Talk:Naoto Shirogane

LGBT and video games category

An IP user has disputed the inclusion of this category, arguing two points (they may correct me if I am wrong):

1. The fact that Naoto is not herself LGBT in canon should be disqualifying; and
2. The fact that she is the only character in this specific category stands out as wrong.

Now, my argument is that, since Naoto is not an LGBT character herself in the story (although I'd argue that one can only definitively say that if there's a Word of God comment from Hashino, even if the text of P4 makes it fairly clear), but her notability is primarily due to the interpretation of her as LGBT and criticism for the use of LGBT themes in her character, she would be of relevance to people interested in the subject of LGBT and video games. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to really want her to be one, lol. Listen, the story and Hashino's portrayal of her in all material makes it pretty clear. Persona 4, a game he directed, has Naoto saying she is indeed a woman. That's as close to Word of God as you're gonna get.

I would disagree her notability is her being seen as 'trans' or 'LGBT', but rather her being gender nonconcorming or just a fun and quirky character. The criticism from that aspect is interesting, but the use of 'LGBT themes' mostly comes from personal interpretation. She is never portrayed as wanting to transition, but she instead wishes to keep up a false identity for herself.

I would compromise and leave some of the criticism up, but leave her out of any sections she isn't definitively in. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If I may offer a suggestion moving this discussion down to the below section may be the best route, so we don't have two parallel discussions to track on the matter and it feels like that one is the biggest overall point of contention on the IP's part?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Naoto criticism section

I feel there is way too much weight given to the notion of Naoto being trans, at least consensus wise. While it is true some have thought of her as such at first, you'll find most support her story arc of being a gender non-conforming woman. Additionally, the sources given in the article to support her being trans have been addressed by many as inaccurate and bad-faith readings of the character.

The addition to the 'LGBT' section is a particularly dumb change. It seems like a few editors want her to be deemed an 'LGBT character' but this was the closest way they could get to that. In that case, would Chie and Yosuke or Yukiko be under that category given how a few have seen their portrayals?

We can address the transgender criticism but I feel it shouldn't overshadow the article which should instead lean more neutral overall or at least to the main consensus. The idea of her being seen as 'overwhelmingly trans' just because of a few internet blogs and journalist opinion pieces is a bit much. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well a big thing to consider first off is that the sources are not *stating* she is trans but examining their perception of her representing trans concepts and their own perceptions of how a character like her would seem trans to them. That a big part of what makes the character notable, the discussion around that. And it's certainly not stating she is "overwhelmingly" such: again the authors are stating their viewpoint. If you feel maybe the wording should be tweaked to reflect that, maybe suggest particular issues in that regard?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources said that the writer identified her as a 'trans man'. That is practically seeing her as transgender.

The part about her being transgender or not transgender is one-sided and especially when the character is not transgender in canon and such interpretations are disputed and criticized (look at a comments section for any of these articles about Naoto online, if they have one). The reason there's a discussion around this aspect that has any notoriety is because one side is very loud and vocal about this despite being very small in number and those people get pushback.

It's stupid to have the article primarily represent select gaming journalists (positive or negative) but have nothing for how the actual majority audience feels about her. Maybe that's hard to measure for a specific character, but surely something like that would be much more sensible? If Rotten Tomatoes or an aggregator site is a 'reliable source' for audience scores, what would be the equivalent for a video game character? 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The main thing with how wikipedia works is it relies on the viewpoints of news outlets and other reliable sources to form reception. If you feel there are counterpoints in reliable sources, why not instead present them here? Just keep in mind to stick to sources considered reliable by WP:VG/S.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that's a big caveat to the article here and Wikipedia itself. Most of the criticism of these interpretations are in sources not always considered 'reliable' by Wikipedia, even if they do reflect the audience's beliefs. I've encountered many people who have written on this topic in good faith who discuss Naoto's gender identity in an accurate and respectful matter, such as the Mulan comparison or the view that she wants to remain a woman and her feminine side is one that she is repressing. Not to mention, hardly any mention is made of her struggle with being socially considered not an adult and being not taken seriously by her superiors. There's also the fact that context is often removed, that the reason Naoto is in a big scary lab is in part reference to her sci-fi obsession. If you play the actual game, there isn't much allusion towards transgender stuff and is instead regarded as a body alteration, to make her into her ideal image of a detective, including making her older. Not to mention, the character never makes any mention of wanting to transition to be a man, but purely to disguise herself as one. Naoto is also rejective of the 'body alteration procedure' process and wants to embrace feminity primarily on her own.

