Talk:RWBY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inspirations?[edit]

I could be wrong, and I have no references (great way to start a section), but I could've sworn Monty Oum specifically said the characters were not based on anything. MGray98 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

He has said that they are not based off fairy tale characters in the sense that they are not reinterpretations of those characters, but he did say that they drew inspiration from said characters. On several occasions he has specifically stated that Ruby was modeled after Red Riding Hood.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I added 3 things that were stated as "speculations". 1) that Blake Belladonna was inspired by Beauty from Beauty and the Beast because "belladonna" was Italian for "beautiful woman", 2) that Adam was her counterpart because of his Mask and his obvious tie to Blake, and 3) that Torchwick was inspired by Candlewick from Pinoccio (or Lampwick from the Disney version). I would agree, that other than the translation of "belladonna"[1] (sufficient to create a tie for Weiss based on previous interview comments), the other items were personal connection/conjecture. Obviously, not every character will have to have inspirations like that, but for those that do have it, why withhold them? Even Oum himself mentioned at 9:15 in the source #7 interview [2] that other characters "yet to be released" also have their inspirations in the fairy tale world. If there is no direct tie mentioned for those characters, will they unable to be connected as well? I believe Ruby's inspiration is the only direct mention thus far. Sysxrusher (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense to see Pyrrha as being based off of Achilles, at this point. The only thing tying her to Pyrrha is the name. But her Greek warrior outfit definitely seems more Achilles to me, who also matches with her name. Of course, it's difficult to say anything definitive until some more parallels are drawn. MatrixM (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Monty is dead. He left you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:288:12A7:1:96E:82A9:3CC:FF27 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

References

RWBY is declared as anime[edit]

"If there’s one thing Monty Oum wants his audience to know, it’s that RWBY is anime." http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2013/07/12/feature-inside-rooster-teeths-rwby KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that sort of thing comes down to what critics say about it, rather than what Oum says. The current phrasing seems sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll be awaiting review articles then. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
RWBY is not listed as an anime on ANN, anidb, myanimelist or anime-planet. Verdict: the Western audience that care about anime don't see it as an anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.230.79 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
At the very least, it is referenced as "anime-styled" - in direct quote mind you. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the comments thread in this article - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2013-08-19/crunchyroll-to-simulcast-rwby -- apparently, ANN is rather inconsistent with its own listing. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I have first hand "debated" within MyAnimeList and have concluded that the decision to exclude RWBY from anime is merely "political". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include both Anime-Influenced-animation and American-made anime and leave in parenthesis (Depending on how one defines it) even if there is a majority that believes Anime can only be from Japan, there are probably just as much or just barely lesser anime fans who believe it to be style, as for anime-database users are actually a minority of anime-fans. Plus by basing our title of anime for RWBY on the anime-databases would mean we are leaving those anime-databases as authority figures of what is anime and what isn't. Not to mention Myanimelist can be very corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakechi89 (talkcontribs) 06:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

MAL is not a reliable source. See WP:ANIME/RS AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

American-made Anime[edit]

American-Made Anime From Rooster Teeth Gets Licensed In Japan http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/american-made-anime-rooster-teeth-gets-licensed-japan-159528

Anyways, good news for this series to be ported into Japan. It's status as an "anime" rather than the watered down "anime-influenced" category becomes more solidified. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How so? RWBY is hardly the first american animated series with anime influences to get a Japanese port. This doesn't solidify it's "status" any more does it do that for MLP: Friendship is Magic.
Well you may think from what people tell you that Japan uses the word anime for all forms of animation, however that is a misconception. the Japanese do in fact have a distinction from we would call anime and not-anime, they identify RWBY more with the anime we know of: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakechi89 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
He has a source and with our guidelines that makes it fact. You would need another, reliable website that would say RWBY is or is not anime. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
We're not going by the Japanese's broad definition of manga or anime, which would include comics and cartoons respectively in general. Please see WP:ANIME#WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#What_topics_we_do_not_cover "Animated or printed works produced for consumption outside of Japan that nevertheless draw on or are similar to Japanese media in terms of content or form (such as Chinese animation, Korean animation, manhwa, manhua and Western manga-styled comics such as Gothic Sports and Peach Fuzz) do not fall under our scope." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, as I mentioned earlier Japan's definition is not as broad as you make it out to be, they make distinctions between manga and general comics, as well as Anime - and general cartoons, RWBY in Japan's eyes falls under anime, that much I at least want to correct you on. However based on everything you suggested even if Japan does follow the stylistic definition of anime it won't affect the American definition? Alright I can somewhat tolerate that, but the subjectivity of what is anime and what isn't is still very subjective, and the fact that you absolutely title RWBY as "Not-Anime" without at least leaving the readers taking it in with a grain of salt heavily ignores a lot of aspects of RWBY, and what anime is or can be. This is what happens when things are to subjective, while I can agree that people with the style definition of anime is a minority it isn't however so significantly small that it can be swept under the carpet. If you keep insisting on something subjective to be this one absolute thing that's the equivalent of trying to divide something by 0 and expecting a clear-cut answer out of a calculator, no matter how many times you type it in the calculator it will always say error. You may as well get rid of the entire Anime title and Wikipedia page for Anime all together. This isn't a website where we choose things to be the way we want them to, If you want a clear cut answer leave it to websites that specialize on RWBY like The RWBY wiki who dubs RWBY as anime or anime database sites like MAL or Hummingbird, forums keep piling up on whether "A" is an anime or "B" is an anime. The rules of those sites' definition however should not apply to this Wikipedia page absolutely. Otherwise the people that essentially own the mere "concept of anime" are just a tiny bunch of Website-Masters, and there about 5 popular anime databases that equals around 5 people in control of the definition of anime vs the millions of other people's definition. This is Wikipedia we give people an insight of how this show is viewed from "what genre to how many awards it received" so clearly how many view this show should also be added to the page as long as there is a fair amount, and there are a fair amount who dub it as anime. Also the fact that there's even a page discussion for classifying what is and is not anime is absurd, it's completely opinion-based and should be looked down upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakechi89 (talkcontribs) 05:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


