Talk:Puella Magi Madoka Magica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Main title

Can anyone give me a reason why the hell '魔法少女' is translated as "Puella Magi"? And is used as main title? Any "official" source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.47.58 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found it on the official website... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.47.58 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is read/pronounced as 魔法少女 (Mahou Shoujo), while the term is, apparently, known as Puella Magi in English text. Nothing too deep about it.

Heavenwargod (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

mahou shoujo mean magic girl but the translate it as puella Magi in the english translations so ...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.101.188 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Licensing

It says that it has been licensed by Aniplex in the Template. I can't read Japanese and have no evidence of licensing in other countries. Should I remove that statement?

Anymouse1 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The lincensor field is for English-language company that licenses a film or series for translation into English. However, it seems that people are getting this confused with the distributors more and more frequently. Perhaps this is an indication that the field should be removed from the infobox entirely because of the confusion. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But Aniplex is not a "studio" either, so how should we do in this case? Just omit the whole thing? (I guess this discussion should be on WT:ANIME, but I'm not familiar with project discussion.) —29th ((☎)) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Review(s)


--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers

The summaries that someone added aren't that, they are blatant spoilers that some people do not wish to know. I have removed them so it functions as an episode list now, which is all that's needed. It can't be assumed that someone has already seen the episode on looking at the page, as i found episode 3's plot before i saw it which spoiled it for me. If there is a means of hiding spoilers from those who don't wish to know, revert the page and make it so that they can be shown on demand rather then always being there. Otherwise either don't put them back in, or make it so the the summary doesn't encompass the whole episode and/or doesn't include spoilers (try looking at what an actual DVD summary does, as they don't give spoilers) Aquatix (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Episode summaries should summaries the entire episode and will contain so-called spoilers. Removing or hiding plot details on the presumption that they are spoilers is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NOTCENSORED policies and WP:SPOILER guideline. —Farix (t | c) 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes, like what you said, actual DVD summaries, not Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia meant to give any form of information on any article, as long as it's related. If you came here to read up on the series and you got spoiled, you've got only yourself to blame. Quoting Wikipedia's WP:SPOILER guideline, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot".

Heavenwargod (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Air Time

Does anyone know the actual air time for this show? Currently it's written as coming on at 25:25, which I find somewhat unbelievabe. Perhaps there's some magic going on here and we need a Puella Magi to come and wish time itself back into place, but until then a non-fictional hour would be nice. BMHBrown (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese do actually have a time of 25:25! It's what Westerners would refer to as 01:25, or 1:25am. See this YouTube video for more info. David Bailey (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that makes some kind of illogical Japanese sense. I think. I don't know what the guidelines are for local times but might it make sense to translate it to a Western time format to prevent confusion such as mine? The strange thing about Japanese culture, it always finds new ways to surprise you. Thanks for educating me. BMHBrown (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries! I couldn't believe it myself when I first learnt about it. David Bailey (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
2:00am here in aichi on CBC television.114.174.112.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

The translation of the runes and the references to Goethe's Faust

Would it be acceptabe to include the findings regarding the frequent usage of Faust quotes in the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredThornbridge (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really, since it's more of a superficial thing than anything particularly important to the story. Wonchop (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Those who have made contracts

(Warning: There are spoilers for those who have not watched past episode 10). Under Kyubei in character section, it says "He has so far made contracts with Mami, Kyōko and Sayaka, and constantly tries to get Madoka to make a contract with him". That is not necessarly true because we find out that all the witches have been magical girls, meaning those witches once made a contract with Kyubei (as normal girls). Someone should erase that sentence or at least reword the sentence so it stays truthful. Also, if we go really indepth, Kyubei made contracts with both Madoka and Homura in the future (but then again, due the time loop, it also did not happened). Anyways, as I still feel like an amateur to this site, I hope someone experienced will make apporitate changes. Thanks. PokemontrainerNelly (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think about time travel too much, your brain explodes. Nonetheless, I've tweaked the description so it doesn't go into individual naming (apart from his obsession with getting Madoka to join him)Wonchop (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Puella Magi"

It's always debated in a certain popular imageboard, but is "puella magi" really the correct term to use? It's in the show's title, sure, but no one actually says "puella magi" in the show, they just say "maho shojo" which is simply "magical girl." Compare this with, say, a Precure show, where the magical girls are actually called "Precures." 112.198.64.80 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well "Puella Magi" literally means "magical girl", so both would translate to "mahou shoujo". Which way it's translated is down to those who do fansubs and unofficial manga translations. For articles sake, considering the show is spelled out "Puella Magi Madoka Magica" in English, that's probably the term we should use until an official localization tells us otherwise. It also helps distinct itself from other magical girl shows such as Nanoha. Wonchop (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well now we're getting into a grey area as the US teaser site uses 'magical girl', though the show is still called Puella Magi Madoka Magica. I guess we should probably wait until there's some official statement on what they're being called or something. Wonchop (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well since the website uses 'magical girl', and some witnesses at Otakon mentioning the subtitles referring to them as 'magical girls', so it shall be. Wonchop (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The official title is "Puella Magi Madoka Magica". It is read/pronounced as "Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica" instead. This is what some people call an industry lingo, where an official name differs from what it should be read as. An example is Toaru Majutsu no Index. The title is written as とある魔術の禁書目録 and if read literally, it would be Toaru Majutsu no Kinsho Mokuroku. But reading it that way isn't what the creators meant for it to be read as, and the correct way of reading it would be toaru majutsu no indekkusu (とあるまじゅつのいんでっくす). Heavenwargod (talk 17:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As I am reposting from my opinion on the Puella Magi wiki with minor edits:
"Puella Magi" is not intended to be magical girl; however, "Puella Magi Madoka Magica" does indeed mean "Magical Girl Madoka of the [male] Mage" ("magica" being the correct adjective for "magical"). Being a Latin student, I believe the entire title was supposed to be taken together, "magica" connected to "puella magi", so I really don't think "puella magi" should be cut off from the rest of the title like that. But seeing as we've never seen any "Puella Magi" term without the "Magica" whenever it's used officially, I think one should reconsider the merits of that title. (Unless you want to call it "Puella Magi ________ Magica" every time, and that's just ridiculous.) Only dead fish go with the flow. 18:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Slice of life anime (oh boy here we go)

