Talk:Umineko When They Cry

When They Cry

If Umineko is "When they cry - 3", what is "When they cry - 2"? Kai? Rei? Daybreak? (80.86.251.72 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I too was wondering this. I'm pretty sure that the Higurashi series is first in the series, but since there was nothing between that and this one, I really can't say what was number two; Kai, Rei, and Daybreak don't seem to be it.--十八 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni = WHEN THEY CRY

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Kai = WHEN THEY CRY 2

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Rei = WHEN THEY CRY 2+

Umineko no Naku Koro ni = WHEN THEY CRY 3 Moogy ^(talk) 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So, baiscly, Rei is basicly Higurashi Final Mix/Subsistance, to put it in relitive terms?--Conan-san 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Rei is a fandisc with 3 original arcs and some bonus material. Moogy ^(talk) 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Engine?

What Engine does Umineko run on? Cause I don't see any mention of nscripter anywhere. -- Psi edit 16:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed run on nscripter; you can add in a note if you wish.--十八 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further proven in the credits. RasAlmond (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shannon and Kanon

Can we really extrapole they are siblings? Considering their origins as orphans explained in episode 1, it might be a simple "sibling like" relationship, but absolutely not blood relative wise. The fact Shannon commented that "he just consider me as a older sister" and the explanations behind the servants of the Fukunon House are kinda pointing to the non blood relative status. Klashikari (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Any speculation would be considered original research and would not be able to be included.--十八 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I pointed that issue, as there isn't any solid confirmation that these 2 characters are really siblings. I believe it would be better to leave it to person interpretation. Yet again, various lines in the visual novel states "kanon loved her as a sister". In any case, I think it would be rather logical to remove the sibling information in the article. Klashikari (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Right you are; I've removed the bits about them being siblings.--十八 10:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Satan

Isn't Satan the devil? Why it's called a demon here? (75.157.183.134 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

I believe that it's because Satan represents a specific sin (as do Lucifer and Beelzebub) along with the rest of the Stakes of Purgatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.169.215 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Demonology is very diverse. The Stakes of Purgatory are likely based on Binsfeld's classification of demons and Dante's Divine Comedy85.24.199.226 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sudden extra information from Ep3

I'm currently wondering if it is really that useful to put such details from episode 3 in the wikipedia articles. After all, there isn't any much descriptions or "unique" facts from episode 1 and 2, and the addition of these pieces informations seems rather void of real interest. Of course, characters like Ange and Walgiria cannot escape such use of episode 3 information, but why Eva and Kumasawa would have such treatment?

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be better to remove these mention, as it doesn't exactly give really proper information about the characters (until it is proved that it isn't a singular occurance). It looks like rather like random spoiler lines in there. Klashikari (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Music Composers

Any chance we could have some more information about the "various" music composers? A list or anything? I'm just (incredibly) curious really.... 72.184.48.74 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters

This is just a suggestion but, could you upload the family tree from episode 3 wich includes Beato and Ange? this way it would be more complete. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.33.218 (talk • contribs)

"Lambdadelta" (λδ) represents thirty-four when using Greek numerals
Hmm? Delta is the fourth letter in Greek alphabet, but Lambda is eleventh. How comes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.69.120 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lambda is indeed the 11th letter, but its numerical value is 30. Klashikari (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in "Witches" Section?

I have noticed that in the "Witches" Section says that Beatrice is the one "living in a world where concepts such as fate and possibility can be visualized" but, ingame, that description is applied to Bernkastel instead. And, please, bear in mind I'm playing a fan translation so I'm not sure who is the mistaken one. Just asking... I forgot to say that this can be checked after First Episode when you unlock the non-human Tea Party.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.55.249 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually this description can only work for Bernkastel and Lambdadelta as they can observe and manipulate the Kakera, which Beatrice is unable to.

