Talk:KonoSuba

Anime and manga: Light novel Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Light novel work group.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2017-03-31/the-best-and-worst-anime-of-winter-2017/.114183

Requested move 31 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to KonoSuba. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kono Subarashii Sekai ni Shukufuku o! → KonoSuba – God’s blessing on this wonderful world!! – Official English title (based on Crunchyroll, confirmed by ANN). Would have moved it myself, but apparently the proposed title is in the Title blacklist, so I'm first starting a discussion to see what should be done about it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should use a straight apostrophe (') rather than a curly one (’) in "God's", per Wp:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. That might also be why you're getting the title blacklist error. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KunoSuba instead. Should cover the franchise like Code Geass, since it has a light novel spin off. I'm already working on a version to completely usurp whatever's here (Link). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took too long. I moved it to KonoSuba for now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure

Repetition is not an excuse to remove information. Rewording is not necessary as well. Character lists should be done in prose form; anime articles use the terrible anime voice template because of outdated enforcement. Do not level the main works made by the author, Akatsuki, with other adaptations. I'm conforming this structure to other non-anime books and films. This style has been used before in my previous GAs, and there is no justification for undoing this structure. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, this is an animedia-based article and it should be presented that way. The structure used by many anime, manga, and either other light novel articles works because it relays content clearly and accessibly, and not just in the context of a book.

First off, if you're going to mention the plot in the lead, don't make it the exact same description as the plot section and episode 1 summary. The lead is intended to be bulletpoint details about the article's contents which is further stipulated on in the later sections. Even if you have no further information to add, you can at least try to phrase it differently. Secondly, the reason the voice template use is because it does its job in clearly conveying information (not to mention it's the exact same thing used in the JP wiki). Using "This character is voiced by person in this thing and by that person in another thing" prose is just terrible and conveys information badly. Even articles that aren't about Japanese media know this and stick to the "Voiced by:" format. Your episode summaries also have several flaws, mainly concerning "children's book" sentence structure. Wonchop (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using other stuff exists. I can see this is pointless so I'll leave it to the RFC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that "I'm conforming this structure to other non-anime books and films." and "This style has been used before in my previous GAs" falls under "Other stuff". You really need to point out how your structure is better over this one, lest people accuse you of "owning the article".Wonchop (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to expand on my answer then. Conforming=a more common ground between all other mediums such as English films and books for increased accessibility. Rather than explaining every part, I'll just point out the two main parts. Notice how the original works of Sherlock Holmes isn't leveled with its adaptations. I leveled the original works by Akatsuki as higher importance than its adaptations. As for how the adaptions were arranged. MoS "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". Notice how you removed the Drama CD section to comply to that? That aside, you just went against WP:Lead. The body must also cover the same thing as the lead.

What I meant by the GA part is basically "My work doesn't go against the MoS" meaning it is equally valid to your structure, meaning you do not have an automatic authority to overwrite my structure because you deem it to be wrong. The pointless comment means I can already determine you will never back down. I've already backed off, and am prepared to leave this article based on the RFC outcome. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sherlock Holmes is a good comparison here, as the adaptations for that series are wildly varied and numerous both in media and takes on the story. In the case of KonoSuba, the web novel, light novel and manga all have the involvement of the original author, so it makes sense to put that stuff all together in a Printed media section (barring the idea of having seperate sections for Novels and Manga). Point being, KonoSuba doesn't really have the notability of Sherlock to warrant that kind of formatting and is better suited to following the format of other light novel articles (no point complaining about OtherStuff, because that is in essence what both of us are doing), and as an Animedia article, that is the format a lot of users are going to be comfortable with. I took out the Drama CD section based on other editor's feedback concerning its lack of notability. Maybe if a game or mobile app gets announced, they can both go in an Other Media section, but for now, it's referenced in the lead so that's fine enough.

Wikipedia is an open source, meaning that anyone pretty much has the right to overhaul everything if they think it improves the overall feel of the article. Clearer and more concise sentences, streamlined presentation of characters and voice actors, less repetition when neccessary (ie. the points listed in the lead should be an abbreviation of what's in the body, not a complete copy-paste), and summaries that read well. That's the kind of stuff I'm trying to do here.Wonchop (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name one editor who also questioned the Drama CDs notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, conveniently enough, a PC game was announced to be bundled with the BDs, so I've put the drama CD together with that in an Other media section. Wonchop (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of yours and my structure/wording remains subjective. It looks like you just ignored positive comments in the RFC about my structure, and declaring yours is automatically the better one. Rather than imitating one of the arguments you've had with Ryulong, let the RFC determine the outcome. I'm going to take up a different project until an outcome is decided. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty much stopped being a "one way or the other" judgement call and is now just taking input from other editors to incorporate changes that take into account both arguments.Wonchop (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Structure

