Talk:Chainsaw Man

Characters Section Spoilers

In the Characters section, the paragraph on Makima contains a massive spoiler that I hadn't been aware of yet. It seems like it would be more proper for Characters sections on their series' main page to only contain exposition established in their introductory chapter, while leaving major spoilers contained solely within the plot section. I'd edit the spoiler in question out, but I don't want to run the risk of getting spoiled on anything else. SeanEgan777 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@SeanEgan777: See WP:Spoiler. Spoilers are never a reason to remove content, simple as that. - Xexerss (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: I'm not saying to remove it, more relocate it a more appropriate place. Otherwise it seems like we would want to flood the character page with any and all details.

@SeanEgan777: A character list article could be created in the future, but currently the section is relatively short and doesn't cite any kind of source that could warrant a split. - Xexerss (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@SeanEgan777: Sorry about that, that plot point's gonna be really hard to hide when the anime releases and people start googling. In this article, I think a more developed plot section would allow us to cut a little on character descriptions, and hopefully prevent that spoiler in the future. I'm going to star drafting something.Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Thanks for the apology; obviously not an ideal place to find out but I'm still very much into the series. Given that there's already 11 volumes out, and it's about to become a lot more popular with the upcoming anime, it seems like it would be appropriate for it to have it's own dedicated characters page (Which I would expect to contain character spoilers as that is much more in-depth). My main thought was just that a paragraph-long character summary on the main series' page shouldn't casually reveal arguably one of the biggest plot points in the story, which itself seemed like an appropriate-enough conversation to have here. SeanEgan777 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@SeanEgan777: I should clarify that I wasn't the one who wrote the character descriptions. I haven't touched this article yet! However, be mindful: as you read further on, there really is no way to avoid major spoilers with this story in a proper article. The plot takes a lot of turns. When I update the plot, read cautiously Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

New plot section

Please discuss the new plot section's issues and possible improvemente here. My main concerns are: possible sourcing to avert OR; changing parts from setting to plot; and getting some names right. Horsesizedduck (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: It looks good to me so far. I haven't read all the section yet, but I would say that there are excessive paragraphs, it would be good to delete some spaces. About OR, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the plot doesn't really need sources. Maybe the setting would need them (probably), but it's not that necessary for now, I would say. - Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Yeah, I tried to paragraph at every arc and major event. I see some that I could take out, but it may require someone else with an outsider vision. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Next order of business

I see the plot has been trimmed, and is now within word limits. In truth, I can't see many avenues to make it even shorter without glossing over large parts of the plot (which could be discussed, but might not be the preferred route).

Next, I'd like to address the following:

• The characters section: With the expanded synopsis, I think we can discuss how to approach the characters descriptions. Namely, it has both an excess of information, per @SeanEgan777:, and a slight shortage, as a few important or significant ones aren't explored (Katana's handler, the skin brothers, Prinz, Quanxi's Fiends...). There was mention of a separate characters article; with Part II coming at some point, that might become a necessity;
• The reception section looks great to me as it is. I have received a suggestion from @Tintor2: on possible improvements, such as approaching reviewer opinions by the themes mentioned, which we might wish to discuss.

For now, I think that's all. Let's keep it up! I think this article is looking pretty good! Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Ironically I've been reading more Fire Punch these days as I read this series during New Year. When it comes to reception I would:

• General overview of the series
• A certain major theme or aesthetic
• Artwork style

Maybe the a paragraph could be focused in gory is the series in the same I way I wrote a paragraph about multiple writers commenting that X is aimed towards both female and male readers. If Makima's revelation is that important within reviews there could be an paragraph focused on that. At least that's how I did with Akudama Drive whose finale was celebrated by almost every writer due to its themes and animation.Tintor2 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I've looked at that article too! Will see if I finish the synopsis sometime. Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Actually, I made most (if not all) of the reception section, but honestly, I think that the critical reception and reviews could be trimmed down and better paraphrased. I would do it myself, but maybe someone else could do the task better. - Xexerss (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: I'll happily take a look at it, and I trust your judgment on it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Found no real flaw with the reception. As it stands, I find it pretty good. Maybe we can think about more ideas for it at a later point.Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: I'd suggest using the To Your Eternity article which you edited some weeks ago. Avoid repetitions and gather generalizations by seeing similar comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

@Xexerss: Thanks for those reference suggestions. Funny how many critics say the same things...

