Jump to content

Talk:Demon King Daimao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review(s)

[edit]

Genres

[edit]

In accordance with WP:V, and WP:NOR, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced to a reliable third-party publication. Since I have now challenged that this is a harem and romantic comedy at least three times now, they must be sourced before they can be added back in. Simply basing these genres by watching the anime or reading the manga or light novel is just into original research. —Farix (t | c) 14:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What source has to be provided if the material, this time the anime series itself, defines what it is? The series is notably different than the manga it is based on so you could separate the definitions for each but that still doesn't take away what the anime shows and what it is is a harem which defined is more than 3 of the female leads show interest in the lead male. What you are asking doesn't make sense to find an article written somewhere about someone's opinion about the contents when watching the very material that the writer of the original manga signed off on to make proves it in of itself what the genres are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimoireMyst (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must have a source that clearly states what the work is within those specific genres, since those genres are being challenged. You can't throw in your own observations and interpretations about the work and claim it to be a source. The burden of evidence is on the one inserting the claim into the article, it is not on those who are disputing the claim. —Farix (t | c) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is wiki not the database of the CIA. All information on this entire site is made from the opinions of those the write on it which many regular people do. There are so many changes done to make sure that the information is correct in the end by those that know the content they are writing about and sign up to make sure it stays that way. http://www.crunchyroll.com/library/Demon_King_Daimao#s=/library/Demon_King_Daimao/reviews shows reviews with a few mentioning its a harem as well as crunchyroll tag searching it as one. Another site shows it under the harem search as well at http://theanimeblizzard.com/watch-ichiban-ushiro-no-daimaou-english-subbed-anime-online.html. Even the subpar version of this site called Wapedia shows it here http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ichiban_Ushiro_no_Dai_Ma%C5%8D. And last but not least since this is annoying looking for this stuff the anime news network here http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=11179 shows it under Harem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimoireMyst (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Wikipedia is verified against reliable third-party sources. None of the links you provided are reliable as they are user edited or self-published sources. One is even copyvio link and another is a copy of this article. —Farix (t | c) 03:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anime news network goes out of their way to mention every single person that has anything to do with the project while cross referencing them with other projects they have anything to do with and they are not reliable? The have more info on the behind the scenes of anime than as mentioned on wiki because that is what they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimoireMyst (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their encyclopedia is user edited just like Wikipedia, so it is entirely unreliable. In fact, when you click on their "sources" link, they have none. —Farix (t | c) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users editable = Not reliable source per Wikipedia standards. --KrebMarkt 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interview with the writer of the show http://hashihime.blogspot.com/2010/05/ichiban-ushiro-no-daimaou-interview.html and according to wiki's own rules of third source info. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Since it is difficult to get word from the publisher which usually is written in the native language of Japanese. As stated before the work itself speaks for itself. You cannot watch this anime series without seeing the harem element unless you are trying not to but then it would go back to what I've already shown as what a harem is defined by even in webster's dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimoireMyst (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hobby Channel interview is a reliable source, but will need to be checked out if Yoshioka Takao mentioned anything about the genre. However, the Hashihime blog is a self-published source and fails the standard for reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other point made from the copy and pasted reference of a reliable source according to wiki itself. (The piece of work itself)? Also even if the interviewer called it a Harem it's still legit since the writer of any series would realistically have any misinformation changed from an interview they have done which was posted on a blog in English even when it was written back in May.22, 2010.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the work state its genre? If it is not explicitly stated, then it requires the editor to analyze and interpreted the work to determine its genre, which would be a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. The only thing the work is a source for is a descriptive summary of the events that occur in the work. In other words, its plot. —Farix (t | c) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the work itself as in the anime series this whole thing started with. That is the work, it shows that it is a harem as the characters of Keena, Junko, Fujiko, show definite romantic interest as well as Karone and Lily showing some interest at least once through the 12 episode series in the lead Akuto which more than supports the definition.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need a reliable source that states the work belongs in these genres. Using the anime itself is just more original research as you are analyzing and interpreting it to determine that it belongs in these genres. —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are not making any sense. Wiki wants a reliable source as stated by its own rules and no source is better than the material in question itself. The way you are saying it is like I interpreted the material wrong when you have nothing to backup that it isn't. I would like to know your proof that this isn't a harem otherwise you can't change it for no reason. How is your interpretation any better than conjecture? You've said previously that you challenged its definition but the "why" was never answered.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anime is only a source for what occurs in the anime. At no point does the anime states what its genre is. To determine the genre, you would have to analyst and interpret the work. The simple fact is that anything beyond the plot summary is analyst and interpretation (ie. original research) unless it is backed up with another reliable source. And finally, the burden of evidence is on the one who adds or restores information into the article, it is not on the one who challenges or removes the information. —Farix (t | c) 03:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anime is only a source for what occurs in the anime??. What the heck do you think this is about? A movie, book, site,....er no its about the A-N-I-M-E which this whole article was based on. I contest that it was always a harem since the beginning and that you are the only one that sees it otherwise since it is interesting that almost all changes to this article by other people have all been about this one issue yet you say it isn't just because it didn't say it in the explanation of the show or follow the norms as you called it on June 12. "Norms" is your own conjecture you know that? That definition goes to pretty much every article based on an anime license with the exception of a few of the larger brand names like Bleach, Naruto, etc.. Since this wiki article pertains to anything that comes from the original work which is the manga then the only thing that can be done is splitting the article it two with the anime being stated as a harem as fact since the first (And possibly only) season is complete and is shown to be while the manga can be determined at a later time when more of the chapters are available to be able to give an accurate determination.