Talk:Kill la Kill

Number of episodes

I don't see a point in putting the number of episodes in the article until there's a source. ANN is not a source (it can be edited by anyone, like a wiki). See WP:SOURCE --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wonchop might know, ask him. 12 is usually the standard though. >> KirtZ^Message 00:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation choices

The article has some odd translation choices. For instance, gokuseifuku (極制服) is translated as "Goku Uniform", leaving half of the word untranslated ("goku" is not an English word). Gokuseifuku is a pun/portmaneau between gokusei, "highest quality", and seifuku, "uniform". Additionally, the four highest-ups of the school (after Satsuki) are called the "Elite Four", which is simply incorrect -- their Japanese name is shitennō (四天王), ie. a direct reference to the Four Heavenly Kings of Buddhism.

As such, I propose the "goku uniform" translation to be changed to something more appropriate, such as "ultimate uniform", and that the shitennō are translated as Four Heavenly Kings, as they're a very obvious and direct reference to that and it is the literal correct translation for the word. In fact, I already changed the "Elite Four" into "Four Heavenly Kings", as I believe there is no reason to dispute this change, however, I left "goku uniform" intact because I'm aware it is the "official" (which does not, unfortunately, guarantee accuracy or quality) translation. Turdas (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My impatiency got the best of me, and I added an explanation for the gokuseifuku pun/portmaneau in the first kanji text template it appears in, in the Plot section of the article. I still think "Goku Uniform" is a very poor translation, but shan't touch it until I hear other peoples' toughts on this.

Turdas (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This series simulcasts on CrunchyRoll. Just use their translations. —KirtZ^Message 23:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue. The script used by Crunchyroll is full of inaccuracies and poor translations, as if it was done on low budget and in a hurry. Last I checked, Crunchyroll was not the defining authority on Japanese to English translations, and that's especially true in this case as their translations are simply incorrect.

Turdas (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It was my understanding the translations were distributed by Aniplex, the main official license holder, since the subtitles of the videos on their website use the same translations as Crunchyroll, albeit giving more time for the viewer to read them. I've also heard they have a penchant for inaccurate translations, so that doesn't really change much, does it? Also, please forgive me for changing "Four Heavenly Kings" back to "Elite Four" without discussing it first; I honestly didn't read this until after I changed it, so for that, I apologize.

Anyway, even though I am aware of the translation, it occurred to me that the term Shitennō can be and has been more loosely used in Asian culture to represent a group of four leaders in a given field, hence the translation of "Elite Four" used in media such as the Pokemon series, who are incidentally known as the Shitennō in Japan. I also figured that it was agreed by default to use the official English translations of names, as per the Manual of Style, while we could just use mention or link more accurate translation notes for any incorrect translations. For example: Elite Four (四天王, Shitennō) The reason for this is because since the Aniplex version is the one most widely distributed, its translations are the ones most people will be familiar with, regardless of how correct they are.

Wikipedia is not a fan site, and it shouldn't be built around fan translations unless absolutely necessary (i.e., when non-fan translations don't exist). To use fan translations in favor of official ones would present bias towards the work the article is about. And so, to prevent an unbiased approach, I wholly believe this article should use the official terminology used by Aniplex, warts and all, with notes and annotations to point out any and all contradictions. User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This should have been a simple matter; use of official translations. Simplifying what Immblueversion said above—fan translations/direct translations are given the least priority on this WikiProject in preference to official translations where available—of which CR is also included, despite their rushed scripts; we have no choice but to go with them. However this applies in the case where the series has CR as the only official distributor. In this case Aniplex ranks higher in the importance scale and hence their translations should be used. That is all there is too it. —KirtZ^Message 22:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I was under the impression that accuracy of information was key on Wikipedia, but I suppose respecting the license holder's translation, no matter how poor it is, sort of makes sense, too. Aniplex (or rather, the translation is probably done by their subsidiary Aniplex USA) seems to have relatively poor translations across the board -- for instance, the other currently running series licensed by CR&co from Aniplex that uses their translations, Log Horizon, also has a rather bad script.

That aside, as far as KLK's script goes, gokuseifuku in particular really ires me, as they left literally half the word untranslated (granted, the script also has places where they've left an entire word completely untranslated), and the way they capitalise it makes it seem like a Dragonball reference or something. I suppose what I or anyone who's not Aniplex thinks about it has little to do with this matter, though.

