Talk:Kiznaiver

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2015/10/09-1/studio-triggers-new-original-tv-anime-project-kiznaiver-revealed. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2015-10-08/studio-trigger-reveals-new-kiznaiver-original-tv-anime/.93915. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Source

"Pash!" Publishes Insights Into "Kiznaiver" Anime could be a useful source for writing a "Production" section for the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does this series matter?

Since this article contains nothing but detailed descriptions of its subject, is it safe to assume that it isn’t relevant enough to warrant this much detail? I’ve trimmed it substantially, in lieu of any evident real-world relevance; if we don’t show why readers need to know about the series at all, there’s surely no need to know about each character or episode (that’s the domain of fan-wikis like Wikia). In fact, any suggestions for a merge target? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Further reading: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction; Wikipedia:Fancruft; WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Character lists should stay however I do agree they need to be trimmed not removed entirely. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: All right. Would you care to do the honors?
Also, could you explain why we need a character list at all, when the plot section already discusses important characters? The list just seems like fancruft to me, but that may only be because the article currently doesn’t contextualize anything (i.e., why anything in the series matters outside of the series), so I’d welcome another perspective. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd rather someone who's more knowledge with the subject does the trimming as knowing me I'd create WW3 in trying to do so!,

All TV show-related articles have characters so the character list is absolutely fine however as we both agree it does need trimming,

I would say the first bit is fine (IE "Katsuhira : semi-emotionless" protagonist.", "Noriko  : A girl who lacks human kindness and displays no emotion whatsoever.") but the rest after the first lines should all go however not knowing much about it I'd rather not remove incase there are valuable bits, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The character descriptions are relatively short and don't go into much detail, which is just find for an article like this. There are a few characters, mostly the entire "Other characters" section that I question their relevance. The episode summaries, however, need to be trimmed down to at least 200 words. Ideally, they should be 150 words. The article is missing a reception section entirely (some sources are already listed at the top of this talk page) and could use a production and development section. The official website does list episode directors and screenwriters, so those should be included in the episode tables. —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: The absence of any kind of discussion of reception is exactly what informed my drastic edit: if we can’t find any indication that the fiction matters, why discuss it beyond a simple paragraph? We’re giving undue weight to the content of the show (plot details, characters, episode summaries) given the fact that the question heading this section remains unanswered. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You fix the problem by adding the missing information that is expected from a "complete" article. Remove information that would be required for a complete article is not a fix, but is tantamount to vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 05:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless the removed information is WP:UNDUE. In that case, it’s inappropriate for the particular article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't WP:UNDUE. It is a requirement for an article to be considered complete. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m not sure what metric you’re going by, but I do know that real-world perspective is a requirement (see links in my second post in this section), and that is wholly absent from this article except when directly pertaining to production. Its only claim to notability (another major requirement) at this point seems to be WP:ITEXISTS. If no usable sources discuss this series in any meaningful way (i.e., if a standalone article can’t be made complete), perhaps it should be merged into another article, as I originally suggested. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Deleting appropriate information does not help an article towards completion but instead does the opposite, which comes off to me as quite vindictive and counter-productive. The due weight policy applies to aspects of subjects which aren't proportionally covered by sources, while an anime adaptation and a series' characters are basic parts an article would cover. Rather than deleting information that is appropriate just because the article lacks in other areas, I suggest you help contribute if it bothers you. Also, there have already been some sources shared proving general notability at the top of this page; don't be so hasty to throw out the bathwater and actually carry out the due diligence required before discussing deletion. Opencooper (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Those sources have been there for a year and a half, and this article has made no use of them in that time. I apologize for assuming there was a reason for that. (Edit 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC): @Opencooper: an anime adaptation and a series' characters are basic parts an article would cover.—If we find some non-primary sources discussing—or even better, analyzing—the characters and episodes in detail (especially ones which cover the series episode-by-episode), you will certainly have a point. Unless I’m mistaken, we have not, leaving many characters weightless.) But I feel like I’m the only one even attempting to address these problems from any angle at present, even if doing it wrong. What exactly was the objection to my trimming of the “Characters” section? I attempted to follow the examples given at MOS:TVCAST; is everything in these descriptions too important? And what’s the rationale behind fully restoring episode descriptions that we’ve agreed are problematically long? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Just gonna add my 2c here but this and this are a big improvement over the now current article - The characters don't need to be so overly-detailed - If you wanna transfer this all to Wikia then fine but we're not the place to host this sort of cruft which is what this is. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

67 - Just to add tho you should've trimmed the summary down not removed it, As an example see The_Walking_Dead_(season_1)#Episodes - The summaries are all short and to the point, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, those Walking Dead summaries are much better sized than the ones here. Would any of the reverting editors care to have a crack at tightening them up? And I’ll ask again, are there any objections to trimming the character descriptions? Pinging User:Sjones23 in particular, who reverted them without discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you're replying to me as such but ifso then as I said above I don't have any knowledge of the subject so would rather let someone else take charge inregards to trimming summaries but as far as the characters go your removals in my eyes were absolutely fine, If no one replies inregards to the character trimming than I'll reinstate that later tomorrow (29Dec), Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to you specifically re The Walking Dead, but my requests were addressing everyone involved. But thanks for the reply! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

All right, two and a half days with no responses to the contrary, so I’ll go ahead and reinstate my edits to the character descriptions. (In case it wasn’t clear to anyone, I had cut each description down to its first sentence.) Of course, if anyone feels anything vital is missing from any of them (which, frankly, shouldn’t be the case for an opening sentence), please go ahead and rewrite or discuss.

