Talk:Erased (manga)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Please remove Spoiler
[edit]Hi, I came across this article to find out when the next episode of the anime would be released, only to find out who the killer is. I think that that info should be hidden or removed somehow... I was very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:14C:8F26:5F30:1D53 (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Plot details should never be removed because they are "spoilers". That is because what is and is not a spoiler is a matter of personal opinion and would violate Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research. This is also in compliance with Wikipedia's guideline on spoilers and spoiler warnings. —Farix (t | c) 14:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the info presented on the page has been revealed to the manga audience only - the anime itself has not been finished yet, and those watching the anime can only guess as to who the real killer is. Thus, those who have not read the manga should not expect to find serious plot elements in sections of the page that are for both the anime and the manga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:7818:84A5:8CEC:A8F8 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit : I saw that link, and am not asking that you remove the plot info or label it "Spoiler". However, this spoiler was not FOUND in the plot info. It was found in the "Character" info. It should be in a section labeled "Plot" or "Ending" so that those coming across the page don't come here wanting to see who all the characters are and leave with a serious plot element revealed to them. That also, I believe, is in compliance with spoilers and spoiler warnings. Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:7818:84A5:8CEC:A8F8 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article is about the manga and its adaptations and you would expect to find most/all significant plot details in a section that describes the characters' role in the plot. —Farix (t | c) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I didn't expect that, and that might be the case with others. Not everyone's perfect. Also, the plot description describes what has happened in the anime thusfar, but not the entirety of the plot in the manga. Flip-flopping from one to the other... Eh. Idk. It was just seriously a bummer. Not that you seem to care in the slightest. Ugh. Everyone here seems to have a stick up their ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:C5BB:1D85:3FB:2F9D (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This spoiler has seriously pissed people off. Remove it. Screw your WP Spoiler crap. Remove it, you heartless bastards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:D55C:1D45:903D:4209 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not going to stop being an encyclopedia because a particular plot detail allegedly "pissed people off". But then, I doubt anyone is actually getting "pissed off". —Farix (t | c) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, many people are getting very upset about this. Not just me. At least HIDE it for fucks sake! Or fucking LABEL it.
- I've done several Google searches before and found no such thing, so I'm going to call BS on this one. Second, hiding information is a violation of Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy and labeling a plot detail as a spoiler is a direct violation of Wikipedia's three core content polices, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view. All three of these policies are non-negotiable. —Farix (t | c) 03:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Episode title
[edit]Please Update the title of episode 9 to "Closure". This info was found on the Crunchyroll page and is as valid as it could be under the circunstances. I don't have the Kanji or Romaji titles, just English for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.206.67.62 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Spoilers needs to be removed from all Character Descriptions
[edit]A friend and I both wanted to look up characters for the show and the description for the teacher is a huge spoiler... Basically all the character descriptions give too much away about the story and what's going to happen. This is a big anime this season and the character descriptions should tell who they are, not reveal every part of the plot even if the information did come from the manga. When typing Erased Anime into Google, it leads directly to the Wikipedia article... If information for the manga is going to be up, it should be separated from the anime article and spoiler tags need to be used... 107.206.28.148 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SPOILER. We don't remove plot details on the pretense that they are spoilers. Labeling a plot detail as a spoiler requires editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, venerability, and neutral point of view. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with this interpretation of the spoiler guidelines. The spoiler advice is clear that plot details are acceptable, but when the very first text about the characters goes above and beyond all reasonably necessary description in order to spoil the ending details of the work, and when the work is specifically a suspense-mystery title, it's extraordinary to see the issue persisting for so long. Nobody would be complaining if the sensitive information in the (unnecessarily longwinded) character descriptions was placed in an area named 'Plot' or 'Ending' as mentioned in the spoiler guidelines, because it would be easy to avoid that information. There's already a Plot section, and it's been written in a sensitive, spoiler-free way - yet someone avoiding spoilers would naturally skip over that and go straight to the factual character list only to find that the article was laid out confusingly! As it is, anyone who innocently checks the character list at the top of the article to reference the name of a character or actor is immediately told the ending of the series whether they wanted to know it or not, which goes against the very purpose of a reference article to begin with; the people most likely to be visiting this type of Wikipedia article are those who wish to learn more about that subject, not those who are already experts on the topic at hand. As for the counter that people have not been complaining about the unusual and aggressive use of spoilers in this article, I have some links to discussions found in a couple of minutes via web search which show that the refusal to accept that this article ruins the original material is affecting real people 1 2 3. I would also cite the much-publicised article on The Mousetrap which encountered a lot of controversy when the staff elected to include the details of the mystery's ending, and in spite of this the article is still properly laid out with the character section only summarising the character descriptions