# Talk:Your Lie in April

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kissanime.com it says that this page links to KissAnime but I can't find the link.--88.104.129.16 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In the description for episode one of the anime, this is one of the sentences: "One day in April three years later, Tsubaki invites Kousei on a double date as Ryota is being introduced to a certain girl who has a crush on Watari.". But, seeing as Ryota and Watari are the same person, isn't something wrong here? Shouldn't it be "...as Ryota/Watari is being introduced to a certain girl who has a crush on him."?  Lusotitan (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Credit for the entire work is given to "Naoshi Arakawa" as a single person. Naoshi and Arakawa are the family names of the illustrator and the author. Credit should be given to Naoshi Komi as the author and Hiromu Arakawa as the illustrator.
2601:602:8880:1093:D8B5:F476:6128:32D2 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)NRose

The author is credited as 新川直司 on the manga's cover and on the Kodansha's website,[1] which reliable sources, including Kodansha Comics, translates as Naoshi Arakawa.[2] If you want to dispute this, you must provide an extraordinary reliable source that overturns the name given by the manga's publisher. —Farix (t | c) 22:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Interview: Your Lie in April Mangaka Naoshi Arakawa.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The translation of the title Shigatsu wa kimi no uso seems off to me.  A literal translation would read 'April is your lie'.  Unsure why the title is translated the way it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.63.133 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 

The live action has already been released so it should be updated with new information and not be in the future tense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacakira (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 

The romance is kind of sidelined for Kousei and Kaori until the very end. Sure, there’s the romance between Tsubaki and Arima, but he main focus is on a depressed musician coming back, and a dying one struggling to live.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:5DD:2350:9E90:2806 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Your Lie in April/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. It'll take some time I will always use a ping to tell the nominator. Happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX:

First of all the lead needs to be explored per the guidelines. This is what I do for the leads.
First paragraph for the primary media and the premise of the story.
Second paragraph could be about all adaptations but there is no need to cover all details.
Third or fourth paragraph (depending on length) should be a brief commentary about how the series was receieved generally.
Expanded
The plot is easy to understand so I'm pretty sure it passes guidelines of writing of fiction. I would only suggest to avoid short paragraphs
Made the paragraphs longer
Cast is well sourced.
Anime needs original video animation and then the (OVA) for better understanding.
Done
Light novel doesn't need a table since it's a single volume and everything can be seen in prose. If it's divided by title then I suggest that.
Removed
Liveaction film needs to be updated "The adaptation, slated to be released in Japan in September 2016" was it delayed or cancelled?
Updated
Reception seems okay considering nowadays it's hard to find manga reviews but I would suggest adding another one like this to expand on coverage.
Expanded using the review provided
That's all for me so far. Good work with the article. Try covering these issues and I'll pass it. Maybe you could use Tokyo Babylon or Rurouni Kenshin: Restoration (none of these are GA though) as models of short mangas to gain more experience when writing these types of article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Hello. See my responses above. Link20XX (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: Two last things. Can you put a premise about the light novel alongside its English release date? Lastly, remove citations from the lead. The body is meant to reference material from the lead that is supposed have already been covered. Also, if possible does the author talk about the series' creation in those afterwards from the volumes? They are rarely used but it helps if it's available.Tintor2 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tintor2: I added a plot summary for the light novel and removed the references in the lead. As for the inspiration, at least in the volumes I own the author didn't provide much of an inspiration for the series' creation. The only thing I could find was this ANN interview, but I'm not sure if its enough to write a creation section. Link20XX (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Any tidbit could be added to the manga section if there is not material for creation section. Still, the main issues were solved. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Daxell03: Moving to talk to avoid an edit war. Even if it is a music focused anime, they still only did animation. Other anime do similar techniques where they animate over real people to help make animation more fluid and those aren't credited, so I fail to see how this is any different. Side note but titling the reference is also essential, which you did not do. The argument "It's an anime based entirely on music. Without the people performing said music, there would be no anime" could apply to almost anyone on the staff. There wouldn't be an anime without every single person involved in animating it, yet a vast majority aren't credited in the article. The same could be said for all the editors and assistants on the manga. Link20XX (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: They didn't just create the movements. They are the ones literally performing the soundtrack, the music you're listening to in the show that sounds so amazing.