According to this scan from "Quarterly S magazine April 2011 issue", director Shinbo Akiyuki has said that he wants to create a spinoff of Madoka, that is a "heart warming slice-of-life series where the characters live their lives smiling not crying".

Right now I certainly don't think this is notable yet, but if there are any further announcements, this may possibly be worthy of mention. We'll see how things go in a few weeks or so. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Manga (year of release missing) category

We know the manga came out in 2011 so the category isn't needed. However, I can't seem to find the code for that category to remove it? Weird. Wonchop (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's there until the novel box gets a year of release included.--十八 06:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Faust

Madoka Magica is based on Ghoete´s Faust. Proof the translation of the runes are in german —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.167.60 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikia is not a reliable source and highly susceptible to false or misleading information. —Farix (t | c) 18:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
But the script apperas in series, so one can easily substitute symbols to letters and compare them with lines from Faust. I guess it falls under criteria of verifiability. Plus, there is a precedent: Futurama#Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.124.221.70 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that it's a superficial element at best and doesn't have any real impact on the plot. It more or less just counts as Trivia, which has been frowned upon on Wikipedia for a long while. Wonchop (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Characters

The Characters section is becoming huuuuumrongous. While it brings me great joy to see the characters receiving so much care, detail and love, would it be reasonable to create a new page dedicated to the characters in the show? There's bound to be more information coming in for the other spinoff mangas and the Bluerays, so giving the characters their own page might be good for ease of navigating the page and also give people the opportunity to add more information about the characters and subdivide it, if they so choose. 128.54.160.135 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There aren't that many characters to prompt a seperate article as of yet. It's not quite up to the numbers of say Yu-Gi-Oh! or Toaru Majutsu no Index. Adding individual character pages would also be frowned upon, especially for a twelve episode series. Wonchop (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, we have Oriko to add to the mix, now. That's a total of 18 Puellae, plus support characters. And given that the spinoffs are getting good sales figures, I say it's time we do this. --BrickBreak (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, there's still not a lot of info on them at the moment (which isn't likely to come until the next set of chapters come out). Whilst we're on the topic, the info on Madoka and Homura could stand to be trimmed a bit so that's it's not entirely about the last episode. Wonchop (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kyoube[iy]

Why this character's name is spelled Kyubey everywhere? Hellerick (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This was how it was spelled in the teaser trailers prior to the anime's release and is considered the official romanised spelling, akin to why we use Puella Magi instead of Mahou Shoujo. Wonchop (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template {{PuellaMagi}}

Sure we don't "need" to have it on the page in the fact that the page will "break" without it. But, I created it to aid readers in navigating the various Puella Magi related articles. Given the popularity of this show, I'm also pretty sure there will be more related works created based on it eventually (ala Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha). Also, it doesn't really do any harm to have a navigation template at the bottom of the page does it? Feinoha Talk, My master 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to be a bit unneccessary at all. The links to the other articles are obvious enough, since they are present in both the Media section and the infobox. If the franchise expanded further, like if there was a movie or a noticeable videogame, or if one of the spinoff mangas got an anime adaptation with its own episode list, one could probably argue its neccessity, but for now, there isn't particularly enough to justify it. Wonchop (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that creating a template was a bit preemptive, and creating one just for the sake of it is pretty unnecessary when there's only three articles in the series.--十八 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether a template or a category would be better. So I originally created the template (now deleted). Vivio TestarossaTalk 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Novel

It is a Novel or a Visual Novel? I think it should be mention in the article since Nitro plus makes Visual novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.101.16.220 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a book novel, released together in two volumes. Wonchop (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Split for a List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica characters article

