The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Reki Kawahara, author of Sword Art Online, planned to submit the draft for the
light novel series to a 2002 competition, but refrained because it exceeded the page limit?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
novels,
novellas,
novelettes and
short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article was the subject of an
educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Toronto Mississauga/CCT110: The Rhetoric of Digital and Interactive Media Environments (W14)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
Sure that'll work. Especially considering that the table's expansion will take away from the rest of the main article.
—KirtZMail04:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Juhachi. "removing content for aesthetic reasons is not good practice"—is your opinion. Then expand list or split it off because it looks half-baked on an otherwise potentially decent B-class page. Just because I removed content doesn't mean it was non-constructive.The reason I removed the chapters is so it will not look incomplete especially since the last major edit on the table was
over two months ago. The re-addition of the chapters is welcome if the list is split. I guess that wasnt as obvious as I thought by my edit summary. It seems no one wants to tackle a split-list even though it was brought up. >facepalm<
—KirtZMail04:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a work in progress, so just removing viable content because no one is adding to it now is what I would define as non-constructive, whether you agree with me or not. But I guess I'll just go ahead and split the list.--十八05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I want to add, that when I added the chapters and their names, I wasn't sure how to treat most of the books. From the main novel line (excluding Progressive), all the books before the 8th book, except for the 2nd, don't have "Chapters", or at least, they're not named, or indicated as chapters, and merely have a number to mark them, this number being continuous across the whole arc. Meaning the 3rd book goes from 1 to 3, while the 4th book goes 5 to 9 (Huh. That's weird). The "Alicization" arc is probably the only time the books are explicitly divided by "Chapters". I assume that particular information is irrelevant, but that's mostly why I avoided adding how many parts each book is broken up into, as I wasn't sure how to put that sort of information. The only additional information I believe I can add would be summaries, which I'll have to see what I can do.
Ragef33 (
talk)
09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Sergecross73 just created an article on one of SAO's video games. However, I'm not sure if the game has notability independent of the SAO franchise (meaning, if it should have an article in the first place). What do you guys think?
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew05:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)reply
With both games about to be released in North America later this year, I believe they are notable enough. There is going to be enough third-party sources discussing the games to satisfy
WP:GNG, as the article already shows.--十八06:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hello. I apologize, had I realized that the
SOA was so active on Wikipedia, I would have run things by this talk page first. I
create and
rewrite a lot of more obscure
JRPG type video game articles on the project, but I'm not all that familiar with anime, on Wikipedia or "real life". Anyways, the article already has 10 sources in it, around 8 of which are dedicated specifically to covering the game itself, and there are a bunch more out there that I didn't get to including yet either. But yeah, so far, all I've used and found
are sources deemed reliable by consensus at the video game Wikiproject. So, I believe it already meets the
WP:GNG, not to mention, as Juhachi is getting at, there are only going to be more and more sources coming in now that its been announced for an English language release. That being said, I know it certainly needs improvement and expansion. Hopefully you guys can assist a bit on the "series" side of things, as I'm not very familiar with it yet.
Sergecross73msg me16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I decided to revert the
addition of a number of doujins apparently written by Kawahara himself. However, unless there was a
source to independently
verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion. It also doesn't help that they apparently haven't received any coverage in third-party sources, nor have they been discussed by reliable sources as supplementing the series in any way. If this instance can be taken as an indication, it's probably not all that rare for authors to write doujins of their published works. What is rare is for those doujins to receive additional coverage outside of simply being produced, which like I said, does not appear to be the case here.--十八08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
For the most part, you're right. There isn't much coverage on the doujin he's written. Though, about verifying authorship, would the author's own claims that he wrote it be enough to verify authorship? I believe ever since Material Edition 8, or so, he's posted about each doujin before a
COMITIA (where he appears to "publish" each release.) Though, am I right in assuming the reason this is a problem, is because posts on twitter aren't reliable enough?