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must provide a reliable third-party source about the genres or the disputed genres will be removed per the verifiability policy. That is the bottom line and no about of original research is going to change that. In accordance with Wikpedia's burden of proof policy, it is up to you to provide a reliable third-party source that the work is of those genres. It is not up to me to provide a source that the work is not of those genres. —Farix (t | c) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going in accordance to wiki's source rules as well. One of them is the material, the material is the show, the show is a harem, so it is under the harem genre. You have no reliable third-party source to back up your changing this based on your version of what is norm or not.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Farix is correct to cite WP:BOP, which clearly states that the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to add material. Please stop adding your claims without explicit, third-party confirmation from WP:RS that the show is a harem anime. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Farix is not correct by any stretch of the word. If I go by what you say the first people to write the article controls the material completely without the permission or knowledge of the person or people that own the property. This does not make sense when the first person who writes the article then bases any future info on their personal preferences which Farix is doing. The internet is literally brimming with comments about this show and at least 1 out of every 2 mention its a harem but that doesn't count unless you get info from a third party which Farix can't even find to back up what he/she states. Well read the wiki source rules once again. The material is the source as mentioned as the first rule. Its first season is done and over with and therefore can be named a harem since more than 3 female characters want the lead romantically.--GrimoireMyst (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Farix is correct, you are edit warring and adding unsourced original research which is against Wikipedia policy. The series itself is NOT a source for its genre, as that is a subjective measure and requires interpreting the story. The series is only a reliable source for its basic plot, again without doing any interpretation. You are the one making a claim about these genres, the onus is purely on you to now verify your claim with reliable sources as it has been challenged by not one, but by multiple editors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):::Yes, he? is. You have three seperate editors directly challenging your claims (AnmaFinotera, Farix, and myself). Find some reliable third-party sources (per WP:BOP) to back you up and the claims can stay. Until then, they do not belong in the article, per WP:NOR. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can challenge what they say all I want but this just shows that the editors have their own version of the blue line. This whole time I thought reason was available but it seems like it isn't as they have no idea what they are talking about and hide behind the interpretation of their very own rules. The "anime can't be used because its subjective" when the very subject the information for most of the whole article its based on pertains to it. I've written about many anime's and manga's over a very long while now but only joined not that long ago but I see that it was all a waste of time. You can not know the material and ask for a third party source from a free to edit site and when it is provided by the fans ,like most of the info on here is provided by, it can be rejected because the editors demand it. Who has even sued Wiki on the bases of fiction based content and how it was written? No one. This all sounds like a bunch of American nonsense and typical over legality to those who most likely never were able to be lawyers since they do this every day. So I say go ahead and change the genres based on your single opinion...er I mean three single opinions I see now and let the fans be damned. (Two of them were most likely just told "Shut up and back up what I say" without knowing the information either.) I quit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimoireMyst (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies are there to ensure that Wikipedia is as reliable a source as the sources it uses. If there is no reliable sources to verify a peace of information, then it should not be on Wikipedia. This is not accomplished when we add our personal points of view and interpretation of what something means into an article when they cannot be backed up by any reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 22:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me further elaborate that just like in a court of law, it is up to the prosecution to prove that someone is guilty and not the defense to prove that someone is not guilty. The default position is that a person is not guilty of a crime until they are proven to be guilty. The same applies to information being added to Wikipedia. It is up to those who want to include the information (the prosecution) to show that the information is accurate according to reliable sourcing instead of those challenging (the defense) to prove that the information is not accurate according to reliable sourcing. Part of the reason for this is that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, so you must instead the positive. —Farix (t | c) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your third-party proof, not like we're needing to list harem titles anymore
Martin, Theron (2011-06-07). "Review - Demon King Daimao - BluRay Complete Collection". Anime News Network. "The concept here is a great one on three fronts. Instead of having yet another milquetoast, nice-guy harem master, original lite novel author Shōtarō Mizuki posited a case where the harem master is still basically a nice guy but also turns out to be his story's buffest and biggest bad-ass. " AngusWOOF (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a quote in the manga (not third-party but interesting in context), chapter 3: Junko says "I understand your circumstances, but it still looks like you have a harem there." AngusWOOF (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion

[edit]

I've added all of the characters from the Japanese Wiki page as well as new subsections for the media section. If anyone wants to further expand the article, feel free. K2NR (talk|contribs)

Thanks. I've been refining the character descriptions as well, and you can add the ones from the ADV cast announcement (Fujiko's brother, Academy Director, Yozo Hattori). Got a question though. Should we revise the spellings as released by the official dub Sentai Filmworks, such as Kena instead of Keina, and Peter Hausen? AngusWOOF (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Anime Network article (PDF) has gone away with the disbanding of ADV, so any character name edits and description updates will have to go with what's listed on the credits or other reviews. -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of manga series

[edit]

This was posted on ANN: [1]. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demon_King_Daimao&oldid=1201448627"