Talk:A Certain Magical Index

Fair use rationale for Image:Magicalindex.jpg

Image:Magicalindex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Toaru/To Aru?

Just curious, why To Aru and not Toaru? I thought Toaru was one word. - 29dupe 12:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. The particle to is distinct from the word aru, but together they for a Pre-Noun Adjectival and have a new meaning. I haven't been able to verify this for certain anywhere; unable to find an example of it written out in romaji. But with kanji used it becomes と或る, which suggests it would be written separated. (Better yet, they could select an official English title, and we could move the page to that.) Doceirias 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Making redirect from Toaru Majutsu no Index is better idea for now then. - 29dupe 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Toaru" has a single dictionary definition [1]. Putting the particle "to" in front of "aru" doesn't make sense anyway, so we can clearly see that it's not that. Japanese doesn't use spaces, so adding it is left to the discretion of whoever's doing the romanization. —Tokek (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The dictionaries I've consulted list と或る as a single entry, even though と is indeed a particle here. Writing it as "to aru" gives the impression that "aru" is the familiar verb "to exist", which it clearly is not, and is deceptive. It should also be noted that Japanese does not follow Western concepts of word breaks, so the distinction "to aru/toaru" is somewhat arbitrary; the fact that it begins with a kana followed by a kanji means little. For these reasons I personally would prefer to see the deceptive "to aru" decision reversed, especially as just about everywhere else uses "toaru" — in other words, in Google searches, Wikipedia's entry is the one that never shows up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.84.28 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

'which it clearly is not': In what way? If I understand correctly, To Aru [Magical Index] means 'A Certain Magical Index' because it literally means 'An existing Magical Index'. Perhaps one might say that the To makes it a 'A Magical Index which exists' rather than 'Existing Magical Index', but that's exceeding the bounds of my familiarity slightly. Though it is only my personal impression, writing Toaru gives the impression that a separate verb Toaru (like Tooru) exists, whereas 'To' seems to still strongly hold its place as a particle. ...for another case of To not being used to mean 'and' directly, perhaps consider cases such as 'Konna koto ga atta to ha omowanakatta...' and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.92 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it's the rentaishi 或る, not the verb 在（有）る. --67.148.122.18 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A further note, about Google searches mentioned: '"Toaru Majutsu no Index"' gives about three million results while '"To Aru Majutsu no Index" -Toaru' gives about 26 million results, and '"To Aru Majutsu no Index"' alone gives the Toaru results as well with about 28 million results total. It's definitely searching by Toaru rather than To Aru that is the problem then, isn't it...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.92 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Title

Shoudln't it be mentioned somewhere that the actual japanese reads To Aru Majutsu no Kinsho Mokuroku? --81.241.26.148 (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's always a question with titles like this - I believe the standard is to follow the furigana given, regardless of what the kanji say. Doceirias (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The kanji is pronounced however the author intends them to be pronounced ; in this case, 禁書目録 is pronounced インデックス. 99.238.5.183 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably sufficient that the kanji are provided, since those curious about their literal meaning can then look them up directly. A note about that literal meaning ('Forbidden Catalogue'?) probably wouldn't hurt, granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.92 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

English title

The original soundtrack (click on the cover image) implies that the series's proper name is Index Librorum Prohibitorum [note that the Japanese name for the Index is "禁書目録" (Kinsho Mokuroku), meaning "とある魔術の禁書目録" can be translated as "A Certain Index Librorum Prohibitorum of Magic"]. Anyway, my point is, should the page be moved or adjusted in any way?--Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. The primary media is the light novels, and those are only known by the name To Aru Majutsu no Index. No one is going to try searching for this series with "Index Librorum Prohibitorum", especially since it's already an actual thing. I believe common name also has something to say about this.--十八 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the series title - like you sort of suggest, it's the main character's full name. Doceirias (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To Aru Kagaku no Railgun (Choudenjibou) References

When the To Aru Kagaku no Railgun article is created on Wikipedia, should all references to it on this article be removed, or should links be attached?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.62.148 (talk • contribs)

I'm not entirely sure the series deserves another article, as it's just a spin-off series, and is very closely tied to this one.--十八 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So far in the manga the storyline diverges from the plot of To Aru Majutsu no Index. It focuses on the ties between Misaka, Kuroko, Saten and Uiharu and includes many characters who don't appear in To Aru Majutsu no Index. Magic, and the Church, which both play major roles in the plot of To Aru Majutsu no Index, has not appeared either. Thus I feel that it deserves its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.10.165 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a spin-off series, but exists within it's own time frame; it's part of the franchise. It can be covered here, but episode or character lists might conceivable get their own articles. Doceirias (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Toaru Kagaku no Railgun (Anime) need to be an individual article. I've watched each episode of it, and found that its connection to Toaru Majutsu no Index is minor, and quite different to the same titled Manga. "Railgun" and "Index" do share a few characters, and both happen in the same city, but from an Anime fan's perspective, it is not feasible to merge Toaru Kagaku no Railgun (Anime) to this article. VirtBM (talk) 14:47, 05 May 2024 (UTC)

