Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels/2011

Reference library

I've actually been wondering this for a little while, but while we have been using WP:ANIME/M for magazines such asDengeki G's Magazine and its derivatives, should we perhaps start a reference library under the task force for fanbooks and magazines that don't fall under WP:ANIME/M's and WP:VG/M's coverage? I am thinking about this because fanbooks that focus only on visual novels (probably) wouldn't belong in WP:ANIME's reference library, and magazines such asDengeki Hime and Tech Gian generally only cover bishōjo games, which isn't really useful to WP:VG's general contributors. -- クラウド６６８ 06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the task force even large enough to warrant something like this? I mean, there's not too many editors who even have such magazines like Dengeki Hime or Tech Gian, so I can't imagine that there'd be a lot of content on the page.--十八 08:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was actually thinking that the task force isn't large enough for that as well, and probably none of us have many of them. I guess we can at best add a them below the Resources section simply due to the low amount, perhaps. --クラウド６６８ 08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Popotan up for PR

Since I believe I finally found a RS that can link thecaramelldansen origin to the title, I've decided to continue work on this to try and bring it to FA. I've started with a PR.陣内_Jinnai 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Muv-Luv

I've taken Muv-Luv about as far as I can go with it. Anyone willing to take up the rest of the project.—Farix (t | c) 02:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To Heart naming conventions

I am wondering how should the titles in the To Heartfranchise (especially the To Heart 2 ones) be referred to? My main concern is whether the visual novels themselves should be named with a space or not (ToHeart2 or To Heart 2), when either is accepted by WP:MOSTM.Remurmur moved the articles to where it currently sits a couple years ago after a lengthy discussion atTo Heart's talk page. I'm also concerned about the following titles:

• Should spin off games like Another Days and Dungeon Travelers be referred to with or without a colon? I thinkFinal Fantasy VII Advent Children was named without a colon with the rationale that the official English title lacked a colon, and Another Days's title is, well, entirely in English.
• Should XRATED be referred to as XRATED, XRated, or X Rated? I am leaning towards the latter because of how "X" is pronounced separately, but just wanted to ask for a second opinion.
• Should the ad OVAs' titles be capitalized, and how should the words "plus" and "next" be handled (as AD Next or Adnext)?

-- クラウド６６８ 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would bring up is that camelCaseis not prohibited on Wikipedia, so there's no reason to include spaces just because. As far as the old debate goes, it seems like it was mainly an issue with how the title was rendered on English-localized anime and manga. Right Stuf lists the title asHeart, and it seems ADVdid the same with the manga, though oddly enough, both covers of the Right Stuf anime and ADV manga display the title asToHeart, though it's obvious this is just a carryover from the Japanese releases. I would say that's enough evidence to suggest we should stick with the spaces, at least for To Heart. Granted, the game was never released in English, but even then the original rendering of the title had spaces, and only later did they use camelCase.

To Heart 2 is different, since it was never released in English, and always uses camelCase. So, like the Japanese articles, ja:To Heart and ja:ToHeart2, I think it would make sense to remove the spaces from the latter. However, the only thing I'd be concerned about is consistency. Someone may say that either both should use camelCase or both should use spaces, and I'm inclined to agree, but this is an odd situation. If either article is ever brought to GA, the inconsistency may be brought up too.

I think the use of colons should be done on a case by case basis. If those titles have no colons, then I don't see a problem not having them. For XRATED, I've always disliked that it's in all caps, but never really thought we could do otherwise. I guess I would go with X Rated, following normal English conventions. For the OVA titles, ad is pronounced A.D., so I think they should rendered be as AD Next and AD Plus, following the same convention as X Rated.--十八 05:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am fine (and actually really want to) get rid of the all caps for XRATED, but I think whether there should be a space inbetween should depend on whether we use camel case inTo Heart 2's title. Personally, I really do prefer it with spaces inbetween, and would like to keep the consistency between the two articles, but that's probably something that needs further opinions for. --クラウド６６８ 06:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, while the all caps of XRATED should be removed perWP:ALLCAPS, I'm not sure if Xrated or XRated is appropriate here. I doubt there would many English RSes that we could look to for this as the few out there probably use all caps.陣内_Jinnai 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that should probably be rendered as "XRated" or "X Rated" just because X and Rated are read separately, but it really depends on whether we decide to go with "ToHeart2" or "To Heart 2" in order to keep the camel case usage consistent, I guess. -- クラウド６６８ 06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I would say stick with the spaces with To Heartand To Heart 2 to preserve consistency across the series (and to make it easier if Leaf ever gets off their buts and does To Heart 3). If nothing gets camelCased, then it'd make sense to go with X Rated and leave as a note that the original rendering of the title is ToHeart2 XRATED.--十八 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will go with To Heart 2 X Rated and the like since I doubt there will be any further comments.--クラウド６６８ 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anime and the Visual Novel by Dani Cavallaro

