# Talk:X (manga)

I have recently finished watching X, and while I admit that I am not at all well-versed in manga or anime, it does not seem to be aimed at young girls, especially when one compares it to more well-known shojo works such as Cardcaptor Sakura. If I had not read the Wikipedia article, my guess as to demographic would be either seinen or josei. May I ask from whence the "shojo" designation originates? Please forgive my lack of correct romaji; I have not yet figured out how to insert non-ASCII characters into text using my current operating system. --Aseld talk 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, this stems from the fact that Asuka is a shōjo manga magazine, which makes any manga published in it shōjo. However, it is aimed at an older audience than CCS - teenage instead of elementary school girls, I think. (There are other shōjo works similar to X, look to Kaori Yuki for example.) --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, thanks. --Aseld talk 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:X (manga)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I have started this good article reassessment as I feel this article no longer meets the GA criteria. Specifically, it greatly fails criteria 2, with whole sections of unsourced text. It also heavily fails criteria 3 regarding completeness and : the plot is incomplete and more teaser than a proper plot summary and the article is completely lacking in a reception section. It also fails criteria 1 in that it does not follow the WP:MOS-AM, and has some prose issues. It may also be using the Japanese names instead of English for the characters, but this needs confirmation. I also feel it fails criteria 6. The infobox image is an image of a stylized text logo, which goes against both the MoS and appropriate WP:NONFREE usage and needs to replaced with a manga cover. The image of the characters does not add significantly to the reader's understanding as a whole, and has no source information. The image in the influences section appears to be used to support WP:OR, as it is not supported within the text by reliable sources. File:Kamui v. Kamui (X manga).jpg also does not add significantly to the article quality and appears more decorative than necessary. 
If the article can not be brought back up to GA standards by April 12, 2009, it will be delisted as a Good Article and reassessed to a C. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a scan of the first japanese volume (had to crop it ever so slightly). It's not great quality, but the best I could find so far. I've uploaded it as a seperate file to the previous one, so it will be easier to replace it (will show up differently if the current file is replaced at the same location) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Found a better one. Should be fine now. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it fails. Let me enumerate: The "Plot" and "Characters" section don't usually require sources, but they are anyway for good measure. "Publication" is sourced with ComiPress, Anime News Network and Anime Nation. "Adaptations" is pretty straight-forward, no room for interpretation, synthesis or original research; but it is, nonetheless, referenced with articles found in EX: The Online World of Anime & Manga, The New York Times, Daily Variety, ANN, Animefringe, AnimeonDVD (now Mania.com). "Design", the beefiest section and the one most likely to require sources, is fully referenced to various anime sites, mainstream publications and interviews with the creators. If there's anything specific that jumps out as "needing sources", let us know.
The plot is "incomplete" because the series is "incomplete", but the "Plot" section does a pretty good job of summarizing what's available while avoiding "excessive details of twists and turns in the story" (from WP:MOS-AM).
The reason why there's no "Reception" section it is because I found no reviews of the original manga series. Padding a "Reception" section with movie and TV reviews would be dishonest. They are different mediums and cannot be judged by the same standards. However, the TV and film sub-sections of "Adaptations" accurately present the consensus among reviewers who've watched the respective anime adaptation.
The color image is scanned from the X artbook, while the B&W images come straight from the manga. The first one illustrates the protagonist, while the last one illustrates a recurring motif of the series. As motifs are visual, an image is more than significant and not "decorative" at all... At least, no more decorative than an image of a DVD Box Cover (which appears in most other anime articles with no significant added value). The second is kinda dubious, I admit, but it helps understand the influence of Christian mythology on the series. We could find one of a crucified Kamui, if you like.
So, if the prose needs fixing... go right ahead. If it needs a new infobox image... go ahead and change it (thanks Dandy Sephy). But I don't see any glaring problems and those pointed out seem to be no problem at all. Although, I must confess it has always troubled me having a GA without an actual "Reception" section (see Talk:X (manga)/Archive 1) but... whatever.--Nohansen (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, character sections do now require sources. The GA criteria is stronger than it was when this article originally passed. However, those were not the sections I was referring to, but to the entire  Media section, which does not have a single source. The Adaptations sections is also missing sources in several places. It doesn't matter if there is "room for interpretation, synthesis or original research" - they are still statement of facts that must be sourced. The plot is not complete. I have seen the series, so I know there is a lot more than what is covered there. And the anime is entirely unaddressed (differences section missing). I'm sorry, but a lack of reception on the original manga is not a valid excuse for not providing reception for the rest of the series. To me, that's like saying "I didn't include valid, reliable sourced info because I couldn't find Japanese reviews" either. Also, there are references available for the manga, even if there aren't as many, so perhaps a relook is in order. In either case, by your own admission, valid information is being left out. There is also a lot more reception available on the film and the series than is being included here. Claiming "consensus" is seen seems a bit ORish to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If "the anime is entirely unaddressed" (which one? the film or the TV series?) it is because the article is focused on the manga (as I feel it should be). There not much more we can write on add about them without risking an Elfen Lied situation, where people who've never read the original manga (and have only seen the anime) pad the article without realizing the info may not be entirely correct or downright wrong. I hate it when manga articles concern themselves more with the animated adaptations. Don't you?