PS: thanks for leaving the explanation to gokuseifuku and the link to the Shitennō page intact, at least. Perhaps they'll help the few readers who actually care about the meaning/etymology of the terms. Turdas (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The information is accurate if the translations on the article are those actually used. Whilst I'd have no problem with pointing out that the "official translations" are inaccurate, Wikipedia itself is not the forum for doing that, as it could be classed as original research. However, if you had an external source you could then use that to cite examples of where the official translations are inaccurate, but you probably shouldn't remove them. --Topperfalkon (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I went through any Wikipedia style guides etc. I could find that concerned translation, and while I couldn't really find anything on translating individual foreign words in an article, I did find one that talked about translating entire articles from a foreign Wikipedia. Since that one didn't really mention anything about having to cite external sources for the accuracy of translations, I presumed that translating didn't count as "original research". Especially while the validity of single translated terms like this can be verified by almost anyone with access to a dictionary (or Wiktionary). I still also don't think a translation can be "official" -- for an anime-related example, several series (such as One Piece) have been translated into English by numerous different companies, for instance 4kids and Funimation. Being done by official licensees, both of these translations could be considered "official", but does that really mean anything? Turdas (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Film

Is the info about the film true? Because the link cited doesn't seem to work and I can't find any information anywhere else confirming this. -Fireheart14 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Title

Should it be mentioned that the title is probably a pun, given that "kiru" means "to wear/to put on" when written as "着る" and "to cut" when written as "切る"? 82.83.238.12 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Narrative Roles of Satsuki Kiryuin

So far it is clear that Ryuko Matoi is the main protagonist of the series, but what about Satsuki Kiryuin. I can't tell directly if she's the main antagonist, a focal character or simply an antiheroine. Please reply on this. Thank you. --220.110.235.90 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As of Episode 22, Satsuki Kiryuin is a protagonist as she is Ryuko's sister and they are both fighting for the same cause, as are the Elite Four. 217.164.107.168 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With the character list spun off, she is grouped under Main characters and there's description that she is the antagonist for most of the show. Per WP:ANTAGONIST the label isn't really necessary, so even that part can be clipped. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers

Recently, a number if IPs have been removing certain plot details on the bases that they are "spoilers". However, this is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers which states, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality."

Calling a plot detail a "spoiler" is hardly maintaining a neutral point of view nor does leaving out major plot details enhance the completeness of the article. The plot summary does need to be rewritten, but to change it from a teaser to an actual summary of the plot to date. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You conveniently missed the section directly after that, though: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." In other words, obsessively updating the plot and character sections every week to include the latest tidbits of information revealed in the latest episode is not appropriate. The article should describe the work in broad strokes and only expound upon details that are culturally relevant. -Kajitani-Eizan (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's just there to remind people that articles should primarily be about the real world impact of the work of fiction and not entirely be about the plot summary. This means that spending two paragraphs to explain the plot, slightly writing more when new information is revealed, and providing minimal, but concise information on the fictional characters (which probably would work better on its own list rather than here) is perfectly fine. There is no reason to remove anything from this or any page just because it is a plot spoiler, unless that information cannot be verified by reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying information should be removed simply because it's a spoiler. I'm saying that information is not relevant or appropriate for an encyclopedic article that is supposed to describe its cultural significance. No one needs to know on a week-to-week basis that Ryuko "also seems to have merged with life fibers when Ragyo Kiryuin did an experiment to fuse life fibers with humans", and especially not with such speculative language. Details that are important to understanding the overarching theme of the work as a whole should be included, not random details fans think are totally awesome. Accuracy is also an issue when adding random information on a weekly basis like this. For example, the article says that Ragyo "plans on using the Life Fibers to take over the world". Well, no, we really don't know what her plan is -- is she a slave to the Life Fibers, or are they slaves to her? It would be wiser to keep the information listed to just the basic premise and then add the progression of the plot later on when the context and perspective is clear. Possibly even in separate sections, e.g. "Setting" and "Plot Synopsis", or perhaps putting the basic setting in the header at the top and then explaining the full events of the plot in the "Plot" section. To pick a random example, see the entry for The Great Gatsby. -Kajitani-Eizan (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fiction should be written about as it happens. As it stands, we only know what is happening in bits and pieces as new episodes are broadcast. Obviously, once the series is complete, the sections can be pared down into what was revealed in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On the puns in the title and themes

As it is right now, that paragraph is at best OR and at worst outright wrong. In a cursory search, I was unable to find where exactly Imaishi said any of that, but if he did, that should be referenced instead. ー HigherFive〈Ｃ | Ｔ〉 10:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Birthdays and ages

I reverted an edit for a second time that solely contain the characters' birthdays and ages. This information is inconsequential to the plot of the series and is nothing more than random trivia that should be avoided. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"puns" section was worded better before

The cited reference: http://art-eater.com/2013/11/kill-la-kill-the-fashion-of-fascism/ quotes the director, with quotation marks, as saying:

“When Japanese pronounce the english words ‘fashion’ and ‘fascism’, it sounds nearly the same.”

Shouldn't the wiki article reflect that? Whether you agree with him or not, this is apparently one of the things he wanted to get across in Kill La Kill. It doesn't matter whether his opinion about it offends your sensibilities. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the author confused ‘fascism’ (ファシズム, fashizumu) with ‘fascio’ (ファッショ, fassho). Kazuki Nakashima says, "Conquer it by uniforms, and fashion is fascio." (制服で征服、ファッションはファッショだ, Seifuku de Seifuku, Fasshon wa Fassho da.) http://news.nicovideo.jp/watch/nw805079 Gyunyu55 (talk)

Can you find a source that translates that into English? Does the Kill la Kill page on Japanese Wikipedia refer to it? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it so that it better matches the source article. The point he was trying to get across is that fascism is called "fassho" in Japanese and fashion also sounds like "fassho" with a nasal "n" sound at the end. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Theorem of a new season(unless the producers already declined that there would be one.)

At the end of Kill la Kill , Kiryuin Ragyou states that the life fibers will come back.

Isn't this material for them coming back , thousands or even millions of years later?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizashi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we should hold off adding anything regarding a new season until a solid confirmation from a reliable source becomes available. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. —KirtZ<sup>Mail</sup> 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Character listing problems

Section currently dominates the page. Normal expectation would be listing the key ~5 characters here and having a list that expanded on the other major ones. Is there not enough real content to make List of Kill la Kill characters fly? --erachima talk 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 9 main characters according to the anime web page. Other minor characters can be added that have been mentioned on the web page, like the guy from the Osaka district and other school leaders. Should they be spun off to their own article as {{Main|List of Kill la Kill characters}} under Plot. My concern is that character conception and reception for that list would be rather difficult to gather. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of what gets put in what article, "main" status is actually a matter of editorial judgment. I assume their nine are the five I would include plus the Elite Four, who from an editorial standpoint are plot-significant collectively but don't require much individual explanation.

As for conception/reception... err, not to put too fine a point on it but you're talking about a major show from the mid-2010s. Do you have any idea how much easier this sort of thing has gotten since I started 10 years back? --erachima talk 01:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to shorten it further, so it's comparable to GA-class A Town Where You Live. Yeah, thank goodness they have those websites to tell us who is main. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the current set of massive deletions really helps things. If anything the information removed should all be used to form a separate list of characters article so as to not have this page full of plot summary and to have discussion of the various other members of the cast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a character article is in order then. I'll restore those details that were cut as they do shape the significance of the character, and that doesn't need to be explained too much on the main article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Voice actors

I think that the voice actors should be mentioned at least one somewhere in the main article, but doing so in the plot section has been objected to. Where should we mention them?  Sandstein  13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Kill la Kill characters exists for a reason. Also, you may want to read MOS:ANIME. In a nutshell, there's nothing there that requires VAs to be mentioned in the plot section. Narutolovehinata5 <sup>tccsdnew</sup> 13:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, per MOS:ANIME#Production, the production section would be the place to mention them, then.  Sandstein  16:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The production section should only mention the voice actors if they have some influence on the production of the anime, such as they purposely cast a certain voice actor for this aspect, or designed the character around a particular voice actor. Similarly, if they retain the same cast over several different productions of the same material. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Genres

TheFarix, do you have any source? Is it written somewhere in the manual or is that just your personal assumption?--Sakretsu (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. If magical girl does comprise these genres, many readers may not know that, and sources primarily describe it as an action series.  Sandstein  14:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've got some better sources for magical girl, will post shortly. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated the "magical girl anime on speed" review by IGN. That was by Kat Bailey in an article that reviewedwith 6 anime and was later updated to 9 with Marty Sliva. The other sources are from other RS'es such as iDigitalTimes. GMA Network was posted in the SciTech section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC), updated 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kill la Kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213453/https://www.daisuki.net/topics/view/10122 to https://www.daisuki.net/topics/view/10122

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kill la Kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407093523/http://www.alltheanime.com/klk_pressrelease/ to http://www.alltheanime.com/klk_pressrelease/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)