As you have notice, the characters section on the Madoka Magica article has gotten big. So we should discuss whether we should split it or not. For me, i vote yes since we can't have the main Madoka Magica article to be too big.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was previously against it, but since the descriptions for manga characters are starting to increase, I'll approve. I would like to suggest that once a new article is made, the descriptions of some of the characters on the main article be summarised a bit more, with maybe less emphasis on post episode 12 stuff (not a spoiler issue, it's just goes on a bit). Wonchop (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
When/If the list gets split, make sure that it doesn't become a breeding ground for excessive plot summary and fancruft, which is often the case for split character articles.--十八 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I do not believe that Puella Magi Kazumi Magica should have it's own article, as it has not demonstrated enough notability in reliable, third-party sources to warrant a split from the main article (or the List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica chapters article). All the article has is a short introduction and a quick plot overview. What the series is can be covered in the main article, while the plot info as well as the release info goes well in the chapters article. Any information on characters is already in the characters article, too. So there's really nothing more that can be put into Puella Magi Kazumi Magica to make it anything more than a stub. Even reception info could easily go in the main article, especially considering that it has a very sparse reception section to begin with.--十八 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Merge Agreed the spinoff series is not notable enough for it's own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no notability guidelines for fiction. Vivio TestarossaTalk 22:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That is not true. Every article has to demonstrate notability on it's own, or have you not read WP:N?--十八 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Quite the opposite. If there is no applicable subject-specific notability guideline for a given subject, the general notability guideline is used by default. In fact, all of the subject-specific notability guidelines references WP:GNG as a base inclusion criteria and then add on supplemental criteria on top of it. —Farix (t | c) 23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Since there is a viable target and the spin-off doesn't have any notability of it's own. —Farix (t | c) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Producer interview

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2011-09-07/interview-atsuhiro-iwakami

[ANN] Is it for hardcore otaku? For adults who grew up with magical girl shows?
Atsuhiro Iwakami: The main target we had in mind was the general anime fan. That's what the director [Akiyuki Shinbo] and I discussed; it's why we used the romaji font and brought in [character designer] Ume Aoki. But after the show was broadcast, it felt like the viewership turned out to be broader than we had initially anticipated.
ANN: Was the popularity of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha at all a factor in your decision to take the magical girl genre and twist it in this fashion?
AI: Certainly we had it in mind; I'd seen Nanoha and of course [Madoka] director Shinbo was in fact the director for season one of Nanoha. We had also seen shows like Pretty Cure and Minky Momo. But we didn't do Madoka as an antithesis to these shows; it was purely based on the idea of what would it be like to do a dark story on a magical girl stage. ...
ANN: There are currently several manga adaptations and spinoffs of Madoka, as well as a novel series. Do you foresee other spinoffs coming out based in the same world? Would you want to animate them?
AI: There aren't currently any plans for the spinoffs, no.
[SPOILER] ANN: Kyubey turns out to be a sort of sinister character, but he has an adorable appearance. Whose idea was that contrast?
[SPOILER] AI: Kyubey is Urobuchi's creation. The mash-up of cuteness and darkness is the central theme to Madoka, and Kyubey is an epitome of that theme. ...
ANN: Do you ever wish you had stepped in at a time when you didn't?
AI: Well, the script was actually done three years ago, and it was only because of scheduling issues at SHAFT that delayed the production, and that was unplanned. Otherwise I think that the show came out on time and in a way I can be happy about.
ANN: The last two episodes were delayed due to the March 11 earthquake. Can you talk about that experience? What was it like in the studio at that time?
AI: The studio had been making each episode on an ongoing basis, exactly on schedule for broadcast, so there was never any room for disruptions. After the earthquake some staff members were very shaken. Even if the TV station had said that they would go ahead with the regular broadcast schedule we probably wouldn't have been ready. But a week went by, and two weeks went by, and the staff started saying that they couldn't stay in shock forever, that they had to keep on going, and then production continued.
[SPOILER] ANN: The series ends by demonstrating that through selflessness, people can get through difficult situations. Does that idea hold a stronger meaning now, seeing everyone working together after the earthquake?
AI: That synchronicity with reality wasn't something that was planned, but I did feel that as a member of the viewership. ...
ANN: But Shinbo directed Madoka despite being famous for his comedies like Sayonara, Zetsubou-Sensei. Is he an exception?
AI: Yes, Shinbo is very talented. Madoka goes back to older shows that Shinbo directed, such as The SoulTaker, that were much darker. ...
ANN: How do you feel about the response Madoka has gotten in the U.S. so far?

AI: I'm very glad to see the reaction it's getting. As an original title, not even anime fans knew about Madoka as recently as last November, but now it's become a commonly-known title. I'm very happy about the reception.

--Gwern (contribs) 14:05 7 September 2011 (GMT)

How is this a Seinen? I thought it to be either a Shoujo or Shounen, but Seinen?!?! Who stated this? 74.178.57.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Shoujo series are mainly aimed at young girls, and Shounen are mainly aimed at young guys. Seinen series are aimed at an older audience. While this series seems like a typical magical girl series aimed at young girls on the surface, if you've watched the series you should know that in reality, it's not like that at all. This series is clearly aimed at an older audience, and I would never recommend any young girl (or guy for that matter) to watch this. It's dark and psychological, and clearly fits Seinen better than Shoujo or Shounen. 80.101.97.103 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade article

Can you adding production information and to upgrade this article up to B-class, please? I saw many very good information in Japanese Wikipedia; as a popular anime, this article' quality does not meet the requirements of the reader. I think the interview would be very helpful in this case (synthesized from Puella Magi Wiki, not used as sources):

I hope WikiProject Anime and Manga will pay more attention to this article. Regards. --minhhuy (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Low class?