It would go against general convention from WP:ANIME to create an article just for the anime. If another article was crated, it would be manga-centric since the Railgun manga came first. But really, there's no reason to do either of that, since all the info can (and is) easily explained in this article. Spin-offs rarely ever get their own articles, and Railgun is no exception.--十八 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but if you pay close attention, events line up between the two series. Railgun moves slower, filling in the gaps between Index's science-side arcs with Mikoto's escapades. The Railgun manga is currently finishing up the Sisters arc, the third arc of Index (currently, they're on the 9th arc of the Index anime), and the Railgun anime didn't even reach there. However, it's clear that both are in the same timeline, and events from Index (like the destruction of Tree Diagram) influence Railgun (Kiyama Harumi was unable to get computation time on Tree Diagram because it no longer existed), and so here they should share the same article. Of course, on the Toaru-specific wiki, they have separate articles for everything, but I can't see why Wikipedia would need to split them up. CarVac (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite necessary to separate Toaru Kagaku no Railgun from this article. Though as a spin-off, the railgun series keeps a good independence from the index series. Except some same characters, the scenario are different. Further more, we shouldn't only focus on the English version of this article only. We must refer to versions of other languages, especially the Japanese one. In the Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Russian versions of the railgun series, all the articles of railgun series are separated from the index series. So you not should decide whether they should be separated too subjectively without considering the real condition. I strongly advise that it is necessary to separate this article into two, one remanis under the names of Toaru Majutsu no Index or A Certain Magical Index and Toaru Kagaku no Railgun or A Certain Scientific Railgun.

---aronlee90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronlee90 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not forget that this is the English Wikipedia, and we have different (and often more strict) guidelines to follow compared to other Wikis (especially the Japanese wiki). There simply is not enough information about Railgun to warrant a split. If it were split, you'd only get a stub article, so there's no need.--十八 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Split - "Railgun" is now confirmed to be getting a 2nd season, and has it's own manga with 50+ volumes. I think it would be time to strongly re-consider an article split from "Magical Index". It will just be more work if it is done after the next series is out. 24.11.146.90 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with this. The info for Railgun's first anime series is already easily written into the current anime section, and adding a few extra sentences for the second season is not going to automatically warrant a split. There is simply not enough information about Railgun for it to have a substantial article. Railgun already has a separate chapter list and episode list, so splitting it would only result in a very short article. And then there's the fact that there is a crossover Index & Railgun game coming out soon, so it makes sense to keep it all in one place.--十八 22:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Support. Sxerks (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

