Misplaced Pages

Talk:Boys' love: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:59, 29 April 2015 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Red links to NY,NY and Tomoi← Previous edit Revision as of 23:01, 29 April 2015 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Red links to NY,NY and TomoiNext edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
:::Since I stated that not every WP:Notable topic means that the topic should have a Misplaced Pages article, I'm not sure how I haven't been clear on the matter. As you know, I pointed to the ] section of the WP:Notable guideline. In various cases, I have encountered Misplaced Pages articles where a WP:Notable topic is better sufficiently covered in the article it is mentioned in or in a section of a related article; by this, I mean that linking the matter so that it can become an article is entirely unneeded. In the case that it is a WP:NOPAGE matter, then creating the red link likely means that a ] will unnecessarily be created. WP:Stubs are not ideal. And on another note, ] covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable; the most recent example I can think of is ], where editors are currently debating whether or not he is WP:Notable since a lot of secondary sources note him; see ]. ] (]) 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) :::Since I stated that not every WP:Notable topic means that the topic should have a Misplaced Pages article, I'm not sure how I haven't been clear on the matter. As you know, I pointed to the ] section of the WP:Notable guideline. In various cases, I have encountered Misplaced Pages articles where a WP:Notable topic is better sufficiently covered in the article it is mentioned in or in a section of a related article; by this, I mean that linking the matter so that it can become an article is entirely unneeded. In the case that it is a WP:NOPAGE matter, then creating the red link likely means that a ] will unnecessarily be created. WP:Stubs are not ideal. And on another note, ] covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable; the most recent example I can think of is ], where editors are currently debating whether or not he is WP:Notable since a lot of secondary sources note him; see ]. ] (]) 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


:::Judging a book's notability, though, has sometimes proven more debatable than judging a person's notability. In addition to the ] guideline mentioned in the Dan Fredinburg case, and other WP:Notability guidelines, there is the ] guideline. The Coverage notes section of that guideline indicates that the guideline covers manga. ] (]) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC) :::Judging a book's notability, though, has sometimes proven more debatable than judging a person's notability. In addition to the ] guideline mentioned in the Dan Fredinburg case, and other WP:Notability guidelines, there is the ] guideline. The section of that guideline indicates that the guideline covers manga. ] (]) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:01, 29 April 2015

Good articlesBoys' love was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 11, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnime and manga Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJapan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:41, December 24, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Template:WP LoCE

The contents of the Shōnen-ai page were merged into Boys' love on 3 August 2008. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Text and/or other creative content from Bara (genre) was copied or moved into Yaoi with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Yaoi fandom was copied or moved into Yaoi with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Further reading

Removed from the article, but possibly useful to expand the references:

Talk:Yaoi/Reference suggestions

Inclusion of "yaoi" in LBGT in Japan template

Please see discussion at Template talk:LGBT in Japan. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yaoi has nothing to do with LGBT. Yaoi is culture of the heterosexuals. It is inappropriate to write in Template:LGBT in Japan.ヤオイ(Yaoi)は1970年代の日本で、異性愛女性に生み出されたものです。ja:森鴎外の娘のja:森茉莉が、書いたのが一番最初ですが。基本的にヤオイは異性愛者の文化です。ゲイ男性の多くはヤオイは読みません。
Yaoi was produced in Japan of the 1970s by a heterosexually oriented woman. It is Mori Mari first to have written. Yaoi is culture of the heterosexuals. Most of gay men do not read Yaoi. It has nothing to do with the culture of LGBT. Yaoi is a cltures of the heterosexuals, by the heterosexuals, for the heterosexuals. It isn't related topic. Yaio is an imaginary product of the hetero woman. It is different from the real homosexual. source:「オトコノコのためのボーイフレド」（1986,Japan）P72. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoxaq (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The template is not "LGBT culture in Japan". It's "LGBT in Japan". Yaoi is about gay men. It doesn't matter who the target audience is. このテンプレートが日本のＬＧＢＴです。日本のＬＧＢＴの文化じゃない。ヤオイの内容が同性愛と同性愛者ですよ。対象顧客層が関係ない。 (Note: Japanese text is the same as English text). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yaoi is not about gay men.Yaoi is about gay by the hetero woman's imagination. It is not included in LGBT concept.--Leoxaq (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion at Template talk:LGBT in Japan. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all I would like to say that lots of gay men especially in the United States do read Yaoi. Secondly, some yaoi is written by men. Thirdly, if it is by women for women it would be a matter of appropriation and exploitation of homosexual relationships which would mean it is 100% anti-gay by design. So if it wasn't for the fact that many people in the gay community me included do believe it was gay it would be virtually the same as blackface and therefore would be discriminative. Which do you want it to be? I have seen studying both suggesting it is gay and others suggesting its homophobic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Yaoi/GA1

