Talk:Onimai

Literal Translation for the First Episode's Title

The literal translation is currently "Mahiro and the body that can't get off", which seems like an unusual translation to me. I would have thought the イケない in the Japanese title translates to "bad" or "lewd" here, although the use of katakana seems a bit suspicious. Is there a source for the current translation? 38.124.68.220 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Separate page should be created for all characters

There are many more characters than just the main characters. Plus Wikipedia Japan has a separate page for every character that appears in the series. It should be created with a link added here. 2600:1017:B8C4:42CD:0:10:B298:D501 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to follow along with what every other language Wikipedia project does, and we also don't necessarily need to list every character. However, if the characters section gets big enough that it meets WP:SIZESPLIT, we can discuss the possibility then. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Reaction and Analysis Section needs Overhaul

The entire reaction and analysis section here focuses way too much on very specific reviews from obviously biased news platforms and individuals without specifying their likely biases. However, a better solution would be to condense the "Reactions" and "Analysis" sections into about one paragraph and remove most of it entirely. There is no need to waste so much of this Wikipedia article on what amounts to about 3 people's personal reactions to this show. Also, the final note regarding the translated blog post is off-topic and really not necessary to the point of this page. 129.170.195.169 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't deny that section could use improvement, but I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. I don't believe that Anime News Network is very biased at all outside of those from their individual authors. While Anime Feminist is biased, that doesn't mean it can't be a reliable source (WP:BIASED) and I think that it is written in such a way that it doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to any major ideas. Whether you agree with the reviewers or not, their opinions are shown on this page (of which there are more than 3). The part on the blog post I think is fine as well as it gives a bit of context. Link20XX (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the ANN review is fine and should stay. My main issues come with the fact that while the review from ANN takes up about two sentences, the Anime Feminist reviews take up two full paragraphs. I feel like instead of prioritizing the obviously click-bait, emotionally laced AniFem reviews, we should give both sites' reviews equal attention, where that be including more information from more positive western reviews of the series, or by diminishing the about of space given to the AniFem ones. 129.170.195.169 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The ANN reviewers' opinions takes up just as much space as that of Anime Feminist, if not more. I also disagree that the articles are obviously click-bait [and] emotionally lace moreso than to be expected considering it is just an opinion article. Regarding where that be including more information from more positive western reviews of the series, if you can find more reliable sources that reviewed the series (regardless of language), please post them here and I will be happy to see how they can be incorporated. However, I think the current way the section is written is a fairly accurate consensus of what perspectives are given in the sources it currently uses. Link20XX (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether they'd be considered reliable in this context or not, I'll open up for discussion, but:

Onimai Review 1 - The website doesn't often review anime itself so it may not be the most appropriate source here, but the website is one of the better and more frequent sources for visual novel review coverage and they cover other forms of anime media too. They're on OpenCritic which speaks to their professionalism and other high-standards, have editorial oversight, multiple authors, etc.

Onimai Review 2 - I hesitate to mention this one. They are quite controversial at times, but they are one of the biggest websites in the anime gaming space and certainly act as a balance for Anime Feminist and ANN, so may be worth considering. It's also multi-author, has editorial oversight, and so on. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Niche Gamer is considered an unreliable source per WP:VGRS. As far as Nook Gaming, I have never heard of this website before, so perhaps it should be discussed at WT:VGRS. Link20XX (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as a general query to those who have been here longer, when it comes to anime topics, does WT:VGRS being a video game project have influence? As an example, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Anime Feminist some options are made that Anime Feminist and Anime News Network are both not good sources, but they're considered reliable on the Anime Project. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that what the video game project editors think of its reliability for their purposes should matter to us. They can afford to ignore it, given that they have many higher quality options available for sources on video games. However, for our purposes, given that there aren't a lot of specialized anime sources available (at least in English), I'd say it's relatively reliable and relevant here, particularly for opinion. It definitely shouldn't ever be our only source, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

These sections need a lot more balance. Currently, Cy Catwell, Caitlin Moore, and Chiaki Hirai dominate most of the two sections, as well as having one of these writers agree with the words of another - giving readers the impression that this validates their opinions. What's more, most of these critics are only basing their opinions on the first episode, with another only going as far as episode three. Ideally, the views of these three critics should be condensed to a single paragraph, with the first sentence or subtitle contextualising that they are not reviewing the entire series. As the first series has finished, priority should be given to critics who evaluate the entire series. Unless a balanced and more accurate representation of general consensus can be formed, this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.127.235 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of what I and other editors wrote in was pretty unfiltered and rough since it was being written more or less as reviews were coming out in the early weeks of the anime's run. There are a couple sources that came out later which have yet to be incorporated, and it's probably worth reevaluating the existing information's overall relevance and editing it accordingly. I just haven't gotten around to it- been mostly burnt out on editing lately.

So, I'd agree it probably should be condensed, and it most certainly can be. I don't think it needs to be removed completely. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Reception is unbalanced

While I realize that it's important to note that the English response was not universally negative, I think this article gives too much weight to Kim Morrissy's review. The paragraph for her review (63 words) is longer than the paragraph for the reception from every other English review (60 words). Link20XX (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's important to keep it balanced, but I'd agree with the previous unsigned comment stating "priority should be given to critics who evaluate the entire series" and the other negative 'reviews' are primarily one source with paragraphs from a few writers after only watching the first episode, so I think it's justified to not give it a huge amount of weight. Kim Morrissy's referenced coverage is only episode 1-3 which isn't much better, but they have covered the entire anime, consistently giving each episode 3.5 to 4.5 stars of 5.