@Daxell03: Yes they performed the music the characters played, but in that case it wouldn't make sense to credit them with the characters. If they are to be credited at all, it would make the most sense to do so in media with the soundtrack composer in the "media" section under anime. I still don't think they're notable enough to need to be credited however. Their sole involvement was performing a piece, they didn't actually do any of the writing to make the piece. Link20XX (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: That sole involvement is the main focus of the show. How is it any different from voice actors? They're just performing the lines, they didn't write them.
@Daxell03: The voice actors portray the characters. If I asked you to think about Kaori or Kosei, you probably imagine them talking. That's an essential part of the character, but while music is a huge part of the series, the person in real life who performed it probably won't be the first thing that comes to your mind. Other series where music is also a large part like Beck (manga) also don't credit people with those roles. Link20XX (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: It doesn't mean they shouldn't be credited at all, because they create the magic of the show.
@Daxell03: Lets compromise. We can credit them in the anime section of media right after the composer. Link20XX (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Daxell03: Why not credit the performers of the soundtrack too in that case? Your argument makes no sense at all.

eiichira oda, the acclaimed author of one piece, has spoken highly about the your lie in april manga. would this qualify as an appropriate piece of information to add to the article? moreover, what are the standards for the inclusion of these kinds of things? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I combed through the article and found several mistakes - I'm sure there are many more that I missed. As such, I think this article's GA standing should be reconsidered. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out what errors exist? I admit the article has changed quite significantly since it obtained GA status but it still looks good overall to me. Link20XX (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
ive fixed them already, just check the page history. i didnt read the article thoroughly so i'm just being a good bayesian and assuming there are many other mistakes that i missed/am unaware of. of course, that reasoning isnt enough to get the article delisted, but someone well-versed in the show and it's production should go through it with a fine-tooth comb. i would do it but i'm going to be busy for the foreseeable future and my lore knowledge probably isn't up to par with some other fans. might need to consult the japanese community for a proper second opinion 216.164.249.213 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
in addition to that, adding some critical reception about the art (!=animation) should be in order. the art was universally praised afaik, whereas many critics took issue with the stillframe scenes/cgi
ill eventually get around to doing this stuff myself granted no one else wants to 216.164.249.213 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources supporting the comment that the CGI/animation were praised or criticized more than what's already cited in the article, please provide them. Provided that they are good sources, I have no qualms with expanding that section. Regarding the plot, I admit I didn't do too much work on that part of the article (most of it was written several years ago) and just did mostly basic copyedits and removed contradictions. Its been awhile since I've seen the show or read the manga though, so I don't feel 100% confident in throughly reviewing the section on my own. Link20XX (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I don't believe the GA-status of this article should be in jeopardy. While the plot section could use a thorough review, that doesn't seem to be too much of a glaring problem and the rest of the article seems to be fine, or at least neither you nor I have noticed anything completely wrong with them (though I admit that I wrote most of the article minus the plot so I could be missing something). Link20XX (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm admittedly newer to wikipedia so I may be totally off-base about GA status. Thanks for the reply. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, 216.164 here. do you have the interview where arakawa states his inspirations for writing the series handy? 64.121.20.29 (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been involved in an edit war on this article over the past several days. I am willing to discuss any proposed changes to the article here. The other editor, Phil81194, pushed a number of changes, few of which were productive. Many of their edits served no apparent purpose and many of them involved deleting information with no explanation. As editor Xexerss pointed out, there may be actionable information scattered among the the unhelpful edits, and when Phil81194 made his original batch of edits, I took the time to sort through which ones were productive and which ones were not. However, the newest batch mainly consists of inexplicable structure changes to the article and removals of information, so I reverted the article to it's last stable version. As I explained in the edit summary, I have no problem with sorting out the useful from the unuseful information in Phil81194's most recent edits. However, this process should be done manually, and not through a revision, as per the reasons above. In the meantime, I strongly advise we keep the article stationed where it currently is. Cheers. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove any nessecery information at all, I just fixed them in a good way, I just removed the unnecessary informations in the lead. As Xexerss said it's worth mentioning in lead the awards and the circulation number that the manga received. In the reception, the standard is to mention more general stuff first, like sales and awards, and later the critical reception, which is more specific. Please stop changing the informations. Phil81194 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please read everything I've written in it's entirety. You should know that since you are clearly unwilling to discuss this in an objective capacity, I've opened an issue report in the dispute resolution center. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Just because you don't like a set of edits or think they are "unhelpful" doesn't mean they are vandalism. I advise that you read over Wikipedia's policy on vandalism paying attention to what vandalism is and is not. Second, I looked at the edits and don't see a particular problem with them. The short description falls in line with what is in other manga articles. The lead paragraph should focus on the topic (the manga) and not bounce back and forth between the manga and anime adaptations. And the order of the reception section seems reasonable. If you have a problem with a specific edit, then discuss the specifics about the edit itself and not make vague and unfocused accusations of it being "unhelpful" or vandalism. 216.30.147.90 (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
You clearly didn't look over all the edits then, please don't lie. Sigh... reverting again. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I just read your writeup in the dispute resolution center. You have indeed been dishonest throughout this exchange but since this word is loaded, I will forgo using it from this point onwards.
I'll do a breakdown of your writeup here.
What I agree with:
-"Xexerss (talk · contribs) stepped in and reverted one of 216.164's invalid vandalism claims"
The vandalism claim I made was indeed invalid. The reason for this is twofold; firstly, it implies all of the edits made were vandalism, when really what I should have said was that parts of the edits were << vandalism >>. Secondly, I was unclear about how vandalism was defined on Wikipedia. Which brings me to...
What I technically agree with:
-"As per WP:VANDALISM, 'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia.'"
This is true; I was using vandalism as it is used in natural language. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia customs and I apologize for using the term incorrectly.
What I do not agree with:
-"My involvement came about with a not very neutral notice on WT:ANIME[50] from 216.164."
My notice was completely neutral. Many of Phil 81194's edits were clearly ridiculous; it is not unneutral to point this out.
-"But instead of discussing a particular edit or change, 216.164 made a non-productive argument that I wasn't "looking at the edits" and that I was lying.[51]"
My argument was as productive as it could have reasonably been expected to be. Your post ignored several things raised in mine; on the other hand, my posts covered everything raised in yours. There is not much to say, other than, read the posts for real. If needed after that we can delve into detail.
-"At this point, it is clear that 216.164 is not willing to discuss the specific problems they have with Phil81194's edits."
Completely untrue, and there is absolutely no reason to think this let alone say it.
-"216.164 also seem to be engaged in forum shopping since they prematurely opened this DR without making any effort to discuss the matter with Phil81194 or other editors nor give time for additional non-involved editors to respond after they didn't get the initial response they were hoping for (that Phil81194's edits were vandalism)."
Also untrue, I went through the proper channels as prescribed. I've since been notified that these issues are supposed to be left open for at least 24 hours on their respective Talk pages and fleshed out in extreme detail, but there was absolutely no deception on my end.
To be frank, you are making it very hard to assume good faith. Cheers regardless. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
First, knock it off with repeated personal attacks. Calling someone a liar, vandal without specific evidence, and now dishonest is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Second, calling someone's edits "ridiculous" in a notice is definitely not neutral and can be viewed as another personal attack. The fact that all you have done so far was throw personal attacks at editors instead of discussing specific changes that were made to the article shows that you are not interested in discussing the article's content.
