Talk:Anime

Template:Authoronlinesource2005

Cited as a source in "A short history of anime." sidebar to Slafkosky, Jenny. "Anime: Popular Japanese animation easy to find." The Oakland Tribune (CA). January 13, 2005. Petersam 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Contents

1 Miscellaneous posts since August 2002 2 Accent mark on the e in anime 3 Long vowels 4 Just for the record, 5 ABe Yoshitoshi 6 Hateful sentence 7 Manga Artists under notable Names in Anime?? 8 External links 9 Other comments 10 Pokémon info 11 Lists that are too long 12 Sub-category for anime series or terms 13 Vandalizm 14 Doraemon 15 People who pay a lot of attention to pages like these... 16 Pronounciation of "anime" in the UK 17 Anime TV series 18 Link suggestions 19 History section badly needed. 20 ænɪˌmei? 21 Picture at top of page 22 On the article that cited us... 23 Manga sentence 24 Pronouncation 25 Non-Japanese anime? 26 Not all images used are optimal 27 Massive lists of anime in the 'Notable works' section 28 Forgotten Anime 29 Article reads like a list 30 International anime section (now removed) 31 What belongs in Notable works and how it should be limited 32 "Kodomo" and Howl's Moving Caste

Miscellaneous posts since August 2002

Ironically, the word is an English transliteration of a Japanese term, which in turn is a Japanese transliteration of the English word "animation". (Some sources state that the Japanese word comes from the French "Animé", meaning "animated".)

Here's three dictionaries that claim アニメ (anime) is an abbreviation of アニメーション ("animeeshon", a transcription of the English pronunciation of "animation"):

• (E-E) http://www.bartleby.com/61/12/A0311250.html
• (E-J) http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/wwwjdic/ (search manually)
• (J-J) http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/cgi-bin/dict_search.cgi?MT=%A5%A2%A5%CB%A5%E1&sw=2

While I've occasionally heard mention of the French claim, I've yet to find it in a reputable source. --Brion

in french the term "animation" is used too ( from the english word ) and i think the pronunciation of anime in japanese is "animé" so the source of the confusion came perhaps from the french word "dessin animé" ( "animated pictures" or animated cartoon)

The first animated cartoon was from Frenchman Émile Reynaud, who created praxynoscope, animation system of 12 pictures, and films of about 500~600 pictures, projected on its own théatre optique, system near from modern film projector, at Musée Grévin in Paris, France, the October 28, 1892. The first animated cartoon on modern picture film projector was Fantasmagorie by the French director Émile Courtet (also called Émile Cohl), projected for the first time August 17, 1908 at 'Théâtre du Gymnase', in Paris. Émile Courtet went to Fort Lee, New York near New York City in 1912 émile Courtet some pictures and bio in french (http://www.lips.org/bio_Cohl.asp) --Neuromancien 23:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean, "animation" from english? Do you mean the particular usage of using it for animated cartoons?

Go ahead and change it to "fans" or "afficionados of the genre," then.  :) User:Modemac

move here: "Most Japanese do not believe this derivation." seems not neutral and can't find any probent source --Neuromancien 04:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your challenge is to find a reference in English that admits to adopting from the French dessin animé to refer to Japanese animation as anime. The earliest anime fan club in the US was the Cartoon/Fantasy Organization, and they called it "Japanimation." In English, anime get ingrained to refer to Japanese animation when rec.arts.anime got started on Usenet.

In the Japan, and more importantly in the animation industry in Japan, anime (アニメ) was always short for animation (アニメーション). If you doubt that, your challenge is to find some kind of spiritual reverence to French dessin animé, especially in early Japanese animation. Alternately, find a (preferably paper) account on the history of Japanese animation that mentions French influences. Do you need to give any legitimacy to netlore that may have no basis on literacy in Japanese or familiarity with modern Japanese history?--Outis 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the Oxford English Dictionary online says this in the etymology section of the relevant "anime" entry:

[< Japanese anime < French animé (in dessin animé animation, cartoon (1935 or earlier) < dessin drawing (see DESIGN n.) + animé, participial adjective < animer to animate: see ANIMATE v.).]

However, its source is not cited. Moreover, that is the only English dictionary that I can find that gives such an etymology. I have the feeling that the dictionary's etymologists got that from one of the many sources that claim "'Anime" derives from the French word for 'animation'."--Ian-Miller 6 May 2005

In general I didn't like how the possible French origin of "anime" was referenced in the main article. It seems to me there is overwhelming evidence for the claim of an English origin and that the idea of French origin is only being discounted more and more. I removed the sentence referencing the "non-Japanese speakers" who believe in a French origin because in general I felt the claim could not be sufficiently backed up both on the basis that most people (both Japanese speakers and non-Japanese speakers) who are well-informed believe in the english origin and because the statement of "non-Japanese speakers" appeared to be a statement of fact where no evidence could be provided. In general, I thought there was a lack of evidence and probability for the whole thing, so I removed it. Please, if someone has a different perspective, I would encourage them to come forward so we can have a discussion about it. I hope you understand my perspective. --Xaliqen 21:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the reverting of your change today -- I misunderstood your intent (which is the same as mine). I agree with your statement above as well as with the following decision to remove the sentence entirely. --Egan Loo 22:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologize too. I didn't give the Terminology section as good of a run-through as I should have before I modified the sentence the first time. I didn't notice that the english origin was already mentioned extensively otherwise I probably would have just removed that one sentence in the first place. Again, if anyone has any concerns about this, then I'll be happy to discuss it. --Xaliqen 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Something that might be worth noting is that the opening of most anime TV series is exactly 1:30 long. In fact, I can't name a single instance where that is not true, although I know there are cases. Even 5 minute long episodes(including opening) have 1:30 long openings, for example Panda Z... which is kind of an OVA. -- Philip Nilsson 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the entire paragraph on the different production values of anime, as it is not relevant. American production values on animation vary just as much. full cell animation wasn't invented in America because the first animation wasn't, and limited-cell animation WAS invented in America, by Hanna Barberra for television animation, a novelty at the time. Disney uses full animation for their full length movies just as Miyazaki does, and Disney uses limited cell animation for TV and video-only, as Japanese companies do.--alan D

---

I'd like to propose that the list of anime be shortened to those which already have pages in the encyclopedia and those which are otherwise well-known. The current list is apparently attempting to list all of the television shows in Japan which happen to be animated. User:Ashibaka

---

"Anime became fairly popular in the Western World in the mid 1990s (many people think it is the cult-anime Akira which triggered this) but interest quickly faded again. However, recently anime is gaining in popularity again, probably due to the recent improvements on the field of broadband internet, making anime more easily accessible to the masses. This, however, also triggered a huge increase in the illegal distribution of anime."

I removed this paragraph because the current resurgence in anime predates broadband. I've no qualms with the Akira part (it's removed with the rest until it can be easily reinserted) save for an exclusion of a de-facto popularity in anime in the early 1980s due to a number of dubbed anime series in the USA (robotech, starblazers, voltron, and I even saw at least one ep. of galaxy express 999) that was passed off unknowingly to a lot of kids.