And if no one else wants to have a try at the episode descriptions, I’ll make an attempt probably within a week, using my best judgment. If anyone at that time finds the results lacking, please make your own attempt at fixing it rather than reverting to something that we all agree is inappropriately wordy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The episode summaries were entirely removed, but I restored them. However, they need to be trimmed down to 200 words or less per WP:MOSTV. I think a discussion on this is necessary. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The episode summaries should definitely be shortened, not removed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Responding to an invitation from Sjones23 to comment, I would agree that trims are worthwhile, but boy, I wouldn't even know where to start with most of them. Dense. Confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. They're not too long (there are many other articles out there with very long episode summaries), but trimming is required. Completely removing the summaries is definitely a bad idea, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The reception section needs to be filled out with the review links at the top of this talk-page, this should be a priority over episode descriptions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

About the character list, the actual short ones seem a little biased. Look at the main character's who is mentioned as ""semi-emotionless"" in actual quotes. If it is based on the series' official website, I would say it needs that reference. Also, I would recommend using Hamatora as an example as such article also references every section of the character list without creating another article. Additonally, the Kiznaiver characters could also be expanded with information about the two manga series it has.Tintor2 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To my eye, Hamatora also has an outsized “Characters” section for the article. I’m pretty sure it’s longer than the rest of the article, which (to me) would only be useful if catering to fans. Do we do this for other forms of media where the subject isn’t hugely successful? I don’t think I’ve seen this kind of thing in non-anime articles except where there was a ton of coverage by secondary sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to insert my two cents here. I'm thinking that for the character descriptions, we should add episode sources where appropriate, and expand on it as long as we don't violate WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. For the episode summaries, like I mentioned before, I would like to trim it down to 200 words or less as per WP:TVPLOT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Infobox images are suppose to help the reader identify the subject of the article and to know that they found what they are looking for. The current images is a key visual that includes the main characters floating in air in a circular formation. However, the details of the image are too small to help the reader identify any particular character, and thus does not aid in helping the reader identify the work. As an alternative, I suggest the key visual on the official website. In this image, the key characters are clearly viable and allows the reader to identify the work. Some editing may be required to remove the catch layer in the upper right corner. —Farix (t | c) 02:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If you right-click and view image [1], I don’t see anything in the upper right that would need to be removed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the anime is the primary media, I would recommend using the series' first home media release and move the characters image to the character section.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Character descriptions

I want to start a new discussion regarding character descriptions which I tried to re-add but were reverted; I didn't contribute to the discussion because I was busy with other things. I would like to quote the relevant guidelines at WP:MOS-ANIME#Characters:

The character section should consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. The length of each entry and inclusion of characters will vary with the character's importance to the story. The character section should include voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{Voiced by}} and {{Voiced by2}} ). There is no need to create a separate voice actor section.

For shorter or simpler series, it is often possible to avoid the need for a character section by crafting the plot description such that it introduces all significant characters. Where possible, this is the preferred method, as prose reads more professionally than lists.

• Character sections should not be divided into numerous sub-sections, as this makes the table of contents unnecessarily long.
• Minor characters may be included here, but article length should be considered.
• If the majority of characters' descriptions consist of one or two sentences, a bullet list is most appropriate; if the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or more paragraphs, then a definition list is preferred; if a separate List of (series) characters exists (see below), prose is preferred. See also: Wikipedia:Summary style.
• If the character section grows long, please reconsider the amount of detail or number of characters included. Beyond that, a separate page, named List of (series) characters, may be appropriate.
• Separate articles for each character should be avoided unless there is enough verifiable, citable material to warrant a separate article.
• Regarding names:
  • Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work).
  • If there is no official title, Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Character names should be given in western order and, in the case of a dictionary list, in boldface.

However, in this case, I don't think a single sentence for a character description would work for this article. If we can expand upon it without violating WP:WAF and WP:PLOT and add secondary sources with input from more editors, that would be good. I also believe that per the guidelines above, we expand the summaries for the characters to satisfy all parties as long as it doesn't violate the aforementioned WP:PLOT. Unfortunately, while I partially agree with the IPs edits to the article, it rendered it to stub status. I don't think that the summaries are WP:FANCRUFT in general. I'm pinging the following editors Tintor2, Nihonjoe, AngusWOOF, Knowledgekid87, Cyphoidbomb, TheFarix, Opencooper, G S Palmer and Davey2010 for their suggestions and thoughts so we might come to an agreement. Thanks.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The bit that sticks out to me is this:

For shorter or simpler series, it is often possible to avoid the need for a character section by crafting the plot description such that it introduces all significant characters. Where possible, this is the preferred method, as prose reads more professionally than lists.

