Talk:Yuri (genre)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dates

So, does anyone else think there's a gap in the article? We talk about Class S briefly, then skip ahead to the 70s, which is when "yurizoku" was coined, and then say "yuri" became used in pornographic doujins. Then we handwave with "the meaning became softer", and skip all the way to 2008. What's currently in the Japanese usage part only seems to cover the recent Japanese usage. What happened in terms of the definition of yuri between 1976 and 2008? I tried to add some information on other Japanese words that were used for lesbian content in manga, but it was removed asking for additional sources, which I'm working on. The "Thematic history" section also lacks information on the 1980s. -Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't think of etymology (which is the study of the history of words: when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time) as an exact science. There's no way to now when and how a word's meaning drifts. No, rather I should say that a word's meaning doesn't drift abruptly, but slowly over the time.

With that in mind let's clarify a few thinks. First, Class S is related the thematic history of yuri, not to its etymology; these two things are completely different, which is the reason for having separate sections for them. Especifically speaking about the latter, the term yuri begins to drift in the 70s with yurizoku, and short after that (we don't know exactly when) the term yuri began to be used in lesbian-themed hentai (porn) doujinshi. Since then the meaning drifted to its current one. How? When? There's no way to know, but this doesn't mean there's a gap; the etymology of a term is just like that.

EDIT: about the lack of information on the 1980s in "Thematic history"... according to all the sources I read nothing noteworthy happened in relation to these themes (content) during the 80s. Even Erica agrees in her blog that after the 70s, it is in the 90s when things began to change. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It just seems that rather abruptly, we're talking about the current Japanese definition of yuri. It seems like we're focussing too much on the now, if you get what I mean? If, in the sources you've read, they say 'nothing much happened thematically during the 80s', why don't we put that in the article? Evidence of absence is better than absence of evidence. ;) -Malkinann (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that there's someone saying "nothing much happened during the 80s", but rather nobody say anything important about the 80s. What are we supposed to write about then?

And about the definition... it's only natural for the article to be focused on the now, because the subject of ther article is yuri as content and a genre depicting love between women, not the word yuri itself. The historical outline (etymology) of the term is only given for context. Maybe moving the article from "Yuri (term)" to something like "Yuri (genre)" would make this more clear? Kazu-kun (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So it's not a case of "people say the 80s was boring for yuri", it's a case of "the 80s was so boring for yuri that people don't even really mention how incredibly boring it was"? Focussing on the now could be construed as recentism in any GAC nomination, which could come under "broadness". I'm also a bit concerned about the {{Failed verification}} templates I've been adding recently... I wonder how much more information may not be in the given source. It might be an idea to add quotes to the non-online references to back things up a bit. Does yuri count as a genre because of Yuri Hime etc? -Malkinann (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "now". Yuri as yuri (that is, with the meaning that is relevant to the article, as established by the first line in the lead) is a phenomenon of the 2000s, and the article deals with it accordingly. It discusses not only the topic itself (that is, actual yuri woks, yuri publications, etc), but also outlines the etymology of the term and the history of same-sex love between women in the relevant media. So I don't really see any recentism or lack of broadness.

About yuri being a genre - In the Cyzo article, Seitaro Nakamura, editor in chief of Comic Yuri Hime, says yuri is a genre. That's good enough for me. Furthermore, there are also other publishers using the terms yuri or Girls Love as a genre category.

About the references - I'll see what I can do. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So if 'yuri' is a phenomenon of the 2000s, then what did they used to call works with lesbian themes? Why then do we have a picture of Shiroi Heya no Futari from 1971 displayed prominently at the top of the article? What would Shiroi have been called, before it was incorporated into "the history of yuri"? -Malkinann (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a term to identify works with lesbian themes at the time. It makes sense though, as those works were few and far between. When yuri reached its current meaning (during the late 90s, I suppose) all the works dealing with love between women fell under this term, even those produced before that point. We have a picture of Shiroi Heya no Futari because it is the first yuri manga, even if it wasn't called that way at the time. You shouldn't forget that, unlike Boys Love, yuri is primarily a fan term, not a publishing category. This means it doesn't matter whether it's shoujo or shounen, or if it was produced before the term yuri even existed; as long as it deals with love between women, it is indeed yuri. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, there may have been many terms, each author making up their own. Perhaps it should be made more clear that yuri has been primarily a fan term until recently. Sabdha Charlton's article talks a bit about that phenomenon, although in terms of the Yuricon ML. Why doesn't it matter if works with lesbian themes are shoujo or shonen? -Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just letting you know, people, that the first thing a wikinazi would do when they see the article is propose it for deletion because of the two "excessive" FU images in the title lists... Just my gut feeling. --Koveras ^☭ 08:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think those two images may cause a problem, maybe we should remove them?--十八 09:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, *I* certainly don't have anything against yuri images but my recent experience with... certain purist elements suggests that using fair-use images for simple embellishment of two lists are gonna raise some eyebrows. The other images are fine, since they relate directly to the text of the section they are in, but those two don't. We don't have to remove the immediately but I'm just warning that one day, we'll have to. PS: Might as well do it now, though. --Koveras ^☭ 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Advocate piece on yuri

I'm not editing any longer, but felt I should let ya'll know that the Advocate did a write up on yuri. It is available here: [1] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues with listed yuri examples

I have some issues with the listed yuri examples. For example, in Miyuki-chan in Wonderland, the yuri is used as comedy and fanservice, and as the paragraph above the list states, those types are in the second list, not the first. Also, the yuri in "Read or Dream" is implied, and, despite being a yuri fan, I was hard pressed to actually find any evidence for it. I think it and ROD the tv should be moved to the second list, as the yuri elements are also unimportant to the overall plot. 71.233.68.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Agreed on ROD the TV. The citations are not sufficient to raise it to a central focus of the series. The first gives no examples and is in a section specifically marked as being more "subtle" examples of yuri. The second only states that the characters seem to act like lesbians. As a personal aside, the main set of relationships are between three girls who express familial love (as sisters). There are some characters you might look at askance, but it's implied at best, and far from a central element. I'll move it tonight. If anyone has any issues, I'm open to discuss it.--71.196.109.196 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese usage