The other day, I came upon a book titled Anime and the Visual Novel by Dani Cavallaro at my school's library. I decided to check it out thinking that I can steal something from it forTo Heart's reception section. After reading a couple sections of the book, though, I've noticed some similarities between the book and several of our articles here when it comes to how some sentences are phrased and structured (although a lot of analysis is added in), in particular in the sections of the book on True Tears, H2O: Footprints in the Sand, White Album, andDa Capo II for the parts that I have read. The book only cited Wikipedia in one instance, and that's when it copiedSchool Days (visual novel)#Delay of finale word by word, and none of the articles are cited.

As an example, this is found in the book: "An especially intriguing strategy resides with the game's employment of so-called 'tear points.' These indicate how each of the heroines associated with specific occurrences is being treated. If the number of points in question exceeds the total of eight, the resolution of that heroine's arc is made inaccessible in the course of that particular play-through.", which kind of sounds like it's taken out of the True Tears article. I am wondering what everyone else thinks, or if I should just shut up and recursively cite it forTo Heart, even though I can't find any evidence that establish this as a RS. --クラウド６６８ 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well one good thing about Wikipedia is that it's based onverifiability, not truth. If it's not specifically verifiable that the author took those sections (aside form theSchool Days one) from Wikipedia, then I would say it's fair game for citations. And I thought books published by regular publishing houses (i.e. not those that are self-published) would be considered reliable. The author seems to have writtena few books, but do you have to find reliable sources citing Cavallaro to claim they're reliable?--十八 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I guess I confused the RS process with that for websites. In that case, I guess I'll just cite the book for To Heart(and potentially other articles) when I get around to work on that. -- クラウド６６８ 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on... that sounds likeplagiarism to me! On principle, do we want to support the act of ripping work from this WikiProject (and then profiting from it)? And if we cite the copied material, then won't it look like the Wikipedia editors are the ones who've copied+pasted from Cavallaro? Here are two other cases where authors were caught copying+pasting from Wikipedia:book anda newspaper -- In the first case, the author acknowledged that he "screwed up"; in the second case, the editor denounced the author's actions. No apologies were offered though.--Polarem (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But still, we can't independently confirm that he stole passages from Wikipedia, and it'd be OR to say he did without reliable evidence. Besides, since the book came out in late 2009, it'd be easy to confirm that certain passages were first on the Wikipedia articles by checking the history.--十八 02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might fall under WP:CIRCULAR so you should probably ask at WT:V and let them know its not something that you can confirm for certain. CIRCULAR only really talks about items that can be directly attributed back to Wikipedia (and even then like console generations discussion if becomes part of the wider cultural belief then its fine). What we have here is something that seems unclear which was the source.

