Talk:Sword Art Online/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki is a Spoiler

The whole article concerning Sword Art Online is nothing but a big spoiler. Can someone rephrase the whole thing so it doesn't spoil the story for others... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.72.220 (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is as light as it can be honestly. It has been rewritten several times by other editors and if you make it any simpler, you might as well remove the section. Also, it gives what pretty much every other Wiki article on anime does, a general plot.--iGeMiNix 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You may want to read both Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Basically, Wikipedia spoils the plot but without spoiler warnings. This is in order to give the most complete information about the article but without giving undue weight to indiscriminate information. Take away the "spoilers" and there wouldn't be anything encyclopedic yet. Also, define exactly what a "spoiler" is, since its meaning can differ from person to person. Is the spoiler the ending or the whole plot? The point is, Wikipedia contains spoilers, it always has, and always will. Live with it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

General

The content has the feeling of being written by one of those promotional firms especially the plot description. Sword Art Online (SAO) also existed in the form of web articles and doujinshi that were created and published by the original author. Therefore, the SAO article material is not necessarily only from the set of light novels. The use of specific facts in the wikipedia article also runs the danger of being incorrect as this author sometimes has minor time or event continuity problems between his published works. It is unknown if this is due to the author and/or editor lacking a concordance as the publications were written over a ten year span of time. AnimeJanai (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to write the article from the point of view of this being a web-novel series that has been adapted into other media instead of a light novel series adapted into other media that was adapted from a web-novel series?75.84.161.138 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Terminology removal?

Have just added a detailed plot summary on the first book, hopefully some others might help contribute to the following volumes.

Anyway, I think the Terminology section, contains too much detail and should be cut down and moved to the actual wiki for the series, but I'm new to Wikipedia and am unsure if I should just do this. If no-one responds in a few weeks, I'll proceed, but just checking for now. --Dvdmad100 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The Terminology has become to big with unnecessary terms. I suggests only SAO, ALO, GGO and UW be kept with which Full dive technology they use added to their description. Sword Skills and OSS maybe kept but it's examples removed. As for the rest, delete them.

PS: The plot summary doesn't have include everything about the series. Just the short and simple summary that was posted before will do fine. --FonFon Alseif (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've never been a big fan of terminology sections, as I've always thought that such sections were nothing more than a bunch of fancruft. Merging their content into the plot section is a much more encyclopedic alternative. Terminology sections can work in fan-wikis, but not in a serious project like Wikipedia. I'll ask Juhachi if he can give a hand. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Before determining what to do with a terminology section, you must first determine the purpose of the section. To keep in compliance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, the terminology section should used to support the terms used in the rest of the article when it is not feasible to explain the term when it is used. Now looking at the list itself, I don't see anything there that matches that. Terms like "Healing Crystals" are pretty self explanatory and doesn't need to be defined. "Clearer", "Beater", "PKer", "Sword Skills" and "Outside-System Skills" can be easily explained when they are first used. The games abbreviations are just plain laziness on the part of the writer. Write them out! The individual Outside-System Skills seems to be just an attack list, which we normally take off of other articles and the terms are unlikely to be used in the article anyways. —Farix (t | c) 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Have shortened the terminology section and renamed it 'setting', also moved charcter list to a seperate page to save space.--Dvdmad100 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally think terminology section should stick. It just needs to be condensed down. Accel World has a section also. Merging it isn't the best solution but if that is the consensus on this, then it is fine. Also, Wikipedia usually doesn't have to do with the Wikia counterparts so having the Wikipedia article filled out is always nice for people that are looking for some broad entry information into the series. Anyways, that is my comment on this matter.--iGeMiNix 04:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the terminology section could have helped, but I believe most of it was irrelevant information. If it had covered other topics mentioned in the age, then I would have left it.--Dvdmad100 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well at this point, none of it matters. Majority of the terminology is on the Wikia counterpart so hopefully whoever needs to the information will hopefully go there.--iGeMiNix 04:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographic

Is the demographic of SAO really females? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawsh (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Dengeki Bunko is an imprint for light novels targeted at males. This was probalby a bit of vandalism that went unnoticed. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Episode "16.5" vandalism

The edit at 10:14, 20 November 2012‎ by 115.133.106.165 is a subtle form of vandalism. I'm explaining my edit here because the reason for it might not be obvious to someone who isn't deeply familiar with the series.