Seeing how Madoka is one of the most influential anime in recent memory, should it really be assessed as just Low class? It's probably the most influential anime since Haruhi (currently Mid-importance). Surely Madoka could at least be Mid-importance, right? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for Mid importance is "Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan"... so yes, Madoka would seem to warrant that level. I'd recommend requesting reassessment via the project page. David Bailey (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

B class assessment

Though I would encourage merging setting and plot together, I will assess the article as a B class if the two unsourced sentences are fixed: Italian air date in the anime and scheduled release in the manga. Also, it might not be my place but the terminology does not need kanji or romaji since they all seem to be direct translations. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary

I have a real issue with how the summary is written; it's difficult to follow. I don't think the last edit should have been rolled back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.190.237 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it difficult to follow? I undid the previous summary because it was much too detailed and poorly written. For more information on what is expected in a plot summary on Wikipedia, take a look here. But if you have concerns that some things in the current summary are unclear, please let me know specifically and we can work on it. Thanks! Artichoker[talk] 17:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Horror"

In reference the genres of Madoka Magica, I dispute the fact that it would be considered a horror piece. When I did my research in writing the production section, it was made clear that the creators desired to do a deconstruction of the magical girl genre. However, actually calling it a horror anime seems quite inaccurate. Especially since I am disputing this, I think it would need sourcing to back up such a claim before it can be added to the article. Artichoker[talk] 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good article?

Should this be nominated for GA status? The article looks sound to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly better than a lot of the stuff on GAN. --erachima talk 01:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on it for a while. Should I go ahead and nominate it now? Artichoker[talk] 01:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes go ahead I feel that the article is ready, at the very least the GA nomination will give you feedback on areas to work on that need it (If any) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Artichoker[talk] 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Layout