You can also go back and check history and see if it was added before the publication came out.∞陣内Jinnai 03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell, the book didn't really copy anything from the To Heart article (perhaps because of how it is scant of information), and all I want to cite the book for is how it calls To Heart's contribution to visual novels as "foundational", but I was worried because of just how similar the other parts of the book is compared to some of the articles here. To clarify, there isn't an instance aside from the part on School Days (and that's done in a footnote) where the book copies Wikipedia articles word by word, but the paragraphs on True Tears' and H2O's gameplay, as well as Kanon's and White Album's plots and characters sound too similar to the equivalent sections on Wikipedia. -- クラウド６６８ 06:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. If he (she?) wrote the To Heart section himself, then I think it's fine to cite that. I'd be wary about citing the other, unusually-similar sections though.--Polarem (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the OR policy says that we shouldn't put unpublished info info into an article, but we can do "original research" when deciding who to cite. So, I can't say in a Wikipedia article that "Author X plagiarised Wikipedia" (unless someone else had said it publicly)... but I can launch my own investigation to figure out if Author X plagiarised or not, and then use my findings to decide whether or not to cite his work in my article.--Polarem (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Try emailing the author first and explain things (in a non-provactive manner obviously).∞陣内Jinnai 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I tried going there, but I couldn't find her (yeah, it's a she) email anywhere. --クラウド６６８ 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Try the publisher then.∞陣内Jinnai 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, emailing the publisher feels to me it's going a little too far, as the implications also seems to be larger if I make any accusations. Should I just ask for the author's contact, or should I also list out the findings? --クラウド６６８ 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You can be truthful without being accusatory. Tell them that you are doing research on the subject and there is some info you want clarified. It doesn't hurt to them them you're a fan out the author. They may just ignore the letter, but it won't be seen as accusatory and you aren't lying (you do want to research where they got the info).∞陣内Jinnai 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt Visual Novel Task Force as a joint WikiProject TF

There is a proposal at WikiProject Anime and manga to adopt this TF as a joint wikiproject.∞陣内Jinnai 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot for adding template

We should have a bot run to add the VN info to all the relevant articles whether they have a template or not.∞陣内Jinnai 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can try figuring out something with WP:AWB. --クラウド６６８ 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS-AM and VG/GL

So we are now under the scope of these 2 guidelines for all articles. I don't think there is too much issue with this except:

• We should probably state to use the {{Infobox animanga}}for all articles, even if they don't have an anime/manga adaptation because history has shown most notable visual novels and related games eventually will.
• We should write up something on how to integrate gameplay sections and differences in plot for adaptations (basically punting a lot of it to WP:DUE).
• We should probably note to follow MOS-AM for structure (other than gameplay) as its more defined. The only major difference I've seen with visual novel articles and other video games is that sequels/spinoffs and the like are listed at the bottom in their own section. I'm not sure what we should do here. I think we need to have some guidance here so we know what to follow.
• Obviously note that both apply as well as WP:Naming conventions (video games).

I'm going to bring up items like Little Busters! at lead first as it probably has wider impact than just here.∞陣内Jinnai 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all notable visual novels have an anime or manga adaptation. G Senjō no Maō and Time Leap are two examples (although I did use animanga for the Time Leapsince there are two games). Regarding the infoboxes though, do we really have to be that technical and require the use of only animanga? There are visual novels outside of the "main" bishōjo spectrum we are in too, such as 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors, and it wouldn't make sense to use animanga for such cases.

Gameplay/plot differences can easily be integrated into the subsections of the adaptations (I am planning on doing that with To Heart 2: Dungeon Travelers in To Heart 2#Spin-offs, although I haven't really gotten to it). As for the structure of the articles, do we really have to get that technical with following a single structure religiously? Given the elasticity of visual novels, I think we should instead be more flexible regarding which format to use as long as it makes sense.

Leaving those aside, how should we interpret theWP:VGIMAGES section in WP:VG/GL, considering that the guideline obviously wasn't written with adaptations in mind, and cover arts of adaptations can potentially show the diversity of adaptations a work has received. --クラウド６６８ 19:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For the infobox, probably not religiously insist, but probably should guide articles to use them unless there is a good reason not to with the lack of an anime/manga adaptation not being the most convincing argument. As for 999', I'd say that if I were creating that article today, I'd use it. Anime inspited visual novels aren't restricted to bishojo titles. Something like The Portopia Serial Murder Casemight be a better game to be used as a valid exception as the cover art, promotional material and whatnot aren't anime-ish and its hard to tell from the gameplay (due to graphic limitations) whether the game was intended to be an anime-styled game or not (my guess is not).

As to the structure, I'd say we should. It really helps when trying to improve the articles if there is a clear indication where something goes. There is less arguments (there will always be some, but less) about what goes where because you have a guideline to fall back on. Also most media articles do follow a structure, whether formal or not. This would just be formalizing what is largely informal so that any disputes have something to lean back on for guidance. I am particularly concerned about the fan discs, especially as some of them (since we have a few with English translations) could have a lot of reviews/commentary as well as increased development information (such as titles from MangaGamer which they tend to have a lot of developer blog posts for the fan disc translations). Finally WP:MOS-AM#Page layout does mention that page layout should still be flexible and take into considerations the specific article's circumstances.

