Talk:Yuri on Ice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Information about Characters

There's a mistake. Under Mila. It says she's a rink mate of Yuri K. She's actually rinkmate of Yuri P Bunnybuns (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Hi, i'm italian, and i wanted to tell you that english subs are incorrect. The nickname of Michele Crispino is in fact wrote 'Michi' not 'Mickey' because it is an italian nickname, not an american one. Another mistake is his sister's name. it is Sara, with the r, not with the l, because, again, it is an italian name. Sala does not exist as an italian name and i'm 100% sure they meant Sara, but the subbers miswrote it. Benedettamalcontenta (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

could you please modify those 2 names? (i also reached out with crunchyroll america to see if they can spell the names right from now on)

 Not done These are the official English translations of the names and are verifiable through reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 12:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Put it under Category:Japanese LGBT-related television programs

I think it's appropriate to put Yuri on Ice under this category since the two main characters Yuri and Victor became a couple and are engaged as of episode 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.152.255 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done false information, they're not engaged.--Sakretsu (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Then explain the gold rings? Anonymous 9:04, December 9, 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.185.2 (talk)

There is nothing to explain since we're not supposed to assume things as per WP:NOR.--Sakretsu (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Characters being engaged or not is irrelevant - it is described by RSs as having LGBT themes, ([1][2][3][4]) making it LGBT-related.--IDV^talk 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Engaged or not, some of the characters are LGBT. --Killuminator (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Who? Everything is nothing but teasing fans. They haven't showed anything.Correctron (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the category is "Japanese LGBT-related television programs", not "Japanese television programs featuring LGBT characters".--IDV^talk 07:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The category description says This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device. I don't think teasing fans could be described as featuring significant LGBT characters or issues.--Sakretsu (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

At this point, there is no critical reception section written, so there's no indication whether or not the show has significant LGBT themes. The articles you brought up do have reviewers that have commented on possible connections, but it is still to be determined whether it has enough weight to be a defining category (see WP:CATDEF). Also, if most reviewers are making connections to it, and/or if the director or author has clearly indicated it is the case, that would help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How about these? http://www.idigitaltimes.com/yuri-ice-season-1-episode-12-finale-winter-2016s-best-anime-hastily-sets-season-2-575272 http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/yuri-on-ice-episode-10-twist-victor/ {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... But I'll just comment here. I've tried looking into it, and, I mean, I've watched the show. The entire LGBTQA+ dynamic, if you think it's there, is very heavily dependent on visual cues. None of the characters straight out (make a pun) say "I'm gay" or anything like that. However, there is the aforementioned exchange of the rings (which, if you zoom in on the receipt for the ring(s), reveal the ring(s) to be wedding ring(s)), the (presumably) kiss in Episode 7, and Victor's crying over Yuri K.'s decision to "end this." Also, Victor says something along the lines of "...so my costume suggested both male and female genders at once," and Yuri K.'s Eros program is also meant to represent him as the "femme fatale". Honestly, it is left out there for self-interpretation. Apparently no one seems to be asking Mitsurō Kubo this question either, which is very very odd, from my standpoint. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Some did try to reference a tweet that was written by Mitsurō Kubo, but as Twitter is not considered a reliable source it was removed. I think she has talked about this in some form or another, but I might be wrong. ISD (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Do you know where? It could be really helpful. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I think I made an error. When the tweet was post on the article as shown here it again talks about an assumption. This is the tweet that is referenced. If someone can find an interview in which Kubo's thoughts are made clear that would be great. I think the issue is that while most people believe the characters to be gay, it is never confirmed by something like an uncensored kiss or saying something like "I love you". It all depends on what the viewer see. I think that if we come across a review from someone that claims the characters are not gay, then that should be highlighted as well as the others to show there is a debate. ISD (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about the debate-thing. I wonder if interviewers are purposely ignoring this question? Or maybe a gag order was issued? It's all very mysterious. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a gag order. There might be an issue over what Japanese TV is allowed to show in terms of homosexuality, so perhaps they are not allowed to be as explicit as they wanted to be, but I might be making that up. ISD (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of the articles I was reading have recommendations for animes with highly explicit gay kissing scenes, so maybe not? I think Mitsurō or someone on the production team made a joke about the show itself barely passing censorship laws because it was too "sexy", but I'm not sure if that's true. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to bring this topic up again, because more sources are referring to Victor and Yuuri as a couple. (See: http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/yuri-on-ice-fandom-creativity-theories/ http://www.itechpost.com/articles/63132/20161208/yuri-ice-episode-10-recap-11-spoilers-viktor-engaged-yurio.htm http://www.geek.com/television/yuri-on-ice-is-a-non-traditional-gay-anime-romance-1683540/), although you can decide for yourself if they are relatively acceptable as sources. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 14:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already been put in this category. It's debatable whether this is a conclusion on genre though, since they aren't the regular anime reviewers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick question: Someone recently added this article to the LGBT-related animation category. Since it's apparently already in the Japanese LGBT-related television program category, by extension, shouldn't that allow it to be added to the LGBT-related animation category?JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 18:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should be either both categories or neither of them. ISD (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it category-defining though? WP:CATDEF. Are reliable sources consistently defining it as being related? I disagree that it is of that genre since it isn't classified by reliable sources as yaoi or shonen-ai, but if the news articles are consistently calling it an LGBT anime then sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewing statistics/popularity

Rocket News 24 said that Yuri on Ice is "this season's biggest sports anime hit." http://en.rocketnews24.com/2016/12/13/life-imitates-anime-art-as-evgenia-medvedeva-gets-a-yuri-on-ice-present-from-fan

However, there are no viewing statistics in the article. Elsewhere, I saw http://www.videor.co.jp/data/ratedata/top10.htm#comic listed as the place to get viewership info for anime in Japan. Is that correct? Cloveapple (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the link, Yuri on Ice isn't in the top for either anime or sports. It may still be the top sports anime but we would need a different link. My bet is on Haikyuu.Correctron (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Guys and gals, create and add this to the reception section. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2016-12-21/yuri-on-ice-dominates-fall-anime-on-twitter-rankings/.110186 UnknownUsername480 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A reception section is definitely long overdue, there's quite a few sources that talk about it now. Including mentions of RL figure skaters who have publicly commented on the show (and in some cases their animated alter egos) i.e. here. 64.231.43.188 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I've made reference to most of those links in the article now. ISD (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The kiss

