Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex

self-source

@Hijk910, I agree with Drmies that this article is sourcing way too much content to the franchise website. I've restored two of the tags. Please do not revert, which would at this point be edit-warring on your part, but instead come here and discuss. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Firstly, I don't think there are better replacement to those primary sources. This is because secondly, the content supported by those sources is mainly release dates of the novels and anime episodes, and the staff of each episode, which are totally factual and have zero room for interpretation. In addition, it is allowed to use the work itself as a primary source for the plot (WP:PLOTCITE). While it does rely on primary source, I think WP:PST aims to prohibit the interpretation with primary sources but not the use of it. Thirdly, please clarify what part in this article is promotional. I don't find any descriptions in this article promotional (as the examples in MOS:PUFFERY). -Hijk910 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hijk910, one of the reasons we don't use primary sources is because the information in them may not be worth including. If no one else is mentioning this stuff, it may not be noteworthy for inclusion. We don't include every fact we can dig up, per WP:ONUS. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we include it. If you can't find this information being discussed anywhere else, there's a real question of how important it is for understanding the subject.

Not all promo content looks like puffery. The promotional stuff is in part the use of the franchise, with links to its website, at the end of practically every bit of information. It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder how much of this content was added by a UPE. If I had any interest at all in this genre I'd be going through the non-self-sources to check for notability. That's the only reason I didn't add the notability tag back: I don't want to do that work.

At any rate, please stop removing tags left by other editors without discussing first. It's best never to remove a tag without opening a talk section to ask for clarification. Literally I'd never remove a tag recently placed by an experienced editor without discussing first. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I understand WP:ONUS but none of the content violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime and manga#Page layout for a series article. Every anime and manga article looks like this, and includes the same types of information. Also, even in a GA (e.g. The Irregular at Magic High School), the release dates are supported by primary sources. I don't think it is necessary to replace the primary sources for release date with third-party sources. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I do, and so apparently does Drmies. Neither of us is asking you at this point to remove the information, just to find a better -- that is, independent and reliable -- source or leave the tags in place. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Even at GA level, those types of information are supported by primary sources. I think it is unnecessary to replace those sources. What you want is basically "adding some other content with independent source" so I request the removal of {{Primary sources}}. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And I don't think {{Cleanup}} is for cleaning up the content ("This tag is intended to identify pages that need wikification or the correction of spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and other similar, non-content-focused changes"). This tag links to WP:CLEAN and WP:MOS, and none of them is about the content and reference (but only the style). Therefore, please remove this irrelevant tag as well. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To supplement, in the descriptions of {{Primary sources}}, it is stated that "[u]se this template to tag information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source", which I think is not the case for this article. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the tags are appropriate. I'll reiterate that you aren't required to find better sources; the tags are a signal to other editors that better sources need to be found, and to readers that the article contains content cited to affiliated sources. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please use the right tags (if exist). You clearly violate the instructions of those two tags, especially {{Cleanup}}, which is not related to content-focused issues. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As there is no non-content-focused issues in this article, I believe I can remove the {{Cleanup}} tag. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In case you change your mind and want to put a {{Notability}} tag, before that please be informed there is a half-page introduction on P. 39 of Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi! 2021 and P. 42 of Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi! 2022, respectively. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For {{Third-party}}, for the "preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" part on the tag, please clarify what content in the article is not verifiable or neutral. The link on the tag links me to WP:ABOUTSELF, which states that "[s]elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Specifically for point 5 "the article is not based primarily on such sources", please note that there are around 7 ANN sources in the references. If you cannot point out where is not verifiable or neutral, please remove the tag. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the tags are appropriate, and I'm done here. Please do not remove them again without finding unaffiliated reliable sources for the information. Valereee (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not done: either you help me understand what sources prevent the article from being verifiable and neutral (that is stated on the tag), or you let me remove the tag. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That is classic WP:BADGERing, and it's considered WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This tag puts the articles into Category:All articles lacking reliable references. But as discussed, obviously there is no unreliable references in the article. Also, per Wikipedia:Responsible tagging, "If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you."