I'd also like to bring up that some animator in Japan Stay away from the term anime when distributing their works to outside nations they're aware of how we use the word anime, and so they try to keep the styles separate Here's an article about it that evens says that Japan has a similar issue with anime as well so why should the opposite (foreign-made anime) not be included? https://journal.animationstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ASVol4Art4SGan.pdf Also RWBY is marketed as anime as well, it should be noted on how RWBY is marketed on the Wikipedia page as well, because that contributes more fact! I found a copy of RWBY volume 3 in the anime section of retailer stores, and RWBY merch with other anime products for Hot Topic's AniMay (Anime + May) deals, so even if RWBY isn't an anime (which I don't believe) adding to the page that it is marketed as such In the States as well as Japan is that of Anime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakechi89 (talkcontribs) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've changed this to anime-styled. There's no doubt it is influenced and stylized after anime, but it is not anime just as most sparkling wines are not champagne if is not from Champagne. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, WP:ANIME is not a reliable source or policies and guidelines. Your actions fall under disruptive editing. The article contains 4 reliable sources which says that it's anime:
  • From Anime: "Anime is a Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastical themes. Arguably, the culturally abstract approach to the word's meaning may open up the possibility of anime produced in countries other than Japan."
  • Rooster Teeth Co-Founder and CEO: "As huge fans of anime, we are honored that RWBY is the first American anime production to be exported to audiences in Japan".
  • RWBY at Anime News Network.
  • Variety: "The fifth installment of “RWBY,” Rooster Teeth’s anime hit, will premiere in the fall of 2017. “RWBY” (pronounced “ruby”) is the first American-produced anime to be exported for distribution in Japan."

Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

NightShadow23 it is not disruptive editing to enforce consensus as per the discussion below for Japanese VAs and that the show is not anime. Anime News Network can cover shows that are technically not manga/anime such as manhwa or American manga titles. Rooster Teeth's comments are self-pub. Of course they want to brand it as anime. As for Variety, it's just like I said about champagne/sparkling wine, there are plenty of non-industry sources that will cross-use the term anime with animation and include American animation like Avatar. I can raise this as an RFC if you still have issue with this.
The other thing is that it's not a manga and video game up front. The manga adaptation and video game adaptations came later so they should not be listed in the lead like that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This is not a consensus. With whom did you discuss this? You yourself suggested and changed the article. What is the "Japanese VAs" and why is it so important? Your arguments fall under the WP:OR. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus was for removing the Japanese voice actors. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Software[edit]

I'm curious. What software is used to render RWBY? Many have made comparisons of RWBY's animation to that of MMD. However, I am willing to place some doubt on that assertion. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

They mention it at the end of the episode. Poser Software is used for the animation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I doubt that we can use the episode itself as a source. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
NO, but you can use Smith Micro's page for it. http://my.smithmicro.com/poser-pro-11.html --ip.address.conflict (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"RWBY"[edit]

Is RWBY "ruby" or "ruuby"? (W=UU (double-U)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Same as you would pronounce the gem: ruby. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Argument on Yang Xiao Long's name[edit]

Yang means sunshine, and Xiao Long means little dragon.

Okay, family names In Chinese name usually have one syllable. So her name would be rendered as either YANG Xiaolong (Xiao Long of Yang) or Yangxiao LONG (Yang Xiao of Long). But the latter is definitely wrong considering the meaning of her name.