To Aru Majutsu no Index → Toaru Majutsu no Index — - On the debate of whether とある in the title should be "Toaru" or "To Aru," the article has settled on "To Aru" on the assumption that they are two separate words. Indeed, one notices a similarity in the definition of "とある" and "ある" (aru), however, there are two issues with "to aru." (A) both Daijisen [2] and Daijirin [3] give a single entry for "とある", and (B) what would "To" mean if the pronunciation was a separate word? It wouldn't be "and," or any other definition listed at wiktionary. "Toaru" spelling is not uncommon, however one reason I am putting this up for discussion is because the article title has been "To Aru" for a long time now. --Tokek (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with the proposed move for a couple reasons. One, "to" (と) is a particle, and we generally separate those from other words, like the adjective "aru" (ある/或る/或). Second, "To Aru..." has been used extensively by reliable sites such as ANN, and Mania.--十八 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you give a definition that would apply here for と? The definitions for と such as "and" or "with" does not fit here. Instead of claiming they are separate, if it doesn't make sense as separate words, it would seem that it is a single word. "To Aru..." has been extensively used on other sites (albeit "Toaru" as well), which makes this move more controversial. However, these sites that use "To Aru" may have been influenced by Wikipedia or other sources. If "to" and "aru" makes sense as two words instead of a single word, then I'm fine. The fact that "toaru" fits in a single definition entry instead of two should be a hint of sorts here. —Tokek (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The thing is, having one clear-cut entry doesn't always fit the bill, since Japanese doesn't use spaces. Many words/word-phrases in Japanese would be split up by a space if written in romaji because romaji distinguishes words and particles by spaces. An example would be 気をつける which is an expression which, while given a single dictionary entry, should normally be separated by spaces in romaji as ki o tsukeru because of the particle を in the middle. A similar thing could be happening here with とある.--十八 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As I've given a definition for "Toaru", could you give a definition for "To?" I think it's as simple as that. —Tokek (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't give a definition for "to" because it isn't a word; it's a grammatical construct. I can see an argument being made "toaru" but for that argument to be strong enough to move the page we'd need some proof from experts on high level Japanese etymology; it's simply not a question that can be answered by looking at a few dictionaries and guessing based on our instincts. I'll ask a few sources and see if I can come up with anything more definitive, but in the absence of that, Oppose as this is the more common usage. Doceirias (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME more than anything else, really. "To aru" is used a whole lot more than "Toaru". Compare: 45.3M ghits for "To aru" vs 80K ghits for "toaru". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia has WP:MOS-JP. For article titles, priority is given to officially marketed English distribution title first if exists, then a faithful Hepburn romanization of the Japanese title otherwise. Generally not supported is whatever the most popular pseudo Hepburn romanization is used by the online community. This shows a largely repeated precedent on Wikipedia to adopt the correct romanization over the fansub community's popular romanization. Our priorities are English official title if exists first, faithful Hepburn romanization of original title second, then that's it.—Tokek (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Hepburn doesn't say anything about spacing, so this is irrelevant. However, since we've got a native speaker here saying it's one word, which you can trivially confirm at any dictionary [4], the correct title is obviously Toaru. Jpatokal (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment とある is classified as one of three adjectives called attributives like あの/ano, あらゆる/arayuru, たいした/taishita, さしたる/sashitaru, etc. From a native speaker's point of view, it is one word and very strange to separate to and aru. When speaking the word, we never pause between to and aru. Particles are thought as a part of the word in our sense. So when a native speaker uses spaces, it would be 気を つける/kio tsukeru, I read books/わたしは 本を 読む/watashiwa hon'o yomu. And Japanese people use a comma after は/wa like わたしは、本を読む。 Well, this is en Wiki and I don't know what is the most common way to put Japanese into romaji in English speaking world. But is "to" really a particle? Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think "to" is a particle depending on context. In 「元気だ」と言った。 it's used for quotation. I think I would romanize it as ki o tsukeru just so it's clear that it says 気を and not きお. (Without the context of kanji in romaji, it would be hard to tell what ki meant there.) But toaru is a set phrase, more or less, so it doesn't really follow the same conventions. Having said that, I think my post above about going with the common name trumps this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment In "「元気だ」と言った。", that's fine because "to" there is definition #3 at the wiktionary entry for と as I've linked previously. However, with "to aru", no one has given a definition for the "to" here. I agree 100% that "to" is a particle depending on context. So is "Hell" a word depending on context, but you wouldn't write "Hell o World" instead of "Hello World": context matters. If someone can give me a linguistically sound explanation for "to aru," I can be in favor of it.—Tokek (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, it is attributive. Going back to that dictionary definition - it's listed as a single entry, and not as a usage phrase under "to" or "aru," therefore it is explicitly defined as a single word instead of a phrase, by dictionary definition. —Tokek (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. First WP:COMMONNAME is a logical fallacy in this case as this common name may have originated from here. Also a google search for "toaru majutsu no index" results in 5.58M hits and "to aru majutsu no index" results in 1.28M, so "toaru" is actually more common for this title. It is more important to understand how a native speaker would say the phrase(as 1 or 2 words). --Sxerks (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ha, that's what I get for cutting corners and not using the whole name. For what it's worth, "To aru" has 120k hits on Bing, while "Toaru" gets 16k hits. *shrug* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Interesting how Google vs. Bing counts can be so different. I'm getting 5.5M for "Toaru..." and 151k for "To Aru..." when I try to remove influence of Wikipedia and mirrors. —Tokek (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) -- Correction: Those numbers were from google.co.jp. Apparently it's different at google.com. Weird. —Tokek (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment It should be noted that Bing only started 4 months ago, so it may have only indexed newer sites.(this wiki page is over 2 years old created by Doceirias) --Sxerks (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Google searches is that Google is counting hits for "To Aru Majutsu no Index" in with the hits for "Toaru Majutsu no Index". With so many false positives a more careful survey of the names used by reliable sources should be undertaken. But the article's name should be the one used by most reliable sources as per WP:NCCN. —Farix (t | c) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point, though... +"Toaru Majutsu no Index" results in 20K less but still 5.56M, and +"To Aru Majutsu no Index" results in 100K plus at 1.38M, still a large difference. And unfortunately there may be no reliable sources, ANN isn't exactly perfect.--Sxerks (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. While decisions on where or how to split phrases in romanized Japanese can admittedly be arbitrary, I can't see any logical reason for splitting "Toaru" here, since "to" is not a particle in this case, and "toaru" is a self-contained term defined in numerous Japanese dictionaries. --DAJF (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Considering this series will most likely be licensed in some form in the future (I'd bet money on it at least), we could wait until that day comes and then move the title to the official English title; discussing it right now seems rather arbitrary to me.--十八 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Consensus appears to be clearly for Toaru now, based on native use, J-dictionary, and even common name. There is no need to wait and perpetuate incorrect information, as redirects will still be in place.--Sxerks (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Three users have opposed for non-trivial reasons; I do not believe a consensus has been reached.--十八 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Those 3 are mainly dependent on "common name" which has been debunked. Also my previous statement was not one of haste, but a summary of what had been said and not a tally of oppose/support. It was also stated to point out that "waiting of the official English" was a logical fallacy via Straw man, which is an attempt to divert the original topic away by a losing side.--Sxerks (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support and additional comment. "To" in 「元気だ」と言った。is different from "to" in "toaru". If I have to translate the first "to", it would be "I'm fine", so s/he said. But I cannot translate the second "to". As I pointed out above, native speakers separate a sentence/phrase differently. Your name/あなたの名前 would be anatano namae/あなたの 名前, not あなた の 名前/anata no namae. The strangeness of "to aru" is like split "your" in you and r as you r name. But is that the way to teach Japanese to non-native speakers? Oda Mari (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The example of "no" is not a good one as "no" is a possessive particle, and all particles are separate words, albeit dependent words (meaning they are dependent on the word(s) preceding them). The same goes for "to" in this case. It's a separate word. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the bad example, 穣. Could someone specify what kind of particle the "to" in "toaru" is? I still cannot accept the "to" is a particle. Japanese particles says 'Japanese particles, joshi (助詞?) or teniwoha (てにをは?), are suffixes or short words in Japanese grammar that immediately follow the modified noun, verb, adjective, or sentence. Their grammatical range is varied, and can sometimes indicate feelings, assertiveness etc.' The particle section in Japanese grammar says 'Particles in Japanese are postpositional, as they immediately follow the modified component.' Oda Mari (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'To' is a particle that creates an adverbial clause, or serves as a conjunction. There are a number of grammatical constructs that begin with 'to'; 'to shite' or 'to dōji ni' for instance. 'To aru' is unusual in that it does not modify the word in front of it, but the word that follows it, but I'm not sure that really counts as proof that it shouldn't be separated just like 'to shite' is. I'd also point out that it is written in hiragana even when 'aru' is written with kanji; while trailing hiragana are very common, I can't think of many instances where hiragana appear in front of kanji and are considered part of the same word. While I'm fluent in Japanese, I don't for a second think that I have the kind of expertise to make a judgment call on the true nature of 'to' in this usage; separating the two is simply what feels instinctively right to me. And all the arguments I'm seeing here are equally true. Perhaps this is a discussing better carried out at the Manual of Style for Wikiproject Japan, where there might be a few people who really do know what they're talking about. The official Hepburn guidelines might even cover this specific construct somewhere. I definitely don't think we should be in a rush to change the page without being sure it's the correct choice. Doceirias (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's a particle. I looked up in paper dictionaries and Kojien says it's a particle. Though I still don't understand the true nature of the "to". When native speakers split a sentence, they think about the rhythm and where they can pause or breathe. But, it seems to me, non-native speakers split it by lexical category or function. "To aru" might be grammatically correct, but unnatural to native speakers. I pronounce "toaru" as a single word, an adjective, with a low-high-low pitch accent in a breath. Now I don't know which is appropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but I doubt even non-native speakers pronounce "to aru" and "toaru" differently in common speech. Spaces are not to indicate how a word should be pronounced, because spaces are used only in written language, not spoken. Any native speaker for their own language can speak quickly enough in that language where spaces could be indistinguishable if you do not know via written language where the spaces reside. The same would apply for Japanese or English, the only difference is that Japanese does not use spaces in its written language as well as spoken.--十八 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Doceirias, I've already listed this page under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan previously to do precisely that: bring more people in for discussion. As you've linked at MOS-JP talk already, that can't hurt. Both "oppose" and "agree" acknowledge that "to" is a particle. However, "to" isn't a particle in "toaru" according to sources provided. "To shite" [5][6] and "toaru"[7][8] are categorized differently. "として" is, as you say, a form of collocation (連語), while "とある" is, as mentioned earlier, a form of attributive (連体形). As a particle is both a word and definable, I don't know what to say to your claim that neither is true. At least if "to" in "toaru" isn't a word, then an added space there wouldn't be considered a word separator... —Tokek (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The functional difference between "として" and "とある" is useful information. The fact that "とある" is attributive doesn't exactly prove that it shouldn't be separated, although it does debunk my argument that it should follow the same rule as "として". (I think of particles as a grammatical device used primarily to indicate the part of speech of the word they follow, so it seems odd to me to try and define them like a normal word; the difference is ultimately one of semantics and not really relevant.) Ultimately, it looks more and more like "とある" is a unique construct, and I really wish it was covered in any of the English language Japanese grammar guides I own. I'd like an authoritative source that specifically covers the issues we're facing here; the information we're getting from Japanese sources tells us a lot about the word itself, but not how to romanize it. I have a copy of A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammer, which the Japan Times put out; it does not, sadly, cover the word. I wonder if they ever published an Advanced version. Doceirias (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically we're back to whether "とある" is a word with the same definition as "ある" and on-line dictionaries seem to point to yes [9], but we have no verification from a paper-back source? Is there a distinct difference when "と" is used at the beginning of a sentence and does not conform to common definitions? For example, this kanji converter connects "to" when it is used at the beginning of a phrase, but not when it follows another word.

