Talk:Yaoi hole

need hands
Article Author. I have done my best to write the article as best as I could in my position, but my English is not good enough to write the article. Also, I may not have a sufficient understanding of the rules of the English Wikipedia. At the moment, I have the following questions and would appreciate any help from anyone who is familiar with this field.


 * About the source

The Japanese version of this article provides sufficient Japanese language sources. I have provided the Japanese sources as they are in the English version of this article, but I think that English sources are preferable for the English version of the article. With a little research, it appears that there are a certain number of English-language sources online that meet the quality standards required by Wikipedia. example1 example2 example3. However, my English skills do not allow me to properly extract the appropriate sources. If anyone is able to address this, I would appreciate it if you could add the sources.

Also, this article uses as sources books and websites of Japanese companies that have not been translated into English and are only in Japanese. Although I may not be able to provide English sources for these, I would like to receive any advice, for example, "It would be better to add a translation of the name of the article.

The reliability of the statements in the article was also questioned. The statements quoted in the article are either from books, company websites, or personal websites of experts, and I consider all of them to be reliable. let me know if there are any specific areas where seems not reliable.


 * About the paragraphs of development

In Japanese, the term "開発(development)" is used to describe the transformation of a non-Erogenous zone into a Erogenous zone. However, I am concerned that "development" may be misleading, as the English term "sexual development" seems to have the meaning of puberty. If there is an appropriate wording, I would appreciate a replacement.


 * about the origin of the classification table.

There was a comment of concern from a copyright perspective regarding the citation of the classification table. I consider this to be a net meme itself and not copyrightable. Although I have carefully described how such a classification table came into being, I am very concerned about whether I have described it appropriately due to lack of English language skills. If there are any errors or ambiguities in this introduction, I would appreciate someone correcting them.


 * About the classification name

The original Japanese text combines a very colloquial, informal expression with "派（school）," which denotes a school of thought or an academic school of thought. I believe this gap is humor intended by the 2channer who created the original tree diagram. However, I am not confident that this intent is conveyed. Also, I am not familiar with colloquial English expressions, so I am not sure if the classification names are correct in English. If you have a more appropriate expression, please correct me.


 * About History paragraphs

Regarding "Here we describe" in the history paragraph, I feel that it is not appropriate to use "We" in the dictionary, but I am not very bright in English, so I cannot judge. If there is a problem, I would appreciate it if you could correct it to a different expression.


 * about Synthesis of opinions

There was an opinion that some parts of the article could be WP:SYNTH. This article was submitted for peer review in the Japanese version, but there were no comments that pointed out synth, so I did not know what part of the article could be perceived as synthesis of opinions. If you can tell us specifically what you feel is a synthesis, I would like to take action to the extent possible.


 * about tone

Third-party advice at TEAHOUSE was that this article is not very encyclopedic. For my part, I thought I had all the elements necessary for an encyclopedia article, such as etymology, history, classification, and criticism, so I can't think of any specific suggestions for improvement. This may not be a problem of my language skills, but rather a limitation of my writing ability.

thank you for your interest 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I can answer a small amount of this.
 * Sources in Japanese are pefectly acceptable.
 * WikiProject Anime and manga may be the right place to ask for help
 * I feel the item you say is a meme needs sourcing 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think this needs some work to turn it into an acceptable draft, and I wish you success 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable advice. I will consult with the community you referred me to. I will continue to improve the article while receiving third-party opinions. Thank you. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Added one new reference on the origin of memes. A citation explaining Kaneda's citation of the Internet meme was added.
 * About Internet Memes

added a description of Shiramine's expertise and an explanation showing that she conducted the analysis as part of her professional work. 狄の用務員 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * About Shiramine

The main source used in this article, "A Man's Body Feels Good," is available in major sections on the official sales website and can be read by anyone.

Thank you all. I was surprised at the quick and massive brush-up. The revision of the introduction was especially brilliant, a structured introduction tailored to the reader's understanding is essential for the article to work, and it was the part I wanted to write but could not because of my ability. I deeply appreciate everyone's cooperation.

Some doubts about the copyright of the source of the copypasta were expressed, but I believe that my reinforcement of the source quotations has removed any doubts.

On the other hand, I received a comment about the reliability of the recorded statements, which I think might need to be improved.

The source of siramine's statement is her personal website. While it could seems not to be used as a source, I believe her analysis is worthy of inclusion and that it can be used as a source under Wikipedia's policy. The main reason I interpreted Shiramine's personal site as a source is because of the WP:BLOGS paragraph on Verifiability, which states, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." .

First, I talk about the "subject-matter expert". I added a note about the Yonezawa Library to the article. The Yonezawa Library is not only the largest manga library in Japan, but also has a largest collection of doujinshi and adult-oriented manga, even materials not available at the National Diet Library, as it was donated by Yonezawa, known for establishing Comiket, and is clearly the best environment for BL research in the world. shiramine is a former Librarian specializing in bibliography, I consider Shiramine a "subject-matter expert" on BL reserch.

Second,”whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”.Yuhikaku, which specializes in publishing academic books on the humanities, compiled a "Bibliography for BL Research" at the end of its "Textbook of BL," a guide for beginners in BL research published in 2020 (available here), and since Shiramine's name is listed among dozens of authors and researchers in the book, I consider shiramine to be credible in the field of BL research.