Of course, there are some exceptions where some families have two-syllable family name. In that case, her name would be rendered as either YANGXIAO Long (Long of Yang Xiao) or Yang XIAOLONG (Yang of Xiao Long). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 03:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It takes place on a fictional world where there is no China and thus traditional Chinese name ordering need not apply.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It takes place on a fictional world which we know very little about, and which could very well have Asian-like cultures. Also: How does Ruby Rose have a sister named Yang Xiao Long? ~~----
It's generally been inferred that either Ruby or Yang are adopted. In addition, there has been discussion about the gravestone in the opening scene which says Summer Rose. There is a possibility that it is the grave of a relative of Ruby and that she was taken in by Yang's family because of that death. Or it could of course vice-versa in that whoever she is with now took in Yang. Regardless, it is fairly clear that they are not directly blood related (excluding the possibility of them being cousins taken in by the same parent (ex. if Summer Rose was Ruby's mom, her father may have moved in with her sister, perhaps the mother of Yang, etc.)). There are quite a few possibilities, but none of them have been proven in-episode yet.
Actually, I have to correct myself on the above ^. Monty has repeatedly said on his Twitter that Ruby and Yang are not step sisters and are directly related as sisters. I think he's pressuring it a bit too hard, however, and it's a little silly to have sisters whose names are from completely different languages without any explanation beyond the assumed "it sounds cool" and "it's fiction so it doesn't matter." I guess we have to accept that, regardless, Yang and Ruby are full sisters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.112.51 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as discussion about Yang's name goes, I agree that that the names should have been ordered/pieced properly. Even if it is a fantasy world, unless the names are in a fantasy language, they should match up to their original lingual patterns when they're based on real world etymology. Regardless, I believe Yang Xiaolong (little dragon of sunshine) makes the most sense as far as the original ordering goes and the most likely meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.112.51 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
So far in the series (2nd season) - Ruby and Yang share the same father. Yang has inherited her father's name (probably as her mother Raven Branwen left her shortly after she was born) however Ruby Rose is named after her mother (Summer Rose, maybe she was kinda bossy? :-) ). Summer Rose died while on a mission and Raven is still sort of a mysterious figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.87.142 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrha's Polarity[edit]

One of the characters mentions "magnetic polarity"; but the series has yet to directly explain Pyrrha's power. The only vague explanation up to Episode 15 occurs when Pyrrrha assists against a Grimm by affecting the polarity of an object, at which point she explains she can control "polarity" and someone else conjectures "magnetic polarity". In the series, Grimm are able to destroy man because man exists as a being born of "light" and Grimm of "darkness"; one could assert that "polarity" refers to this, as the mentioned affected object shows a dark aura, aligning it with the Grimm to familiar effect. I'm not sure if weak evidence violates WP:OR rules or otherwise makes definitive statements undesirable; at this point I feel that Pyrrha's power of "polarity" doesn't have a concrete canon explanation. --John Moser (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not a matter of conjecture. Weiss explicitly says Pyrrha's polarity semblance allows her to have control over magnetism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Read what John wrote again. MatrixM (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Chapters vs Episodes[edit]

RWBY Volume 1 is divided into 10 Chapters. Most of these chapters were split into 2 episodes. I was wondering if this had enough significance to be mentioned, as this is the way the episodes are ordered on the DVD and Blue Ray release. The RWBY developers have also said that the story was written as Chapters, and later split into Episodes. Ragef33 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

available on Netflix Streaming[edit]

As of February 6, 2015 the full series is available on Netflix Streaming in two "episodes": "Volume 1" (season 1) and "Volume 2" (season 2). http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/80029617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.17.143 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RWBY's Future[edit]

In a NY Times article, Matt Hullum said that Rooster Teeth planned to continue and expand RWBY, as volume 3 is set for this year, said in another article of the NY Times as well 68.196.248.155 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Here it is http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/arts/monty-oum-dies-at-33-and-his-fans-grieve.html?_r=0 68.196.248.155 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Provide a source for this. Perhaps the actual article? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove Japanese VAs[edit]