I changed the descriptions and added their respective powers. Klashikari (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

I request spoilers stop being posted on the main page. Rather, it should be done like the Higurashi page, with spoilers left to articles focusing on the individual games. The spoilers mainly consist of info that is over-excessive and not relevant to more than one game. For example, the short-haired Beatrice who only appeared in Episode 3. There is no reason to include her in the character list and spoil her identity as well. There are no spoilers for the other games, so it should be left that way. People will come to the article where there weren't spoilers before and have the games completely ruined for them in a heartbeat. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni does not have any individual page for the games. Rather the whole cast has its own page, while the root page had a digest summary of the main characters. The problem is also the fine line between appropriate content and spoilers, which is why there is absolutely no rule regarding "spoilers" on Wikipedia. Even mere explanations such like the siblings' money issues or Maria seemly "bipolar" personality might sound a spoilers for some people.

While I do believe some things must be done against some spoiler-ish information, you are arbitrarly filtering the information on your own. For instance, I do not see why you removed sakutarou, but left Gaap mention, despite it is a "spoiler" that yet Beatrice has another demon furniture.

There must be some proper order behind structuring the description of each character, but the way you did is really inconsistent (and I think a discussion would have been better instead of removing portions like this, all of a sudden). Klashikari (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Higurashi games used to each have their own page. It seems someone messed around with that. The furniture are important characters, and the details included are not really spoilerish. However, there is no need for mention of characters who appear in only one episode and are extremely spoilerish. It's inconsistent to have spoilers only in some sections, for only some of the games. I think it's better to remove the spoilers first, then discuss. I know I, personally, had Episode 4 ruined for me just by reading spoilers that weren't there the last time. And there are no real spoilers in the character descriptions above that, so it comes out of nowhere. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If furniture are important, Sakutaro must be left intact has he has a major role as both a focus character and furniture. Simply editing its description would do the trick. Also, please do not use the assumption that some characters are only showing up in only 1 episode. For example (I must use this comment as a proof, so please bear the tiny spoiler here), but Eva-Beatrice does show up in episode 4. Therefore, assumption that a character will only show up once is completely null and void.

And so far, since you do not know circumstances and the like, trust me, the "spoiler" information so far are hardly ruining Episode 4 (until you have a happy go lucky description of everything during the first twilight and onwards).Klashikari (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The description for Eva-Beatrice stated it is unknown what happened to her after 3, which would imply she did not appear in 4. Revealing that she will become Beatrice is a huge spoiler for Episode 3, as is revealing Maria to be a witch. And there's really no need for all this info. The little descriptions for the family, the servants, and a few of the folks from the Witch world is fine. There really doesn't need to be an entry for every single character, especially with the spoilers. I'm still supporting the idea of each episode getting it's own article. That way no one sees unneccessary spoilers. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, I was the one who originally created the individual Higurashi pages back in July 2006, a short 4 months after joining Wikipedia, so suffice it to say, I was inexperienced at the time. Years later, I rectified my previous mistake, and merged them all into List of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni titles since all of the articles were stubs (and had been such since they were created). It made no sense to have separate articles, hence why they were merged, and should never have been created in the first place. A similar list of titles should eventually be created for Umineko as well. And besides, as I've already tried to say, per WP:SPOILER, it's not okay to remove plot info merely because you think it might spoil the plot for some people. This is the same reason why templates such as {{spoiler}} have been deleted many times, and are no longer in use. In other words, if you don't want to be spoiled, don't read Wikipedia, it's that simple. This is an encyclopedia we're writing here, so it's ludicrous to remove certain content when an encyclopedia is meant to give all pertinent information to anyone that wants it. Hence why on featured articles on fictional works a concise plot summary is given instead of a vague overview.

