Talk:Onimai/Archive 1

Archive 1

Double-meaning name?

Allegedly, according to trivia commonly tossed around in the EN fandom, the おしまい (oshimai) in the JP title can mean either "done for/finished" or 姉妹 (shimai, "sisters") (being ambiguous due to being in plain hiragana), hence the official EN (and DE) titles. Someone with better JP fluency should verify this, and determine if it is notable.
— SirYodaJedi (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns of Mahiro

In the episode summaries, I started with he/him because the first scenes clearly depict Mahiro as still having masculine traits: in the manga p. 5, Mihari greets, "お兄ちゃんおはよー" (big brother); Mahrio responds, "い…いやっ！まだ何も…じゃなくて！あの…オレ…っ" ("I" in men's speech). However, as the story progresses and Mahiro starts getting more feminine, some sentences in the article become... well...

Mahiro has his first menstruation

Frankly, weird. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

All the reliable English sources that I know of (the reviews cited in the "Reception" section, mostly) seem to agree that Mahiro is either a "he" or a "they", and it seems that his in-story gender identity still leans masculine, so I believe it's best to go with that unless either the official translation of the manga changed Mahiro's pronouns and/or the review sources later change what pronouns they use, or the original Japanese version makes it explicit that Mahiro's gender identity has changed.

Personally, I don't think the current wording poses any real issues. Men who menstruate isn't anything all that weird or out there. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 22:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I must've been underinformed because I didn't know that was even possible. Seems legit ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Anime News Network keep adding their own reviews to this page.

It's very obvious that ANN contributors are self promoting by adding their own reviews here, which irrespective of content do not need to be part of the page and exist solely for self promotion and disparaging the actual topic at hand. 82.26.20.204 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless accusations; I have no personal vested interest in Anime News Network and will never have one. Link20XX (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not affiliated with Anime News Network (if I was, I'd declare as much). My only conflict of interest regarding the sources I've been adding to this page and other similar ones is the fact that I have an interest in or enjoyment of the subject(s), and that I might follow the authors of the material on Twitter (I follow Kim Morrissy on Twitter and I greatly respect their work, but I nonetheless summarized their opinion as impartially as I could). If I wanted to promote myself, I'd link my own social media pages and write in my own original thoughts on the series, but that's against Wikipedia policy.

The reception section of articles such as these is for detailing opinions on the subject(s) published in reliable sources, which all of these reviews are, and that's all that's been done here. Further, if you read the reviews, you'd notice that Morrissy's is actually almost entirely positive, completely undermining your claim that ANN is only trying to disparage the series. In fact, Morrissy confirms on their Twitter that they were assigned to the series precisely because they were the only one at ANN who liked the show and wanted to review it on a weekly basis. Publications are not monoliths and individual writers can disagree with each other, and the fact that ANN chooses to showcase those contradicting views reflects on them positively as a publication. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Anime News Network is not a reliable source. Its reviews are just blogging and there's no reason there should be a significantly longer section to documenting their reviews vs its accolades in Japan or even anything about the series itself. Ratselmg (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted at WP:ANIME/RS#Situational, Anime News Network is a reliable source for everything but its encyclopedia and some of its interest articles. See also the many discussions on this: Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N discussions: 1 2. Link20XX (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume that there's plenty of untranslated information about its reception in Japan and its production in Japanese-language sources. If you're able to read Japanese well enough to find and comprehend those sources, I'd encourage tracking them down. Their inclusion would make the article more complete. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 08:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

the reception section doesnt seem that encyclopedic

The reception seems to focus a bit too much on quotes and individual attributions than giving a factual summary of the reception. I don't think the specific opinions/quotes of some random online critic should hold any substantial weight but could be used to instead be used as a source to state that there's negative reception.

The reception section has as much content as the rest of the article combined. It just seems WP:UNDUE to me. What is your guys' opinion on this before I chop it up DarmaniLink (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION more specifically DarmaniLink (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I would hardly say that the critics are "random online" people. These aren't trivial blogs, they're all from reliable sources that have been deemed as such by consensus and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and the summary of the reception is perfectly accurate and completely consistent with the reception sections of other similar articles on film/television/video games and other media.

If you think that the rest of the article is lacking, my suggestion would rather be that the rest of the article needs to be expanded. Many of the sources required to expand it might require Japanese language knowledge, which I figure that many might not have, but just because no one has yet been able to add such sources does not mean that the possibility of using those sources should not be considered.

Furthermore, what WP:UNDUE actually says is,

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Note that it says "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If you search up "Onimai" and look at the relevant sources, I'd say that most of the available English language sources you would find (discounting the WP:ROUTINE coverage simply announcing the dry details of the anime's existence) are covering the reception, and the reception has largely been negative. Painting it as such (and, I understand I may be perceived as biased because I wrote most of the reception, but let me say, I actually quite like the anime myself and disagree with much of the negative responses) is not undue whatsoever, it's merely accurately representing the prominence of the negative viewpoints.