As this is not an anime show, and the English VAs were broadcast first, I would recommend removing the Japanese VAs from the English article. The VAs would be retained in the Japanese Wikipedia of course. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I disagree. While the show is not anime, it is anime inspired. Along with it's popularity in Japan and a manga adaptation, i say Japanese VAs stay in the english article.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
A manga adaptation isn't enough to make the original material anime. This would be like equating The Powerpuff Girls or Lilo and Stitch to anime and adding the Japanese VAs to the original version. You can only put Powerpuff Girls Z or Stitch! in the anime category. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I also disagree, Anime is pretty clearly defined as "Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastical themes." in Wikipedia's own page, RWBY quite clearly falls under this definition. And furthermore, why would that be cause for their removal? Wikipedia is about providing information, not subjectively deciding what information people should see. The Evil Dice (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
While it's anime-influenced and anime-styled and promoted to the anime audience, it is not produced or co-produced in Japan (as with Miraculous Ladybug) and thus listing the VAs would be like listing any of the VAs in other countries where the product is disseminated. It is not relevant for this article. See WP:ANIME "Animated or printed works produced for consumption outside of Japan that nevertheless draw on or are similar to Japanese media in terms of content or form (such as Chinese animation, Korean animation, manhwa, manhua and Western manga-styled comics such as Gothic Sports and Peach Fuzz) do not fall under our scope." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not anime, I find it similar to the two animated Avatar series (Aang and Korra) but they are not anime.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I know nothing of this show, nor do I watch anime, but since this is an American webseries, there is no need to list the Japanese voice actors. Otherwise, it's just fancrufty.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the show was originally an American show, I don't see how this falls under this project. The manga would, but it doesn't have voice actors. So, no voice actors from Japan should be listed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - I am aware that RWBY has a manga adaptation, but this discussion is talking about the cartoon, and since the cartoon is originally American (albeit heavily inspired by anime), only the English voice actors should be listed on the main article. If this was the Japanese Wikipedia, then maybe this would have been fine, but it isn't. It's like putting the French cast of The Simpsons on characters pages of The Simpsons characters, or mentioning the Japanese voice actors of SpongeBob SquarePants on all related articles. It doesn't work, and even if it did: why single out Japanese voice actors? If you include Japanese voice actors, you might as well include all foreign-language dubs for the work, since there's no particular reason why the Japanese dub is suddenly more important than other dubs (though this is only recommended for articles on characters, and not for articles on works themselves). RWBY's animation was primarily made in America, by Americans, for an American audience, so it isn't anime, so there's no particular reason why the Japanese voice actors are suddenly so important that they should be mentioned here. We don't have a list of Japanese voice actors on our article on Minions, so why here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per Narutolovehinata5's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of RWBY characters[edit]

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.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The characters, as a set, aren't the subject of commentary separate from the media itself, so the characters should be mentioned as necessary in the plot sections of the parent article, perhaps in an overview of the main characters. The rest is outside the scope of a generalist encyclopedia. czar 04:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with merging the list of characters with the main article, unless there is a compelling rationale to otherwise do so; especially if compared to other articles of similar anime/animated series.Swilliamrex (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be okay to merge since RWBY has a wikia. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't count on another site to remain in existence. --Rob Kelk 12:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm worried about the main article becoming too long if we merge the character list into it. Plus the list looks well written enough (and sourced) that it can stay independent for now. Feinoha Talk 01:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's barely sourced. The groundwork is there for referencing but I'm probably one of the only folks adding them. There are still a ton of OR statements like where the names are coming from for all the secondary characters, and way too many rehashes of the plot where it should be more about character design. Outside of RWBY and JNPR, each team can be shortened to a single paragraph listing its four members. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Really? The overall presentation didn't look that bad, and it had a few sources (which I didn't check; sorry I can't attest to the OR since I barely know anything about the show). I guess I'll have to give it another look over. Feinoha Talk 03:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's too long to merge in this page.DigiPen92 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It would encourage oversaturating the main article; which led to the initial split. --Atvica (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Most other shows have their episodes listed on a separate page. Biglulu (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia style is to put long lists onto their own pages. --Rob Kelk 12:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Having a separate page for the list of characters on a notability TV show is a very well established practice; see Category:Lists of American television series characters. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Having the character list merged with the main article wastes space. No. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Characters table?[edit]

Is this even necessary? The star billing for the show is just the four characters:

  • Volume 1: [1]. Closing credits. Starring shows just the four voice actors, the rest are grouped under "With" Credits are detailed in the final chapter of each volume as to who voices whom, but it includes everyone, including guest roles. [2]
  • Volume 2: [3], Closing credits. Starring shows just the four voice actors, the rest are grouped under "With"
  • Volume 3: [4] Closing credits. Starring shows just the four voice actors, the rest are grouped under "With"
  • Volume 4: [5] Closing credits. Everyone is listed as "Starring the voices of".

There is no consistent billing or designation for the other characters. I recommend that the four be listed as {{CMain}}. The rest should be {{CRecurring}} if they appeared more than once in that season, or {{CGuest}} if only once. The "unvoiced" for characters that appear in the season but do not speak is acceptable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Lost Penny??[edit]

Hi people of Wikipedea and RWBY, I am new to both and unsure if this is where this request should go, but shouln't the Character of Penny go into the Character table, hopefully someone knows who that is? Asmotsat (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Grimm Eclipse[edit]

Shouldn't Grimm Eclipse have it's own page? —Jman98 16:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the video game independently notable? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say so, being the company's first video game and all. Though I'm not sure. —Jman98 01:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see it being discussed or reviewed by the big gaming magazines. You could make a draft article though and see if it can have enough content to show notability. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Notability (video_games) and see if it would qualify for that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

RWBY Chibi[edit]

