Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fullmetal Alchemist. 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/20130728233219/http://www.madman.com.au/periodicals/home/29/fullmetal-alchemist-manga to http://www.madman.com.au/periodicals/home/29/fullmetal-alchemist-manga
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217124228/http://uk.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/fullmetalalchemistds/news.html?sid=6120244 to http://uk.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/fullmetalalchemistds/news.html?sid=6120244
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112180649/http://viz.com/product?id=5339 to http://www.viz.com/product?id=5339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112180902/http://viz.com/product?id=6668 to http://www.viz.com/product?id=6668
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112135529/http://viz.com/product?id=6040 to http://www.viz.com/product?id=6040
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917155049/http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-vol-14_article_83814.html to http://www.mania.com/fullmetal-alchemist-vol-14_article_83814.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Why do we have reception of the anime if all the anime-related content is moved to another article?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the move wasn't that carefully done now that you say it. Then again, what do we do with the light novels content?Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with it. It wont hurt the article to leave it in there as is since there is no Novel article so far.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Development Section

I noticed that in the development section, it's stated that Arakawa's research involved watching the news, speaking to refugees, war veterans, and former yakuza. I added a citation to verify the interviews from war veterans, but I don't recall sources for the rest of the claims. We should find sources and cite them in this section. MuichiroHayakawa (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Webtoon

Someone add recent addition to Webtoon platform Nathularog (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have included that info in the manga section. Xexerss (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Themes and analysis section: changes and move to synopsis subheading

The section changed was named 'themes and analysis' and has been renamed 'themes'. With edits the section works incredibly well as an intelligent summary of themes. Conversely, as a form of analysis it is: uncited (or poorly cited), the reviewers analyses it references are likely not reputable enough to be upheld against scrutiny, and there are (pre-edit) sections that state that Arakawa was aiming to make a specific statement on orphans- but then does not cite any sources whereby Arakawa has said that was the intention. The last sentence I'm referencing is "The Elrics being orphans and adopted by Pinako Rockbell reflects Arakawa's beliefs about the ways society should treat orphans. [according to whom?]".

Edits include the following:

•Removal of semicolons and splitting those sentences into different sentences (too many clauses in a sentence often impacts readability)

•POV language has been removed. POV template example in the pre-edited para.: "The [X] theme was intended to show [Y] by the author." The sourcing in the section is far too weak to support evidence for Arakawa intending what the original Wikipedian (or reviewer that may be referenced) believes Arakawa intended as the author. Also I argue this section with this language otherwise constitutes POV (Template:POV section) writing which is obviously not the aim of the site. See the following for change example:

From:

'Scar's backstory and his hatred of the state military references the Ainu people.'["Equivalent Change". Newtype USA. A.D. Vision. January 2006.Citation not linked or archive, also no page is given for the citation.]

To: (something closer to)

'Scar's backstory and his hatred of the state military appears to reference the Ainu people.' - This type of suggestion that within the content of the series it is a theme is easily defensible. Without the citation being made available for other Wikipedians to check when doing followup edits and checking references- makes it impossible to determine what was said in the cited article. Further the article is referenced 5 times within the Wiki article currently- which I argue is an issue.

Conclusions

If citations for the 'Aiku' and later 'Arakawa says' claims have references added to them, putting the section back into the production subheading would be justifiable. Currently though, the section should only be summarising plot themes. The analysis when stated as fact is incredibly POV (or POV of an internet reviewer). If another editor wants to add "In his review Chris Johnston argues that..." I think that would be completely suitable, but otherwise I argue this section should be kept as a 'themes overview' section. This is because an editor can easily argue the themes (of interest) present in the show and cite them if needed, keeping POV out of the writing and maintaining an encyclopaedic distance from the subject matter.

Best, flare Flarehayr (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not usual to place the sections that cover themes and analysis (with third-party sources preferably) as a subsection of those that are about factual information of the series (setting and plot). Xexerss (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just seen the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime and manga you've linked. Thankyou for checking and rectifying the edit. Yes, I'm aware just because I've posted on the talk page that it doesn't mean that I can make an edit. Simultaneously there are multiple issues with the current page that need ongoing edits as noted by previous editors and this isn't a protected page. Purpose of edits wasn't to destroy previous work but help amend poor citations and odd reasoning, concerning previous state of section. I think the additional edits to the section you've made are helpful. Best, flare Flarehayr (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article needs corrections, and it is a shame that printed material citations lack specificity. As I explained in my last edit summary, it cost me a lot to find information about the Newtype issue with the cited interview. Xexerss (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)