Talk:Negima!: Magister Negi Magi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Negima!: Magister Negi Magi 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Looking to help? Check out the Anime and manga To-do:


Contents

[edit] Archive

Past Discussions on this page can be found in the archives.

Archive: 1, 2

[edit] Latin translation

Adeat isn't a mistake. The article is right that it's not the imperative, but Adeat is the jussive subjunctive, it's still a command (article implies a screw-up, its not, if one command's a third person (ie he she it) then its properly done).

[edit] Love Hina is not "H" manga per se

Just a bit of nitpicking, but the sentence, "known for his best selling ecchi titles, specifically Love Hina." is misleading. Akamatsu may be known for his best-selling "H" titles (and hyphenate best-selling, _please_), but Love Hina, to my knowledge, is not one of them. I believe this would be better as "known for his best-selling hentai titles and the pseudo-harem comedy series Love Hina." Believe me, if you're looking for hentai involving Love Hina characters, it's not to be found in the series itself... althought there are some great dōjinshi ^_^

Hentai and Ecchi are not the same thing.. Shiroi Hane 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, they are pretty much the same thing. ecchi is the Japanese pronouciation of H and H is short form of Hentai. MythSearcher 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Compare the articles for Hentai and Ecchi, in particular "The term Ecchi is applied to anime or manga that has vague sexual content (such as skimpy clothing, partial or full nudity), but does not show sexual intercourse." Shiroi Hane 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Than those articles need to be corrected. "The term Ecchi is applied in anime or manga that has vague sexual content (such as skimpy clothing, partial or full nudity), but does not show sexual intercourse." In anime and manga, characters(mainly girls) use the word H to imply such lesser thoughts of another character. However, in real life, Japanese people uses H as a prefix to indicate Hentai titles. There is no such word as ecchi in Japan, only H and Hentai. and H is the short form of Hentai without altering it's meaning. MythSearcher 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the word 'ecchi' exists in Japan since this is the English wikipedia, and, while it may not be in the Oxford dictionary, ecchi surely has a much validity in English anime&manga terminology as Otaku does. Shiroi Hane 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a big problem since the meaning of a word is widely misunderstood and then mistakenly used. I have changed the article a little bit to make it more neutral with the words. MythSearcher 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
ecchi comes from hentai, but they are two different words. hentai is much stronger. ecchi simply refers to an unbecoming interest in sexual matters. 90% of the time it is written in phonetic katakana as エッチ, not as Ｈ. hentai has a meaning closer to "pervert". There is something scary about hentai, but nothing particularly threatening about ecchi. Thus the division in the English usage. Scribelrus 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is mistaken, then don't use it. It causes confusion when people with more Japanese cultural base read it. The comment is not necessary in the article either. MythSearcher 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In short, ecchi<hentai, even though ecchi evolved from the word hentai, so to speak, as the letter H. Ecchi for the most part is usually used to refer to things with sexual undertones, but nothing blatantly sex. Hentai on the otherhand, is basically pornography, to some degree. Love Hina is definitely not H material, but it definitely qualifies as an ecchi manga/anime.Goldy496 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More pages?

How about more pages? In my opinion the mainpage of Negima is too big. I Suggest:

Feel free to update the list. Gameslinder 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I support. I also think it is better that way. MythSearcher 02:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about seperate article for the anime, but Negima (anime) would be a better title. Shiroi Hane 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be indeed a better name. We could also reactivate the Talk:Negima/Timeline page in a Timeline_of_negima or something. I came up with the idea for the anime page for the information that's specific about the anime, such as List of Episodes, Opening/Ending Songs, Note on Color Changes, Anime Revisions. It's also possible to sepparate the manga too in a Negima(manga) but i think that's an overkill, because in fact the manga is what negima's all about. Gameslinder 07:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The anime is significantly dfferent in plot from the manga, and it would be nice to note how. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.26.169 (talk • contribs) .