So I do not believe that the section itself is unfair or undue at all. If you were to go and find more reliable source reviews which are positive, in English or any other language, then I would say perhaps that the detail of the summary of the negative responses should be diminished at least slightly, if the positive reviews can be shown to be proportionally prominent. However this has not yet been shown to be the case.

I further believe strongly that simply saying "the anime was received negatively" with no elaboration on the justification for why this is would result in a far poorer and much drier article. People reading the reception section to find out how the anime was received by critics and why are interested in this information, so why should we deny them it? Why should we not simply cover it as thoroughly and as seriously as we would any other topic? The information is out there, it should not be excluded.

I don't believe that the be-all end-all of critical reviews is "I believe it is bad/good," and I don't think our articles should treat them as such. We have plenty of articles on anime and other media which have reception and analysis sections summarizing the viewpoints of critics in equal or even greater detail, such as Homura Akemi, or Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), or Scott Pilgrim, and these articles and more include plenty of quotes which are from critics who, to some, may only be "random online" people. This is not a good reason to remove those people's perspectives. Why should this article be any different?

Anyway, as I say, what I believe this article actually needs is more information on the production of the anime and the history of its source material, and if this information can be found, that's great. If it's not, the lack of availability of such information is by no means any justification to prune what information we do have. I'm pretty sure we're about writing informative, detailed, and complete articles, not arbitrarily making them shorter. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 09:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, one way to get started expanding it that wouldn't require any specialized knowledge or bilingualism might be to expand the episode summaries, which other users are already doing. And as more information of any kind becomes more available in a format that I can access, I'll be sure to be adding it (time permitting).

Maybe the reception section will be justifiably found to be undue later after more such information is added, but I believe the priority should be to flesh out the other parts of the article and then reassess its balance as once the overall picture of its impact and greater notability is much clearer. The article isn't finished. The anime hasn't even finished airing yet. Give it some time. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 09:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If I may also, and I hope I'm forgiven for saying so, and it's not my intention to accuse anyone in particular (and I apologize if this comment is taken that way), but I'm generally suspicious of the numerous editors, particularly the anonymous users, who keep trying to erase the reception. It feels to me like they are (unconsciously perhaps), trying to make a WP:POINT out of a desire to defend the show against the critics who hate it. I don't like the idea of acquiescing to that attitude, so I think it's best to WP:WAIT until the show has finished airing and somewhat faded from the larger consciousness of English speaking anime fandom, so that it can be assessed more carefully with some distance after the dust has settled and it's unlikely to receive too much more coverage. I may change my mind on the matter of possibly paring it down after that point. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot to reply to here, so I'm just going to cover a few things that stood out.

I don't believe "that the be-all end-all of critical reviews is "I believe it is bad/good" either. However, in encyclopedic documentation of reception you shouldn't be taking in quirky fun facts or silly quotes from the review. That's not encyclopedic information.

Reviews by nature don't have much editorial control, as it is their opinion.

The opinions of individual reviewers is undue weight given to them. There's a large paragraph about every single written review rather than just something along the lines of

Critical reception to this have been largely negative, with limited positive reception. Reviewers discussing the first episode in Anime News Network's Winter 2023 Preview Guide responded with strongly negative reviews, criticizing the premise, lolicon themes, and incestuous overtones of Mahiro's relationship with Mihari, as generally distasteful, with some criticizing the increased amount of fan service in the anime relative to the source material.... (add some more brief very summaries)

I want to see the negative reception documented on the page and saying "There's too much weight given to the opinions of random individual reviewers" isn't me saying "There should be no information at all on the negative reviews and we should give equal weight to the positive and the negative". I do not think this at all. If you need to attribute an entire paragraph to someone filled with quotes and their opinion on a matter, then the article needs to be directly related to that individual person for their opinion to be due.

