Talk:Soul Eater

message: In the development section the article states: 
"Atsushi Ōkubo created a one-shot story called "Soul Eater" published in monthly Shōnen Gangan" 
Where as later on in the Media => Manga section of the article it reads:
"The manga initially began as three separate one-shots serialized between June 24, 2003 and November 26, 2003 across two manga magazines published by Square Enix: first in the summer 2003 special edition of Gangan Powered, followed by the autumn 2003 special edition of the same magazine, and finally in Gangan Wing."
So which one was it? Was the first one-Shot of Soul Eater in Monthly Shōnen Gangan, or in Gangan Powered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.98.118 (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Powered, as indicated by ref 3.--十八 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool thanks124.170.98.118 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Contradictions 

message: I see alot of unsourced material, especially in Plot, but it makes sense. There would be no source except for the actual book. You cannot remove it all, or can you. It is kind of a spoiler, but I don't know of any spoiler rule. I'm so conflicted. Something needs to be done, but what? Does anyone have more experience with this? MGray98 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot sections get a pass with sourcing because, as you said, it comes from the primary source of the work itself. As for spoilers, they shouldn't be removed; see WP:SPOILER.--十八 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: Correct me if I am wrong here, but someone has been adding the Thriller genre. I don't think there are any sources that cover this matter here, therefore unless it is sourced, it violates a fundamental policy: WP:NOR. I think we should find reliable, third-party sources for these if the series is a Thriller. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, as I was blocked once for it in 2010, but I want to take the WP:BRD route and open a discussion here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller 

message: there should be an overview of each of the video games listed on the page 
Ak1392 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: videogame overviews

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
* :Soul Eater (manga) → 
* :Soul Eater → 
I think the manga is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Soul Eater". The only other article that shares exactly the same name including the capitalization is Soul Eater (novel); there is also Soul eater (folklore), though it is irrelevant per WP:SMALLDETAILS. But anyway, even including it, this article gets far more page views than them. The novel averages 3-5 views per day and the folklore averages 40-50 per day. However, the manga averages 800-1000 per day, over 100 times more than the novel and 20 times the folklore. Even when it comes to long term significance, the other articles are poor and make it hard to determine how much long term significance they have. By comparison, this series has received multiple adaptations and even has a spin-off that is independently notable. Link20XX (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, while I think its notability is dubious, I support Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater for as long as it stays on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly long-term significance is not something that I have the best judgment on, but based on the poor condition of the folklore article, I have trouble believing it has too much. But anyways, I have no opposition to Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater. Link20XX (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have no opposition to Soul eater (folklore) being moved to Soul eater, although I feel like it may be WP:SYNTH linking together any mention of a soul-eating creature.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that I have changed my !vote to support your proposal, will you also change to support so as to stop this move discussion from being sidetracked? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support as discussed, with hatnotes. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 18 April 2022

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved, moved, and no consensus, respectively.  CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging all the participants in the previous RM: , , , , . Link20XX (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Support for the first two items, opposed to the last item. Basically, I fully agree with SnowFire.  Killuminator (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 22 July 2023