Is the kiss from episode 7 have that much of a weight on the reception of the series that it needs 3-4 paragraphs? Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTGOSSIP AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not just the kiss. There is also the scene with the rings and other moments concerning the relationship between Yuri K. and Victor. The section also deals with covering other elements concerning sexuality and the way it has been received by fans and critics alike. ISD (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've come across this review of the show on Kotaku where, when talking about the kiss scene in episode seven, says: "a writer confirmed it was, in fact, a kiss—but the animation remains ambiguous" and linked to this Tweet from the show's writer Mitsurō Kubo. I know that Twitter is not a reliable source, although I think Kotaku is (if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll remove it from the article). Is someone capable of translating the tweet to confirm that Kubo is saying that the kiss did happen, because if so and if Kotaku is considered a reliable source, does that mean that it can be included in the article? ISD (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The tweet is from a verified account, so it would count as a reliable source for statements by series writer Mitsurō Kubo. Google translates the tweet as "It is my imagination that I felt something to synchronize with this week's escape shame" while Bing translates it as, "To escape shame this week with something that felt like maybe". In either translation, it doesn't appear to be talking about a kiss. However, there may be some nuances in language that the computer-based translators miss or other tweets that this one is responding to. Twitter isn't very good at threading a series of tweets after all. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The correct translation of that tweet is: “Is it just me or something synchronized with Nigehaji this week?”. She was referring to a Japanese TV drama of that name. On the same day that episode 7 (with the kiss) aired, Nigehaji apparently had its first kiss between its own two leads as well. There was nothing in common between the two shows/episodes besides that.

Then it requires a high degree of synthesis and shouldn't be included. —Farix (t | c) 23:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sales

The first BD sold 24k copies http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-05/japan-animation-blu-ray-disc-ranking-december-26-january-1/.110653 and DVD 11k http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-05/japan-animation-dvd-ranking-december-26-january-1/.110656 UnknownUsername480 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016

this article has an instance of the phrase "poll dancing" which should be changed to "pole dancing". simple typo correction. EikoKuma (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction made. ISD (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Ummmm, about the paragraph about the Yuri and Victor's relationship at the very TOP of the front page......I really don't think that should be there. Aside the homophobia usage (which the YOI doesn't really shows), I think the first sentence makes is sounds the show centers is about and around a romantic relationship, which it doesn't, despite being a large part of YOI. The rest of the paragraph should be delete because everything it mentions is ALREADY mention under the Reception section. Can someone please remove it? 68.11.91.158 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Such information should only be kept in the Reception section where it's more appropriate.--Sakretsu (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? While there are romantic tones in the series, it's NOT about a romantic relationship between two people. First and foremost, it's a SPORTS anime. And like I said, these things are already mention in the Reception section. AND, part of the paragraph is incorrect, YOI NEVER show any homophobic attitudes. It's best to keep Critics's interpretations, reviews, and media stuff under the Reception section where it belong. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "highlighting issues such as homophobia in competitive figure skating" should be removed. Kubo has tweeted this is a world without discrimination against love, and there is no indication of any characters being homophobic. Gender is not mentioned when it comes to Yuri and Victor's relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gf671 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I took the homophobia bit out, is that OK or does more need to be done? ISD (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The series does not revolve around any kind of relationship, it revolves around a young Japanese figure skater trying to win the ISU Grand Prix with the aid of his new coach and idol. That's what you can deduce from the Plot section, and that's what you can sum up in the lead. Please do not suggest critics and fans' personal interpretations are absolute either: the relationship between Yuri and Victor does not become closer romantically just because the audience thinks (or is induced to think) so.--Sakretsu (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you want all references to any indication of a same-sex relationship removed from the article, including the "Depiction of same-sex relationship" section? ISD (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that's not my intention. It's just wrong to let it seem in that paragraph that the relationship between Yuri and Victor involves for sure romantic feelings. For example, even though some reviewers may say Yuri on Ice is a good show, we are not allowed to write in the lead "Yuri on Ice is a good Japanese sports anime television series".--Sakretsu (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I get it now. I've altered that paragraph to represent more of what it says in the plot section. Hopefully its alright now. ISD (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you folks, new to the wiki or something? Because it's appropriate to still include this in the lead. You might want to take a look at this page. Many other original anime series out there have an excellent overview, so finding a good example to copy or be inspired from shouldn't be any problem. Maybe we can write something like this: Yuri on Ice initially received positive reviews, with critics praising the ------- Or shall we wait for the release of the Blu-ray/DVD?UnknownUsername480 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's seems that paragraph is settled. I like to add one last thing - Sayo-sensei is known to portray and have LGBT-relationship tones and relationship in her animes, BUT it's doesn't mean the relationship is that the show is mainly about. I know about Sayo's works and I do believe it's clear that Yuri and Victor are in a romantic relationship. However, I want that paragraph to be remove because of reasons I already stated above. It's the same as a movies or TV show that a Action, Crime drama, or horror genre - they can have romantic elements in the series, but don't make it means the romance is the main plot of the series. If anyone wants to mention that Yuri and Victor are in a relationship, please do it under their BIOS. Keep overall reviews from Critics under the Reception section. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Going with the example UnknownUsername480 mentioned, I thought it best just to merge the two paragraphs into one. If you want a "good example", chances are you are probably going to be something in print I feel. However, I don't feel comfortable with keep just mentions to the relationship in the bios (which would be on the character page). Most of the talk that I can find online, including reviews, focuses on the relationship and not the sport. It feels daft not to report on it in some way like the "Depiction of same-sex relationship" section. ISD (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave any paragraphs about critics reviews out entirely on the top of the main page for now. Most reviews do focus on the relationship, which is best left in the Reception section. As for the current paragraph at the top of the page, like I said, the Plot section already mention everything, keeping a vaguer version of it on the top of the page seems...unneeded. It was fine the way, at least I think so. I seen others Sports anime articles too, like Free! or DAYS (another MAPPA anime) follow a similar structure. Keep Plot stuff in the Plot section. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead is OK now (see WP:LEAD). As long as it doesn't violate a neutral point of view, a brief plot summary can always be added.--Sakretsu (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

Hello? For the YOI page...as a another edit request to the paragraph the top of the page....seems redundant (?)...It's like a vaguer description of what is already mention the PLOT section. Also, I like to point out that the while "(Yuri K.)" in the Plot section, shouldn't be there. "Yuri K" is NOT that how the characters in-universe addresses him, it's not a nickname. The Wikipedia articles just uses "Yuri K." as a way to differentiate from Russian Yuri. So, I think it should be taken out. Also, the part with "(nicknamed "Yurio")", that should been taken out, too. For one, while he is called that by Victor, Japanese Yuri, and the other Japanese characters, it's not a steady nickname and Russian Yuri has a lot of nicknames, but is mainly call Yuri by others in the show, since he spent a lot time away from Victor and the other Japanese characters. I think the Plot section was fine before the recent change. So, can someone please take it out? 68.11.91.158 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Made change in plot section. You don't need me to change all the Yuri K.'s do you? ISD (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No, just in the plot section! Thank you! 68.11.91.158 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood. ISD (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Gay couple