Edit: I've also added in Sakugablog's Sakugabooru Animation Awards 2023, in which 5 of the 13 contributors positively mentioned Onimai. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think one of the issues here is that the anime reviewing sphere is really more of a thing in the English-speaking world, and given that English reviews have not exactly been kind to the series (as opposed to Japan and elsewhere where the series was far more positively received), that can be an issue. Meanwhile, anime reviewing by professional sources doesn't really seem to be a thing in Japan, the closest equivalent would be user reviews on places like Amazon (which are user-generated and not usable), so adding the positive reception it got in Japan could be tricky to cite. From what I can tell, the article is indeed biased, but not in the sense that there's an "only negative reviews are included, therefore it's biased" kind of bias, but rather WP:SYSTEMIC, albeit for reasons largely outside the series' control. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

> given that English reviews have not exactly been kind to the series

Just on this topic, I'd note it's more 'English reviews by review sources specifically listed as reliable on the Anime Project have not exactly been kind to the series'. Both approved sources tend to lean into similar demographics too.

ANN and Anime Feminist haven't been positive (barring the one ANN reviewer who has now left their team), but that isn't exactly surprising considering how they often handle series with fanservice and controversial-elements in their previews. Almost every other review (primarily from small blogs such as 1, 2, 3 which I'm aware won't be usable) have been relatively to very positive, as have user scores, level of activity on the subreddit, etc.

So it's not exactly that the English reception has been negative or even the English reviews as a whole. I see this as more of a problem due to the limited amount of sources, which would be giving an inaccurate representation if each writer was given equal weight (and again, everything negative is based on an initial impression from the first episode, rather than a full review). 'Professional' Anime reviewing' isn't exactly widespread in the English-world either and even then we're getting things like ANN with unprofessional scores like "haha no".

Sakugablog was an exception here, though it wasn't a review, but it mentioned Onimai positively in it's awards repeatedly. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is the case, would there be a way to resolve this? I understand it's a bit of a tough call given our RS requirement, but the article could give a false impression that the Western reception to the series was largely negative when in fact it's more complicated than that. I wonder if we may even have to get WP:RSN involved because it seems tricky how to balance policies and guidelines such as NPOV, RS, and SYSTEMIC, with real-world views. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem difficult and it's certainly not just limited to this page. Quite a few anime pages only use ANN or ANN and Anime Feminist as a source of opinion due to the lack of other sources (and part of AnFem's claim to reliability is that some writers wrote for ANN), it's just highlighted here since they don't reflect the wider view.

Involving WP:RSN might actually open a can of worms, since I've seen views mentioned outside of the Anime Project that neither of those sources should be classed as reliable as it is (despite ANN being the most notable Anime site). The old RS/N discussions (1 2) for ANN at least haven't seemed to show complete consensus. I don't believe there's been one for AnFem, but the 'headlining' note about their reliability on the Anime Project is based on Amelia Cook's involvement, but she's no longer involved with the site and it doesn't seem to have certain things like an editorial policy, which leaves it open to question too.

That said, I'd be interested for views, especially since reliability considerations when it comes to anime articles seems very different to gaming articles, which are different to academic articles. There is no *exact* list of requirements when it comes to reliability and things like 'wrote at other reliable sites' don't really work in anime when there's so few of them and some of the ones on the list are already a stretch like 'quoted by Softpedia' (a software download site - nothing to do with anime). We really could do with more sources considered reliable though. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you think could be done here? Ask the project for more advice on this, or go straight to WP:RSN? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either would get useful reactions, but if either, I'd ask the project first.

I do think that this would be a time to cite Ignore all rules though, since it's actively harming the article in this case and reliability seems somewhat subjective for anime sources. At least to the extent of including sources that aren't on the reliable list, (which isn't exhaustive anyway), but have indicators of reliability such as having an editorial policy, being on MetaCritic/OpenCritic if they cover games, being linked to other sites considered as reliable, some kind of industry access (access to review copies, interviews), and no active case against their reliability based on reasons around accuracy or bad practices (such as NicheGamer with it's plagiarism, veiled ads, casino links, etc).

Just to add, I think Silvia's quote here makes sense. "sometimes for some topics on Wikipedia, good enough is what you have to settle for when it comes to sources". DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree that these are actively harming reliability the article Maybe we could cite some of the positive critical reception from non english sources,. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a rough consensus to move this page to the shorter version.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister! → Onimai – The official short name of the series in Japan is simply "Onimai" and is commonly referred to as just that by both Japanese and English fans. There has also been a move lately from including subtitles in article titles in anime articles per MOS:TITLE and WP:CONCISE (see Re:Zero as an example). There are also over a million hits on Google for just plain "Onimai" compared to around less than 400,000 with the full title. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Anime and manga has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see just "おにまい" (Onimai) being used on the official anime site. Instead, "Onimai" seems to be an abbreviation per [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's precedent for that. Oreimo is called the full title in Japanese but is often referred to as just Oreimo by fans (both English and Japanese). While Onimai is an abbreviation, it is an offical one and the series has a secondary logo that uses just "Onimai" (it's also the profile picture of the anime's Twitter account and is also seen in the eyecatches, where the characters also say "Onimai"). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I might be persuaded by WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't know after looking at the Japanese Wiki article. So far we only have WP:HITS, which isn't really an indicator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in regarding whether the title should or shouldn't be changed, but in terms of where it's used on the Japanese site, the URL is https://onimai.jp/, in addition to the social handles being onimai_anime, so I'd suggest it's official. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• weak support The official englsih name seems to be the current one, but as mentioned before, oreimo does it differently, even though the official english sources call it by its full english name. A quick look through the jp page shows that onimai is used quite a bit as an official short version. The Dangers in My Heart uses the full official english name as well, and same with The Wrong Way to Use Healing Magic. This is different though, since the name is a pun. Simply on the basis of nobody outside of crunchyroll or people reporting on crunchyroll using the name as written, I think we should drop the rest of the title except for the short version. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2024 (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.