Talk:The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady

As, summarized from what I said in the edit summary:

• The source is a blog written by the author, Piero Karasu, and therefore is a primary source (per WP:PRIMARY, "[p]rimary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved").
• Per WP:PRIMARY, point 3, interpretation of primary source is prohibited but for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access", it is allowed.
• In the passage published on May 20, 2020 by Piero Karas, he announced the manga adaptation of this work. I don't find I interpret anything for "A manga adaptation, which was announced on May 20, 2020" part. I believe everyone who know Japanese can verify 1. it is an announcement, 2. about a manga adaptation, 3. made on May 20, 2020.

To sum up, my edits align with the policies and guidelines. -Hijk910 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edits may align with the policies and guidelines, but that does not make them constructive.

The date the adaptation was announced on is not necessary past the release date.

This will just make the sentences harder to read and add unnecessary confusion.

This is the same with a lot of the other announcement date related edits you've been making on other articles. 188.188.200.66 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please find my reply below:

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary, "[e]xamples of useful information typically provided by ... primary and secondary sources about information related to the work, include the: ... design and development (at all stages of the work's creation)". It means the development of a work is considered as useful information in Wikipedia guidelines.
• I totally don't understand what you mean by "The date the adaptation was announced on is not necessary past the release date."
• It is easy to adjust the sentence structure. I don't think adding an announcement date can cause that much trouble.

And thank you for agreeing my edits align with the policies and guideline. -Hijk910 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

One paragraph up in the manual of style: The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to cover the topic's major facts and details from a real-world perspective – not more and not less.

Wikipedia works on the concept of editor consensus.

If you look at the majority of other articles about anime, manga and light novels, it becomes clear that the consensus among editors is the following:

• For manga adaptations: The start and end date of the serialization, announcement date only if it hasn't started serialization yet.
• For anime adaptations: The date of the initial announcement per season (so not like your edits on Gods' Games We Play) and the start and end dates. Any subsequent information gets added and cited without dates.

188.189.182.247 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Those articles do not include announcement date because they are not GAs and their information is minimal. In The Irregular at Magic High School#Publication and conception (it is a GA), it is clearly included that "On March 11, 2011, the author announced his work is going to be published as a light novel under the Dengeki Bunko imprint", supported by primary source. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Something being GA does not mean it follows a different writing style.
• This is the standard across articles of all sizes, so your "their information is minimal" is incorrect. I would not consider the articles for KonoSuba, Re:Zero and Sword Art Online to be articles with "minimal information"
• In the article you linked, the announcement is in a specific Publication and conception section with plenty of other information regarding the timeline of events. The only article I could find of a popular series where the announcement is included in the Light novel section is Mushoku Tensei. This is still a minority. One or more exceptions do not mandate the norm.

188.189.182.247 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because I add the information bit by bit doesn't mean I don't have other content to put there. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And as there is a GA example, it is obvious that I can follow it. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is an absolute no-no to include a date of a non-initial announcement for anime adaptation. My Hero Academia#Anime (it is also a GA): "A fourth season was announced in the final episode of season three, which released on September 29, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the series' official website confirmed a release date of October 12, 2019, along with a key visual." -Hijk910 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the announcement dates are not included just because reliable source is not readily available for most works. And for your "The rule of thumb ... not more and not less" comment, I promise I tries my best to use as much secondary information as I can - I mean if there is a secondary source for certain information, I will use it; if not, I will go for a primary one. -Hijk910 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please discuss. -Hijk910 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the point of discussing with you? You just edit-war anyway, and you're probably doing this in tons of other articles. You don't want article improvement, you want articles that look like what you and some others think such articles should look like. What you and fellow anime editors skip over completely is that if you leave out the primary stuff, if you leave out the spam links that masquerade as primary sources, you got nothing left--nothing but ANN. And you still don't seem to understand what the IP does: announcements don't mean anything. Release dates mean something, maybe, if they have secondary sourcing. Filling up articles with needless announcements and poor sourcing is actively working against article improvement. Look at Shōnen Jump+, which you have spent so much time on--2/3 of it is a list, most of the sourcing is primary or from blogs and news aggregators, you have a "Controversy" section (discouraged by the MOS) with a tweet for a reference. So I really don't see the point in discussing anything with someone who takes one little thing, "primary sources can sometimes be used", skips over the "sometimes" part, and has no other sourcing. You can't claim to follow guidelines if you follow only one and bend the others out of the way. Feel free to stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To supplement, one of the reasons I add announcement dates is I see a lot of GAs' development section packed with announcements (e.g. Black Panther (film)#Development). Announcements do mean something. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for {{Third-party}}, I just knew about WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". -Hijk910 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Thanks for your third opinion request - I read the edit summaries and talk page and feel like there's already 3 editors involved (but not sure if the IP and other accounts were the same). Very quick note: While I don't see any issue with the primary source (it's verifiable and neutral) and don't agree we never mention announcements (plenty of movies/games have this) my main issue is the balance between noise vs notability. For example it makes sense to have a details on the announcement date and context of the Avatar movie as there was some other details about the announcement - on top of being very notable. In this case it's just a short intro paragraph for the manga list where there's already a serialisation date. I agree with the consensus it would add confusion/noise for no substantial added value. I'd leave the article like this for now. But if there's ever an interesting story around the announcement to report (and not just the date) it could be justified to change this here or in other articles. Hope it helps! Thanks all for engaging in a discussion even if you didn't necessarily agree with each other - I think all perspectives made sense here :) Thanks for your passion and thanks for making Wikipedia better! AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• If adding an announcement date is acceptable in the anime section, I don’t see why I can’t add one in the manga section since the amount of “noise” added should be the same. -Hijk910 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the spoiler warning @DCJensen42 added since Wikipedia doesn’t have spoiler warnings.

Cepeli (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominator: Crestfalling (talk · contribs) 05:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will be reviewing this article. After a quick view it looks fine so I'll try to make it last just this weekend. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This might be faster than I expected:

• There are no copyright violations
• Citations are well formated.
• Archives are used.
• Translated titles are used.

Only few issues I'm wondering:

• What does Tenten mean? Who refers to it as that?
• If there are characters referred as minor, is it possible to avoid or just mentioning them when they are important to another character?
• Is it possible to give translations to "Tensei Ōjo-sama to Tensai Reijō no Mahō Kakumei - Ōkyū Hiwa
• Why doesn't Anime News Network employs italics?

@Crestfalling: Everything else seems well written. I could easily understand what this series is about after reading the plot section. However, I would advise to explain more what is the isekai genre and what is yuri in order to make it easier to understand even if it might come across as repetitive. Reply once you believe everything is addressed and I'll upgrade it to GA. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I removed TenTen, it's an alternative name but doesn't seem to be very commonly used. Also removed the characters marked as minor, I agree it's probably better to integrate them if possible. And translated the title and italicized Anime News Network.

Kamakou (co-nominator) can add some text about isekai and yuri to the Production section later. In the meantime, I think it might be helpful to include a spot-check of the sources, since WP:GANI#R3 recommends it as a passing condition for GAs. Thanks, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Added some contextual descriptions of what isekai and yuri are in the production section! Kamakou (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Good work. I gave it all a rearead as well as the English material to make sure it's wellwritten. It's been long since I reviewed an article but I believe it was welldone as a result of the work given.Tintor2 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Well-written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.