I've realized, though, that we have few references regarding the later volumes. We're have no references that mention the Darkness Devil fight, or the Gun Devil attack, or Power's sacrifice, which I believe are beloved moments and the highlights of the manga. This feels a tad hobbled without them, speaking as a fan.

Sadly, I've no idea where to find those, given how most reviews stop at the Katana dude. Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Probably there will be more reviews once Viz have published the remaining volumes. I haven't actually checked if there are more reviews of later volumes in other languages from the list of reliable sources, e.g manga-news or Splash Comics. I added a Japanese review of the final chapter, so probably there are more reviews of later volumes in Japanese. - Xexerss (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Yeah, if critics say similar things you can make a generalization kinda like how To Your Eternity has three consecutive references about Fushi becoming human-like or the emotional values some chapters give.Tintor2 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Currently half of the lead reads as

"Chainsaw Man follows the story of Denji, an impoverished young man who after making a contract with a dog-like devil named Pochita, he fuses with Denji, granting him the ability to transform parts of his body into chainsaws. Denji eventually joins the Public Safety Devil Hunters, a government agency focused on fighting against devils whenever they become a threat to the world. As of December 2021, the manga had over 12 million copies in circulation. In 2021, it won the 66th Shogakukan Manga Award in the shōnen category, as well as the Harvey Awards in the Best Manga category. Chainsaw Man has been overall well received by critics, who have highlighted its storytelling, violent scenes, and dark humor."

I think both plot summary and Critc reception should be removed or rewritten. Plot summary perhaps should be after the manga name and stop at "transform parts of his body into chainsaws".

Critc reception is misleading. A reader reading that might think its been acclaimed and had no complaints while the critc reception section is very much different. If a reader reads the critical reception first or after he'll get a very different picture of the critical reception.

I don't think highlighting is needed at all. Practically every manga critc will point out a manga story and its elements. Because what would he point out or criticize instead? I think it should be removed until the anime premieres and we can just add it as "commercial and critical success". or rewritten heavily. As for the manga circulation it should stay. Though we'll have to add best selling manga next to it soon. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The critical reception paragraph was the best way I was able to summarize the comments from the reviewers cited in the reception section. Any suggestion in order to improve it would be nice, but as the way it is worded, I think it clearly suggests that the series is particularly notable for those elements. I hope someone with more experience writing leads and reception sections can clarify if the reception summary needs necessarily to point out whether the aspects were criticized or praised, and not simply highlighted, to be worthy of mention. Anyway, "overall well received" is not equivalent to "critical acclaimed"; it conveys the idea that the series has not been exempt from criticism, but that the positive reviews are more than the negatives/less positive ones.

