Talk:Blade of the Phantom Mask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Blade of the Phantom Mask: edit · history · watch · refresh

In order of importance:

  • Add manga and anime information
  • Note differences between anime and manga characters, if any
  • Include historical, mythological & folklore references in relevant sections
  • Add manga story arc summaries?
  • Find page number in manga for author notes regarding classic novel/manga tone comparison
Blade of the Phantom Mask is part of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Note: The wikiproject does not consern itself with purely non-Japanese works. This series has been included because it includes a Japanese anime movie.

[edit] Clarification

Even though the artist and illustrator are both Korean, the comic series is first published in Japan, not in Korea. Does this make it a manga or is it all right to leave its categorization as a manhwa? -- 9muses 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. Never mind. -- 9muses 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By one definition, that actually makes it manga. Those who draw manga need not be Japanese, the requirement is that it's first published by a Japanese company in Japan. --GunnarRene 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Section

I added subheadings to this section in an attempt to organize it. Hopefully this won't become too unwieldy. I admit the split between main and supporting is arbitrary though, so I'm very open to shifting them around. I did make a point to include characters who, though they only appear for a few pages, play a significant in the story development. (For example: Mong Ryong, who was Sando's lover and whose headband Munsu wears.) -- 9muses 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I haven't seen the anime, so I don't know if there are any differences between the comic and anime characterizations. These descriptions are based on the comic depictions. If someone has seen the anime, please point out any variations. -- 9muses 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I have not watched or read either, so I put up an expansion request for you. :-) --GunnarRene 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) From what I've read of the anime, it appears to only cover events shown in the first volume so there's a good chance only Munsu, Sando, Mong Ryong and Bun Haku Dou will have anime counterparts. -- 9muses 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's never explicitly stated (at least until the end of volume 6, which is as far as I've read) what Miss Hwang's sando is, just that it's "special." It looks a lot like a small Eastern-styled dragon, but it's definitely not an ordinary animal. -- 9muses 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical & Folklore References

A few questions:

  • Would including the real-life historical and folklore references be considered trivial?
  • If they were to be included, would it make more sense to group them all under one heading of historical & folklore references or spread them throughout the various sections? Meaning, character inspirations would be included in the character profiles and story inspirations in the manga section?
  • All of that would be cited, of course, because luckily In-Wan Youn includes detailed author notes about who's based on what at the end of each chapter/story arc. I think that's okay to reference, right? I'm correct in interpreting that it doesn't count as original research because the writer flat out says, "This is based on that" or "I just stole that name because I liked it"? I know we're supposed to use secondary sources when possible, so care would definitely be taken not advance any position since this information comes from a primary source.

Suggestions and input would be appreciated. :) -- 9muses 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can include the information and cite it. It's not trivial as long as you show discression in what you include and don't go too far into the details. You could go with either way of including it, but as you present it, it seems you are most in favour of spreading them, and I tend to agree with that. At least, please avoid making a "Trivia" section. --GunnarRene 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. And yes, the main reason why I was leaning towards spreading the references was because grouping them together would make it seem too much like a trivia section, which I don't particularly care for. Thanks. -- 9muses 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)