As a matter of fact, I can trace the popularity of anime for several years, having been involved in the scene for quite a while (by the way, the scene has simultaneously never been better, or worse.) Anime in every video store is both a symptom and a cause of a widespread anime popularity in its current surge. I'll write more on this later.

---

About the title, I know the word Anime is widely recognized among its fun. Besides, it is a proper Japanese word too. But shouldn't wikipedia stick to a general common usage? I mean I would like to rename this to Japanese animation because techincally speaking, Anime is not an English word. We can state Japanese animation is commonly called "Anime" in the article. -- Taku 18:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I think, Wikipedia should use words in the meaning that everyone thinks of in first place. If the "official" title has a link to the "used" word, ok. But for example I would expect an article about Anime, and the article should explain, that Anime is Japanese animation. That's my feeling, I don't know yet what the "official" Wikipedia standard for this is. Fantasy 07:38 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Anime is fine for a title. People recognize it--cartoon fans, film buffs, etc., and it's already in some dictionaries. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anime Besides, English doesn't have an academy so there's no official body to say "this is or is not English"--the language reflects common usage. If anime is not English, then neither is escargot--also commonly used to refer to snails as food rather than snails as animals. Koyaanis Qatsi

Fantasy has a good point. We have to think of people who expect wikipedia has an article named "anime". I agree. -- Taku 15:36 31 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Any particular reason the German clubs are listed in amongst the links? Snarfies

Now they are only on the german Wiki-page Fantasy 06:49 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Maybe we ought to follow the WikiProject_Entertainment formatting for anime articles. Maybe place a link to it on top of anime and list of anime for new article writers and for people to go back and reformat existing articles. Snarfies 8/17/03

---

Are shoujo-ai and shonen-ai really genres? Any genre can contain them, and any story containing them can belong to any genre. -- Khym Chanur 11:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Accent mark on the e in anime

Why do people put an accent mark on anime: animé? Is it because of the claim of the derivation from French? To try to look cool (but end up looking stupid)? The accent in Pokémon? Or to hint that the "e" should be pronounced (technically a diaeresis should be used for that)?

--Furrykef 01:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's to hint that the "e" should be pronounced. I for one used to think it was pronounced "a-neem" (cringe) before I became a fan. I see this a lot with the word "sake" written as "saké" so people don't pronounce it like the English word "sake". Yes, a diaeresis is the proper accent mark for this purpose in English, but it's fallen out of use and people are more familiar with the French way. I think a pronunciation note in the beginning of the article (like it is now) is far preferable to using an accent in any case. DopefishJustin 00:02, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen an old english (not Old English) translation of a Kobo Abe novel that called him "Kobo Abé". It may be an obsoleted transliteration convention. -℘yrop (talk) 05:58, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Long vowels

Most anime-related topics in Wikipedia seem to use kana spelling for long vowels (shoujo, doujinshi, bishounen, etc) instead of following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, which recommends short vowels in titles and macrons in content (shōjo, dōjinshi, bishōnen, etc). I know that otaku circles like pretending they know Japanese, but this is an encyclopedia for the general public we're dealing with here and some consistency would be nice. How loudly would y'all object to shifting all articles to their short-vowel titles, and adding redirects for the long forms? --Jpatokal 14:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Opposed because of search engines. Incorrect or not, shoujo is a more widely-recognized Anglicization than shojo, doujinshi more than dojinshi and bishounen...well, those two are about equal, but bishounen has a slight edge on search results. Yes, we can have redirects to the "preferred" spelling, but that harms the Google rankings (whatever they may be). Beyond one spelling's popularity over the other (we're also charged with making the article titles whatever is most likely to be searched for), I don't really have a preference, although when I do write those three, I still naturally write the "ou" transliteration. RADICALBENDER★ 16:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Google ranking argument seems to be a bit of a red herring, since Wikipedia doesn't show up in the top 100 for either form of shōjo... and can you decide if you're opposed or don't have a preference? 8) Any other opinions on the subject? Jpatokal 06:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of having article names without long vowels is because English readers are much more familiar with them that way in most cases (people look for Tokyo, not Tōkyō). Since anime terms are more familiar with long vowels indicated, there doesn't seem to be any point in moving them for that reason. Long vowels are quite important in Japanese so I would object to not indicating them when there's no compelling reason for it. Consistent romanization is a concern, though. I personally prefer the "ou" style more than proper Hepburn "ō" because it's closer to the Japanese spelling and people won't turn around and ignore an extra letter when they use the term like they often do with accents. This kind of discussion probably belongs more on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles though. DopefishJustin 00:02, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with "ou" is that, while it matches the kana, it doesn't make sense in English: most anime fans probably read "doujinshi" phonetically as dough-jin-she (or even dough-u-jin-she?), when it should be doh-jin-she. Most English-speakers aren't capable of making the distinction between short and long vowels anyway, so ignoring the macron is IMHO the lesser of two evils.

As for the Manual of Style, it's already been decided that Hepburn is the One True Standard and macrons are the One True Long Vowel Indicator, and I'm trying to standardize this in the otaku domains as well... Jpatokal 02:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I just don't like the idea of moving articles to titles with short vowels. shōjo means "young girl", but shojo is "virgin"! DopefishJustin 20:49, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

After thinking about this more I've changed my mind, I think it's better that we follow a consistent standard. If people search with "ou" they'll get redirected anyway. I'll start changing minor stuff as I find it and if no one objects, the "big stuff" like shoujo should move too. DopefishJustin 15:59, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record,

Ecchi is H.

H is not hentai.

Also, "H" is outdated and the term "ero" is now used.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021212041355re_/home.attbi.com/~kagamix2/H_does_not_mean_hentai/

Some argue that the term "hentai" should be used simply because it's used in America. However, the first key policy states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Why, then, is "hentai" still used when most of the bloody world, Asia in particular, uses "H"?

I find it amusing that you suggest "H" is outdated as a term. It's used practically all the time. "H" may not stand for hentai in the normal sense, but it most certainly does stand for "hen," or strange. Though, as any word, "ecchi" has taken on its own particular idiomatic useage. --Xaliqen 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ABe Yoshitoshi

Are people really unable to see the comment in the source basically yelling at them not to change what they're about to change anyway? :p - Korpios 18:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hateful sentence

A certain hateful sentence is usually inserted into the text of the "Anime" article by someone at IP address 68.55.93.144. I recently fixed the irrelevancy by erasing the sentence. The sentence usually takes these forms:

1) The majority of these anime fans often speak of the "superiority" of Japan and bash American culture.

2) Many North American anime fans often speak of the "superiority" of Japan and bash American culture.

A reference to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor is usually added as well.

Szczerbiec01 4:41 PM, July 27, 2004

Manga Artists under notable Names in Anime??

Personally I think there should be a seprate entry for manga artist who had influence on anime so that artists such as Go Nagai, Rumiko Takahashi and Masamune Shirow (who people seem to constantly confuse with Mamoru Oshii) should be moved to a seprate category to reduce the common confusion that these artists have amongst anime fandom.