It should start with generalities: it is a manga that ran in a publisher's magazine, number of volumes and such. Then we describe the plot/premise and then the other stuff (I will rearrange that part, I think adaptations and license should be listed after the premise). Talking about the plot, I think that Denji working as a Devil Hunter, who are a group fighting against devils, is a key element of the plot and just mentioning that he is able to turn parts of his body into chainsaws doesn't give too much context about what the series is about. It's like saying that Dragon Ball is just about a boy looking for magical balls or that One Piece is about a young man looking for a treasure. I don't know if I make myself clear. I hope someone else can contribute to this discussion. - Xexerss (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A simple premise is fine as long as it helps to introduce the story. D.Gray-man has a similar premise with the lead whose role has a big change in the story but I don't know what is more important. For example, the FA Final Fantasy VII mentions the conflict with the villain Sephiroth even though he doesn't appear until Cloud brings up his memories hours after game started. I still don't know about if Chainsawman's apparent sequel. In regards to reception, I would suggest to rearrange the section in different subjects and then revise such part of the lead to make the generalizations easier to write.Tintor2 (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the simple premise, but I think that we should give some context about how Denji will use his powers and not just saying that he obtained powers. Rearrange the section seems a good idea, so I'll see what can I do about it. Xexerss (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I rearranged the reception section and reworded the summary. Still, I don't get your problem with the word "highlighting", as if the duty of reviewers were just saying "this is good" or "this is bad". In the part about the use of violence, they're not particularly praising its use, but saying that it's fitting for the context of the story. It was noted by them several times, so it should be worth to mention in lead, but to say that it was "praised" would not be exactly accurate. And please, don't bring up again that stuff about "consistency with other articles", because not every article has the same amount of reviews in the reception section nor are they displayed in the same way every time to reach similar conclusions. Also, checking each review again, the most more or less negative one was from Ian Wolf (and it's more like a mixed than a negative review), if we count it then, 1 out the 10 reviews listed were negative. It seems to me, then, that it's safe to assume that the series has been "overall well received" and not "acclaimed with no complaints", as you like to suggest that someone will believe. - Xexerss (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well the reason for plot is because i thought it'd be slightly spoilery. But its fine and with the rearrangement its better than before which had an awkward placement.

The reason i have a problem with highlighting is because its meaningless. A manga critc will obviously talk about the story,characters and other elements. What would he highlight if not for those? And the reason i thought it'd be misleading because it comes after the awards.A lot of readers will read that and think otherwise.

Haven't had the time to look at it in depth but it looks fine now from a cursory look. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would be spoilery, since Denji starts working as a Devil Hunter in the second chapter and formally joins them in the third one. In the first one, anyway, is basically implied what they do. Xexerss (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I'll be taking the time to read it now. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xexerss I've just read the section. Amazing work really! thank you.

I have two remarks however. First is don't you think it should be critically acclaimed? Aside from Ian wolf and Dacey reviews it seems well praised with minor criticisms which fits the definition of critically acclaimed.

Second is i think we should condense it a bit,its a bit over-bloated right now. Perhaps condensing to 3 paragraphs or bit more. Sentences such as "and it’s been very successful in Japan" aren't needed since the sales already showcase its success. I can trim it a bit later if you don't have the time. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@WillsEdtior777: I left it as "overall well received" instead of "critically acclaimed" due to your previous comments pointing out that the series has received some little mixed reviews, which in fact I kinda agree with, but if you changed your mind and are ok with leaving it as "critically acclaimed", I have no objections with changing it. That "very successful in Japan" line is not some kind of inference from the sales, just a literal sentence from the quote (I wanted to include the whole quote before the period). In fact, I tried to summarize the major points made by reviewers for each subject (per Tintor2 suggestion) addressed in the reception section. Let me know what aspects in particular you would like to trim down. Xexerss (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xexerss Yes i said that due to the previous page gave me the impression of mixed reviews. Since i did not devolve into the source links and instead only read the posted excerpts from it.

i think its fine to stay now until the anime then we will see if we can perhaps change it as 'the anime and manga has been a critical and financial success' as summarization.

As for trimming i think these should be removed or changed. These are what i found from a cursory look.

"and a smattering of inspiration from any devil-hunting series you can think of," adding that fans of those works "will probably enjoy this.""

"Collins said that the series has a premise "loosely" comparable to Jujutsu Kaisen, stating, however, that Chainsaw Man has an "entirely different kind of bite,"

"Denji is an incredibly damaged but potentially powerful hero, so I’m definitely intrigued by seeing him chainsaw his way through further adventures."

"Davinson wrote that the series "sprinkles in quite a bit of humor," which according to her, it mainly revolves around Denji trying to get a girlfriend."