Should RWBY Chibi gets its own page? Crazybob2014 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's enough material for its own page, but it can be structured like List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes, which means it's mainly formatted as an episode list with some information up front about the broadcast. The Chibi episodes can then be moved off the general episode list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Is that a yes or a no? Crazybob2014 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It needs to pass notability first by secondary sources independent of the subject. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the article was created anyway. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Is RWBY an anime?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I will start by saying that most tend to agree that it is an anime-like show if not an anime. The issue whether to classify it as an anime actually evolves due to the different definitions of anime used by different sources. However, Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view in this regard. The discussion below has also debated over the sources used to call it an anime and the flip side and one side clearly triumphs over the other. To close, based on the consensus below, I will say - There is a clear consensus Not to classify RWBY as an anime. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Should RWBY be classified as an anime? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC) I'll start by saying we are using the non-Japan definition of anime, since the in-Japan definition includes all animations. The results of this discussion will also indicate whether it will be included in WP:ANIME. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the infobox, I believe it shoudn't. I don't understand why it should be anime though considering nothing in this article points it out.Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Just asking but who the heck is "Bree Brouwer", and is "Tubefilter" a reliable source? The ANN source isn't reliable either as it is the user edited portion "encyclopedia" being cited. The most convincing source used though is Variety [6] in which yes they use "first American anime". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, the article the anime there are reliable sources. Tubefilter is a reliable source, and Matt Hullum is CEO of Rooster Teeth. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

TubeFilter article is echoing the press release statement by the CEO. It is dated in August 2014. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards include. Like it or not, the Variety source is reliable and written by a vetted author. This goes against everything that Anime means but we cant ignore the WP:RS. I say leaning as I would like to see some other reliable sources to back this up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The Variety source is reporting what Rooster Teeth is claiming. It isn't concluding on its own that it is an anime. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So it is a parrot announcement then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It's different from Anita Busch's statement on Deadline where she says "It's an anime series". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on the info below I am changing my opinion to No, Exclude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of published media: Rooster Teeth is marketing it as American-made anime. The CEO said that "This is the first time any American-made anime has been marketed to Japan." (2017) [7] This has propagated onto the main news sources such as Deadline.com reporting Rooster Teeth's claim that it is an anime: (2016) [8] Same with Variety (same article as above) With these RS's now calling the show an American anime, is that enough to call it an anime?

Chris Homer's review on Fandom Post. He doesn't say it's an anime, but he makes these statements: (2015) [9]

  • "The directors commentary is very informal (talking as much about eating jellybeans as much as the show at times) but they talk about everything they can – ranging from the voice actors/actresses, some history about the show, plenty of comedy, how fans have reacted to do it and the idea of production in wanting to make an anime and how it was planned during their other main show Red vs. Blue (Volume 11 soon to be reviewed). "
  • " An American series that is heavily anime influenced, aired on the web at Rooster Teeth, it got so popular that it actually got a deal to be released as DVDs, and Manga Entertainment got the UK licence."
  • "As a web series American styled anime like show, it definitely has a lot of potential."
  • "RWBY has been a show that has been in the head for 2 years without watching, and now finally viewing it – the animation style, the voice work, the action, it is a step in the right direction for Rooster Teeth to make an anime style show of their own."

At Japan Expo 2013, Crunchyroll announced it added RWBY to its selections "The site also recently added RWBY which is an animated series directed by Monty Oum and produced by Rooster Teeth. The story focuses on a group of four girls in their first year at a legendary academy where they will learn to fight monsters." [10] This doesn't necessarily mean it's anime, as Crunchyroll has also added on occasion live-action drama and other productions. But then you have protests like this: (2015) [11] so it is a disputed categorization.

Richard Whittaker of Austin Chronicle saying it is "anime-influenced" (2016) [12].

I think based on the articles presented, it is acceptable to have a "Redefining anime"-like section about this in the article itself. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the dispute in the meaning of the word, so for a WP:NPOV could we go with "alleged American anime" or the like? I also like your idea of a "Redefining anime"-like section or maybe a lead rewrite mentioning the dispute. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That may require taking it to the anime article itself. Although, it's been tried multiple times over the years. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's an Entertainment Weekly article calling it "the Austin-based production company’s hit anime show". [13]. Also tweaked the lead sentence so that it says it's a web series and franchise rather than the manga and video game. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding some more articles from mainstream media calling it anime:

  • Dave Trumbore @ Collider: (2017) "And while the return of those two highly anticipated toons is certainly exciting, fans of Rooster Teeth’s original anime series RWBY will be happy to hear that the show will return for a fifth season later this year. " [14]
  • Philip Martinez @ iDigitalTimes (2017): "RWBY is one of the most popular anime out right now and it has garnered enough attention and fandom that it has branched into its own video game." [15] "RWBY is an anime juggernaut with a huge international following and is the first-ever American anime to be exported to Japan." (2017) [16]
  • Sami Main @ Adweek: (2017) "They’ve created their own cartoon series based off of the Halo franchise called ‘Red Vs. Blue,’ an original anime series called ‘RWBY’ and tons of videos with content creators playing video games while hanging out with each other." [17]
  • Eric Francisco @ Inverse: (2017) "And then there’s RWBY, Rooster Teeth’s first original anime and its other biggest franchise. Created by the late Oum in 2013, Burns says the strategy for RWBY was that “action will translate globally than comedy, and that’s proven 100 percent true.” The show is recognized as one of the first American-made anime to officially be released in Japan." [18]

