Jump to content

Talk:Kantai Collection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tabulation of voice actors

[edit]

The list of voice actors will inevitably have to be converted into a table format, to avoid messiness and clutter. I've thought of three methods to do this; which would be the most suitable?

Format 1 - Basic voice actor column
Voice actor Ship
Saki Fujita Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi[1]
Japanese battleship Fusō[1]
Japanese destroyer Kagerō[1]
Iori Nomizu Japanese aircraft carrier Shōkaku[1]
Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku[1]
Japanese light cruiser Kinu[1]
Voice actor Ship
Aya Suzaki Japanese heavy cruiser Mogami[1]
Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō[1]
Japanese destroyer Akatsuki[1]
Megumi Nakajima Japanese heavy cruiser Mikuma[1]
Japanese submarine I-58[1]
Japanese submarine I-168[1]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Reference
Format 2 - Lists within cells
Saki Fujita Yuka Iguchi
  • Ship[1]
  • Ship[1]
  • Ship[1]
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
Iori Nomizu Nao Tōyama
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
Format 3 - Detailed categorisation
Saki Fujita
Foo-class aircraft carrier Bar-class destroyer
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
Iori Nomizu
Herp-class submarine Derp-class light cruiser
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship
  • Ship

Which table format would be the most preferable? For tables A and B, additional columns can be added as required, and for table C, any categorisation can be used (it doesn't have to be Voice actor/ship class, it can be Ship type (cruiser, destroyer, etc)/voice actor as well). --benlisquareT•C•E 08:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is probably best and easier to manuever.Lucia Black (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference asdf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Issues with publications

[edit]

theres no need to have a huge list for the publications. We don't really need to list every single one with ISBN. THe only ones that matter are the light novels and the manga because those are serial stories. Whatever isnt a series of stories should probably be removed.Lucia Black (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are official canon works, however. Each manga series, although created by different authors, are all properly licensed by Kadokawa as "official manga" (i.e. are not doujinshi). Other anime and manga articles provide a list of print publications, or separate them into a subpage as details become long. At this stage, I don't think we are there yet, and this article is no longer than many other articles out there; something will probably need to be done once the anime is released in the middle of this year though.

"The only ones that matter are the light novels and the manga because those are serial stories" - one might even say that the game doesn't even have a storyline, and that the light novels are self-interpretations by the different authors; even the light novels sometimes contradict with one another in regards to what the setting is like. I really don't think there is such thing as a "real story" when it comes to KanColle; we just have a series of officially licensed manga and light novels. This isn't like the universe of StarCraft where there is one, uniform canon. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 1) Canon is not relevant to any discussion in Wikipedia. 2) What i'm arguing about is that large table of publications, not all of them are relevant. or perhaps its best to use the template:graphic novel list. TO me, this table is too detailed. We don't really need to know which ones are the publishers unless there are multiple publishers for one specific series, and i'm seeing a clear distinction between them.Lucia Black (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"not all of them are relevant" - but they are; this isn't just a game, it's also a media franchise. The media franchise is incomplete without the manga publications. This is more than just a WPVG article, but also a WPANIME article, and it is generally accepted to list manga volumes as they are released in tankobon format. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, read my comments carefully. because i am not saying that "not all manga are relevant" but not all are relevant" which leaves room for vagueness i understand, but what i'm trying to say that there is not need to list specific information such as publisher. Use the graphic novel list template, and it will be easier to manage.Lucia Black (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using a modified Harvard/APA bibliography format which uses the publication date in ISO format instead of just the publication year. More information isn't counter-constructive, and the table isn't even that huge. It's clean, and formatted in a logical manner; by switching to the graphic novel list template, things would become disordered - how would we logically separate the unlinked, unrelated publications in a manner which makes sense? This isn't like a light novel series where there is only one series title and one author. I think "don't fix what isn't broke" applies here. What is the point of simplifying things, if it makes things more chaotic? Not everything needs to be shoehorned into an existing Wikipedia template.