The artists that should be under anime that were also manga artists are Leiji Matsumoto for his large contributions to anime such as Starblazers etc., Osamu Tezuka, Katsuhiro Otomo, and Hayao Miyazaki. All others did little to no anime work with Shirow only co-directing one OVA series

I deleted a comment that was basically unobjective shirow worshiping that didn't get any facts straight siting him as the creator of the Ghost in the Shell film, a film that he had very little to do with, and is much more a product of Mamoru Oshii's philsophies on storytelling than Shirows.

I was just curious what people thought of this idea??

Neilworms 11:53 pm July 27, 2004

Just link it to "Notable names" in the Manga article. --AllyUnion 13:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

External links

I'm not an anime fan and I really can't speak to this authoritatively, but it seems to me (from the perspective of someone coming to this article looking for information), that there "External links" section is too long to be much use.

I accidentally stumbled onto this link:

• Anime-Info.net (http://www.anime-info.net/)

Now, as I happen to read French, I found it quite useful, but most English-speakers wouldn't, so I removed it (Manual of Style).

If that was serving some purpose that I missed and it really needs to be there, by all means, add it back. But I looked through the other links and I really can't tell what they all, collectively, accomplish, that couldn't be accomplished by a shorter selection. As it was, I was hard-pressed to find what I was looking for (in this case, images) admidst the deluge. It looks like somebody with a bit more knowledge needs to do a bit of pruning, perhaps? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It just keeps getting worse as people continue to add new links. Can someone who knows something about the subject look into this? Otherwise I'll try to prune on my own, but I'm sure some people wouldn't like that because I don't know which are really the most popular sites. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed:

• The Anigame Network (http://www.anigamenetwork.net): Looks very under construction.
• Anime Lyrics (.com) (http://animelyrics.com/): Only has niche appeal, is easy to find using Google if needed.
• ADV Films (http://www.advfilms.com) and The Anime Network (http://www.theanimenetwork.com): We link to the wikipedia article on ADV Films, and The Anime Network is a subcompany of ADV Films.
• Also, some anonymous editor keeps adding AniKi (http://trevreport.org/aniki/wiki.pl?AniKi), a very very undeveloped Anime wiki; i've been removing it when he does.

It could still use some more pruning. I think we should get rid of the review sites, but i want to hear other's opinions. Pyrop 02:06, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Removed:

• DownloadAnime.com (http://www.downloadanime.org): Another download site is listed, which seems to be bigger than this one (checked Alexa ranks).
• Anime Info (http://www.animeinfo.com): Not currently up and running. Wasn't up last month, either.
• Anime Check-list (http://www.animechecklist.net/): Fairly low ratings and not irreplaceable.
• AnimeNfo (http://www.animenfo.com): redundant, something had to go.
• Anime Web Turnpike (http://www.anipike.com): ditto.
• Animerica Magazine (http://www.animerica-mag.com): Belongs in the Anime in the United States article. Maybe.
• EX: The Online World of Anime and Manga (http://www.ex.org/): Lovely site, but way out of date.
• What are Manga and Anime? (http://www.mit.edu/people/rei/Expl.html): Great, but unless it was a reference for this article (and it's not listed under "references"), it doesn't really offer much above and beyond what is discussed here.
• Grand High Licensing List (http://www.animeondvd.com/licenselist/): Page on a site already listed.

This one is borderline:

• Anipages Daily (http://www.pelleas.net/aniTOP/): It's a blog.

I did back this up with some traffic comparisons using Alexa—it seems likely that if a site does not have any information that obviously distinguishes it from similar sites, and yet it's traffic rating is much lower, it should probably not be listed. I probably made some mistakes. Hopefully, however, the current list will be easier to work with. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aranel: Did you read my other comment? Anipages daily is far more informative than any of the other pages listed here. The guy who runs it Benjamin Ettinger knows more about film production aspects in anime than really any other english speaker. I find his information invaluable to understanding the production side of anime (in partiuclar artistic and independant work) invaluable. In a world (in refrence to anime subculture) where real knowledge is scarce and fans have many misnomers, this site is a beacon of knowledge. Finally it is a promotion of anime as an artform and not as a pop culture fandom, for that I feel this site should definetly be included in the links.

--Neilworms 16:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other comments

implying that most criticizes low framerates and lack of "animation" is the critic's fault for not recognizing different animation styles is pov and apologetic.

Regarding the quality of animation to budget, see this link:[1] (http://homepage2.nifty.com/kannagi/A3.htm). There was also a more detailed article in AWN magazine that's about anime budgets, but the article is locked now and open to subscription only. Usually anime budget is a lot lower than american animation. Even some inconspicuous western series such as Sherlock Holmes in 22nd Century costs approximately a couple million US dollars per episode to produce, a lot higher than Japan production costs. But Sony specifically said they spent much more money to revive Astro Boy, and the animaton shows. Remember Miyazaki said in an interview that he quit TV animation in the early 80s because he couldn't muster enough budget to produce the quality animation he wanted. Hope this clarifies stuff up. Wareware 22:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion in what I was getting at in my statments. I was refering to radical animators who used completely different shortcuts to achieve different effects than most anime. I think that while Astroboy and SAC are a lot more fluid in animation than most anime due to higher budgets, they still use many techniques that are common to anime (though far less than a standard tv show like Naruto). I wanted to show examples that deviated from the norm to illustrate that anime isn't entirely unified in its style (which is a very common misconception). I'm not so sure about the level of deviation from the norm in regards to Astroboy and SAC.

I need an expert to help me out on this, I based the information I recieved on comments from a friend who is an animator, as well as Benjamin Ettinger's excellent anime blog (anipages daily). I need to ask Ettinger to retool this entire article, he'd provide much more solid information than any of us could in regards to production and history of anime, not so much on "fandom." I think a big problem with anime is that knowledge is extremely scarce, and misinformation combined with fan oriented glorification and exaggeration seems to rule the day.

Neilworms01:54 29, September (EST)

Pokémon info

I edited and then removed this: " Several video games, a manga series, McDonalds toys, soundtracks, five theatrical release movies, a couple of direct-to-video releases, and a trading card game (with some cards valued enough to be sold at $100 each) are only the most prominent of the money-making goods. With more than 300 "monsters" on the show, and the show’s slogan "Gotta catch em all" plastered on every package, there's no end to the market for action figures and character collectibles. There is even a store in New York City run by the owners of the Pokemon trademark dedicated to selling Pokemon-based goods."