And on top of all that, the characters section will eventually be spun off into a List of Umineko no Naku Koro ni characters article once the out-of-universe info in this article is substantial enough to warrant a split. I'm sure you wouldn't mind the "spoilers" being on a separate article as opposed to the main article.--十八 01:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying still doesn't change the fact that the spoilers are inconsistent and unnecessary. Aside from what I deleted, the character profiles are generally spoiler-free, with the exception of minor spoilers, such as Jessica's interest in Kanon or the Sins the Stakes stand for. There are not spoilers about their personalities, deaths, and so on. Then, all of a sudden, you scroll down a little farther, and Episodes 3 and 4 are spoiled out of nowhere by the inclusion of profiles not even neccessary. If you want to include spoilers on a seperate page, fine, but save the spoilers for that page, so that no one has to get spoiled like I did. Since the games came out, fans have put a lot of effort into keeping massive spoilers away from the article until individual game pages were created. I think individual game pages make sense, since each game contains a lot of events and information. The point is, there is no need to include profiles for spoilerish characters that are alter-egos of characters that already have profiles, be they important or not. There only needs to be what is there for the family, servants, and a few of the witches. Just because you can include spoilers, doesn't mean you should. Especially when you are going overboard with them. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound like people were actually trying not to include spoilers on this page. If they were trying to do that, most of the info on the characters wouldn't be here. You are intentionally, and knowingly, going against a Wikipedia guideline, and you seem to have certain WP:OWN-like tendencies, like if it's not okay with you, then it's not okay at all. I'm taking this to WT:VG and WT:ANIME so they can tell you you're out of line, because I can see I alone cannot convince you.--十八 03:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be easier to simply wait for her to get blocked for sock puppetry for the nth time... Erigu (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sparing sanity and a long winded debate, wikipedia doesn't care much at all if someone's hit with a spoiler or not. It's an encyclopedic study of a subject, not a player's guide, and it should treat the subject to it's full context. Remember, Sephiroth kills Aeris.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have once again reverted the removal of the so-called spoilers. First of all, declaring a plot detail a spoiler violates Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. Secondly, information should not be removed from an article on the bases that it may be a spoiler. Information may be removed for other reasons, such as excessive details, insignificant plot point, and etc. But spoilers is not a valid reason for removal under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 04:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Farix said. If you don't want to read "spoilers", I suggest you stop reading Wikipedia articles on media. Encyclopedic coverage includes all major points of the entire plot, including the beginning and the ending. Per Wikipedia policy, spoilers are not to be removed from articles, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take your personal attacks elsewhere. I've stated more than enough reasons why those sections should be removed. Maria, Eva, and Kinzo already have character summaries, and it is pointless to add seperate bios for their other personas. The spoilers are excessive information that is not needed in the article. It's not present anywhere else within the article, just in a couple select bios. The spoilers are also inconsistent-you pick and choose what you think is right to spoil. And to make matters worse, you persist on editing the page while a discussion is going on, which is just bad form. Stop trying to start an edit war, especially when it is you who is attempting to "own" the page, by refusing anyone else to speak out. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh? We're "picking and choosing what to spoil" now, are we? That sounds dangerously like a point of view you have on what is, and what is not, a spoiler, which is against Wikipedia policy. And, I stopped editing the article after the second revert, since I didn't want to violate WP:3RR (which you yourself are now in violation of), which is why I am here discussing the issue with you. I can't stop other editors from reverting your removals if I inform them of the discussion; it's up to them to make that decision. And how am I refusing you to speak out? Have I tried to delete your comments from this page? Have I intentionally tried to silence you, in any way?--十八 06:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have no interest in hearing me out or finding a solution that makes everyone happy. You yourself just said that you are listening now and have finally stopped reverting my edits solely because you don't want to violate some rule. And instead of having a discussion, you've merely accused me of things you yourself are guilty of and twist my words. Let me quote that post from the anime noticeboard again: "Neither of you are reading what I'm typing. The poster above says it even better: "Nor should we write to spoil. A plot summary (the place most spoilers appear) should give a rough overview of the plot. If that is possible without spoiling people too badly, so much the better. But spoilers should only be removed if they are not necessary to understand the work, character, or whatever the topic is.". This is not simply about spoiling. If you can give information about the character and plot without massive spoilers, then that is best. Witch Maria, Eva-Beatrice, Goldsmith...these characters are massive spoilers, and their is no point to their inclusion. Fans have worked hard to keep massive spoilers out of the article. If you want to go to such lengths to spoil the game even when it is not necessary, than you are just dong so to be cruel. Just create a seperate article for the characters or for the individual games." WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply copied from WT:ANIME:

