# Talk:No Game No Life

File:No Game No Life light novel vol 1.png disagrees on whether an English cover or Japanese cover should be used. Either a local consensus or an RFC must be formed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The original work is the Japanese version. Therefore, use the Japanese cover. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. No brainer. Use the Japanese cover of the light novel or the disc releases if you guys have decided. This isn't worth "arguing" over. I'm going to bed now. —KirtMessage 05:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Then it's settled and I have to back off. This has completely contradicted my FLs and GAs. I'm going to ponder this elsewhere. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Old versions of the file deleted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There has been a general preference to use the Japanese covers. However, there was never a consensus that all covers had to be Japanese. So if an English cover is already uploaded, we don't replace it and vice versa. Look through the archives at WP:ANIME. —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

According to JMnedict, シュヴィ is a transliteration of Chevit. My edit regarding it was steamrolled over so this time Im asking for a second opinion so that I don't get into an edit war. Personally, my opinion is that the name should be Chevit because otherwise, it would be like translating ヴァーグナー as Vaagunaa instead of Wagner. Plus, we translate names like Stephanie, Jibril and Lorelei on this page so I don't see how this is any different.
104.33.67.168 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I just steamrolled it out of laziness. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@104.33.67.168: @DragonZero: シュヴィ is a transliteration of Chevit when and only when the word is of French origin. However, in the series, the name is an adaption based on シュヴァルツァー, i.e. schwarzer, which is a German word. If you lack enough Japanese knowledge to understand how the name came up in the original novel you can read from the Japanese wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I already considered Shuvi might be based on the German Word for Black. Shuvi was what I placed in the article in the first place based on the reasoning anyways. It doesn't matter until the Japanese guy releases a real romaji or Yen Press does something. I let the IP change it because I didn't care either way. People can fight that battle if they want. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The opening song for this anime which had 8 million youtube views got taken down by a copyright claim by JAM entertainment, but I have not found any info on this JAM entertainment being related to the show/singer (she is signed to Media Factory). Is it a false claim? 129.241.125.182 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First time I've heard of this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As I saw some screenshots over internet, is there any need to use 1.7 out of all 3 paragraphs in that section to talk about how AnimeNewsNetwork review the show? that's just like advertising for them... C933103 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they're notable. Four different people from a website Wikipedia acknowledges. More reviews would just be an add on, which is fine. The problem is people thinking a random blog's review should be added here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As a summary to those ANN review on the first episode in the second paragraph of the reception seciont, I have made the following table:

Don't you feel it is a little bit too repetitive? And so as the third paragraph:

At least there should be some way to avoid some point appearing over and over but still point to the fact that those points are given by multiple reviewers...C933103 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The word flow would be absolutely terrible. Tales of Graces#Reception. I've toyed with lots of ways to structure the reception long ago and chose the current one to reduce the amount of names that come up. Aside from that, the only thing worth collapsing is the repetition of character dynamics.  DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked the references and the official YenOn Webside.
They removed the release date for Vol.6 and changed the release of Vol.5 to the old release date of Vol.6
Could somebody change that please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoranLP (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 

I've done it. You were also free to do it as well since it was a good edit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently there have been various claims that the author has been caught infringing on others' works [1], the issue being raised via social media. According to a youtube video by akidearest titled Everything You Didn't Know About No Game No Life at 4m10s refers to the production responding to a separate 2014 incident where they offered compensation and posted in the news section on what I believe is the No Game No Life website.
Also there's two more things in said video probably could be added to the article and not be random trivia: the imanity's language being based on romaji could easily fit into a development section, and the url referenced in the first episode of the anime leads to the game. The latter might be difficult to incoporate though. Editing wikipedia is no longer one of my hobbies so I'll leave the research for reliable sources up to someone else. AngelFire3423 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are looking to incest these claims in the article, then I'm afraid to tell you that the sourcing is not strong enough. Neither the blog post nor the YouTube video you referenced are reliable sources. Also a Twitter post by a random person is also not reliable. —Farix (t | c) 04:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Link or reference to this claim? I'm a reviewer too and i never made a claim like this or read other people make these claims. Text can be back only after providing reference and links to that claim from a reliable source and professional review, otherwise is a personal opinion and shouldn't be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdchan (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC) 

The statement is a summary of Anime News Networks's season preview reviews from the time the anime series first aired. These reviews are already cited in the reception section, and per WP:LEADCITE we don't recite content in the lead that is already cited elsewhere in the body of the article. —Farix (t | c) 12:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The links are good and a valid resource, thanks to finally providing resources without blackmailing me to disrupting the board -_-, what i like about wikipedia are resources and links as a proof, not statements based on personal opinions. Kdchan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The citations were already in the article in the first place. But your disruptive behavior has now lead to citation spam in the lead section. Again, we do not add citations for content in the lead if that content is already cited in the body of the article. There was no need to recite the same content twice. Insisting on citation spam is not an improvement to Wikipedia in any way. I am still very tempted to bring your WP:POINTY behavior up to the administrator notice board. —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
ok