If anything, it belongs in the Pokémon article. This article is already a bit detail-heavy. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I am currently mid-copyedit. My goal is to cut down on some of the excess detail that tends to be generated by excessive enthusiasm. I know from my experience with Tolkien articles that when you are very close to the subject matter, it is very difficult to keep track of how much of the information present may be extraneous. This article, at the moment, is so long and complicated, with so many detailed notes and references, that it is not as effective as it could be at communicating the information it contains. If I cut out something that actually was crucially important, please let me know! [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lists that are too long

The following lists are getting to be rather excessive:

• Several well-known Japanese animation studios
• List of non-Japanese anime distributors
• The list of "some of" the important conventions
• Notable names in anime

My concern is that the lists are starting to get in the way of the communication of the information in this article. Comprehensive lists in all four cases might be useful, but they should be in separate articles (especially the first two, which I am about ready to move to their own articles as they stand). Can I get some input from someone who actually knows which items on these lists are of sufficient significance? (The lists in this article do not claim to be comprehensive. They are supposed to be short and by definition should leave out many items that are of major secondary importance.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fully support what you are doing good luck :). I personally am someone who wishes to eliminate any fan oriented misinformation or idolitry (writing statements about how great an author or creator is - something an encyclopedia shouldn't do).

Good luck, and thank you for your contributions to this topic. As for more detailed information it probably should be linked outside this article. Yes I had the little issue with anipages daily, but in general I am fully supportive of your goal.

--Neilworms 16:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sub-category for anime series or terms

On Category:Anime, anime series are intermingled with anime terms, like chibi and shoujo. I think that one or the other (or both) should be split of into a sub-category of anime. The easiest route would be to re-categorize non-series articles as Category:Anime Terms, since there are far fewer of these than anime series. -- Khym Chanur 01:56, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

It would need to be Category:Anime terms, of course, but is that the best catch-all for such articles? Don't many of them apply equally to manga? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalizm

• How did yourevert the page back so quickly? Is there a revert button? I've been here almost a year, and I've never found it. -Litefantastic 15:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Administrators actually do have what basically amounts to a "revert button". For everyone else, the simplest way to do it is to pull up the last good version from the history page (like this, for example: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anime&oldid=7340459)), edit that page (the old one), and save it, which has the effect of saving over the vandalism. See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doraemon

Just curious... such an old series as Doraemon should deserve some kind of mention in this article. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 11:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People who pay a lot of attention to pages like these...

...should consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga. -Pyrop 00:36, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "anime" in the UK

"The word anime appears in written form in three katakana characters a, ni, me (アニメ). Japanese pronunciation is /ɑnimɛ/, but in the United States speakers typically pronounce the word as /ˈænɪˌmei/ and in England it is generally pronounced /ænɪmi/." -

As a resident of the UK, I have never heard anime pronounced the way described in the last sentence. We pronounce it the same as in the US. I corrected this, but it was deemed a "random deletion" and changed back. -ObsessiveTougaFan

• Well, I fixed it. Hopefully, no one will change it back again. Josh 01:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry; you should have said something in the edit summary beforehand. -℘yrop (talk) 04:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh no, you misunderstand. I did not make the first comment. That was by ObsessiveTougaFan. I didn't notice that he or she forgot to sign it. Josh 04:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Erm, what i said was directed towards ObsessiveTougaFan, not you. I should have made that clearer, perhaps. -℘yrop (talk) 05:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Anime TV series

"It is common for subsequent episodes to be completely unrelated to each other, so viewers can enjoy the show even if an episode is missed."

I'm not sure about this statement. What it sounds like it's saying is that the episodes in a TV series are episodic and have little to do with each other (makes me think of American sitcoms, for example). Personally, I have never experienced this, and all the anime TV shows I've watched are not in any way episodic and you do have to watch them all to get the full impact of the series. To miss one could be detrimental, because you would miss all the development (particularly in short 13 episode series). I understand that this is not true for all series, but neither is it "common." I didn't want to change it without seeing what others think, though. --Matsurika 18:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anime article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anime}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through and applied the changes this suggested. -℘yrop (talk) 18:43, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

History section badly needed.

This page badly needs a "History of anime" section (similarly, the History of anime page (currently a stub with virtually no information) needs to be expanded). There are but a small number of historical facts on this page, and if it's going to be encyclopedic it needs far more. -℘yrop (talk) 01:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

ænɪˌmei?

Somewhere in the main article, it said that in the UK and US, it is pronounced like ænɪˌmei sometimes. So is that pronounce eh-nee-mey? -User:Dara

That's written in the International Phonetic Alphabet. æ is like the a in "accent". -℘yrop (talk) 04:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

In australia, where I am, it's pronounced /ˈænəˌmei/, but that is entirely regular and does not need to be noted

Picture at top of page

I don't feel that the picture at the top of the article is clear enough. As someone who hasn't seen Ghost in the Shell, it took me at least a minute to figure out what it was. I passed it over to wikipedia's IRC channel and was informed that it was someone holding their arm in front of their face while falling into a vat of some water. I still think it's some kind of robot head, but that's another matter. The point is, if we're trying to educate about anime, the first image should be something indentifiable, like a standing character. It would at least give the viewer an example of what a person looks like in anime style. - Vague | Rant 08:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am not really sure what we should replace it with, though. Josh 19:54, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The most famous series, I think, would work for this might be something from Dragon Ball Z. I'd like to suggest something from Trigun, but it's not that very well know at the moment in America... among non-Anime fans. Dragon Ball Z has been around enough that the characters and art style can be picked up. However, another suggestion in mind is something from Spirited Away. Being that movie has received several awards, I think that is also equally recognizable. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those are all good ideas. I would favor something from Spirited Away, since it is probably the most well-known. Too bad I don't have the DVD. Josh 09:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. Philip Nilsson 11:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think what they're complaining about is that most articles have (or, at least, could have) a handy little picture at the top of the page showing what the article is about. The picture up there is trying to show that, but it doesn't really work, because not everyone's seen Ghost in the Shell. And I don't want DBZ either. I hate DBZ, and if you like it, that's really fine with me, but I don't. What we need is something that shows what anime is like without picking a single anime. -Litefantastic 17:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. What I don't get is the "still think it's some kind of robot head" part -- it *is* some kind of robot head! (well, at least last I checked) And for a replacement picture, I'd suggest something using the 80's style of animation, it's nice and quite animeish. I suppose something from the early-mid 90's would work quite well too. While we are at it, why not have pictures from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and present. I can't remember what pictures there are now... probably some mainsteam ones. Philip Nilsson

I agree that we should not put a screenshot from Dragonball Z, even though it is a pretty well known series. Currently, the page has pictures from Ghost in the Shell, Astro Boy, and Cowboy Bebop. I still think Spirited Away or another work by Hayao Miyazaki would be good for the top image, since his works are generally well known and well respected. Josh 02:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

...Another idea would be to just put the Astro Boy picture at the top of the article. Josh

