Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Clannad
Status	Closed
Request date	07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Sin_Harvest, User:Filastin, User:AtSwimTwoBirds, User:NeilN, User:Juhachi, User:Jagged_85, User:64.252.124.196, User:A100128-000237, User:CelticWonder
Mediator(s)	-- /MWOAP\|Notify Me\
Comment	Requesting Final views. /MWOAP\|Notify Me\ 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The RfC discussion can be found here.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

What is the dispute?

The article Clannad was moved to Clannad (musical group) and Clannad was replaced with a disambiguation page based on an old discussion. The changes were reverted and a RfC on the problem was created. The RfC ended in no consensus.

In short the problem is should we have Clannad point to a disambiguation page?

What would you like to change about this?

To move the discussion forward from a bit of a brick wall we have hit.

How do you think we can help?

We could use some new ideas or someone to help move the discussion forward and someone to basically to say we have a consensus (understandably it would be non-binding) so we don't trail off into a half-finished proposal which is what sort of started this whole problem.

Mediator notes

Mediation opened on 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC) by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\
2 Editors have posted notes. Are all views represented? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Editors have posted views, one with a response. I will be reading over these the next 24 hours to see our next point. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

I am going to notify everyone of this. I would like to start by asking all people involved to voice there opinion and back it with Wikipedia policy. I request no comments on them yet, just a view. I have setup some sections below for you to do so, if there is no room, add "=====View by ===== above your opinon. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views

Ok, all present editors have posted a view. I am going to put some facts/considerations below. We'll get right into the dicussion as soon as I can do that. (I have to go to a friends where I will comment there. Please hold of on commenting to avoid (edit conflict)). Thanks -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Views expressed by editors

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

View by Juhachi

I am opposed to the proposed move of Clannad to Clannad (band) or something similar based on a few reasons. One of the biggest being the spirit of what disambiguation is used for on Wikipedia, as outlined at WP:DAB with WP:PT:

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term.

It is of my firm belief that the band Clannad is the page that is more likely to be sought out by anyone who searches for "Clannad" and presses the go button. Not only has the band been around longer, but a niche visual novel/anime/manga series like Clannad is not going to be something that is going to rival the band Clannad on being "the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term" in the long run. As of right now, Clannad had 51,866 views and Clannad had 23,735 in January 2010, but Clannad just had a couple anime adaptations in the past few years, plus a featured animated film, multiple recently released manga, and the original visual novel was also just recently fan-translated into English in the past couple of years. I've been working on Clannad long enough to know that it only started getting a lot of traffic once the anime series were announced and later aired, and of course, the higher traffic might also be to the efforts of getting it up to GA status, which spans both WP:VG (WP:VN) and WP:ANIME. Further, there are only two main articles that share the name Clannad (the band and the VN/animanga), and then there's a few other pages that are related to those two articles, such as Clannad (band) albums, or the Clannad film or Clannad anime episode list. With only two main articles where the other spin-off articles could be found, I do not believe a separate Clannad (disambiguation) page would be needed, again going off my first point that the band Clannad is much more likely to be sought by the majority of people who press "Go" after typing in "Clannad". And before anyone uses it, I'll bring up that Google hits should generally not be considered merely to "test" how "popular" one or the other is (especially when Clannad's first two hits are Clannad (visual novel) and Clannad). What Google hits should be used for is to test how many reliable, third-party sources discuss both Clannads, not how many unreliable sites may use the word "Clannad".

I am also aware that WP:PT states:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic.

But this is not a discussion on whether Clannad (the band) or Clannad are the primary topics. It's a discussion whether Clannad (the band) should be the primary topic or not, without even considering that Clannad may be considered as the primary topic (which it most certainly should not based on my comments above).--十八 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by CelticWonder

I am AGAINST relegating the band to a disambiguation page for very unbiased reasons/comparisons, and I'll repeat what I said before with a little more clarification. Clannad (band) should remain the main article as "popularity by numbers" doesn't mean anything, and additionally trying to lend popularity, fame, and rank (WP:FACTORS) to the benefit of the novel/game is nonsensical. The argument that Google of all things lists the novel/game first is ultimately moot, as precedence, longevity, and influence should most assuredly count for something here also. Regardless anyway, the "visual novel" WIKIPEDIA article is the first search result (on Google only, mind you, not on others), but the first independent website search result that is NOT WP-based on Google, Yahoo, and Bing returns the band, and truly the VERY first thing you see on any of those is links to the music.

The band is clearly much more of a mainstay in worldwide culture than this currently popular BUT passing fad (feeding systemic bias of this issue) of a game/novel. As mentioned here, the writer only named the series "Clannad" because of a misunderstanding of what the "word"(sic) meant (even though it's from many words, as the band has explained). The discussion of a new primary topic or a disambiguation page would have merit if it was simply a common word that was bound to be used more than once (as in Apple), but in this case the final decision should be based off the fact that Clannad CREATED the name ... as in FIRSTIES (or more seriously, as in the WP example about Danzig, where the city came "first" -- not the band, referenced in WP:PT). Traces of Clannad's legacy can be heard in the music of many artists, including The Corrs, Loreena McKennitt, Anúna, Riverdance, Enya and U2, [among others], I would add. What has Clannad (visual novel) inspired???

