Talk:Moriarty the Patriot

Edit conflict

I don't want to be involved in a WP:EDITWAR, so I'll stop editing this article for now, but I think that Eiryu42 (talk · contribs) is making a mess here. I'd appreciate a WP:THIRD on this. In addition, there are vague citations added by them, like a Jump SQ interview with little data for verification. Xexerss (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is a Jump Sq Interview an unverified source? It has a page number and an issue date, and it's a publicly available magazine, in which the series is published. It's not required to be in English to be a valid source.

I think the final edit RE: the creator contributions is fair and valid, and I'm not sure what the issue with that is. Eiryu42 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eiryu42: I'm not saying that is unreliable or anything like that. I'm saying that you just provided the name of the magazine, a page number, and a date without year. How is anyone supposed to verify information with so little data? Xexerss (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought I provided the year, honestly. I'm updating that citation now to fix it. Eiryu42 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eiryu42: Do you happen to have access to the magazine? If so, you must include the exact title of the interview in 'title' parameter, which is not for the name of the magazine ('magazine' or 'journal' parameters are for that). Xexerss (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Just updated that. Eiryu42 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, following the layout of WP:MOS-AM, 'Production' section should go below, not above the Characters section. Xexerss (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's an extremely terrible decision on Wikipedia's part, but okay. Eiryu42 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eiryu42: Regarding the creator parameter, Template:Infobox animanga states: "The creator or creators of the anime, manga, light novel, or etc. In the case of adaptations or derivative works, this may include creators who were not directly involved but are credited for their indirect contribution by virtue of having created the original work upon which the series may be based." That's why I think only Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should be included there. From what you commented before, I understand, Takeuchi was not there from the beginning, but he is still credited as the one in charge of the storyboard in all the volumes. If there was a 'Storyboard' parameter he would be included there instead of 'Author', but since it doesn't exist, that's why he was placed in the 'Author' parameter, which is usually understood as the person who is in charge of the writing of the work without participating in the illustrations (for cases where there are two authors: a writer and an illustrator). Xexerss (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think that fits Takeuchi's role. Storyboarding isn't writing, and does participate in illustrations, although not the final illustrations. Putting him as "author" is confusing. There is no evidence anywhere that he was in charge of writing anything. Exactly what he and Miyoshi did and didn't contribute to the final writing is not clear. Eiryu42 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is limited only to what appears on the covers, Miyoshi is just credited for the artworks, and Takeuchi's role is the closest thing to the writer of the work (leaving aside how all the work came about). The infobox is just for practical purposes. It is very likely that both authors have actually more than one role for the work, but there is no need to complicate it in the infobox. Xexerss (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. "We can't figure out what we did, so let's just say he did something else" is just adding misinfo. If we don't know who wrote it, we shouldn't put either.

"Closest to" is a huge stretch in this case. Eiryu42 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)