True... I was going to suggest Doraemon actually, but I was not certain of its popularity. Perhaps a special picture describing the differences between Cartoons and Anime characters? Like a split? I was also thinking of the whole South Park special where they pretended to be ninjas and all that stuff. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the idea of using something from Spirited Away, since it's well-known and generally well respected by "serious" Western critics, and the art is typical enough to demonstrate some common features. I agree that the current images is too obscure (in the sense of "I had to look twice to figure out what it was supposed to even be") to be a useful snapshot illustration of the style (though it might be worth including later in the article as an example of the more technologically-inclined subdivision of anime). -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Idea: why not just show a little schematic of an anime character and a cartoon character side by side, to point out differentces (assumption made: everyone knows what cartoons look like). Or maybe something like that Leonardo da Vinci drawing showing how the guy with his arms out fits into a square and a circle. Just something so people with no idea what anime is can glance at it and get a basic idea. -Litefantastic 01:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of a schematic, it could be like one from a drawing tutorial book. Sadly, I lack the skills to be able to draw one though. Josh 06:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sailor Moon is fairly well know. And Pokemon, though people might confuse the anime with the card game. Yu-Gi-Oh appears to be popular among kids, and hence would also be somewhat know amongst their parents. -- Khym Chanur 03:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The initial picture on this article, above all, should be something that displays all the usual elements of anime style, in particular the way people are drawn. I don't feel Spirited Away is "typical anime" (Miyazaki kinda has a unique style), though it'd be good included further down the page somewhere. I'm a little worried putting one of the big series like Sailor Moon or Dragonball Z is going to encourage vandalism by children who feel the need to inform us that "THAT ANIME SUX U LOSERS", and this really, really shouldn't turn into a "my favorite anime should be at the top of the article" argument. Something from an earlier period may be appropriate, maybe Astro Boy (though he fits well in the "History of Anime" section)... -℘yrop (talk) 05:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't even mentioned my favorite anime series in this argument yet, and for just that reason. I agree that you're probably right about Miyasaki, though. Josh 06:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Me too" for "don't worry". I suggested things like Sailor Moon, Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh since they're likely to be be recognized by a large number of people who don't watch anime, though there is the chance of inviting vandalism by using well known anime. Hmmm, what about Speed Racer? -- Khym Chanur

That'll work. I think it was the first anime imported to the States, so we have the historical eliment there too. -Litefantastic 11:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speed Racer seems a definite choice. It's well known and it is embedded somewhat into American culture that it could be recognizable. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Josh 06:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea also. I'm a Ghost in the Shell fan, but the unclear image currently at the top of this article isn't a good representation of anime. Most people who haven't seen the GitS movie are clueless as to what is actually in that picture. Go Speed Racer go! -AngryParsley 10:41, Feb 06, 2005 (UTC)

On the article that cited us...

It seems somehow a credit to Wikipedia that the news article that cited Anime (as mentioned at the top of this talk page, link here (http://insidebayarea.com/searchresults/ci_2523506)) has an incorrect fact in it, which it got from a different website, and we have correct on our article (particularly, the entymology of the word "anime").

(Actually, in general it's not a very good article.) -℘yrop (talk) 05:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Manga sentence

Currently: Anime is influenced by the drawing style of manga, or Japanese comics.

I don't know, I don't like the wording of this particularly. I always thought, and was under the impression both anime and manga art styles influence each other, and also depends on the style of the artist as well. It is not always the case, I think, that mangaka are Japanese animators animating for an anime. In some cases, the character design is reflected upon the art style of the original mangaka... isn't it? Well, thing I have a problem with is that some anime is produce before the manga, and some manga is produced before the anime. Whatever the character design and art style is selected for whichever is produced first, it seems that becomes the basis for what influences the production of the next anime or manga series, or anime based on the manga, or manga based on the anime. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronouncation

• I was looking at the current online draft version (September 2003) of the Oxford English Dictionary, when I came upon something shocking. Observe their listing for the etymology of the word 'anime': Forms: 19- anime, animé. Plural unchanged. [< Japanese anime < French animé (in dessin animé animation, cartoon (1935 or earlier) < dessin drawing (see DESIGN n.) + animé, participial adjective < animer to animate: see ANIMATE v.).]. I suppose we finally have found a reliable source that supports the French etymology. (See the discussion at the top of the page.) It is a draft version, but I think it is still worth a comment. Josh 05:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The OED is not free of mistakes, and they are wrong in this citation.--Outis 08:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-Japanese anime?

The article for Wonderful Days describes its subject as "a Korean anime science fiction film". I'm wondering if I should change this to "a Korean animated science fiction film" -- is anime necessarily Japanese? Is it oxymoronic to speak of "Korean anime" (or "British anime", "South African anime", etc?) jdb ❋ (talk) 07:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There was a term I coined called "amerime", which was anime made in the West. The amerime page eventually got taken down because I'd made the word up, but there was general agreement that there was such a phenominon, if not actually such a word. Not sure if that helps you. -Litefantastic 23:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that anime refers to a style, not a nationality (or at least it can be used that way). Are there non-anime animated films made in Japan? (There are certainly non-anime films.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it depends on who you ask about it. According to AnimeNation's Ask John (http://www.animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=970), anime is Japanese animation and only that. I am inclined to agree with him, but I know some people (such as the editors at Merriam-Webster (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anime)) consider the definition to be a bit wider. Josh 00:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Although it can be considered an art style, the traditional sense of the word is strictly Japanese animation. Different artists have slightly different styles. For example, Initial D's art style differs greatly from something like Neon Genesis Evangelion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Think about it. "Non-anime animated film made in Japan" does not exist. Do you really need a reminder of what the word anime means and refers to in Japanese?--Outis 08:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anime is getting close to the point where it will cross an identity boundary. At the moment, anime is a specifically Japanese art-form. However, in the near future this will change. It will change because anime will cross a certain threshold of popularity, and it will, at that pont, go from being a Japanese pop-culture phenomenon to an international pop-culture phenomenon. In certain places, this boundary may already have been crossed. The way this phenomenon will be recognized for certain will be when a non-Japanese anime-style production becomes an international pop-culture phenomenon, popular in Japan as well. I believe it is only a matter of time before this occurs. At its heart, anime is an art-form. And, like any art-form, it is ridiculous to say that only certain nations can do it. Italians, Greeks and Romans were not the only true sculptors the world has ever seen, despite their prominence during ancient times and the Renaissance. So, though it may be correct, at this moment, to say that, 'so far, anime has only come out of Japan,' it is also good to understand that, especially given the rise in popularity of the art-form internationally, this way of things will soon change. Thus, it would be better, in my opinion, to take this into consideration within the context of the article. Some might argue that, 'a haiku is not a true haiku unless it is written in Japanese.' I would say that, 'a haiku is not a haiku unless it has the heart of a haiku.' And the heart of the art-form can be composed in any language. This is how I feel about anime as well. --Xaliqen 19:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Roman anime...cool. -Litefantastic 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think to most people, anime isn't art, it's cartoons for kids, made in japan. The current 'international anime' section, is quite frankly, confusing. If we want to address the issue properly, like in the Manga#International_Influence section. As for a personal opinion of the current wave of american anime imitations, I think pastiche has limited scope - if the US animation industry wants to get back on track, they should try doing new and interesting things again rather than just making poor copies. --zippedmartin 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not all images used are optimal

I think an article about visual art, which anime is, deserves a couple of very good images. Some of the currently used are not really the greatest. I'm not really a fan and I don't have much material, so I will provide just some notes:

• The image at the top should be perfect. The particular shot used is dominated by the big reddish area in the middle. The meaning of the situation depicted is uncomprehensible. There must be some better scenes in Cowboy Beebop.