Re: Yuri (term)#Japanese vs. western usage I think this section needs to be reordered to more discretely address japanese and western usage. At first glance it looks like two paragraphs, the first dealing with Japanese and the second dealing with Western as the title states. I find this misleading though, as someone has added in this sentence to the second paragraph (meant for western use) in which to add what I think looks to be a statement that requires fact-checking, regarding Japanese usage. Even if this is actually correct (which I am questioning), I think if it is deemed appropriate for this section that it should belong in the first paragraph, as to keep things describing japanese and western usages separate. The sentence in question:

"In Japan the term shōjo-ai (少女愛, shōjo-ai? lit. girl love) is not used with this meaning,[6] and instead tends to denote pedophilia, with an equivalent meaning to the English term "girllove".[17]"

In particular, I think it would be very valuable to distinguish between the terms yuri and shojo-ai, which it seems to me do have separate meanings here. If we are to use the 'yuri' article to define both words, they at least need different headings to distinguish clearly the western/japanese popular usages of both terms. This would be a total of four separate meanings. It's very hard to pick these out at a glance for readers, and I personally feel very confused reading it. I have brought this up at Talk:Homosexuality_in_Japan#Parenthesis to hopefully gain some better clarification over this. Furthermore, if this japanese use for shojo-ai is indeed correct, why does it not appear mentioned at all in the lolicon article? This the type of term used in Japan for matters like this and frequently holds a distinctive meaning different from pedophilia. So I am tagging this for -fact-, someone please source this properly. The 17 linked to as a source is "Miyajima, Kagami (April 4, 2005). Shōjo-ai, Sakuhinsha. ISBN 4861820316". This is not a source I am able to figure out how to fact-check here. Could someone please find a link to this source so that we can actually verify the accuracy of the information used in this statement? The 6 is a valid link which I'll read through now, however the author, Erica Friedman, has listed sources in her essay that I think we should verify a bit further before we consider this personal essay a valid reference. It refers to magazines and things I'm not able to procure. If possible, rather than solely refer to this essay, if we can find methods of accessing the sources for the listed reference essay and link directly to them, I think that would be much more valuable, as a japanese magazine itself seems like a much better first-hand source. I'll see what I can do about contacting her about properly sourcing the etymology of shojo-ai and yuri here.

In particular, the statement I quoted contains a link to wiktionary for a term that I know is quite controversial here and which I believe has been banned. It is not a word I've seen in traditional use in dictionaries so I'm unsure if it is properly sourced for wiktionary (it isn't urban dictionary after all). Linking to this seems to be a form of advertisement for this slang term, and it seems inappropriate to do that after sneaking the word in. In particular, I really have no clue who decided to go and define such an odd-looking compound word, so I'll report it if I can figure out how to do that on wiktionary. Tyciol (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is not meant to define both words, yuri and shoujo-ai, as only the former term properly defines the relevant subject: love between female characters in manga, anime, and related Japanese media. The latter term (shoujo-ai) has little relevance in this context (and even less in Japan, as it's not used with the relevant meaning there). The bit about shoujo-ai's usage in Japan in the second paragraph, is there just as a clarification, basically explaining that the Japanese use of this term has nothing to do this the relevant subject (as opposed to the Western use). It's exactly because of this that it would make no sense addressing this in the first paragraph.

About shoujo-ai... well, in Miyajima's book the term is used as a sort of synonym to the lolicon phenomenon (note the book also discusses pedophilia itself under this concept), so maybe we should fix that. Although I would like to avoid giving to much detail about it, taking into account this line is meant to be just a side note in the fist place.

About Erica Friedman... She's considered an expert on the subject (Erica Friedman's Guide to Yuri (AfterEllen.com)). Furthermore, she has also guest lectured at the University of Illinois and talked at MIT, and is the president of ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga. So the source is reliable, and also accurate. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a second glance, my lack of knowledge of her credentials is irrelevant, because she says nothing about shojo-ai meaning anything besides yuri in her essay. So this statement is not from her essay as far as I can tell, leaving it completely unsourced. Here is how she addresses it in her essay:

"Shoujoai (Girls' Love) is a pretty new term, for all that it's a pretty old concept. The term shoujoai was created as an analog for shounenai (Boys' Love)...by an American fan. It isn't really used in Japan - although they know what we mean when we use it. Shoujoai is often used to refer to romantic love between girls - sometimes with sex, sometimes not. The emphasis tends to be on the romantic over the sexual, but this is a convention that was made up by Americans and has no meaning at all in Japan.

As you can see, she actually says it means nothing else in Japan, as far as I can tell, the references only point to it being a term used to distinguish a form of yuri. If there is an alternate loli-related usage that's fine but it needs to be sourced before it gets added, as to keep this article as neutral as possible. The current source listed (17) is "Miyajima, Kagami (April 4, 2005). Shōjo-ai, Sakuhinsha. ISBN 4861820316" but how do we check this? Tyciol (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Friedman is talking about this term only in the context of yuri (love between female characters), and nothing else, so it makes sense for her to say the term shoujo-ai has no meaning there. Also the statement you're talking about is the one sourced with Miyajima's book, isn't it? So it's not true that it's unsourced.

And talking about Miyajama's book. If you want to check it, you can get a copy on amazon.jp (here). BTW, don't forget that per guidelines, printed sources are preferred over online sources. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From Yuri (term) to Yuri (genre)

Well, I'm moving the article. The only reason to name it "Yuri (term)" was that at the time there were no enough sources stating this topic as a genre. This is no longer a concern so I'll proceed to rename it "Yuri (genre)", which is the most accurate name for the subject the article deals with. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do it, then. --Koveras ^☭ 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Kazu-kun (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Erika Friedman RS Redux

Hi,

Members of the WP:Anime project want to discuss on whatever Erika Friedman and her blog are reliable sources.
The issue of Erika's Friedman as RS raised again during GirlFriends Afd.
Are Erika's Friedman manga & anime reviews RS ?
--KrebMarkt 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm no specialist but I consider her blog a reliable source for all things related to yuri because her expertize in the field has been cross-referenced by third parties and she is a published author on the topic. --Koveras ^☭ 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copying from another editor's comments above, to give us a starter: She's considered an expert on the subject (Erica Friedman's Guide to Yuri (AfterEllen.com)). Furthermore, she has also guest lectured at the University of Illinois and talked at MIT, and is the president of ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga. Is this enough to establish she's an expert in the field? And are there any other credentials to support it? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

@Quasirandom That the 3 refs about Erika Friedman.