I object that this article is mostly about the anime series, the article should cover all of the media as mentioned in the inbox, body and lead and not just the anime portion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to create a section. Here is my response: I want to start a discussion here because I disagree with the change to the format that lumps the anime content into a Media section the other formats (print media, films, etc.) This is because (unlike Tokyo Mew Mew, which covers the manga and anime to an equal respect) this article is primarily about the anime and should instead contain an "Other media" which. discusses the other formats of Madoka Magica. As quoted under MOS:ANIME#Layout for a series article, I believe this article satisfies the need for flexibility and such a layout is allowed under this clause. Artichoker[talk] 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As for why I think it's mostly about the anime: the plot summary describes the anime, the entirety of the development section describes the anime, the reception section describes the anime. That is why I believe the article is "mostly about the anime." Artichoker[talk] 03:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
How can it be flexible though when you just want the article to be about the anime? There are like 3 series of manga related to the subject, so trying to make it just about the anime when the manga series are in the infobox and the lead does not make much sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I am saying the MOSANIME guideline is flexible enough to allow the current layout in this case because, as I stated, I believe this article's primary topic is the anime. The other forms of media (print, films, etc.) are tertiary to media. Sure there is related manga and such, but there isn't information on its development or reception. Instead, there is only enough coverage of them to give passing mention in the section on "Other media". They can still be included in the infobox, of course, because the infobox is meant to be an informative overview of the information that provides discreet facts such as release dates, etc. However, my point remains that the article is primarily about the anime. Artichoker[talk] 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay go ahead with it, I do not think it is best considering other articles but if the article makes GA I will be happy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will too! Artichoker[talk] 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I object to considering "what the article is 'mostly about'" as a relevant concern in how to best arrange a set of parallel section headers in the first place. --erachima talk 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite following why you don't think this is a valid rationale. Take Halo: Combat Evolved, for example. It is mostly about the video game. The article's layout wholeheartedly reflects that, with main coverage of the video game followed by an "Adaptations" section. If anything, I feel like what the article is mainly about (and the Madoka Magica is heavily, heavily about the anime, with only passing mentions to other media) is one of the best ways to determine article layout. Artichoker[talk] 03:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with Artichoker on this. There's no "one true" format that should be used, even if the format in Tokyo Mew Mew is the de facto style for (relatively underdeveloped) articles. Artichoker has also accurately pointed out that we have a multitude of GA and FA video game articles that treat the video game as the primary subject of the article, but while also containing adaptations or other media (if any exist). Also, using what's in the infobox is a poor argument, as it's just there to give readers a quick overview of a topic, and does not have to reflect the body of an article. If that was the case, then video game articles that had additional media would also include them in their infoboxes.--十八 03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Non-serial media and serial media don't lend themselves to parallel organizational formats in this respect. --erachima talk 03:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that the section on the broadcast delays is actually Production information and should be dealt with there, which gives a somewhat different layout. Thoughts? [1] --erachima talk 03:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not necessarily opposed to the broadcast delay information being included in the Production section. However, the problem with this is that it further increases the size of the Production section which is already overwhelmingly larger than the other sections of the article. Furthermore, the "Broadcast delay" section would seem to already appropriately fit in the "Broadcast and distribution" section that the article previously had. However, I do disagree with you having the article go back to lumping the anime section in with the other media, when the article is primarily about the anime. This goes against the rationale I made above, which you haven't responded to. Could you please change at least that part back for now until we get consensus? It appears Juhachi and I agree, and KnowledgeKid is okay with it. If you still dispute it, that is fine, we can continue discussing it here until we reach a full consensus; but could you keep the layout in that respect at its status quo? Artichoker[talk] 04:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The combined Production section arrangement is intended for smaller articles. Generally the way you deal with Production growing overly large is to section out Influence and/or Theme, leaving a Production section that deals just with the process of production. The other place I see to trim is how much of the Character Design commentary is included on your main page vs. how much appears only in List of Madoka characters.
    As to the media section, I maintain my complete bafflement of why anyone would think that it's necessary to give preferential treatment to one section of what is essentially bibliographic information. You are, as best I can tell, treating header status as some sort of "exclamation point" to be applied to certain types of information, and offended that I want the page to say "There was a series which you can find info about here, a film you can find info about here, some manga you can find info about here, and some video games." rather than "There was a series which you can find info about here! A film you can find info about here, some manga you can find info about here, and some video games."
    If there's a more natural division for a specific series feel free to use it --for instance, on this page if the series and films were one section since they were both "animation" I wouldn't care-- but breaking the grammar of the page for the sake of that "exclamation point" is ludicrous. --erachima talk 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I really think you are mischaracterizing my position as being biased toward the anime in some way. I don't desire any of this "exclamation" stuff that you talk about. The main point I am stating is that the central topic of this article, and the subject matter that it primarily covers is: the anime. I think it's really hard to deny that fact. The lead discusses the anime (with passing mentions to other media). The plot is entirely about the anime. The production section is entirely about the anime. And the reception is entirely about the anime. This goes toward my point: the article is about the anime. Now, of course there have been adaptations and other related media that have been produced after the anime. Being related to the subject matter of the article, of course they do deserve mention within the article, and indeed they are mentioned. However, they shouldn't be placed at the same level of prominence as the anime, because they are not the central subject matter of the article. It's exactly as the Halo: Combat Evolved article that I mentioned above. That article is about the video game. To say it is equally about the novel that was later written is, in my opinion, disingenuous. The same situation applies to this article. The article is about the anime. Stating that it is equally about, say, one of its video game adaptations does not seem to be accurate; nor does it reflect the actual coverage within the article. Thus giving undue weight to the other media doesn't seem to be appropriate here. That is why I believe the layout of the article to be flawed and believe the previous version of the article has a much better layout. Also, I'm puzzled as to why you never replied or touched upon my previous response to you, which laid out much of my rationale as to why the anime was the central focus of the article. And once again, I'd like to clarify: No, this doesn't mean I'm biased against any of the other forms of related media, or want the anime to have some sort of "exclamation". Rather, I am advocating for a more logical grouping which reflects the actual content of the article (taking into account the Plot, Production, Reception sections), which is heavily and primarily about the anime. Artichoker[talk] 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just checking assessments and I see the format war being brought here too. At this point, it feels like choosing whether one color is better than another. Why not settle for a straw vote? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I feel like this content dispute should be settled by determination of consensus. In regards to layout in other articles, I agree there are certainly articles in which a layout like one advocated by Erachima would be the correct one. However, for this article, I feel it is inappropriate and logically inconsistent for the reasons I outlined above (particularly my most recent reply to Erachima). What do you think, Dragon? Artichoker[talk] 23:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In any case, as primary contributor to the article and the one who nominated it for GA, I would certainly like this dispute resolved sooner rather than later so I can refocus my efforts on continuing to touch up the article to make the GA process smoother. Artichoker[talk] 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No arguments here, I think there are more important things to continue on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
My vote would be status quo. Further discussion should be thrown at the project which is currently being discussed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Status quo? So the article before the change was made then? I agree. Artichoker[talk] 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also have to agree with the previous format; I don't find anything wrong with it, and even adapted it for Angel Beats! not too long ago.--十八 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool. It seems like we're moving toward a consensus to maintain the status quo then. If no one really objects, does one of you want restore the article back to that version then? Regrettably, I have already made three reverts to the article yesterday (an action that I admit I probably shouldn't have made so many reverts). If not, and unless there is further discussion, I'll probably just restore the article back to that version when I get back home from work tomorrow (roughly a day from now.) Thoughts? Artichoker[talk] 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll do it, but it won't be a full restore. However, I would like to point out that MOS:AM does not prohibit alternative layouts and Knowledgekid87 interpretation that it does is in error. —Farix (t | c) 04:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Puella Magi Madoka Magica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Hey hey, I'll be happy to take this review!

I actually just watched the entire series run of PMMM and loved it immensely knowing little else about the magic girl subgenre. I came to this article immediately afterwards and was excited to learn about how much work went into making the show such a beautiful and affecting product.

In any case, it's a long article so it may take me a few days to finish an initial review. Please hang with me. Thanks so much for your work with this one! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! I'll start addressing your comments as soon as I get off work today. Artichoker[talk] 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1a

  • Magical girl is linked twice in the lead.
  • Newtype should be italicized and linked in the lead.
  • "Takahiro Kishida was also enlisted for character design adaptation of the series." This sentence is confusing to me. He was hired to adapt Aoki's character designs to be suitable or useful for the television format?
    • Let me know if my change isn't clear. Artichoker[talk] 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "already-existing work" Already is an adverb and as such does not need to be followed by a hyphen.
  • "During the writing planning phase" Is this referring to the phase prior to the actual writing of the script? If so, you might change it to pre-writing planning phase to clarify.
  • "Urobuchi attributed his past-experience" No hyphen needed.
  • You might consider linking dub in the last paragraph of the Broadcast and distribution section.
  • "where it began to air on the kids channel ABC3 on June 29, 2013 following" Comma after 2013.
  • "volumes released on May 12, 2011 and June 12, 2011 respectively." Commas after both 2011s.
  • "launched on June 8, 2012 and features" Comma after 2012.
  • "The Different Story has been licensed by Yen Press for release in 2014." Seeing as it's almost 2015, has this happened yet?
    • Let me know if my change isn't clear. Artichoker[talk] 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "released its first volume on November 12, 2013 before starting serialization" Comma after 2013.
  • "between November 10–11, 2012 in Singapore." Comma after 2012.
  • "released on Blu-ray Disc and DVD on July 30, 2013 in standard" Comma after 2013.
  • "Liz Ohanesian of LA Weekly attributed" Italicize LA Weekly.
  • "streamed on Nico Nico Douga on June 18, 2011 garnered" Comma after 2011.
    • Addressed all of the above. Artichoker[talk] 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