Ragef33 (
talk)
09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
It more has to do with the coverage (or lack thereof) of these doujins, though the authorship question is certainly an issue. Generally, content in articles is governed by their
verifiability in
reliable sources. I do not believe secondary sources showing that these doujins merely exist is sufficient enough to show why they should be included. I think there have been cases in the past where doujins have been re-published, or have been discussed in some capacity by third-party sources (
J.K. Rowling has reportedly written unpublished material for a Harry Potter encyclopedia), but has that occurred in this case?--十八09:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
a
source to independently
verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion.
I do not believe Twitter can be used as a source to verify the claim that Kawahara is the author of the doujins if the Twitter account in question cannot be verified to belong to Kawahara; see
WP:UGC. As for the other sources you've given, what makes them reliable? Are they articles from
news organizations? Have they been used by other reliable sources? What are they saying about the doujins other than that they exist, if anything? Can any claims they make (such as Kawahara being their author) be verified?--十八10:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Those site I linked are reliable source. For example, the last source I listed is quoting
Sina Comic] of
Sina_Corp#Online_news, and the site itself is
zh:中国经济网, a network version of China Economy, a newspaper published by Communist Party of China according to
[1], positioned as a Economic-centric integrated news site according to
[2].
Again, take the last site as example, it talk about how the doujin attract attentions due to the involvement of original author, its plot, it is yet another work of the previous doujin, and that it compensate the lack of description of Silica within the original work.
C933103 (
talk)
13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
All right, then it looks like it would be okay to include it. If you could, please add in the contextual significance as well, like what you said about the doujins attracting additional attention and whatnot. I can't read Chinese, so I'd have to leave it to you or someone else that can.--十八21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus seems to be leaning toward the articles not being merged, and since no one has commented in over two weeks, I think it's safe to take that as the final result.
G S Palmer (
talk •
contribs)
13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)reply
These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of
significant coverage from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) The list should be greatly reduced to its core elements, sourced by secondary sources, and summarized via merge/redirect in the Character sections of its parent articles. czar03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I count 15 characters in this series listed as main: Kirito, Sinon, Asuna, Leafa, Yui, Silica, Lisbeth, Klein, Yuuki, Agil, Seijiro Kikuoka, Nobuyuki Sugo, Akihiko Kayaba, Sachi, Death Gun. With subsets of these listed on the different anime series and specials anywhere from 2 to 10 main from this list.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't know about this series but @
Satellizer: made two potential Good Articles about the protagonists, Asuna and Kirito. I would like his imput. If it's possible I would gladly say Keep.
Tintor2 (
talk)
22:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Thanks to @
Tintor2: for the ping; thought I had already commented here but evidently I haven't. Plenty of sources are available. Quite busy IRL right now but will add some tomorrow if I have time.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)10:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: If the rest of this article will be getting the amount of writeup as the Kirito and Asuna articles, this should pass notability. But if a good chunk of them are slated for individual articles, it can still be combined into the main article as it wouldn't make sense to have a list of characters where half of them are See alsos and the rest are stubs.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - Sinon's section is awfully bloated in comparison to the others. I know the
AfD led to a redirect, but I think it could be recreated if I find some more secondary sources. Zappa24Mati03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - added 16 sources today, might do a bit more tomorrow. There's plenty of coverage out there if you know where to look. Reaffirming my keep stance.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Sword Art Online's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡02:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I believe the reception part gives undue weight to "Adam Facey", if you check the source it turns out that it is an opinion piece by an unknown student for a student paper. I would like to remove it.
84.164.68.99 (
talk)
09:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think "Black Swordsman Ace" is covered. The article does mention a game called "Black Swordsman" which left closed beta in 2016, but I think this is a separate game despite the similar name. That one did leave closed beta in 2016 but the service was terminated in 2019. See this article:
[4] As for "Black Swordsman Ace", it only exited closed beta in 2021, as per e.g.
[5] I don't know either game very well, but this is what I assume to be the case based on my research via the linked articles and others.
Kidburla (
talk)
20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
level-5 vital article
given that several much bigger series such as haikyu have not received a vitality rating, how is SAO receiving one justified? if it had significant cultural impact i may agree with the rating but so far no groundbreaking VR projects citing SAO as an inspiration.