To me, publisher details are very important. It's a verifiability issue - I want to know as much as I can when looking at a publication. The more information I have at my fingertips, the easier I can find precise information by searching for it. You might not consider the importance of a properly structured and detailed bibliography format, but I really must disagree with your viewpoint.

Take a look at Wikipedia - we have precise expectations when it comes to the proper formatting of reliable sources for topics such as hyperthyroidism and paracetamol. The minimum expectation is that people include things such as doi identification numbers, ISBNs, page numbers, publishers, issue numbers and journal titles. It's also the case in all universities that students are naturally expected to properly format bibliographies. Why are we forsaking detail here for the sake of using Wikipedia templates for simplicity, when the relevant information is already laid out in a logical format? If a template doesn't suit the usage that I intend, I won't use it, it's as simple as that. Templates are meant to be a helpful tool for editors, and not the be all and end all for creating articles. In my opinion, simply listing things in the format of Template:Graphic novel list is too lax, and does not meet my expectations in regards to bibliographical detail. Template:Book list seems a bit better, as it meets my expectations in regards to specific publishing details, however this brings us back to the formatting problem - being confined to a template limits the flexibility we have when formatting a list, so that it progresses logically. If we were making a list of Harry Potter books, this would be perfect, however our case differs completely. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be counterproductive when someone has to maneuver through it all. The table can be simplified, and some information is not needed. And Separating the information unrelated to each other is quite easy, did you even look at the template that i recommended?

Don't fix what isn't broken isn't a good example here, theres always room for "improvement" and less is more applies here. With ISBNs and release dates should be all the verification we need, we don't need "publisher" information on the table because it just makes things cludder. Be reasonable, i understand you want all the possible information, but the prose takes care of that just fine, the table should be used for "easy navigation".Lucia Black (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a bit biased, however since I come from an academic background, I place emphasis on book details, and it really bothers me when things are left vague with just book titles and authors. I really think that proper information is important and crucial, and thus I do not consider as cludder like you might. If there is a widely accepted bibliographical format used within the academic world, why not use it? I know we're dealing with a Japanese game franchise here, and not a medical publication on brain tumours or something, however I would like to at least maintain some degree of completeness here. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there already is a form of completion in the prose. The table should be there to help navigate through different works. So all that we should really need are Title, ISBN, release date. Keep in mind the prose handles those details just fine. And another thing, this isn't an "academic paper" this is an encyclopedia and we should aim to target everyone.
All we really need are ISBNs, release date and title depending if there are various titles. Keep in mind that each series is under one publisher and one magazine. so its not like this information is necessary to navigate between them. We're not an academic paper, so we shouldn't try to aim for one.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would be the general format that you're aiming for, then? I really can't make up my mind until I've seen an example of what you're trying to convert the list into. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just use the graphic novel list format, it offers ISBNs, title, and release date. obviously separated by each individual series. Its not too hard to imagine. But also i'm suggesting we make it easier to split. The first two seem to be guidebooks, so i dont think they should be included at all. Possible list of Kantai Collection publications and if we expand we could go to "List of Kantai Collection chapters" for manga chapters and "list of kantai Collection Light novels".Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the primary topic is the game, and official supplementary media relating to the games would warrant inclusion. The Official Whitepaper isn't a "guidebook" in the sense that it gives you suggestions on how to play like a strategy guide, but it's more of an official listing of in-game ships. Think of it as like a pokedex for the game. I haven't written any prose about it yet, but there is also an official tabletop RPG for KanColle as well. The TRPG book is essentially the rulebook which dictates how the TRPG is played. Hence, these two would be books that are quite important in regards to the franchise, even though they aren't stories or anything like that. Currently the Japanese Wikipedia article has a listing of publications that's formatted differently, but also lists the supplementary books.