Why is the reception section leading readers to believe Yuri and Victor are factually a gay couple? It's nothing but speculation and yet intentionally misleads readers.Correctron (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Because most of the reviews and comments I've seen online have argued along the lines that the characters are gay. You say it is speculation, but I've not come across any reliable sources that argue against the claim that they are gay. If you can find some reliable sources that argue that they are NOT a same-sex couple, then I'm more than happy for them to be included as it indicates that there is open debate on the subject. ISD (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Then where is the proof they ARE gay. Opinion doesn't equal fact. The reception section must be cleared up to make it obvious that it is all speculation. It says there is a kiss scene. We see no such kiss. It also trets the ring thing as getting engaged though the characters themselves at no point say anything like that. You are giving undo weight to opinion blogs. Opinions are NOT reliable sources.Correctron (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Victor does explicitly call it an engagement ring in the episode. Until then I think it's fair for others to believe so until proven otherwise. Victor's words in context and the sound direction of the kiss scene would also make little sense if it was not a kiss. Given that they are also paralleled with the meta-narrative love story in the show as well as to a romantic song about two men, it only makes sense that the show is pointing to them having romantic feelings for each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.18.221 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

To reference this piece that is in the article, why should the emphasis be on my to prove that Yuri K. and Victor are a gay couple? I have provided and referenced lots of material that argues the case for a relationship to exist, but to quote that article: "Victor's arm obscuring where his lips meet Yuri's cannot possibly be an artistic decision; either we see them kiss or there was no kiss. Disagree? Prove it. Never mind that obscuring a kiss is completely consistent with the show's storytelling style so far, leaving deliberate information gaps and inviting viewers to read between the lines. Pics or it didn't happen." I would argue that rather than me trying to prove they are gay which I've tried my hardest to do, I would rather that you tried to prove that they are not, and provide references to that effect. ISD (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess God is officially real. Correctron (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Just reposting what I've said before under a different topic on this page. "I've tried looking into it [the homosexual aspect of said show], and, I mean, I've watched the show. The entire LGBTQA+ dynamic, if you think it's there, is very heavily dependent on visual cues. None of the characters straight out (make a pun) say "I'm gay" or anything like that. However, there are the aforementioned exchange of the rings (which, if you zoom in on the receipt for the ring(s), reveal the ring(s) to be wedding ring(s), the (presumably) kiss in Episode 7, and Victor's crying over Yuri K.'s decision to "end this." Also, Victor says something along the lines of "...so my costume suggested both male and female genders at once," and Yuri K.'s Eros program is meant to represent him as the "femme fatale". Honestly, it is left out there for self-interpretation. Apparently no one seems to be asking Mitsurō Kubo this question either, which is very very odd, from my standpoint." Correctron, many anime news sites, such as Anime News Network, have run articles supporting assertations that Yuuri and Victor are gay. And, as I've previously stated, "there are the aforementioned exchange of the rings (which, if you zoom in on the receipt for the ring(s), reveal the ring(s) to be wedding ring(s)), the (presumably) kiss in Episode 7, and Victor's crying over Yuri K.'s decision to 'end this.'" I'm fairly sure this should all count for something. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is The Legend of Korra all over again. --Killuminator (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Refideas

http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2016/12/24/japanese-fans-pick-2016s-most-magnetic-anime-characters http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2016/12/27-1/nico-nico-research-306000-japanese-fans-pick-best-tv-anime-of-2016UnknownUsername480 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put these up at refideas above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Used the references in the article. ISD (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit submitted

I've put this article in as a special request for WP:GOCE. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2016

Can someone please remove the "LBGT" from the GENRE section? Don't be fool by the source link by it; take look at it. It's NOT a reliable source and it's clearly a opinionated article/review for the series that has nothing to do with canon stuff! That person that put it there probably just saw the word "LBGT" used in the article and let their imagination run wild again. LBGT isn't even a genre! Can someone please remove it? 68.11.91.158 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done it is not officially classified under yaoi or marketed in the LGBT genre, although it can contain material related to LGBT as demonstrated by the detailed Reception section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Yaoi"

Recently, an IP address made a change to the genre, claiming it to belong to the yaoi genre. I don't believe this to be true, considering that the main focus of the anime is not Viktor and Yuuri's relationship, but rather, competitive ice skating. I undid the revision, but does anyone else have anything to say on this subject? {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not what the editors believe, but it's what the media is classified under the preponderance of reliable sources. None have been provided to classify it beyond that it is a sports/figure skating-themed anime show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to request semi-protection for this article because there's constant vandalism about YOI's genre. It's vaguely irritating at this point. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is vandalism, might be more akin to enthusiasm from fans who believe the series to be "yaoi" (although it is probably not sexual enough to be yaoi, maybe more shonen-ai) - but I do agree with JackOfPanTrades and think that we should include semi-protection again as all the genre edits are getting annoying. ISD (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are a must if the genre is going to be changed... though I doubt such a change is likely. While many anime fans outside of Japan use "yaoi" as a catch-all term for (largely female-targeted) works that feature male-male relationships, yaoi is a specific genre with its own thematic elements. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the lock really nesscary? The page was just unlocked yesterday and so far only two users did it. I don't think locking the page again is necessary. It means you punishing the goods anon users too. Why do can we just handle the issue by talking to the users on their talk page who mess with the Genre section? Also, they didn't repeat their action and only did once so far. If a users continually disrupts, why not block the users, rather always lock down the page? Is there any way to remove the lock? I also think the lock period is excessive! Last time, it was one month! How did it just to 3 months just after a day and two edits?! Please consider what I said. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You may not realize this, since you aren't registered, but disruptive edits on this page have gone on for a long time. Also, not only did two of us agree that the vandalism was approaching an irritating level, but the request went through, which means a trusted person reviewed the edits and agreed that the page should go under semi-protection. And to answer your question about removing the semi-protection, there are ways for registered users. However, as I've said before, at least three people find this necessary to maintain the quality of this article. If you wish to make edits to this page, you can always comment on the talk page (as I'm sure you know how to) and ask an auto-confirmed user to edit the article on your behalf or you can make an account for Wikipedia and become an auto-confirmed user yourself. I've seen the edits you've made, and I'm fairly certain that becoming an auto-confirmed user would prove a simple task. On that note, do you have any edits that you would like to be made to this article? JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 18:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, I VERY aware of the constant messing with the GENRE section. I'm one of the users that build the YOI page up and been watching over it, even when it's locked. And the previous incidents that cause the page to be locked before was way worse that this time. And, I'm not a person that usually edit on Wikipedia a lot, I only ever do it because I took a particular liking to something and I want to see it flourish. I don't want a official account. In the meantime, I'll do what I always done and watch over the main page. If I see anything or some news come up about YOI, I'll let someone know. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I spotted that this website refers to the series as yaoi, but I think it is a blog and thus not a reliable source. Just want to check whether it is before anyone does reference it. ISD (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's borderline, but it does have this interview with Johnny Weir regarding the show that could be used to beef up reception. [5]. But as I stated before, if most of the regular anime reviewers are calling it yaoi up front as with Sakura Trick and it's being marketed as yaoi anime, then that would be more convincing. It's much like putting an ecchi anime in the hentai genre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added the interview to the article now. ISD (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

There is a slight error in the Anime section. I have bolded the changes that need to be made

Please change "The first DVD edition reached No. 3 in the Oricon Animation DVD ranking, behind limited and standard editions of One Piece Film: Gold, and ranked No. 5 in the Oricon general DVD ranking." TO "The first DVD edition reached No. 1 in the Oricon DVD Animation ranking, above limited and standard editions of One Piece Film: Gold, and ranked No. 3 in the Oricon general DVD ranking."

