Talk:Kaiju Girl Caramelise

Demographic removed

We have an issue here with the demographic that needs to be addressed. The series is described as a Shojo by the manga author and editors, is labeled as a manga for boys on Kadokawa's website, and runs in a Seinen (for men) magazine. I think its best that we don't include the demographic as it is going to cause further disputes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the author or editors say, the manga is published by the publisher and not the author or editor. As mentioned in both Kadokawa's BookWalker: https://bookwalker.jp/de68533ab2-82d4-4228-b179-3641d6ade8cd/ and Kadokawa Store: https://store.kadokawa.co.jp/shop/g/g321802000520/, the manga is aimed at boys. And is published under the seinen comic imprint "MF Comics Alive Series" which is not a label aimed at females. The demographic should be added as mentioned by the publisher as done anywhere else.ChuChu (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by a neutral point of view, all sides should be shown here. You may not think that the author or editor has to say but it was picked up by a reliable source and explained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case there's a reliable source with the target readership, which is the publisher "Kadokawa". ChuChu (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We have more than one reliable source here, the author is a reliable source as is the people who are explaining the situation. It should also be noted that the series isn't even run in a Shonen magazine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but it's not run in a shoujo magazine either. The only target readership mentioned by the publisher on both links is shounen. Target readership is not shoujo, since it is not mentioned by the publisher. What I can see fit as the target readership is either shounen (as mentioned by the publisher) or seinen (since it's a seinen manga magazine). But one thing for sure it is not aimed at females. ChuChu (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree per the author's stance and the many references to Shojo pointed out by the WP:RS, in any case all three are now mentioned so there shouldn't be any issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as Comic Alive and MF Comics Alive Series are mentioned I am happy, since both magazine and label are aimed at males. Once I see anything that disagrees with the publisher stance on it, and the main target readership of both label and magazine (which are males), I will remove it or even replace it with either shounen or seinen (the correct target readership). ChuChu (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to respect WP:NPOV as it is one of Wikipedia's core policies, I know you don't agree but we have to include all sides to make the article balanced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, demographic is determined by the magazine, by definition. Or at the very least, that's what's used for classification purposes here on Wikipedia (MOS:AM#Categorization: The demographic of a manga series is generally determined by the demographic of its magazine of publication)—this way, there's no room for ambiguity or dispute. As a direct consequence of this definition, yes, it's possible to have the occasional manga with a very unfitting demographic, or a manga with multiple demographics (e.g. Hayate × Blade, which switched magazines partway through its run). I think that's fine. If the author and editors have been on the record saying that the manga's demographic is different from its actual demographic, that's actually really interesting, we can include it in the article. But imo there's no dispute about the actual (technical definition) demographic of the manga, because (unless Wikipedia is wrong (which it could be)) Monthly Comic Alive is unambiguously seinen. It'd be a different story if the magazine had no declared demographics, or if it declared itself as cross-demographic, or if the manga wasn't actually serialized, but I don't think that's the case here. Ahiijny (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Author interview and review

I found a source for future expansion: Author inverview via Comic Natalie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Also of note: Review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)