# Talk:Sword Art Online

Should we split the list of light novels into its own article? Lucia Black (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely in support of this, Lucia. Chambr (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure that'll work. Especially considering that the table's expansion will take away from the rest of the main article.—KirtZMail 04:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My reasoning, exactly. Chambr (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Juhachi. "removing content for aesthetic reasons is not good practice"—is your opinion. Then expand list or split it off because it looks half-baked on an otherwise potentially decent B-class page. Just because I removed content doesn't mean it was non-constructive.The reason I removed the chapters is so it will not look incomplete especially since the last major edit on the table was over two months ago. The re-addition of the chapters is welcome if the list is split. I guess that wasnt as obvious as I thought by my edit summary. It seems no one wants to tackle a split-list even though it was brought up. >facepalm< —KirtZMail 04:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress, so just removing viable content because no one is adding to it now is what I would define as non-constructive, whether you agree with me or not. But I guess I'll just go ahead and split the list.--十八 05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I want to add, that when I added the chapters and their names, I wasn't sure how to treat most of the books. From the main novel line (excluding Progressive), all the books before the 8th book, except for the 2nd, don't have "Chapters", or at least, they're not named, or indicated as chapters, and merely have a number to mark them, this number being continuous across the whole arc. Meaning the 3rd book goes from 1 to 3, while the 4th book goes 5 to 9 (Huh. That's weird). The "Alicization" arc is probably the only time the books are explicitly divided by "Chapters". I assume that particular information is irrelevant, but that's mostly why I avoided adding how many parts each book is broken up into, as I wasn't sure how to put that sort of information. The only additional information I believe I can add would be summaries, which I'll have to see what I can do. Ragef33 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 just created an article on one of SAO's video games. However, I'm not sure if the game has notability independent of the SAO franchise (meaning, if it should have an article in the first place). What do you guys think? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

With both games about to be released in North America later this year, I believe they are notable enough. There is going to be enough third-party sources discussing the games to satisfy WP:GNG, as the article already shows.--十八 06:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I apologize, had I realized that the SOA was so active on Wikipedia, I would have run things by this talk page first. I create and rewrite a lot of more obscure JRPG type video game articles on the project, but I'm not all that familiar with anime, on Wikipedia or "real life". Anyways, the article already has 10 sources in it, around 8 of which are dedicated specifically to covering the game itself, and there are a bunch more out there that I didn't get to including yet either. But yeah, so far, all I've used and found are sources deemed reliable by consensus at the video game Wikiproject. So, I believe it already meets the WP:GNG, not to mention, as Juhachi is getting at, there are only going to be more and more sources coming in now that its been announced for an English language release. That being said, I know it certainly needs improvement and expansion. Hopefully you guys can assist a bit on the "series" side of things, as I'm not very familiar with it yet. Sergecross73 msg me  16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, Juhachi. Chambr (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is just that the game is constructed with all the plot of Infinity Moment rebuild into part of the plot of the Hollow Fragment game (with slight changes...) thus it would be hard to say that HF have IM bundled together, as all people get after buying the game would only be one game that have different plot in it....For comparison, I think one can check out walk-through of the Hollow Fragment (Asian edition english sub, starting from part 3, 21:00, ~ 1 hour after into the gameplay) and compare it to the start of the Infinity Moment (first part of the IM game's walkthrough with tutorial included and plots that you see in the recall part of the hollow fragment plus some plot plus some more plot that add up to mostly the part provide in the hollow fragment walkthrough).C933103 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to revert the addition of a number of doujins apparently written by Kawahara himself. However, unless there was a source to independently verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion. It also doesn't help that they apparently haven't received any coverage in third-party sources, nor have they been discussed by reliable sources as supplementing the series in any way. If this instance can be taken as an indication, it's probably not all that rare for authors to write doujins of their published works. What is rare is for those doujins to receive additional coverage outside of simply being produced, which like I said, does not appear to be the case here.--十八 08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
For the most part, you're right. There isn't much coverage on the doujin he's written. Though, about verifying authorship, would the author's own claims that he wrote it be enough to verify authorship? I believe ever since Material Edition 8, or so, he's posted about each doujin before a COMITIA (where he appears to "publish" each release.) Though, am I right in assuming the reason this is a problem, is because posts on twitter aren't reliable enough? Ragef33 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It more has to do with the coverage (or lack thereof) of these doujins, though the authorship question is certainly an issue. Generally, content in articles is governed by their verifiability in reliable sources. I do not believe secondary sources showing that these doujins merely exist is sufficient enough to show why they should be included. I think there have been cases in the past where doujins have been re-published, or have been discussed in some capacity by third-party sources (J.K. Rowling has reportedly written unpublished material for a Harry Potter encyclopedia), but has that occurred in this case?--十八 09:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

a source to independently verify the authorship (it could be someone using his name for all we know), these aren't notable for inclusion.