• This image is confusing, especially regarding the caption. Which of the two persons is Lum? Moreover, it is not a still, it is a cover with a badly visible "Video CD" logo. The scan is grainy.

Missing image
Lum-Uresei-Yatsura.png
Image:Lum-Uresei-Yatsura.png

• This picture from Ghost in the Shell is very interesting, but the rip is fuzzy and, more importantly, it is unintelligible when downscaled. Why not just this girl character with her pokemon friend of sorts or whatever it is ;-)

(Image was substituted so it no longer makes sense here, deleting. Good job! Conf 13:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC))

• A big blue sphere with another red stain!

Missing image
Gatchaman_screen_capture.JPG
Image:Gatchaman_screen_capture.JPG

• A wallpaper? A sphere again! Nice girl, but hard to see. And it is fan art apparently.

Missing image
EG_Arjuna.jpg
Image:EG_Arjuna.jpg

Please don't feel offended anyone. I just think those particular images are not very useful here. Conf edit: 18:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

So, why don't you go out and find better images then? --Xaliqen 05:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably because he's not a regular editor of this article, or doesn't have a large knowledge base on anime. We should absolutely welcome this sort of criticism, especially when it comes from someone not familiar with anime (i.e. the sort of people this article should be aimed for), and he's absolutely right. Every single one of the current images Conf mentioned is at best sub-par, and we can do much better than this. -℘yrop (talk) 16:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but without giving at least a direction to go in in terms of the types of images he'd like to see, it's rather difficult to just go out and find new things. Now, of course, this is just my opinion, but I believe the criticism would be more constructive if there were some well-laid-out suggestions as to what should be done, and perhaps the specific types of images newcomers to the article would like/expect to see. Personally, I'd be happy to go and find some new images, but without some kind of suggestion, I'm not very motivated to. --Xaliqen 18:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters, i think we need:

• A pic showing a typical anime face
• A good pic from an "old" anime (maybe Doraemon or Astro Boy)actually, our current Astro Boy pic is very good, it should be kept.
• A good mecha pic

Any other really typically "anime" pictures would be useful, of course. Use your imagination. -℘yrop (talk) 19:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Aw, and here I was getting this pic. Oh well...

--Xaliqen 20:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the new mecha still is nice. It gives some idea about what are some animes like. The other image above also seems appropriate, and there is no other image in this style on the page. Ideally, I believe there should be intelligible, technically good and representative stills from different kinds of anime. Conf 20:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the Doraemon pic is great; i've added it in. We're on the right track.

Eventually i want to reduce the overlap between this page and History of anime and other anime articles, but we'll worry about that when we have a lot of images. -℘yrop (talk) 20:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. It's probably not like a lot of images is needed though, but rather, fine images. Conf 20:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Massive lists of anime in the 'Notable works' section

It's not to the point of being too large yet, but every day the lists of popular and ground-breaking anime grows a little larger. I think the possibility of the lists growing to be massive and unwieldy should be a concern. When I was concerned about this possiblity in the listings of popular manga in the Manga article, I made some instructions that the examples should be limited in number and be good examples of the genre. I don't know if something similar would be helpful here, but I think some sort of guidelines would be useful. Now, not everyone followed the instructions 'to-the-letter' in the Manga article, but this isn't really the point. The point is just to keep things down to a reasonable size so things don't get out of hand. --Xaliqen 00:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Maybe if there were a seperate article or articles some of the listings could be placed into that would be a better way to handle things. I definitely think some lists are important, but if it keeps growing then I think it would be a little excessive. --Xaliqen 01:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made various deletions as a fresh look at the lists, though I'm sure people will continue adding their favourites when they don't seen them there. Generally I've tried to keep a broad chronology in each catagory, with only one anime per 'big name'. When in doubt I've left as-is. List of changes, if people want to argue the case:

• Removed Jungle Taitei from 'Pioneer works' as second Tezuka. Noteable beyond connection to The Lion King?

Reading the page, 'first anime in colour' is probably worth keeping. Kinda hard not to just add everything Tezuka of course though... --zippedmartin 14:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Removed Galaxy Express 999 as third Leiji anime
• Removed Macross Plus, we've got SDF already. Personally, I don't see why that's is in space opera and gundam is in mecha though.
• Added Crest of the Stars to fill in the gap in the space opera 'recent anime' slot.
• Removed Voltron from mecha, corrected the Transformers date to take its place, seems more notable to me being a co-production with america and massive franchise.
• Removed King of Braves GaoGaiGar as rather late in the 勇者 series and not otherwise notable.
• Removed Battle Angel Alita from 'later classics'
• Removed duplicate Neon Genesis Evangelion and Pokémon entries
• Removed Memories as second Katsuhiro Otomo
• Removed Blue Submarine No. 6
• Removed Millennium Actress as Satoshi Kon has Perfect Blue in already
• Removed A Tree of Palme as it doesn't have an article, and they got the date wrong anyway.
• Removed Chobits as there are earlier CLAMP anime that are more 'classic' listed elsewhere
• Removed Tokyo Godfathers, Steamboy and Innocence as it's a bit too soon to call the classics, even later ones.
• Worried about how unbalanced this 'later classics' section is altogether
• Only three anime in 'Samurai-era anime', I'd add The Hakkenden maybe, but we lack an article, the Yotoden OVA likewise. For pre-80s stuff, I've not seen it but Ninpū Kamui Gaiden seems about right.
• Left fantasy and comedy categories, I don't think all the examples are very good, but there are a reasonable number at least. Actually, removed Final Fantasy: Legend of the Crystals as being far less relevant than the games.
• Added The Rose of Versailles to fill in the gap between 1973 and 1992 for shoujo, and Utena as it has a good wiki article.
• Removed the 'cooking anime' and 'horror anime' categories completly, when someone wants to think of more than a couple of titles for each they can add again.
• Thought about removing 'sports anime' outright too, starts in 1998... but instead removed Hikaru No Densetsu, think they meant Hikaru no Go? Added a dead link to Ashita no Joe so we've got some historical reflection here, and a live but-not-very-good-article link to Touch to cover the Adachi angle, hopefully a real sports anime fan can do better.