If I created a novel called "Microsoft" about tiny, fluffy bunnies, and it quickly became popular in populous China, does that mean it should bump the corporate wiki page? If I wrote a play that became an instant Broadway hit and became world renown called "Shakespeare" about some Native American rebellion, should it displace the article about a man because he's been dead for almost 400 years? CERTAINLY NOT. The same could also go for really any music group. Does their current "popularity" on the Internet require pushing them into the past because something else with the same (albeit tm infringing) name came along? I'm actually surprised there was never a Trademark Infringement case opened up against the writers of the novel.

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sin Harvest

I believe that Clannad should point to a disambiguation page. This is based on the opinion that it is the most neutral solution to this problem. To suggest that the Clannad shouldn't be a disambiguation page because we are not considering if Clannad (visual novel) deserves to be a primary topic makes the assumption that no one is willing to argue for that, if it is necessary I could do that but that would be rather WP:Point and I believe we would never reach a consensus to make Clannad (visual novel) the main page. Clannad (band) article has the benefit of existing before Clannad (visual novel) and thus has started off as the primary article but that doesn't impilictly mean that it should stay as such.

I personally believe that the page views 1 2 and the Google search results should be considered. True enough that this sort of thing normally counts for little in Afd articles as it is a poor judge of Notability but don't these stats show that there is a strong likelyhood that a large group of people are looking at the topic (once again poor judge of whether the article should exist but that isn't what we are discussing here).

Finally it has been suggested that Clannad (visual novel) is just a passing fad I disagree and to suggest it is or isn't is falling towards WP:Crystal.

NOTE: Sorry it took me so long to post, the quality of the post isn't exactly fantastic either and I have a feeling I missed some points but I'm currently pressed for time and am borrowing a computer for this. Thank you everyone for bearing with the delay--Sin Harvest (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should point out again that the link Danzig (avg daily hits = 430) points directly to Gdańsk (the city in Poland, with avg daily hits = ~600). By your interpretation, clearly Danzig (band) (avg daily hits = 1,100) is more popular, so the article Danzig should be replaced by Danzig (disambiguation) because the Polish city's article "[had] started off as the primary article but that doesn't implicitly mean that it should stay as such". Sorry, I fail to see your point as valid. And I'll point out that WP:Crystal doesn't apply here since I'm not vehemently predicting the downturn of the novel/game's popularity, only merely equating "passing fad" in that it has inspired nothing else, unlike the band.

Ultimately the point comes down to relevancy and notability. I personally was under the assumption that the novel was currently many times more popular than the band, but your provided links show that the difference margin is only two-fold in page view popularity -- much less than I originally thought. The WP article for the novel got 2.25 times more hits than the band in Feb 2010, but 20k total visits is quite good for a supposedly "less popular" band that hasn't officially released anything new in almost 13 years. But think again on my previous examples: should Apple be replaced by its respective disambiguation page because "we can't decide" on a primary topic? (In Feb 2010, total hits for Apple Inc. amounted to 232920 while Apple the fruit had 130116) NO. Apple is the influence here. It's the PRIMARY topic. Clannad (the band) is the influence here. It should be the PRIMARY topic. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) "

Comment: I said it should page hits should be "considered" aka be a deciding factor but that doesn't mean it is only factor to be considered. As such should Danzig (band) shouldn't clearly be the main article I haven't considered the other factors. Having a rough look at it though I would suggest that maybe Danzig should also point to it's disambiguation page but due to other reasons, in this case I believe that it should point to a disambiguation page due to the fact that it points to an article which primary name isn't Danzig, there are other towns which are also named Danzig (though they don't exist) and also there are also plenty of other articles the term Danzig can refer to.

"Sorry, I fail to see your point as valid" - I was just saying that an article shouldn't stay as primary article because it is a primary article not that it can't stay a primary article.

I think we are getting different points of views here because we are approaching this from two different angles I prefer to see this as why does either Clannad articles deserve preference over each other and see none as they are both relevant in their own field and thus should point to a disambig page. Where as you see it as Clannad (visual novel) doesn't deserve to be a primary article over Clannad (band) therefore Clannad (band) should stay as the primary article. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth this is what I think is happening).

NOTE: Sorry I've ran out of time to reply again and know I haven't addressed all your points I'll try and address them next time and if I forget to feel free to press me on them--Sin Harvest (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work/Comments

Discussion

Ok, the statistics that the pages show that the Graphic Novel has received tons more hits per month than the Band. The point was made about bumping a topic for a new one, and that is a good point, for notability though, they are both notable, otherwise they would not be articles. There are pretty close to the same amount of links coming in to both pages. If we could get some names to put into a google search I will post some results on that. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're disregarding the fact that "contemporary [2010] popularity is totally moot here", without accounting for a sort of "contemporary relevancy value inflation" of corresponding search results. You mention that "there are pretty close to the same amount of links coming in to both pages [today]." The band has been active professionally from 1973 to 1997. They still exist (either as solo acts during their break, their reuniting tour 2007-2008, and discussion of a new album), but have not released a wholly new album since 1997. The visual novel has been active professionally from 2004-2010. The ONLY way for "popularity" to mean anything in this discussion -- with hinting anything about receiving "tons more hits per month" -- would be to compare today's "search hits" with Clannad's "search hits" in 1999 after they won a Grammy award. See how ridiculous this is? Is NO ONE getting my point then? Okay, let's try this...