Also I corrected myself after by stating that I meant WP:PROPORTION more specifically. Its not only out of proportion with the article, its also giving undue weight to the opinions of individual reviewers. If that was on a wiki article about those reviewers then it would absolutely be due. In most of the scientific projects if some scientist wrote a blog on their university website that said that 'purple flames are pretty' you wouldn't see an entire paragraph about "Nyle Bill wrote a review in The Univeristy of The Congo Republic's newsletter saying that 'purple flames are very pretty' and that 'red flames are pure thermodynamic garbage'" DarmaniLink (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In short, These reviews are not "information". They're opinions of some random idiot who writes blogs for an anime site. Also that you don't like conceding to other editors and assume bad faith that they're trying to "protect" the work that this article is about, viewing editing as a competition/battleground is very concerning. That you would even have "I don't like the idea of acquiescing to that attitude" as a thought while editing is very human but you really should be considering what others are saying. If everyone seems to have a problem with it but you, then to put it bluntly, you might be the one who's gotten emotionally invested. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not the only person who agrees that the reception section should be fleshed out to an appropriate degree, as you can see both on this talk page and in the edit history. I further question your description of the reliably sourced reviews as "some random idiot," and ignorance of my point about the clear consensus recorded at WP:A&M/RS that ANN (and Anifem) is reliable for reviews, which generally gives me the impression that your grievance has very little to do with concerns about neutrality and more with that you seem to dislike the opinion being expressed. If you'd like to challenge this further, then rather than unilaterally enacting these changes for which there has not yet been a consensus, I would recommend posting at WT:ANIME, or on a noticeboard (such as WP:DRN or WP:RFN), to seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Or, you could simply wait for the other editors watching this page to weigh in on the issue. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To respond to your point about WP:PROPORTION- the paragraphs are completely proportionate. The first paragraph summarizes a single article, the Previews, and briefly details the general consensus while highlighting some quotes of interest. The second paragraph details a bit further, and devotes about a sentence or two to the WP:ANIFEM review. And the third paragraph, while it has a bit more devoted to Morrissy's positive opinion, is warranted both because Morrissy's review is more in-depth than the brief preview blurbs, and also because it helps balance out the reception section so it's not solely negative. The proportions here are fine.

As for your assertion in your edit summary that it "reads like an ANN advertisement-" ...No? That's completely baseless. There's no attempt made in the section to talk up any of the ANN reviewers in a way that makes them sound better than each other, and the writing is perfectly NPOV. The only reason why ANN makes up such a prominent proportion of the article is because, as of yet, ANN is only one of about three available English-language sources. As more sources on the reception emerge, the proportion of the section that they comprise will inevitably diminish, but for now they make up a significant portion of the available sources, so that's what we have.

Your statement that "Reviews by nature don't have much editorial control, as it is their opinion" is simply incorrect. Reviews are as subject to editorial decisions as anything else, and what views are included/to what extent they are allowed is an editorial decision, as is how the reviews are conveyed and who is allowed to write them. Media studies are as valid and real a discipline as any other, and they go far beyond simply expressing "quirky fun facts or silly quotes." Reliable and professionally published opinions of the quality of the production and readings of the story's themes and ideas are hardly silly or trivial. They shouldn't be removed simply because you don't personally see any merit in them. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

At what point does a review become a reliable source vs a blog? They're always self-published. It was a summary of each review.

MULTIPLE PEOPLE have taken issue with this and have noted this, and you dismissed them as "wanting to defend it" based on them being an IP. This is prima facie of your failure to assume good faith and is a prime indicator of WP:TE DarmaniLink (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We can add in some more about it but we should limit quotes and instead give brief factual analysis of what was said rather than who said it. It should not read like an advertisement.

Quotes followed by talking about the quotes should not make up the bulk of an encyclopedic section. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I posted this on WP:DRN so I'm just going to end with this. If reviews go beyond "quirky fun facts or silly quotes.", then add that information. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that you choose to accuse me of wanting to defend this only demonstrates that you have no interest in parting in legitimate discussion and that me assuming good faith of you is only wasting my time.

Reviews have very little encyclopedic merit on their own. Every single paragraph was a summary of each review, rather than using the reviews to build a factual analysis of the critical reception. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!

If there's any JP articles you would like any specific info from, or for me to improve any "machine translation quotes" please ask here

Happy to help :) DarmaniLink (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah! Swinging back around to this (sorry it took a few days for me to get around to it), what I'd like to see more of in the reception section specifically is a bit more detail on how the currently cited Japanese reviewer felt about the animation and what they had to criticize about the story, and also if any of those sentiments were broadly echoed by other reviewers or if they all said different things, if any of the thematic commentary that they had overlapped with the English reviews or if it was different, or if they all just kind of gave superficial reviews saying that the anime failed or succeeded as entertainment. If any reviews of the manga can be found, that would also be good, but who knows if those exist or not. Anyway, just, add whatever seems useful, and I would say to not be worried about being too detailed. If we end up having too much, we can always cut back, and that's an easier problem to have, I think, than having too little and needing to get more. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

And also obviously if any details in JP articles about the production of the anime or sales figures of the manga or whatever, are available, that might help improve other parts of the article, those would definitely be good to have as well. If you're not sure, then I'm always open to give my opinion here on if including any particular detail would be an improvement (and hopefully others will be as well). silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

One thing I've seen being shared around that looks of interest is this article, which apparently goes into the LGBT reading of the show and analyzes the story from the perspective of real life Japanese law surrounding transgender issues. It was mentioned in Anifem and also by a few folks I follow on Twitter, and I wish I could actually read it (maybe I will be able to at some point) as it seems quite interesting. However given that it looks like this is from someone's blog, it almost certainly isn't a reliable source that we can use unless the writer is somehow individually reliable or it got covered in detail elsewhere, which I figure is unlikely. Still, if nothing else, it might have references to other sources that are reliable (for this article or others), or at least make for some interesting reading. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

I need to add the character's birthday IronboyV2 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues?

