Talk:List of yaoi anime and manga

Primary sources

@Morgan695: I did a quick run-through and noticed there were some primary sources listed directly from publishers... preferably secondary sources need to be used to establish notability, otherwise they risk being removed. Also, chil-chil is a user-generated website and may not be a reliable source at WP:ANIME. I will probably start removing some titles if there isn't enough WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to add, there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Honey's Anime a while back and Honey's Anime is not considered a reliable source due to lack of editorial oversight, so I will be removing titles listed with these sources soon. lullabying (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just migrating titles from Category:Yaoi anime and manga, so I think it's fine to cull titles that are non-notable. Morgan695 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll help do that later today. lullabying (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Just another note, would you agree to removing the Anime Impulse source? I found that source a bit questionable especially when they're just a blog for a convention and also the editor doesn't seem to be notable. lullabying (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I disagree with the tagging of primary sources here and at List of sports anime and manga, as the purpose of this list is merely to establish that these series exist and not to make commentary about/analysis on them. Morgan695 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources show existence but not notability. Pinging @Knowledgekid87:, as this was the criteria we agreed on when we worked on Pucchigumi (and also with assistance with Ribon, Sho-Comi, Bessatsu Margaret, etc.). If a series is well-known enough to be listed, I don't think there will be a problem in finding alternate sources -- you've done a good job so far with that. lullabying (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any community consensus in the discussion linked above at WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, that – Honey's Anime is not considered a reliable source due to lack of editorial oversight, all I see is a question asked and one reply. According to their staff page, they have an editor-in-chief who is in charge of editorial oversight. At List of sports anime and manga, the source being used was only verifying that the entry on the list met the criteria for inclusion:  Yes it did → sports anime and manga . The source wasn't being used to provide an aesthetic opinion, scholarly critique, or to establish notability. The context of how the source was being used matters, and in the case at sports anime and manga, it was appropriate, as it directly supported the criteria for inclusion on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I'll try to start up a discussion again about the validity of the source on the WikiProject. lullabying (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, WP:LISTN may apply, but since hundreds of manga are being produced for both genres (the hatnote says it may never be complete, even), we should limit it to only those with Wikipedia articles or have notability. lullabying (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:LISTCRITERIA. lullabying (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Separating subjects

While the page is called "List of yaoi anime and manga", almost every example listed (at least in regards to original work, discounting possible adaptations that already exist) is a manga, and there's not a single anime. Then there's 1 light novel, 3 novels, and 5 video games. One could make the case that novels and light novels fall into the "manga" category, but the same definitely can't apply to video games. Thus, despite the title, we have 5 games and 0 anime. Given this, the page could be renamed to "List of yaoi works", but regardless of whether that happens or not, I'd suggest moving all the manga into their own section.

This would be especially useful in making sure the table includes as much information on each title as possible. The table could be changed and become more similar to how the manga of Clamp are listed at their own page: include the start and end dates of each, the publisher and magazine it was published in, as well as how many volumes it had.

One issue with this is how adaptations would work. In the case of Given, for example, would the anime and upcoming movie be listed as separate projects and in separate sections? One under an "Anime" section, and one under a "Film" section? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My sense is that simple is best for these sort of incredibly broad lists. If you want to reorganize this page that is your prerogative, but per your last point, I feel like you'll run into more of these sort of exceptions the more detailed you try and make it. Morgan695 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably. This is a dynamic list after all that can changed at any moment. I guess a way to keep this whole process and reorganization simple is to just focus on the examples listed here, and once that is done, then start adding new examples. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Maybe add an additional column to the chart(s) that notes any notable adaptations of the material? Morgan695 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Other media

For the other media section, the creators sometimes differ from the people in charge of the manga/anime adaptation. For example, Shinobu Gotoh is the original creator of Takumi-kun, but Kazumi Ohya and Billy Takahashi illustrated the manga adaptation. Which name should it be listed under, and should we include a new column for the adaptation?

Furthermore, should we list the year of the original creation or the years the manga/adaptation were produced? lullabying (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine to list multiple creators, but it might be opening a can of worms to list years in cases where a work has multiple adaptations. Morgan695 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't for now and just go with the original year of the source material. Most of them already have their individual articles anyway where any release dates or authors involved in whichever adaptations are included. lullabying (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)