Sexual Orientation of the Audience

The fact of the matter is that we are not agreeing on what sexual orientations should be included people keep challenging well maybe gays the right word or androphiliac or LGBT. Lets remove the problem we can pretty much surmise that most of the audience (especially in Japan) are Women with a growing number of Men (especially in Western countries) also reading it. If you do insist on including sexual orientation I suggest we use LGBT which to the person who mentioned transgender does not always mean just because we use LGBT we are discussing every sexual orientation or gender identity under the umbrella. Anyone have any objections please speak up on the talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My only comment on this matter at the time is what I stated in this edit summary. If most of the audience for yaoi is usually cited as heterosexual females, that should be in the lead...per WP:Lead. That's what a WP:Good article or WP:Featured article reviewer would state (experienced ones who know what they are talking about anyway). Simply indicating in the lead that most of the audience is female is of course not the same thing as stating that the vast majority of those females are (or are commonly cited as) heterosexual...even though people often assume that a person is heterosexual unless that person states otherwise. Per WP:Lead, it is also fine to summarize the other sexual orientation demographics. That stated, I don't much care that these demographic aspects are no longer in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well my ideal was going to be to state that Yaoi is mostly read by heterosexual women and LGBT people (which would encompass the gay, lesbian, bi an pan identities that were already in the lead). However I really don't see sexual orientation as important when discussing the audience. I'm pretty sure people from homosexual to heterosexual to bisexual to asexual of all genders read Yaoi, Yuri and Transgender manga. Especially in the United States those three aren't always about entertaining the heterosexual woman anymore it is becoming a genre that much like slash and femslash is fighting back against cissexism and heteronormativity. A simple sentence mentioning its impact on LGBT people or the fact it is read and watched by people of all genders and sexualities would be sufficient in my eyes however I don't consider it necessary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations removed

It seems that when this article was rewritten by Lionhead99, a lot of citations were removed. How is anyone meant to tell where the info comes from if this happens? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If an editor knows that a statement was previously sourced, they can track down an old version and copy&paste the ref. If only the ref name is given (and current version doesn't have the ref name), then you ctrl-f to find where the same ref name was used elsewhere in the old version. In one location the full ref is given and you can copy&paste it. That's how I tracked down "McLelland_2000_136" and "Nagaike03" once you told be where you saw those ref names. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's important to feel sure that when you're reading an article, the information came from the cited source. I only found it - after it had been missing for almost three years - because I was interested in past versions of the article. Particularly as this article cites books and academic studies and long-dead URLs, and has a lot of citations to boot, that integrity is important. Is there any way to flag this article for checking? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You can put {{Refimprove}} but that's unlikely to get anything done. You could also request help with this article at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga or Portal talk:Anime and Manga. I don't know how helpful that will be. This type of question is good for Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions where editors much more experienced than me can offer suggestions. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
IP, Lionhead99 is a prolific WP:Sockpuppet master. One that I'm very familiar with. How do you know about him having edited this article? How can we be sure that you are not him, especially since you sign your username like he did -- with two dashes in front? Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The two dashes are added by the software, the button for signatures? If I were this person, why would I be trying to point out his mistakes and spend some time reversing them? Could you please address my concern? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
They are? Either way, many editors, including myself, don't use the two dashes for signatures. In fact, in my several years of editing this site, I see that the vast majority of editors don't use the two dashes for signatures. As for "why would be trying to point out his mistakes and spend some time reversing them?", perhaps because, if you are him, you recognized your mistakes. And/or, if you are him, you want to gain the trust of those who edit this article (especially if they are very familiar with Lionhead99). Such responses are common WP:Sockpuppet responses. Your concern has already been addressed by Kirin13 above, and I see that you also went here about the matter. You still have not answered me regarding your knowledge of Lionhead99 having edited this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the problems with the article by looking through the history, as I mentioned earlier *on this very page* to Kirin. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, clicking on does produce --~~~~. The person who responded to IP at the teahouse, MadScientistX11, also used the '--'. I don't think we should use signature signing (especially by a button we encourage new editors to use) as way to argue sockpuppetry. I don't see how IP is harming this article or any evidence of socking, so such accusations are a bit premature. Kirin13 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know that others use two dashes in front of their signatures. So does Moonriddengirl, who, in addition to me, has commented on Lionhead99's talk page and is very familiar with Lionhead99. But signatures are a valid way to help catch WP:Sockpuppets; those (including me) who are very experienced with catching them know this. Unless the signature is unique or rare, I don't heavily rely on signatures to prove WP:Sockpuppetry; I use signatures as part of the puzzle in identifying WP:Sockpuppetry. That stated, as you can see, I dropped the WP:Sockpuppet angle regarding the IP; I have not pressed that matter since the IP last responded to me above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
As of your previous post, you were still angling at it. But since you've now dropped it, we can now return to the discussion of how to fix this article instead of how so&so is related to so&so. Kirin13 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer, I appreciate it. To more fully explain my problem with the article, I can see that during the restructuring, references were removed, but the information from those references was not. As an example, here you can see the removal of a reference for "salt and pepper", which is clearly visible in the source and which is an unusual claim that needs a citation. I am concerned that due to the restructuring, this removal of citations, but not information from those citations, was missed at the time. I have found some instances of this, which I have attempted to repair, with help, but I am concerned that there are more that have not yet been detected. I don't feel confident that even if I went through the article with a fine-toothed comb, (and had the time, resources and energy to do so) I would get them all. As a result of the changes, the ability of readers to check that the information comes from a source has been damaged. If the point of citing everything inline is to help everyone find what information comes from what source, then removing citations without also removing the info that comes from those citations creates the false impression that info comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, when it actually came from another source which was removed. This creates an article which looks good on the surface, but doesn't actually say where it got all of its info from. In a way, this could be seen as accidental plagiarism - the article uses the sources' ideas without saying where the article gets them from. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So, where to from here? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