Right, that'll do for the moment, obviously still much to do, particularly when the credited person doesn't have a role given, highly confusing mix of directors and mangaka. --zippedmartin 03:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten Anime

It's important to note as well that just because an anime is popular (or main-stream) it doesn't denote by any means that it's sophisticated or complex, or that it should be in the same league as ones that are. For example, we wouldn't liken Dr. Seuss with Shakespeare, or imply they are the same caliber just because one may enjoy an equal or greater popularity than the other. EreinionMissing image
RAHSymbol.JPG


05:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone was specifically implying that popular works are always dusted with an aura of genius. At the same time, it is good to keep in mind that many popular works are good representative examples of anime as a whole and that, I believe, would be the primary reason they would be listed in the article. Naturally, the truly original works that may not always be as popular are extremely important, but making the distinction between what is more on the fringe versus what is more mainstream is important in the context of the article. So, I am fully supportive of a recognition of original works that may not receive as much fan support, but I also think these things need to be placed in proper context. --Xaliqen 08:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, the list-of-anime is there as an attempt to present a representative cross section of choronology and style. I think it's important both to have what might be considered 'ground breaking' works, and 'well known in the west' titles. I see Xaliqen has been continuing the much needed clean up, I don't agree with all of it but it's going in the right direction. But... er... could you edit a bit more at once? atm the history reads like the talk page... :D --zippedmartin 10:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I just wanted to edit one small thing and then I started realizing other things and it kind of went on like that for awhile. I was thinking what might be ideal is to have a number of sub-headings for various genres and then have a limited number of anime titles under each (say three, or whatever number people decide is best). I don't think my edits were perfect, but I think being more precise with the sub-headings and having less titles overall will increase the usefulness of this section in the long-term. In any case, let me know if you think this is a good strategy or if we should try doing something else. I realize some of the changes I made may be more controversial. I know especially there may be those who believe Samurai Champloo has a right to be placed under the Samurai-era sub-heading at this point. The reasons I decided to remove that title specifically were, among other things, that it has only been out for about a year and its place among the annals of the history of the development of anime has not yet been firmly established in my opinion. I'm not disputing that it may very well be a very influential anime, but at this point in time I think it's still too new to make this determination. Please, if anyone has any concerns and or criticisms regarding my edits specifically, then I am always open to hearing them. I simply make edits that I think may work better for the present moment and I am by no means perfect in doing so. --Xaliqen 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly an improvement. I'm not overly worried about Champloo not being in, I removed various other titles for being 'to recent', does mean the 'samurai section' is a little bare. I guess I should get off my ass and write an article for The Hakkenden, but not having read the book(s?) I don't know if I'm really qualified. Anyway, I might reshuffle things a bit again, the tail of the list isn't as good as the head. --zippedmartin 10:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I added Samurai Deeper Kyo to the section. I think this section is nicely filled-out now. I know that, for some, SDK might not be seen as the greatest example, but I feel it did bring certain new and original elements to the genre. This, combined with its popularity, made me feel it was appropriate to list it. If someone can think of a better example, then I'm not at all opposed to using that. --Xaliqen 15:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, did I not respond to this? SDK is a poor kenshin copy, I'd prefer Kazemakase Tsukikage Ran is we had to have something more recent, but as it goes out of it's way to be un-notable as possible is probably not really appropriate. --zippedmartin 17:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kazemakase Tsukikage Ran is a recent, well-done, original Samurai-era series, and not a bad introduction to the genre - imho at least. If SDK is just a Kenshin clone, I'd be inclined to switch it to KTR until something better comes along. Of course, it would be better if we actually had a KTR article.DenisMoskowitz 17:51, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

It occurs to me, what with the list/inclusion thing, that the main problem will be dealing with categorization and placement of titles. Especially with cases like Watanabe, who is always trying to merge genres to create new ones (which has never really sat right with me anyway). An example would be Samurai Champloo, like Xaliqen mentioned earlier. I think we'll have to come up with a way to properly catalog these new styles in a way that will be both functional and true. EreinionMissing image
RAHSymbol.JPG


02:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article reads like a list

Part of the article reads like a list... which is fine, but... it seems a bit excessive. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which sections are bothering you? If you're talking about the Notable Works section, we're already discussing that in the topic above. As for the other lists, they do seem to be getting rather lengthy. One possible solution may be to create a seperate article centered around anime studios and publishers worldwide. --Xaliqen 15:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've added the sentences "What follows is a short list of influential anime. ... A more comprehensive list can be found at List of anime." to the preamble on the Notable works section. Something similar could be used on the other lists in the article to direct contributors' attention elsewhere and possibly keep lists down to an appropriate size. - dcljr (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think your edits are good and certainly a step in the right direction. I agree with your idea about doing similar things for the other lists. --Xaliqen 05:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as a List of lists page is not needed it's all good. Philip Nilsson 20:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

To be more specific, the "Types of anime" could be broken into subsections and link to the main article. The "Genres" section could be more elaborated as several paragraphs rather than a list. The "Notable names in anime" section seems to be fine... but again, having it as a list bullet format seems more of a "list" than anything. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

International anime section (now removed)

I think this should really be a seperate article at this point. Rather than listing a bunch of examples of anime and anime-influenced works made outside of Japan, an article could be more in depth. As it stands, I think the list of International Anime only adds complexity and size to the already-too-large lists of anime. It's safe to say that, when most people visit the anime article at this point, they're looking for anime made in Japan. I propose cutting this section out of the current article and creating a new "International anime" article that can go into greater depth on the subject-matter. Perhaps there could be a link to the article somewhere close to the current list section. Though I believe that anime will, at some point, become a truly international phenomenon, the fact of the matter is that, when people speak of anime today, they are speaking of anime that is produced in Japan. --Xaliqen 23:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put my thoughts on the matter up in 'Non-Japanese anime?', really I think what's needed is a paragraph of sensible text rather than a list of (mostly american) imitations. But as I'm somewhat bias in this matter, I think I should stay well away from actually writing it. --zippedmartin 17:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think I'm the best person to write it either. I also think anyone who wants to talk about anime outside of Japan should begin in Korea and not America. Still, my area of knowledge extends primarily to Japanese anime. --Xaliqen 00:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What belongs in Notable works and how it should be limited

I've noticed that people like to add to the notable works section. This is great, but I think keeping in mind a few ground rules will make the process a bit better. Before going into any detail, I'd like to mention that I don't think whatever the ground rules are should be decided by one person alone So, if anyone disagrees with something I propose, then please feel free to debate with me here.

• First of all, I am all for explaining the phenomenon of International anime, but I don't think this description belongs in the primary anime article at this point. Furthermore, I think the phenomenon is done a disservice if it is listed in this article because a full explanation and details cannot really be given. As explained in the section above, I am fully supportive of any effort to create an article specifically centered around International anime.

• Second, I think it goes without saying that, in order to be considered a Notable work, an anime must meet more criteria than a personal preference for the show. There are probably close to a hundred different anime that I would love to introduce people to, but I don't believe this is the best format or the place to do so. It seems to me that, in order to be a notable work, an anime must be either remarkably popular, remarkably influential, remarkably unique/artistic, or remarkable in some other way such as having a massive cult-following (a good example of this being Dragon Ball Z). Obviously, it's even better if an anime fits several of the above criteria.

• In terms of adding more sub-headings, I, personally, am against doing so. There are already some sixteen sub-headings under the Notable works section. If each of these sub-headings eventually has nine titles, then that makes for a total of 144 titles listed. I think this is plenty (indeed, I think it may be too much, but oh well). Also, I think more sub-headings may just add more confusion to an already rather complex list.

• I believe any notable anime that is currently available will likely fit rather well into one of the sub-headings already present. If someone finds a truly outstanding anime that they don't believe really fits into any of the provided sub-headings, then perhaps that would be a good time to propose a new sub-heading on the talk page and see what people have to say. Honestly, though, pretty much any anime I can think of will fit into one of the sub-headings already present.