Also, as I asked above, when Hamatora was offered as an example: To my eye, Hamatora also has an outsized “Characters” section for the article. I’m pretty sure it’s longer than the rest of the article, which (to me) would only be useful if catering to fans. Do we do this for other forms of media where the subject isn’t hugely successful? I don’t think I’ve seen this kind of thing in non-anime articles except where there was a ton of coverage by secondary sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As a user, I dislike having the characters buried in "plot". If I come to Wikipedia to look up something about a character I first hit the contents list. Having to guess that they're hidden under "plot" rather than a dedicated "characters" section is not terrible user-friendly. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shiroi Hane: That seems more a matter for MOS:ANIME (where the above quote is from) than for some obscure article about a twelve-episode series. But if I were looking for that kind of information, my first stop would be something like [seriesname].wikia.com, not Wikipedia, because fan-run wikis tend to be amazing sources for minutiae. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The names of the main characters and basic details like their VAs and their role in the show hardly seems like minutiae. The site may be old hat these days so sorry to be a stick in the mud, but that Wikipedia place is still often my first port of call when I want to quickly look something up rather than hunting down a random Wikia of possibly dubious quality. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shiroi Hane: I understand, but the MOS says it’s preferable to avoid such lists. Shall we take this thread to WT:MOS-ANIME? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Character descriptions in Kiznaiver

Editors support trimming the character descriptions but are against a hard sentence limit.

Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With respect to the characters section, should it be trimmed to just one sentence per the relevant guidelines at WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - This diff is the full character descriptions and I personally believe these are waaaaaay over-detailed, As I said above I believe a one-lined summary is better than the over-detailed FANCRUFT. –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to trimming - a hard limit of 1 sentence might be unnecessary in case presentation works better by splitting the description into two sentences, but we really don't need to go into trivia or repeat information from the plot summary. Things like During his early childhood, he was part of a previous Kizna System experiment which had failed, rendering him incapable of feeling pain; however, he only has vague recollections of these events. (from the protagonist's description in Davey's link) would obviously come up in a plot summary, so this can be struck, and She is a good cook and often makes meals for the other Kiznaivers. is a very unimportant piece of trivia. Additionally, describing characters as "beautiful" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If their beauty is important to the story, describe that, but "beautiful" is extremely subjective.--Alexandra IDV^talk 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to trimming, similar to Alexandra. A hard limit isn't needed, but we should discourage articles that are entirely plot summary, which is what character sections basically are. ~Mable (chat) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Trim reasonably, preferably with a total rewrite by a knowledgeable editor. At this point, with the article practically consisting of nothing but barely-sourced summary and description, to me this means summing up each character with a short sentence. As the article expands (if the article expands), the character descriptions can be expanded as appropriate. If we wind up with paragraphs and paragraphs of coverage of the series’s reception and cultural impact and behind-the-scenes production and critical analysis, the original, currently-too-long descriptions will still be there in the history and can always be restored. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode descriptions

I’ve just attempted trimming the first episode’s description down to a more reasonable size. Thoughts? Could it be shorter? Is anything important missing? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Length looks alright, could be better. I would aim at rewriting it to make it less overwhelming in introducing names; an example was the first episode of Code Geass, where I neglected to mention a major character driving the truck until they became more relevant. It's just my style, don't need to take it as advice. Also, IIRC em doesn't scale correctly when used in tables. (Image) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@DragonZero: I’m not familiar with that scaling issue, but do as you will with the table’s layout; I haven’t touched it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here’s another pass at the first two episodes:

1. High school student Katsuhira Agata is a boy who seems to feel no emotions or pain, and a frequent target of bullying. Shortly before summer break, he meets a strange girl, Noriko, who pushes him down a flight of stairs as part of an experiment. He wakes up in an underground hospital room with several classmates, where Noriko tells them that they are all now Kiznaivers, connected through the experimental Kizna System via scars on their wrists. Katsuhira learns that the fall would have killed him if the Kizna System hadn't dispersed his injuries across the other Kiznaivers.
2. Noriko traps the Kiznaivers in the building and tasks them with introducing themselves to the group; if they don't cooperate, they're subjected to painful and life-threatening situations. It's eventually revealed that the true goal is to have them confess secrets to each other, such as an unexpected fear of dogs. Katsuhira introduces himself as someone who feels nothing; when his childhood friend, Chidori, confesses her love for him, he suddenly feels happiness and reintroduces himself as someone slowly learning his own feelings.

Thoughts?

And this may not be relevant, but the episode summaries we’ve had here seem to be directly copied from full articles on each episode on the Kiznaiver Wikia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the episodes summaries here pre-date the creation of the Episode 2 page there if nothing else and, given the continued exhortation on this site of "Fancruft! Take it to Wikia!" it is entirely possible it was the other way around, or even written by the same person or persons. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I did not compare the dates, just noticed the same description formatted into paragraphs. Anyway, is this rewrite okay? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, if anyone familiar with the show could tighten up the summaries and/or review my efforts to do so, that would be great. And we should probably add release information and summaries for the manga chapters if the same is necessary for the TV episodes. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)