So a few journalists can seem to hold a bigger authority than they have, but a lot of context is missing. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What you're describing is a lot of original research on your part though. For example, sources can state a character is perceived as a sexist design. I may not think it, you may not think it, there may be reasons for the design in the context of the work even. But the article has to rely on those sources. Again, if you feel there are sources that offer a different viewpoint and are reliable, why not offer them up?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd content that the audience is not represented by people who care about interpretations of Naoto. It is about as niche as people who interpret Naoto as trans. Most people don't care. With that said, is there a line in the game that identifies her interest in science fiction as being the motivation for her dungeon? I don't recall it being textual, and if it's not, there would need to be a reliable source tied to that read of the scene. "The scene is like this because she likes science fiction" either needs to be depicted as an interpretation of the scene by a secondary reliable source, by people within the company, or by the game itself. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people don't argue about it, but I'd argue the majority would contend she isn't trans if pressed on it. If most people don't care, then why does it have such representation on this article? 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Because that is what reliable sources are talking about when it comes to Naoto. Essentially, you're asking that we arbitrarily police what interpretations should be given merit, which is not our responsibility. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What makes them reliable? Anyone can be a self- proclaimed expert in subject matter. Anyone can publish an article or a book. They did not create the character, they have no more authority than a Youtube comment. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Most people" is an interpretation on your part my IP-based friend, and definitely not supported by the amount of discussion going on. Meanwhile I found this source that examines her issues from a different viewpoint and a counterpoint, and while CBR can't be used to define notability, given we have notability established already it's a good article that examines things from the other end. And it shows too that both ends of the discussion are important to a lot of people on this character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

CBR isn't anymore or less arbitrarily reliable than Gamespot.

I dislike this source since it feels too reactionary, but it's another one I found. Given that it's an opinion piece, I feel it is maybe of equal merit?

https://boundingintocomics.com/2023/01/30/video-game-news-outlets-rehash-tired-whining-about-persona-3-and-persona-4-after-remasters-release-for-modern-consoles/

I still feel she should be removed from the LGBT section for the points addressed earlier. Her categorization should be based on canonicity or plausibility. She is 100% a woman. The fact that she is the only character to have that vague 'LGBT but not an LGBT character' categorization exemplifies the point. Headcanons should not be the consensus here. At least with Kanji, the developers left it up to interpretation and said as such, and it is directly addressed in the game. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's another article discussing Naoto's gender

http://androgynousanime.blogspot.com/2014/03/naoto-shirogane-and-androgynous-escape.html?m=1 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:C554:4FD5:5872:7BFA (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That definitely does not seem reliable? EDIT: Bounding into Comics sure as hell isn't reliable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The blogspot isn't more or less reliable than the Mattie Bryce article. And I don't like Bounding into Comics. While I agree with the article on certain points, it's too whiny and reactionary and rightfully considered "unprofessional". 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is. The blogspot article lacks any real attribution. I have no idea what the author's credentials or experience are, whereas Mattie Brice is verifiably a contributor to reliable sources and has subject matter expertise. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources like what? Kotaku?! Anyone can be a 'subject matter expert' in the realm of media. That doesn't make them more qualified to talk about it than anyone else who has played the game or watched the movie. It means absolutely nothing. A random person's opinion is not reliable for anyone (including mine or yours) unless you gravitate towards that opinion.

They have no authority over anyone. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:F946:9CFF:419B:D1D3 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest you refer to WP:RS and WP:VG/RS to better understand how Wikipedia handles reliable sourcing. As it is, you're not arguing from a policy or guideline position, so there's no point to discussing this further. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as CBR goes, the reason it is considered situational is because its editorial guidelines are not as stringent as GameSpot's tend to be. Meanwhile, Bounding Into Comics is considered unreliable due to, well, being pretty unprofessional. No one among the staff has professional credentials, and one editor claims that they're motivated in their writing by the desire to trigger people, which suggests to me that their perspective is going to be inherently tainted. While some sites and writers allow their personal biases to leak into their writing to an extent, BIC has significant issues regarding trustworthiness. Finally, once again, the inclusion in the category is not because Naoto herself is transgender, but because she is notable for the interpretation and discussion of her gender. Also, implemented the CBR source. See how much easier it is to just search for stuff? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation and discussion of her gender isn't means to put her into that category. Should Piccolo be put into a category of 'black people and animation' because some people have written articles about how he is 'black-coded'?