By reading the archive, i found that the last discussion around Erika Friedman ended by no consensus does anyone has new argument to offer since that last discussion ?

My personal opinion is Erika Friedman became a de-facto reference by filling a niche that needed to be filled. She was bold enough to write essays and reviews about yuri thinking that it would matter to a some publics and it worked more and less. Does it makes her reviews reliable is another story altogether and my opinion is mitigated but i may admit she acquired her expertise in yuri field on the fly.

For how long was she writing about yuri ? --KrebMarkt 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached, but don't forget that whether she's an expert or not is not for us, editors, to decide. If she meets the requirements (being stated as an expert and having been published by a reliable third-party publication) then her blog can be used as reference. And yes, in the field of yuri she certainly meets the requirements.

About your question... she's been writing about it since 2002. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone brought objection in WP:Anime that it isn't the appropriate place for discussing this matter, i guess we had to bring it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Still having confirmation or not from there will save us future debate. For those interested it here--KrebMarkt 12:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

First company

ALC Publishing is listed as being the first company to bring yuri manga to North America in 2003. However Central Park Media published Chirality in 1997 so aren't they the first company to bring yuri over? 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ALC Publishing is the first yuri-only publisher, I think that's what it is supposed to mean. --Koveras ^☭ 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, well maybe the sentence should be tweaked a little to better reflect that. Radiotsixty (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resource parking

Nagaike, Kazumi The Sexual and Textual Politics of Japanese Lesbian Comics: Reading Romantic and Erotic Yuri Narratives electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies, September 30 2010 - JRBrown (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-anime examples

Should/can we list non-anime (i.e. video games) that contain yuri in them, or is the list only for anime/manga example? I have some sourced examples, but I have not added them because I am not sure whether they should be there or not. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 15:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why other media should be excluded. 78.53.199.202 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Aren't the lists kinda against wikipedia policy?

Now I don't mind the list on the page, marked Yuri as a central element and Yuri as an additional element and I have made some edits of them myself, but...
I feel that they are rather out of place, in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory after all, and I rather feel that those lists fall under that policy. They're nice and all, but they don't belong there. They belong on a manga/yuri database.

As it is, the Yuri series section very briefly describes what kind of series there are in the two lists, followed by the lists. I think it would be better if it explained, a bit more extensively, the different kinds of series there are with yuri in them, mentioning a few examples of each kind. This has, more or less, already been done in the Thematic history section (which is the proper place for it anyway), so I would suggest simply removing the section altogether.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists of Wikipedia articles are very much allowed, that's not what WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about. They are navigational aids for organizing articles within Wikipedia, they fall under WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Maybe it would be clearer if the lists were split to a separate page, but imo they fill a distinct navigational function and should not just be deleted outright. Siawase (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's more of a non-wikipedia-esque directory rather than a valid navigational aid. At least in its current form. If it's in a separate page, that would be a bit more wikipedia-ish, admittedly.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens, don't split it out. It'd be more useful with just using the category if you were going to remove the list from this page.--十八 09:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A "non-wikipedia-esque directory" would be if we listed say, every convention that had shown each anime, or contact information for every creator. A well sourced list of notable anime/manga (notable because they all have a wikipedia articles) is not a "non-wikipedia-esque directory". There's ample lists of LGBT media already on Wikipedia that have strong consensus for their existence, ie for example List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films, List of LGBT characters in video games, List of books portraying sexual relations between women and everything in Category:Lists of LGBT fictional characters and Category:Lists of LGBT-related television programs. I don't see how a list of yuri is different. Yuri is well defined, plenty of good quality sourcing is available and the yuri lists are already well sourced.

And re: the existence of the category, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates makes very clear that to have both categories and lists that cover roughly the same area is perfectly fine.

To be clear, I don't see a need to split out the lists in this article. The article is relatively short, as are the lists. But I'd rather see them split than deleted outright, if it comes down to that. Siawase (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced that it isn't a "non-wikipedia-esque directory", but... As there are rather good arguments for it, and I was never really bothered by it anyway:

Yeah sure, that sounds good enough to me.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hentai images and text

All the images we have seem to be examples of manga. I think we should get an image of actual hentai, just to illustrate. It doesn't have to be overly explicit, but it should be somewhat sexualized/erotic. I mean, there are entire communities of hentai lovers, so I don't think it's appropriate to just limit coverage to yuri manga. I'll try to find some freely licensed yuri. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 02:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your complaint. I don't see how the article has, in any way, avoided to mention the pornographic/erotic examples of Yuri, or how there is Yuri of pornographic/erotic nature. In fact, it doesn't seem to draw a line between non-pornographic Yuri and pornographic Yuri.

As to your request for actual pornographic or erotic pictures... Well, while Wikipedia is not censored, that does not mean that you have to include pornographic/offensive material. I do not see how adding actual pictures of pornographic Yuri, would add anything to the article. It would be extraneous and unnecessary, IMO.

That aside, I would like to also correct you on one point, though it is not relevant to your complaint or your request: hentai is manga. by definition.

Hentai is pornographic/erotic manga or anime (note: anime is, technically, a form of manga). This is, however, only true of how the word is, quite inaccurately, used in the "western" world. In Japan, hentai means perverted/twisted porn and they would never refer to normal pornographic/erotic material as hentai (unless they are a person that considers all pornography to be perverted and disgusting, of course). Also in Japan, hentai is not limited to manga or anime, but also include e.g. live action and literature (this is also true of the word Yuri, BTW). It refers to perverted porn, regardless of medium. Please check the article for hentai for more information.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by manga is a Japanese comic book. And I didn't state that the article has avoided to mention pornographic yuri; I merely think it lends undue weight, both in the text and images, to literature and comics, rather than pornography. And I am aware of the true meaning of hentai; however many editors less experienced with the subject would likely be confused if I used the term ecchi. Anyways, I think this pedantry is has nothing to do with the matter at hand.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The article focuses more on manga because there's more yuri in manga than in any other media. As far as I know there are only a few yuri hentai anime: the "Sono Hanabira" OVA, "Shōjo Sect" OVA, and "Kuttsukiboshi". I think that's all. Still the article probably does need a section dealing with "Yuri anime" (hentai and normal) . If you're willing to wait a few days, I'll try to write something and see how it goes.Kazu-kun (talk)

I am aware that the proper meaning of hentai isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I preceded it by explicitly saying "though it is not relevant to your complaint or your request". Thus I do not understand your complaint. I simply wanted to correct the significant inaccuracy, in saying that hentai isn't manga. Lesbian porn/smut/erotica in (japanese) comic form, is manga. ...and while I was on the subject, I thought I'd just make things a bit more clear about what hentai really means, in case it was unclear (which, given that I could see that you clearly didn't see hentai (in the western sense) manga and manga, as both being manga, I considered to be rather likely). I still wish to complain about your usage of words. You said "/.../to literature and comics, rather than pornography". That indicates that the pornography a separate thing to literature and comics which, as I have explained, is completely wrong.