But anyway, we need specifics. A specific statement you feel needs sourcing. Or better yet, you source it. You fix the prose. You add "Reception" info. This is supposed to be a collective effort, after all. Not "This article needs fixing. Fix it or I'll demote it". I don't go around looking to point out any given article's deficiencies, my M.O. is going around fixing article deficiencies. I expect no less of everyone else.
I may be the article's main contributor, but I can't go around fixing what you think needs fixing when I don't know what you think needs fixing and, worse, when I don't see anything that needs immediate attention (see April 12 deadline).--Nohansen (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth: I've gone through the article and marked what is in need of referencing/citation.[1] -- Goodraise (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the manga article, yes, but that doesn't mean pretending the anime nor film doesn't exist at all. It should have reviews of all of them, not just the manga. It should have at least a summarized differences area (most obvious, of course, being the anime has an ending). It should properly address them all. Right now, this article doesn't just "focus on the manga" it does a disservice to the franchise as a whole by overly downplaying the rest. Its all about balance, and right now, this is balanced the other way. And sorry, but no, saying "eh, go fix it yourself" is not a helpful response at all. As the main contributer, its presumed you either wrote it or vetted it, so if you don't have the sources, why is it there. Why would you claim its GA material when you can clearly see, it has no sources there. That isn't how a GAR works, as I'm sure you know. It is not a system of: "okay, article doesn't meet, so here's what I'm fixing. Nor do I have the time (or desire) to go through and redo this entire article to be GA quality. Also, you and I both know that due to our fundamental differences of views on some very basic things, you are likely to just undo it all anyway; we've been there before. Giving a deadline is a part of doing a GAR. It is how all GARs work. Fixing minor deficiencies is one thing, fixing major is another. Nor did anyone say YOU personally had to fix anything, you were just notified because it is also required. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If I have some time this afternoon/evening I can provide at least initial reception info for all 3 versions Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not done this yet as I've been taking a closer look at the article itself. The comipress reference needs to go, one of it's sources for the article is wikipedia, which is a complete fail - wikipedia itself is not classed as a reliable source! You can't use a reference which is based on potentially incorrect information. For the useage of it to show the end of serialisation, I can replace it with another referenece, however I can't replace the Jun Hase useage (which if you read the source, doesn't talk about it, just links to wikipedia...). I strongly suggest the reference be replaced with a more reliable source, or the claim be removed. Unreliable sources are a reason to demote a GA. I also have concerns over the layout of the page, surely it needs changes so it follows WP:MOS-AM? I would personally expect to see the article demoted, it's a lot of work. It's a shame, but it simply needs too much work to be a "quick fix" Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Comipress reference is okay would have been okay if it was in English - you can cite a source which uses Wikipedia as a source with care. --Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Per the original notice, there has been no major movement on improving the article and discussion stalled within 24 hours. The article has now been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I added two references. One was from ANN, which I would say is reliable for specific DVD releases since its not user submitted. The other was marked as reliable over here. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything in ANN's encyclopedia section is considered a non-reliable source, including the DVD release section; another source will need to be found for that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD complete Mania ANN Shelf Life DVD Complete + OVA ANN DVD Complete Series Otaku USA Complete anime series
--KrebMarkt 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on X (manga). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140221110920/http://viva2ch.net/csaloon/1090112104.html to http://viva2ch.net/csaloon/1090112104.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on X (manga). 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/20070629093256/http://www.ex.org/2.4/07-x_characters.html to http://www.ex.org/2.4/07-x_characters.html
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) 08:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on X (manga). 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/20110927113540/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2007/04/23/ask-john-should-there-be-more-variety-in-shonen-shoujo-anime/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2007/04/23/ask-john-should-there-be-more-variety-in-shonen-shoujo-anime/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608091529/http://www.ex.org/2.4/04-x_1.html to http://www.ex.org/2.4/04-x_1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211204340/http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/1351.php to http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/1351.php
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) 01:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:X (manga)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 20:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 