Leave it at fictional cross-dressers and leave some of the stuff about her gender in the article. The LGBT category wasn't there until today and shouldn't be there because it is not accurate. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

A majority of Piccolo's reception is irrelevant to the idea of him being black-coded, so that would not fit the requirement of being defining - and a defining aspect of Naoto is that she is interpreted and discussed as an LGBT character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"I'd content that the audience is not represented by people who care about interpretations of Naoto. It is about as niche as people who interpret Naoto as trans. Most people don't care."

Your own words, therefore apparently not a defining aspect. She is not widely interpreted or discussed as an 'LGBT' character therefore she is not suitable for that category. Your bias is showing and a wide consensus never even agreed to add her to the category to begin with, so the default should be her not being on there. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I also find it very questionable to have nearly the whole 'Reception' section of the character's article taken up by what is essentially a fan theory, unsubstantiated by the source material and directly contradicted by the author. I have no issue with such coverage being mentioned as it does seem relevant to reception of the character, but I feel the current reception section overemphasizes this fan theory greatly. By spending so many paragraphs on it with little counterarguments, I feel it strays from the intended neutral tone and can be seen as implying this theory is especially valid. 2A02:A457:533:1:5D23:39D6:19D7:C0B3 (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to be able to provide secondary reliable sources that provide counterarguments. If they don't exist, we can't ignore content from secondary reliable sources that do exist. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that's reasonable. This fan theory questions something that the work never put up for discussion in the first place. There was consequently no reason any players would be compelled to write articles simply repeating a fact from the game, unless they were directly responding to a fan theory article that somehow questioned it; there would be no need otherwise. Naturally the fringe theory will have more sources to cite in such a case, but that is not itself a reason to let it take over the section, no more than a conspiracy theory about oxygen would be a compelling reason to dedicate a significant part of the relevant wikipedia page to it.

I feel the large difference in representation of positions in the reception section does not present the situation neutrally, neither the strength of the arguments nor the general community sentiment. In terms of counter-arguments (insofar that a fan theory requires counter-arguments as opposed to proof for itself), we have the source material and the word of the author already. At the very least I believe these should be mentioned much more prominently and used to preface any mentions of the fan theory. Ideally, the textual balance should not favor the fan theory simply because players did not have the foresight to imagine a handful of people would doubt the equivalent of the sky being blue. 2A02:A457:533:1:F816:E363:E9FE:966 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We cannot make something out of nothing. You need to be able to present the direct word of the creator, not the work itself, commenting on it, either by disputing the fan theory or stating that Naoto is a girl. Wikipedia only works on verified sources - either sources deemed reliable secondary coverage, or primary sources that can be trusted (ie, Hashino's word on Naoto is reliable, but Peter Molyneux's word on his own creations should be taken with a grain of salt). We cannot simply invent content to put in the section, we are merely reflecting what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. It just so happens that the sources discuss Naoto in the context of said fan theory. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

While I do think it is fine to have one or two mentions, two thirds of the reception article dedicated to it is indeed far too much. To an outsider looking in, it'd look like it's the popular opinion, when it's really just something a minority of people think. I think having either a few less mentions/sources or even cutting it down to just two paragraphs would be best. I will say that having the comic book resource source does it make it a lot better, and shows what the game says vs what people say about the character. So cutting a few of the other sources so the differing sides are a bit more balanced with the description sourced from comic book resource would be perfect to me. JayWolf1955 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But that isn't how Wikipedia works. We can't exclude references because we think it creates undue weight on it, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. NPOV not just refers to the content provided, but the fact that 2/3 of the Reception section is reflective of what critics are saying. If you want there to be less weight given to that, you need to find other reliable sources that discuss other aspects of Naoto's character. However, the discussion around Naoto's gender and gender presentation is a major aspect of her character - in fact, I'd argue it's the indisputably most notable thing about her character, what makes her stand out. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My word is irrelevant, because my opinion is not being inserted into this article. The perspectives of reliable secondary sources are being included. The fact that the reception is largely built around the interpretations of her gender and commentary on the propensity to interpret it this way in these reliable sources is significant. Please, I ask that you make sure to keep your argument focused on what is being said instead of commenting on other editors. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I am focusing on what is being said, and I find her being under the 'LGBT in Gaming label' inaccurate for reasons I've already stated. Your own words have indicated to me that you want to influence this article in a certain non-factual direction. A lot of people have discussed and written articles about Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street being possibly gay, yet they aren't put into any category because that's what it is, a discussion from a minority of people that does not reflect the views of the majority, and even if those were how the majority felt, it is unfitting to include a non-LGBT character into a category like that. You didn't reach a consensus before making that change, why should it stay? It was never there until today. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Because as it is, two editors have reverted your edits. If it was 1v1 it would be one thing, but it isn't. Please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guideline and policy. It's not the worst thing to participate with comparatively little understanding of these things, but it's proving detrimental to discussion, so I'm going to let other editors weigh in and no longer reply. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

