? One last thing: "I haven't heard of it" was never a good argument on wikipedia, and it bothers me every time I read it. Honestly, I've never heard the term 'cuirass' before I saw the word on WP, but that doesn't mean I put it on WP:AFD when I first saw the article. -Aknorals 20:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really mean "I haven't heard it" as an argument, just a side note so people know where I'm coming from. I think Google Books is a nice tool because it mostly shows us data from reliable published sources and gives a reasonable balance of new and old stuff. It's not perfect, of course. No-one is talking about deleting your manga article, I'm sure it's fine and I'm sure this manga is a popular one. I don't think berserk should redirect to amok because although "going berserk" and "running amok" mean roughly the same in English the phrases find their origins in two different cultural phenomena, each of which has and deserves its own article. I searched for "the berserk" to get away from the adjective use and I think that mostly succeeded. See Talk:Skuld for a similar Manga vs. Mythology showdown :) What I find most frustrating about this is that the manga articles tend to be better. The page on Skuld the norn, for example, is crap. So is the berserker article. Haukur 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because we have more manga "experts" than we do professors of Norse history on Wikipedia. --Tjstrf 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Manga experts have just as much of a right to be here as norse history "professors". --Kunzite 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm not one of the people who wants to go around deleting manga pages as fancruft. The term expert was only in quotes because there is no such thing as an expert on manga as a whole, only an expert on certain series. Well, unless you count people who study manga from a socialogical angle as experts on the subject as a whole. --Tjstrf 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's because it's easier to get info on manga series than Norse mythology -Aknorals 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that there are many more reliable published critical works available on Norse mythology than on particular manga series. Even just working from web sources on Norse mythology/history/culture you can often get enough information for a decent article. We just don't have as many editors interested in mythology as are interested in manga. Haukur 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise you didn't mean it as an argument, but I'm just tired of seeing it use as an argument on AfD. Nothing against you. Anyways, searching for "the berserk" will still pick up some adj. use (the berserk parent) so.... Anyways, the main thing I wanted to bring up is how you mentioned Skuld which I found interesting, but I noticed several diffences:

• Skuld is a disambiguation page. It doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page. It doesn't redirect to an article that has a note about it conserning the existance of a disambiguation page, where, if one searches hard enough, they just might be able to find what they are looking for (how one looking for the manga berserk would currently have to find this article) -Aknorals 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Skuld is the name of several mythogical characters, as well as one fictional one and an astroid. Compare: as fictional titles go, there is a movie named "Berserk!", but people who want to know about that title would know enough (i figure) to enter the exclamation point. Also note that in Berserker (disambiguation), only 3 of the terms have anything to do with berserk (the word "berserker" (a word not currently used to refer to the warriors), the old movie that has an exclamation point after it, and something from the game Doom that doesn't even have it's own article.) -Aknorals 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Skuld (Norse mythology) and Skuld (Scandinavian mythology) are both the names one currently used to refer to them. Berserk isn't commonly used to refer to berserkers. This is my main issue. If, for example, we manage to get enough info on the Kushans in Berserk, I would name the article Kushan (Berserk) (or perhaps Kushan Empire (Berserk)) because Kushan is the word currently used to refer to the real Kushan empire. -Aknorals 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having Skuld (Norse mythology) and Skuld (Scandinavian mythology) is confusing and inconvient for the reader. I'm moving them to Skuld (Norn) and Skuld (princess) respectibly. -Aknorals 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good move, those Skuld pages were confusingly named. I still think most people who type the word "berserk" into the search box will be looking for an article like berserker. I could be wrong, of course, annoyingly we can't obtain statistics to show one way or another. I dislike primary disambiguation on principle but I would still prefer it to redirecting to the manga article. Haukur 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The term "berserk" derives directly from the termberserker. Link directly to the historal article, not a fairly obscure manga. Place the manga on the disambig page and in Berserkers in popular culture, just like we do with everything else. There's no reason the usage of the term by the manga should be more important than the ancient origins of the term. :bloodofox: 