The sources for this change are as follows:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-05/japan-animation-dvd-ranking-december-26-january-1/.110656 (which has since been updated with new information) http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/dg/w/2017-01-09/

UPDATE: there have been further changes and the first DVD edition is now ranked no. 2 in the Oricon general DVD ranking.

I have an online screenshot and the website itself as sources: http://68.media.tumblr.com/a81fb0f98c693c89966d99b214da10f4/tumblr_inline_ojd3vm7AJo1tzbidd_1280.png

http://ranking.oricon.co.jp/s/ (Scroll down until you see the Rv icon and click to expand)

Achi221 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for helping out! JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 14:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. st170e 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

YOI is critically acclaimed. I mean, just look at its sales and popularity. Also, the reception section is too long. We must remove some unnecessary details. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sales and popularity have nothing to do with critical acclaim.Correctron (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In terms of critical acclaim, if the show won an award that would certainly be a sign of acclaim, and no doubt that would be included in the lead. If it won any of the Crunchyroll Anime Awards that it is currently nominated for, I suspect that might be worthy of inclusion in the lead. ISD (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? YOI appeared and topped in multiple popularity polls and won the Tokyo anime award. It was the most tweeted anime of the year (2016), with more than 1 million tweets. The Blu-ray/DVD sold around 50k copies and that's really great for a new original franchise. It also received praise from critics and FIGURE SKATERS! Now tell me, how is that not critically acclaimed? Btw, the reception section is way too long, I suggest you folks to remove the unnecessary details. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Tweets, salesand popularity polls aren't "critically acclaimed" as they have nothing to do with critics. Also that shouldn't be in the lead sentence per MOS. Lead paragraph perhaps. But as for reception length, it's fine, see Death Note and Naruto on suggestions on how to structure the reception section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I already commented that YOI has been praised by both critics and figure skaters and won the Tokyo anime award. Who knows, it might win the Animation Kobe awards or the Animage Grand prix. And well, I kind of agree that we must not promote the idea though. I guess we'll just have to wait, then. As for reception section, Naruto and Death Note are bad examples because they are not original anime adaptation. Their reception section has both anime and manga sales, critics response or whatever. I suggest you to check Angel Beats!, Gurren Lagann or the highly acclaimed series Puella Magi Madoka Magica. I'm gonna say it again, the reception section is way too long so please remove the unnecessary details. Thanks, folks. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at those examples, the impression I get is not to remove unnecessary details, but just to break down the reception section into smaller chunks. Also, you say to remove the unnecessary details, but you haven't said what those details are. What should be removed? ISD (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, okay, firstly, the awards and nominations should be under the "Accolades" section. Second, we must add the blu-ray/dvd sales under the reception section. I find the "Depiction of same-sex relationship" section really unnecessary. Maybe you should make it smaller? UnknownUsername480 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-worked the reception section, breaking the whole thing down into more manageable sections, including "Accoldaes" and "Sales". The critical reception I split between the views of the critics and those of the public in the polls. For the "Depiction of same-sex relationship", I didn't make it smaller, but again I did split it to make it easier to read, dealing with "Praise" and "Criticism". ISD (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks great now. Thanks, pal! ;) UnknownUsername480 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Woah. That's... really good. ISD (talk · contribs) nice job. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 23:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I would say that if we need anything else, we could do with perhaps another image or two to break down all the text. I know that there is the Blu-Ray cover that is used in the list of episodes which we could possibly use. Perhaps a screenshot of the kiss scene to use in the same-sex relationship section to illustrate the topic better? These are just suggestions though. ISD (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added a screenshot of the kiss scene, ISD (talk · contribs). JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. I've made one or two changes - I moved it to the star of the same-sex relationship section as I thought it is where the kiss is first talked about in depth, and thought it would be better slightly larger. Just one question about the use of language: in the image caption you used the word "alleged", which I don't think is used elsewhere in the article. Should we add the "alleged" to the main body of the text too, or rephrase the caption, as I know it is a delicate subject. ISD (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The answer is "yes". Since it's not shown, its alleged. Same with all the other things being inferred. The who same-sex section is treating everything as fact.Correctron (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Correctron. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with it ISD (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Awards in lead?

(moving awards to its own subsection on this thread AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC))

Following the results of the Anime Awards (winning 6 out of 7, with one yet to be revealed), do you think this is worthy of mentioning in the lead, and if so should it be mentioned in the lead now, or wait until the final award is revealed later in the month? ISD (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning, but we should wait until January 28th, when the "Best Anime" is announced. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 14:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Make sense, especially as if it does win, it would mean it would win half of the all the available awards. ISD (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You can structure it as with other television show in the Awards and accolades section. Question is whether Crunchyroll gives out a physical award (Annie Awards, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, or Tokyo Anime Award) or whether it's just a superlative year-end virtual award like Behind The Voice Actors. Anime of the Year could listed in the lead paragraphs, but PLEASE don't use "award-winning" in the first sentence. WP:PEACOCK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Answering my own question. Yes, it looks like the awards are planned to be a big deal. press release I'm still wary that the winner is determined by fan-driven voting so it isn't really as prestigious as a media award or one given by a panel of judges. But hey, garnering 1.8 million votes is more impressive than many of those Japanese magazine fan polls! [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Even though it's fan-voted, I believe the nominations were chosen by a panel. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And that it's "revealed live in front of more than 400 anime influencers, industry experts and fans " should help up its credibility. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It has not been mentioned on the Crunchyroll website yet, but according to their social media accounts, Yuri on Ice did win "Anime of the Year", so it has won half of the Crunchyroll Anime Awards. Once Crunchyroll report it on their website, I think we should add the awards news to the lead. ISD (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I got an email announcing YOI as the Best Anime, so I'm going to add it into the Accolades section and the lead. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Hi there! I would like to add something to the Public popularity section:

In a "2016 Fall Anime Poll" held by Japanese anime news aggregator site AnimeAnime of 941 voters, Yuri!!! On Ice came top of the poll of around 50 Fall Anime Series of 2016, receiving 20% of the votes among women, and was ranked 8th most popular among male voters.

