Talk:Soul Eater/Archive 1

Demon Weapons
This is an awfully loose translation. 魔 just means magic; while the connotations do tend to be more evil than the English word, the weapons aren't intended to be demons. Doceirias (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no official translation has been released, the only choice would be to use the most common fan translation - even if it's poorly translated. However, an explanation of the kanji used would be appropriate. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just checked this, and translation is not original research. There is no reason editors with sufficient Japanese ability could not overrule an inaccurate fan translation. I vote we replace the word 'demon' with 'magic' or even 'Ma' - until an official translation comes out, of course. Doceirias (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether it's OR or not - in Wikipedia we usually use the most common romanization of the names of things in Japanese. I haven't had a chance to read the series yet so I don't know whether "demon" or "magic" would be a better translation, but if "Demon Weapons" is the common translation for the series I think it's better to go with that one. However, if you can give me the characters it's written with in Japanese, I'll make a note about the translation in the article. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But when that translation is flat out wrong, we should pay it no attention. 魔鎌 - Makama, Magic Scythe. We basically have a fan translation done by a non-professional who doesn't know how to do their job; it has no bearing on the issue at hand. Doceirias (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The translation is not "flat out wrong" - 魔 is sometimes translated as "demon". Also, I've seen some fanslations that are much better than the "professional" official translations, so you shouldn't look down on them so much. However, regardless of that, the most common usage should be used. I'll point you to some similar discussions when I have the time to find them. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is flat out wrong in this context. Incorrect common usage can and should be overruled; this is not some argument over how to spell the name of a Hunter X Hunter character, where common usage is relevant. Doceirias (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "魔" generally refers to demons/devils and evil things. Even used in compounds it would still refer to something demonic in nature (ex. 魔界 (demon world), 魔神(devil)). The dictionaries at both Jim Breen's site and goo.ne.jp confirm this. To avoid further arguments I suggest we change the title of the section to "Weapons." According to page 14 of chapter 8, that is the official title given to them (based on Tsubaki's tag).Chanturismo (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does frequently have an evil connotation. It does not always. (Dictionaries vary rarely convey an accurate sense of usage, incidentally; be careful about relying on them.) Given that 鬼神 (kishin, which does literally translate as demon god) is used in Soul Eater, translating ma as demon or devil as well is confusing. Ma and Ki/oni are clearly being treated as different things, and translating them the same way would be a pretty basic translation blunder. I would be more than happy with changing it to just weapons. Doceirias (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware that dictionaries are not always 100% but I figured I might as well source something. Translating from another language is tricky business since there is always meaning lost in translation. I do agree with you on the point that translating "魔" as demon would not be an accurate translation considering the context of Soul Eater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanturismo (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they considered Demon Weapons because their origins come from Arachne using a dead witch to create the original weapon? 68.40.54.62 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, the official translation uses the term "Demon Weapons"ref. Dantman (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soul eater logo.jpg
Image:Soul eater logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * --Eruhildo (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurona's gender
I know Medusa reveals Kurona to be her daughter, but the translation (from Mahou X scanlations I would presume) could just be "my child". From the actual manga, it's read "Kurona wa watashi no jitsu no kodomo yo". It's not musuko or musume, so it's not necessarily translated as daughter. Is there any other proof that Kurona is a girl? Also, is it really alright to use "currently" in the articles? Its misleading because its just referring to where the scanlations are at. Naturally the actual manga is far beyond the translations. --24.25.220.156 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, "currently" is used far too often in the article. I haven't had a chance to read the manga at all, so I can't really judge which ones might be appropriate to leave though. You're right that it doesn't actually say daughter there. The Japanese article may indicate that we don't know Kurona's gender yet (設定上として性別は不明. ), but my Japanese isn't good enough to tell for certain. Are there any other indications that Kurona might be a girl (way of speaking, actions, etc.)? For now, I guess it would best to just say "child" instead of "daughter". --Eruhildo (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Japanese wiki, kurona's gender is still unknown --howareyoutoday (talk) 08:24, 13 Feburary 2008