As to WP:IMAGES, I see no issue. We use the appropriate cover art in the lead, be that visual novel or anime cover. We have a screenshot which generally uses similar artwork as the adaptations. If it substantially differs in the adaptation, then we can use another. The file naming wouldn't be an issue with MOS-AM. The only thing I could see with IMAGES is preference of English language covers over a choice at MOS-AM. Honestly, I'd go with IMAGES here unless there is a compelling reason not to.∞陣内Jinnai 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Following a general structure is fine, but if you go too far into the specifics, it won't be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of different articles. For example, we have articles that combined plot and characters into one section, while we also have articleswhere the story and characters (and sometimes setting) remain separate subsections. There are also articles where the music section falls as a level 3 subsection under thedevelopment section, as a separate section, and as a subsection underrelated media. The point is all of these different styles make sense, and are written that way for one reason or another. Why go fixing it if it's not broken? -- クラウド６６８ 23:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The plot elements apply to anime and manga articles in general too. They also have titles where the plot differs in adaptations. All of those work within the MOS-AM, so this should be able to.∞陣内Jinnai 00:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, MOS-AM appears to want notable adaptations listed in the first sentance per WP:MOS-AM#Content point #2. This would have applied even before the joint TF deal for Little Busters!23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're twisting the guideline's lines to suit your view. That point is meant to make sure articles are written from the standpoint of the primary media, in this case, the visual novel for Little Busters!. It might use the word "original", but that's just another way of saying "the media that, without which, the adaptations wouldn't exist", which is the VN. Besides, the VN was in development before the first manga was serialized, so it's the "original format of the work" whichever way you look at it.--十八 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside of my initial statement in which I had yet to realize that the VN was the original work, I have never claimed otherwise nor have I since then claimed the article should state that the manga is the original. My only point is that the opening paragraph, preferably the opening sentance, should mention that the manga adaptation, which was released prior to the VN, should be mentioned to clarrify the confusion people have when they apply common sense.∞陣内Jinnai 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I know there are issues with LEAD still. Myself and Cloud who think something could be added to the first sentance for articles like Little Busters! with Juhanchi against. Exactly what, if anything is still in dispute.

Items that seem to have consensus

• Use of {{Infobox animanga}} for most articles, even if they don't have an anime/manga adaptation. Make exceptions for those that don't really have anime/manga elements as primary aspect
• Note that all articles fall under WP:NCVG
• Integrate alternate plot info and gameplay into the adaptation subsection related to those works and adaptations.