I have looked through Phil81194's edits and there is nothing there that would remotely be called vandalism. If you believe one of their changes is vandalism, point out the specific change instead of throwing the term "vandalism" around willy-nilly. If you simply disagree with their edits, then state exactly which edits you disagree with and why. But repeatedly insulting them and other editors will not resolve the dispute over content and organization. 216.30.147.90 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You are the only person in this exchange who has repeatedly used a snarky and nasty tone, perhaps within the confines of some specific Wikipedia criteria. My evidence that you didn't read my original posts is that you didn't address any of the edits I had cited problems with.
"I have looked through Phil81194's edits and there is nothing there that would remotely be called vandalism. If you believe one of their changes is vandalism, point out the specific change instead of throwing the term 'vandalism' around willy-nilly."
OK, this is getting out of hand. I addressed this several times, in several different writeups. Since you refuse to actually read what I've written, and because you insist on being uncivil, I'm going to ignore your messages from here on out. The good news is that I am coming to an agreement to the other editor, who unlike you and Phil is actually reading what I'm writing and giving cogent responses, and we've already pushed some of Phil's productive changes based on those. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to point out some things that don't seem very well to me:
"The manga was serialized in Kodansha's magazine Monthly Shōnen Magazine from April 2011 to May 2015." The manga actually ended in the magazine in February 2015 and we have a source for that. That has nothing to do with the release date of the last volume.
"[It] drew inspiration from similar works, such as Beck and Nodame Cantabile." The production section doesn't necessarily say that it was inspired by those works, if anything, it is just implied that the author wanted to make a music manga, and mentioned those works because they are popular music manga. The brief mention of these two works doesn't seem relevant enough to be mentioned in lead.
When I said that the manga should be the main focus, what I meant to say is that the first things to mention should be regarding the own manga: the magazine and the years when it was published, how many volumes does it have, and THEN, we start mentioning the adaptations that it received. It fact, the own lead is a little more specific about all those adaptations, so I don't get why we should need to include the line "and has been adapted into an anime television series, a live-action movie, and multiple stage productions"; seems very redundant, especially for lead.
As I said before, critical reception is the last thing that should be mentioned in the reception section.
Considering that three contributors have issues with your edits and you insist on reverting to the version that you consider the correct, without taking into account the comments that have been made to you, it seems that you are more eager to prove that you are right than wanting to improve the article. Xexerss (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response.
"'The manga was serialized in Kodansha's magazine Monthly Shōnen Magazine from April 2011 to May 2015.' The manga actually ended in the magazine in February 2015 and we have a source for that. That has nothing to do with the release date of the last volume."
I agree. I've actually pushed several changes regarding the serialization dates in other sections of the article. Just pushed this one.
"'[It] drew inspiration from similar works, such as Beck and Nodame Cantabile." The production section doesn't necessarily say that it was inspired by those works, if anything, it is just implied that the author wanted to make a music manga, and mentioned those works because they are popular music manga. The brief mention of these two works doesn't seem relevant enough to be mentioned in lead.'"
I disagree. I think that constitutes mention, indeed in the lead, as did Link20XX at the time, the user who has done the most work on this article. However, I am totally open to discussing this. What is the source for him mentioning Nodame Cantabile? Why don't you think this information constitutes being mentioned in the header? If we remove it, where do you think it should go instead?
"When I said that the manga should be the main focus, what I meant to say is that the first things to mention should be regarding the own manga: the magazine and the years when it was published, how many volumes does it have, and THEN, we start mentioning the adaptations that it received. It fact, the own lead is a little more specific about all those adaptations, so I don't get why we should need to include the line "and has been adapted into an anime television series, a live-action movie, and multiple stage productions"; seems very redundant, especially for lead."