You're missing the point. Articles aren't written to include or exclude information which some readers may deem to be spoilers. Instead, articles are write to be both complete and concise. If a plot summary or character description is written but doesn't include the major plot points, which many would consider to be spoilers, then it is incomplete. At the same time, the plot summary or character description shouldn't include every event the character is involved in as that would be an unnecessary level of detail. Editors should ignore the "spoiler issue" entirely. --Farix (Talk) 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Leo here. He makes a good point. Why make seperate profiles for Goldsmith, Eva-Beatrice, Witch Maria, and so on? It's more info than needed. The main characters are all that really need to be in the article, and that alone adds up to a lot of people. Why not make a seperate page for characters, where every character can be included, regardless of spoilers? There are no spoilers anywhere else on the page, so why randomly include them at the bottom? That's just a bit cruel and unnecessary. +20 EXP (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is neither cruel nor unnecessary. An article should provide coverage of the entire series, not teasers about the beginning. Again, the articles depressingly lack of a good plot summary does not excuse attempting to remove spoilers from other sections. Nor does its need for clean up and improvement. Even with a separate character list, this article will still contain what some people might see as spoilers. Again, the view of Wikipedia is that if people do not want to read spoilers, they should not read encyclopedic articles on a series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point that several people have been trying to make. These spoilers are completely unneeded. The main page isn't supposed to include summaries for every single character in a series, especially when it has as many characters as Umineko. In cases where too many characters are being included on the main page, it is proper to make a seperate page for characters and leave only the main characters on the main page. That would be the Ushiromiya family, the servants, and Beatrice. Also, just because you can include spoilers, does not mean you should go overboard. Spoilers like "George has an interest in Shannon" or "Maria seems at times to have a darker side" are perfectly fine, but spoilers like "Eva becomes a witch in Episode 3" or "Kanon was created by Kinzo" are not necessary on the main page character summaries. What good is Wikipedia as an encyclopedia if people are too afraid to read it for anything involving a story? +20 EXP (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, y'all are missing the point that the spoilers are necessary. Eva becoming a witch seems like a major plot point, one that should be mentioned. Kanon being a creation of Kinzo is also a major plot point that should not be buried. Again, if people don't want spoilers, they shouldn't read pot related sections of articles. That is how it is. If you read other high quality articles you will see they have "spoilers." If you look at film articles, you will find the entire plot - start to finish, not just "hints" at what might happen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, you're just arguing with another sockpuppet of 67.163.193.239 / WhiteKnightLeo... Erigu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If these are more socks, it would be good to do a new report so new ones can be blocked along with the underlying IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I simply don't know how I'm supposed to edit the archived case exactly. I've asked a couple of admins, but... Erigu (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the main SI page and do a create case with 67.163.193.239, it will automatically do the page properly for you :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh! That's both extremely convenient and a bit depressing ("it was actually that simple, really??")... ^_^;

Thank you! Erigu (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if I messed something up. Erigu (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks right to me :) I think that is a new feature with the change to SI...in the old sockpuppet things you had to manually make the archive. Meanwhile...anyone working on this article played the games enough to fill out the plot?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are still not listening. Spoilers are allowed by the Wikipedia guidelines, but no more than necessary should be included. The stuff currently in the article is going overboard. When a series consists of multiple games, spoilers are kept off the main article and placed on character pages/lists or articles for the individual games. You wouldn't expect to go to an article for a movie and find spoilers for the sequel, right? And I've seen many main pages for game and movie series, and they all just contain general info, with links to other, more specific articles. +20 EXP (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice I said good quality articles, not bad ones. Nor is this the same thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? And how is this different? +20 EXP (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see User:WhiteKnightLeo has returned under a different account. Exact same argument, exact same posting style, exact same set of articles. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And he's now been blocked as another sock - discussion can probably be closed enough and can move on to improving the article :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, the newest sock is attempting an NPOV split List of Umineko no Naku Koro ni characters, which I have requested be CSDed as having no consensus at this time, and being created by a banned user. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a horror game?