That said, I am always open to new ideas and will back anyone up who can demonstrate a better way to present and/or make the section more straightforward and easier to understand for newcomers to anime. Please feel free to comment and discuss. --Xaliqen 07:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. DenisMoskowitz 15:55, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

• First: Agreed.
• Second: I think the problem here is that due to the wikiway, people will *always* just add titles they like. Bar enforcing an (anti-wiki) policy of deleting any additions that aren't argued for on the talk page first, I don't see any easy way of dealing with this. The ultimate solution is probably going to be expanding the (quite dated in places) textual content of the article so that these lists become unnessersary.
• Third: I have a massive problem with some of the sub-headings as they exist at the moment. In particular, the shounen category could really be renamed 'adventure' anime or some such, as it completely fails to include a large aspects of anime made for that market (nothing Takahashi in the list, and no Love Hina or other romance/ecchi shounen stuff?), which are in other categories instead. I don't know if 'shounen anime' is synonymous with 'adventure anime' in the US, but I'd say that's 'wrong' usage. Likewise 'shoujo' anime is currently oddly split across film genres (drama, romance) and market (shoujo). The 'kodomo' and 'seinen' sections are pretty much useless (and ccs should be in the former, not in shoujo, according to the japanese wikipedia (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AD%90%E4%BE%9B%E5%90%91%E3%81%91%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8B%E3%83%A1#.E4.BB.A3.E8.A1.A8.E7.9A.84.E3.81.AA.E4.BD.9C.E5.93.81.EF.BC.88.E6.9C.80.E8.BF.91.EF.BC.89_2)). 'Popular recent anime' is a cop out, either we include it in the other categories, or resist the fanboi tendancy to think anything current is great and noteable. Basically, I think a choice needs to be made between organising by 'film genres' with a few anime-only additions (mecha, samurai, harem :) and target audience, I don't think they can sensibly co-exist.
• Fourth: I agree just adding more categories is not the answer. --zippedmartin 17:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with people adding titles that they like. But I do expect any additions to be reviewed by others who monitor this section. What is "notable" is obviously subjective, but I think that, generally, if someone can put up a good argument for a series, then it should be included. As always, I will delete something if I don't think that it fits the criteria. Naturally, if someone disagrees with me, then they can put the series back where it was and provide an argument, and, if it makes sense, then I won't mess with it further unless I can provide a good reason for doing so. I would encourage anyone who disagrees with my deletion of a series or other modifications I might make to talk with me about it because I'm always open to a good discussion.

I agree the shounen category could be more inclusive. Actually, at the moment, it pretty much only consists of series originally serialized in Shonen Jump magazine. So, I don't think the idea here was to limit what could be added to this section, but more that the series that were added were taken from pretty much the same source. By all means, please add series that would diversify this section.

As for Shoujo, I'd say in anime it's generally more difficult to typify than in manga. Possibly the best way to typify a series is to simply think about what the core focus is. If the core focus is about issues associated with adolescence and being a young woman, then it would seem to be a pretty good match for Shoujo. If the core focus is around a developing romance from a woman's or teenage-girl's perspective, then it would seem to be a good match for Romance. Naturally, there are problems here because more and more series are blending different inspirations and genres. And Shoujo, just like Shounen, is really less of a genre and more of an artistic and storytelling style. Thus, I would say, that if a Shoujo or Shounen series fits better under one of the genre headings, such as Romance, then that's probably the best place to put it. But there are certain series (personally I would say series like Utena and Sailor Moon) that really represent a certain aspect of Shoujo well, and I think it's good to place these under the Shoujo heading so that newcomers can perhaps begin to understand the differences, say, between a Shoujo anime and a Shounen anime. Please move any series you think don't belong under a certain section. I'd say the more devoted to cleaning and sorting out this section the better. This way, we can eventually reach a pretty good consensus of what the section should be.

I think the Kodomo section serves a purpose in that there are many anime aimed at a pre-adolescent audience and this provides a place for them. I don't like the Seinen section very much. I think it should be removed because all of the anime typified as Seinen would probably fit well under other categories as well. I think CCS is possibly borderline Shoujo and Kodomo. The target audience for the series seems to be middle-schoolers and older elementary schoolers. So, that's bridging the gap between childhood and adolescence.

As for the Current popular anime section, basically, I saw a tendency for certain major hit series to be added. While these series have not yet found their place in the history of anime, I felt there probably should be some sort of outlet for these recent big hits. I put down some pretty strict rules for this section. I'd say someone would be pretty hard-pressed to come up with something that's not in the section already and fits the criteria. In other words, only the most popular recent anime are allowed there. Once the year expires, the series or movie must be taken down and go through the remaining dormant period of two years, just like all the other series, before they can be considered for being placed in one of the other sections. I thought this was an OK compromise, but I'm also fine if you want to remove the section.

So, that's some of the reasoning behind my recent edits. I think, once this section is cleaned up a bit more, it can be quite useful for newcomers to anime, and this is really what I think should be kept in mind as one of the primary goals. --Xaliqen 23:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note I agree with pretty much every edit you've made, and have myself been removing (with a note to bring to the talk page for discussion) titles I don't think should be there. I just worry whether it's more effort sustaining a sensible list than it's worth. Particularly as the entire top half of the article are really in need of expert attention - the history of anime page is much better than the summary here, and the characteristics section has seen too many cooks. However, bar the problem of trying to combine genres with what's really target audiences, I think the list *is* looking a lot better than it was when we started poking it. Oh, and it's not that I think that titles are under the wrong headings, it's that I think the current mix of genre and audience mean that far too many titles could justifiably belong under several headings. --zippedmartin 00:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Kodomo" and Howl's Moving Caste

To explain my earlier edits, I added a macron to the "kodomo" words in the article because it seemed like the right thing to do. Only later is that I noticed that's not the way the romanization is done. That last syllable is indeed stronger, but it's not a oo/ou case. I had forgotten that. I would have corrected that today, but someone did it first. Sorry.

As for adding Howl's Moving Castle to the Ghibli category, it seemed perfect fine to me. I didn't knew that everything added to "Popular recent anime" has no place on their correct category. I actually think that should be re-thought. Doesn't make much sense to me, and I think that everyone to sees that has an uncontrollable urge to add those animes to the categories they belong, instead of just that one.--Kaonashi 20:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole idea of the "Popular recent anime" section has been called into question. I stand by my sentiments that, in order to truly be notable, an anime must find its place in history and this really takes a few years to happen. Despite the fact that Howl's Moving Castle is a Ghibli work and almost every Ghibli film ends up being notable in some way, I believe it should still go through the process like all of the other titles. It's the same idea of listing notable media under any topic. It would be inappropriate to add "War of the Worlds," for instance, to a list of notable movies just a year after it's been released. This is because it will really not have found its place in film history by then. However, listing it under a "popular recent movie" category would most likely be fine. In any event, that's my perspective. --Xaliqen 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have renamed it to "Contemprary classics". I think this may be more suitable and agreeable in the mean time, atleast until we can agree upon something better. EreinionMissing image
RAHSymbol.JPG


21:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)