Well, this isn't solid evidence, but Kurona's seiyuu is going to be Maaya Sakamoto. Girly voice indicates more chance of being a girl I suppose. --24.25.220.156 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that most boys have female seiyuu, so it indicates nothing.93.80.221.152 (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it's not specified, I think that Kurona it's more like a girl than a boy, SHe is always wearing skirt and act like a girl too. So I think that is enough proof, by just using the logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.46.87.71 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if that is so, it's still original research without it being confirmed.--  十  八  04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

corona is a boy it says so in the manga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.237.38 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Show us the proof. Stevefis (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not say so in the Japanese manga. Do not rely on fantranslations, which are frequently of dubious quality. Doceirias (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In one of the anime episodes, when Maka befriends Crona, Ragnarok pulls on Crona's skirt and Crona tries to stop him from doing that. Crona also says something along the lines of "perv" or "pervy". That may be an indication that Crona's a girl. Plus, when you see Crona in Crona's little sand world, Crona's wearing a skirt too. 125.236.178.159 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While that's very nice circumstantial evidence, I don't think pointing this out in a Japanese manga will really win you an argument. Yes, Crona's probably a girl, but it's still technically left ambiguous, or else the author would have just come out and said it.--  十  八  10:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, Crona is not wearing a skirt, but rather a medieval-style single-piece cloth, which is in some sense similar to what Justin Law is wearing. Of course, everyone knows that Crona has a feminine personality, but in Japanese manga, there are quite a few male characters with feminine personality. My guess is that Crona's gender will be eventually revealed by the end of the manga series.Stevefis (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt this. I figure the manga author wanted some ambiguity in Crona's gender to make Crona more appealing to the audience, such as how you can sympathize with him/her more easily if you do not have any previous misconceptions on his/her gender. I mean, there's circumstantial evidence both ways, such as how Crona says in his/her first appearance that he/she is unsure how to talk around a girl (Maka) which might imply being male, or the fact that he/she uses 'boku', a masculine pronoun, or his/her attire, though in every case you could throw that evidence out.--  十  八  01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Crona is a boy. It is strongly implied that he is a girl, however, that is just to confuse people. The author made Crona androgynous on purpose. ~Excalibur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.186.97 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Crona is obviously a guy! when Soul and Maka first see him in the anime Soul says: "Him? He's all alone." and if he's a guy in the anime doesn't that mean he's a guy in the manga? just cause he wears a skirt doesn't means he's a girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.131.6 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The dub refers to Crona as male for simplicity, but Japanese doesn't have such rules in its language, so it's left ambiguous.--  十  八  21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Equals versus dot
Sort of a silly conversation to be having. I just changed this to standard notation because we clearly had to jump through hoops to get the equals signs to work; it does look like some of the names use an equals sign originally. I'm not sure I see the point in keeping them, but feel free, if that makes you happy. Doceirias (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Main tech.jpg
Image:Main tech.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of characters and revamping of character descriptions
I was wondering if anybody had any objections to the addition of characters like Justine Law and Arachne and their significance. Some people might consider it too spoiler-ish. Also, would anybody mind the deletion of information regarding the "Kishin Revival" arc in characters' descriptions? It's not up really up to date and does not really contain any relevant information.Chanturismo (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of them are hideously bloated and need to be sifted through for what is important and what is excessive detail. I'd say about a quarter the current length for the main page... Doceirias (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Eater "manga"
Considering Soul Eater is not just a manga anymore, isn't it a bit wrong to have that addition to the title? I understand that Soul Eater needs some sort of classification, but isn't "manga" a bit specific? What should it be changed to? N-Denizen (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is standard naming. The name is always targeted to the original work. Doceirias (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Meister"
I don't seem to find this anywhere as an official translation, so I was wondering why it was used for the translation of 職人. In the manga scanlations I've read, it's translated as "technician", which I believe fits better than the German word for "master". Or if you wanted, just use "master", but I don't see a need for meister over a comparative English word. Further, Google hits of "Soul Eater" and "technician" greatly outnumber hits for "Soul Eater" and "meister". --  十  八  08:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, since no one has replied, I'll go ahead and change it.--  十  八  00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Give it a few more days; I kind of like it, groundlessly, and would like to see if the guy who initially changed it has anything to say on the matter. Want to hear what that source he found was, since I hadn't seen one. Doceirias (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dug up the initial change: edit comment was: "Official translation of 職人 is "meister" according to Black Star's tag (ch. 8, pg. 14)", which is not actually correct; it would be page 18, or volume 3 page page 110. Meister and Weapon are the official translations. Doceirias (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wish someone could have just responded sooner then.--  十  八  05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone rely information to scanlations.. --staka (T ・C) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the original Japanese page, the words "MEISTER" and "WEAPON" are clearly visible on Black Star's and Tsubaki's clothes respectively.--  十  八  21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is taken from the Japanese edition of the manga, not scanlations. Doceirias (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot and characters
Since there aren't many websites to verify information written in the "Plot and characters" section, can we add a reference from the manga? For example, " " Same goes for verifying informaiton in List of Soul Eater characters. --staka (T ・C) 13:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do, do it right by using cite book. A good example of the usage can be see at List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl characters.--  十  八  20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True.. I won't know the specific pages for the reference (since scanned) so I'll just cite the chapters. I'll do it in few days or so when I'm less busy. --staka (T ・C) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

