Untitled[edit]

Note: The opening/closing themes seem to have been changed in Episode 15. (Mores the pity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasairfion (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change orignal run - season 2 confirmed for 2016[edit]

The article states that the original run has finished in 2015. However it was revealed that there will be a second season in 2016. This news came in 2015 from the studio behind the series. I propose removing the ending date.--Rbaleksandar (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until there are confirmed dates and clarification on whether there is a new season versus a new series, it is best to leave the dates as they are. The series isn't currently airing right now, but removing the date would indicate to the reader that it is. —Farix (t | c) 22:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now, it turns out that it has been confirmed to air this summer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different titles[edit]

Okay, I need to bring this up on the talk page to clear up confusion: Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma is the official title by Viz Media while Sentai Filmworks just shortens the title to simply Food Wars! and that was the convention used by the episode list before it was moved back. I want to bring this up to see if we can get a consensus whether we should keep the "Shokugeki no Soma" title to the List of Food Wars! episodes, since Sentai will no doubt exclude the "Shokugeki no Soma" title from the episodes when it is licensed. Objections or thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, since the list is anime-specific, and should use titles/translations from the anime. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say we keep "Shokugeki no Soma", it's too soon to know whether Sentai will actually exclude it from the title and assuming it would be so is pretty WP:CRYSTAL-ish. Anyway, most RS still refer to the anime as Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma, including Inquisitr, Anime News Network, Crunchyroll News, and International Business Times. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, The Anime Network and Hulu list Food Wars! as the title, but it also includes the "Shokugeki no Soma" subtitle. It's too soon when Sentai will exclude the title since they don't have the license for the second seas yet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Food Wars! looks like the short title of the series. searches for Food Wars on Sentai They will probably retain the title but common name might override that as per their tumblr [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Anime Network and Hulu aren't reliable sources though, they're streaming services. Besides, the fact that even they keep "Shokugeki no Soma" as a subtitle is all the more reason to retain it in the title as well. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anime dub[edit]

So, there is currently a Food Wars English Dub [1] that isn't mentioned in the article; and has it's own release dates. However, I'm unable to get much clear information on the release; except that the DVD of the second series is expected in February 2018. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/06/30/sentai-filmworks-announces-food-wars-english-dub-cast

Graduate percentage[edit]

However, Sōma's fighting spirit is rekindled by a challenge from Jōichirō which is to survive in an elite culinary school, called "Totsuki Teahouse Culinary Academy" where only less than 10% of the students manage to graduate, where he meets many amazing students and experiences new events that allow him to grow further towards his cooking goal.[6]

I've changed this part of the article; as the amount is incorrect. The amount of students that graduate is nearer 1%. They suggested that there was roughly 1000 students in Soma's year, and during the opening address, Senzaemon Nakiri says that 10% would make it to the second year, and that you can count on your fingers who would actually graduate. The reference is the same as the one supplied; and I think the quote was misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viz Media says 10% at the cover of volume 1 and in the volume itself [2], but yes, the anime says 10% to second-year and 1% for graduation. I've added a footnote to that effect, but it will have to be combed through in the later manga volumes what the actual graduation percentage is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 4 refers to the number of graduates per year being counted on a single hand, so I've modified the verbiage for that. The same statement is repeated in a later volume. Senzaemon later talks about 99% of the students are there to polish out the 1% of the good ones. Vol. 3 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source on S3 continuatiuon[edit]

Do you have a source, TheFarix? MizukaS (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check the official website next time. —Farix (t | c) 00:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you're expecting me to know this stuff like my life depended on it. Really now, Farix? I don't need your passive aggression. MizukaS (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to edit in a specific topic area, then it is expected that you have some knowledge in that area. However, you seem to take this "know-nothing" attitude, as was seen with your edits to Junji Ito Collection where you declared that a reliable source should't be used because you though it was "too disorganized" because not listing every voice actor had a role listed yet. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some show(s) can go from october to december, 'takes new year's off' or any show can do that, it may take a week off for a holiday, in this case was new year's, some few weeks ago, etc. If it goes beyond it's 12/13 episode run, like the current season of garo or skip a season and start back up in april. But then usually ann reports said stuff (later on of an hour, day, etc.) Unblue box (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the point. You can't just change things and say the series is over without a source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use English manga terms[edit]

