Talk:Yuri (term)/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
GA-class
I believe it's time to start thinking about nominating this article for WP:GA. Kazu-kun, relax, I'm not looking at you. :P Anyone else's opinion, maybe? PS: I think my contributions to this article were minor enough to make me an acceptable reviewer candidate. --Koveras ☭ 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey! That was kinda rude =P Anyway, before WP:GA we need to think what to do with the list; I don't think an article with an embedded list will pass the nomination (though I'm not completely sure). Maybe we should create a separate article for the list. I actually was planing to work on that a few weeks ago, but I decided to rewrite this article first instead. Now that the work here is mostly done... what do you guys think? Shoud we make a separate list? Kazu-kun (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't see an embedded list being inherently a barrier to GA. After all, the list guidelines lay out how to create and style them. If they're depreciated, the MOS needs to reflect that. Personally, for something like this, unless article size is an issue I like to have the information all on one page, instead of having to click through to get the details. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Personally, I think the only obsticle for GA is the referencing of the rest of the items on the list. I've never done a GAC review, and only been through one, so I don't know how much of a problem not having finished that would be. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We'll get it done before GAC.
- On a related note, I have been thinking that new and therefore non-licensed series most likely will lack reviews. In such cases, if the yuri is subtext we can't do much about it; we need third-party sources (reviews) to source subtext. But if it's explicit, for example having a character stating her love for another female character, or having a lesbian sex scene, then I think a quotation or a comment from the relevant episode could work appropriately. What do you guys think? Kazu-kun (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A primary source should theoretically do trick but I'm a bit uneasy about using them in an article on a genre rather than a particular anime. I'd say that if it doesn't have a secondary source backing its yuriness up, it shouldn't be on the list (but a category tag in the article about it should be alright). Alternatively, in obvious cases like ICE (which, by the way, is listed as yuri on ANN), a reference may be omitted (until a proper one is found, of course), as long as the article itself goes into detail about yuri relationships in the particular anime. Such entries should be tagged with an editor comment so that overzealous editors don't remove them on sight. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I was talking mostly about the second list, which include yuri as an additional element. There's header I included there for a better understanding of this concept. But the thing is that in these series yuri can't be considered a genre. If you wonder why we list these series... it's because yuri wasn't a genre at first, it was considered just a theme. Even today, yuri is used in Japan to describe both a genre focusing on love between women, as well as any woman/woman content in series that focuse on something else. Anyway, my point is that if I include a series such as Mnemosyne in the second list, it's because it shows explicit lesbian sex. I don't think I need more than primary source for that. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, I'm not against inclusion of series which contain obvious lesbian scenes into the list, I'm just unwilling to use primary references here. What I was saying is that if the article on a particular anime contains details about yuri in it, it can be added to the list without a reference (at first, until a good secondary one is found). Otherwise, it should better wait until it does. That's all there is to my opinion. :) Btw, I haven't seen any "explicit lesbian sex" in Mnemosyne yet, at least, not in the first episode. %) --Koveras ☭ 06:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, pardon my rudeness, then, but ever since you've been ignoring me bugging you about FACing .hack//SIGN article for a year, I decided that you are not interested in such things anymore. :P About the list, I find that it is of appropriate size and styling in this case, so I don't really mind it much. It has to be completely referenced, though. --Koveras ☭ 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, we're working on the references. About .hack//Sign - it's not that I was ignoring you per se lol. Well, I just got stuck with that article. I need a reference I can't get my hands on, and I don't think it's up to FA as it is. Anyway, I'll give you the details on your talk page when I have some time; maybe we can work out something. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was a bit afraid of this... XD I'm not sure it's ready yet. It'd certainly be unique amongst GAs - I'm not sure that a genre article has been nominated yet, although I think Romance novel is getting close. This makes it difficult to tell what kind of information is lacking (although lack of sources kind of neccessitates lack of information...). Like, a section on some characteristics of the yuri fandom (demographics more than anything else, really), more information on portrayal of yuri between shonen/seinen and shoujo/josei - like, is it as common for the male player of Takarazuka to be in shonen as in shoujo? In any case, putting it through peer review or GAC would certainly give a "to do" list for the article, (although with the lack of scholarship out there, some items may remain on the to do list forever...) -Malkinann (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hm, the fandom demographics and perception differences would be a very interesting topic indeed, though I must admit that I've never seen a larger article on this anywhere except pure original research wikis like TV Tropes. ^^ This might prove difficult to reference. --Koveras ☭ 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- IMO it should be something along the lines of a "Cultural impact" section. It should give an outline of the evolution of yuri fandom in Japan and its current state, and a comparison with the yuri fandom here. Furthermore, all the stuff Akiko Morishima reviews in her "yurixyuri" column for Yuri Hime should go in this section too: conventions and specialized events, etc. This is a lot of works, but I'm willing to at least look for references and see what I can come out with in my sandbox. I think this is more important than charaterstics of yuri depictions and the like, because this is a better reflection of the real-world perspective wikipedia requieres for all articles. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You do know that you've just raised all our hopes? ;) At the very least, some kind of sales figures kind of data about how popular yuri series are (and so, some measure of how popular yuri itself is) would be interesting. The fandom demographics idea was kind of based on what I'm seeing in the scholarship for yaoi - they talk about who are yaoi fans and why yaoi holds such an appeal for them. And the portayals of yuri characters in shonen vs shoujo was probably my inner LF shining through.-Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Source
Hi, I'm wondering whether the person who provided the Barazoku source for the origin of the term (footnote 13) could tell me how they found this out. I've been totally unable to track down a copy of this particular issue -- even the official site only goes back to the late 1990s. Thanks, Exploding Boy (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that User:Jimi-chan added that reference - you'll have to talk to them about it. -Malkinann (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