51 episodes?
The infobox currently says that there are 51 episodes. But there are 14 episodes aired and 51 licensed (I think). I thought that the number of aired episodes goes there. Does it say 51 to avoid weekly updates or because I thought wrong? Itzjustdrama (drama?) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The episode lists total episode count mainly, as you said, to avoid weekly updates.--  十  八  19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme Songs
How come on this page it says "5 Theme Music" while on the List of Episodes page it says "4 Theme Music"? can someone fix this, since I dont know how to and will probably screw up? 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 98.160.169.11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.169.173 (talk)

Licensed by Funimation
Acording to Animecouncil.net Soul Eater's license has now been purchased by Funimation. Can someone add that to the infobox, i dont know how to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.226.24 (talk • contribs)
 * Done shasYarr!/T 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Differences between the manga and the anime
I've been reading a lot of comments on how the story of the anime stopped following the manga somewhere around episode 20. Would it be worth it to list the changes somewhere or are there too many? I only watch the anime so my input on this will be rather limited. - Arnizipal (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The later half of the anime is vastly different from the manga, only taking bits and pieces from the source material and changing the roles of certain characters completely, like Joe Buttataki who is only in the manga for two chapters (38 and 39), or Crona who suddenly grows a backbone in the anime. In any case, I doubt the differences could be sourced by reliable third-party sources, so I think it'd be better to leave it out.--  十  八  01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

plot
the section says plot and characters, yet, its mainly just a plot. the characters are in a different section. why not make a characters section where you provide the link? any objections? because i'm about to do it. Death Berry  talk  17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the plot info is kept in a single, in-universe section. It starts with the plot, and then goes onto the characters in the "Meisters and weapons" and "Witches" sections, hence the section title "Plot and characters". It's formatted just fine as it is, and I don't believe has any need to change dramatically.--  十  八  00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

that makes no sense...65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Meisters
meisters section is talking about only three meisters in particular, instead of what meister actually means. i vote it should be edited. any information on the 3 particular meistars (makka, death the kid, and black star) should be moved to there characters description. Death Berry  talk  17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "meister" was already explained in the first paragraph of the "Plot and characters" section, so of course we don't have to repeat this in the "Meisters and weapons" section. And the three main meisters and their weapons are summarized here since they are the most important; basically the in-universe info here is a sample of what can be found on the character, episodes, and chapter lists.--  十  八  00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

then wouldnt it be more simpler just editing the plot and characters in to two sectoins? the characters in one and plot in one. its pretty simple. to mix the characters and plot looks very strange for wikipedia. i suggest you make it wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.177.152 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not strange; it's actually done more than you may believe, especially when employing summary style. As it stands the characters are already separate from the basic plot info in the "Meisters and weapons" and "Witches" sections, so why not keep all the in-universe info in one large "Plot and characters" section?--  十  八  03:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

well i read alot of manga articles on wiki....can you specify? and have in in-universe???? isnt that against wiki rules???? this is definitely strange...65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

you said it yourself, the plot and characters are seperated, so why not identify the sections separately.65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sections are identified separately. And by in-universe, I mean all the plot and character info pertaining to the series, as opposed to the out-of-universe info on the media information, production, and reception. As for example articles (though they're not exactly the same) Tokyo Mew Mew and Madlax as featured articles keep all the plot and character info into a single section, linking to their respective character lists in that section. It's just slightly different here so we can separate the meisters, weapons, and witches into sub sections to make it easier to navigate.--  十  八  21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