Per Viz Media manga, use the following terms for the characters and schools:

Any questions please discuss here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How licensors are represented[edit]

I think we need to re-evaluate how the licensor is shown in the article and infobox. Sentai Filmworks has all the rights to the first 2 seasons, so that simple enough, but season 3 is where it gets weird. Sentai appears to only have dub streaming (like the Funimation-Crunchyroll partnership) and home video rights, whereas Crunchyroll has sub streaming and television broadcasting, the ladder of which is shown by the Crunchyroll News article announcing it airing on Toonami, literally saying "Crunchyroll delivers more culinary competition to Adult Swim's block". The fourth season onwards appears to be all Crunchyroll because they have the dub on their service as well as the sub, and they're streaming it on HBO Max. Sentai is releasing the fourth season on home video via their home video partnership with Crunchyroll. I just think we need a consensus of some kind on how to properly represent this in the article and infobox with all this information taken into account. Link20XX (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From when I asked for a similar case a few years ago, I was told that consensus was to list the master licensee only if known, and if that cannot be determined, then list everyone in the infobox. So list Sentai Filmworks only for season 1 and 2. For season 4 onwards, list Crunchyroll only. For season 3, list both. Alex Tenshi (talk|contribs) 16:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

magnolia berries[edit]

In the bear meat episode, the main character Soma uses "magnolia berries" steeped in sake.[3] I never heard of magnolia seeds used as food, but further search revealed that it was actually the berries of the Chinese magnolia-vine aka "five-flavor-fruit".

I have never had this thing, but I remember the tea (omija-cha) as being a staple drink of Dae Jang Geum actress Lee Young-ae. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be picking this up for review. It's been a while since I did one of these things so it may take some time, so I apologize if it takes a while. Right now I have three immediate concerns: the lede is a bit short, making no mention about the manga's creation or reception, as well as other media it inspired such as video games. In addition, the creation section is a bit on the short side too, having no mention about the anime's production (i.e. how and when it was greenlit, and any differences from the manga, if applicable). Finally, the reception section itself is quite short, making no mention about Japanese or English reviews, as well as if inspired anything (i.e. legacy). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you need guides on how to further improve the article, articles such as Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Sword Art Online, and Clannad (video game) can serve as guides. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    A copyright check detected a match with this link, but it appears to be a false positive as it was in fact copying from Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    As mentioned earlier, the article still needs to be fleshed out. The lede needs to mention more about the series' creation, the anime, other related media such as video games, and critical reception. The critical reception section also needs to include more information about reviews, mainly for the manga but also for the anime if applicable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article still needs a bit of work before reaching GA status, but it shouldn't be too difficult to reach. I would suggest that you could collaborate with other editors of the article, such as Link20XX, AngusWOOF, Xexerss and Smeagol 17 when it comes to addressing the remaining concerns. Overall, the article isn't quite ready for GA status yet, but I'm not going to fail the nomination now and I will give maybe a week or two for any remaining issues to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harushiga
I have now added a pretty thorough sentence to the lede about it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits. @Harushiga: Do you have any remaining concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now! All of my concerns have been resolved as well. Harushiga (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Lee Vilenski (talk), TheFarix (talk), Aninonymous (talk), Cattus (talk), AngusWOOF (talk), and Landingdude13 (talk). Nominated by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) at 04:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Nice work to everyone who contributed to this article. My favorite hook is the original hook, followed by ALT1. (I think ALT1a is a bit redundant, since it's basically saying "the writer wrote the series". ALT2 is also not as interesting as the others.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories