Talk:Made in Abyss

#English adaptation section

I'm wondering if this section is really warranted. It's sourced primarily to Tweets (primary sources) and doesn't really seem to have any coverage in secondary sources. Some of the information, such as the stuff about gender-neutral pronouns, might be useful if incorporated into the #Characters section, but it doesn't seem like it really needs an entire section devoted to it. If anyone is still watching this page, do you have any thoughts on the matter? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hollow mentioned before it is explained

Hollow is first mentioned in the Characters section, when Nanachi is introduced. "Nanachi is a Hollow, with somewhat rabbit-like features." However, the term hollow is not explained before this, which makes the sentence confusing to someone unfamiliar with the series. This should be corrected, but I don't know what Hollow is.130.232.105.232 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does this help? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

About "Inchou"

In the character section, there is a character listed as "Inchou". Inchou isn't a name though, and the translations used by Sentai Filmworks and Seven Seas both refer to this character as "Director". So the name should be changed from "Inchou" to "Director".

But additionally, in the Special Booklet included in the Made in Abyss Premium Box Set released by Sentai, the character name is listed "Belchero", as in the name of the orphanage. The problem is, this might be seen as controversial, so I'm not sure whether this should be added or not, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. Alex Tenshi (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As you stated I think Director is the better choice. Yes, I've seen "Belchero" used, and being proprietor of the orphanage would make sense. This was used for Jiruo:

Jiruo (ジルオ) / Leader (リーダー, Rīdā)

Would the following also work in this instance??

Belchero (ベルケロ, Berukero) / Director (院長, Inchō)

Nightsky30 (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Prushka Idofront / Cave Raider Status

Would Prushka be considered a cave raider / delver?? She was brought down to the 5th layer and raised at Idofront. I kind of feel she would belong in an Idofront character section as she did not officially have a whistle or really live a life outside The Abyss. She never experienced the Sun, sky, or sunsets as they are explained to her by Riko. In that sense calling her a raider or delver wouldn't quite describe her. But she did leave Idofront with Bondrewd and the other Umbra Hand (also Bondrewd?). And Prushka expressed desire to venture with Riko, ultimately achieving her goal by literally becoming a "White Whistle". Her spirit is seen as speaking to Riko from the whistle.Nightsky30 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Prushka wasn't a delver in any capacity, no. She traveled with Bondrewd sometimes but never left Idofront. Deku link (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Self-contradictory tag

I tagged the plot section as self-contradictory, since it both says Riko is orphaned and her mother is alive. Banedon (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's complicated as she is orphaned and in an orphanage because her mother is PRESUMED dead. I'll try to rectify this. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lolicon / Pedophilia

This is really confusing to me.

It's a mainstream anime and manga, it aired on Adult Swim, it has this Wikipedia page including talk about positive critical reception, it has American dubs by Sentai, it has a video game in the works by Nintendo, it has a live action movie being made, etc...

Yet... the manga, AND the anime, shows 12 year old and younger children being brutally raped and tortured. Extreme violence, sexualization, lolicon, etc.

The article mentions no controversy at all, not even on the talk page...

So, how is it that this is acceptable? Why is no one or group of people mounting a campaign to get this canceled?

I just don't get it...

Artificial Silence (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Artificial Silence: Do you have by any chance some reliable sources confirming some kind of banning or censorship over the series or at least reviews from the WP:A&M/ORS sites criticizing its content? If so, we should mention it in the reception section, especially if there were lot of comments about it. Now, if the alleged controversy is just some user-generated comments on the web bashing the series, that hardly counts as controversy for Wikipedia standards and it's not worth mentioning. Xexerss (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Xexerss: It's basically part of the Manga itself, and yes it has garnered criticism and controversy from various people, some citing specific content. Just some examples:

https://anilist.co/forum/thread/36650

https://steemit.com/anime/@medicinemerchant/should-you-really-watch-made-in-abyss

@Artificial Silence: What does make a forum with some user criticizing the series noteworthy? same applies with the other website, how do we know that these people are experts in the field? Anyone can write their opinions on the internet and sound reasonable, but that doesn't make them automatically reliable. Again, some user-generated comments on the web bashing the series don't count as controversy for Wikipedia standards. Xexerss (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Maybe it's "bashing" the series, but the first link points out some extremely horrible stuff that is demonstrably and verifiably in the series itself. Artificial Silence (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Artificial Silence: The "controversy" needs to be addressed and discussed by reliable secondary sources (discussions in forums and self-published websites are not reliable sources), otherwise the "extremely horrible stuff that is demonstrably and verifiably in the series itself" would be just original research. Xexerss (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I cant recall any bigger anime series / jrpg / asian mmo / nowadays chinese mobile game where the english forums dont go toxic over this topic, poisoning every article with this is not needed. 185.195.54.164 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Most recently, some of the K-pop boyband members has caught into this controversy because they recommend this manga/anime and the fandom directly backlashed them for this exact same reasons. Not to be mentioned that even Anime News Network also discussed that on their "This Week in Anime" segments as well. Should we have this controversy featured on the article? VernardoLau (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It rather falls into WP:UNDUE territory. There is no sentencing, impact on the manga's publication, or any kind of actual punishment to warrant a "controversy" section, just some fans online making hateful messages towards the band. Also, Koreaboo is classified as unreliable at WP:KO/RS#UR and their report is mostly based on WP:USERG. Xexerss (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References