wouldnt it be much simpler just briefly mentioning the plot, make a character section and add only a few character description. i know you want it to be simpler, but simpler isnt always the best answer.65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

also, its nto suppose to be in-universe style period. not the characters section or plot section. and only two examples are no good enough. the bleach and naruto and one piece dont make there plots and characters combined. so why very few do them like this?65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

in fact, this is more confusing than simpler65.101.177.152 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Naruto, Bleach (manga), and One Piece are not even good articles, so citing them as examples to aide in your argument makes no sense. Besides, all of those articles do in fact have a single Plot section which combines plot and characters. And I'll say it again. When I say in-universe, I mean all the material pertaining to the plot. Yes, it shouldn't be written in an in-universe style, but that's a completely different issue.--  十  八  22:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i can believe you are saying this. bleach and one piece and naruto have been reviewed countless times and received awards.those articles are ten times better than this one. you are saying the exact opposite of what should be. this article is poorly done. and no, characters should not be seperated by the type of person they are....so one is a which and the other is a meister. whats next? differentiating the black from white people in a manga about white people being evil and black people being good?

this is difficult to navigate, when you say meisters, most people would think you are trying to identify the word meisters not actually talk about the characters. this is far too in-universe style than you realize. same thing with witches.

the plot should briefly explain the storyline without going in detail about the characters. than the characters should be briefly mentioned in there own section. bleach and one piece articles are done excellently. but this is odd.65.101.177.152 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go a different route. Featured articles like Tokyo Mew Mew are done how it should be done. In that respect, the plot section is given a general, comprehensive summary with the beginning, end, and the most important plot points that occurred during the middle. Notice how on that article there is only a single plot section which links to the external character list. This is basically what all anime/manga articles should aspire too, it being one of a very few anime/manga articles that are featured, and this is in accordance with WP:MOS-AM. So I guess I'll get to doing something similar with this article then; I assume you'll have no objections?--  十  八  00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

nope, no objections!65.101.177.152 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DWMA
Quick note, Shibusen has actually been translated as DWMA short for "Death Weapon Meister Academy". See Wikia:souleater:Forum:YenPlus+_Updates for a comprehensive list of translations extracted from Yen+'s official translation. Dantman (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re, names
There seems to be a small debate starting on the wiki page on Soul's name, Soul versus Soul Eater. This is actually a part of canon that in the original vol 0, his name was Soul Eater, but in the manga, eventually it was changed so that Soul Eater refers to refer to all weapons because of their nature, but may or may not be something he adopted as well.

Are there any references later than Vol 0 that we have, bio books, etc, that help with this? 68.40.54.62 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Soul Eater" does not refer to all weapons; I don't know how you got that idea. Soul is the only one to actually "eat" the souls he absorbs, hence the name. Besides, his official character bio has him as Soul Eater.--  十  八  01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In the manga, there are multiple references to the name being used more widespread in the background. Not just in the splash pages but it's in the background and the clothing etc of many people, not just this character. And yes, that was what I was asking, because it could refer to more than one. But no, we've seen other people eat souls as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.54.62 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But not in the text? I'm a few volumes behind with the Japanese releases, but I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest the term is ever used as anything but his name. I agree we've seen others eat souls, but I just don't think that's relevant to it being his name. Doceirias (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada?
Could someone please point out where in the manga it states that it takes place in Nevada? Maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find that information anywhere. I don't want to start revert fighting over this, but unless we have an offical version of the manga stating that it takes place in Nevada, then it shouldn't go into the article. - T ainted C onformity   SCREAM 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't look for it before, but it's at the beginning of chapter 23, volume 7.--  十  八  08:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -  T ainted C onformity   SCREAM 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Review(s)

 * ANN: DVD part2 DVD part3 DVD part4 ANN Shelf Life part 3 Right Turn only vol. 5 --KrebMarkt 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CBB: manga vol. 3 manga vol. 5
 * Mania.com: DVD part 4 DVD UK #1 DVD UK #2 DVD UK #4 manga vol. 3 manga #5
 * AA: DVD part 4 Manga #5

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)