Source:

http://s.animeanime.jp/article/2017/01/11/32120.html Achi221 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've posted the piece in the "Public Popularity" section, although obviously any translation of the poll would be useful. ISD (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by User:ISD. JustBerry (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just seen this on Crunchyroll. Is this the same story translated into English, or a different poll? ISD (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Different poll. Japanese watchers voted Yuri!!! on Ice as the anime in 2016 they most enjoyed/were satisfied with.

I'd also add that in their February 2017 edition, the Japanese magazine Animage held a poll for the 100 best anime characters in 2016 and Victor placed first, Yuuri second, and Yuri sixth. Source: https://artbooksnat.tumblr.com/post/155767257037/animage-best-100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.136.251 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That one would be good for reception for the character article as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added both references now, although I would prefer to get some more details on the magazine. The story may get picked up elsewhere. ISD (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" Kiss Scene

Being the oblivious idiot that I am, I just realized that Crunchyroll refers to the "alleged" kiss scene as a definite in the Anime Awards. Should we remove the word "alleged" in referrals to the kiss? JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 15:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that if you refer to it as "the kiss" in quotation marks/inverted commas, then you can probably read into the phrase both meanings. You can either look at it and think you are directly referring to the scene as a kiss, or they could be seen as scare quotes. ISD (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more straightforward than scare quotes, but it's tricky. For the last few days I've been trying to think of a replacement for "alleged" since that has negative connotations, and thought of "possible" but I don't think that quite works either. If our sources are divided as to whether it is a kiss couldn't we just state that in the caption? Something like: "Viewers are divided about whether or not this is a kiss." Cloveapple (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps as a caption: "Victor embraces Yuri in episode 7 of the anime, some viewers are divided as to whether the characters kissed"... but are viewers really divided? To my knowledge the critics we've been citing in this article seem to have taken it as a kiss, and the fans have quite enthusiastically accepted it as a kiss. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 00:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source which claims that the scene is not a kiss. Although you never see it, everything seems to indicate that it did happen, which is what all the critics and fans have taken on board. If a reliable source can be found in which it is claimed the kiss did not happen, then obviously it should be included, but I can't find one. ISD (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The only deniers I'm aware of are fans that ship Yuuri and/or Viktor with someone else in the series, so they aren't really all that reliable. I've got the same results as ISD (talk · contribs); no one's denying it, although some are criticizing the lack of explicitness in it. I'll take Cloveapple and RA0808's suggestions into consideration when I edit. JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've edited the captioning for the picture. Feedback? JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. ISD (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still a bit on the fence about using qualifiers like "supposed" or "alleged", but it is definitely an improved caption. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I got an alert on this issue. I have no horse in the race, so to speak. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Crunchyroll Anime Awards Lashback

So, apparently anime fans are kind of pissed that Yuri!!! On Ice won so many awards when (in their opinions) it should've only won one or two. They aren't credible enough to cite in the article (obviously), but should we include this in reception, or...? JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think most of the anger is towards the "Best Animation" prize, because some people think the animation looks poor, but I know other people have retorted by saying actually the animation is good when you consider the subject matter. The problem is, as you say, there are no credible sources. I get the suspicion that the people complaining are people who hated the show anyway and are getting annoyed by all the hype surrounding it. ISD (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right about the "haters" thing. Maybe more credible sources will be available if YOI wins Best Anime? JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if it's reliably sourced, it would go in criticism section on the Awards article, not the title. The selection criteria is what it is for Crunchyroll, which is fan voting by subscribers. Whether it's the same fan voting multiple times, limited to subscribers or open to all can be described there. Sometimes that causes the poll organizer to change the weighting of fan votes as is being done with this year's NBA All-Star selection. Or how the girl group AKB48 conducts its annual elections, or American Idol phone balloting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

From experience, the voting for the Crunchyroll awards was open to all, and limited to one vote/person. Achi221 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just created a section about the animation in the "Production" section. I don't know if complaints about the animation or the animation award should be referenced in it though. ISD (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Kotaku mentions the odd quality differences in animation in their article here: http://kotaku.com/yuri-on-ice-the-kotaku-review-1790636052 so maybe we can use that? JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Achi221 when you say open to all, does that mean you didn't need a Cruchyroll account to cast a vote? Or you still needed one but it can be the free version. As for complaints about the animation, no, that wouldn't go in production unless it influenced the actual production design decisions as with Miraculous Ladybug. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The majority of critical lashback to YOI currently seems to be based off of the Best Animation award, so maybe we can add it into the reception section? JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

JackOfPanTrades, I think we already link to that review in the reception section, near the "Critical reception" section. ISD (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF no you did not need an account to vote to my knowledge, given that Crunchyroll only encouraged fans in general to vote.Achi221 (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Master License update for Yuri on Ice

Hello, I'd like to request that an edit be made regarding the main page's licensor listing. Funimation is listed as a licensor, but on Anime News Network (source: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=18191), Crunchyroll is listed as the Master License Holder for Yuri!!! on ICE. Please update the license listing to accurately reflect this information. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.20.37 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried adding Crunchyroll to the infobox but there are problems. One of them is the both Crunchyroll and Funimation shows the series in North America (NA), but the infobox won't all you to display it showing both choices. I've put Crunchyroll under United Kingdom (UK), because that is where I watched it from and thus I know this to be true. However, my source clearly states that the series was, "available to Crunchyroll members worldwide except for Japan and China." There is no option which allow you to say this accurately in the infobox. How do we reflect fact that both of these websites streamed the series in a correct way? ISD (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Under critical reception, I would also like to add that Icenetwork, an official figure skating website which provides broadcasts of competitions, as well as figure skating news in general, has also written positively about Yuri on Ice, and how it portrays figure skating in a positive and accurate light.

I believe that this should be added on to: Yuri on Ice was well-received by figure skaters, including Johnny Weir, Evgenia Medvedeva, Denis Ten, Evgeni Plushenko and Masato Kimura,[27][28] and included cameo appearances by skaters Stéphane Lambiel and Nobunari Oda.[29].Achi221 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Source: http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2017/01/25/214266172 Achi221 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added reference. ISD (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

I was wondering that now the Crunchyroll Awards are out of the way and that things have now relatively settle down for at least a while, whether this article is suitable to be nominated for Good article status? ISD (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I should think so. We have pretty stable references and the article is fairly unbiased. AngusWOOF, what do you think? JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 01:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's get it peer reviewed. WP:PR Also check the interviews I posted in refideas about the skating that could be useful for production. But you can also nominate it.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll submit it for a peer review, and ask the review to check if these references are reliable enough to use. ISD (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2017

I was hoping to add this to the popularity section of the article, after "Yuri On Ice was listed as the top 2016 anime on Crunchyroll for Poland, the Czech Republic, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Botswana, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Singapore; the most popular 2016 anime series for all countries via Crunchyroll was Re:Zero.[36]":

The anime has also gained a large following in China, with the Yuri on Ice hashtag on Sina Weibo having 130,000 posts and 2 billion views.