I was going to tag the article with a wikiproject horror template, but having read through the article I can't see anything (with the exception of Beelzebub eating her own flesh) suggesting that it has strong horror themes. Can an editor who knows this game clarify please? Someoneanother 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's horror. +20 EXP (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Succinct and to the point, thank you. Someoneanother 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will strongly disagree. The game itself shows pretty clearly how it is a detective novel, and that things are most likely done by a human culprit. That is to say, the "supernatural" side is there to add flavor and more challenge for the "anti fantasy" side. I really can't see this as "horror". Higurashi "could" be classified like this, because the fine line between supernatural and human doing was blur or even merged altogether. But in Umineko case, it cannot be considered as horror.Klashikari (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Horror doesn't require the supernatural element (ex The Texas Chain Saw Massacre), though most horror fiction does make use of it. Horror is based on if the work intends to scare, unsettle, or otherwise horrify its audience. So the question is, is that the intent of the game? --Farix (Talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but in the case of the Naku Koro ni series, people often mistake the supernatural element as a "horror" factor and arguement. And the question is simple: no Umineko does not have a structure nor a storytelling prone to horrify/scare its audience. At best, Episode 1 was creepy in some occasions, but as soon as Episode 2 came out, it is rather a battle of fantasy, twisted logic and witty loopholes etc. The franchise challenge its reader to explain everything in a human way, it certainly doesn't have horror inducing elements, but rather similar to a thriller/mystery detective novel, such like And Then There Were None. Klashikari (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't consider things like the vivid description of six corpses with their bellies stuffed full of candy and then slit open a horror-inducing element? -Seventh Holy Scripture (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Graphical? Check. Gore? Check. Scaring? not really. Of course, there is this fine line with "horrifying", but the purpose of this scene was merely to show how gruesome (and probably sadist) the culprit was. And since it is only 1 scene among many, it is not representative (until you really want to count cliché minor scenes, such like Gohda's in episode 3...). Klashikari (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Best answer is...what do reliable sources consider it? Do reviews refer to it as a horror game or a mystery? A quick scan of some seem to indicate mystery with no horror mentions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on discussions here I've removed it from the horror project and the horror game category. It's not an exact science, but if a scene or two is the only connection to horror then there seems little point in it being grouped with the numerous video games which are through-and-through horror. Thanks everyone for taking the time. Someoneanother 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised people are denying this is a horror game. Sure, it's a mystery title as well, but there are definitely horror elements. People are trapped on an island and are getting horrificly murdered one-by-one. It's like a slasher-movie, only the identity of the killer is not obvious, which only adds to the tension. No one knows who to trust. In a typical murder-mystery, one person is usually killed, and some detective tries to solve the crime. Another person might be murdered later on, but a massacre is rare. I am surprised no one else find this scary. It's not obvious as a murder-mystery. Things go normally, then, all of a sudden, six people are dead, with their faces torn off. I think that's pretty scary. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None be classified as horror since it uses the same plot device? --Farix (Talk) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be another sock account. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely is. Erigu (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't read it yet, but I really want to. I can't comment as a result. However, please notice that I said "typical", which means, not every one. There are some exceptions. I do believe that Umineko is scary enough to be considered a horror-mystery. For example, have you ever heard of a game called "5 Days a Stranger"? It is much like Umineko-people start getting murdered in a mansion they are trapped in,-and another character tries to solve why and who. It's a mystery, but it's definitely horror as well. The things that happen in it are pretty scary, don you think? I mean, Eva-Beatrice's antics alone sent chills up my spine! And then that freaky bankuet with Rosa and Beatrice? People getting eaten? Mass-murder by a possibly unseen force? Terrifying! If only there were some place to set up a poll on this issue or something. I'm curious as to what others think. UnitedRhapsody (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like the qualities of a thriller then horror. --Farix (Talk) 12:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

What's the problem with the plot summary? It's far shorter then the one for Higurashi no Naku Koro ni‎. The character listing is getting lengthy, but could easily be moved to its own page. -Seventh Holy Scripture (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the plot info, which includes the characters and any other in-universe info, is far larger than the out-of-universe info, thus the template should stay until the characters are split, or the media info is expanded.--十八 09:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SAN or CHIRU?