and all actual spoiler content meticulously laid out in the plot section where it's easily avoided - unless spoilers are what the reader is searching for. I'm very disappointed in the Boku Dake ga Inai Machi editing decision and the continued defense of a highly unusual interpretation of the intent of the spoiler guidelines in the face of numerous complaints. I have no confidence that my words will be taken on board, but nonetheless I wanted to add my opinion to the growing number of visitors who are unhappy with the stance being taken here. --Rosaliya (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I too was spoiled by the character description, the said spoiler is not a plot point but the resolution of the plot and should go into its own section (something under the title "Ending" probably). The arguments made against the spoiler are completely valid and reading the conversation it has come to a rather negligent approach for maintaining the page, it hurts readers and ruins the complete experience for the manga and for the anime. For crying out loud, you are revealing the killer on a crime series on the character description this should be fairly obvious and plain common sense, please read all other crime series pages where this is handled with care, a peson wanting to read the names of the characters should not read the ending of the series. Jseravalli (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with this interpretation of the spoiler guidelines. The spoiler advice is clear that plot details are acceptable, but when the very first text about the characters goes above and beyond all reasonably necessary description in order to spoil the ending details of the work, and when the work is specifically a suspense-mystery title, it's extraordinary to see the issue persisting for so long. Nobody would be complaining if the sensitive information in the (unnecessarily longwinded) character descriptions was placed in an area named 'Plot' or 'Ending' as mentioned in the spoiler guidelines, because it would be easy to avoid that information. There's already a Plot section, and it's been written in a sensitive, spoiler-free way - yet someone avoiding spoilers would naturally skip over that and go straight to the factual character list only to find that the article was laid out confusingly! As it is, anyone who innocently checks the character list at the top of the article to reference the name of a character or actor is immediately told the ending of the series whether they wanted to know it or not, which goes against the very purpose of a reference article to begin with; the people most likely to be visiting this type of Wikipedia article are those who wish to learn more about that subject, not those who are already experts on the topic at hand. As for the counter that people have not been complaining about the unusual and aggressive use of spoilers in this article, I have some links to discussions found in a couple of minutes via web search which show that the refusal to accept that this article ruins the original material is affecting real people 1 2 3. I would also cite the much-publicised article on The Mousetrap which encountered a lot of controversy when the staff elected to include the details of the mystery's ending, and in spite of this the article is still properly laid out with the character section only summarising the character descriptions and all actual spoiler content meticulously laid out in the plot section where it's easily avoided - unless spoilers are what the reader is searching for. I'm very disappointed in the Boku Dake ga Inai Machi editing decision and the continued defense of a highly unusual interpretation of the intent of the spoiler guidelines in the face of numerous complaints. I have no confidence that my words will be taken on board, but nonetheless I wanted to add my opinion to the growing number of visitors who are unhappy with the stance being taken here. --Rosaliya (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
English Manga editions vs. Japanese tankobon
[edit]I'm not sure the best way to address this but the English volumes of the manga and the original Japanese tankobon are not equivalent as implied by the formatting of the page at the time of this edit. The original Japanese tankobon each contain 6 chapters, while the first print volume of the Yen Press manga contains 12 chapters, equivalent to the first two tankobon. Thus, the first print Yen Press volume 1 is equivalent to the Japanese volumes 1-2, and presumably (based on announced page counts), volume 2 is equivalent to 3-4, volume 3 is equivalent to 5-6. As if that isn't confusing enough, the English ebook edition is being published in 6 chapters per volume, same as the Japanese editions. -- Jlick (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- As a correction/clarification, the Japanese tankobon contain 5-6 chapters per volume. -- Jlick (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've reformatted the manga table to more accurately reflect the English hardcover editions containing two original volumes per book. It isn't an ideal format but is the best I could think of without making a separate table for the English releases. If anyone has a better idea, have a whack at it. -- Jlick (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Manga, not Anime or Live Action
[edit]Since this page is about the manga, descriptions of who voiced which characters are not appropriate. A brief reference to the anime or live action show is fine, but details should be included on those pages, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceNZ (talk • contribs) 06:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- The "(manga)" part is in the title for the purpose of disambiguation. Until the anime gets its own article, it's perfectly on-topic to go into detail on this article, as t is part of the franchise. Opencooper (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Murder
[edit]You should do it where he does but then comes back to life to prevent that from happening. He also almost gets killed by his boss it the pizza place. 2600:387:0:902:0:0:0:36 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Title translation?
[edit]The translation of the title suggested in this article is currently "The Town Where There Is No One But Me", but I think 僕だけがいない街 should mean "The Town Without Me" or something akin to that, or "The Town Where the Only One Not There is Me" (poor phrasing, but at any rate, the meaning is more correct this way). Renditions in other languages include "Града, в който ме няма" (Bulgarian: The city in which I'm not), "Erased - Die Stadt, in der es mich nicht gibt" (German: Erased - The city in which I'm not), and "Miasto beze mnie" (Polish: The town without me). Concluding, I think the English analogue should be changed to correctly reflect the meaning of the Japanese. I will change it if no one has any objections. Kiril kovachev (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)