A possible English example may be flammable/inflammable (same definition), but when used in a sentence like "this...is...in...flammable" it sounds strange. Does "Aru Majutsu no Index" mean the same as the title, would it sound strange?

And then there is this random page on project index that has "toaru-index". I hope that adds to the confusion.--Sxerks (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Aru is definitely a different word. I don't think that's ever really been in question. Doceirias (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant is "Toaru" a word, and was wondering if "Aru Majutsu..." sounded normal to say.--Sxerks (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. Doceirias (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions. If a learner of Japanese wants to look up とある in a dictionary, what do you think s/he does? Look up とある? Or look up と and ある separately? What are the popular dictionaries among learners of Japanese in English speaking countries? Do they have an entry of とある？ What they define とある? Jim Breen's dictionary has a と或る entry. It was interesting to look up と或る, とある, ある, 或る, and と in the dictionary. Try! And isn't it incomprehensible if you separate the particle in と或る in a sentence like "ネット・サーフィンをしていると、と或るブログで..."?　Oda Mari (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a comma there. But this is by far the most convincing argument I've seen. Looked at from the perspective of what would help a non-native speaker understand the phrase, perhaps one word is preferable. Doceirias (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: とある appears to be a hiragana-only writing of the phrase と或(る).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The above discussion on grammar is interesting, but it really isn't our place to decide what is "correct". WP:COMMONNAME is clear: we use what is most common. The search engines are contradictory, but seem to mostly favor "to aru":

