Talk:Sword Art Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sword Art Online has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 8, 2016 Peer review Reviewed
March 24, 2018 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 7, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Reki Kawahara, author of the successful Sword Art Online, planned to submit the draft for the light novel series to a 2002 competition, but refrained because it exceeded the page limit?
Current status: Good article

Split list?[edit]

Should we split the list of light novels into its own article? Lucia Black (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely in support of this, Lucia. Chambr (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure that'll work. Especially considering that the table's expansion will take away from the rest of the main article.—KirtZMail 04:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My reasoning, exactly. Chambr (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Juhachi. "removing content for aesthetic reasons is not good practice"—is your opinion. Then expand list or split it off because it looks half-baked on an otherwise potentially decent B-class page. Just because I removed content doesn't mean it was non-constructive.The reason I removed the chapters is so it will not look incomplete especially since the last major edit on the table was over two months ago. The re-addition of the chapters is welcome if the list is split. I guess that wasnt as obvious as I thought by my edit summary. It seems no one wants to tackle a split-list even though it was brought up. >facepalm< —KirtZMail 04:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress, so just removing viable content because no one is adding to it now is what I would define as non-constructive, whether you agree with me or not. But I guess I'll just go ahead and split the list.-- 05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I want to add, that when I added the chapters and their names, I wasn't sure how to treat most of the books. From the main novel line (excluding Progressive), all the books before the 8th book, except for the 2nd, don't have "Chapters", or at least, they're not named, or indicated as chapters, and merely have a number to mark them, this number being continuous across the whole arc. Meaning the 3rd book goes from 1 to 3, while the 4th book goes 5 to 9 (Huh. That's weird). The "Alicization" arc is probably the only time the books are explicitly divided by "Chapters". I assume that particular information is irrelevant, but that's mostly why I avoided adding how many parts each book is broken up into, as I wasn't sure how to put that sort of information. The only additional information I believe I can add would be summaries, which I'll have to see what I can do. Ragef33 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sword Art Online: Hollow Fragment[edit]

Sergecross73 just created an article on one of SAO's video games. However, I'm not sure if the game has notability independent of the SAO franchise (meaning, if it should have an article in the first place). What do you guys think? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

With both games about to be released in North America later this year, I believe they are notable enough. There is going to be enough third-party sources discussing the games to satisfy WP:GNG, as the article already shows.-- 06:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I apologize, had I realized that the SOA was so active on Wikipedia, I would have run things by this talk page first. I create and rewrite a lot of more obscure JRPG type video game articles on the project, but I'm not all that familiar with anime, on Wikipedia or "real life". Anyways, the article already has 10 sources in it, around 8 of which are dedicated specifically to covering the game itself, and there are a bunch more out there that I didn't get to including yet either. But yeah, so far, all I've used and found are sources deemed reliable by consensus at the video game Wikiproject. So, I believe it already meets the WP:GNG, not to mention, as Juhachi is getting at, there are only going to be more and more sources coming in now that its been announced for an English language release. That being said, I know it certainly needs improvement and expansion. Hopefully you guys can assist a bit on the "series" side of things, as I'm not very familiar with it yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, Juhachi. Chambr (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

About the NA/US release of Hollow Fragment that claim of including Infinity Moment in the game.[edit]

Actually, it is just that the game is constructed with all the plot of Infinity Moment rebuild into part of the plot of the Hollow Fragment game (with slight changes...) thus it would be hard to say that HF have IM bundled together, as all people get after buying the game would only be one game that have different plot in it....For comparison, I think one can check out walk-through of the Hollow Fragment (Asian edition english sub, starting from part 3, 21:00, ~ 1 hour after into the gameplay) and compare it to the start of the Infinity Moment (first part of the IM game's walkthrough with tutorial included and plots that you see in the recall part of the hollow fragment plus some plot plus some more plot that add up to mostly the part provide in the hollow fragment walkthrough).C933103 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of doujins[edit]