Again, it's based mostly on Rooster Teeth's claim about being the first anime outside Japan to export to Japan, but shows acceptance of the classification: AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you AngusWOOF. The media believe that RWBY is an anime. This is true if we read an article about anime: "Anime is a Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastical themes. Arguably, the culturally abstract approach to the word's meaning may open up the possibility of anime produced in countries other than Japan." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the remark by the CEO was made in August 2014. Michael Castillo @ Adweek [19] Prior to the announcement, it is NOT CLEAR that the show was considered an anime by any RS, in fact, almost all the articles listed so far are from 2015-2017. Even Variety's article was dated in 2017. I've added the article years to the above list. So that should go into its history. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Anime by definition is animation produced in Japan. If anything, it's possible that the sources that call RWBY an anime (most of which apparently do not actually normally cover anime) do so because they're not aware of that relatively simple definition. I think the best solution (or compromise) would instead be to call it an anime-influenced animation, a statement which is supported by some reliable sources (as mentioned above), or to say that it's classified by some Western sources as anime. Otherwise we'd be calling Avatar, Kappa Mikey, etc. anime, and that's a rather slippery slope to take. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Narutolovehinata5, read the definition of anime: "Anime is a Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastical themes. Arguably, the culturally abstract approach to the word's meaning may open up the possibility of anime produced in countries other than Japan." Avatar is not anime, because the media and the creators won't admit it, see also Wikipedia:No original research. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess as a general note, that quote you've taken from the anime article is out of context. That article itself argues that the exact definition is contentious and there are at least two schools of thought: one being anime is produced only in Japan and the other as a style. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV - opinions differ on the definition of an anime, and therefore whether this qualifies. Describe it as "anime-style" or something perhaps. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, not all sources confirm that. Most reliable sources fit it under anime only after Rooster Teeth had declared it anime. And there are reliable sources that have reported it is still debated in the community (see Lindsay Jones interview paragraph below). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is much disagreement over whether a work is required to be Japanese to be considered anime. However, the definition of anime seems to define it as a style or a work made with that style without regards to the geographic origin of that work. The Oxford English Dictionary describes anime as "A genre of Japanese or Japanese-style animated film or television entertainment, characterized by a distinctive visual style involving stylized action sequences and usually featuring characters with distinctive large, staring eyes, and typically having a science-fiction or fantasy theme, sometimes including violent or sexually explicit material; a film or television programme of this genre. Freq. attrib." ([20], there might be a paywall). Merriam-Webster describes it as "a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes" ([21]). WordNet defines anime as "a style of animation developed in Japan, characterized by stylized colorful art and often adult themes" ([22]). With regards to a less reliable source, Netflix classifies RWBY as Anime ([23]). My concern is that these definitions might not reflect what most people consider anime, as many people specify that anime must have a Japanese origin. The use of the phrasing "anime-style" would be accurate while avoiding the need to decide whether RWBY is actually anime or not. Alexwho314 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "as many people specify that anime must have a Japanese origin." — Wikipedia:No original research. The user can go to the article about the anime and read what it is. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "Many" might have been an incorrect quantifier, but there are clearly at least some people who specify it must have a Japanese origin (as if there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion). The definitions of anime given there are directly from Merriam-Webster and the OED, which I already gave above. In addition, Wikipedia is not itself a RS. I am not trying to say that RWBY is not anime, but as this debate has been unresolved for 4 years, it is likely to not be settled soon. Using "anime-style" should at least work until this debate is settled. Alexwho314 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes. Although it doesn't feel right, the definitions of anime given by major dictionaries would include RWBY as an anime. This might also mean that other American-made shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender would also be considered anime, but that is not our problem here. If for some reason we cannot come to a consensus here, we should just use "anime-style" to avoid controversy. Alexwho314 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Interview in which Lindsay Jones "Funnily enough, we showed our Japanese cohorts RWBY and they started arguing about whether it was anime or not! But seeing the reception from audiences is so surreal, and we never expected it." [24] Cornell Daily Sun article saying the classification is still debatable: [25] New York Times "anime-style" [26] Indiegogo "anime-inspired" [27] Comicsverse " Since the show is heavily anime-inspired, ", "computer animated anime-style" [28] Moviepilot article "Flame wars you don't want to be part of" has a section on "defining anime" using RWBY as an example [29] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • ANN writers Paul Jensen and James Beckett in their Shelf Life writeup of RWBY: "We don't have any formal reviews of RWBY here on ANN, but it is kind of cool to see an American production make it to the release encyclopedia. You can stream the series on Crunchyroll or the Rooster Teeth website." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Given how even the reliable sources can't decide if it should be called anime (I think it's more to do with the fact that said RSes might not actually be all be that familiar with anime in the first place, but that's a topic for another discussion), as I mentioned above, I think the best compromise would simply be to say that it's "anime-style" or "influenced by anime". But saying that it's anime sounds like a bit of original research if the sources can't agree. Alternatively, the text (but not the lede) could also say that some sources and/or the creators call it an anime, without saying that it actually is an anime. Interestingly enough, I don't think there was much controversy as to the definition of anime before RWBY came along, so if anything, it's RWBY that's trying to redefine what anime is, but I think that's outside the scope of this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Most reliable sources believe that RWBY is an anime. I will quote AngusWOOF: "Most reliable sources fit it under anime only after Rooster Teeth had declared it anime". Most reliable sources accepted this, so we should leave it in the article. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