@Tintor2: I have completed my initial review. Great work overall, just a few small changes are needed. I decided to WP:BEBOLD and make some small corrections. 
Lead:

The date formats is dmy, yet the air dates for the anime in the infobox are mdy. This should be corrected.
Done.
Why do you use Geneon as the distributor for the anime TV series in the lead? They lost the rights to the series and Funimation has it now in North America, so shouldn't they be credited instead?
Simplified
Plot:

"Across the manga, Kamui and his allies, the Dragons of Earth, multiple times but cannot protect most barriers", do what multiple times? Maybe something like "try" or "attempt" is needed after the first comma.
Done
Media:

In feature film, "powerful imagery and visually engaging action sequences." What is the point of this line? This sounds like reception. It should be removed or at least corrected/changed in some way.
Removed
In television series, "Pioneer Entertainment claimed distributed the series in North America in March 2002." I don't believe the word "claimed" is needed.
Done
In the same section, the source for MVM's license and Siren's license are switched.
Did you do a bold edit? Because I think it's correct.
That is all. Ping me when the changes have been addressed and I will pass it. Side note but if you haven't listed Your Lie in April at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature yet, you should.  Link20XX (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tintor2: The changes you made are enough. The result of this review is Pass. Congratulations! Link20XX (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

X: Unmei no Sentaku was developed by Taito and published by Bandai. Based on assets I datamined, it could be a reskin of Psychic Force 2 since I saw assets with it's character roster. NoxAether (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed content in this edit that was unproperly cited, but it does seem like a glaring omission for an article at the GA level to not discuss the reason(s) why the series was suspended. The Japanese Wiki makes mention of an interview in Puff where Clamp discusses the social climate at the time as contributing to the decision; can this be verified? Morgan695 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the image caption under "Influences" mentions that "Multiple incidents such as the Great Hanshin earthquake caused the hiatus of X due to its similarities with the earthquakes from X" and cites the Puff article. I've indicated that under "Manga" as well. Morgan695 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Without a solid verified translation, this explanation is well-intended but falls short of being properly cited. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any specific guidance for ComiPress at the WikiProject Anime reliable sources list, but they seem to pass the smell test to me; they collaborated with Takeo Udagawa on an official English translation of Manga Zombie, for example. In any case, it seems arbitrary for the ComiPress article to be used to source other material in this article, but not this; either it's reliable or it isn't. Morgan695 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if the total number of volumes of X should be changed from 18 to 18.5, given that Volume 18.5 is being released in Japan on November 4, 2023. ISD (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

18.5 always existed but as Newtype mspecial Tintor2 (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
So does that mean we should change the details in the infobox so it shows there are 18.5 volumes then, or not? ISD (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I never thought about it but saying the manga has "18.5 volumes" would just confuse the readers. I would suggest writing 19 volumes but point out it's from another imprint from the original. Kinda like the first X ova that acts as a prologue. Tintor2 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll make a note explaining the situation. ISD (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)