Talk:No Game No Life
 | No Game No Life has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 6, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | Anime and manga: Light novel GA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
RfC: Picture A or Picture B
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Simple, Picture A or Picture B. Avoid discussion and replies in the straw vote headers, state opinions only. I will request an admin to close this in the coming days. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Picture A
- Satisfies the NFCC 3a better as it also represents the characters. Therefore, I don't have to add another Non-Free content picture. Most reception is based on the anime, and I can argue this to be the same reason the infobox is as is at Tales of Graces. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Picture B
- Picture B I know not the one you prefer but I feel A is too cluttered for such a small size image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion
My main argument is mostly NFCC 3a. I'd have no problem with the Light Novel if they displayed the protagonists. It seems to be the stereotype within A/M project that the first cover of the original work must belong to the infobox, which I have broken for years. I have no idea who to inform since I have very little time but I've asked Wikipedia:Non-free content review for a look. Of course I will also recognize if this RFC proves me wrong and could withdrawal this RFC is necessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot satisfy any part of WP:NFCC by using an image that is not from the original work—where the contextual significance (NFCC 8) is to identify the original work. In this case, the original work is the light novel series. By using an image from an adaptation from another medium instead of the original work, you cannot properly identifying the work and thus cannot satisfy NFCC 8. Tales of Graces is not at example of where an image from an adaptation is used to identify an original work from another media. That is because the image is from a port of a video game, and is thus not comparable to this article. Under DragonZero arrangement, every light novel with an anime adaptation should be replaced with an image from its adaptation. As for "illustrating the characters", that is actually not the purpose of an infobox image. However, both protagonists are represented on the cover of the first light novel. —Farix (t | c) 09:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Not the purpose but I see it as a better use. I'm going to inform A/M and let this play out. I have no intentions of forcing this on other articles as I don't seriously edit outside my watchlist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 17:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reply: It's fine, I wanted to give it a shot and am receptive of opposing stances here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Closed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reply: It's fine, I wanted to give it a shot and am receptive of opposing stances here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Not the purpose but I see it as a better use. I'm going to inform A/M and let this play out. I have no intentions of forcing this on other articles as I don't seriously edit outside my watchlist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 17:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
English cover vs Japanese cover
File:No Game No Life light novel vol 1.png disagrees on whether an English cover or Japanese cover should be used. Either a local consensus or an RFC must be formed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The original work is the Japanese version. Therefore, use the Japanese cover. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. No brainer. Use the Japanese cover of the light novel or the disc releases if you guys have decided. This isn't worth "arguing" over. I'm going to bed now. —KirtMessage 05:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then it's settled and I have to back off. This has completely contradicted my FLs and GAs. I'm going to ponder this elsewhere. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Old versions of the file deleted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- There has been a general preference to use the Japanese covers. However, there was never a consensus that all covers had to be Japanese. So if an English cover is already uploaded, we don't replace it and vice versa. Look through the archives at WP:ANIME. —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Shuvi vs. Chevit
According to JMnedict, シュヴィ is a transliteration of Chevit. My edit regarding it was steamrolled over so this time Im asking for a second opinion so that I don't get into an edit war. Personally, my opinion is that the name should be Chevit because otherwise, it would be like translating ヴァーグナー as Vaagunaa instead of Wagner. Plus, we translate names like Stephanie, Jibril and Lorelei on this page so I don't see how this is any different. 104.33.67.168 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. I just steamrolled it out of laziness. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @104.33.67.168: @DragonZero: シュヴィ is a transliteration of Chevit when and only when the word is of French origin. However, in the series, the name is an adaption based on シュヴァルツァー, i.e. schwarzer, which is a German word. If you lack enough Japanese knowledge to understand how the name came up in the original novel you can read from the Japanese wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I already considered Shuvi might be based on the German Word for Black. Shuvi was what I placed in the article in the first place based on the reasoning anyways. It doesn't matter until the Japanese guy releases a real romaji or Yen Press does something. I let the IP change it because I didn't care either way. People can fight that battle if they want. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
JAM entertainment has anime opening copyrights?
The opening song for this anime which had 8 million youtube views got taken down by a copyright claim by JAM entertainment, but I have not found any info on this JAM entertainment being related to the show/singer (she is signed to Media Factory). Is it a false claim? 129.241.125.182 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- First time I've heard of this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Reception section.
