Talk:Metamorphosis (manga)

Reception

Know Your Meme isn't exactly what Wikipedia consider as a reliable source so another source is definitely needed to establish its notability. The reception section should be expanded with this review from Manga-News (a French anime and manga website which is recognized as reliable source by WikiProject Anime and Manga), but the source is in French. You probably can ask for help from these people who is fluent on French. -- Gervant of Shiganshina (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider it done. I’ll look over and cite that source within a day or two. Gaioa (T C L) 09:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Patreon Panels

Hey, for anyone looking to add the description of the Patreon Panels back (The panels released by the author that imply the entire story was a movie and the characters were actors) some user won't let it exist until there's a "Reliable" source. Since primary sources are acceptable, the link to the Patreon post (Paywall link) would suffice. Sadly I can't find it, here's every version of the panels on the web, if anyone can find the Patreon link and send it here/use it as a source that'd be nice.

Gelbooru

Know Your Meme

Danbooru

Google image search

2603:7000:1F00:6B91:8887:63A4:CB6:1F3D (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the only problem, as I stated. His own Patreon is a primary source and doesn't work as a source anyway - especially not the surrounding text speculating about it. Click here and read the policy to learn how WP deals with primary sources. Gaioa (T C L) 20:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Different user here, by that standard, so much of what we know isn't credible. That's a dumb rule and I've rarely seen it enfroced. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:7151:6A71:45CE:F736 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Rules are rules, and calling them dumb doesn't make an argument. And I doubt you're a different user, all three IP addresses involved in this geolocates to the same place and provider. Create an account instead. Gaioa (T C L) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Why would you evne go through the effort to find that out?

2. I'm using public wifi.

3. There were only 2 people, so there should only be 2 IPs, IDK where you got #3 from. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:F415:6EF3:6589:E4CC (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gaioa: we do accept works as references for their own plot, and it's reasonable to say said panel was part of the work. Non-English sources are also fine. Citing the panels is therefore borderline acceptable, even without a good link to them. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure I'd say it's part of the work. It's published way later and through a different medium than the central work, so it feels like just some kind of "bonus content". I guess this leads us down the philosophical debate of authorial intent and retconning a la J.K. Rowling. But if you say it's fine, I'll take yer word. However, the surrounding statements still seem a bit OR, passing value judgement on the material. This article is already ridden with questionable sourcing, so I'm set to not make it worse. Gaioa (T C L) 06:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would be nice if we could find a secondary source that at least touched on this to back it up. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gaioa: @Elli: I think this is a nice secondary source that adds to the article, though it says nothing about Patreon. I'll punch it in later if I find time. https://nigmabox.com/2020/07/29/natalie-rambles-about-metamorphosis/ 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:F415:6EF3:6589:E4CC (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a WP:SPS (blog) by someone who isn't a clear subject-matter expert, so I doubt it would be acceptable, unless we can find some reviews/citations of the blog itself in reliable sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

YouTube ref

@4meter4: you've removed and reverted my introduction of a reference to a YouTube video. This is a reference to an interview with the author of the work, and used only to provide the author's thoughts. This is generally allowed as a self-published source: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. Please look at the entire guideline there - I don't see how this reference at all violates it. This video is almost certainly not a copyright violation, which is the other concern raised in WP:YOUTUBE. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is not so much being self published but the fact that the YouTube channel/video itself markets merchandise and ways to financially support the content creator; which is a form of advertising. WP:ELNO is pretty clear that we should avoid including external links to content which is essentially selling stuff. This kind of material is really more of a COI issue. If the self published material didn't include promotional material for selling products or push ways for the viewer to donate money I would be fine with it. In this instance we have not only self published material but SPS with a financial motive which is a COI issue. We really need to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia by not linking to content trying to sell products and collect money through donations.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:ELNO. As per WP:ELPOINTS #1, This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations. Link20XX (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I will seek a third opinion.4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a purely procedural comment, but the third opinion noticeboard specifically states that if more than two editors are involved, it shouldn't be taken there. I count Myself, Elli, and you, for a total of three. Link20XX (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I am a 3O volunteer, and I declined this request as there are already more than two editors involved. I encourage continued, civil discussion. If consensus can not be determined, you might try other avenues suggested at WP:Dispute resolution, like WP:DRN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replied to the thread opened by 4meter4 at DRN. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we haven't discussed enough for DRN to comment, and I really don't want to repeat myself. My main issue is that I think it is ethically wrong to link to any sources (external links or references) marketing merchandise for sale and asking for donations as it besmirches wikipedia's reputation and could be seen as allowing wikipedia to enrich The Manga Man by linking to a website from which he financially gains. I'm not really concerned about the content being put into the article (that's fine), but the idea of linking to sources that financially profit from having out readers go to their website just doesn't sit well with me per the very first sentence in WP:COI (and I know COI is more about editors and not sources; but its the spirit of the COI policy and not the letter here that matters).4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess I just... don't see that as a guideline we apply anywhere else? The vast majority of sources that are used are for-profit (for example, The New York Times - but you wouldn't object to linking that, right?) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a vast difference to linking to subscription access media site /reference web source that is widely respected for its quality and independence as a journalist source as opposed to linking to a self published YouTube channel that lacks editorial oversight and is essentially a medium for marketing other people’s products by featuring them in interviews and marketing ones own merchandise. While The New York Times does have business interests in selling online subscriptions and papers, it follows journalist ethics and maintains a certain amount of distance from the subjects they interview, including financial ones. On YouTube those lines get blurry, and ultimately one has to ask is the small amount of content being sourced to this video really worth damaging the reputation of the encyclopedia over?4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how our reputation is damaged. We linked to an interview of the creator of the work to source some of the creator's opinions, and nothing else. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is not a content dispute over quoting the artist but about how people will perceive wikipedia being used to enrich the content creator in what is clearly a self published non-independent format with financial motives. In other words my issue is with including the source not with the quote.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I have been following the discussion since it appeared in dispute resolution. I have no interest in manga, but I do have an interest in the reputation of Wikipedia. I mostly edit technical articles. We cite articles in trade journals and academic journals. The trade journals always have advertising. Some prestigious academic journals also have advertising. The advertising is never inside the article being cited. Articles in trade journals are often provided by contributors. The byline will often mention the employer of the contributor. That would be very subtle advertising within the article.