Source: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1029233.shtml?luicode=20000061&lfid=4065041848153558&featurecode=20000180&sourceType=weixin

(Additionally, the article also discusses the role that Yuri on Ice has played in encouraging interest in figure skating in China, the fact that figure skaters such as Patton Chen and John Samuel C. Minas have recreated the routines of the show, and the accuracy of the skating being what attracted these skaters to the anime, and that a good deal of the positive reception is due to the viewing of Victor and Yuri's relationship in a romantic light)

I'm not sure how to word the facts in the brackets though. Achi221 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've added that reference now to the popularity section. ISD (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Streaming Rights Aren't Licensing Rights

I noticed in the licensing section there's some errors.

1. Funimation has more than just the rights to dub the show. The have the rights to the dub and sub but aren't streaming the sub of the series due to the Crunchyroll/Funimation partnership. According to the partnership, Funimation will release anything they simuldub on DVD, and THAT'S the licensing rights. Streaming rights just means you have the right to play the series on your site, the fact that they can sell the series on DVD mean's it's actually licensed. Source for the partnership: [7]

2. The "Crunchyroll licensed in the UK" is bogus. The source [8] on the page only states that they have worldwide streaming rights besides Japan and China, that's it. No where does it say they licensed the show in the UK, nor does it even mention the UK.

EDIT: Also if someone tries to add the Yuri!!! On Ice coming to Disney XD thing, it's fake.

Nyantatata (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I've made the required changes. I'll keep an eye out for any bogus information as well. ISD (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Put Viktor as Yuri's husband CaptainShortAss (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source to confirm this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2017

I was thinking about adding this to the popularity section after "At the Tokyo Anime Award Festival, an online poll of 480,004 people of the top 100 anime aired (or screened) between October 18, 2015 and October 15, 2016 named Yuri on Ice at the top of 90 TV anime series with 64,774 votes,[41] and later No. 1 in the "Animation of the Year" poll for the same period with 41,439 votes.":

To commemorate the award, a special screening of the first three episodes is being organised by the Tokyo Anime Award Festival, and is planned to take place on March 11 2017 at Cinema Sunshine Ikebukuro in Tokyo.

Source: https://event.dmm.com/detail?event_id=74262

Achi221 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added sentence. ISD (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2017

Can someone Please remove the "Romance" from the genre box? It's doesn't belong there! 137.30.209.17 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Premise of the show is not a romance, although the reception has definitely reacted to the relationship part of the story. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2017

Can someone please change the "Licensed by" section to Funimation? Some users has arguing over it over a couple days, and "Crunchyroll" is wrong! "Licensed" falls under who Dub and distributes the English merchandise of the anime! Crunchyroll steams the English SUB, but Funimation is the one in charge of the English DUB! 68.11.91.158 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is not how it works. The source confirms Crunchyroll has the master license for this title. CR has sub-licensed certain aspects of those rights--in this case, the dubbing and some merchandise rights--to Funimation. However, that doesn't change who ultimately was granted the title for English distribution. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Licensing confusion

On earlier discussions on this talk page, I realise there are at least 2 to 3 different topics discussing who are the licensor of Yuri on Ice. Now as of 14 March 2017, the article states that Funimation is the licensor for the series.

However, a press release on Anime News Network states that Crunchyroll is the Master Licensee of the series. Upon reading the beginning of the press release, it states: "Crunchyroll continues to deepen its relationships with Japanese anime publishers and is the master licensee, representing video, BD/DVD, merchandise and other downstream rights, for many of this season's titles." Notice the "representing video, BD/DVD, merchandise and other downstream rights", basically stating that Crunchyroll are the licensee for North America.([9])

However, in the Anime News Network article announcing the Funimation and Crunchyroll partnership, it states: "Funimation will also serve as the distributor for Crunchyroll's home video release titles and EST (electronic sell-through) releases through "a variety of EST outlets."", which is implying that Funimation is distributing on their behalf.([10])

I have no idea what this is about, but I believe that, in my opinion, Crunchyroll is the master licensee who have the rights to distribute it within North America (streaming rights worldwide), and that Funimation is a distributor acting on behalf of Crunchyroll. Seeing the infobox stating "Licensed by" and not "Distributed by", wouldn't that make Crunchyroll being listed, and not Funimation?

Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm? I could be wrong, or uh? If crunchyroll was or is a licensed to the title? err, the show? Would they have a studio place by themselfs, in which they will do the 'dub.' But does crunchyroll have some studio place now? If funimation did the dub part sometime ago? or just wait, until a source/site says who does the "cd, blue-ray?" (Err is there a better wording for that?) But did crunchyroll expand their business part to open up a studio area yet? or, maybe? Uh? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing a dub means you have been granted the rights to dub, but those can be issued by the master license holder. In other words, the fact Funimation is dubbing the show doesn't alter who has the ultimate rights. Reliable sources confirm Crunchyroll has the master license and has sub-licensed the dub distribution to the other company. As an aside, CR does work with dub studio vendors as well.

In short, don't look to "who dubs" as "who licenses," as it can be misleading. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review aftermath

Now that the Yuri On Ice peer review has been completed, I was wondering how best to deal with the issues that have been brought up. Here is what is highlighted:

• "The character and location headers under the production section is all speculation from non-official sources; even if they're plausible. ... Eliminate short paragraphs. The production section is breaking every paragraph under unnecessary headers. Consider removing references not acknowledged by official sources." - It probably makes sense to remove all the headings in the in the "Production" section. The issue is how to deal with the bits that are not covered by official sources. Should these removed from the article altogether?
• There was a fair amount of talk considering the "Media" section. One person said it should be restructured, while another said it should be removed because the only form of media available is the currently the anime. How should we tackle this section?
• "Is the series' plot completed still ongoing? If the series ended, it needs to full." - The first series has ended, but whether it gets a second series remains to be seen. It might make sense to create new sections if any new series come along.

Once we have agreed on how to deal with this, we can go ahead with said changes and we might be able to get the article promoted to GA status at least. ISD (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would remove any speculative bits (e.g. location based on a real-life place, characters based on real-life skaters) unless it's stated by the production crew or published by a secondary source that isn't a gossip rag. If the director or character designers says he modeled this character after this figure skater, then that would be okay. I'd also combine the Production subsections. One single paragraph per subsection isn't too helpful. You can see some of the GA's such as D.Gray-man.