2a

  • Kotaku and LA Weekly are both counted as news sources per their Wiki pages so you can use {{cite news}} with them instead of {{cite web}} which will correctly italicize their names in the reflist.
    • Addressed all of the above. Artichoker[talk] 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

3a

  • Is there nothing to be said about the voice cast of the show? I know they're included on the List of characters page but in my experience, cast has usually been at least mentioned on the main pages for TV shows. I'm not familiar if there are WikiProject guidelines about this and anime and if there are, please let me know. Did the voice actors receive any praise for their work on the show?
    • I'll do a little bit of digging around and see if I can find some commentary on cast input/performances (may take me a few days with work). Were you also looking for like a list of cast members to be displayed in the article? Artichoker[talk] 03:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Artichoker: I think he meant the former, not the latter. You may also want to look at my suggestion below. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm just asking for clarification. Naruto, if you could find such a source as you described below, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will be doing my own searching for sources related possible cast interviews. Artichoker[talk] 03:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

6

  • Two nonfree images that are hosted on en and appropriately tagged with FURs. Looks good!
  • You might consider adding a third nonfree image of one of the witches because those were so visually different and part of what makes the show so unique. This is absolutely not a requirement for the GA but just something to consider.

Overall, this article is looking great. A couple of small things here and there and this is almost a GA. I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to work on it. Great work! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: I'm not Artichoker, but I'm one of the main contributors to the article, and I brought the article to peer review twice before, so I'm also willing to answer questions and make necessary edits. As for 3a, I think I can recall Aoi Yūki (Madoka's Japanese voice actress) saying something about her role in Japanese interviews. While WikiProject Anime and manga does not necessarily require discussion about the show by voice actors, except on articles about characters (see Eren Yeager for an example of the latter), it's interesting to note that Yūki was also part of the production staff: a few of the drawings of Madoka that appeared in the series (the in-anime concept art for Madoka's magical girl outfits and the like) were actually drawn by her. If a reliable source confirming this could be found, or otherwise it is cited to the episode credits, it could be an interesting addition to the article. What do you think?
Also, from the looks of it, the only problems with the article are technical and grammatical concerns. Does this mean that, should all of the above be fixed, the article could pass GA? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
@Narutolovehinata5:, @Artichoker:: Thanks to both of you for making the changes you did to the article so quickly. The only real obstacles to GA were the 1a notes which you've addressed and the question of 3a. If the consensus in the WikiProject is against including cast generally then I'm alright passing it without the inclusion. That said, if you can find something about the cast (even just to include parenthetically in the Plot section after each character's name, like "a middle school student named Madoka Kaname (Aoi Yūki)") then that would also be great. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bobamnertiopsis: While there's no specific guideline by the WikiProject for or against mentioning the cast in the Plot section, among anime and manga articles it's pretty much unheard of. Looking at the WikiProject's existing good articles, none to my knowledge mention the cast in the Plot section. If there are any mentions of the cast, it's either in the Production/Development section (example: School Rumble), the list of characters, or if it exists, the article on the character itself (as it stands, Madoka Kaname is currently a redirect, although I've long wanted to turn it into a separate article given the coverage she appears to have received in Japan; pinging Artichoker for feedback on this particular suggestion). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bobamnertiopsis:, I agree with Naruto that I don't think I've seen cast information included in a Plot section before. As for including them in the production section, I haven't been able to find much information about the cast specifically related to production. Artichoker[talk] 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like cast sections are generally not a requirement for anime articles so I'm happy to pass this one as a Good Article! Moving forward, if you're looking at taking PMMM to FA, you may need to insert at least some reference to cast but right now this article satisfies all the GA requirements in my eyes. Great work to you both! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Plot section

Here's why I think it's currently less than ideal:

1) It's currently very short relative to the other sections (and MOS:PLOT says "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections").
2) Kyoko Sakura isn't mentioned at all in the plot summary, although she is mentioned in the rest of the article (in particular in the figure in the Character Design section).
3) The plot section doesn't state that Sayaka Miki became a magical girl. This important plot development is necessary, or the sentence "Sayaka, heavily disillusioned with the current state of the world, falls into an irrecoverable despair that turns her into a witch" doesn't make sense (it could I suppose imply that normal people also turn into witches).
4) On the other hand the minor detail of Mami Tomoe offering to bring Sayaka and Madoka along on her witch hunts is included.