Unfortunately, in the YouTube video, the author promotes his own paid website. That makes it somewhat more promotional than citing an article in a trade journal. I think that it crosses the line and should be considered to be promotional and would be disallowed in accordance with the guidelines.

However, guidelines can be violated if there is a good reason. Let’s consider the value of this YouTube video. It is used to establish a single sentence. That sentence is not about the topic of the article. It is about the creator’s opinion on a different subject. That sentence might be relevant in an article about the creator of Metamorphosis (manga).

Bottom line, in my opinion, the YouTube video does violate guidelines. The value of the video is too low to justify a violation of the guidelines. The sentence that the video supports does not belong in the article. Constant314 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This put into words what I was trying to express more concretely. I obviously agree.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Another editor, Amffy, has removed the source and content. I think it should remain off the page, as this is now three editors expressing concern over the source.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Constant314, 4meter4, and Amffy: I noticed Sarcataclysmal reintroduced the source to support the following sentence: In a later interview, he stated that part of the inspiration for the manga came from similar real-life stories he had heard and seen while growing up in New York. That seems more clearly relevant to this article. This was reverted today without any explanation by Paragon Deku, presumably due to the source. I think this claim, being much more relevant, is probably an appropriate use of the source. Thoughts? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the source is incredibly reliable or relevant (although I do often view creator interviews as inherently reliable in the context of the creator's own views on their work) but my issue was more that it seemed to be done without consensus per this section as well as the fact that I don't think the information isn't specific enough to provide much to the article. I don't have any objections with it being added back if there's consensus to do so. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The promotional aspect of the YouTube video could be greatly mitigated by including the time stamp at which the relevant statement could be found. It would be like giving a page number when the reference is a book.Constant314 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that it seems I mixed a few things up. Shindo did not state that inspiration directly in the mentioned video, but rather to Joey himself off-camera (see here at 3:14), although Joey does bring up his personal interpretation of the manga being 'anti-drug' and 'anti-rape' in the interview around 15:50, which Shindo does say "right" and "yes" to. Whether or not that can still be used in this article (or if the podcast's clip works) I'll leave to the other editors, as I did not look at this talkpage prior to making the edit that I did. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That is moving into hear-say. I think I would leave it out. Constant314 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's not actually in the interview... I don't think this YouTuber is a liar, of course, but it's not up to our reliability standards. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Giant Plot Section

Is it really necessary for the plot section to go into as much detail as it does and take up a massive swath of the article? At what point does it become more than is needed for an encyclopedic entry? Paragon Deku (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and shorten it if you have the energy. Gaioa (T C L) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"177013" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 177013. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#177013 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Link20XX (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:177013" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:177013. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Draft:177013 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Link20XX (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of its memetic relevance should be relegated to a separate page for proper indexing. Calling it a meme on the page feels like something from encyclopedia dramatica.

dramatically. 187.190.169.75 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

redirect?

when i just type "Henshin" why it just warped in there? despite the word henshin is mostly associated, with tokusatsu superheroes.2404:8000:1027:85F6:7854:A010:B237:B520 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong.

Why this page talks about an adult only manga, not just about the more familiar tokusatsu superhero we watch?182.2.140.147 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have zero clue. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neocorelight @182.2.140.147 In case you're still interested, it's currently being proposed a fix to this over on Talk:Henshin (disambiguation)#Requested move 17 March 2024. You may wanna join the discussion. Rose Abrams (T C L) 05:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Where are the memes?

The last part of the lead says that this manga has become an internet meme but this isn't elaborated anywhere else. This will make readers wonder what kind of meme it is and why it became a meme. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOIT. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Henshin (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)