You can have avoided all of this if you linked the source immediately instead of bland accusations based on personal preferences, i'm a fan of the serie so i like to see sources and correct informations in the right place. And btw, you started the reverting war not me since i explained why i edit that part. Kdchan (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Time and again, we've told you to check the reception section. Leads can summarize the articles without having inline citations. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
On the sources linked only some reviewers make these sentences so i see nothing wrong to claim than only some think so as a personal opinion and not the general consensus of every reviewer. If you disagree then link me an alternative article where all the reviewers wrote the same con argoument. Kdchan (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
That sentence means that most of English reviewers were turned away by the first episode, while reviewers who have completed the series praised things like character dynamics, game strategies, etc. Either you say 'some English reviewers were turned away by...' or 'English reviewers were generally turned away by...', it's correct. But writing 'generally' instead of 'some' gives you the proper idea that the first episode hasn't been praised by anyone in every source we've got. Still, that doesn't mean that every possible English reviewer expressed absolute disdain towards the start of the series.--Sakretsu (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, before seems everyone dislike the serie while in reality only some reviewers where turned off. As a huge fan of a serie (that sell very well and is became very popular) i found that sentence detrimental and not entirely true (if we consider the source linked the only reliable ones indeed). Kdchan (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the sentence refers only to the first episode, not the entire series. And yes, the episode was disliked by every English reviewer cited in the reception section. But as I said, writing 'generally' doesn't mean that every single English reviewer disliked it. It just means that you won't find positive reviews about the first episode in the article because the most relevant are almost all negative, which is true. On the other hand, what you're doing is not trying to edit the lead to actually reflect what the article says. As a 'huge fan', you're just trying to make it seem as the series was more successful of what it was among English reviewers, which is not permitted here.--Sakretsu (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Like Sakretsu said, the English reviewers of the first episode in the article. If you add some again in order to alleviate the negative reception, it will be removed per NPOV. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Based on the resources on ANN this statement that everyone was turned off is FALSE: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/preview-guide/2014/the-spring-anime/game -> Carl Kimlinger rated the anime 3.5/5, Theron Martin also Rate the show 3.5/5; i found also false the successive statement based on this official review : http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/no-game-no-life/episodes-1-12/.77101, and there is no mention of these "bad" points. Reviewer return a overall (sub): B; based on these sources my point is valid (some), also i correct the last sentence to match the last reviewer. Kdchan (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally does not mean everyone, for the Xth time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
123

IP reported for block evasion. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You can chose to edit a old opinion of a swj ann dude, change it with another impartial and not biased review or block it, sad you choose the latter among all the possible solutions and compromises. Show only how forcefull moderation is here based not on general consensus but on the opinion of 1 user.

The english release date has been announced. Since I don't have the rights, could someone add that?
http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/none/no-game-no-life-vol-7/9780316316439/?yen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoranLP (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 

I have done so on your request. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Volumes 5 and 6 just got delayed and vol 7 got completely deleted from the YenPress site.
I don't have time at the moment so could someone please change it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XoranLP (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC) 

Please update the English Release Dates of the Light Novels : 
For Volume 6, from "March 21, 2017" to "May 23, 2017
"

For Volume 7, from "June 20, 2017" to "October 31, 2017
" Joncatz1 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The episode list for the anime should read as follows:
1 - Beginner (ビギナー Biginā)
2 - Challenger (チャレンジャー Charenjā)
3 - Expert (エキスパート Ekisupāto)
4 - Grandmaster (グランドマスター Gurandomasutā)
5 - Weak Square (ウイークスクエア Uīku Sukuea)
6 - Interesting (インタレスティング Intaresutingu)
7 - Sacrifice (サクリファイス Sakurifaisu)
8 - Fake End (フェイクエンド Feiku Endo)
9 - Sky Walk (スカイウォーク Sukai Uōku)
10 - Blue Rose (ブルーローズ Burū Rōzu)
11 - Killing Giant (キリングジャイアント Kiringu Jaianto)
12 - Rule Number 10 (ルールナンバー10 Rūru Nanbā 10)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightL (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 