Is this correct? If so, I'll write something up. I know it may be mostly us 3 who mainly come here, but its useful for newcomers and occasional unconnected editor who just happens to want to help on an article.∞陣内Jinnai 20:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally dislike the idea of using the infobox if there's no anime/manga/light novel etc adaptation. Even if this TF is going to be a joint with WP:ANIME, that doesn't mean you default to the latter's infobox. The is the same reason why film articles of anime movies use the filmproject's infobox, even though they're all anime.--十八 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't exactly take sides in the Little Busters! issue, since I think it's fine either with or without in the lead (I did suggest what I think is the least intrusive solution if it has to be implemented, though). However, I think it should at least be in the adaptations section, which it isn't now but I recall it once was. As for those three points, I really don't agree with using animanga when it's only a video game either, but only in principle (and that non-defaulting thing Juhachi said), since I can't really see a lot of advantages in using{{Infobox VG}}. I don't have a problem with the other two, I suppose, but I can see exceptions happening for the third point. -- クラウド６６８ 03:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay what are both of your reasons for opposing the animanga template? I've given a good reason for using. Again we're talking about products that will in most cases have a manga or anime adaptation based on them eventually for most titles that meet the GNG to begin with. Juhachi's point is meaningless because one could easily flip that around. IE, because anime film articles are often solely about the films and not any adaptations, that is why they use film's template.∞陣内Jinnai 05:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose the use of the template, but Idisagree with using only animanga for such cases simply in principle. Visual novels are fundamentally video games, so using animanga feels like classifying them as a whole other thing. Also, I can see where you're coming from, but saying a visual novel will eventually get an anime or manga adaptation is WP:CRYSTAL (and there are quite a few that passnotability and don't have one). If a visual novel does indeed get a manga or anime adaptation, you'll have to do the work to edit and add that part to the infobox anyway, so I also don't see that "the article will eventually use the infobox" point as being an advantage. --クラウド６６８ 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see why you, Jinnai, would suggest the use of the animanga box on default, but I think that should only be the case if the VN already has a manga/anime etc adaptation. It's true that most of the VN articles that would be created probably already have some adaptation which makes them meetWP:GNG, though this won't necessarily always be the case, just the majority of cases. Anyone dealing in a VN with adaptations would naturally use the animanga box anyway. So, you can suggest in a guideline for an editor to use the animanga box if an adaptation already exists, but not before.--十八 11:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Cloud: Well the debate about whether visual novels are video games is not over. There is still large disagreement about this in the industry saying they're closer to novels than games (non-hybrid titles).∞陣内Jinnai 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted a version up. It's tagged with{{underdiscussion}} to make it clear it might still need revision.∞陣内Jinnai 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgh, do we really have to go to that again? As long as the publisher publishes them as games, there are magazine sources referring to those works as games, and there's a book referring to it as a genre (see a couple sections above), why does it matter in an article about the work but not the genre what the rest of the industry thinks? At most, the result of that discussion should only go into the Visual novel article, and shouldn't concern the individual works. Also, to clarify my position, I don't have a problem if anyone really wants to use animanga for an article with only a VN, but if I want to use VG, I shouldn't be disallowed to because it doesn't make any less sense than animanga until it receives an adaptation, which may or may not happen.--クラウド６６８ 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That last part is basically what I put in the guideline.∞陣内Jinnai 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case I am perfectly fine with it. I just don't want the guidelines to be too restrictive (but given they are guidelines, they really aren't), so that I can make adjustments as I see fit. -- クラウド６６８ 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead

I'm posting this as I've gotten no response after some time at WT:LEAD. We had a long discussion about Little Busters! that started at the Anime and manga WikiProject talk page without any conclusive decision about where the info should be placed. I would ask if we could get clarification on whether adapations which are released prior to the original work should be mentioned in the first sentance or at least the first paragraph of WP:LEAD. This is something important because it probably affects more than just game adapations. The arguments are:

For listing early in the prose

• It can, and there is evidence that it already has, confused readers because the prose lists the primary topic as the visual novel, but the first release is an manga.
• Common sense says that adaptations require something to be adapted from and as such should normally come out after the work they are adapted from. This is why it causes confusion.
• The standard for media infoboxes is to list items chronoligically. There is no consensus to change that in this article or at large.
• The reader is unlikely to read down to the third paragraph in the lead (where they learn about manga adaptations) and even less likely to read the production/development history if they are already confused before complaining or editing the article.
• There is no issue with WP:UNDUE as the adaptation was released first.
• The average reader cannot be expected to be stepped in the release history ofLittle Busters! before reading the article.
• There is no clear restriction against mentioning it this early.