Can the Reki Kawahara's own twitter message https://twitter.com/kunori/statuses/463508197848797184 and https://twitter.com/kunori/statuses/461056113442422784 and https://twitter.com/kunori/status/428688406831329280 about the release of MEs validate this?
It also doesn't help that they apparently haven't received any coverage in third-party sources,

http://sao.52pk.com/xiaoshuo/201209/5378818.shtml It would probably count as a third party coverage?
nor have they been discussed by reliable sources as supplementing the series in any way.

http://www.acdorm.com/a/djsy/qb/2014/0530/31102.html and http://www.58game.com/ylxw/article-21737-1.html and http://big5.ce.cn/gate/big5/www.ce.cn/culture/gd/201211/23/t20121123_23875946.shtml are sources for these too. C933103 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe Twitter can be used as a source to verify the claim that Kawahara is the author of the doujins if the Twitter account in question cannot be verified to belong to Kawahara; see WP:UGC. As for the other sources you've given, what makes them reliable? Are they articles from news organizations? Have they been used by other reliable sources? What are they saying about the doujins other than that they exist, if anything? Can any claims they make (such as Kawahara being their author) be verified?--十八 10:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It can be verified the twitter account belong to the series' author. Crunchyroll, the site who obtained SAO streaming license, had posted a message from that twitter account and say that it is a message from the series' author.
Those site I linked are reliable source. For example, the last source I listed is quoting Sina Comic] of Sina_Corp#Online_news, and the site itself is zh:中国经济网, a network version of China Economy, a newspaper published by Communist Party of China according to [1], positioned as a Economic-centric integrated news site according to [2].
Again, take the last site as example, it talk about how the doujin attract attentions due to the involvement of original author, its plot, it is yet another work of the previous doujin, and that it compensate the lack of description of Silica within the original work.C933103 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
All right, then it looks like it would be okay to include it. If you could, please add in the contextual significance as well, like what you said about the doujins attracting additional attention and whatnot. I can't read Chinese, so I'd have to leave it to you or someone else that can.--十八 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Sword Art Online (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
You are welcome to edit this draft article.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sword Art Online's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HR":
From Robotech: Kit, Borys (2007-09-07). "Maguire, WB attack the big screen with 'Robotech'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on September 10, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Sword Art Online (TV series): Goldberg, Lesley (August 2, 2016). "Japanese Novel and Anime Franchise Sword Art Online Being Adapted as Live-Action TV Series". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 2, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"SAO's Legend Server - Play Sword Art Online Game". poster.gamesprite.me. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
"SAO's Legend Server - Play Sword Art Online Game". poster.gamesprite.me. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zechariah16 (talk • contribs) 

 Not done The game isn't officially licensed by Bandai Namco or anyone affiliated with SAO. It also wouldn't receive mention anyway if it is not mentioned in reliable sources. Zappa24Mati 04:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey I noticed there is no article for Argo so I made a draft. Volunteers are welcome to edit it an help out.

Draft: Argo ( sword art online )
Thanks... InfoBrokerArgo (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter just now: [3]. Should we add it to the article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the reception part gives undue weight to "Adam Facey", if you check the source it turns out that it is an opinion piece by an unknown student for a student paper. I would like to remove it.84.164.68.99 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I created a page but I messed up title. Sorry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sword_Art_Online Tortoitot (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved it to Draft:Sword Art Online: Alicization Lycoris, but someone would need to delete Sword Art Online: Alicization Lycoris for the move to mainspace.--十八 09:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Black Swordsman Ace" is covered. The article does mention a game called "Black Swordsman" which left closed beta in 2016, but I think this is a separate game despite the similar name. That one did leave closed beta in 2016 but the service was terminated in 2019. See this article: [4] As for "Black Swordsman Ace", it only exited closed beta in 2021, as per e.g. [5] I don't know either game very well, but this is what I assume to be the case based on my research via the linked articles and others. Kidburla (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

given that several much bigger series such as haikyu have not received a vitality rating, how is SAO receiving one justified? if it had significant cultural impact i may agree with the rating but so far no groundbreaking VR projects citing SAO as an inspiration.
if i had to steelman the rating i'd say that SAO inspired many other series, but pretty much all of those series are un/hardly known. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Every source cited in the "Critical response" section is a critical response to the anime specifically, even though this article is for the series as a whole, which was originally a web novel and is now primarily a light novel series. The anime actually has its own article ("Sword Art Online season 1"), so wouldn't it make more sense for critical response to the anime to be put on that page? At the very least, the "Critical response" section should have reviews of the light novel series, right?
The "Critical response" section is also entirely comprised of western critics. The article could be improved by including some Japanese reviews of the material. Voeltz (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)