The page refers to the answer arcs, WHEN THEY CRY 4 as Umineko no Naku Koro ni San, but I've heard of it being called Umineko no Naku Koro ni CHIRU. Which is correct? Layter (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryukishi07 stated it's read as chiru in his blog (entry 508).--十八 23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Guesthouse or Mansion?

I notice the original photo describes that the real life mansion is the basis for the fictional guesthouse. Shouldn't it be the fictional mansion instead? 60.50.9.44 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the image in the plot section is approximately the actual image of the guesthouse used in the games. The Ushiromiya mansion uses other real life mansions for the exterior and interior.--十八 07:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Music section

I feel like music section is a bit messy. There are information about the opening and some "credit music" but aren't active pain, shirabe, discode or Usan kaori credit music as well. There is no info about the composers except of a small dai reference on development section. Does anyone has good references to change it a bit?. Also, I don't remember having an umineko vocal track called "Born of New Witch", Is it Birth of a new witch? or this song was announced for ep7 or something?. Moichispa (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's done a little haphazardly. The main problem is the number of different artists that worked on the music, which comes to more than 20, Dai having composed the majority of the tracks (a little more than half). I tried to update it with separating the opening and ending themes, and adding in the other ending themes for now.--十八 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Should we make an article talking about the show's reception?-User:Robinsonbecky —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

If you mean create a reception section, then yes, that'd be appropriate. Be sure to use reliable and verifiable third-party sources. See WP:A&M/I for examples.--十八 19:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been searching for websites that give a little information about the reception of the show.I also saw the opinions of the people who watched it in video form.I have heard that some people enjoyed the visual novel, but I'm not so sure.I have heard some peoples' opinions saying it was good, awful, or watchable.So, could someone help me find the visual novel and anime reception?--Austin Robinson 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

Move and rename

Just to let you guys know, I'm moving and renaming the article because the manga has been officially picked up by Yen Press [1].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Some time ago I made a substantial edit fleshing out the plot summary a great deal. This was reverted by @SubZeroSilver: on the grounds of "Please, no overly detailed plot summaries". I have not really had time to debate this before, so please excuse my lateness in bringing this up. I disagree with this action for several reasons:

Firstly, the current plot summary is of a rather poor quality and gives a misleading impression of the truth of the story. It reduces the motive to a grudge against the family and Battler, which is both partially wrong and misleading. In EP5 Virgilia says in red that "Her goal is not to make someone experience fear. And it isn't to have revenge on someone either." In EP7 Clair says that "I am unable to hate Battler-san. ...After all, Battler-san didn't even break his promise [because there wasn't any promise to start with.]". What about the page from Confession of the Golden Witch 3 where Sayo thinks that everyone should just die? We see that that comes after their real motives had already begun the process of the tragedy's creation. The Ushiromiya family's sins are a means of rationalization of their actions, not the driving force behind them. Their actual motives are a complex web surrounding the central idea that they cannot see a happy future for themselves with those they love, which draw a large amount of their reason from Sayo's mutilated body and the blood ties to their romantic interests. It was a suicide first and a murder second, and also has a foundation in Sayo's belief in the afterlife. To ignore this is to misrepresent the motive and do a disservice to readers of the article.

Furthermore, I will make the case that the portions I added are essential to the story's plot summary. The aftermath of the tragedy and how the world and Ange react to it form a critical part of the story and are an important part of the development of the story's themes. Magic is also important to develop as an idea, as not only is it thematically important, but a majority of the story is dedicated to Battler gradually coming to understand this concept in a way different from how a reader of the article who has not read Umineko will. Sayo's background and motive also deserve more to them than a couple of poorly representative lines.