There is no such thing as "Episode 16.5". It's a reference to "Chapter 16.5", which is a graphic sex scene supposedly written by Reki Kawahara and posted on his web site originally, which was never published in the Light Novels. Chapter 16 of Volume 1 is where Kirito and Asuna first spend the night together, hence the name "Chapter 16.5". Amezuki (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed article in Reception

The edit at 03:01, 10 April 2013 by SudoGhost removed an article in the reception heading from this page. It connects this anime to real life technology and is an worthwhile to be included on this page so I am not sure why it was marked as refspam. --Jpanime (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice article and it adds to the wiki page. I wouldn't mind it here BusyWaits (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The article that was posted expanded on the topic of this page and in no way should it be considered as spam Jvr768 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Profit, Financing and Copyright Ownership

Can someone add a section on the money side of SAO? How much money did it cost to make the anime series, manga and light novel? Who was involved in financing it? How much profit did each make? And how much did each of the key staff and writers, directors, animators and illustrators earn from it?

Who owns the copyright to SAO? The writer Reki Kawahara, an anime screenplay writer, the publisher ASCII Media Works, the animation studio A-1 Pictures, or a producer or production company involved in financing it if there was one?

How much say does Reki Kawahara have in deciding what's written in the scripts for anime episodes? Does he have any say at all?

If no one knows, could someone reading this ask them if they ever visit an anime convention where there's a guest panel for SAO cast and crew?

Lindisp (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert

How was my edit trivia? It isn't exactly well known among fans that haven't read the LNs. Somewhere on the page Accel World, it states that the anime covers the first four volumes (and parts of vol. ten). I fail to see why there should be a double standard. Avengingbandit 02:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Find a reputable source. Unsourced material maybe challenged and removed as per WP:VERIFY. —KirtZ^Message 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. The novels and anime are obviously all the sources you need. ー HigherFive〈Ｃ | Ｔ〉 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The anime doesn't accurately cover every single aspect of both series. For obvious reasons. —KirtZ^Message 19:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not precisely, but it's consistent with the LNs, which is enough to justify my edit. Hell, just looking at the titles of the first four volumes should tell you that. Avengingbandit 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is still trivial; and trivial information should be sourced if an editor thinks it is relevant. Instead of debating, go find a reputable source. I have obviously left it open in WP:GOODFAITH for you to do such a thing. —KirtZ^Message 22:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"That's just silly. The novels and anime are obviously all the sources you need." --HigherFive

Instead of asking me to go find a source (which another user has explained how the source is obvious and clearly verifiable), provide info saying otherwise. Avengingbandit 22:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made my case. If you wish to further blow this minute edit out of proportion be my guest because I'm done here. HigherFive is an experienced editor and knows what I mean. —KirtZ^Message 22:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You "made your case" simply from me not finding a source since the novels and anime themselves are sources? By that logic, I've made a stronger case than you and should revert back to my edit. And really, it won't destroy the article if I add something "trivial" which reader(s) could make use of the info if they have watched the anime and would like to pick up from where the anime left off in the LNs. Avengingbandit 23:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

English translated LNs released in 3-month intervals

[1] Avengingbandit 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Infobox

I've noticed there are six Manga sections in the infobox, making it particularly hard to navigate at a quick glance, which is the point of the infobox. I suggest we merge the Manga sections into one bullet list section as done with the seven video games in the Attack on Titan article. There was a discussion about it at the article's talk page. Any thoughts? —KirtZ^Message 23:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox is overlong. However, the additional data (writers, magazine etc.) is of help to readers and if the infobox is reduced, the excess data should be added into the manga section. Dvdmad100 05:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Gave it a couple weeks and there were no other responses here. The information was already in prose form to begin with. —KirtZ^Message 14:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Article status

The List of Sword Art Online characters has a severe case of copy-pasted material which I've noted on its talk page. The Setting and Plot sections of this article may also have copy-pasted material. To be fair I have no idea if Wikipedia either had the information first and it was simply copied out of the page or if it was copied into the Wikipedia page from an external source. Just throwing this out there in case some future editor decides to work on these pages. —KirtZ^Message 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

2nd english volume release date

2014/08/26 Avengingbandit 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-Published works.

Hello. I noticed that the article makes no make mention of the author's self-published works, labeled "Material Edition", which he sells at jp:COMITIA, under his pen-name Kunori Fumio. They consist of two manga-styled short-stories, eight written short-stories (three of which, were the first chapters of stories he later published), and a set of illustrations depicting early designs of his characters, and their stats within the game. I'm unsure whether to add the information or not, as I don't know if works published through unofficial channels are acknowledge. (Seeing as I'm new.) I wanted to know if they were worth mentioning, and in what format would they be added. Ragef33 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because this article is solely about Sword Art Online. —KirtZ^Message 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "Material Edition" releases are self-published releases of Sword Art Online side-stories. (I realize I may not have been clear on that, initially) They're specifically titled, "Sword Art Online: Material Edition 1-11". Material Edition 7 and 8 were part of 2 chapters from Sword Art Online: Progressive volume 1, and Material Edition 9 was the very beginning of Sword Art Online Progressive volume 2. A piece of Material Edition 1 was included in the Anime adaption. Ragef33 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)