That tangent aside, I see that my response to the main issue hasn't been questioned ...nor, indeed, has the main issue been discussed further at all, in any way. I find it a bit weird that the discussion has gone to tangents, while completely ignoring the original subject.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. By the way, I love your username! :)

Anime? I can't see how or where, anime was ever mentioned in this discussion, other than my mention that anime is a form of manga. ...and of the examples you mentioned, one is originally a manga, and the other a game on which there has not only been made an anime, but also a light novel series. Thus both qualify as manga and literature, making their mention as yuri anime, rather than examples of yuri in any other medium, as a bit problematic, IMO.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Futari wa Pretty Cure

I removed Futari wa Pretty Cure from "Yuri as an additional element" section. Probably someone misunderstood AnimeNation article, as Shōjo Fujimura (or rather Shogo Fujimura, vide Futari_wa_Pretty_Cure#Other_characters) is a male character, and there are no lesbian/yuri elements with him in Futari wa Pretty Cure whatsoever. --Teukros (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no real need to mention such a thing in the talk page (this would be a much longer page, had it been). You covered that quite well in the edit summary, and that was all that was needed. I would note, however, that your reasons are a bit flawed.

First of all, though a bit less importantly, I would like to point out that Fujimura's gender is never mentioned. Most Japanese names are unisex and while I'm sure it would be awkward, as a guy, to have a name that is a a homophone with the word for "girl", I wouldn't be too surprised.

More importantly, it also says (after mentioning Fujimura Shogo, that is) "and frequently hinted at a developing lesbian affection between the two female stars" (emphasis mine).

Not that I'm saying that it needs to be re-added, necessarily, but your reason for removing it are clearly flawed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Difference Between Yuri and Shōjo-ai – IS Important!

It is essential to distinguish yuri from shōjo-ai, since the terms aren't synonymous and in fact denote vastly different things. For those who forgot, in a nutshell: shōjo-ai deals with very close relationship between girls that is a little bit more than just friendship, and is itself contained in those little, superficial implications that raise relationships above mere friendship; shōjo-ai is basically a genre of romantic implications. On the other hand, yuri is explicit lesbian romance in any form; that is, yuri is everything that leaves no possible doubts about the romantic nature of girls' relationships. I think this distinction between yuri and shōjo-ai should be made visible and accounted for in the article. A lot of titles in the anime/manga lists contain shōjo-ai at best, but not yuri, and we ought to inform the reader somehow. Perhaps there should be different articles and lists on yuri and shōjo-ai lest any confusion ensues. 176.195.34.120 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

See the Shōnen-ai section of the Yaoi article; what is stated there about differentiating between shōnen-ai and yaoi is similar to differentiating between shōjo-ai and yuri. Like yaoi is commonly used to mean any romantic and/or sexual relationship between male characters, yuri is commonly used to mean any romantic and/or sexual relationship between female characters, though some fans (especially western fans) differentiate between the two. The Japanese vs. western usage section of this Yuri article addresses the shōnen-ai and yuri distinction. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles, unless necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of shoujo ai and yuri, are ones I have not heard before, and seem to go against anything and everything I know of the genres, as well as any definitions offered by reliable sources (and everything on wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources). Shoujo ai isn't just works that have female friendships, with hints of it being more than friendship. Shoujo ai is a term that, in "the West" (in Japan, it means works with men who are into very young, generally under-age, girls), means works that depicts romance (but not sex) between female characters. Naturally a work that hints, could fall under this, but so does any work that has people who are very clearly and explicitly shown to be in a romantic relationships, as long as it doesn't show any sexual/pornographic content (the characters may even have sex, but as long as it isn't shown, it still qualifies as shoujo ai). Yuri is works that depicts any romantic and/or sexual relationships, with or without sexual/pornographic scenes (which means is includes shoujo ai).

There is no sensible reason to have a separate article on shoujo ai, as any shoujo ai, is also yuri. Besides, there is no need for a page on sexual lesbian works, and one for non-sexual lesbian works. It may be sensible for, say, a database, store or on-line provider of manga and/or anime (or, indeed, any other media), to have somewhat separate categories for works, but it makes no sense in the context of an encyclopaedia. When talking of yuri, it makes no real sense, to make a separation between the two, as they are far too intertwined.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not my definition. As you can see from the article, in the aforementioned section and with a WP:Reliable sources, it states (among other things validating this usage): "As of 2009, the term yuri is used in Japan to mean the depiction of attraction between women (whether sexual or romantic; explicit or implied) in manga, anime, and related entertainment media, as well as the genre of stories primarily dealing with this content." and "Following the pattern of shōnen-ai, a term already in use in North America to describe content involving non-sexual relationships between men, western fans coined the term shōjo-ai to describe yuri without explicit sex. In Japan the term shōjo-ai (少女愛, lit. girl love) is not used with this meaning, and instead tends to denote pedophilia (actual or perceived), with a similar meaning to the term lolicon (Lolita complex)."