In regards to the tankobon list, I would really like to keep each different series separated; currently only volume 1 books have been released, however more volumes will be released in future. There will be multiple volumes of Fubuki, Ganbarimasu, and multiple volumes of Torpedo Squadron Chronicles. In regards to the manga anthologies, they should be separated by who created them. I don't have a firm opinion on how to structure the list of light novels at the moment, since we don't have much, and there haven't been any announcements lately. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is only available through the table, then that has to be fixed. Its still technically a complimentary book that provides more insight on the game, regardless if it is strategy or in-universe information, so it doesn't change the point that we shouldn't include it in the table. And i suggest we keep all 1-volumes together, so long as we separate them by titles. And once they get their second volume, we would be able to give them a specified heading, but again all in the intention of having a separate list article for the publications.Lucia Black (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't written anything about the TRPG in prose, because I know literally nothing about TRPGs. I've never played Dungeons & Dragons or anything similar to that, and probably won't be able to properly describe it. Most (if not all) information about it is in Japanese, so someone who's familiar with TRPGs could probably write something about it. As for the book list, do you want to make an example within a sandbox detailing the structure you prefer to use? --benlisquareT•C•E 02:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you need to go into any specifications, just know that the publisher has released a TRPG guide, or something of the sort, as long as you know what it is we dont have to worry about.Lucia Black (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also in a level of professionalism, we can't shorten names in general, so those names in the prose have to be fully translated by using the full name.Lucia Black (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot issues

[edit]

its entirely focused on supplementary media. I don't think the article should be covering every plot of every manga if the main focus is the game. If you feel they are notable, try making another article. Lucia Black (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on revamping the whole thing once the anime airs. Is it alright if we wait a few months? I promise I'll fix everything up. I already have sandbox templates already prepared and ready, but right now it's too early to implement. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much of a difference the anime will do but i suppose i'll wait until then. Lucia Black (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game genre

[edit]

I think there is a glaring misunderstanding regarding the game here, and leaving such category might give the weird idea to readers who have no idea about the game. Simply put, I believe this should be considered as merely a browser game, and not a card game. Reasons are as follows:

  • The official game sources (twitter account and DMM page) never make such mentions
  • Likewise, the game never make use of such terminology
  • The game doesn't display "cards" except for interface purpose. Characters are showing up with their sprite when they are received. Likewise, the secretary isn't "stuck in a card" either.
  • While card game involve cards with values/abilities in all card game, I believe none of them actually involve "equipment".
  • Players aren't using a deck, which is prevalent in most card game (mostly as your card "stock").

Compared to other japanese card games such like Love Live and Cinderella girls, Kantai Collection lacks a lot of traits that is inherent to card games. Klashikari (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Incidents" section

[edit]

The incidents section refers to an event that happened on the Chinese community. The game is only released for Japan, thus foreign players need to use specific tools and methods to get around this restriction. This conflicts with the original game description that "the game is available in Japan only". Thus, we can call this specific incident "non-official" that does not deserve to be included on this article. Dragonjet (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been covered by reliable sources, then it can be included in the article as it complies with Wikipeida's verifiability policy. Are there any reasons to believe that the sources cited in this section are not reliable? —Farix (t | c) 22:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of verifiability or credibility of sources. The story in that section is not an incident with the Kantai Collection franchise, but a separate entity who launched a replica having trouble with its community. It has nothing to do with the game, the anime, or any of its franchise. It is merely a community side-story that I believe is not qualified to be here, or at least not have its own section. Dragonjet (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be removed? Leave your opinion here :)Provissy (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2015 (JST)

Reference format

[edit]

I find the format used for the references to be very odd. Dates are almost never put first in any of the common reference formats (MLA, APA, or Harvard). If there are no objections, I will switch the reference format over to using the standard {{cite}} family of templates and convert the ISO dates to normal date format (MDY being the dominate format already used in the article's text). —Farix (t | c) 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the very late reply (I've been busy in Singapore for the whole time). I've been originally planning to convert all of the references to the {{cite web}} format when I find the time to do so, so yes please, if you would like to convert all the references that would be great, thank you. The current state of "date-title-website" is just me being lazy, and the page shouldn't stick with this format forever. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section or not?