Google search: "clannad grammy 1999" today (y'know... 11 years later?) returns 145,000 ALONE (that's JUST talk about Clannad AND that one award). Go to the last page and the end result barring repeats is 509, with results STILL referring to the band.
Google search: "clannad irish band" returns 124,000 results (despite that they are not typically referred to by this phrase). Go to the last page and the end result barring repeats is 520, with results once again STILL referring to the band.
Google search: "clannad visual novel" returns a paltry 52,000 by comparison (which would be the EXACT TITLE of the Wikipedia article in discussion, so... the WHOLE subject) Go to the last page and the end result barring repeats is 548, with results only coincidentally or vaguely including those keywords.

To be fair, clannad anime return over 1.8 million hits (the anime is far more well-known than the VN). Not that I'm trying to disprove your points, but it makes sense to bring this point up, for the case of fairness. I still agree wholly with CelticWonder on this, however.--十八 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input as I hadn't immediately thought of that combination, but I'll now also point out that "clannad brennan" returns barely short of 2 million hits and "clannad celtic" brings up more than 3.5 million hits. I'll reiterate though that anything to outright "prove" popularity of either one accurately was obliterated when a cluster of completely unrelated things stole and marketed a pre-existing trademark as a new, different thing. Hell, the band really should remain the primary topic for the lone fact that the visual novel/game/anime was inspired by a name which was solely created by the band anyway -- which is yet ANOTHER influence that the band has been responsible for. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all along this shining point remains: Which came FIRST with THIS name? The Band. Who is the dominant, proven, creative/artistic world-wide influence here with the name "Clannad"? The Band. Who infringed trademark and unwittingly named their story after a pre-existing entity due to an unfortunate translation mishap? "The Visual Novel".

I declare that you are attempting to compare apples and oranges ("13 years after an originating, enduring subject" and "a derivatively-named subject during it's height of popularity"), when you should be comparing apples and apples (popularity at respective time-frames, AND historical relevancy). I believe there were ABSOLUTELY ZERO verifiably "good points" made about bumping the current primary topic to a disambiguation page. Referencing today's "close to the same amount of links coming in" furthers my declaration about the bias. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all along this shining point remains: Which came FIRST with - By that logic then all old topics should instantly stay as primary topics.

You're disregarding the fact that "contemporary [2010] popularity is totally moot here", without accounting for a sort of "contemporary relevancy value inflation" of corresponding search results. - It has been two years since the anime was released and six years since the visual novel was released it isn't exactly the newest thing on the block any more. I know Wikipedia has no deadline but that shouldn't mean we wait around until the topic becomes old before we decide what type of relevancy it might have in the future because another topic with the same name is no longer as active and we can't make a comparison. Also the fact that Clannad is still active is a positive sign that it still a relevant topic as it has continued to generate additional works and isn't short term popularity. Additionally if you look at The Mummy it points to a disambiguation page and the reason for this is that it is likely a wide variety of people are going to be looking for a different topic all with the same name, it doesn't matter which one is older or even if which one is more notable just that at least two of the topics (though in this case much more then two) of the topics are roughly a target article as as the other. In my OPINION (yes emphasising opinion so don't explode over this if you don't agree) each of the two topics here Clannad (band) and Clannad (visual novel,anime,etc) share a similar likelyhood of being the target article if searched for under the term Clannad it just depends on the type of person doing the search in this case.

Referencing today's "close to the same amount of links coming in" furthers my declaration about the bias - I don't think I'm being overtly biased in anyway I'm simply comparing current numbers with current numbers it may have it's faults but I don't see it as being completely unreasonable logical step in this situation.

Who infringed trademark and unwittingly named their story after a pre-existing entity due to an unfortunate translation mishap? - Like I said before I don't think the etymology of the name really matters, it doesn't even matter if the name was made from error or picked from random the name of the topic is what it is and there is no guideline on Wikipedia that I'm aware of that says it does. There is one cirumstance I could think of where the etymology of the name could play a part and that is if the name of the newer topic originated from the name of the older topic but as that is not the case here the point is kind of moot. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, The Mummy points to many more articles than just a measly two (main) articles in this case, Clannad and Clannad (visual novel), therefore a disambig is more useful. Plus, this is in fact a case where "the name of the newer topic originated from the name of the older topic" as already explained by CelticWonder, or were you not reading his/her points? Based on the fact that the word "Clannad" originated from the band, or at least they were the ones that made it popular as it is a combination of several words, there is little doubt where Jun Maeda got "Clannad" from. Further, Maeda is known to be an extremely large fan of all music as can be viewed at his blog entries. And yes, he personally bought each an every one. So it's not strange for Maeda to have named one of his works after a band.--十八 20:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Juhachi, and to logically further the point now about the new example THE Mummy that Sin Harvest uses, opposed to the WORD Mummy, as well to tie in with the logic I've already explained:

The word "Mummy" clearly is defined by the fact that the English word itself means "embalmed corpse". Note that ALL other uses of this common noun are linked via hatnote on Mummy (disambiguation).
A "Mummy" is not called "The Mummy" (making the latter a Proper noun, not a creation of an entirely new term -- which as an English noun, the former is).
A proper noun based off a single pre-existing word (esp. when there is more than one entity represented by it) deserves a disambiguation page as the "primary topic" page to, well, disambiguate.