2vs1, and the other 1 of 2 being someone you're seemingly close with on Wikipedia. 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:3RR. Edit warring can cause you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And how long will it take to reach a consensus? 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Typically, a week is afforded so that a clear consensus can be obtained. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made my last edit for the time being. What do you think of 'gender and video games' as a category instead? 2603:7080:A5F0:8C50:946C:211C:1CBF:BA50 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, though I still feel it's specifically relevant to LGBT. I'd be fine if the consensus arrived at using that category. In the meantime, I'd recommend making an account and doing the "tutorial" to get a good grasp on policy and guidelines. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Coming from a place of being totally uninvolved in this discussion, I think having her be under a LGBT categorization is appropriate. Even if she canonically is not, a lot of her significance revolves around her actions being interpreted that way, to the point of basically filling up her reception with discussion about that. In other words I agree with the other non IP editors here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, she isn't.

If you play the game her shadow didn't want to turn her into a man because that was how she saw herself but because both her age and being female were perceived as a barrier to being a detective people took seriously. You can't really interpret it as being trans unless you're biased to that viewpoint.

In other words it's less "I'm a man in a woman's body" and more "I'll do anything to be a great detective even if it means abandoning who I am".

Not to bring hate to the LGBT community but she wasn't written for that purpose much like Kanji wasn't actually gay. Djangollla (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But we're not talking about whether the intent was there, but rather, the coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The author's intent for the character would matter more in a fan wiki that strictly maintained an in-universe perspective. Wikipedia emphasizes a character's realworld impact and in this case it's LGBT themes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, the coverage could apply for a lot of characters, but it doesn't convey the prevailing thought or opinion. A minority of people have written articles and covered the interpretation of Mulan being trans, this does not make it a dominant one.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krishrach/a-meme-about-mulan-has-sparked-a-debate-about-gender

https://www.vox.com/culture/21417212/what-are-the-gayest-disney-films-mulan-queer-subtext

https://nursingclio.org/2020/12/02/honor-to-us-all-what-trans-men-gained-and-lost-in-mulan-2020/

The way this article was originally created seems to have deliberately been done with the idea of giving an 'air of authority' around this particular headcanon, IE if the reception page is dominated with "Naoto should have been this and that" and Wikipedia is a highly viewed website, it comes across as spreading that kind of thinking and nothing else. Even the first paragraph isn't very positive. It's hard to assume good faith or neutrality when quite a large amount of text is dedicated to this specific criticism in the reception alone. It comes off as being cherry picked. Why did the original editor barely spend any time looking for counterarguments or more positive reception to begin with? It's clearly out there given the popularity and appraisal of the character online.