Against listing early in the prose

• Standard structure of the lead follows article structure and this would break it.
• It adds a lot of unnecessary baggage to the first paragraph and there is no easy way to explain that concisely.
• It causes an issue with WP:UNDUE as the article isn't about the adaptation and thus shouldn't be put up front or presented twice in the lead (once up front for clarification and again in the 3rd paragraph that talks about adaptations).
• Readers should be expected to read further if they are confused.∞陣内Jinnai 00:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Don't mention adaptation before the original I think whether the adaptations should be mentioned early in the lead will really depend on the work itself; in the case of Little Busters!, the main work is the visual novel, but a manga was made about a year earlier to promote the game. Even though the manga was released first, it was intended to promote the visual novel and thus the visual novel is still considered the original work. Another two cases I have are The Big O and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Both are considered to be original anime or anime originals (as in, they are not based on any existing work, another example would be Puella Magi Madoka Magica) even though they have manga adaptations that were released before the anime, because those adaptations were released to promote the anime. That said, to avoid confusion, the adaptation should be mentioned briefly in the lead, and clarify that they were released to promote the original, but mentioning them in detail before the original? No. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nuetral I say it would be good to add it in the lead but to clarify why the adaptation was released first. This is a similar issue with the .hack games and .hack animes as the anime served as prequels to the videogames but they were released by a month before the video games. If it can be clarified in the lead then i say it can be kept, however if it cant then maybe removing it will help. Though im still leaning towards keeping them in the lead, i dont agree it has to be in the first sentence nor in the first paragraph. It depends another example of this is Red Garden and Romeo x Juliet. Both mangas came before it but technically the anime is the original. I say we re-organize the infobox to show the original work first despite being released after the manga and visual novels.14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course they have to be mentioned in the lead, but never before the original; that is why our article on Bleach is at Bleach (manga) and not Bleach (anime). Yes I know the anime came later, but my point is the same. The article should be about the original, even if the adaptation is more well-known, which is why we have "Bleach is a manga by..." and not "'Bleach' is an anime based on the manga of the same name...". They can (and should) be mentioned, but not before the original. And even then, if the adaptation came before the original, this should be clarified, like "a manga was released to promoted the game called..." or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note, this isn't about just Little Busters!, but the use in general. Little Busters! was just the title that brought this up.∞陣内Jinnai 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, but my opinion is in general, not about Little Busters!. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That was directed at Lucia Black whose signature didn't sign improperly for some reason.∞陣内Jinnai 00:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware, the topic looks vague to me honestly. If its about media being released prior to the original work being mentioned first over the original then i definitely oppose. And i was referring to re-organizing infoboxes on all that affect.Lucia Black (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, let's revive this a little. Oppose if it comes before mentioning the original, since that way you'll get something among the lines of, "Little Busters! is a manga based on the Japanese visual novel developed by Key...there have been five manga adaptations based on Little Busters!..." If we don't have "One Piece is an anime series based on the Japanese shōnen manga series...", then I don't really think that first scenario would be a good idea. That said, I'm not mentioning it in the lead ("originally released...on July 27, 2007, after the serialization of a manga adaptation, or something among the lines). -- クラウド６６８ 08:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure what the oppose/support is here, but I think that main topic of the article should be discussed first in the lede. It need not matter which was adapted from which, but the primary topic of the article should be discussed first, per WP:LEADSENTENCE. For the specific example, the visual novel should be mentioned first if it is the primary focus of the page. If the prior adaption were important enough, it could be mentioned in the lead, but often it is likely enough to say in the lede that there were additional adaptations, saving the specifics for the body of the page. —Ost (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• • To both Cloud and Ost, no one is saying that the primary work shouldn't come first. The question is, right after it, should in cases where the primary work is preceded by an adaptation, especially one that may meet the GNG (or be quite popular in sales, awards, etc) should it be listed in the first sentance or at leas the first paragraph after the primary work has already been listed? This is because when the infobox, which is clearly viewable to the reader, right next to them if a reader is unfamiliar with it they may, and it already has happened to some editors so its more than a hypothetical question, be confused when reading why the article is not about the first-dated work as common sense tells people an adapation comes after a work is released.∞陣内Jinnai 05:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe that it is acceptable to include the adapted work in the lede, but that it may not be necessary for every case. This seems like an WP:EDITDISC concern, not something that deserves a hard rule. Since the lede is a summary of the article, readers—and especially editors—should be expected to read the content in the article if they are confused by a statement. Additionally, there are probably other steps that can be taken to increase clarity. For instance, the date of the adapted work need not be included in the lede or the lede could make clear that the work was adapted from the script or from the original concept, rather than from the completed work. —Ost (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I think its more than Editorial discretion because of the issues it can cause. The issue is goes to the heart about how newbie-friendly we make articles. Do we expect people to come in knowing a lot about an article and if not reading the ENTIRE article or do we clarrify stuff that can confuse the average reader quickly?∞陣内Jinnai 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Well mentioning the adaptation early could cause confusion already and would require reading the article to get the implication that the adaptation came before the original. It's best to clarify it later on in the lead, but not early.Lucia Black (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Lucia Black, the point is though that in cases like Little Busters! the adaptation did come first and when you read the lead and compare it to the infobox that is not made clear.∞陣内Jinnai 02:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I realize that which is wh i proposed reorganization of the infobox. Mentioning the adaptation early in the lead causes confusion to what the article is mainly about.Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)