I completely disagree with this. The anime is leagues more popular than the manga; if anything, the article should be rewritten from the perspective of the anime (although I may be unintentionally forgoing some Wikipedia precedent here.) As for the redundancy, I do agree it could be cleaned up a bit, the need to acknowledge the anime and movie adaptations notwithstanding. I have pushed a change to that effect.
If you have idea to improve the lead/header that do not involve removing mention of the anime/movie from either, I am more than open to discussing that. Speaking of which, I have removed the stage productions from there due to a lack of significance. If you would like to put it back, feel free.
"As I said before, critical reception is the last thing that should be mentioned in the reception section."
Sure. I have no problem with this, given that you're familiar with the appropriate precedents.
"Considering that three contributors have issues with your edits and you insist on reverting to the version that you consider the correct, without taking into account the comments that have been made to you, it seems that you are more eager to prove that you are right than wanting to improve the article."
I'm not. Please read the things I've written carefully before jumping to harmful conclusions.
Cheers.
Edit: Forgot to push the last change. Just pushed it. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of popularity, the original work is a manga, and even considering the difference in popularity compared to the anime adaptation, it's not like the manga is an alien thing either, I mean, for some reason it has received recognition, awards and nominations. My issue with the early adaptations line is more a matter of chronology and conciseness than a popularity thing. Look for example how the lead of other articles of manga later adapted into anime like YuYu Hakusho, My Hero Academia, Fairy Tail or Hellsing (to name a very few) focus firstly on the original manga and later on the adaptations that they have received, and I'm pretty sure that their anime adaptations are much more known that the original manga, and as I said before, if we're going to list some of these adaptations just a few lines later, I don't think is necessary to anticipate the fact that the manga has received adaptations.
The thing with Beck and Nodame Cantabile line is that the production section doesn't really sound like Your Lie in April was inspired by those works. Sure, we could deduce that since the author mentioned them and are music manga too, but that would be more a personal interpretation than sticking to what the source says. As for where it should go, I'm just saying that just because they're similar music titles, the brief mention doesn't worth the mention in lead. The sole mention in the more specific production section is enough in my opinion.
That's it from my side, I hope we can reach some agreement soon. Xexerss (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"Regardless of popularity, the original work is a manga, and even considering the difference in popularity compared to the anime adaptation, it's not like the manga is an alien thing either, I mean, for some reason it has received recognition, awards and nominations."
Sounds good. If you think this is sufficient grounds for giving the original material a more pronounced tone, I am totally fine with that. You seem like a seasoned editor who is familiar with Wikipedia policy. FWIW, my skepticism wasn't so much pointed towards the manga itself - I am well aware of it's massive popularity - but rather towards what kinds things demand what kinds of precedence here. Anyway, feel free to push whatever changes on this you'd like. I think you'd be much better at writing those sections than me.
"My issue with the early adaptations line is more a matter of chronology and conciseness than a popularity thing. Look for example how the lead of other articles of manga later adapted into anime like YuYu Hakusho, My Hero Academia, Fairy Tail or Hellsing (to name a very few) focus firstly on the original manga and later on the adaptations that they have received, and I'm pretty sure that their anime adaptations are much more known that the original manga, and as I said before, if we're going to list some of these adaptations just a few lines later, I don't think is necessary to anticipate the fact that the manga has received adaptations."
Also sounds good. My preference would be to keep the mentions in the header if we're only to keep one, but obviously policy plays a role here. Feel free to make whatever change you think is suitable.
"The thing with Beck and Nodame Cantabile line is that the production section doesn't really sound like Your Lie in April was inspired by those works. Sure, we could deduce that since the author mentioned them and are music manga too, but that would be more a personal interpretation than sticking to what the source says. As for where it should go, I'm just saying that just because they're similar music titles, the brief mention doesn't worth the mention in lead. The sole mention in the more specific production section is enough in my opinion."