So what you are going by is western usage, a usage some western fans don't even go by. Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, what the sources state, not personal opinion (unless that personal opinion is restricted to things such as formatting the article's structure). I have nothing more to state to you on this, and will alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga to this discussion. Maybe editors there will be willing to continue this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The definition I stated, is exactly that which you quote from the "Japanese vs. western usage"-section ...which, as you say, is verified by reliable sources. I have said nothing, that contradicts what you have said. As to your defence of the definition you stated... it was never questioned. My reply was not aimed at you, as should have been clear, from the level of indentation I used (which you wrongly "corrected").--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I should have read all of your initial comment in this section (instead of the first sentence and skimming the rest), ZarlanTheGreen, before replying to you and going to the aforementioned WikiProject about this. Because I didn't, considering that I was mostly sleepy at the time, and because your username is currently a red link (usually an indicator that the person is a new and/or inexperienced Wikipedia editor) and you showed up at a talk page that is not very active, I thought that you were IP 176.195.34.120. I have often seen people comment as an IP first and then comment as a registered editor soon afterward (either because they registered soon afterward or because they decided to sign in). I would have initially checked on your contributions to see how experienced a Wikipedia editor you are and how old your account is, but, again, I thought that you were the above IP. That's why I "corrected" your indentation. Because of all of that, the level of indentation was not clear to me; that instance also was not clear to me because it is often that editors here do not follow the indentation guide (especially new editors), and those who usually do follow it do not follow all of it. Here is a recent example, and all because I started the indentation the way that I did. That type of indentation is actually more common on Wikipedia, no matter who the comment is meant for, because it is easier to see who commented (instead of the comments looking like one big block of text that a single editor made, making it easy to overlook one or more editors) and is usually clear who the comment is meant for. I apologize for my mistakes with regard to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, I understand the concern about people not always using indentations correctly. I could understand it, if it was just that, but given the content of my comment... Still, we all make mistakes, at times (especially when sleepy). Apology accepted, naturally.

As to your suspicion that I was the IP, I hadn't thought of that possibility, though I've seen it myself. Heck, I've been the IP that posts with a newly made account (though mentioned it straight away). Also, I can understand that the lack of a user page makes it look like I might be new. Maybe I should get one. It kinda feel like I should have one ...but why? What'd I put there? Well, I'll take a look at the wikipedia guidelines on the issue to get an idea of what should go there, and maybe get around to it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should also point out that the indentation guide is not an official Wikipedia guideline; therefore, I changed my use of "guideline" to "guide" above. And, yes, you are obviously under no obligation to create a user page; it's just that, and I know this from several years of experience on this site, editors without one (unless well-known) are usually considered new and/or inexperienced and often less trust-worthy because of that. In fact, I was pretty much told the same thing when I was a new Wikipedia editor with a red link account; I was advised to create a user page for those aforementioned reasons. Also see this matter where it's clear that an editor who was recently made into an administrator was not considered as trust-worthy because of his lack of a user page. But, anyway, thanks for helping out with the above IP. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the guideline concerning user pages ...which states that it's a page you can use to write a bit about yourself, if you want. It also suggested that, if you don't see a need of having one, you could make it a redirect to the talk page ...which I did. It feels a lot better, having gotten rid of that red link. It's good that I finally got around to dealing with that issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, redirecting to the user talk page, creating the page with a dot or creating the page and blanking it are common methods to get rid of the user page red link. And any of those methods help for the reasons already named. WP:Sockpuppets are often caught partly based on those methods because the vast majority of new Wikipedia editors have no idea the importance a blue-linked user page; so when a new editor shows up and does any of those alternative methods without having been advised to do so, it is usually a strong indicator that the editor isn't new. Nice to see you blue-linked now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken issue with the coverage and definition of Yuri for much of the disparity between usages. Now strictly speaking, Yuri for 30 years involved sexual relationships, typically explicit and pornographic doujinshi and commercial publications. The word was "taken" back in America by the founder of the YuriCon, Erica Friedman. This has in turn returned to Japan and expanded it somewhat, but the fact that Yuri itself is still iconic as explicit lesbian romances is clear in Japan. In America, Yuri is used more as "lesbian themes" and does not require depictions or even references to sexual relationships; the same applies to Yaoi. This alteration and broadening of the term is a cross-cultural exchange and in terms of faithfulness to the original and historic usage of the definition, shoujo-ai is an English (American rooted according to Friedman) creation and not a Japanese word. The origin stems from a translation of Girl's Love. So the term is watered down and altered, resulting in different definition. I agree that something should be done, but the mess is compounded by the English publishers and marketing of the lesbian genre as "yuri" even when there is not even a kiss in the entire series. A reader more familiar with Japan will look at this article and scoff because it is inaccurate by the Japanese viewpoint. Two views, one major and of lasting historical meaning and the other of local and recent meaning, but both in conflict with basic definitions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Chris... The problem with what you are saying, is that it's no more than your personal opinion. You have no reliable source to back it up. Thus your claims have not place on wikipedia. I have explained this to you before. (I have yet to fix these claims of yours, in hentai, but that's only because I haven't gotten around to it)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to discussing the content and not the editor; your comment assumes I am inserting my opinion. I disagree with the vague assessment because I consider Friedman to be a RS about the term and her involvement in its evolution. My sources come from Friedman's website, blog and discussions and are present both here and on her site. It is most surely not mere opinion; so please AGF. I have yet to see your version and it would be rash to deny a possibly better view that I have not yet seen. And dispute in the wording and content will have to wait. I'm taking a break from A&M, sticking with the GANs and staying in mediation. If you can fix Yuri, be my guest. And before you re-iterate the "its your own opinion", please read some of the essays at Yuricon.[2] Of interest is the editor of Carmilla, a yuri magazine, which really underscores my previous argument.[3] I cannot post up some of my research materials, but to put it up summarily with this line "The study of yuri is in need of academic research and study, no detailed history of the origin and development has yet been published." And I think we can agree to disagree that this assessment is accurate. In closing, a problem exists, I can't fix it. Anyone who wants to tackle it, go for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Please stick to discussing the content and not the editor" That's exactly what I was doing.

"My sources come from Friedman's website, blog and discussions and are present both here and on her site." I have already pointed out to you, that the section on this article, is inline with Friedman. Your opinions, however, are not.

As I've said before: What sources do you have, to back what you are saying? The current definition in this article is verified. Your claims aren't. If you want the statements on wikipedia to reflect your opinion: Verify them!

If you can't, I'll have to ask you to accept the fact, that those claims cannot be made on any wikipedia article. It doesn't matter how true you may consider them to be. It doesn't even matter how true they actually are. If you can't verify it, it has no place on wikipedia. ...and no, those Friedman essays don't verify what you are claiming. You are the only one, who thinks they do.