To me this debate is so subjective as to be pointless. It is like heavy metal fans arguing over what qualifies as heavy metal or not. It is like saying that sushi made in America (or any other country) isn't actually sushi. If it looks like sushi, tastes like sushi, and is made the same way as sushi, then it's sushi. The argument that it is like Champagne is fallacious. Perhaps if the word were 'japanime', I could see the point, but it's not. In fact, the word is borrowed into Japanese from French! So maybe us English speakers have no 'right' to decide what is anime or not. Preposterous. Some may want to distinguish 'Japanese anime' from other forms of anime. If so, then do so and call it 'Japanese anime'. Call this show 'American anime', then. Nobody has a monopoly over what a word means. They mean what we mean them to mean, by usage. This is more a debate for a dictionary, such as wiktionary than for an encyclopaedia. Also, the 'reliable sources' argument is equally silly. Do you need a reliable source to tell you whether a sausage is a hotdog or not? It's a term in common usage, not a 'fact' of any kind. Same with anime. Tons of people would unequivocally put RWBY in an 'anime' bin if they had no idea where it was produced. Claiming it *must* be from Japan is just arbitrary and subjective. IMO, this RFC should be modified into "Should WP:ANIME be renamed WP:JAPANESE_ANIME to reflect its specialization?" ~ A non-regular WP editor who nevertheless has worked on several wikis (including the original) and also knows what an 'encyclopaedia' is without requiring 'reliable sources' to suss it out. (Is Wikipedia really an encyclopaedia, or is it just 'encyclopaedia-styled'? Ridiculous.) 24.57.67.215 (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Champagne is a different case as the champagne industry actually did make such a distinction. See Classification_of_Champagne_vineyards AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC) updated 00:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Champagne is a different case because Champagne is an actual place-name, so a legitimate case can be made that only sparkling wine from that region can rightfully be called champagne. Anime is not a place-name. It literally originally means 'animated', borrowed from French, animé. Again, japanime could make that case, since it includes Japan in the word. But anime alone is just an ordinary descriptive word. It's only convention -- and only within a certain sub-group of fans and creators -- that insist 'anime' must be from Japan only. It's totally subjective. It would be like insisting that only hockey played in Canada can be called hockey, and all other forms of the sport are only 'hockey-styled'. 24.57.67.215 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to base an argument off the etymology of the word anime because many words have had different meanings in the past. awesome used to mean "inspiring awe" but now is "an enthusiastic term of commendation" [30]. Even derivation (or lack thereof) from a place name doesn't dictate the definition. bugger is derived from a Latin word for Bulgarian heretics but now is primarily used to show "familiarly or playfully to express affection, compassion, etc." Just because a word has a certain etymology or previous meaning does not dictate what the word currently means. Alexwho314 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Should be classified as anime-style animation. I wouldn't define it as an Anime based on the definition that is used. Even if the creators didn't decided to market it as American Anime, the show still would draw comparisons to Anime from Japan and be a lot more similar to that than to any standard western cartoon. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We have not reached a consensus. I remind you that your personal opinion is an original research. We need reliable sources. If most reliable sources say that RWBY is an anime, then we should leave things as they are. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm still asking for sources that indicate it is classified as anime before Rooster Teeth declared it as such. So far nothing was appeared. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The creator himself, when he was still alive, declared it as such. If there's anyone with more credibility to make such a declaration, it's him. As a consequence, industry peers recognized his work as anime. Relevance falls more on recognition than timing. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not: If RWBY were an anime, so is Teen Titans, Avatar and Ben 10. The fact of the matter is, STYLE does not define what an anime is. It's WHERE IT'S MADE. Still don't believe me? Take a look at Panty and Stocking, which has a comparatively cartoonish style than most anime, and is styled to look like Western animation. Was there any doubt at all that it is an anime? Nope. The simple fact of the matter is, nobody would ever make a dispute if an animation is produced in Japan, doubting that it is an anime. Even the dictionary defines anime (and our own Wikipedia article, which is sourced) as animation that is produced in Japan.