• Google: "toaru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"to aru" = 5,070,000
• Google: "to aru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"toaru" = 1,280,000
• Yahoo: "toaru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"to aru" = 58,000
• Yahoo: "to aru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"toaru" = 749,000
• Bing: "toaru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"to aru" = 12,600
• Bing: "to aru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"toaru" = 102,000
• Ask.com: "toaru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"to aru" = 11,100
• Ask.com: "to aru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"toaru" = 105,000
• Google Images: "toaru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"to aru" = 11,800
• Google Images: "to aru majutsu no index" -wikipedia -"toaru" = 105,000

• The point has been raised that this article's existence has tainted these results, as it's had the same name since its creation in May 2007. That may be, but unfortunately it too is irrelevant: we use what people most use, regardless if some people take their cues from Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the absence of any official naming, we would default to what is correct Hepburn romanization, per WP:MOS-J. Doceirias (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as Jpatokal mentioned above, Hepburn romanization does not describe spaces, as far as I can tell. -kotra (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The official project index site has a page that has "toaru", though it is not in full context.--Sxerks (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the monthly user archives labeled "test-toaru-index: 2008年10月", etc, I'm skeptical that they can be considered examples of the official name. They seem to be related to the web addresses they link to, http://www.project-index.net/blog/author/test-toaru-index_1/2008/10/ etc, and spaces aren't typically allowed in web addresses for technical reasons (Wikipedia, for example, replaces spaces with underscores in the URL). An official English name would be helpful in this case, but I don't think this is it, the space could be missing due to technical limitations. -kotra (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "spaces missing" argument would not be valid since both underscores and dashes are used in the mentioned link, it would be quite the opposite, there would be another dash added between words like:test-to-aru-index, but it is not. And there is definite tainting that has happened, for example the ANN links were created June 2008, over a year after WP. Tainting other pages is not irrelevant, it is something that should be corrected, complacency is not an excuse. --Sxerks (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My broader point is that we can't rely on "test-toaru-index" as an official title. "toaru" could have been used there for numerous reasons; I only gave the first that occurred to me. If the full title of "Toaru Majutsu no Index" was used in official press releases, products, etc, then we would have something. However, buried and random as this particular example is, without any context or explanation, I don't think it qualifies.

As for your example of the ANN entry being created after the Wikipedia article, I do not see that as evidence of tainting. We cannot know why they chose that title without asking the original author, although it seems most likely to me that they chose the title that was used most commonly in the fan community at the time; I doubt blindly copying Wikipedia was their method.

But it is easy to determine if Wikipedia has "tainted" common usage: just compare search results from before the Wikipedia article existed.

• Google: "toaru no majutsu no index" in 2000-2006 = 1,350
• Google: "to aru no majutsu no index" in 2000-2006 = 41,800

It's probably unnecessary for me to continue with the following after these figures, but I still feel like I should explain why we shouldn't try to "fix" past mistakes when doing so would be against common usage. We describe what exists, not what we think would be better. Anyway, this is just the difference between a space or no space in the title of an anime, and if there are no official sources to guide us (be they the creators/owners of the work, or a linguistic authority like Hepburn romanization, we go with common usage. -kotra (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The joined usage of "toaru" on an official page is important to note, and I already said it's not in full context. What numerous reasons? It's also not buried it's on the blog archive page under the "Monthly Guest Archive" section.

"Copying Wikipedia" is many peoples method, as it is assumed that titles and information have been vetted.

The broad search with date ranges is invalid, as many page dates are old but have new information on them such as side-bars with current info, you can see this clearly by just looking at the search results. The ANN ones I searched for were a specific pages on their site. Also, all searches can be manipulated in some way, like adding minuses here and there to suit a persons bias. So finding a common name through search is not reliable either way. And, bluntly, we should always try to "fix" past mistakes.--Sxerks (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how the url is relevant. ANN has gone against Wikipedia's naming in the past -- we had to move the Dulalala page to Durarara because ANN romanized the title without knowing the origin of the word.