Not entirely correct either. These are only part of their titles. For example, episode ones full title is "素 人[ビギナー]". For episode two, it is "挑戦者[チャレンジャー]" What appears to be happening is that the katakana in the parenthesizes are serving as a guide to the meaning of the kanji. —Farix (t | c) 21:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. The katakana is the actual title, the kanji is what it means.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.64.25 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
And where is the source that states that? Especially since that is contrary to common convention. —Farix (t | c) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why would Japanese be translated into English for a Japanese show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightL (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Because English is "cool"? We don't really know why some series chose English titles or subtitles. And speculating would be original research. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Farix is correct here as far as I remember. I will investigate further. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the episodes and yes, those are Ruby characters placed above the kanji.--Sakretsu (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on No Game No Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230234804/http://www.tongli.com.tw/BooksList.aspx?B=NA0065 to http://www.tongli.com.tw/BooksList.aspx?B=NA0065
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221010716/http://blog.mediafactory.co.jp/mfbunkoj/?p=22529 to http://blog.mediafactory.co.jp/mfbunkoj/?p=22529
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In this edit (Link) a user has claimed the reception violates Undue, and has compressed four reviewers into a single sentence. I believe Undue does not apply here, as the whole paragraph was a unique view offered by four different reviewers on the the first, and only the first episode. There is no special attention or bias given to ANN, as there is no other source with the sole review of the first episode available at the time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
While undue weight has already been pointed out in the FAC Sasuke Uchiha#Critical response as a user and I had to rewrite the section to focus on generalizations, in this case the trimmed version fails to explain what are the comments of the writers. I would only trim that if there were similar comments like "the first episode was mostly received due to the cast (ref1)(ref2) but there were issues with the pacing (ref1)(ref3)". Still, I don't think the user's edit made it better cause I know don't understand if it was wellreceived or not.Tintor2 (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I find myself having to agree with the editor to some degree. I would consider this paragraph to be a single source writing in-depth about a single episode. Because it's all reception, I don't think it should get much weight. If these reviewers had all completed the show, it should have gotten more weight. If these were four separate publications, it should have gotten even more weight. I also think it's better to describe the varying opinions of these people in an overview, rather than describing each individually. ~Mable (chat) 14:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend using recent GA C (anime) as an example. Each of its paragraphs are centered on how the media received different aspects of that anime.Tintor2 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Since it's only a reception of the first episode, it should receive less weight. However, it should still be long enough to reference this sentence from the lead "English reviewers were generally turned away by the first episode of the anime though reviewers who have completed the series generally praised". It is still four reviewers with different ideas. I will probably shorten the paragraph into a sentence and merge it with the following paragraph of overall reception, but keep enough to reference that idea DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Will their be the the second part of the anime No Game-No Life (tv2) or is this project forgotten? I heard that Yū Kamia is ill for about two years.  MiodaIbuki4U (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been said so there is no way to tell. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 21:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Add "English release" for volume 10 which is "February 18, 2020", the volume 10 description "After pulling off a successful coup d'etat for the throne, Sora and Shiro take their devil-may-care attitude to running a pharmacy. Fellow Immanity Chlammy comes to deliver a letter from the 8th ranked race, the Dwarves...and they've got a bone to pick with the gamer siblings! Will Blank come out of this battle with another race piece, or have they finally met their match?!", and the volume 10 English ISBN "978-1-975-38678-8".
Source: http://www.b2c.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/none/no-game-no-life-vol-10-light-novel/9781975386788/?yen Nighthawlc (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I just did some quick work so mistakes might've been done. The date should be added. The summary of yours is not allowed for two reasons. First, without checking, this sounds like copyvio. Second, summaries should not be a sales pitch and should actually summarize the plot of the volume. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that this article bears little semblence of consistency regarding character/species/location name spellings: Some seem to use spellings given to characters by the manga (I think?), but as that only covers one volume of the LNs the source of spellings for other names is very unclear. In particular, some (Kurami) seem to be using spelling that might have been given in the anime, while others (Fil, Amira) do not appear to be used in any official English translations that I am aware of. On top of, I have noticed some internal inconsistency (Elves / Elfs).
I will be making some edits myself to change this. However, I wanted to add a topic here to describe my reasoning as I do so, in case my conclusions are not entirely correct: Which source should be preferred for character names here?
My thoughts: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime and manga states,

Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work).
The anime seems (to me) to be the most popular format, but the anime provides very few spellings for character names; additionally, even counting the film, the anime only covers volumes 1-3 and (part of) 6. The manga was also popular, for a time, but it barely covered LN volume 1, and thus cannot serve as a source beyond that. The LNs are the primary work, and the only source for many of the names in the series since other adaptations are so far behind nowadays, so it seems to me that this is the source we should be going to for spellings. Thus, I will be changing the spelling of names to match those in the English release of the light novels by Yen Press. Fists h (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ETA: Apparently the spellings of many names in this article were changed earlier this year, which led to this problem worsening. For example: the family name "Hatsuse" was explicitly changed to "Hatsue", which is a typo (the spelling "Hatsuse" is a direct transliteration from Japanese and has been used in all English releases of NGNL material, as far as I can tell, including the anime). Fists h (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Change the name Hope Chapman to Jacob Chapman in the Reception part of the page, as the critic in question transitioned after the original article was published. Evan Mullicane (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Ferien (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)