Hypothetically: Off the current page for "The Mummy", if "The Mummy (play)" was called "The Moomy" (see? non-existing word created as the title of this play?) and everything else was henceforth also named "The Moomy", then The Mummy (play) would be Primary Topic, and ALL others would be on the corresponding DAB via hatnote. See my explanation above about "Apple" not redirecting to Apple (disambiguation) OR Apple Inc., but an article about a fruit (original word). Could we possibly say Apple, Inc. has more "fans" than the fruit, adding to the fact that it's "newer"? By your logic, the answer might be "Who knows! Put it all on a DAB." Note that, by extension, "The Apple" is a DAB, btw.

Realistically: Dracula is "an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker" (as reflected by the primary topic). Why? He CREATED the name himself. Count Dracula is then explained to be "a fictional character, the antagonist of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel". We could sufficiently prove that Dracula (1992 film) is the post popular iteration of the franchise, as the IMDB page has the most votes, and simply Googling "Dracula 1897" = 258,000 GHits, "Dracula 1992" = 1,190,000 GHits. By your logic, due to it's relative newness and popularity at large, the '92 film of same name should demote the "primary topic" of Dracula and relegate ALL of it to a DAB simply because when people search "Dracula" they might theoretically be more likely looking for the 1992 film instead of the novel. Yet why doesn't it? Well, read for yourself who created the name [ref # 1, 2]. See my explanation above about the Wikipedia-referenced example Danzig.

There are rampant encyclopedic reasons I could waste more time searching for, but I hope now that I've explained this at least four different ways, it will make sense now. "Clannad" as it stands is not a "Word". Jun Maeda misunderstood it to be an Irish word that meant simply "family" or "clan" [ref], which it is not. "Clannad" comes from blending the Irish Gaeilge words Clann As Dobhar, meaning "the family from [Gwee]Dore", which as a result of the act of blending words, makes it a Proper noun not a word just simply "shared" by the anime stuff, but created by the band = SOURCE = Primary Topic. See WP:Naming conventions (films)#From other topics as it's really the best policy reference for how this is supposed to work, paying particular attention to the example regarding "An American in Paris".

This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest, am I right? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 04:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not 100% a popularity contest, but it is not all a 100% firsties race either. "There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors..." (WP:PT) I am not trying to argue for one side or the other, just trying to keep discussion relevant to policy. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote of WP:PT is true, but there are guidelines for what determines a primary topic. However, in all my searching in WP policies, I haven't found anything that directly refers what to do about proper nouns (as in the type people/groups/companies can create & popularize as "initial use" trademarks). There is clear precedence *in practice* for what has been done in those cases, but up to now we're lacking decision-based or policy precedence. The very closest thing that's almost relevant enough is WP:Naming conventions (films)#From other topics, but still nothing in WP policy that sufficiently addresses most general forms of newly-created proper nouns. As a result, I busted a WP:BB#Wikipedia namespace on WP:PT (which I first checked WT:DAB and anywhere else I could search in policies, wikitalk pages, ...with no joy), and added a circumstance that I believe is fair and can be verified to date with many pre-existing primary-source articles (that are NOT DAB).

The action that started this whole mess was also the act of "being bold" here, but the change made in that case was imprudent to the spirit of what makes a "primary topic" what it is in an encyclopedia. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no evidence that Clannad (visual novel) comes from Clannad (band) they both come from an Irish background but there is no evidence that suggests Clannad (visual novel) took or derived the name from the band. You can argue that the fact Clannad is a proper noun and since the band came first the visual novel's name must be from the band but that is just conjecture. Also it shouldn't matter what started this mess the fact is that we have an editing dispute that should be discussed and resolved, the way it came about isn't all too relevant (unless we are making policies/decisions to try and stop it happening in the future).

Clannad (disambiguation) points to more then one topic, albeit they are all related either related to the either the band or the visual novel/anime/manga.

Rock leads straight into a disambiguation page but by your very argument rock (geology) would have solid argument of being a primary topic. Melbourne which doesn't point to the town where the name comes from (Melbourne, Derbyshire) but instead from the much larger city in Australia but you have also argued that Melbourne, Derbyshire would have a strong case at being a primary topic for having the originating name. All of these examples however are slightly different from the problem we're discussing here. The problem is why should either Clannad (visual novel) or Clannad (band) get preference over the other, sure they share the same name but there is no evidence that suggests the names didn't come from similar ideas on their own (sort of like Convergent evolution). Clannad (visual novel) has a significantly high Ghits, wikipedia views and wikilinks and although not always higher Clannad (band) they are still significant amounts and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggest they be taken into account in determining a primary topic that isn't to suggest that Clannad (band) that doesn't have things which suggest it should be a primary topic if that was the case then I would argue that Clannad (visual novel) should be the primary topic but I'm not doing that. WP:Disambig states that just because there are only two topics it doesn't mean that we can't have the disambiguation page as the primary page

"However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used."

Finally if you think all this argument is scant on WP:Policy I think it will be because it is meant to be as stated in WP:disambig

"There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic."