Right now the second paragraph is written concisely but the first, in my opinion, is not. Therefore I think either expand the second paragraph or slim down the first. Also, I think the major plot points #2 and #3 should be included regardless; conciseness is one thing, but surely a one-line plot summary of "Puella Magi Madoka Magica deals with Madoka deciding whether or not to become a magical girl" would be inappropriate. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Banedon, here are my thoughts on your points:
  1. The plot summary is brief but also concise and not filled with too much in-universe detail. If you take the quote of MOS:PLOT in context, it seems fairly clear to me that it is indicating that the writer should be careful to not make the plot summary too long in comparison to the rest of the article as is indicated by the next sentence in the paragraph.
  2. I think that's a fair point since she is indeed mentioned in a couple places in the article. I will see if I can add a bit about her to the plot summary.
  3. At least from my view, it appears that it is pretty directly implied that Sayaka became a magical girl from the contents of the blurb in context: "Madoka also discovers that not only do magical girls give up their souls to form their Soul Gems, the source of their magic, but when those Soul Gems become too tainted with despair, they transform into the very witches they fight against. This is exemplified when Sayaka, heavily disillusioned with the current state of the world, falls into an irrecoverable despair that turns her into a witch." The first sentence talks about the mechanics of the magical girl and then gives Sayaka as an example.
  4. I don't think this is a minor detail; it's a major part of the story. Otherwise the plot really couldn't have progressed (next we reference the death of Mami, which is related to this plot point, etc.)
Though I'm not sure what you're getting at equating the concise plot summary in the article to the one-liner you provided above. The two are very clearly different. In any case, thanks for starting this discussion. As said above, I agree with your statement on Kyoko, so I will try to work in a mention of her into the plot summary tonight. Artichoker[talk] 01:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Modified the plot section to now include mention of Kyoko. Artichoker[talk] 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well:
1)I actually read it as to keep the plot summary in line with the lengths of the other sections. Intuitively I would expect the plot summary to be the longest section (if only slightly), or at least comparable to every other section. This isn't the case right now.
2)Actually come to think of it the writeup right now also neglects to mention that Kyoko died. That's another major plot point.
3)While that's true, I think Sayaka becoming a magical girl is a major plot point that should be mentioned. It's like introducing a main character and his / her family in a plot summary, then later referring to the main character as an orphan - clearly the parents must have died, but their deaths are almost surely major plot points and so should be mentioned. Right now the plot summary already neglects to mention things like why Sayaka became a magical girl and why she fell into despair, why Kyoko showed up in the first place, Sayaka's fights with Kyoko, etc. These are less important plot points that can be glossed over, but I think Sayaka becoming a magical girl shouldn't be.
4) Why do you say this is a major plot point? That Madoka "witnesses the death of Mami at the hands of a witch" introduces the next twist well enough. If Mami hadn't offered to bring Sayaka and Madoka along but had instead died fighting the witch that Sayaka first killed as a magical girl, the plot would've developed largely unhindered.
The one-line summary was meant to show that summaries should include the major plot points, and right now I think several major plot points aren't covered. Banedon (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is not the convention on Wikipedia to have the plot summary be the longest section. In almost all cases of high-quality articles the plot summary section is one of the smaller sections. That is because most of the information in those sections describe in-universe details. Wikipedia places precedence on the real-world perspective: development, production, critical reception, etc. That's why for media articles, those will generally be the longest sections; as is the case for this article.
  2. I don't think that detail is really all that important for maintaining a concise plot summary. While the death of Mami is mentioned due to being a turning point in the story (as well as heavily referenced later in the article in the Production section when describing its real-world impact), the death of Kyoko is not.
  3. Sayaka is not the main character in the series, nor is she even the deuteragonist, so I don't think your examples apply. Details about her are mentioned in the plot summary when they further the very-high level plot structure that is written out, and I think the article concisely touches upon the most important points regarding her character. The wording for the explicit implication that she is a magical girl that is currently in the article is clear enough.
  4. The reason this is included is because of my points above. The sentence advances the narrative of the plot section and allows for the transition to the second paragraph to be less stilted. Artichoker[talk] 03:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote up a longer response but in the end I think I'll just create a RFC, since bandying "I think it is significant enough to include" and "I think it isn't significant enough to include" isn't going to get anywhere. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the plot section currently sufficient?

RESOLVED
Consensus against expanding the Plot section. – czar 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Does the current plot section concisely summarize the plot of Puella Magi Madoka Magica? Full details of the plot can be found at List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes. Banedon (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Major plot twists, including but not limited to the following, are omitted: that becoming a magical girl is irreversible, that Sakaya became a magical girl, the reasons for Sayaka's despair that ultimately turned her into a witch, Kyoko's (and the Sayaka-witch's) death, and all mentions of the Walpurgisnacht. Banedon (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Banedon: 1. Please read MOS:PLOT, which states that only essential details have to be included in a plot summary. We aren't the [htp://wiki.puella-magi.net Madoka wiki] where every detail and every blow must be covered, and 2. Artichoker has now incorporated the above elements in the plot summary, which makes this discussion/RfC moot.