Third, the information published on Shiramine's site was not done by Shiramine as a hobby, but was the commercial result of a business, for the research of Kaneda and others. The articles on Shiramine's site were linked to the Yaoi Hole event and book, and one of Shiramine's articles used as a source was a supplemental explanation for event participants. Based on this, I consider Shiramine's site to be as credible as the commercial events and books.

For these reasons, I believe that the analysis of shiramine can be published, but I am not very confident that the reliability of shiramine is well conveyed from the article at this time. I would appreciate any advice or additions in this regard. 狄の用務員 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this article is now in good enough shape to be moved out of the draftspace, but I'll let you give it a look over first. Some notes:
 * I removed the note about the Yoshihiro Yonezawa Memorial Library because while interesting, it is not relevant for inclusion here and would make more sense as its own article at Yoshihiro Yonezawa Memorial Library
 * I removed one of the paragraphs under "Analysis", as it seemed to be getting to a level of specificity that was not strictly relevant and was attributed in part to a tweet, which is not a desirable source for our purposes
 * I imagine there will be concerns about my treatment of the tree chart. As the informal and humorous nature of the original 2channel prose makes a 1:1 translation next to impossible, I attempted to capture the intent of each school rather than the exact prose.
 * Morgan695 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your cooperation. I deeply appreciate the time you have given to the Yaoi Hole article.

The structure of the article has changed dramatically and there is no place left for me to edit in my capacity. I think the article was out of my hands. I only express my little concern here.

For my part, I remain unsure whether the endorsement of the credibility of shiramine has been sufficient.

I also find the reduced amount of information in the article worrisome. For example, the disappearance of what seems to be significant descriptions of nimura and Okada. The entire series of Okada-related writings were warranted by book sources, not by tweets.

Anyway, I have no choice but to believe it and would like to submit this article. Thank you all very much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate everyone's cooperation. I can confirm that the draft has been moved to the main page.

I must confess that I regret the loss of the detailed description of the yaoi holes, but I believe that the article has been more than adequately refined. Since I think my part in the story is over, I would like to leave it at that.

I think this article has a great deal of room for growth. There are many unusual edgy studies related to yaoi hole which I cannot yet write in English, since I have not written in Japanese either.

For example, regarding the history of yaoi hole, Mari Nishihara of Doshisha University in her doctoral dissertation, "History of Male Homosexual Manga for Women: From 1970 to 2000," analyzed about 1500 BL works, divided them chronologically into four periods, and quantitatively analyzed the frequency of anal intercourse in each period. According to the paper, the frequency of occurrence of anal intercourse is almost the same as that described by Kanada. I have only read the abstract of this paper, but I think it probably corroborates Kanada's view of history and is worthy of being integrated into a future article.

There also seem to be more than a dozen books and papers on why yaoi holes were sought after and what they represent. I think this too must be written about at some point in the future.

In the Wikipedia:ja, there is a debate about the use of 2channel and shiramine's personal website as sources, which makes it difficult to write, but I hope to analyze these studies in the near future and drop them into the English version in one lump of text to support the GA and selection for Unusual articles in the English version of the article.

Thank you very much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @狄の用務員様、お疲れ様です. I noticed that the source 『ユリイカ』2007年6月臨時増刊号 is a mook, which means there are also writings other than Miura and Kaneda's piece published in it like a magazine. Are you able to provide the page range(s) in which their piece appears? This will help readers to reference the source more specifically in the future. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 01:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arsonal Thanks for the proofreading.
 * Yes, that is the mook created under Kaneda's supervision. As for the paragraphs that use Eureka as the source, my first draft transcribed the whole thing from ja:腐女子 ,and I have not read the contents, but according to the article in ja:wiki, the page number is 28. The official info of the book is here, but unfortunately the page width of the feature is not indicated. It seems that the National Diet Library accepts queries for such information online for free, but I have never used it and am hesitant to do so because the procedure seems difficult.
 * As for Nozomu Tanaka's paper, it is a graduation thesis written at the end of a four-year bachelor's process, so I think a thesis rather than an essay would be more appropriate (my English is suspect, so please forgive me if I am wrong) 狄の用務員 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @狄の用務員, thank you for the clarification. I do see now that Tanaka's paper is specifically a 論文 and have revised the classification. Thanks also for the information on the mook. I suppose we'll just leave the source without the page range for now. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. National Diet Library does indicate the page range of this feature as 8–29, which verifies that the p.28 citation as within correct page range. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arsonal　The article became more certain, thank a lot! 狄の用務員 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Uke
I see the term in the draft. I see no (obvious) definition. I have not found an article on it so far. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah! Yaoi 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Moot. It no longer appears. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "Rotten women/girls"
Is this a term that requires explanation in this article? It appears in three references, but not in the text. If explained elsewhere then the references (one of them?) could be linked to that article 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Equivalent to/translation of the Japanese term "fujoshi" - women and girls who are the main fans and consumers of yaoi. Erinius (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I was aware. Should it be explained to others or linked? 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bonus hole" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonus_hole&redirect=no Bonus hole] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)