[edit]

As per [1], do you guys think this edit should stay on the page to show the influence of the game? C933103 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to cover the Windows Tablet information again? This information is already covered within the article, do a CTRL+F search for "Windows tablet". Any mention about the surge in Windows tablet sales should be brief and succinct, no more than 2 sentences or 120 words, since this is not a tech industry article and cannot act as a WP:COATRACK for coverage on the tablet computer market in Japan. Looking at your edit diffs in the article history, part of your addition is duplicate content, and part of your addition wanders off into off-topic coverage on how well certain models of Windows tablets are rated in Japan.

In other words: Tell the reader why Kantai Collection is affecting the tablet market, and then finish the sentence immediately—there's no need to continue further into an off-tangent about the specifics of the tech market, that's not what the page is for. The topic of the article is Kantai Collection, not Windows tablets. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section for "derivative games"

[edit]

I've removed a section which discussed games that are "derivative" games of Kantai Collection based on the assumption that the games have mechanics that are derived or inspired by KanColle. My rationale is partially based on factual accuracy, and partially based on Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. In the state prior to my removal, the added section essentially was just a dedicated mention for Touken Ranbu and very little other content. In essence, it was one game piggybacking on another, a la WP:COATRACK.
  2. Kantai Collection did not "invent" the type of game where players "collect" anthropomorphized young girls or young men. To state that KanColle is a pioneer of this would be factually inaccurate.
  3. This article is about KanColle, and not about the type of "collection" games in general. The purpose of the article shouldn't include listing similar games, otherwise there would be no limit to the amount of indiscriminate references that can be made. Touken Ranbu isn't the only "similar" game; there's also Castle Collection, Ore Tower, Battleship Girls, Cannon Girls, and Militärische Mädchen to name a few. To include everything would be rather silly, and these are just the examples that I can think of from the top of my head (not even including the blatantly plagiarised copies, 舰娘世界 and 艦娘収蔵).

I can accept a compromise of a "See also" section for games which already have existing Wikipedia articles, however. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kantai Collection. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

[edit]

This article is getting far too long at 196kB (see WP:SIZE). I don't know enough about the topic to figure out what content could be spun off into a new article, although the lists currently under the Gameplay section have potential, and the whole Ship types subheading could be considered WP:FANCRUFT. Alcherin (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcherin: I second this. Text part of the gameplay section is bloated with tiny details such as list of gears and trivial game mechanics, but since I don't play the game myself I added templates so someone else might do it. Still, the lists of characters, casts and illustrators is certainly a violation of WP:VGSCOPE, and I don't think these lists merits new articles. A list of characters in the KC anime may be fine but since the game itself has no plot at all, it would make it difficult to write the game's character list about their significance in plot. Looks like these lists are mainly maintained by a Japanese Wikipedian and frankly VG articles in Japanese Wikipedia are usually plagued with things that are unsuitable under EN WP guidelines. I think the lists are better off deleted. I shall proceed if there's no objection. Tsumikiria (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kantai Collection. 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:

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) 03:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kantai Collection. 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:

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) 02:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source re: third party derivative doujin works

[edit]
  • Valtteri Vuorikoski. "Discourses of war and history in the Japanese game Kantai Collection and its fan community" (PDF).

This piece covers some quantitative and qualitative analysis of third-party derivative KanColle works (doujin works) in sections 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2; I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether or not this can be used as a reliable citation, and whether or not it should be used. Be aware that section 1.2 may contain content which is WP:CIRCULAR. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collectible card game? I think not

[edit]

I don't think it's far to classify this as CCG. The characters may be represented as cards, but the game play is not based on cards. I don't think that's enough to fit the Collectible card game. One might as well argue that Fate Grand Order, another popular game, is a CCG too because characters and items are 'cards'. Of course it's not because they are NOT CARD GAMES. Those kind of games fit the parent category of category: Collectible-based games, since they involve collection, but cards are too minor aspect here. Also, is there a single reliable source that would call KanColle a CCG? PS. Discussion ongoing at Talk:Collectible_card_game#KanColle_is_not_a_CCG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kantai_Collection&oldid=1203196764"