Also, why is there even a need to compromise? You wanna know what is a fact? It's produced and animated in America, just like any other American animation. RWBY has ZERO distinguishing features that makes it any different just because it's styled to LOOK like an anime. You can make something as anime looking as you want, but if it's not made in Japan, you can forget about defining it as an anime. Discussion over. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has not been over. This topic has been in contention for the past 15 years and will continue to be. Why? Because the anime definition is not a static one. It never was. It has always been fluid one. [31] [32] Just refer to definition 3 under Etymology 1. [33]. The prospect of anime made outside Japan still exists; and there's nothing that can stop people from doing so. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Please calm down and read Wikipedia:No original research. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Original research? Are you kidding me? That ISN'T what anime means. RWBY isn't an anime; that's a fact. Do YOU know what anime means? If you do, you wouldn't be accusing me of making original research over something that is universally understood to be FROM Japan. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sk8erPrince, you violate WP:DE (1, 2) and risk a block. Wait for the completion of the discussion. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If it were "universally understood", then this disagreement wouldn't exist in the first place. Merriam-Webster and the OED both define it as a style that originated in Japan (see my post above), even though the lack of specific origin for anime works feels wrong to some people (like us). On the other hand, it appears to have been established that reliable sources only call RWBY an anime because Rooster Teeth calls it one. I am concerned of what calling RWBY an anime would mean for similar-styled works, but I would personally trust two of the most reliable English dictionaries than people like us who have not academically studied the meaning of anime. Alexwho314 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You have one definition from oxford that says its a style that originated from Japan, but this [34] definition from them says a style of Japanese film or television animation. So from same reliable dictionary they have one saying just a Japanese-style of animation, another specifies a style of Japanese-animation. RWBY fits into the former definition but not the latter. I can find articles from the Wall Street Journal[35](and other places) that describe it as an anime, and from the New York Times[36](and other places) that describe it as anime-styled. Saying that RWBY is one or the other isn't original research as both have reliable sources. That is the reason we are having this discussion here since we can find facts to support either side. Everyone should leave the main page alone til a consensus is reached. WikiVirusC (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel an admin should intervene and close this discussion. For the record I support "anime-style" but this has been open for well over a month now. Time to asses the arguments and move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I've pinged an admin. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We are confused in the sources, most reliable sources say that RWBY is an anime, a minority — anime-style. We need an administrator. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not confusion, its just conflicting sources. Most or majority/minority isn't the deciding factor for a decision. The real issue is at one point it was called an American web-animation, and then Rooster Teeth decided to market it as an American anime late in 2014, and people followed suit describing it as such. Does the switch retroactively change the category it was in for the year prior? I don't see why it needs to be so black and white, with insistence that one or the other is decided. It was originally released at described as a new "animated show", and now its released and described as "anime". I feel we should describe it as one and mention the history of the other description as it relates to the series'. Anime only, anime-style only or mention both, we can let an admin decide. WikiVirusC (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is in the producer's right to classify its own production as they see fit; and third party sources call RWBY as American anime. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I still believe the lead should err on the side of caution and state that it is an "American animated web series" and then state that in October 2014, the CEO of Rooster Teeth announced it was the first American-made anime to officially be released in Japan, and that mass media has since recognized it as an American anime. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel that is the safest bet. It avoids taking a side while providing the evidence given to both sides. It's the closest to WP:NPOV we can likely get. Alexwho314 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. It would be disastrous if we tried to classify RWBY as an actual anime, as if it is a fact (which isn't). Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputing the use of "viral hit"[edit]

The show became popular primarily because it was heavily promoted alongside Rooster Teeth (who already had a fan following)'s other content. Obviously the series's popularity has spread far beyond that, but describing the show in the lede as a "viral hit" seems inaccurate. ZarosFlok (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You can look at articles that discuss the viral hit history of Rooster Teeth like this one by Nerdist, although that is dated 2017. Maybe look at earlier news articles before that term was placed in this article? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BlazBlue's cross tag battle game[edit]

Should the cross tag battle game be placed under Video games or Appearances in other media? If only Ruby Rose is going to be in it, that would favor the Other media, but if multiple characters from RWBY will be in it, then maybe keep it in video games? Thoughts? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

False information sourced from satire site[edit]

Citation 46 cites a satire anime news site (AnimeMaru). The sentence "A protest was organized against Crunchyroll's inclusion of RWBY as an anime series in their offerings", which cites AnimeMaru is false and should be removed. Jellyfish1977 —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Removing. [37] According to About Us: "Ok, for liability reasons, I have to come clean. Anime Maru is not real. Nothing on this site should be interpreted as factual nor as a claim to fact. Content is not reflective of opinions held by the staff of Anime Maru. Content is not intended for readers under the age of 18. In conclusion, Anime Maru is fake anime news. If any of this is a surprise to you, I recommend speaking to your mother. She has something to tell you about the tooth fairy." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Genre that isn't original research[edit]

Need RS articles that show this series is clearly "science fantasy" or "dark fantasy" genre. Most RS'es I see out there agree it's fantasy and action. Just because they use magical guns doesn't mean they're science. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)