On a random side note, I just looked in volume eight, which has a section at the back with a title in romaji: Index-Librorum-Prohibitorum Art Works. Ha ha. Doceirias (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The url itself isn't but its joined use is, especially on an official page. And, Greeeeeat,another reason to distrust ANN as a reliable source. Also, Index Librorum Prohibitorum(List of Prohibited Books) is all over the inner covers of the manga(1-4).--Sxerks (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sxerks, I can assure you I am not adding subtracted terms in my searches to suit any bias. With or without these terms, the searches produce roughly the same results; I just added them at first to eliminate pages that used both spellings (later on, I wasn't feeling as anal about it, so I left them out). I have no personal bias in this matter, to me it is just a hardly consequential space in the title of an obscure anime, not worth debating ad nauseum, and certainly not worth being accused of cherry-picking data to suit a bias, so I'll bow out now. Please remember to assume good faith in the future, though. -kotra (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It might have seemed to be direct at you, but it wasn't. The same minuses were also used farther up this page. My statement was directed to the use of search engines as being unreliable for the common name argument. --Sxerks (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Discounting searches for common names I think is the best option. Instead, if all else fails, the name which has been used extensively in reliable, third-party sources would be the name to go by; trouble is, I haven't seen any reliable sources reviewing this series yet.--十八 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ANN covered it in their fall season round up, but I'm not sure they archive those. Doceirias (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Summary
  • The oppose side:
    • "と"(to) is a particle
    • Common name
  • The support side:
    • "と" does not conform to the particle definitions in this case and "とある" is a defined word
    • Common name
    • Use of "toaru" as a word, separated from other words on the official web page.

The "common name" is a wash, and the particle argument is leaning toward a full word. Also, when ever it is licensed and the page is moved again(to 'A Certain Magical Index', or 'Project Index', or whatever) the original phrase (toaru...)will still be in the body of the article, so it will still need to be corrected.--Sxerks (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The use on the official web page is simply as part of a link, and can't be taken as an official use; I've seen a number of similar conversations, and they usually came to the conclusion that choices made by the website designer did not necessarily reflect the choices made by the content providers. Graphic text on the pages or similar content is relevant; things alt text or comments in the html or the html file name are generally considered to be unreliable. There have been any number of cases where the spelling in the url and the spelling in the graphic text contradicted each other. Doceirias (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Common name -- google hits has proven less than helpful. Maybe the closest we can get is what the common name used by reliable sources is. ANN news articles consistently use To Aru Majutsu no Index. Is there a reliable source contradicting these?

• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-06-03/to-aru-majutsu-no-index-light-novels-gets-tv-anime
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-07-07/kemeko-dx-to-aru-majutsu-no-index-promos-streamed Doceirias (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is not official use, it is a singular-word use on an official page.

I pointed out that common-name isn't reliable in my first post on this page. ANN is a source, but since their source of the name is in question, it can not be considered reliable.

And I just searched for "to aru or toaru" & "toaru or to aru", to see if there was any discussion elsewhere, and found evidence of wikipedia tainting. And discussion of とある being a word and a translator insisting on it.--Sxerks (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're taking that person's words out of context. He merely suggested to use the Wiki spelling, not that the Wiki spelling was more correct than another spelling; so it's not "taint", its a matter of opinion. And I don't see why the question of why ANN chose to use To Aru is relavent since if they are using it, more people are bound to also because of the reliability of the website. Sure, they might have gotten the spelling from Wikipedia, but if ANN says its reliable, people are going to see that and believe it, so it really doesn't matter where it originated from as long as ANN thought it was the correct way to do things. Similarly, if you see something printed in The New York Times or on CNN, you're going to think it's reliable information and be willing to use that information elsewhere, and won't ask where it came from.--十八 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not out of context, it's in reference to the decision to use wikipedias naming scheme(as discussed above, people come here to find what they assume to be correct), and using that name taints page-names and content and therefore search results and thus the common name is unreliable whether it's in search or on a supposed reliable sources page. And your statement on ANN is circular-reasoning, and actually just proves how easily misinformation can be spread. Any common-name argument isn't going to work in this case.

So, to put an end to this, is anyone still trying to make the argument that "と" is a particle in this case? The discussion on this page and evidence on others points to "とある" being word, is anyone still attempting to contest this?--Sxerks (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point -- I agree with you that establishing what the actual common name is is a fool's errand, and establishing which is technically correct Japanese also appears to be beyond us. In the absence of either a clear common name or a grammatical authority, and in the continued absence of any official sources, the only remaining way I see to resolve the discussion is to follow what the reliable English language sources are using, regardless of whether it is technically correct, and regardless of our personal preferences on the matter. Doceirias (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Japanese is beyond us, Oda Mari is a native speaker, you're ja-4, DAJF is ja-3, and all, including you, are saying "とある" is a "unique construct". What grammatical authority did you use when you created the article, you were ja-4 back then as well, were you using the same dictionary that you are now?

Relying on other English language sources, goes back to the tainting problem, is there a reliable source that had an article up prior to the creation of this page?

Wikipedia is encyclopedic, so technical correctness is important. And I have no personal preference, I actually came to this page looking for the correct spelling so I could seed pages on another wiki, this debate just happened to be on the same day. I am merely here to push it to a logical conclusion.--Sxerks (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As am I. The problem here is that there are any number of Japanese words/grammatical constructs that would have a single dictionary entry and yet would be correctly romanized with spaces inserted. When I created the page, I consulted no authority but my own instincts/assumptions. Despite quite a bit of research, we've found nothing more definitive than that.