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"fairly obscure"?? Actually, according to Newtype magazine, in January 2004, the 2nd best selling manga title was Berserk volume 2. (Newtype USA, April 2004) -Aknorals 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"There's no reason the usage of the term by the manga should be more important than the ancient origins of the term." um... yeah there is. Additionally, I don't see anything in WP:NC about how "ancient origins" takes priority over ease of usage for linking (as a matter of fact, I see the opposite, as stated earlier). -Aknorals 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The most widely known usage of the term by the western world is not the manga, it's obviously the word usage itself - Which comes directly from berserker. I'm familiar with the manga and am aware of its status as one of the better known manga series out there but it is still obscure in comparison to the widespread usage of the term. Say "I'm going berserk!" to someone and then ask them if they're familiar with "Berserk" the manga and see which you find more people familiar with. :bloodofox: 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Most people who type in "berserk" are probably looking for a Wikipedia article on the adjective but you know what? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and thus there is no article on the adjective. There is an article on the noun "berserker" (which has a different article name, btw) which is quite different than how people use the word "berserk" (despite how raged she may be, "the berserk mother during christmas shopping season" isn't a viking warrior) ... now, why are we making articles harder to find/type in than they have to be again?. -Aknorals 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're beating this parts-of-speech argument absolutely to death :) People who are searching for "berserk, as in 'going berserk'" will probably be perfectly satisfied with finding the berserker article as it contains the information they need to understand the phrase and adjective. Haukur 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, but... a search for "berserk" should lead directly to the disambig page, not the article for berserker or berserk the manga. I knew that berserk was a noun outside of the context of the manga, presumably others do as well, and another group would automatically drop the suffix the same way one would when looking for a term in a paper encyclopedia. (You look up bicycle, not byciclist or bicycler, since you already know what the -er suffix means and are wanting an article on the activity itself) A search on the term could reasonably refer to either, and there is no way for us to determine which a reader is more likely to want, hence redirect to the disambig page.

Bicycle is typicly used as an adjective? That's news to me. (read: "I fail to see how your analogy is relevent to this situation") Also: most people aren't aware that the word "berserk" could be used in cases where they normaly say "berserker" -- if they did, they wouldn't add "er" when using it (or perhaps they do know, and they think it sounds odd?). Also: WP is not paper!!!. If it were, we wouldn't even have more than a short paragraph about manga or anime in general, and it would reflect horrible media bias and misperseptions, as that's what I saw last time I looked at a paper encyclopedia... -Aknorals 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the disambig page It's a sensible solution. The majority of English speakers don't use the word a noun. It links to all of the possibilities at once. --Kunzite 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Aknorals -Inuchance 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Berserk should either be a redirect to Berserker or a dsiambig page. Currently navigation is a mess but I don't like the proposed way for fixing it. Why can't the article be called Berserk (manga) just because it also is about the anime that is based on the manga? I don't think that it is necessary to be that pedantic. Jeltz talk 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep Suport/oppose to short statements and discuss down here.GraemeLeggett 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

oh, sorry heh heh.... though this may make responding to "vote reasons" a bit more difficult to keep track of.... -Aknorals 14:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to this statement: "Redirect to the disambig page It's a sensible solution. The majority of English speakers don't use the word a noun. It links to all of the possibilities at once. --Kunzite 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

It's not typicly used as a noun? Then why redirect to a disambiguation page that only has a few things that are relevent to the word. If this move fails, I'll just turn Berserk into it's own disambiguation page, listing the few things that would be relevent (a note about the warriors at the top, followed by a bullted list including the series by Miura, the old movie, and the old shooter game - with see also: berserker at the bottom) as it was back in late 2004 before Berserk (manga) got moved to Berserk... of course, that was only like that back then because Berserk (manga) and Berserk (anime) were two seperate articles before they merged into Berserk (anime) shortly after which the editors of the time realised that the manga series is what it was based of, so they should move it to Berserk (manga) (where it doesn't really belong either, as