Sure thing - but where is it mentioned? Is it in the interview where he mentions Nana? I couldn't find it at first glance, although that was a while ago. If you don't have it on hand I'll stop being lazy and do some sifting, but it's rare that I totally blank on something like that.
"That's it from my side, I hope we can reach some agreement soon."
Same. Cheers. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Arakawa mentioned both Beck and Nodame Cantabile in this interview, where he stated At the time there was already a really popular rock manga called BECK. So no one dared make a manga about music that went head-to-head against that manga. There was also a manga about classical music called Nodame Cantabile. But it was focused on the orchestra and not so much on playing a single instrument, like violin. So if I were to draw a manga about music, I definitely wanted to focus on the violin. I wanted to make sure my own music manga didn’t seem second string. Link20XX (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. Yeah, should not be in the header. Where do you think it would be more appropriately placed? Just push whatever change looks right to you. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

...The article is structured in a generic way and there are a lot of segments that disagree with each other, for example: "as it stands, Your Lie in April is still one of my all-time favourite anime." vs. later, "finally I’ve been able to review the second part of what’s potentially one of my all-time favourite anime." The account's bio also follows a generic structure employed by many accounts on news article sites designed for marketing/advertising, although that's not proof on it's own of course. It's worth mentioning that on the reviewer's personal blog (https://curiositi.es/2015/03/27/your-lie-in-april-anime-review/), they scored the entire show with a low 9, whereas in this "review", they gave both sections a perfect 10. This also raises considerations about this remark: "After completing the anime, I quickly decided that the series deserved to be hailed as one of my all time favourite shows." There are more conflicting views expressed by the user in the AnimeUKNews Discord server, but it would be unreasonable to cite those here.
The reviewer is clearly an enthusiastic fan of the show, but we can't trust a disingenuous advertisement. If someone would like to read both the advertisement and the review and construct citations based only what is included in both, I would have no problem with that, conditioning on it being allowed by WP policy. In the meantime, since this is not the first time I have seen AnimeUKNews engage in this practice, I have opened a thread at WP:RSN here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Animeuknews.net_(Anime_UK_News) 216.164.249.213 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed concerning if true, though looking at the Tweets from the writer of the piece 1, 2, 3, none of which they explicitly state that the article was advertising, but they did mention the British distributor (Anime Limited), which is a bit odd for a reviewer (though not definitive proof). I have no idea what they expressed on Discord, so I cannot speak to that but them offering different feelings on their own website's review I also find concerning. So, while I do not have (or see) any conclusive proof that this was an advertisement, I do find the situation surrounding it to be out of the ordinary for reviews. Link20XX (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. For what it's worth, I don't necessarily have a strong opinion one way or the other (although I err in the direction of it being removed.) We should probably heed to some prior established Wikipedia precedent, granted a clear one exists. The main point of writing this was to bring it to the more seasoned editors' attention, from which point you guys can decide what to do with it. I have the citation removed for the time being, but if you would like to reinstate it that is fine by me. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was mulling over the staff list and something about this did not sit quite right with me. There is little to no information about Aikei or her work online, and almost all of what I could find was published after the release of the show. According to her myanimelist page, she did have prior experience as a character designer, but it was extremely minimal, and consisted only of making small adjustments to characters who already had anime-ready designs in their source material. This is very different from a show like Your Lie in April, which overhauled the character designs in its source material in favor of what were essentially completely original ones. Needless to say, given the status of Your Lie in April and A-1 at the time, it's highly unlikely that someone with this kind of resume would be hired for such a major role. It's not impossible, but a priori it's a very important position and there should be many much more qualified candidates. It's also unprecedented for Japanese studios to hire female character designers for shounen shows, although again obviously not impossible. In addition to all of this she is also credited with being the chief animation director, which is a role that is usually assigned to character designers, but in this case it makes it more unusual given her lack of proper experience.