Not that policy doesn't play a part only that WP:disambig is written a very flexible manner. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again (and still). Here are the facts:

Clannad (band) ref = The name Clannad comes from blending the Gaeilge words Clann As Dobhar, meaning 'the family from Dore'.
Clannad (visual novel) ref = the main scenario writer Jun Maeda misunderstood Clannad to mean "family" or "clan" in Irish, but is actually a blend of Clann As Dobhar created by the band Clannad, meaning "the family from Dore". ... "A minor motif of Irish words continues with the opening theme of the game..."
Jun Maeda is Japanese, and Moya Brennan is Irish. Whom do you think is more astute on Irish Gaelic?
"Family" in "Irish" (Irish Gaelic, specifically, where Jun's already wrong) is "Clann", not "Clannad".
Jun Maeda, as well as I'm sure anyone else associated with this or related projects, is not from [Gwee]dore, nor is any story in that series set in Gweedore (ya know ... what the "D" stands for?).
Your "significantly high" reference is a gross exaggeration, especially considering the derivative nature between these ONLY TWO prime uses of the name, AND the contemporaneous overlap (the former no longer at its "peak" of popularity).

...and then...

Rock does not have a primary topic (just like Crash); as an English word, it has multiple meanings (rock (geology) being one of them), AND WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Apple is a better example, as there is no doubt what it is.
Melbourne is a major metropolis (just as London or Los Angeles) — not only is this not relevant to my example for that different reason, but compare to the sheer amount of Melbournes to Lancasters or Springfields.

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you wrote that into the article [[1]] that is pure conjecture and is an unsourced! --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what CelticWonder has established is that "Clannad" is a made up word by the band of the same name, meaning they are the originators of said word. Since it is made up, there's no way Maeda could have found it in a dictionary or anywhere else than in relation to this band. As such, there is little dispute where Maeda got the word from, as there is only one place that he logically could have gotten it from. And the band article uses this cite for the word's origin.--十八 07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure WP:OR no matter how you look at it, we don't know how the person came up with it and there is no WP:Verifiable sources which suggest that this is where the name comes from. The article already had a sourced claim about the origins of the name unless this additional piece of information came from that book or some other verifiable source then I object most seriously to this addition made by CelticWonder and request it be reverted. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Harvest: LOL you REALLY SERIOUSLY still think that somehow "Clannad" is merely a "word" still? All of your arguments outright scream ignorance to the facts of the origin of the name. It is blatantly, documented obvious where "Clannad" came from. You're grasping at straws accusing me of conjecture TWICE — or simply don't know what it means. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork. HA, "guesswork" [removed comment -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\]. Over the last two months, you've made these comments:

"both topics were equally significant"
"I see no strong reason why one article should be favoured over the other"
"honestly I can't agree that the Clannad band is more notable then Clannad (the visual novel, anime, manga, etc.)"
"I don't see any reason why one article should be preferred over the other and don't see a problem with disambiguating just because it is only two articles."
"The etymology of the name for the topic doesn't really mean anything"
"etymology of the name could play a part ... but that is not the case here"
"there is no evidence that [the] visual novel comes from, ... took or derived the name from the band."

Honestly... you've gotta be blind or either accidentally or intentionally ignorant to the facts to still believe the way you do about where the name "Clannad" came from. I am SO DONE beating a dead horse here... and I'm not talking about the article. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The vn page read exactly ...the main scenario writer Jun Maeda thought Clannad meant "family" or "clan" in Irish before I updated it with the truth. The source of the information? The [removed comment -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\] band's page (umm, why do you think the name there on vn page links to it?) I totally DARE you to ask ANYONE in Ireland who speaks Gaelic what "Clannad" means, and we'll see if your Japanese friend is right. There are 400,000 of them there, take your pick.

Additionally Clannad (visual novel) has had influences to other media as demonstrated in Clannad (visual_novel)#Legacy --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the VN's influences matter, since those influences are all related to the VN itself (plot/characters), and not the word "Clannad". And you can call what we're saying WP:OR (even though the definition of OR is that it has no verifiable backing), but the fact of the matter is, if you can't find another source of the word "Clannad" than from the band, then it came from them, which CelticWonder has already established, meaning that's not OR. If it came from them, then Maeda must have taken it from them. Not to mention that Maeda thought "Clannad" was an Irish word (sourced from the booklet Pre-Clannad), meaning that he knew (at least) that it had its origins in Irish, which is of course true. There's only one place that not only invented the word, but is also Irish: the band. Simple, deductive reasoning.