I would say the TV series has ended. It can always be revised if or when season 2 is greenlit and production has started on it WP:NFF. Attack on Titan had ended at one season until this year.

Media could be renamed to Broadcast and distribution, and if there's related media, a section can be added later. But the song book and soundtracks are part of the standard media that goes with the anime. The current section looks like it covers the original broadcast, then the home media, then the soundtrack/character songs + piano book. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The entire same-sex section is speculation. LordAtlas (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

See, that's the issue. Almost everyone that matters agrees that Yuuri Katsuki and Victor Nikiforov are romantically involved, in some way or another. However, there are a few that continue to insist otherwise. Kubo-sensei has held interviews talking about how American fans needed a kiss to confirm the romantic nature of Yuuri and Victor's relationship. What should we do with that section? JackOfPanTrades ^{|Converse intellectually|} 14:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see much criticism of lack of sources in the reception section from the peer review. Also, that section has been copyedited. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Guess that settles it. JackOfPanTrades ^{|Converse intellectually|} 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I agree with what AngusWOOF said. JackOfPanTrades ^{|Converse intellectually|} 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done my best to go through all the things AngusWOOF mentioned. The "Media" section has been renamed, the "Plot" has been expanded to include the plot of the whole series, and the "Production" section has been cut down. The only thing that I have left is a bit about Hasetsu, Kyushu being based on Karatsu, Saga, as I think multiple sources indicate that that this is true and there have been multiple cases of the real-life place using the show to promote tourism to the area. Although if this should be removed, then do feel free to remove that section. As has been mentioned, there was no criticism of the "Same-sex relationship" in the peer review, so this section seems fine. As mentioned previously, if any reliable sources saying that it is not a same-sex relationship are available or do come up then do reference them, but I'm not aware of any personally. On a different matter, should the article be protected again, as there has already been some vandalism that has been deleted. ISD (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the vandalism. Well, so far it has only been one IP address, and they haven't persisted. I left a message on their talk page warning them, so I think we should wait until more comes up before semi-protecting it. JackOfPanTrades ^{|Converse intellectually|} 19:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yuri on Ice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The article looks in good shape to become a GA but there are somethings that bother me:

• In the lead, could you explain a little more about the plot? At first sounds like they only focus on relationships and nothing about skating.
  • I've expanded the lead now. ISD (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Remember to wikilink the characters especially since there is a character list.
  • I've added wikilinks to the characters in the lead. ISD (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• The broadcast and distribution could be moved to episode list.
  • I've moved this section to the list. ISD (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Try to avoid to relying too much on quotes and instead reword them to be as neutral as possible.
  • Are there any particular quotes that should be removed? Also, are we allowed to reword quotes? Surely we are meant to represent the quotes as actually as possible rather than change them to suit the article? ISD (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the article could become a GA. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Passed.Tintor2 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Another cameo

Plushenko appears in ep 9 at 11:07 (near the end of Yurio's performance). --109.252.23.25 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? ISD (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The episode itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Mmemk2dXc&t=11m7s --109.252.72.156 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A YouTube link doesn't count as a reliable source. ISD (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ISD wants a news source of some sort, so Tumblr blogs, unless verified, wouldn't count, while sites like Kotaku and Anime News Network would. JackOfPanTrades ^{Converse intellectually} 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please use the format "Change X to Y" or "Add Z to X". JackOfPanTrades ^{Converse intellectually} 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This could work as a secondary source for Plushenko's cameo. [11] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF It might, but it doesn't seem that official. As far as I know, neither Plushenko nor official sites have mentioned anything about him having a cameo. A Google search only pulls up a Tumblr blog stating that Plushenko had a cameo, and as far as I know, the Daily Dot hasn't contacted any official outlets for this. I'll try emailing to find out where they got the idea of Plushenko having a cameo from. JackOfPanTrades ^{Converse intellectually} 17:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be that they just drew him in as a background character. It isn't like the other skater who actually did have a cameo and recorded voices in studio. I agree it could be excluded as in-joke kind of trivia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I emailed Daily Dot, and they didn't really answer my question, but they've edited the article to reflect that it's only a animation cameo. JackOfPanTrades ^{Converse intellectually} 17:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Consideration for FA

Does anyone else think that now we have got the article for YOI up to GA status and as a DYK that we should try to promote it to Featured Article status? If so, I was thinking of waiting until the Yuri!!! on Stage event took place to see what news was announced there (some websites are speculating that they may announce a second series). ISD (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the steps needed to keep it going to FA? Are there any major gaps for the article that need to be done? It shouldn't have to be dependent on whether they are going to produce a second season or have events. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is the FA critera. I think we are OK, but others might object. There is always that issue about the relationship section, but I personally think it is OK. ISD (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Having gone through FA before, I'd say another peer review might be a good idea. FA is tough! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, although it is hard to think of what new stuff might get pointed out, what with this second PR coming so soon after the first. I know that some other anime articles have not gone through the PR process after having just been promoted to FA (Naruto for example had a PR first, then got promoted to GA, had a DYK up, and is now an FA candidate with currently no opposition. Having said that, it is of course a much bigger article if that is an issue). ISD (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Never too much peer reviewing, IMO! But if you think it's ready, then just be set to quickly respond to any issues they point out. They always find something, haha. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I've already made some improvements. I spotted on some featured articles covering TV shows (e.g. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons) that the use primary and secondary sources, the primary ones being the actual TV episodes, so I've used them as references, mainly in the plot section but also elsewhere. If anyone else can think of other areas that should be sourced using the episodes, say so and I'll make sure they are done. ISD (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the episode citations for the Plot are needed, as it is explaining straightforward plot information, so I would comment that out. But if you need in-episode citations, may I suggest using the Ref label scheme as with A Town Where You Live or the efn footnote scheme, as listing "e 6" kind of implies episode 6 when it could refer to a different episode? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to use the efn footnote scheme like you suggested. ISD (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that given the recent news about the film, I will probably put it forward for a second peer review before nominating YOI for FA, just to make sure that any new sections are OK. I'm guessing no-one would object? ISD (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I say go for it! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

New film

With the news that an YOI film has been announced, I've re-create the "Media" section because the series is now officially split across two media (TV and film). If there is anything that needs sorting out in the "Media" section let me know. ISD (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Add music? See Gurren Lagann for example. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

^ Nice idea. @ISD: Add a music section if possible. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Music section now added, mainly taken from the episodes list page. ISD (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Merchandise

Saw these at Hot Topic today: [12]

Then there's the usual merch from the usual channels: [13] [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia articles cover things like anime merchandise. ISD (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reviews from Japan

Given a comment from the current peer review, is anyone aware of any reviews of the series from Japan itself? ISD (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of rules