"I'm taking a break from A&M, sticking with the GANs and staying in mediation." A&M? GANs? Please try writing in understandable English. Speaking of which: When you say RS, I can assume, from the context, that you mean reliable source (and as I've said before, I never questioned that), but what the heck is AGF? Assume good faith, perhaps? Don't use abbreviations, unless you know that the people reading, will know what is meant by the abbreviations.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you read yuri manga? I mean, have you ever read an issue of Yurihime magazine, or Tsubomi? To be honest, I think you might be misunderstanding those essays you linked to, probably because you don't really know much about this genre and how is marketed both in Japan and the US. If you ever read a yuri mangazine like Yurihime, you'd see that the variety of stories is pretty broad, from totally chaste stories that don't even include a kiss to stories with sexual content, and everything is called yuri. Also, you're linking an article about Carmilla, a lesbian magazine published in the 90's. They published lesbian manga, not yuri, though you may find that sort of material in currently published yuri manga magazines too (today, everything is called yuri, sexual or not). Kazu-kun (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"They published lesbian manga, not yuri" How is yuri, not lesbian manga? And what is lesbian manga, if not yuri?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope your not implying I'm a lesbian... but the issue is the circa 2000s use here. Many of my early sources refer to explicit doujinshi; yes the word expanded to mean lesbian stories in whole, but it doesn't change its origin and usage. Thompson's thesis backs this up, noting that the term really wasn't really applied until the 1990s. Also the term was retroactively applied to explicit works as part of the hentai boom of the era. These have been traced back from the very first Lolita Anime and its push to male viewers which spawned various subseries and became attached to explicit works until around 2005, by some accounts fourteen or more years depending on usage and attribution. Now, even the Anime Encyclopedia defines Yuri as "Yuri is lesbian erotica, deriving from yurizoku or "Lily Tribe," a term coined for lesbians by the editor of Bamzoku (Rose Tribe), a magazine for gay men." Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but contemporary sources including some of the most cited and acclaimed works clearly point to yuri as lesbian erotica. Time and time again this is backed up; while I note the word has certainly evolved in usage and meaning, please understand that it was not always this way and picking on an old timer doesn't make my comments any less true. After all, I'm want this to be appropriately covered for historical context. I am taking a break from A&M so I'm not going to edit it; too much drama potential. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article already says that the term "yuri" was associated mostly to sexually explicit material in the 90's and early 2000's. Now it's not like that anymore (since 2004, when Yuri Shimai began circulation, "yuri" is used for any sort of f/f material in Japan, sexually explicit or not), and this change is also explained in the article. So I'm not sure what you think needs to be changed. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, can you respond to the posts in an ordered fashion...you wedged it in front of another editor and it is confusing to me. I did not notice it until I checked the diff. I have provided numerous references, so please cover that rather than asking for sources again. Common abbreviations are understood by most editors, but that's okay, I didn't know you didn't know these. A&M is Anime and Manga (the Wikiproject) and GAN is Good Article Nominations. RS is indeed a "reliable source"; these are all common abbreviations that are prefixed with "WP:" to find the relevant pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"ZarlanTheGreen, can you respond to the posts in an ordered fashion" That's what I am doing. Could you quit using bullet points? It's weird, and certainly not inline with any convention on how contribute to talk pages. Please look at Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Your method of how you place your posts, is bizarre, and I cannot understand it.

As to sources... You seem to have missed the part where I said that none of the sources you cite, actually say what you claim that they say. That you are the only one who believes that they do.