The Clannad (VN) influence mention is just a throw out to the whole thing in general. Not a reference about the whole title origin thing. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, let's look at how OR is defined at WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." The sources say "Clannad" is a made up word, created by the band. The sources say that Maeda misunderstood that "Clannad" was an Irish word that meant "family" or "clan". In Clannad (visual novel), both of these points are presented, as they are both verifiable (though the one regarding the word's origin is absent for the moment). Therefore it's not analysis. Clannad (visual novel) does not say "Maeda took the word 'Clannad' from the band of the same name', it does say: "Jun Maeda misunderstood Clannad to mean "family" or "clan" in Irish,(as given by this cite) but is actually a blend of Clann As Dobhar created by the band Clannad, meaning "the family from Dore"." (as given by this cite: "In 1968 they formed the band An Clann As Dobhair (Pronounced, approximately, "an Clannador" and meaning "The Family from Dore") and began to perform traditional Irish music at festivals. Changing their name to Clannad, and recruiting sister Máire in 1973...). I don't see any OR.--十八 08:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except what your describing is WP:SYNTHESIS there is no source which says Clannad (visual novel) name came from Clannad band. Yes there is a source says Maeda thought "Clannad" was an Irish word that meant family or clan and Clannad is an original name created by the band but that doesn't mean we should conclude that Maeda copied the name from Clannad the band. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C" --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you're finally admitting that the band was the originator now, but the premise for your current argument is false semantics. The article doesn't say or even imply that he "copied" the name. Anyone who is familiar with Gaelic and/or the band can attest that if anyone else in the world asserts that "Clannad" = a word that means "family" or "clan", they would be blatantly wrong, so it would be a FACT that a misunderstanding was made. Then that person would very rightfully be told the FACT that [it] is actually a blend of Clann As Dobhar created by the band Clannad, meaning "the family from Dore". You're using semantics to change things from what they are, and I would be inclined to agree with you IF it said or implied what you say it does, but the article does NOT. Despite how you think WP works, a person mentioned in an article (Maeda) doesn't have to outright acknowledge this misunderstanding or admit the correct meaning of what was said — the facts already in place on WP and the WORLD can justifiably do that in an encyclopedia. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument relies on the assumption that both parties didn't come up with the name on their own without each others influence. Also it doesn't matter that "Clannad" doesn't mean "family" or "clan" in Gaelic it doesn't change the fact that your claim/edit that Clannad (VN) came from Clannad (band) is unsourced and is a WP:Synthesis on two existing sources and knowledge on the Gaelic word "Clannad". There is a fundamental reason why we can't make these logical deductions and leaps and that is because they can be wrong - by the same token can I say Peanut butter is made from peanuts + butter I mean anyone who knows English can tell you what peanuts and butter are, anyone can tell you French Fries must came from France. Yeah those are unfair comparison I mean we all know French Fries don't come from France but WP:Synthesis is there to make sure we don't make similar claims to stuff we aren't sure of and can't verify but we think are right.--Sin Harvest (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, umm, no? My argument is that a band that conjured a new word in 1973 was NOT name-influenced by an entity that didn't exist until the 21st century. It would be daft to not infer that such name was miraculously conjured a second time in 2004 out of thin air, as opposed to what happened in reality: a whole unrelated franchise was named after simply a mistranslation of what someone "thought" it meant without checking first (because they would've known they were wrong). It's a name that falls under the category I described already numerous times, not a noun that was coupled with another noun as per your irrelevant examples. You clearly didn't read my last comment you just replied to. There's no "leap", there's no "deduction", there's no "lack of verification". It's verified by historical fact. This is all irrelevant anyway, since I truly don't see how anyone would agree with your pov after this unnecessarily lengthy discussion. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now you've inferred WP:SYNTH inappropriately twice, so I'll supply examples to counter that as well. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Weird so far, because one of them (the first one) explains the origin of the word with references, and the other (the second one sharing the name) somehow mysteriously has referenced "hints" to a shared cultural motif and even admits to an all-intents "misunderstanding" that can EASILY be verified as such. A comparable scenario violating this guideline would have been if the vn article was changed to say Jun Maeda named his visual novel Clannad because he "liked the band" / "had heard of the band before" / "didn't know it was a band" / etc. Since we're talking about a proper noun though that's not simply a dictionary word, or a proper/surname, or a place, and so on — the only "synthesis" (if any) is the word "misunderstood". It's clearly documented historically where the name came from. So a comparable scenario to what YOU are arguing would be (each with corresponding details in the current articles in discussion):

A new comic book about sunglasses followed by some movie (with a story akin to Dream a Little Dream, for example) comes out called instead "Kinemacolor"
The Vietnamese writer said he thought the word was German/English/Whatever for "colored lens"
The article about this new contemporary "Kinemacolor" also has minor motifs referring to alternating red and green filters in the description of the glasses in the intro
The writer's blog in Vietnamese mentions a list of "favorite London inventors" (though not necessarily George Albert Smith).

Did this person conjure Kinemacolor out of thin air? ...or more likely would it have been so, given the circumstances involved, that his "interpretation" of the "meaning" of the "word" was faulty and would therefore warrant explanation for people who also don't know? Or would you just put them both on a list page despite an obvious derivation of title due to their "incomparably equal" averaging contemporary interest, in effect denying the importance/relevance of where the name came from? I should TOTALLY get started on my Microsoft children's book franchise because I thought it meant "little soft things". My books will include fluffy bunnies who use computers, and I'll mention on my resulting facebook group that I am a fan of multiple software engineers (though Bill Gates isn't on this list). Let's see how far that gets me. We'll displace the corporate wp page with the "coincidental name" in NO time! ;) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Results

Clannad Visual Novel 52,300 GHits
Clannad Anime 1,910,000 GHits
Clannad Movie 1,110,000 GHits
Clannad Game 1,250,000 GHits (Visual novel isn't the most popular term, referring them to games turned out to be a better idea)
Clannad Grammy Anime 87,500 GHits (Take into consideration that not all these results point to articles related to Clannad (Anime))

--Sin Harvest (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some region/culture-based Google Results: (...we're still comparing these?)