Simple, DZ structure vs Wonchop structure. End results will be binding. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Wonchop structure - I've more or less pointed out my main reasons above, but the basic points are clearer presentation and less dead weight (eg. repetition of full paragraphs, using multiple sentences for what can be summarised in one, prose over templates for voice credits, etc). Wonchop (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DZ: His version has a better lead. Voice actors aren't that hard to write and some other stuff.Tintor2 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither The layout should be as follows:

Plot
Characters
Production
Media
- Printed Media
- Anime
Reception
Notes and references
External links

There is no need to go into exact titles for the sub-headers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Removed section headers from the light novel and manga headers (they're now just bolded text). Production would probably need to have more information detailing the creation of the series, rather than the publishing information included in the media section, though I don't know where that leaves the drama CD. Another negative of DZ's layout is how his character list limits things to just the main characters, deeming secondary characters not worth mentioning. Wonchop (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary characters should not be mentioned, it would be better to split off a character list BUT the entries for the characters would have to be sourced to have this happen. I also like DZ's lead better so I would consider keeping that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the lead is that its summary of the plot is more or less the exact same thing as what's written in the plot section, right down to the whole "acute stress syndrome" remark. And considering that more or less makes up most of episode one's summary, you can understand why I think it needs to be toned down as far as the lead is concerned. My version's more about taking what's there and compacting it to fewer sentences (ie. more "This thing by this guy was released on this date." and less "There is a thing. It was done by this guy. It was released on this date.") Basically, an abridged version of the details that the later sections provide. Wonchop (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would shorten the lead sentence summary to something simple with minimal jargon terms like with Rosario + Vampire or One Piece. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder that the main article is being edited with feedback. Right now story summary is kept to a simple sentence, with the rest of the lead explaining the other media. Wonchop (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a Release section containing the original "canon" material, which would have the 5-volume novel series and the main light novel series if the latter became the author's main way of continuing the series. If the light novel material is all retread of the five novels, then move that to the Media section. The spin-off light novels and manga would be grouped under Media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue there is there's not a lot of information pertaining to the web novel version aside from when it was published. I'm not sure there's a need to split the spin-off novel off from the main novels, considering they're by the same author. Wonchop (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the lead is in a good spot right now, with each point sticking to a sentence each maximum and a little sentence building on the topic of the original web novels without going too detailed. The only thing that's left to debate is the matter of the character list format, ie. the animanga format (character name, voice credits, and description) vs. international book format (character name, description and voice credits all written in prose). Ignoring how everything works in other articles, I do feel the animanga format lends itself better to this kind of article, as it displays its information more clearly and organized than in prose. Wonchop (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would change "Print media" to "Novels" since the original was a web novel and can include the information about the light novels, and "Releases" to "Volume lists". The character list format is fine. Whether "voiced by" is up front or in prose is not critical as only the main characters are listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tweak my answer as I think the prose method is more useful for this series as the adaptations have appeared some years later than the original work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It still kinda comes down to my general "why use several words for something you can explain in a few" philosophy. Surely it's easier for viewers to understand the information in a list format?

Speaking on the subject of adaptations, does the light novel count as an 'adaptation' considering it's by the same author? I'd assume something like 'revision' or 'reboot' of the web novels would be more fitting (though the right word to use escapes me). Wonchop (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing RFC and article off watchlist. With Wonchop's aggressive assertions in the edit history and the degradation of the article such as inclusion of minor characters, I no longer care enough to work on this series. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13/February/2016

I edited a bit as user:14.201.118.119

Mostly focused on making it clear KonoSuba is a comedy/parody series, not another generic fantasy rebirth show.

It'll help attract more viewers! KonoSuba is actually the most popular show this season in Japan (It's actually the only show not flopping this season), but is doing poorly here (MAL, Reddit etc) because of the stigma surrounding Studio DEEN & fantasy rebirth shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodium.777 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure how that helps attract viewers, the added description of its comedy elements does give the lead a bit more meat without repeating the entire plot section. In the future, though, I would stick to using "and" over "&", the latter of which should only be used for titles and not in standard sentences.Wonchop (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genres need to be sourced. Can you provide reviews to reliable sources that indicate the series to be Parody or "Fantasy Rebirth", whatever that term means? Also, Wikipedia is not an advertisement. We should not pick genres or attribute statements like "fantasy rebirth" to attract viewers or improve the visibility of the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute manga

Source for a series of tribute manga: http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2016/06/08-1/squid-girl-author-draws-konosuba-manga. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another game

There's seems to be another game on PS4 and Vita named "この素晴らしい世界に祝福を！～希望の迷宮と集いし冒険者たち～" (https://psn100.net/game/3269-kono-su-qingrashii-shi-jieni-zhu-fuwo%EF%BD%9Exi-wangno-mi-gongto-jiishi-mao-xian-zhetachi%EF%BD%9E). It's not mentioned in the article. Ragowit (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New literature released

Although the article has been updated with the recent mobile game I noticed it bares no mention of the TTRPG books. I don't have a lot of knowledge myself but I am aware of it's 1st edition release in JPN and ENG, a companion book, and a third JPN only release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:8B02:3300:98E8:17E4:F15F:5753 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]