So of course this gave me pause, and I became suspicious that she had been given the role artificially. I did some digging and it turns out she is married to Kyōhei Ishiguro, the director of the show (and before you ask - NO! - this is not a normal practice. It is again, completely unprecedented.) In contrast to Aikei, there is endless information about Ishiguro and he makes it apparent in his interview that he is extremely involved in and particular about the show. Given this, and the fact that the character designs in the manga received mediocre reception (cited in this article), my bet is Ishiguro wanted to more or less redo the character designs so he and Tateishi, the producer, who was also historically very particular about the show, thought to use his wife as a placeholder in order to do so without having to circumnavigate the bureaucracy of Aniplex. This would explain the generally solid character presentation as well as the animation direction (episode-to-episode consistency, the job of the CAD) which would be extremely tough for a less experienced person. It's also standard practice to have the character designer of the original source material produce modified designs suitable for anime form, and both Ishiguro and Arakawa, the mangaka, note that despite not being officially credited with anything, he did have an unspecified involvement with the anime's production.
So either this is the biggest coincidence in the world or something fishy is going on. I should add that I did more research and the only other 2 works of Ishiguro's where Aikei designed the characters occurred years later after they had opened their own studio, so it's not like they were a special exception to established studios' customs. The character designs and animation direction in these works, as well as Aikei's other shows, while not bad by any means, are very, very far from the level of Your Lie in April. This is both my subjective opinion as someone who has considerable experience with design and designers but also the general and critical receptions of the works. It should be noted that in Aikatsu Stars!, the episodic of the 2 formerly mentioned works, there is no chief animation director credited.
---
So, what to make of all this? Obviously I don't think she should be removed from the credits, there's no reason for that, and she probably did contribute in a very major way anyway. I just thought it something worth taking a look at. Does anyone here know the inner workings of the employment process at Aniplex or A-1? I tried researching it a bit but no one seems to agree on what her precise duties were, on animenewsnetwork it credits her with tons of shit but myanimelist as well as her own studio's site claim she was the character designer and chief animation officer and nothing else. Some other sites like IMDb claim her involvement in the show was actually much milder and some other sites like dictionary.goo.ne.jp don't claim she was involved with the show at all, which could be outdatedness I guess? But this feels like playing roulette and rolling off-color every time, there should not be this many oddities and inconsistencies in the work of a normally-employed person. Anyway that's all, cheers 216.164.249.213 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any reasonable doubt that Aikei was the character designer as the Anime News Network article explicitly states that Yukiko Aikei (Accel World, Horizon in the Middle of Nowhere) is serving as character designer and chief animation director [3]. As for how she got that role, I admit I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of A-1 Pictures or Aniplex. Aikei was interviewed on the series' website, but that states very little about how she got the job [4]. More significantly, she attended a panel at Anime Boston, where she stated that It wasn't until a bit later that he discussed bringing Aikei into the project with Aniplex producer Shunsuke Saito. He said that he felt that Yukiko would be a good fit for the project, and Saito agreed and a few other minor tidbits, but nothing too conclusive. [5] Other than those, I struggle to find any solid articles about Aikei, though that may be due to the language barrier. Link20XX (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. For what it's worth, I had (almost) no doubt that she was the character designer in title. Rather I was suspicious of the circumstances surrounding how that came to be, and what that entailed about the duties she would have to perform. Your link, which I should have checked before writing this huge wall of text, gives what I think are satisfying answers to my concerns. Ishiguro really did go above and beyond the normal expectations for a director, maybe because it was his first major work. I did have some idea of this beforehand but I didn't know it was this extreme. And it seems as if Arakawa did indeed assist heavily in the character design process. Aikei appears to have done a considerable amount of work too, albeit not assuming the usual level of autonomy tasked to character designers, which is reasonable given the circumstances of course.
Spending 5x longer storyboarding for the standard director's salary would certainly explain the move to freelancing, lol 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to expand the plot section. Does anyone have any requests before I do so? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)