Talk:Soul Eater

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

O'Neil, Kate (January 10, 2014). "Soul Eater Vol. #17 Manga Review". Fandom Post.

	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.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ak1392.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

censoring makas father?

just curious but should it mention in the differences section that makas father was censored bu not showing the fact that he even had a blade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.4.154 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because for the exact same portion of the manga, he didn't have a blade either. Thus, it's pointless to call it a difference, let alone censorship. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can confirm this. He can just transform without the blade for some reason. User:ECPBlue (talk) 23:29, 28 December (UTC)

Soul Eater Not!

It would appear that Soul Eater Not!, the manga spin-off, has been released. Judging from what I understand, it follows a new student named Tsugumi Narudomi, a weapon, from her first day at Death Weapon Meister Academy. There are two other characters who befriend her: a girl who appears to be called "Meme" (I have no idea if she's a weapon or a meister, or if that's even her real name), and Tsugumi's meister partner Anya. The spin-off appears to take place before the events of the series; Maka and Black Star make cameos as new students, and Sid is not a zombie.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to bring up is, how should we include details of Soul Eater Not! in this article, since there doesn't seem to be enough information to support an article entirely on its own. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there is a spin-off, and I'd like to point out that "Meme" is a meister, shown in the top right <copyvio link removed>, on the, erm... name tag.173.73.121.96 (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Anoymous[reply]

Hey, is it really taking place before the main series? I mean, Kim was already revealed to be a witch, but that happens after Medusa is exposed to be one too, right? Couldn't it be called an alternate story line? 74.96.7.236 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)AnonymousPerson[reply]

No, it takes place before as Sid is in it and not a zombie. User:ECPBlue (talk) 23:51, 28 December (UTC)

Information Contradictions

In the development section the article states: "Atsushi Ōkubo created a one-shot story called "Soul Eater" published in monthly Shōnen Gangan"

Where as later on in the Media => Manga section of the article it reads: "The manga initially began as three separate one-shots serialized between June 24, 2003 and November 26, 2003 across two manga magazines published by Square Enix: first in the summer 2003 special edition of Gangan Powered, followed by the autumn 2003 special edition of the same magazine, and finally in Gangan Wing."

So which one was it? Was the first one-Shot of Soul Eater in Monthly Shōnen Gangan, or in Gangan Powered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.98.118 (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Powered, as indicated by ref 3.--十八 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks124.170.98.118 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

I see alot of unsourced material, especially in Plot, but it makes sense. There would be no source except for the actual book. You cannot remove it all, or can you. It is kind of a spoiler, but I don't know of any spoiler rule. I'm so conflicted. Something needs to be done, but what? Does anyone have more experience with this? MGray98 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot sections get a pass with sourcing because, as you said, it comes from the primary source of the work itself. As for spoilers, they shouldn't be removed; see WP:SPOILER.--十八 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller

Correct me if I am wrong here, but someone has been adding the Thriller genre. I don't think there are any sources that cover this matter here, therefore unless it is sourced, it violates a fundamental policy: WP:NOR. I think we should find reliable, third-party sources for these if the series is a Thriller. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, as I was blocked once for it in 2010, but I want to take the WP:BRD route and open a discussion here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

videogame overviews

there should be an overview of each of the video games listed on the page Ak1392 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description for Demon Weapons

It says Demon Weapons are weapons that turn into humanoids but it's actually the other way around, as otherwise it likely wouldn't be a trait that could be passed down through generations. User:ECPBlue (talk) 23:50, 28 December (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

result:
No consensus. Closure requested <permalink>. See little agreement below to make these or other page moves at this time. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for these page moves. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Result:
No consensus. Closure requested <permalink>. See little agreement below to make these or other page moves at this time. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for these page moves. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Eater (manga) → Soul Eater
Soul Eater → Soul Eater (disambiguation)

I think the manga is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Soul Eater". The only other article that shares exactly the same name including the capitalization is Soul Eater (novel); there is also Soul eater (folklore), though it is irrelevant per WP:SMALLDETAILS. But anyway, even including it, this article gets far more page views than them. The novel averages 3-5 views per day and the folklore averages 40-50 per day. However, the manga averages 800-1000 per day, over 100 times more than the novel and 20 times the folklore. Even when it comes to long term significance, the other articles are poor and make it hard to determine how much long term significance they have. By comparison, this series has received multiple adaptations and even has a spin-off that is independently notable. Link20XX (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 晚安 (トークページ) 16:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a rather easy shoo-in for primary topic. I do think the TV series could use its own article that is not just an episode list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I think its notability is dubious, I support Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater for as long as it stays on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, as Soul eater (folklore) is primary - or at least means there is no primary - by long term significance. If Soul eater (folklore) is also moved to Soul eater per WP:SMALLDETAILS than I would support this move. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly long-term significance is not something that I have the best judgment on, but based on the poor condition of the folklore article, I have trouble believing it has too much. But anyways, I have no opposition to Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater. Link20XX (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no opposition to Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater, although I feel like it may be WP:SYNTH linking together any mention of a soul-eating creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Now that I have changed my !vote to support your proposal, will you also change to support so as to stop this move discussion from being sidetracked? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as discussed, with hatnotes. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not the primary topic by any sort of long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both the proposed move as well as Soul eater (folklore) → Soul eater. The manga and the folklore creature are distinct by WP:SMALLDETAILS, and each is primary for its particular capitalization. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No clear primary topic here. And distinguishing by one capital letter would be unusual at best, certainly not something we approve often under WP:SMALLDETAILS, which just says it is sometimes done. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that SMALLDETAILS says it is perfectly fine to distinguish between two or more capitalized words and their non-capitalized versions. I.E. Iron maiden vs Iron Maiden, which, ironically, I actually supported changing but the community vehemently opposed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, moved, and no consensus, respectively. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Eater (manga) → Soul Eater
Soul Eater → Soul Eater (disambiguation)
Soul eater (folklore) → Soul eater

The previous requested move, which was closed in June 2022, resulted in no consensus for this move. However, over a year has passed since then, so I believe it's time to give this another chance. This page's year-to-date views are over 100 times greater than the only other article with the same capitalization (Soul Eater (novel)) and 14 times the page views of Soul eater (folklore). However, WP:SMALLDETAILS explicitly allows for using capitalization to differentiate between two topics, which has been confirmed in multiple RMs in the past (1, 2, among others). Additionally, there already exists a page called Souleater, which is about a different topic and is not disambiguated because of SMALLDETAILS. Lastly, looking at the click-throughs for the disambiguation page shows that in June 2023 over 85% of the people who ended up at the disambiguation page just clicked through to here. Link20XX (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the participants in the previous RM: @Zxcvbnm:, @BilledMammal:, @Necrothesp:, @ModernDayTrilobite:, @Dicklyon:. Link20XX (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still – Note that WP:SMALLDETAILS gives an example with parenthetical disambiguator as a good way to avoid relying on a small detail to disambiguate. Having manga in the title makes it more clear what it's about, and going through a disambig page is not much of a cost to the reader. Disambiguation is good. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- But how is this any different than Iron maiden vs Iron Maiden? Your argument could apply to that situation as well. Link20XX (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I'd apply it there, too. But that one was decided long ago, and enshrined as an example of how small details can work. That doesn't make it good idea. It would be better to have Iron Maiden go to the disambig page, and Iron Maiden (band) be the band. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the last requested move for Iron maiden came to the consensus that disambiguation based on capitalization is acceptable and as long as that stays the most recent consensus I don't see any reason not to apply that here. Link20XX (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. The nominator makes a convincing argument for the manga being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. As for the WP:SMALLDETAILS argument, I feel that cases such as this (media title with pageview lead vs. longer-lasting concept with fewer views) are among the situations for which differentiating by capitalization is most useful, so I support this part of the proposal as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nomination. Xexerss (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Still no primary topic by any sort of long-term significance. A single capital letter is terrible disambiguation, as capital letters may or may not be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nomination. First oppose is contrary to established practice and policy. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support' the very succinct nomination says it all, with a proper demonstration of WP:SMALLDETAILS and page views comparision. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being able to naturally disambiguate the two most important topics with small details seems like a good result to me. Obviously some hatnotes will be needed, but that's easy enough to do. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support page view analysis demonstrates that this is the primary topic and WP:SMALLDETAILS deals with any issues with the folklore article. Also on top of this a move request at Talk:Dead Space#Requested move 23 April 2022 also came to the same conclusion as the earlier move requests the nominator mentioned.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support - support first move of the manga to Soul Eater per strong primary topic argument and pageviews, but agree that disambiguation-by-capital-letter isn't great for the folklore figure. I'd say to move the disambiguation page to Soul eater, and keep the folklore figure where it is. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the first two items, opposed to the last item. Basically, I fully agree with SnowFire. Killuminator (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.