There's almost only negative viewpoints being added to Reception section despite it's apparent large fanbase on sites like Reddit. I think more viewpoints are needed from less critical sources. Ergzay (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the critics in reliable sources have criticized the series, so presenting its reception any other way would be an WP:NPOV issue. If you have reliable sources not from self-published website or social media, you are more than welcome to add them. Link20XX (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What makes a critic "reliable"? Isn't an opinion piece just a euphemism for a blog? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece is just that: a piece of writing which details an opinion. It's as valid a form of writing as anything else, and can come from reliable or unreliable sources (which can include blogs, sure, but can also include writings from The New Yorker or IGN). So long as it's from a reliable source with some sort of editorial control, and we describe it as opinion in the article, and its inclusion adheres to all other relevant policies, it can and most certainly should be included. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 10:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"but stated that the premise of the show was too 'mean' for her to find any humor in it "

"described it as 'pure lolicon garbage'"

This is, at the end of the day, some random person's opinion. This isn't encyclopedic information. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "random person," it's a professional critic from a source that has been deemed reliable. We are allowed to include such things, and in fact it is imperative that we do so. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still trying to learn how to edit on Wikipedia and the rules around it, but you might find some useful quotes from this review which acknowledged some of the questionable elements, but was very positive overall. It would also help to make it less heavy on the Anime News Network usage.

I originally wanted to add something about the positive user reception and high user ratings from various websites, but it seems that's not allowed on Wikipedia. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed not! However, if that reception becomes the subject of coverage in an RS, it can be mentioned here, citing that. (An example of this can be seen at Sonic Frontiers.) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 16:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Miyo's Description

This is currently just 'Mahiro's classmate. She has full boobs. She is interested in Yuri', which is quite short and choppy. I don't have permission to edit this myself though.

Maybe something like 'Mahiro's classmate. She is interested in Yuri and tries to hide it, but Mahiro notices it quickly. Sometimes her imagination goes wild with fantasies about her friends. Miyo is notably bustier than the others'. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why there'd be a problem with adding a few extra details so long as it's reasonably brief.

silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Viewership Data

I'm curious to know how much viewership the episodes got when they premiered. Besides, the anime received high ratings, and although it does seem to come to an end, I wouldn't be surprised if the show gets renewed for a second season. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion it's decently likely, but you can never tell. The whims of the production committees who decide these things are something of a mystery. Regardless, unless sources discuss the possibility of or hope for a second season, we needn't and shouldn't discuss that in the article. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

But as for sources on finding out the viewership data of the episodes? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. Fpmfpm was the one who added the sources, so you'd need to ask them. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 00:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether second seasons get greenlit or not is usually based on Blu-Ray box sales. The latest numbers I was able to see were around 12,000 (? iirc) preorders for just box #1 (these are extremely good & promising numbers, and that's only based on the stores that report their sales data) – this is per Oricon, who tabulate these stats and estimates sales ("推定売上枚数") for all sorts of Japanese media. Unfortunately now that the seasons is over, and the BD box is not in the top 20 weekly preordered items, and February data is too old to access (when preorders started), the current total numbers are paywalled. But we'll get the actual data soon when the BD boxes release on April 19 and June 21 respectively. If it helps, a lot of the info about how Oricon works is summarized/explained in English on Erzat.blog. I agree with @BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 that this is beyond the scope of the article since it hasn't been mentioned specifically in reviews, blogs, etc. for now.

Regarding viewership, Rankstker is a Japanese site that compiles viewership/streaming data from the ABEMA & Niconico platforms, and there's a lot of data on that site. This image posted by the site's Twitterbot at the end of the season (3/30) shows the final viewership numbers, with Onimai at the #1 spot with 7,820,149 streams on those platforms in Japan alone. Likewise, the two ranking references (the Niconico site itself & Anikore) linked in the article are for Japanese viewers/audiences. This is the reason I said "from Japanese audiences" in the article text (which you now removed @BaldiBasicsFan? since those sites don't reflect NA/EU/etc.-based or English-language viewers. Hope this helps! –Fpmfpm (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)