MWOAP asked for them I'm just posting them up, my contention was never that Clannad (visual novel) would always have higher numbers then Clannad (band) just that it had a significant amount enough for it to be considered as a likely target topic of anyone searching the term. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"clannad celtic" 3,500,000 GHits (as they're known for predominantly founding contemporary "Celtic" music, not "Ireland" or "Irish")
"clannad japan" 980,000 GHits

...so "Clannad" + ::: "Celtic" trumps "Japan"/"Japanese", "Brennan" trumps "Maeda"/"Key"/"Dezaki"/"Ishihara" (combined!) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers of Google Hit results I've received seem to differ from the results given above by both Sin Harvest and CelticWonder. The number of hits I've received are as follows:

clannad grammy 343,000
clannad band 638,000
clannad celtic 3,570,000 GHits
clannad anime 13,500,000 GHits
clannad game 1,170,000
clannad visual novel 58,900

In other words, the hits I've been getting suggest that "clannad anime" gets the most hits. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... NOT EVEN CLOSE, DUDE. Click your own link for "Clannad Anime" again = 1,870,000. And the results you received "seem to differ" from the others only SLIGHTLY (barring your WILDLY inaccurate reporting here) because all search results vary over time due to prevalence of keywords, amount of active websites, etc. Check your numbers again, please.

My whole point is that "page hits" are bullsh*t anyway. All this crap shows is that contemporary anime might have a larger fan base in some cases than older but enduring musicians. Naruto (415,229) has more hits than Superman (194,604), Anime (198,588) has more hits than Animation (109,764). Every time we have an anime/manga article that stupidly takes the same name as something else historically important, are we going to replace it with that article or a dab? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of "wildly inaccurate reporting"? I could accuse you of the same thing, because the numbers you've given are clearly not the same as what I've been getting. Where I live (London), clannad anime returns 13 million hits. Where do you live? What I find even more puzzling is that you already acknowledged that there might be "region/culture-based Google Results", and yet you contradict yourself by accusing me of inaccurate reporting? If you still don't believe me, then here's a screenshot I've just now uploaded of "clannad anime" returning 13 million hits: [2]. You should try avoid making false accusations next time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point this whole time is how useless "Google hits" are due to the fact that when you go so far into the results, you only see like 500-600 independent results anyway. And if you don't believe me, here's a screenshot of "clannad anime" returning 1,850,000 hits ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did actually already agree with your previous point that Google results can be "region/culture-based", hence why I posted my own search results to further highlight this point, not to necessarily argue that one is more popular than the other. Anyway, I'm glad we finally understand each other on this point. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Sin Harvest has requested this change to the Visual Novel Clannad. It is in the Settings and theme section. Use {{accepted}} to agree and {{declined}} to oppose. Reason user requested: "The edit itself is unsourced." I will leave this open for a few days. Please remember to sign your vote. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined revert — per all reasons already detailed in the above section(s). The edit is actually clearly sourced by a Wikipedia article. I suggest you read up on Trademark distinctiveness, particularly the sections on acquired and maintaining distinctiveness (example, should Band Aid (band) = 21,274 hits displace Band-Aid = 6,206 hits? Should we remove this "unsourced" section too?) Trademark dilution is another good read, considering the shared entertainment industry nature of the two franchises in discussion, the obvious historical origin of the name "Clannad", and the use by the latter entity lessening the uniqueness of the name. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I just provided the source that Clannad uses for the statement. There is verifiable evidence that "Clannad" came from the band, and verifiable evidence that Maeda misunderstood the meaning of the word, thus both points should stay.--十八 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But neither sources says that Maeda made that misunderstanding that based on the name of the band. Unless I misread the sources but from my reading the new source doesn't mention of Maeda though it does state how the band came up with the name so it is not verifiable evidence that Clannad came from the band just how the band came up with the name. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we need to call up Maeda and get a quote from him attesting to his misunderstanding that "Clannad" != "family" before we can point out the mistake in translation then? So silly and trivial... I'm sure that's not how it works.

Do you suppose he just looked in a bad copy of a Gaelic/English dictionary that "accidentally" added two arbitrary letters to the end of the translated word for "family"? Where DID he get the name then, hmm? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to WP:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true.
So no we don't need to call up Maeda but we need some sort of verifiable proof that says that the name of the visual novel came from the band. Verifiable evidence of how the band came up with the name is not really needed (in that we have plenty of that). --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*snicker* okay: What does Google Translate say "Clann" means? What does Google Translate say "Clannad" means? Hell, just for SnG, What does "An Clann as Dobhar" mean?

Since we're talking about the "meaning of the word in a language" not being what he "thought" it was, that's the proof you require. He was RAWWNG. The article now reflects verifiable trooth. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't verify that Clannad visual novel came from the band, that just verifies that Clannad doesn't translate to anything from Irish. It doesn't change the fact you need a verifiable source that says the name Clannad in the visual novel came from the band. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition to the way the article reads now is entirely from your reading too much into what you think it says verses what it actually says. What it currently says now:

The main theme is the value of having a family, as the title of the series implies since the main scenario writer Jun Maeda misunderstood Clannad to mean "family" or "clan" in Irish,(pre-Clannad ref) but is actually a blend of Clann As Dobhar created by the band Clannad, meaning "the family from Dore".(ref)

...and the connotation that I believe you're incorrectly asserting:

The main theme is the value of having a family, as the title of the series implies since the main scenario writer Jun Maeda misunderstood Clannad to mean "family" or "clan" in Irish,(pre-Clannad ref) ~~but is actually~~ [whereas he actually named it after] a blend of Clann As Dobhar created by the band Clannad, meaning "the family from Dore".(ref)