"Common abbreviations are understood by most editors" No. Besides, A&M isn't really know by anyone who isn't involved in said Wikiproject (why would they?), and new editors are pretty much guaranteed not to understand a word of it (and remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sure, using cryptic jargon isn't hostile, as such, but it does alienate and is not understandable). I haven't really seen any other editor making such heavy use of abbreviations. Besides you are supposed to Wikipedia:Avoid cryptic language.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of particular definitions, the article itself states it clear that yuri and shōjo-ai are not the same thing, thereby the difference between them should be accounted for in the lists of anime/manga. For instance, Maria-sama ga Miteru is shōjo-ai while Shōjo Sect is yuri, and the difference is overwhelming. 176.195.83.172 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but some of my sources also disagree with that. The basic definition of shoujo-ai is Girl Love and the usage is broad and traced to English fandom as its origin and not Japanese origin. Wikipedia is going to have to make an editorial decision to advance one of the conflicting definitions by your suggestion... that could be contentious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, the article makes clear that shōjo-ai and yuri are only not the same thing to some people, especially to western fans. This was stated to you (when you were the other IP) above in this section. I don't know what else to relay to you on this matter that hasn't already been stated. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that one posting as 176.195.83.172, is the same as the one who posted as 176.195.34.120. That is not a bad guess, but it's still a guess. An assumption. You cannot know if they are the same person, so it is wrong to respond with the assumption that they are.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, it is the same IP range. It is illogical to me to respond to a person as though that person is a different person when it is clear that he or she is the same person. When the IPs are on the same IP range, participating in the same discussion, making the same argument, it is common practice on Wikipedia to respond to those IPs as though they are the same person. It is also WP:Common sense (though there is no rule that I know of that advises me not to refer to these IPs as the same person). After all, many people have a dynamic IP address. Perhaps you think that the same IP range/same discussion factors are coincidences, that there is a minor possibility that those are coincidences, or that there is a chance that the IPs are related in real-life? I grant that there is a minor chance of those being possibilities, but I was exercising common practice and common sense. However, because that bothers you in this case, I won't refer to these IPs as the same person in this discussion until or unless one of the IPs confirms that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to assume that they are the same person ...and as we are not supposed to make false accusations (not that you made any accusations, really), and that whether or not the IPs are the same person is wholly irrelevant to any points made, I consider it common sense (that term can mean just about anything, you know ...and it's often quite unreliable) not to make any assumptions.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Telling the IP that the matter at hand has already been explained to him or her is not wholly irrelevant; I brought up their being the same person because I was noting that their arguments have already been addressed. I and others sometimes do that, just like it has been done with regard to others in this discussion -- people noting that the other's arguments have already been addressed. Furthermore, it helps keep matters clear -- that there are not suddenly multiple new people operating IPs in a discussion simply because that person's IP address keeps changing. I reiterate that it is the same IP range, which is clear by looking at the IPs. Acknowledgement that the IP range is the same person takes away from confusion with regard to the dynamic IP matter. But, again, since you seem to believe that there is doubt that they are the same person (doubt that I, by contrast, do not have), I will from this point on refrain from referring "to these IPs as the same person in this discussion until or unless one of the IPs confirms that matter." And I generally don't consider common sense unreliable, but the common sense aspect is another matter that we clearly disagree on. Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, this is a tangent, so it's getting a little out of hand here. This talk page should be about the Yuri article. We could continue in either of our user talk pages, but as it's not really that important... I'll just clarify one thing: My belief about the IPs being the same person is this: I don't know, and I don't care.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@176.195.83.172. The article states the different between "yuri" and "shoujo ai", but that doesn't' apply to Japan, since they use the term "yuri" for everything. The term "shoujo ai" only applied to the Western fandom, and even here almost no one uses it anymore now. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This article explains that the term "yuri", in both Japanese and "Western" use, refers to works that contain any romantic and/or sexual lesbian relationships. Thus any work that is "shoujo ai", is also "yuri". "Shoujo ai" is a sub-set of "yuri". Both Maria-sama ga Miteru and Shōjo Sect are "yuri", but only the former is "shoujo ai".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri. The fact that the term "shoujo ai" has its origins in the English fandom and not Japan is already explained in the article. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a big misunderstanding going on here. Japan doesn't use "Shoujo ai" for many publications, "Girl's love" is used, and that is "ガールズラブ". I know this and that's why I stated it in my post, I am not disputing it and I was well aware of it being in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Yuri" is a Japanese term, and the Japanese have different cultural ideas for what constitute the boundaries of girl/girl relationships. What we, in the West, take this term to mean is more representative of how we think of affection and relationships between girls and where those boundaries are for us. Question to ponder: we know what titles we consider "yuri" here in the West, but do the Japanese also consider those titles to be "yuri"? Considering the cross-cultural nature of this term, it would be most thorough to include a Japanese definition of it as well as a Western one -- a list of titles which adhere to each, with a highlighting of the differences would be extremely useful. Here in the West, the term "yuri" seems to be both quantitative and qualitative in nature -- that is, in certain cases, a title is considered "yuri" because of how much time in a title is dedicated to one or more girl/girl relationships, whereas in other cases, a title is considered "yuri" because of how much depth is present in the girl/girl relationship(s) depicted. The non-Japanese term "shoujo-ai," appears as a less-intense version of the term "yuri" in the West, where the girl/girl relationships are either less serious or take up less overall time during a series. In all of these cases, what constitutes a girl/girl relationship, a deep relationship, a less-deep relationship, etc., is dependent upon the person viewing the media, and thus, is very subjective. This subjectivity has an interesting parallel to our confusion over signals in real life. After all, if we knew for sure what each word, touch, or sexual encounter meant, in terms of depth and relationship, would we really have so much confusion over it, so many columns and magazines dedicated to it, so many books written on it, or so much palpable anxiety over it? These ambiguities are very organic in origin, despite being depicted in anime, and they reflect a deep individuality in how we view the world -- which makes sense to find in such an intimate category as romance. Unfortunately, this means that everyone will approach things differently. While we may be able to go so far as to find a group of titles we can agree are "yuri" or "shoujo-ai," that doesn't even mean we're seeing the same nuances in those titles. As such, I think the best way to approach a definition on this is not to fight its inherently subjective nature. In that case, "yuri" could be what the observer feels constitutes a deep, meaningful bond or a large amount of focus on girl/girl relationships throughout a title, whereas "shoujo-ai" could be their own lesser version of that. This would allow the terms to apply to potentially anyone, with little contradiction, and the sources I've found -- in regards to "yuri" being the stronger of the terms -- is true across every site I've come across. J.D. 98.15.130.58 (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the meaning of "shoujo-ai" is very different from "yuri". As probably described before, Yuri is also called "girls love" in Japan, but it's a English word which was coined in Japan. The English word "girllove"(the translation of shoujo-ai) doesn't represent the girl/girl relationship, but a love for girls(in Japan, it is called Lolicon(ロリコン).For short the word "girls love"（Japanese English）means Yuri(Lesbian in fiction) and "girllove"(probably genuine English word) means Lolicon. I think The article should be written in the ways that can disntinguish the difference. That was my opinion in Eastern viewpoint.--Psjk2106 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Manga vs. manhwa with regard to yaoi and yuri

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Manga vs. manhwa with regard to yaoi and yuri. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Yuri (genre). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yuricon.org/essays/whatisyuri.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.akibaangels.com/doujin.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.activeanime.com/pn/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3135
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandeis.edu/wgs/pdfs/Spring%202006%20Syllabi%20and%20Booklists/Syllabus.%20ANTH%20166b.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tokyopop.com/product/1157/ConfidentialConfessions/4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yuricon.org/list/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yuricon.org/list/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animejump.com/index.php?module=prodreviews&func=showcontent&id=659
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asian-stuff.com/anime/review_85.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905235728/http://okazu.yuricon.com/2004/03/03/yuri-mangayuri-anime-sukeban-deka/ to http://okazu.yuricon.com/2004/03/03/yuri-mangayuri-anime-sukeban-deka/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Western works as yuri

Can western works be classified as yuri? And if so, in what cases? Oornery (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yuri as a secondary element