I decided to revert the addition of a number of doujins apparently written by Kawahara himself. However, unless there was a source to independently verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion. It also doesn't help that they apparently haven't received any coverage in third-party sources, nor have they been discussed by reliable sources as supplementing the series in any way. If this instance can be taken as an indication, it's probably not all that rare for authors to write doujins of their published works. What is rare is for those doujins to receive additional coverage outside of simply being produced, which like I said, does not appear to be the case here.-- 08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, you're right. There isn't much coverage on the doujin he's written. Though, about verifying authorship, would the author's own claims that he wrote it be enough to verify authorship? I believe ever since Material Edition 8, or so, he's posted about each doujin before a COMITIA (where he appears to "publish" each release.) Though, am I right in assuming the reason this is a problem, is because posts on twitter aren't reliable enough? Ragef33 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It more has to do with the coverage (or lack thereof) of these doujins, though the authorship question is certainly an issue. Generally, content in articles is governed by their verifiability in reliable sources. I do not believe secondary sources showing that these doujins merely exist is sufficient enough to show why they should be included. I think there have been cases in the past where doujins have been re-published, or have been discussed in some capacity by third-party sources (J.K. Rowling has reportedly written unpublished material for a Harry Potter encyclopedia), but has that occurred in this case?-- 09:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


a source to independently verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion.
Can the Reki Kawahara's own twitter message https://twitter.com/kunori/statuses/463508197848797184 and https://twitter.com/kunori/statuses/461056113442422784 and https://twitter.com/kunori/status/428688406831329280 about the release of MEs validate this?
It also doesn't help that they apparently haven't received any coverage in third-party sources,
http://sao.52pk.com/xiaoshuo/201209/5378818.shtml It would probably count as a third party coverage?
nor have they been discussed by reliable sources as supplementing the series in any way.
http://www.acdorm.com/a/djsy/qb/2014/0530/31102.html and http://www.58game.com/ylxw/article-21737-1.html and http://big5.ce.cn/gate/big5/www.ce.cn/culture/gd/201211/23/t20121123_23875946.shtml are sources for these too. C933103 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe Twitter can be used as a source to verify the claim that Kawahara is the author of the doujins if the Twitter account in question cannot be verified to belong to Kawahara; see WP:UGC. As for the other sources you've given, what makes them reliable? Are they articles from news organizations? Have they been used by other reliable sources? What are they saying about the doujins other than that they exist, if anything? Can any claims they make (such as Kawahara being their author) be verified?-- 10:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. It can be verified the twitter account belong to the series' author. Crunchyroll, the site who obtained SAO streaming license, had posted a message from that twitter account and say that it is a message from the series' author.
  2. Those site I linked are reliable source. For example, the last source I listed is quoting Sina Comic] of Sina_Corp#Online_news, and the site itself is zh:中国经济网, a network version of China Economy, a newspaper published by Communist Party of China according to [1], positioned as a Economic-centric integrated news site according to [2].
  3. Again, take the last site as example, it talk about how the doujin attract attentions due to the involvement of original author, its plot, it is yet another work of the previous doujin, and that it compensate the lack of description of Silica within the original work.C933103 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
All right, then it looks like it would be okay to include it. If you could, please add in the contextual significance as well, like what you said about the doujins attracting additional attention and whatnot. I can't read Chinese, so I'd have to leave it to you or someone else that can.-- 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Sword Art Online 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.
Consensus seems to be leaning toward the articles not being merged, and since no one has commented in over two weeks, I think it's safe to take that as the final result. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The list should be greatly reduced to its core elements, sourced by secondary sources, and summarized via merge/redirect in the Character sections of its parent articles. czar 03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I count 15 characters in this series listed as main: Kirito, Sinon, Asuna, Leafa, Yui, Silica, Lisbeth, Klein, Yuuki, Agil, Seijiro Kikuoka, Nobuyuki Sugo, Akihiko Kayaba, Sachi, Death Gun. With subsets of these listed on the different anime series and specials anywhere from 2 to 10 main from this list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Asuna (Sword Art Online) just got created recently, so it looks like we don't have to worry about that too much. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Kirito (Sword Art Online) as well. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment I don't know about this series but @Satellizer: made two potential Good Articles about the protagonists, Asuna and Kirito. I would like his imput. If it's possible I would gladly say Keep.Tintor2 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to @Tintor2: for the ping; thought I had already commented here but evidently I haven't. Plenty of sources are available. Quite busy IRL right now but will add some tomorrow if I have time. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the rest of this article will be getting the amount of writeup as the Kirito and Asuna articles, this should pass notability. But if a good chunk of them are slated for individual articles, it can still be combined into the main article as it wouldn't make sense to have a list of characters where half of them are See alsos and the rest are stubs. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The only characters that come to mind that I think could get standalone pages are Sinon and maybe Leafa and Kayaba. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
With the right amount of work I estimate Sinon and Leafa could have enough coverage to scrape past the GNG. Kayaba probably doesn't have enough. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sinon's section is awfully bloated in comparison to the others. I know the AfD led to a redirect, but I think it could be recreated if I find some more secondary sources. Zappa24Mati 03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tintor2's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - added 16 sources today, might do a bit more tomorrow. There's plenty of coverage out there if you know where to look. Reaffirming my keep stance. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@ZappaOMati: Thanks. Sinon's page is looking quite nice so great job too; it'll be nice for her to have her own article as well :) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Draft:Sword Art Online (U.S. TV series)[edit]