currently there is no other article contending for usage of the word Berserk in it's name, just a redirect, and the article is not just based off of the manga, it's a much larger scope). (note how much of a mess keeping track of this article was back then, and how it's name (Berserk) has stayed stable for well over a year, untill said rambo edit) Also note that nobody here is arguing that 'berserk' as a noun is more common than 'berserker' used as a noun - if they were, I would surely yeild, and immediatly suggest that berserker be moved to berserk - but such is not the case. Nor are any of the other things that would be on said redirect page spelled the same (if you include the "!" in the old movie Berserk! as a different spelling, of course) -Aknorals 14:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Berserk" is usually used as an adjective according to the OED. "Especially in the phrase "to go berserk". There are others besides the manga that use the title and it's a bit of introduction to other articles on related topics that provided a nice overview of the modern usage of an ancient term. I don't think that the article should point to the Berserker article, but I don't think it should point to the animanga article either... Fly the middle path, Icarus. Also, you should just use this disambig page: Berserker_(disambiguation) .. it's perfectly fine. --Kunzite 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(after clicking the Icarus link) Excuse my wording but HOLY SHIT, that's the biggest, hardest to navagate, mess I have ever on Wikipedia. It is an abomination and I can't belive that anyone would point to that as a good example for others to follow. That's ignoring the fact that the "dude with the wings" is a million times more popular than any of the other things that are listed... and those things aren't even orginized! How on early could someone allow such a horror to happen, let alone do it! As someone who thinks Wikipedia articles sould be easy to find and that Wikipedia should be easy to navagate (it's the majority of my edits, in fact), I fear I may have dark and horrific dreams tonight. (realise that included some slight sarcasim, but i'm not kidding about that being the worst example of WP organisation ever.) -Aknorals 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are others besides the manga that use the title" No there isn't. Most articles in berserk (disambiguation) are spelled with a "z", and none of the others are simply named "Berserk". Even if there was, I would suggest what was done back at Lost (TV series): the show that was far more popular eventually became the easiest to type article name. Not to mention that the original title, something like Lost (ABC TV series) wasn't even accurate, as the show was also shown in other places, with different stations (actually, that's a parallel, consitering Berserk (manga) isn't an accurate title either, as it speaks of the fictional series in general). It later became something like Lost (2004 television series) which is a much longer title than it needs to be, and after the second season started, it wasn't accurate either. In the meantime, Lost (television series) was used as a disambig page for two articles.... yeah, you know what? That was an unnessacary mess, and I used to make a lot of redirects so that people could more intuitivly find the series. In any case, I think "ease of use" and making articles easy to find is very important, and WP is one big mess if it isn't taken into consiteration. -Aknorals 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: berserker only has a single line on typical modern usage: '"Going berserk" is also used colloquially to describe a person who is acting in a wild rage or in an uncontrolled and irrational manner.' (of course, wikipedia is not a dictionary-Aknorals 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm severly doubting that the way you are suggesting is a "middle path" especially after seeing that godawful mess of disambigs you showed me. Here's my logic: If we redirect to berserker (disambiguation) then people looking for the warriors (for what reason they used "berserk" as a noun is still beyond me) would have to look a few lines down and click the article. That's one redirect and one click. Now look at how I plan on doing things: Note I have in the first line of this article a typical disambiguation line with a bonus: I linked for those people who wish to know about the warriors. That is, in fact, less complicated than a redirect to a disambiguation page. I consiter this a far less out-there move than Naruto appears to be.... (especially as I stated before, noone else wants to put a real article on Berserk - they want to put a redirect there. Why do you wish for articles to be not only harder to find, but less easy to link to once their names are known?) -Aknorals 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The most questionable and repeated excuse for support of the manga redirect is that the Berserk manga page has become "more than just a Berserk manga" page, which it shouldn't be in the first place. To me, however, it fortunately does look just like a page on the manga series. The history of the word is explained on the Berserker page, berserk would logically direct to berserker - Where the term comes from and where such an explanation belongs. :bloodofox: 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• "The most questionable and repeated excuse..." Wow, that's not nice. Please, be civil and assume good faith.