Goodnight. I understand that Okazu is authoritative enough in this theme, but is this list are not excessive? If the presence of characters with an unambiguous attraction to other girls in the work (as in Kobayashi-san), still can be called a yuri element , then I doubt that fanservis with homoerotic overtones or pseudo-Class S's humor can be called a yuri element only because it is based on lesbian tones. So, as half of the works in it depict the relationship between girls or clearly platonic and does not speak about their romantic nature, or uses it as a fan-service, we need to determine what we mean by the term - it's the image of lesbian relations or everything that we can describe as "aah, it was so gay". If the second, the list is potentially endless and you can add to it 70% anime with a large girl cast, thanks to the fan service and a peculiar interpretation of the relationship between the girls in Japan. Not to mention the fact that this list is twice as large as the list of official yuri works. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the confusing text about the "fandom", now the question of defining the term does not sound so sharp. Although the list itself is still too large. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the list in its current state is kind of a mess. Glancing at some of the Erica Friedman sources, many of them are just general news updates, where she offhandedly mentions, "I haven't seen it myself, but one my readers tells me that "blank" is a yuri anime." That kind of post probably shouldn't be viewed as a reliable indication of yuri content, so if you want to be WP:BOLD and start pruning the list, examining all the sources and removing ones like that would be a good place to start. CurlyWi (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, then "we" need to define the boundaries of what is called the "element of yuri", so that there are no misunderstandings or disputes. Personally, I would vote for the presence of canonical lesbian characters like Togo from Yuuki Yuuna wa Yuusha de Aru or heavy homoerotic subtext like in Shuumatsu no Izetta or Hibike! Euphonium, where despite the absence of canonical romantic relations, the authors intentionally create a specific yuri subtext. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solaire the knight (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The list needs to be based on what reliable sources say, not what individuals editors personally believe should or shouldn't count as yuri, see WP:OR. What I'm suggesting, is that many of the works on the list aren't actually properly backed up by sources, so if you want to trim the list, removing those titles would be the best way to do it. CurlyWi (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense. Well, then, from time to time, I'll try to look through footnotes for the specified works and remove those where they are insufficiently authoritative. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible (additional) image

Hello the following image

is used on other language Wikipedias and was wondering where (or if) the image should be added to this page. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

End of the endless list

In the end, I want to notify the users working on this article that I deleted this list. it not only occupied almost 100 thousand symbols, it list duplicated several different categories and was dimensionless. Not to mention the fact that, as I said earlier, the “yuri as a secondary element” part contained a lot of garbage, most of which was based on little things like the “yuri fanservice in this episode” or the presence of a lesbian minor character. Disassemble all this is simply impossible. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a guideline or policy that prevents such a list from existing, then cite it instead of just claiming that because it "duplicated several different categories and was dimensionless" that that somehow means the list is invalid. Lists such as this do in fact exist in list articles, such as those that can be seen on {{Lists of television programs by genre}} and {{Films by genre}}. The fact that the list here is merged into this one is irrelevant, since the reason why it is here to begin with is that there is not enough content to warrant a split to its own List of yuri series article.--十八 10:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, agree with Juhachi here, this deletion and now split to List of yuri anime and manga with no discussion was super premature. In the first place, why would you restrict the list to just anime and manga when some of the most high profile yuri titles (Kindred Spirits on the Roof, A Kiss for the Petals, etc.) are visual novels? Not particularly well thought out... As I said in the last discussion, if you want to IMPROVE the list go right ahead, but just deleting it altogether, or quarantining it off in its own article to rot is just silly. CurlyWi (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

GA and image use

I'm planning to tweak this article in the next few weeks in advance of submitting it as a Good Article nominee. The article is excellently written and cited, so I don't think that much work will be necessary to prepare it. That said, in case any editor who was involved in this article's production is still monitoring this page, I will be removing the three images currently used in the article as they pretty obviously fail WP:NFCCP rule 1: 1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Free equivalents do exist, such as File:CroesusXIncarna.jpg suggested above, so their use is not justified. Morgan695 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The key wording here is that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Removing either the covers of the manga or magazine would only be applicable in that case if there were already a free equivalent that served the same encyclopedic purpose of showing covers of (1) a prominent yuri manga example and (2) a yuri-themed manga magazine. Since no free equivalent exist for those purposes, there is no reason to remove them. Images like File:CroesusXIncarna.jpg only show free examples of yuri depicted in illustrations, so that could presumably be used as an example of physical closeness that's typical in yuri series, but that's all it would be used for. The No free equivalent stipulation was not meant to be applied so all images in an article were free, just that any image that could be free, should be free, and that any image that cannot be free, obviously should not be barred from inclusion if a free image cannot serve the same encyclopedic purpose.--十八 22:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The standard for NFCCP is not whether a free equivalent does exist, but whether a free equivalent could exist. For example, non-free photos are basically never permitted for articles about living people even if no free photo currently exists, because as long as the subject is alive, someone could hypothetically take a photo of them and release it under a permissive license. Similarly in this case, even if there is no extant yuri art licensed appropriately for use on Wikipedia, it's not impossible for someone to create some at some point. File:Shiroi00 cover1.jpg and File:Yuri Shimai Autumn 2004 cover.jpg are permissible for the respective articles on Shiroi Heya no Futari and Yuri Shimai only because there's no conceivable free alternative that would adequately illustrate those subjects. File:Hito-nana1.jpg *maybe* scrapes by on the grounds of providing critical commentary on yuri themes, but the other two don't, or at least, don't in a way that is not replaceable with a free alternative (File:Yuri Shimai Autumn 2004 cover.jpg especially, since its current rationale is literally just a copy+paste of the rationale for Yuri Shimai). Morgan695 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yuri (genre)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey I will be reviewing this article, though it may take a bit cause its a long article. Link20XX (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Just a few things before I can promote the article. I have made a few bold edits already.

Checklist

Is it well written?

1. A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Lead:

• Link the article on "homoeroticism", as that's a word that is probably not known by the everyday person.
  • Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Terminology and etymology:

• In the second paragraph, you shouldn't wikilink "rose", as that's something that most people know.
  • I think it's best to keep, as "rose" has several different meanings (the past tense of "rise", a color, a type of wine, etc.). It's useful to explicate that it's in reference to the flower, especially in contrast to "yuri" as "lily".
• Unless I'm missing something, neither Lezhin nor Tappytoon use the term lily in the source provided.
  • Removed, as it's not supported by the source, or seemingly any other source. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

History:

• Reference 35 appears to just redirect to the main site. Is this intentional?
  • Repaired the archive link.
• Reference 37 has a "page needed" tag
  • Fixed.

That is all. Once they have all been addressed, ping me and I will pass it. Link20XX (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX: Edits have been implemented. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: The changes implemented are enough. The result of this review is Pass. Congratulations and nice work! Link20XX (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX:, Great, thank you! And thank you for your diligence in taking on so many of my GANs. Morgan695 (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Don't mention it, I was just helping out. Anyway, I hope you nominate a fact from this article now that you can. Link20XX (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)