I don't want to spend too much time with this, but I think the reception page is not proportionally balanced reception-wise. The sources are whatever. I wouldn't waste time arguing if they're reliable or not because a person's opinion isn't reliable whatsoever. We're not talking objectives here. Most people don't care who Mattie Bryce is or what they think of so and so. My advice would be to just tone it down, look for more positive critique, make it more neutral. I tried to do that in my initial edit, but it may have been drastic for some. As for the category, I'd just leave it as it is. Sheik and Samus have opened up similar discussions, this does not mean they should be labeled as 'LGBT' or 'LGBT characters'. That's silly. There has to be some level of objectivity and Cukie said herself that most people don't care about this particular debate (likely in support of the game). Why should this article be any different? The Kanji article is much more neutral. Schwarbage (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I love that you tried completely bypassing the point of you assuming some bad faith that a neutral POV wasn't being observed here, because I'm still waiting on those counterpoints you feel haven't been added to this article Schwarbage. And given the crux of this character's notability is built around discussions about how the gender issues involving the character are perceived, claiming "it doesn't matter because it gets claimed about X character" is a very roundabout WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And for someone that doesn't want to devote "a lot of time to this" you are devoting quite a lot of text to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anything in the article is asserting that Naoto is trans though, simply highlighting how people interpreted the themes of her story and how they relate to trans issues. To give you an example it would be like mentioning critics drawing comparison between one film and another. The article factually does not definitively state Naoto is trans as far as I am aware. RemoveMYIPplease (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of characters who generate discourse like her and the discourse surrounding it. Piccolo wasn't a bad example, but even better examples include Velma Dinkley (pre-2022) and Bert and Ernie. There was mention of the discussion surrounding theories around these characters, but as far as I know no one saw the need to give them an LGBT label because it is plain as day that it wasn't what those creators intended. Naoto isn't any different, so she shouldn't have one. I originally cut down some of the reception stuff because it came across as one-sided and made to seem like the idea has rousing universal support: it does not.

Discussion of her gender should obviously not be ommited from the article entirely but it seems like the person who created the article wanted to vocalize one viewpoint and downplay most others. No one added any counterarguments until it was specifically highlighted and called out. Schwarbage (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The counterargument was posted this year. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Also please assume some good faith @Schwarbage:. If you've got sources you feel offer counterpoints as well feel free to offer them. Just make sure they're reliable sources (ie Bounding Into Comics and no NicheGamer. Both of those are about as reliable as me winning the presidential election.)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reminder: Please come to a consensus first, then make changes. Edit warring isnt the way to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Just dropping in my 2p that, as always, we follow the sources. If a noteworthy number of sources all discuss this same topic from various angles, that suggests that it should be covered in the article instead of censoring it on 'authorial intent' grounds. Many of the sources either reject or explicitly criticize the authorial intent within the source, so they're engaging directly with that issue. This strikes me as analogous to gay icon, many of whom are not gay. It is the fan and critic interpretation itself that is getting coverage, regardless of intent. I see a strong and longstanding consensus here to include critical reception about trans themes, dating back four years to the first versions of this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A bunch of journalists angry that Naoto isn't trans because they horribly misinterpreted her entire character arc has no place on this article. All I'm reading from them is "Naoto needs a sex change to adhere to gender stereotypes so I can be happy and feel like I'm right." They're parasites, not fans, further exemplified by how they all ignore that while Shadows are a part of you, they're the thoughts you don't listen to if you're of sound mind. Naoto didn't listen, because she's not trans, she had an issue very specific to toxic Japanese workplace culture and Japan's outdated gender expectations, and these people can't stand that she's happy with who she is. 2001:1970:5A1C:F700:FCF1:779:FBA4:C90C (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not actually the discussion at hand, but you do you. The sources are being cited for their opinions and explorations of what they perceive as trans themes reflected in the character, not stating she is. This is a valid angle of discussion in this regard and constitutes a large part of her reception, and frankly the biggest reason for her notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Would have been funny if the article was improved further and turned into what you call "GA" despite the hatred at the article. 2001:4455:6A5:DB00:AD03:6B66:90CF:D0C2 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a person who clicked through just out of curiosity it seems like a heavy disparate of opinions presenting only one side of the views about the character, the original game was released on July 10 2008 only opinions regarding its genre and recent from certain types of american blogs are present, other information could have been added regarding global reception and keeping away spoilers from Catherine.

In addition, the page does not give any reference to Persona x Detective Naoto.

The articles in the notes presents misinformation, for example mattiebrice.com mention "gameplay mechanics encourage the player to nudge Naoto toward becoming a woman" I say wikipedia was one of the few places I did not expect this from, they are clearly intent on presenting their opinion and political values instead of objectively evaluating the character.

This is the motive of people toward stopping on considering Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. ライデン3 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I forget, by reference I mean that clicking on the note with siliconera does not give the link even the archived version.

The ISBN of the novel is 9784048864190.

A manga adatation exists ペルソナ×探偵NAOTO by two volumes ISBN 978-4048918381, ISBN 978-4048663410.

A fan translation exists for the novel. ライデン3 (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)