I don't see 'taint' as an issue. We have no evidence that ANN consulted Wikipedia when deciding how to romanize the title, and frankly, even if they did, per WP:V, we would still follow their naming conventions in the absence of a contradictory RS. This whole long thread has done a pretty good job of exhausting options on alternative ways to decide the title; at this point, I'm really not seeing any real solutions besides the age old Wikipedia principle of doing what the sources say. Doceirias (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As per your "Durarara" example above, ANN wouldn't be reliable picking out or coping titles. But, on to something cooler, I was searching and came across google-books(I forgot they scanned a ton of them) and found a dictionary from 1896, note "toaru" on page 1474, is that grammatical enough?--Sxerks (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (grr, got an edit conflict with Farix)

That example proves my point! We had to move Dulalala to an incorrect title because ANN chose to romanize it that way! The dictionary would be useful, if it were not from 1896. Both Japanese and romanization conventions have changed dramatically since then. Doceirias (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment ANN's use of "To Aru Majutsu no Index" has already been covered, but here is Mania.com only mention of the anime series, which also uses "To Aru Majutsu no Index". I haven't found any other mentions by reliable English-language sources beyond that though. —Farix (t | c) 01:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That pages date is after the creation of this page, which is my tainting argument.--Sxerks (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have evidence of tainting or are you simply assuming it? —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First, sorry to Aervanath for undoing your closure, I was waiting on emails. The following should end in a move consensus, and remove this from the backlog shortly.

The first email reply is from Hikosaemon

That's a good question. My initial reaction was to think of と as a particle and the expression "～と ある", which isn't common but used. To tell the truth, I don't recall ever having seen とある at the start of a phrase before, so I looked up my advanced grammar dictionary, which had nothing, and then I turned to ALC:

http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B/UTF-8/?ref=sa

Here it shows many uses of the phrase, which I think pretty conclusively shown that used in this way, the appropriate romanization would be "Toaru" to my mind. I can appreciate that the origin of the word probably came from combining the particle and the phrase, but it is clearly used most often in a non-particle context as a stand-alone word. The basic definition is instructive:

1. certain

2. this〈話〉〔打ち解けた会話で何かを新たに提示。テレパシーでも使えるかのように、思い浮かべているものを指す。記憶・心象を包み隠さない親密感と、多少のなれなれしさを伴う。文法的にはa, anで置換可能。〕

Meaning 1 seems the most instructive - if you look at all the sample phrases, "とある公園で", とあるクラブに", the use seems to be "we went to a CERTAIN park", or we "entered a CERTAIN club" even though the "certain" can be used or left silent, it seems most often to mean "a certain".

The longer explanation under 2 points out it that it is used to recall a particular thing being drawn out of memory, and to express that idea of recalling that place, and that it can most often be translated as "a" or "an".

Given that the word almost never follows or folds into a sentence as a particle, it is clearly used in a stand-alone manner and I would suggest, based on the very detailed ALC definitions and sample phrases, it is almost certainly best romanized as "Toaru" and NOT "-to aru"

This has very good analysis of the usage of Toaru. It also alludes to another literal translation of "A Magical Index" (which makes more sense in English, but isn't part of the current discussion)

The second email reply is from Daniel DeLorme at ANN. (I sent the email on the 17th, it took a week for the responce)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. We starting investigating this matter last week, but it turned out to be a tricky question and it took us some time to get to the bottom of the matter.

The current TO ARU romanization of the TV series was simply based on the same romanization of the manga, submitted by Kyoki69 on 2007-09-30 and which gives http://www.project-index.net/ as source (and there is no romanization on that site).

Both TOARU and TO ARU sound like reasonable romanizations. According to a Japanese native, とある has basically the same meaning as ある except that it sounds more "literary". So one could easily think of とある as being ある with と as a prefix and romanize them separately. This is further complicated by the fact that there is no official romanization; or rather the official romanization is "Index Librorum Prohibitorum", which gives us no clue about the romanization of とある.

But on the other side,

1. とある is one word in the dictionary;

2. aforementioned Japanese native said it should be TOARU;

3. We contacted the Taiwanese licensor and they said while there's no official romanization of とある from the Japanese companies, it is better to be romanized as one word i.e. "Toaru" instead of "To Aru."

So in conclusion we will change the ANN romanization to "Toaru". You can use the information above as you wish on wikipedia.

Yours in anime,

Daniel DeLorme

Webmaster & Chief Encyclopedist

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com

If you go to ANN you will notice that they have changed the name.

On a side note, Doceirias you should contact him about your Dulalala concern, they will take the time to research matters when prompted.

Are there any more concerns?--Sxerks (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

None! Nicely done. Doceirias (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is then considered Support--Sxerks (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Imagine Breaker's Power

I don't think that Imagine Breaker only has the power to disable supernatural things, it is also capable of defensing explosions, etc. which has been shown many times in both the animes (main and side-story). Hence the sub-section Imagine Breaker should be modified. -30/Dec/09-21:28(IST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.20.121 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The novels state several times that it negates magic, psychic, and divine powers. Any explosions he negates are powered by one of those, rather than gunpowder. Doceirias (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first novel states that while he can guard against an esper's fireball, and its explosion, he cannot guard against shrapnel caused by said explosion. CarVac (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Certain Scientific vs Toaru Kagaku