Good afternoon. Do I understand correctly that same-sex relationships are not the main theme of this work and the anime is not stated as a work on same-sex relationships? Why then the section about this and the template and category associated with it are not deleted? For it was just with this reasoning that any mention of incest in another anime was deleted. Up to the removal of the paragraph with the opinion of reviewers. I do not understand something, or did I really face double standards? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The main theme is ice skating. Please read the previous sections in the talk discussion about Yaoi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation. I'm wondering why I personally can not even be briefly mentioned that there is a definite fan service in the work, not to mention the fact that incest is not a genre. So if you can add the category "LGBT-related work" because of a same-sex couple, why can not I add "incest in fiction" due to the sibling couple? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak with much authority as I've not watch The Irregular at Magic High School, but I think it depends on how much coverage in the media has been given to the coverage of incest in the story. When it came to Yuri on Ice, most of the coverage ended up dwelling on the gay relationship between Yuri K. and Victor. Did reviewers give as much coverage to incest in this series as they did to YOI's gay relationship? ISD (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

All reviewers noted too demonstrative and overly "romantic" chemistry between the protagonist and his sister, whhom is also the only real love interest in the series. The problem is that the actual development of their relationship begins only in volume 16, which is far outscores the anime (7 volume) and released volumes under the license (2-3 volume). That is, on the one hand everyone knows about this, but on the other hand, we can not get Western reviews of major events in this direction. I'm not going to make a holy war, I just want to understand the logic of the rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you should be able to use the manga as a source, provided translation can be verified. I've seen other anime pages on Wikipedia reference the source manga. ISD (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

These events are already described in this way. But when I tried to add a category on their basis, it was removal of the slightest mention of this word from the article went. Now they tell me that when the reviewer writes "their relationship looks defiant," it's supposedly a "plot summary, not a reviewer's reaction". Solaire the knight (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that if the general consensus among critics is that the relationship is incestuous it should be mentioned in the article. Maybe try to provide a range of opinions on the subject - although I suspect you can't do "Praise" and "Criticism" like YOI. I don't imagine that many critics will be publicly supporting incest even if it is in fictional. ISD (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between critics praising a depiction of something and supporting the thing itself, even if they sometimes overlap. You can call The Godfather a great film without supporting organized crime.--IDV^talk 08:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Although the show plays with this topic, but about "support" is out of the question. If we talk about the attitude of critics to this, then this is one of the bases controversy around the series. In this regard, the problem is even stronger than in Oreimo. Well Well, thanks for the answer. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Title Change Request: Yuri On Ice to Yuri!!! on Ice

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Yuri on Ice → Yuri!!! on Ice – Procedural listing; a requested move has been open for some time, but was not listed as an RM and so has not attracted a significant number of commments yet. Original nomination is below this RM header.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it's official name, seen on all information released by the US Li censor and the original Japanese creator.Nyantatata (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the exclamation points are for stylization. They don't need to be marked up like that throughout the articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AngusWoof. I believe MOS:TMRULES applies here.--IDV^talk 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support the exclamation marks are part of the title, and exclamation marks in titles and other Japanese works have been used for similar articles. See: Free! (anime), Baccano!, Love Live!, Sound! Euphonium, Cute High Earth Defense Club Love!, Durarara!!, Haikyū!!, Keijo!!!!!!!!, etc. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support We should follow the same practice as similar articles. No reason this should be different. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Those are different in that the exclamation points are at the end of the title and not in the middle, where it would have been confused as just Yuri!!! or capitalized as Yuri!!! On Ice AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sound! Euphonium has an exclamation mark in the middle, as do: Sakigake!! Otokojuku, Ichigeki Sacchu!! HoiHoi-san, DokiDoki! PreCure. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 01:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC); edited 17:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But again, those titles such as Love Live! School Idol Project can be shortened to Love Live! Yuri on Ice doesn't shorten to Yuri. Unless there are other titles in the franchise like Yuri!!! on Water or Yuri!!! on Piano, or Yuri!!! on Dance, then that could be considered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That was my first sentiment too, but I looked at all official websites and legal streaming sites and they all use the exclamation points as part of the title, similar to Haikyu!!. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, why is the subtitle on the main cover Yuri on Ice without the exclamation points? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Main cover of...? What're you referring to? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On the article, the main illustration in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think what AngusWOOF means is that in the main illustration, the text written in English just says Yuri on Ice. The text written in Japanese just says Yuri!!!. ISD (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:TM and sources. This is stylization, part of a long-running Japanese trend to stuff Western punctuation marks into titles for decoration (often "!", sometimes ".", etc.). The lead sentence should start "Yuri on Ice (stylized Yuri!!! on Ice) ...". See Gangsta (manga) and the RM on its talk page. The fact that we still have some Japanese entertainment articles like Keijo!!!!!!!! (WTF?) to clean up just means we have more to clean up. See also broader search results; lots and lots without the "!!!" stuff, including the show's own Facebook page. The "!!!" is kept primarily by fannish blogs, forums, and other self-published, user-generated, non-independent, and otherwise unreliable sources. We permit MOSTM exception when (and only) when the creators/producers/studio consistently use the stylization, and the vast majority of sources also do so (e.g. for Deadmau5); this fails both tests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM and evident stylism. Plus the examples above of the subtitle on the main cover not using the !!! It's decoration. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM. Sawol (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose style mimicry per MOS:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

24.129.83.170 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'd be happy to help you with edits, but you need to write what you're proposing we change/add/remove in the article, or I won't be able to help you out with it.--IDV^talk 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like my edit to be added under the section "Depiction of same-sex relationship: Praise"

The kiss of episode 7 was also confirmed by Hot Topic in the description of an officially licensed shirt featuring a black and white design of the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whip0fAlchemy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Mistake in the criticism section

Hi. There is currently a quote (the "pics or it didn't happen" one) from Amelia Cook of Anime Feminist that suggests that she believes the hidden nature of the kiss means it didn't happen. The actual essay makes the exact opposite claim, suggesting that others' need for the subtext to be made plain is harmful. Several related positive comments from her essay are cited elsewhere in this article, so it's odd that she's misquoted here. The quote used in this section is her characterization of the people she's criticizing. Since she's mostly responding to other fans and not to the show itself, I'm unsure if this needs to be rephrased as her description of the criticism, removed entirely, or what... Emfm (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Trivia to exclude. This article isn't about grousing between fandom camps over interpretation of particular scenes. Do independent reliable sources treat this as a notable real-world controversy, and quote this person?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I've removed it as a blatant misquote. Whether we include anything from that material is a discussion people can have, but we can't keep presenting a false quotation that reverses the intent of the writer; that's anti-encyclopedic and fails WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies all at once.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I might have misunderstood that passage when I added that in. Sorry for any trouble caused. ISD (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Music used in Olympics

I've separated the music section in critical reception and moved the statements pertaining to its use in actual skating competitions there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)