What about spoilers? Well I previously tried to delete the spoiler paragraph due to the nature of Umineko as a mystery that intends for the reader to figure things out themselves, but it was reverted because Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic and thus information should not be removed on those grounds. I'm willing to accept this, but I want a reader who reads this summary without knowledge of the story to actually leave with a somewhat decent understanding of it (as far as realistically possible). This is why I extended the plot summary.

Okay what about the reason that started this: that my plot summary was overly detailed. I disagree with the core argument. Firstly, the summary is not overly long given the length of the story and its immense plot. The Attack on Titan article covers another very plot-heavy story (that is shorter than Umineko) and contains a summary longer than what I wrote, yet is rated GA-class. Secondly, the summary is not overly detailed, as the details added are of major significance to the story. I have already chosen not to go in an arc by arc manner (though I suppose the story arcs section does this) because I think it ends up being too roundabout for a wiki article, but instead have focused on building towards the core of the story with a gradually and logically increasing flow of spoiler content. Large portions of the story (EVA Beatrice, Erika, and EP7's alternate world) are already excluded for the purpose of streamlining the summary to the most relevant information.

My bottom line on the matter is this: I'm willing to trim down my writing a little (and I will do so), but I think that the general structure and content what I wrote is essential to properly represent the story. If we want to cut long-windedness, the Tsubasa arcs would be a better candidate (the section can just be Tsubasa, Hane, and Saku). If anyone has input that they would like to give on this matter please feel free to respond to this. GuppyForce (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly view the version of the Attack on Titan article that was graded for GA status on June 29, 2016, which features a plot summary of only 479 words: [2]

As you can see, the now 1733-word summary has bloated far beyond the "Good Article" criteria for plot summaries. As it stands, it was proposed last year in the article's talk page that the summary was too long, but it wasn't so heavily prioritized enough to make the change, as certain articles are. Although it is true that the plots of some works are difficult to summarize within the recommended maximum range of 700 words, they must still remain as clearly and concisely written as possible, and avoid minute details and analyses of scenes, characters, and events. Any additional story elements could be provided in more detail in other articles such as the character list, provided that it avoids overabundant detail. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for linking the reviewed version of the article. I will work on a version of the plot summary to fit the 700 word maximum. GuppyForce (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good work. This would certainly do. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Umineko no Naku Koro ni Saku: Nekobako to Musou no Koukyoukyoku" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Umineko no Naku Koro ni Saku: Nekobako to Musou no Koukyoukyoku. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Plot

The majority of the plot summary starting from the paragraph beginning with "in the final two games" is either pure conjecture/guesswork (Sayo's gender, which the game never makes clear) or misrepresented as the truth when the game outright says to you that it is simply a possibility (Rudolph and Kirie killing everyone, which Bernkastel says is the truth when first shown but says in the following chapter that she means to say "MAY BE the truth", and is strongly suggested to have been made up by her to mess with Ange). And though it may be obvious enough to anyone paying attention, the game itself also never actually revealed Beatrice's identity outright. The solution to the "mystery" is never fully presented in the game.

Furthermore, all the stuff about Sayo's plan isn't actually the plot of the games at this point, it's only a backdrop to which it takes place, with the stuff involving Battler, Ange and Bernkastel being the main plot, which this supposed plot summary makes no mention of at all.

This is not a plot summary, it is a load of conjecture regarding the mystery that someone is passing off as a plot summary, and should be removed. 2404:2D00:5000:841:2D81:6889:C485:FB68 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If nobody has anything else to contribute I shall remove/rewrite the misinformation in the plot summary myself. 2404:2D00:5000:841:2D81:6889:C485:FB68 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

While your assessment is correct for the original visual novel, this article pertains not only to it, but to the manga adaption, which makes explicit both the solution to the mystery, Yasu's personal history, and Rudolf and Kyrie being the true culprits. While the old summary isn't perfect, it's more accurate then saying that no solution exists. For this reason I have reverted most of the description while also clarifying the variation between the two versions.--Lurinna (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Should I update the categories?

I'm thinking of adding this to Transgender-related video games because of Beatrice and Lion and some other characters IDK Im not all the way through it Alena 33 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)