In terms of anime, has there been any indication that the anime of Toaru Kagaku no Railgun has been titled A Certain Scientific Railgun for its english release (as only the manga has been confirmed for such a name change). Wonchop (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if it hasn't, it's not difficult to extend the translated title to the anime as well.--十八 21:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In a related query, since Funimation have licensed the Index anime under the name, 'A Certain Magical Index', should we change the other articles as suit or just leave it as 'Toaru'? Bearing in mind that pretty much noone licenses light novels much these days. Wonchop (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it'd make sense to just change them all to the English title.--十八 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we normally use the English title anyway, I was wondering why the article is at "Toaru Majutsu no Index" rather than "A Certain Magical Index" (which is its English translation anyway). But before moving, we should probably first have a move discussion like the one above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Toaru Majutsu no Index → A Certain Magical Index – The anime series was recently licensed by Funimation and will be distributed under the title A Certain Magical Index. There has been a convention in WP:ANIME to change the article title to the officially recognized English title when it becomes available per the guidelines WP:EN and WP:UCN. This is laid out at WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation too. 十八 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per our guidelines on article titles once an anime is licensed (use the English title). Every instance of "Toaru Majutsu no Index" has already been changed to "A Certain Magical Index". All that's left now is the actual article title. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support WP:UE -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of volumes?

ok just asking but how did anyone count 25 volumes in the original light novel series?? no matter how i count it's just 22, even with the 2 ss it's only 24? ..::Gradient93::.. 22:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The single SP volume is also counted, as it is a compilation of various short stories.--十八 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://sgcafe.com/2013/01/a-scientific-railgun-s-anime-airs-april-in-japan-fripside-new-op/

  Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know why these sgcafe.com links are being blacklisted? The pages look OK to me. David Bailey (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See here. ー HigherFive〈Ｃ | Ｔ〉 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and link, HigherFive. David Bailey (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kazuma Kamachi

The Kazuma Kamachi link redirects here. Shouldn't it be high time for the author to get his own article page instead of a redirect? You know, since he has works other than Index.---125.60.240.201 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction is difficult to read

The introduction is full of dates and numbers, it should be simply saying what this is, maybe can move these facts elsewhere where they can be formatted a bit nicer.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Certain Magical Index. 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/20090403003930/http://www.jcstaff.co.jp:80/sho-sai/index-shokai/index-music.htm to http://www.jcstaff.co.jp/sho-sai/index-shokai/index-music.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://project-index.net/drama_cd/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012064209/http://asciimw.jp:80/mediamix/index/ to http://asciimw.jp/mediamix/index/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Certain Magical Index. 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/20140813011353/http://anime.about.com/od/anime-a-m/fr/A-Certain-Magical-Index-Season-One.htm to http://anime.about.com/od/anime-a-m/fr/A-Certain-Magical-Index-Season-One.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121014246/http://project-index.net/drama_cd/index.php to http://www.project-index.net/drama_cd/index.php

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) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Raildex needs its own article

Right now this term redirects here, but I think it might be notable on its own. Of course, we can't rely on wikia ([10]) but the term has been used in official Crunchroll materials [11]/[12]. Overall we need a disambig at least, and preferably an article, that discusses this entire franchise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Raildex is a fan-made term, and it shouldn't be used by Wikipedia. Not to mention that it is now exclusionary, since the creation of A Certain Scientific Accelerator. If anything, A Certain Magical Index (series) or A Certain Magical Index (franchise) would suffice for the whole franchise. We already use List of A Certain Magical Index characters for all of the characters in the three separate series.--十八 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The official name of the franchise in Japan is the Toaru Project. What Japanese Wikipedia does is have a navbox for pages related to the franchise. That, at least, might be useful. Sandtalon (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Certain Magical Index (season 2) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Certain Magical Index/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll review this article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good but there is some stuff that I think needs to be revised.

Lead

• Can the ability of Toma be explored? Why is it so weird in the setting?
  • Done
• Based on the infobox, the light novels already ended so the final date could be added. If a sequel is still being published then it's also worth writing there.
  • Added

Infobox

• Since there are way too many forms of sequels and adaptations I suggest using the "collapsed infobox section begin" like in Code Geass or Darker than Blood to avoid conflict between the infobox and prose.
  • Collapsed

Plot is easy understand

Development

• I don't think the release subsection is needed based on the length.
  • I removed the subheading, although I do feel the information in it is worth stating in the article.

Video games

Arcade is too small. Think of the formal writing of an article like a formal letter when each paragraph is well balanced.

• • Combined with another section.

Critical reception

• Same as other sections. There is no need to make so many subsection with that content.
  • Same as above

@Link20XX: Other than that, the article is easy to understand. Revise this and I'll gladly pass it.Tintor2 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: See above. Link20XX (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. The article now feels easier to read especially with the infobox focusing on the first work.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Desertarun (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the second volume of A Certain Magical Index was finished in only seventeen days?

Source: Kazuma Miki's book, A Certain Magical Index volume 2, page 235

• ALT1: ... that the third season of A Certain Magical Index was originally planned to be a reboot instead of a sequel?

Source: Anime News Network

• Reviewed: Exempt

Improved to good article status by Link20XX (talk) and Centcom08 (talk). Nominated by Link20XX (talk) at 02:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC).

• Nice to see Toaru on DYK nominations. New enough GA review, long enough, neutral and within policy, hooks cited inline, no copyvio detected by Earwig. Both hooks can be used. QPQ exempt. Good to go.