As I saw some screenshots over internet, is there any need to use 1.7 out of all 3 paragraphs in that section to talk about how AnimeNewsNetwork review the show? that's just like advertising for them... C933103 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because they're notable. Four different people from a website Wikipedia acknowledges. More reviews would just be an add on, which is fine. The problem is people thinking a random blog's review should be added here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a summary to those ANN review on the first episode in the second paragraph of the reception seciont, I have made the following table:
| Reviewer | +ve | -ve | others |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carl Kimlinger | over-saturated visuals | premise of the show | - |
| the concept of the protagonists cheating against cheaters | |||
| Rebecca Silverman | characters unlikeable | issues may be resolved in further episodes | |
| expositions lacking in action | |||
| Theron Martin | wish-fulfilment |
| |
| Sora has too much character for a hikikomori | |||
| Sora's relationship with Shiro creepy | |||
| may turn out well if Sora is not an indomitable character | |||
| Hope Chapman | absolute disdain towards the series | ||
| Sora's character | |||
| the misunderstood nerd turned respected genius aspect is lazy wish-fulfillment | |||
| how he thrives in a world for "misanthropic Shut-ins" | |||
| Chapman likened the over-saturated colors to vomit, called the character designs hideous | |||
| nothing has made me roll my eyes, gag, or feel more irrationally angry this season than this insulting self-insert pandering trash heap |
Don't you feel it is a little bit too repetitive? And so as the third paragraph:
| Reviewer | +ve | -ve | others |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANN Carl Kimlinger | flaws balanced out by other aspects | ||
| Sora and Shiro's "over-powered hero" archetype is balanced out by their flawed lifestyles, motives | |||
| their "visible delight in crushing their enemies" | |||
| Stephanie Dola's mistreatment with gags and Sora and Shiro's growing respect towards her | |||
| and the harem aspect with Sora's apathy and interesting female characters. | |||
| "big games" are the reason to watch the series, "steeped in trickery and strategy" | |||
| despite knowing the protagonists would win, the fun is seeing how they do it | |||
| the over-saturation art style will be an acquired taste for most viewers | |||
| the animation really shines during the "big games", calling it an impressive display of fluidity and timing | |||
| Kotaku Richard Eisenbeis | raising the protagonists' dynamic | dislike for fan service featuring Shiro. | |
| echoed Kimlinger's sentiments about the games | |||
| liked the animation | |||
| TAY-Kotaku | the dynamics | mixed feelings towards the harem aspect | |
| references to other anime and video games | and sexual humor | ||
| the art style | dislike for the fan service featuring Shiro | ||
| IGN | praising the character dynamics | questioned the amount of unnecessary fanservice | echoed previous opinions |
At least there should be some way to avoid some point appearing over and over but still point to the fact that those points are given by multiple reviewers...C933103 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The word flow would be absolutely terrible. Tales of Graces#Reception. I've toyed with lots of ways to structure the reception long ago and chose the current one to reduce the amount of names that come up. Aside from that, the only thing worth collapsing is the repetition of character dynamics. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Release of Vol.5 and 6
I checked the references and the official YenOn Webside. They removed the release date for Vol.6 and changed the release of Vol.5 to the old release date of Vol.6
Could somebody change that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoranLP (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've done it. You were also free to do it as well since it was a good edit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright claims
Apparently there have been various claims that the author has been caught infringing on others' works [1], the issue being raised via social media. According to a youtube video by akidearest titled Everything You Didn't Know About No Game No Life at 4m10s refers to the production responding to a separate 2014 incident where they offered compensation and posted in the news section on what I believe is the No Game No Life website.
Also there's two more things in said video probably could be added to the article and not be random trivia: the imanity's language being based on romaji could easily fit into a development section, and the url referenced in the first episode of the anime leads to the game. The latter might be difficult to incoporate though. Editing wikipedia is no longer one of my hobbies so I'll leave the research for reliable sources up to someone else. AngelFire3423 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you are looking to incest these claims in the article, then I'm afraid to tell you that the sourcing is not strong enough. Neither the blog post nor the YouTube video you referenced are reliable sources. Also a Twitter post by a random person is also not reliable. —Farix (t | c) 04:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
No link to validate some statements
"meanwhile, English reviewers were generally turned away by the first episode of the anime, though reviewers who have completed the series generally praised the character dynamics, game strategies, and animation, while disliking the fan service featuring the underage Shiro."
Link or reference to this claim? I'm a reviewer too and i never made a claim like this or read other people make these claims. Text can be back only after providing reference and links to that claim from a reliable source and professional review, otherwise is a personal opinion and shouldn't be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdchan (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The statement is a summary of Anime News Networks's season preview reviews from the time the anime series first aired. These reviews are already cited in the reception section, and per WP:LEADCITE we don't recite content in the lead that is already cited elsewhere in the body of the article. —Farix (t | c) 12:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The links are good and a valid resource, thanks to finally providing resources without blackmailing me to disrupting the board -_-, what i like about wikipedia are resources and links as a proof, not statements based on personal opinions. Kdchan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The citations were already in the article in the first place. But your disruptive behavior has now lead to citation spam in the lead section. Again, we do not add citations for content in the lead if that content is already cited in the body of the article. There was no need to recite the same content twice. Insisting on citation spam is not an improvement to Wikipedia in any way. I am still very tempted to bring your WP:POINTY behavior up to the administrator notice board. —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can have avoided all of this if you linked the source immediately instead of bland accusations based on personal preferences, i'm a fan of the serie so i like to see sources and correct informations in the right place. And btw, you started the reverting war not me since i explained why i edit that part. Kdchan (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The citations were already in the article in the first place. But your disruptive behavior has now lead to citation spam in the lead section. Again, we do not add citations for content in the lead if that content is already cited in the body of the article. There was no need to recite the same content twice. Insisting on citation spam is not an improvement to Wikipedia in any way. I am still very tempted to bring your WP:POINTY behavior up to the administrator notice board. —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The links are good and a valid resource, thanks to finally providing resources without blackmailing me to disrupting the board -_-, what i like about wikipedia are resources and links as a proof, not statements based on personal opinions. Kdchan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)