This is what I keep trying to point out to you that I do not feel you're getting. The latter implies an unverified cause and effect as WP:OR, whereas the former corrects a quoted mistake he made with appropriate references (NOT WP:OR, and does not violate WP:V). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously being implied otherwise why put it in the article. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look. The statement correcting the meaning of "Clannad" if purely for contextual reasons. If the article says Maeda misunderstood the meaning of Clannad, then it's not wrong to supply the correct definition of the word, as given by the source. There are no implications beyond the fact that we are supplying the correct answer to a misunderstanding.--十八 06:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you are mentioning WP:TINC but I still think it implies that the name is derived from the band name which we can't verify and is creeping towards WP:Synthesis I'll ask for some additional input from WP:Village Pump but I'm 90% sure I'm interpreting WP:Synthesis and WP:V correctly here. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I understand where Sin Harvest is coming from, but I think it is relevant to note what the meaning of Clannad is. I do believe that the present form can be construed as sythesis. I think removing the item about Clannad being created by the band would suffice as there is no indication they were the first to use the word; just the first to use it in a band. However, since this is a accept or not, I will have to say the present form is better than the proposed change as it is helpful to readers to know what Clannad actually means.陣内 _Jinnai 05:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To summarize again, my argument is simply that there is sufficient indication and evidence that the band created the word out of thin air, whereas Maeda "created it" only by either a gross translation error or more likely, considering his declared interest in Irish "motifs" and affection for music — yet no indication whatsoever of his association with the township Dore, Ireland to have come up with the same blended name on his own, he heard the band's name before (or even may own some of their albums) and incorrectly assumed the name was a simple Gaelic dictionary word, when in fact it is not. As the article currently reads, it doesn't assert that he named it directly because of the band's existence (as in: no synthesis of an illogical claim), only instead straightens out an obvious factual error with the correct information in an encyclopedic manner. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Votes have all declined. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing up

Ok. I am sorry, I have left this for a while, I am now looking to close this up as it is endless debate. Please present your final view & your sources. This is not open for discussion, we are trying to get final views. One user = One comment. After the final notes, I will be making a final recommendation to vote on. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the moving of Clannad to Clannad (band) (or similar) and I am also against the usage of Clannad (disambiguation) which has only two main articles and the rest are spin-offs from those two articles. I used WP:DAB and WP:PT before to substantiate my points.--十八 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained plenty above. I second Juhachi's view. Clannad (56,979) had more WP hits than Clannad (visual novel) (47,031) in 10/2008, showing that the band can indeed still muster a respectable number of visitors. Comparisons like these where the difference in amount of hits ranges from a magnitude of <100% to <200% make renouncing a deserving PT too close to call. Just as well, there's no reason for a dab when we have TWO main topics and one is undoubtedly named after the other. If/when Clannad is active again with studio releases and tours, I'm certain that this will be even less of a discussion, as otherwise the only fair way to compare these two topics, as I've explained before, would be to use hits from Clannad the band in 1998 and the VN in like 2006. But we don't have that data, do we? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Why did we have all the discussions above when it then comes down to simply tallying votes? I thought these discussions were supposed to be about substance, not simply a poll.

This is not on a poll. This is a point, just to see where everyone is. I am still looking to get a concensus after this. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 17:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still by my original decision to move Clannad to Clannad (band), and Clannad (disambiguation) to Clannad, for the reasons I've previously given at the Talk:Clannad#Change? discussion page, as well as the reasons given by User:Sin Harvest above on this discussion page. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the move (with Juhachi and CelticWonder).--Filastin (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clannad Visual Novel is roughly as significant as Clannad the band and therefore is not inconceivable that users are after either Clannad band or Clannad visual novel regardless of where the name of either subjects came from or which came first for example Forrest Gump. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jagged. It has been shown that, barring oddities in regional differences, it is just as likely, within a margin of error, that the average Wikipedian reader will want to find information about the band Clannad as they will the VN Clannad and as such with disputed origins of the VN's naming and the fact that the VN is not a spinoff of the band, at most it uses the name for inspirtation, there is no reason to make either one the primary and as such I favor moving Clannad to Clannad (band) and Clannad (disambiguation) to Clannad.
Over time both the band and the VN have made multiple media works. As such, claiming that should the band come out with another album or the VN come out with another work based on it, should not make any difference. This is because it is expected when such happens there will be a spike in popularity.陣内 _Jinnai 20:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall point out that Jinnai was drawn to this page via the Village pump solely for a third party opinion on the Request above. Adding himself to the users involved list above and any interjection on this discussion could otherwise be interpreted as canvassing. I move to strike comments made by non-involved parties of this Mediation Cabal discussion outside of the "Request" section above. Note: The user has had no involvement with any discussion or article related to the name "Clannad" from his first WP edit on January 9, 2006 until the 3PO on March 28, 2010. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 09:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I know that this whole mediation has been about coming to consensus between Move or not to move. The truth is, there is no middle ground, it's one or the other. As we have proven in this discussion, both topics are of particular intrest to fans of both. Now, a Microsoft to a book comparision was used in this. I would like to point out that that would not happen unless the book became as popular as the company, which I am not saying is impossible, just unlikely. I am not taking sides here, because the band, from what I have read, has existed longer than the book. I will also note that the "did you mean this" note is at the top of the page flagging anyone who might be confused on the topic. Again, "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers" WP:PT. I will open it up again to enourage editors to take a step back and look at how this will affect the user accessing the article, since that is what really matters, and come to a concensus. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no comments on this further, I am closing this mediation as no consensus could be found. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]