Talk:Goblin Slayer
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Goblin Slayer was copied or moved into List of Goblin Slayer episodes with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Game name
[edit]Goblin Slayer is the name of a fantasy board game we first released in 2009. We just released the 3rd edition of the game this year (2019). We sure wish people would check on names before they use them. 174.21.74.217 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Silverman, Rebecca (December 10, 2016). "Goblin Slayer Novel 1". Anime News Network. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Repeated Vandalism
[edit]Given the repeated vandalism, perhaps it is time to request article protection? There's been some outraged articles written about this due to the new cartoon, which is attracting trolls. KiTA (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Should the anime's controversy be mentioned here?
[edit]Say what you will but there was definitely an extreme backlash. Very similar to Doki Doki Literature Club it was disguised as very "Cute" before getting dark, and similar to Beserk and the anime it seems contains a lot of shock content. Trust me there are still brutal and explicit scenes in the manga to come. Worse, Crunchyroll had failed to properly provide a content rating which led multiple people into it who would have otherwise chosen not to. Again, say what you will, but there was definitely a backlash worth notice.
I'd recommend we wait until season 1 finishes before trying to explain backlash in the "Reception" section, but we should keep this in mind. 2604:2000:1107:801B:E9D8:5F57:B1:F0B9 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Only if there are reliable, third-party sources covering it per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. —Farix (t | c) 00:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's one good article, if you count comicbook.com. Found here 2604:2000:1107:801B:3D64:D2AB:D958:C6FD (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- The article states that a content warning was added, but not that there was a controversy. But I don't think it can incorporated into the article without a production and development section. Nor do I think creating a section just to incorporate this single piece of information is appropriate. But I'll go ahead and put the link in the list of reference ideas above. —Farix (t | c) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well add this for reference as well, might do better should we decide to explain the uproar. 24.161.105.220 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- The article states that a content warning was added, but not that there was a controversy. But I don't think it can incorporated into the article without a production and development section. Nor do I think creating a section just to incorporate this single piece of information is appropriate. But I'll go ahead and put the link in the list of reference ideas above. —Farix (t | c) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's one good article, if you count comicbook.com. Found here 2604:2000:1107:801B:3D64:D2AB:D958:C6FD (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)