Since the above concerns have already been addressed by Artichoker, I'm boldly closing this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: restoring removed comment. Artichoker[talk] 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Elaborating on why I think a RfC is necessary: the relevant policy here clearly isn't MOSPLOT, but PLOTSUMMARIZE, in particular the line "Necessary detail must be maintained". I don't think anyone will disagree with this statement in a vacuum, but we evidently disagree over what is necessary and what isn't. There is no objective way to decide here; we can't say "everything that got more than 10 minutes of screen time is necessary, everything else isn't". But subjective opinions cannot be argued. Even the word 'necessary' in PLOTSUMMARIZE is subjective. Once the discussion degenerates to "I think ___ is necessary" against "I think ___ isn't necessary", there's no point continuing; just get more opinions and leave it to a vote. Banedon (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not leaving it to a vote; instead, we reach a consensus. We already did have an established consensus for leaving the plot summary in the concise version that is on the article, but I agreed with your point about including Kyoko, which is why I added a mention of her. That being said, many of your suggested additions would only serve to bloat the plot section with more unnecessary, in-universe commentary that isn't critical to the general reader's understanding of the subject matter. So in taking account all of my previous comments in the section above, Yes the current plot section concisely summarizes the plot of Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Artichoker[talk] 16:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only the main driving plot needs to be noted. It's fine as is. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

Please Like Me

Made a note about how episode 2 of this series has the characters watching Madoka in the background under 'related media'. Is there a more appropriate place to mention it? Some screenshots are at http://imgur.com/a/pmsby to show how it's present for at least 26 seconds. Ranze (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Juhachi: the source is the episode itself, I can simply use Template:Cite episode right? Why is it trivial that this anime is so notable that it's gotten featured in a popular TV series? Why is it unencyclopedic? Ranze (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If something isn't covered in a reliable, third-party source, it's encylopedic value is already questionable. The fact that this is a pop culture reference means it's simply trivia, not unlike what you'd find on the actual Madoka Magica wikia. The point is, stuff like that really has no place on Wikipedia as it adds no encylopedic value. It would be different if the reference in Please Like Me led to some kind of controversy or something, but as it stands, it's just a random reference; it could have been any anime, it just happened to be this one. Not to mention that this is a GA article, meaning its standards of inclusion are already above most other articles.--十八 12:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Characters awards

I'm planning to write about the Madoka characters that they were praised for being one of the best heroines. They were praised for so many times and were highly ranked from 2011 to 2014. I have the sources so I'll be writing it after some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidaramonroe (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two character articles: Madoka Kaname and Homura Akemi. I think the awards would be more suitable there (with the source obviously).Tintor2 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree, use the source on the character articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. ;) Deidaramonroe (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Is Madoka Magica Seinen? Deidaramonroe (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Drama

Madoka Magica is Drama. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't just make a statement like that without anything to support it. Categories should be backed up by sourced statements in the article. Do you have a reliable source for this genre categorization of Madoka Magica? Artichoker[talk] 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh Jesus, are you really a Madoka Magica fan? Just go to anime sites and check its genres/tags.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=12120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a big Madoka Magica fan, but we need to make sure Wikipedia's policies are followed and that we don't add unsourced material to the article. The link you provided above is not a reliable source, as the ANN encyclopedia is user-generated content. Artichoker[talk] 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You, Madoka Magica fans, are bunch of failures. This wiki is incomplete and it needs to be expanded. Where is the Merchandise section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't be insulting to other editors. Continued breaches of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks will result in the lose of your editing privilages. —Farix (t | c) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I am very sorry! :c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Awards

I have provided the link for the award. Stop undoing it already and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the link itself seems to be of questionable reliability since it's from Anime News Network. Also there's the fact that we already have a lot of mentions of various awards that Madoka has won. I'm not sure we need yet another one especially since this one doesn't have that much elaboration on the page you linked. That said, since I don't want to edit war, I'll let others decide on whether we should or shouldn't have the award listed om the page. Feinoha Talk 02:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
ANN news articles are a reliable source.--十八 02:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
What Juhachi said, ANN news articles are a reliable source so I think we should leave it. Deidaramonroe (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's decided then. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.21.38 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Soundtracks

I've noticed that there aren't any page dedicated for Madoka soundtracks. I'm thinking of creating one. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.161.22.10 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That might be quite a difficult task. See for example List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. The user who created that did a lot of research in order to make it. Still, I suggest creating an account since then you can edit in a sandbox and comment here whenever you think you are making progress. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I created an account. From where should I start? UnknownUsername480 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Go to your sandbox and start a section similar to Puella Magi Madoka Magica#Music. Then gather all the CD soundtracks or singles (the ones with openings and endings). The article might need to pass WP:Notability so I recommend you to grab third-party sources (like the ones that review the series and search for info about the music. Lastly, the most difficult thing to find is the making of the music. Hope this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It helps as well if the singer is notable as that is a great place to look for sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you folks, help me please? UnknownUsername480 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Some reviews judging the music
Still, this is too small, I'll try to get you music references but I'm surprised I only got two so far.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope these reviews help.Tintor2 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You can also check this out: https://wiki.puella-magi.net/Rebellion_Material_Book#Yuki_Kajiura_.28Music.29

An interview with Yuki Kajiura. Deidaramonroe (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bingo. With that, I think a creation section could be made. However, it should use the original material (that books) when citing the information.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: @UnknownUsername480: I made a skeleton of the article here. Feel free to use it in your own sandbox.Tintor2 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@UnknownUsername480: Seems like you haven't started yet. Need any help? DarkFallenAngel (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


I've created the article in my sandbox. If anyone wants to help, please feel free to do so. Thanks! DarkFallenAngel (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puella_Magi_Madoka_Magica/Archive_1&oldid=1190147601"