removal of 1000 nights imperfect citation

edit removing imperfect citation As it is currently in the article:

As women have greater economic power, commercial demand for the sexualization of men may correlate. Korean comic writer Jin Seok Jeon wrote, "Men are now marketable. It's also a time where women are big consumers and can buy almost anything they desire. Some men think this is degrading...but the tables have turned, and I like the fact that men are just as commercialized now." He jokes that after researching oil wrestling, which requires extreme physical fitness, he does not feel as marketable, illustrating that yaoi and other pornography exploiting men is subject to traditional criticisms, such as sexual objectification, creating unrealistic expectations and negative body images.

Until someone reads the right volume of One Thousand and One Nights (manhwa) this can't be verified (and some of it sounds like a personal theory on the original wiki editor's part rather than the author's), but I felt I should save it here, just in case someone does read the book. I've removed it from the article because it can't be verified, but it could be added back in if someone gets the book. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Red links to NY,NY and Tomoi

New York, New York (manga) is listed at WP:ANIME/REQUEST with a short bibliography of secondary sources (in English), therefore it is notable, verifiable, and would be likely to become an article in the future. In addition, it has several interwiki pages, and the German one has an identifiable reception section. These articles could be translated here. Tomoi (manga), as the first series in the genre to cover issues like AIDS, is similarly discussed in the literature, including a chapter in Dreamland Japan. Google Scholar search. As it has secondary sources, the topic is notable, verifiable, and therefore likely. I don't know why the red links to them should be removed in the main page, because WP:REDLINK states that valid topics should not be delinked, and that having red links in articles improves their likelihood of being created. I've started up a discussion on the talk page of the guideline to get some clarification on this. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this matter to the talk page, after I requested that you do that while I reverted you. I don't see how what you've stated in this section means that those topics should have Misplaced Pages articles (yes, I analyzed the links), and I stated more on editors adding red links at the WP:Red link talk page. That stated, I wouldn't mind much if you went ahead and re-linked those topics in the Yaoi article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, do you mind pointing to the aforementioned German version here on this talk page? Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to what you think makes for a valid red link. Would you care to enlighten me on that subject? I've shown that the topics of NY,NY and Tomoi are notable and verifiable: therefore they should have red links in the main space, so that people will see them and be enticed to make articles. I'm headed out the door, but you can find the German edition of the NY,NY, article easily by looking for the (ja) edition (on the main Yaoi page) and navigating the interwiki links. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I stated that not every WP:Notable topic means that the topic should have a Misplaced Pages article, I'm not sure how I haven't been clear on the matter. As you know, I pointed to the WP:NOPAGE section of the WP:Notable guideline. In various cases, I have encountered Misplaced Pages articles where a WP:Notable topic is better sufficiently covered in the article it is mentioned in or in a section of a related article; by this, I mean that linking the matter so that it can become an article is entirely unneeded. In the case that it is a WP:NOPAGE matter, then creating the red link likely means that a WP:Stub will unnecessarily be created. WP:Stubs are not ideal. And on another note, WP:Secondary sources covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable; the most recent example I can think of is Dan Fredinburg, where editors are currently debating whether or not he is WP:Notable since a lot of secondary sources note him; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Judging a book's notability, though, has sometimes proven more debatable than judging a person's notability. In addition to the Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) guideline mentioned in the Dan Fredinburg case, and other WP:Notability guidelines, there is the Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) guideline. The Coverage notes section of that guideline indicates that the guideline covers manga. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Categories: