Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishojo game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bishojo game

Self-nomination. Quirky topic that sheds light on part of modern Japanese culture. Note that all the images are fair-use screenshots or box art. --Shibboleth 00:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very informative. Markalexander100 07:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent in every respect. GWO 16:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. "Girls in bishōjo games are frequently kind to the player and open to his advances beyond what would be expected in real life"--priceless, deadpan, encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:52, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still lacking in depth from what little I know on this topic. For example, mentions on topics like Otaku and Moe are nonexistant and terminology are too short merely listing types of games. Also, there is nothing on games oriented for girls or why most Bishojo games remain 2D even today. Revth 07:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions: I've expanded the article along these lines, and added explicit mentions of the terms otaku and moe. (Though if you look carefully, a large part of the article was already devoted to these topics, even if not by name. When I talked about the "dōjin subculture" or Tsutomu Miyazaki, I was talking about otaku, and the "portrayal of women" section discussed "moe" characteristics.) The only objection I was not able to address is the question of terminology: aside from subgenres, "otaku" and "moe", I can't really think of any jargon relating specifically to bishōjo games. If you can name some terms I haven't thought of, I'll gladly add them to the article. For now I've renamed the section "Terminology and subgenres" to just "Subgenres", since that's what I meant the section to cover really. --Shibboleth 16:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added some jargons and terminology and I think I can support now. Revth 02:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 14:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a very comprehensive article. Denni☯ 17:25, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and comprehensive Chubtoad 03:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Besides that, nice article. --mav 03:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added. This hasn't yet been the subject of serious scholarship in either Japanese or English (AFAIK sociologist Sharon Kinsella is the only one who has been interested in this kind of thing), so it felt a bit silly to include a formal references section. Anyway, I have pointed to what is available in English. --Shibboleth 04:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - mav 05:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)