You are welcome to edit this draft article. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sword Art Online[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sword Art Online's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HR":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2016[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zechariah16 (talkcontribs)

X mark.svg Not done The game isn't officially licensed by Bandai Namco or anyone affiliated with SAO. It also wouldn't receive mention anyway if it is not mentioned in reliable sources. Zappa24Mati 04:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Argo[edit]

Hey I noticed there is no article for Argo so I made a draft. Volunteers are welcome to edit it an help out.

Draft: Argo ( sword art online )

Thanks... InfoBrokerArgo (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Producers for SAO live-action series[edit]

This was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter just now: [3]. Should we add it to the article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sword Art Online/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


Well, I'll be reviewing the article. I think it is suited to become a GA but there are somethings that could be improved.

  • I'm not familiar with the franchise but I managed to understand the plot section pretty well so I think the grammar is okay.
  • The lead section does not need a reference as long as it is included within the article's body. You could trim the mention of games a bit by simply saying "for multiple video game consoles" in the lead. Also considering Kazuto is the protagonist of the story, he could be mentioned there.
  • Is it possible to create a production section by combining information from the light novels section with some of the information the characters articles have? There seems to be a lot of potential for a good section.
  • While I understand the word dōjinshi, some unfamiliar readers might be confused so a clarification might be helpful
  • Reki Kawahara's name is wikilinked twice in the novels section.
  • The novels' sales seem more fitting on the reception

The following paragraphs need references

"A single compilation volume was released on August 10, 2015. An eighth manga, titled Sword Art Online: Mother's Rosario and also by Hazuki Tsubasa, is based on the seventh volume of the novel series and began serialization in the July 2014 issue of Dengeki Bunko Magazine. A ninth manga, titled Sword Art Online Alternative Gun Gale Online, began serialization in the November 2015 issue of Dengeki Maoh."

and

"A tenth manga, titled Sword Art Online: Project Alicization and illustrated by Kōtarō Yamada, based on the Alicization arc of the light novel series, began serialization in the September 2016 issue of Dengeki Bunko Magazine."

  • For the anime section, there is once again a link to the Kawahara's name.
  • The opening and ending songs could be removed since the episode list tend to explain those.
  • Lastly, is it possible to get reviews involving the original media? From I've read there many novels were released in the West.

Other than that, I see no further issues. The reception is as a neutral as possible, showing both positive and negative points of reviews while there are no free images of Kawahara to add. The article covers all types of media so it passes 3 while it appears there it is also stable. Just provide a bit of the issues I mentioned and I'll gladly pass this article. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can only do some of the suggested edits; perhaps the Development and Reception sections could be left to other editors with more experience writing such sections, such as Juhachi, Sakura Cartelet, or G S Palmer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tintor2: As for the music, rather than complete removal, may I suggest that they be moved into its own "Music" section? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
And I'm finished with most of the requested edits, save for the development/reception sections. I've also moved the music information to its own "Music" section, which also discusses the series' soundtrack and character songs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Good work. Still, I suggest creating a section for the video games based on how many games there are.Tintor2 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Passed already? I still have to do the development and reception sections (which I plan to do in the next few days or so). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Didn't you say you left that to the other writer since you weren't that experienced?Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I might just do it tomorrow since Juhachi said he doesn't have time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)