• "...for support of the manga redirect..." Huh, nobody wants that -- though some of us, myself included, were angry that an admin without concensus or even listing a reason moved an article and broke many links in the process. I don't want a redirect to the manga either, I want it to be at Berserk, where it had been for about 16 months. If you want info on the warriors, under my proposal you can: put "er" at the end (as you should be doing anyways, searching for something that you know to be a redirect is a waste of time unless it's much shorter to type - I make "shorthand redirects" for things that are a pain in the ass/take too long to type... example of one I made resenctly: skuld (omg)) or you can click the little link that I have at the top of this article's page. "such as berserkers" (1 click). You are fortunate. You aren't redirected to a page (1 rd) that contains a link (1 click) that contains a disambiguation page that contains an article somewhere in the middle of a list of irrelevent terms (all other articles are spelled differently) for you to click on (1 click) (that's a grand total of 1 redirect, 2 clicks, and a bunch of time wasted on a redirect page). Please note this is what your proposal does to someone like me who is looking for a core article conserning a fictional series that spans several articles that I plan on useing on a regular basis (as in: as a regular resource, not just a "oh, so that's where the word came from...." and never read again). That fact that you sound as though you are wishing that upon people such as myself, good sir, "is ridiculous". (though, admittedly, I could type in Berserk (magna) several times a day but why would a redirect even taking up an article name when a multiple-article resource wanted/was utilising it as it's core... I could also keep a bookmark, but I only keep bookmarks for websites I can't remember the url for)
• "... the Berserk manga page has become "more than just a Berserk manga" page, which it shouldn't be in the first place." It shouldn't be what? In existance? Or the page shouldn't be about the series in general? I think you may wish to rephrase.... -Aknorals 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• "To me, however, it fortunately does look just like a page on the manga series." Huh? Less than 1/4th the article is about the manga itself. The anime series actually has a much longer section? As a matter of fact, I also plan on putting another blurb in there about how music is used in the anime series and in the games, as well as how the author himself is a Susumu Hirasawa fan (citing my sources, of course). I plan on this article going in a direction that speaks more about the series in general than it is even now (why it is popular, with whom it is popular). I also believe that you fail to have read what I stated earlier: that berserk (anime) and berserk (manga) used to be two seperate pages. As a matter of fact, some have used it as an example for how one can merge their own pages into one. -Aknorals 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is that the article isn't just about the manga couldn't you just move it to (series) or soemthing? I don't think that what this article is about should dictate what should be the main Berkser entry. That should be decided on other merits. If I went to Berserk I think that I would expect to find either a disambig or be redirected to Berserker. Maybe the first option is best. Jeltz talk 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Back for a few-month period in late 2004, it was a disambiuation page, but 1. I got really sick of vandals who kept on redirecting it to berserker... several times a week 2.Out of the options listed, it was the only one spelled "Berserk" (as in: not spelled with a "!" at the end or a "z"), so I felt it rather stupid to have extra junk in parenthesis when no other article had the same name. Sorry if I sound rude, but people don't seem to notice that there just isn't any other article that could simply be named "berserk", and that a disambiguation page is just as usefull as the link that I put at the top of this article: the effects of people looking for berserkers is the same redardless of whether we go with a smaller disambiguation page, or with how I did things are the same (it's one click at the top of the page either way). Why make it harder to link to and access info about the series??? -- I still haven't gotten an answer to that question. -Aknorals 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article berserker could well be placed at berserk, but that's besides the point. To be honest I think some users might be insulted when they search for information on historical things and find manga articles, it might give an impression of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia with strange priorities. Is this a fair consideration? I can't really say. Haukur 02:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.