My main point is: heavy usage of primary resources does not necessarily violate policies and guidelines in Wikipedia, nor lower the quality of an article. -Hijk910 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

First of all thanks both for engaging in a discussion and requesting a third opinion instead of edit warring ^_^ I checked the article and discussion - it is my understanding the main issue is to define if this article is (1) too promotional and (2) if the high proportion of self-sourcing could be an issue for verifiability and neutrality. My reasoning: Is the article heavily self-sourced? Objectively yes. Is this necessarily an issue? No, it's not an issue itself. It's quite common for books and movies as the publisher will often be the best source of truth for technical facts. According to Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works: "A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself". It would be unacceptable to use the editor's website if the article claimed it was the #1 bestseller ever - but isn't an issue to purely report what episodes are available and other low-risk factual details. Is this article worth including on Wikipedia? Yes, I think it's adding value (I'm the #1 to rely on Wikipedia for this kind of article, even for relatively small series) Is there a verifiability or neutrality issue here? No, it could hardly be more factual. I didn't notice any unreasonable claims in the article (see self-publishing example above). My suggestion based on all this: you should remove the banners and instead identify if there's any unreasonable claims in the article only based on the self-published sources (and address those specific issues instead). It could be good to try and include more external sources (e.g. reception, critics if any) to add some balance. But nothing worthy of those banners in the short term in my humble opinion. Hope it helps! And let me know if I missed any arguments here. Of course this is just an external opinion so I'll let you both decide if it sounds like an acceptable consensus - remember consensus is never perfect but allows us to move on and focus on building the articles rather than staying stuck too long in debates :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this qualifies for 3OR, there are two editors tagging and one removing tags. Valereee (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I saw the 3O request and only 2 editors actively engaged in a discussion that wasn't moving forward, looked like 3O could help. To your point, not sure if 3O should be declined if more than 2 editors are engaged in the edits - I'll try to clarify this. Hope the third opinion still helps :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No matter what, an opinion has been made (and it’s like a 2-1-2 or 3-2 now). And Valereee, you may know your view is not correct already, as you don’t even try to argue for your point. -Hijk910 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I did argue for my point, but you weren't accepting it. At any rate, yes, the tide's clearly turned, and I guess that's the kind of sourcing editors at this topic are okay with. I can disagree all I want, but that's okay. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Just coming with what I hope will be a drive-by comment. This discussion has already been held multiple times in the past (see Talk:New Game!#Sourcing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 75#Publisher links), where both times it was determined that this method of using primary sources is perfectly acceptable. I would like to ask editors stop beating this WP:DEADHORSE and let this rest once and for all. Link20XX (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That actually appears to be a debate between people who disagree, not a conclusion? Valereee (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Spin it however you want. All I'm saying is that this issue has been discussed multiple times in the past and in neither discussion was consensus formed to remove these sources (if anything, they both favored keeping the sources based on arguments and numbers; see also Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY, which had a similar outcome). While consensus can change, nothing has changed since those previous discussions to warrant revisiting this. Link20XX (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies again. = = -Hijk910 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't love being accused of 'spinning' something. When I tag something, I'm doing it in good faith.

I also don't love that basically we're saying that for certain commercial products we're good with not asking to improve affiliated sourcing to show that someone else, somewhere else, is at least mentioning it, and that it's not okay to ask for that. I'm dismayed that a tag asking for a better source would be such an issue, but if that's what's happening with editors at articles in this general topic, okay. I disagree that it's a positive, but okay. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Y Consensus found for now. Trying to wrap up the debate here. Based on the conversation between Hijk910 & Valereee, the third opinion I provided and the previous debates highlighted by Link20XX it looks like we all agree that despite not being the ideal way to source things it seems acceptable to heavily rely on publisher facts for entertainment articles based on the added value and limited risk to verifiability and neutrality - and it doesn't directly go against any other policies. If everyone's happy with this let's remove the banner, close the debate for now and focus on improving this article and similar ones by adding more sources where available. Again, a consensus is rarely perfect and can change so feel free to reopen the conversation at any point. Thanks everyone for engaging in a healthy debate - you just made Wikipedia a bit better! AlanTheScientist (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)