Katherine Dacey of The Manga Critic commented that she made a "read-a-thon" of the series. ---- maybe changed to Katherine Dacey Of the Manga crtic said

Reviewing the series' 97th and last chapter in Weekly Shōnen Jump. ---- this isn't needed since he's talking about the manga as a whole and not just the final chapter.

In general while some of the first half of the section praises violence and emotional beats. the second half just repeats it in a general way. Its as if each reviewer review was cut to single element on the second part and only left the general overview or at the top Instead of just posting excerpts from each review in its standalone paragraph. So it does two different things at once. But that is more nitpicky about it. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@WillsEdtior777: I'll see what can I do about those lines. Narima commented about the series' conclusion on that review, so he made a general comment about the series within the context of the last chapter. The sentence wouldn't make too sense is that's not explained first. Xexerss (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice work rewriting the reception section Xexerss.Tintor2 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New pages for volumes and anime episodes

The page is getting long now. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The volume list section needs summaries and episode list section just has one episode so far. I don't think they're ready for a split yet. Xexerss (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Now, I think the episode list could be split. Not so sure about volume list yet though. Xexerss (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If no one opposes, I'll go ahead and make an article for the the chapter list. Xexerss (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Reduce the size of Critical Reception

Can the size of that section be reduced? This covers more than half the page Tisthefirstletter (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reason to remove content. Xexerss (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing implies war devil being weakened caused less wars

"there has been no war since the First World War as the War Devil has been weakened to the point that the only traces of war exist in pop culture and media."

I believe it's the other way around. The erasure of nukes and world war II is what made war devil weaker. Devil's draw their power from fear but aren't responsible for everything associated with their names. Or I am understanding the "as" incorrectly in the above phrase. 2804:16C:5AC:CE00:FF1D:D52F:B32A:1581 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

Change the wiki link of "cannibalism to human cannibalism from the phrase "eats her body" in the plot synopsis of arc 1. 139.5.240.52 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Pornographic parody mention

I found two sources (although Otaku USA is citing Kotaku) covering a porno parody of the series, which apparently outsold the own Blu-rays of the anime series[1][2] I think that it may worth a mention in the article (in the 'Other media' section perhaps), but I'd like to know if someone opposes to add this. Xexerss (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this warrants mentioning. That article describes it as a "live-action doujinshi", which would imply that it is unofficial. Plus, the article states that The cosplay adult film production company also worked on feature-film-length parodies of other popular anime like Jujutsu Kaisen, Demon Slayer, and Makoto Shinkai’s Weathering With You, to name a few, and none of those series mention the porn parody in it either. Parodies are also generally not mentioned in manga articles as well, like how My Hero Academia doesn't mention its "My Hero Magademia" parody published by Antarctic Press. Finally, while the Blu-ray sales eclipsing the main series is interesting, I don't think that makes it warrant inclusion, especially since anime Blu-rays have been reducing in sales gradually for quite awhile now. Link20XX (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I found it noteworthy at first (not the parody itself, but the sales) due to the fact that this was covered by specialized sources and not just random anime fan websites out there. Also due to the fact tha the CEO of MAPPA made comments about the low Blu-ray sales[3], so I thought that it would be interesting to address the comparison, but yeah, other than that, the parody sales maybe are not that relevant. Xexerss (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Kotaku tends to pick up a lot of stuff and the Otaku USA article is basically just a repost of that article. And while Chainsaw Man's Blu-ray sales are quite low, I don't believe that warrants mentioning this parody, especially since the Japanese Blu-ray market has been declining considerably over the last decade. Link20XX (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't visit Kotaku that often, but I tend to consider them more reliable than sites like Comicbook.com or CBR. By the way, this makes me wonder if we should have a discussion about the site at WP:A&M/ORS and perhaps including it as a Situational source. Xexerss (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary; the WP:VG/RS entry for Kotaku notes Editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance, which I believe is sufficient. Link20XX (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)