I have created pages like List of Items and Artifacts in Negima and Magic in Negima. The size of the article is finally less than 32kb. Currently it is unnecessary to create the page Negima(Anime). MythSearcher 03:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the character pages were divided into a seperate lot, but it's inefficient and more sloppy than keeping everything on one page (id est, if I were looking for a character with CTRL+F, I would likely have to sort through at least two articles rather than one). I propose combining the three sections back together, with only a header indicating the class number distinctions...heck, not even that is needed, as all the characters have their class numbers on their biographies. Terek 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New anime episodes confirmed

On a foldout page in Weekly Shônen Magazine issue 13 (released March 1), Kôdansha officially announced two new anime based om Mahou Sensei Negima! will be produced. Production will be moved from Xebec to Shaft and will feature the creative talents of Akiyuki Shinbo (director) and Kazuhiro Ota (character designer), the team that produced Pani Poni Dash! Spring Edition, one of the new Negima anime will be screened at a Negima event held by Kôdansha and King Records at Tokyo Kôseinenkin Kaikan on April 23rd. A discussion featuring voice actresses from Negima will also be a part of the event. The application coupon to attend the Negima event is included in Weekly Shônen Magazine.

Source: Anime news network.

Picture 1. Picture 2.

Let's now try to not panic because of the new art style (the nose!) Gameslinder 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] character couplings

It is unreferenced and is pure speculation (which means no reference could be found and will never have reference until the story ends.) Wiki's policy is against this kind of article and we should not let it be there just because some fans like their flavourite characters coupled. I will remove this section right away and if anyone have a legitimate reason of adding it back discuss it here. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. MythSearcher 04:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

do u hav any good info on Negima the Game? ES Kotaro 02:39, 26 June 2006 (HA

HA HA HA HA, Hey Kotaro, that question of yours is never gonna get answered is it? HA HA HA HA HA!!

No. KatariG4 1 June 2006

[edit] United Kingdom publisher

It appears that the mangas will be published, starting on the 3rd of August, by Arrow Books. Arrow Books appears to be linked to the same parent company as Del Ray is, so I wouldn't be surprised if the translations are exactly the same. So far, I only have sources from shops such as play.com, WHSmith and one other that I can't remember, but they all say the same thing. [1] I'm trying to find a more official source.

If someone wants to add this information to the main article, please do so. Bennity 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Found some more information: http://forums.booktrade.info/showthread.php?t=540 Seems they will be released under "Tanoshimi", not Arrow Books. Bennity 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article, it mentions that the manga in the US was shrink-wrapped, in the UK it isn't. Does that mean that we have an edited version? Peter shillito 18:17, 27 October 2006 (GMT+1)

[edit] Formatting and Speculation

Tsk, tsk. This article has become quite the mess since I was last here, ahh, circa January 2006. I'm not sure what everyone has been fiddling with, but I would propose reverting back to the one-article with condensed biography layout that was here back then. What I see now are three divided articles with poor markup alignment, excessive biographies and too much speculation. Massive clean-up is demanded (not even suggested), though I won't do anything without authorization by consensus first.

Furthermore, reduce the speculation, considerably. Yes, "fans" may be short for "fanatics", but influencing the opinions of other people is immoral because they internalize what they read, only to get disappointed with what the author actually writes. This is especially true on Wikipedia, where opinions are frequently veiled as "factual", as opposed to a forum with overtly identified speakers (we know these denotions as "screen-names"). The typical heuristic is to only "speculate" on something that seems obvious (Chao-Negi relationship, I mean, DUH) and simply "state" what has happened in the manga and let the reader formulate his/her own views on the matter. Suggestivity is not recommended, either; Wikimedia strives toward an objective of impartiality in presenting information. Terek 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say separating is a good thing, the only problem is the long character description with no one wanting to actually going through them to edit out the speculation part and IP users and vandalists keep coming back to add stuff into it. Most of the speculation has been deleted already (e.g. the character coupling section and the character comparisons without references) and the article size reduced. I have actually tried to minimize the article size of the original copy, but finding it impossible to fit everything within 32kb (or 26kb whatever is the wiki suggested size) even if we only keep three lines of description for every character. If you are willing to do anything to edit separate pages, please do it. However, if you want to merge everything back to one page, try to mix everything in one article and look at the size first. I tried to keep everything I write to be what is shown on screen and nothing is speculated and that is what I can do most. MythSearcher 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The seperation of an article sharing the same content is superfluous; it only serves to clutter up Wikipedia by adding multiple pages, which are inconvenient for the average reader. As such, the only prospect for rationale for those articles would be "length" reduction, which I now see is because few are willing to spend the time to edit the biographies. I'll do something for this format in June 2006, after I finish polishing/fixing up Fate/stay night. No definite promises yet, though.
The speculation I was citing are the usually related to love/sexual relationships between Negi and his students, which is utterly unsupported (mutually) because Negi is just a child. As such, instances should be simply stated without inferences to allow the reader to formulate his/her own opinions of the matetter (see my previous entry). After looking at the articles a bit more carefully, it seems as if the entire Negima series is being condensed into the character biographies; this shouldn't be the case. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, not an answer book; what is the purpose of buying the original volumes if all the information can be found in one place? Ergo, details of what has happened should be truncated...ahh, heck, I'll tear apart Setsuna's biography as an example. Terek 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I had already clear out the entirely biased character coupling section a month or two ago. No doubt work needed to be done, but time is needed. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. probably you made a typo up there :)
I hardly have the time to dig into every biography of those characters and can bearly have time to revert the vandals these days. Hope some one else can have more free time to do so. Also, as I have stated above, even if we cut the length of the character section to only 3 lines for each character, the length is still too long to be fit back into this main Negima article. The most we can do is probably fit them back into one character page instead of 3. MythSearcher 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia, despite the Wikimedia Foundation's claims, is not an encyclopedia; it's a public debating forum that hosts dubious information of questionable validity. I can trust an encyclopedia is written and verified by experts; I cannot do the same for Wikipedia. As such, it is up to the editors to clean things out and gain back the confidence of casual readers.
In regard to the editing effort, so long as my edits are not reverted with fuss, I'll prune/rewrite the whole lot of biographies in June, provided I finish Fate/stay night and pass my college exams. Once finished, I'll remerge everything back into a manageable one article character page. Terek 05:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I had already worked through the entire character list more than one, before the article was split. Unfortunately I already have a full time job and that one pays more... Shiroi Hane 18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Some real life trademarks were changed ... Somy (Sony) ... Trademarks that were not changed, however, include Sony ???

I suppose it's possible it was used both ways, and I have not seen every episode. But normally if legal is involved it'll be one or the other.

I vaguely remember seeing both spellings in the manga. Perhaps I'll look it up. Shinobu 15:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon/Manga

No means to be rude since I too was sorta wondering why I was pulled into talking about stuff that has nothing to do with Negima, however I also notice that no one even paid attention to his main question "Does anyone know any information on the Negima games?". Besides, wanting to know why Kotaro wasn't in the anime or what people think about that IS a worthy topic. Now once again, where the hell is Kotaro in the anime?!!! He's like Negi's only rival! Every main character has a rival or an evil match(look-a-like) or both! T_T Eh heh heh heh. Axidous 22, July 2006

He's not in there because of trouble changing directors, resulting in only 2 episodes for the Kyoto arc (the new director wanted to use the last X episodes for an actual ending). They had to cut some stuff out, and since there wouldn't be time for his reintroduction later in the Wilhelm arc, he could be omitted without much damage overall to the story. Biolizard 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay but what about when they first started making the cartoon? This is just my opinion ut the characters look a little ugly in the anime. Biolizard? From Sonic? Axidous 10, August 2006

[edit] Trivials

I was wondering in the manga, that the mangaka added some twist like when negi (adult version) was in a date with asuna, the store said "Starbooks coffee" *Starbucks?* Also in going back when koutaro was looking for negi (the memory loss problem), natsumi was wearing a shirt saying "Mardock Scramble" which seems to be a novel/anime thats going to be airing?

Just those two, correct me if i'm wrong, anyway else i think i want to contribute a little in this article of negima :) --David Gonzalez 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ako also wore a shirt with the title The Place Promised in Our Early Days, the name of an anime movie. There's really no point to add each of these little things to the Trivia section. Biolizard 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move to "Negima!"?

To help differentiate between this and it's spin-off Negima!?, does anyone else think this page be moved to "Negima!"? Both Del Rey and Funimation use it for their releases of the series. Biolizard 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That would actually differentiate them less, since then there would only be a question mark between them. Shiroi Hane 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it is that keeping the article as "Negima" makes it seem like a general article for both series, or could be for either. Bothering to add the "!" would make it cleaer for which it is for. Biolizard 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewers may not understand the small difference. Axidous 19, August 2006

But real fans will totally understand the huge difference. Anonymous 1, September 2006

I meant when staring off the search. Especially for those who just barely discover Wikipedia, they may search "Negima!?, Negima?, Negima!, Negima, negima!?, negima?, negima!, or negima". They don't know what they HAVE to type in order to see a certain thing until they find ONE, read all about that part of the subject, and then go to search it. No offence to anyone but a real fan may have problems. If you are a major fan of omething you are weak to it as if it had power over you. You should keep anyone and everyone from controling you in your life. Not that a cartoon can really do anything but I ill not go crazy enough to even say I admire something or love someone. Call me dark spirited but I'm really equality in the favor of all. But sorry cause this bottom half was completely off topic AND had nothing to do with the article. Axidous 4 Sept 2006

[edit] When where and how?

== Um when does Negima air? Does it air in Canada? If so where do you think it airs? How can we watch it? ==



                        signed: Miss i like to mess things up for yall

[edit] Gainax??

In the Gainax artcile it was(or is not sure) listed that Gianax produced/made this anime, but here that is not listed anywhere. What is true? did Gainax make this or not? If they made this please put that here( I didn't edit it becuase I am unsure), but I don't think that Gainax made this in anyway . This is something that should be brought to all of your attentions.

Somewhere along the line, it was mistranslated that Gainax was working on the second series. It's actually a company called GANSIS. 72.64.58.182 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much. I was unsure on that. I just wannted to bring this to everyone's attention.

[edit] To whoever care about Negima and related topics

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Dragonball Z in Negima. The questioned article is totally POV, unreferenced and have no verifiable source(similar pictures from the manga itself is not a verifiable source since human beings all have similar pose when doing similar actions.) MythSearcher 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong use of template?

EnglishTitle=Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur
JapaneseTitle=A Friend in Need Is a Friend Indeed

Doesn't this strike anyone as odd? Shinobu 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it's something you'll only see in edit view I fail to see a problem. If you want to clone a specific Negima episode list template with LatinTitle and EnglishTitle I won't stop you, but it seems a little pointless when the end result looks the same. Shiroi Hane 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pactio Cards

Has anyone else noticed how reminiscent of Mucha the pactio cards are? For instance, compare Evangeline's card to Mucha's Crescent Lady (especially round the hair) - the thick pen around the outline, and then the thinner one on all the inside detailing. Does anyone think that they were inspired by Mucha's paintings (in the same way that the pictures at the front of the Sailor Moon Scout Guides are), or is it just me reading too much in? Well Drawn Charlie 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not concern the article at all. No official information stated about this and due to wiki's policy, no speculation should be used in the articles. Therefore, looking alike does not need to be written into the article. MythSearcher 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you're right. Sorry. Well Drawn Charlie 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Just so nobody freaks out or anything, I moved all of the trivia to http://www.anime-wiki.org/index.php/Mahou_Sensei_Negima! if you, for some reason, still feel that it's needed information. However, all of that trivia was just noting cameos and such, which we don't need. For further reading, see WP:TRIVIA. I also removed a lot of sections that merely said "Main article at ..." These are linked to in the template box, and thus don't need extra space in the article unless a paragraph can be written to go along with it. --SeizureDog 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the episodes are now at List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi episodes List of Negima episodes.--SeizureDog 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

Freaks out: You do realize the effort some persons did for the trivia section don't you? The trivias are there to better inform the reader as to the referenced sources the author took for his work.--ReddyRedWolf

Which is why I didn't just outright delete it. And those aren't "referenced sources" the author used, they're just homages. Trivial, if somewhat interesting, allusions to popular culture. Most of them refer to things that only happened in one panel. Now if there was some kind of major reference the series kept up, such as every character being named after a celestial object, then that could be worked into its own little section. What was listed however, isn't notable. --SeizureDog 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Not notable? The trivia is there to better inform the reader on the material. Not everyone can identify so and so. It is pertinent information. It also contains information on the characters. Don't go editing out entire sections ReddyRedWolf

The reader's understanding of Negima! is completely unaffected by the fact that he didn't know that Mitsune Konno appears in the background of one panel. This sort of thing is completely non-notable and I don't even see why I have to agree about it. "Trivia" itself means "unimportant matters" (m-w.com), and in terms of the series as a whole, this is about as unimportant as you can get.--SeizureDog 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say if it is trivia about somebody or some fictional character appearing in another series, it is better to include it in that person(or character) page instead of the series page? Sounds more like that person having an impact on other series, not the other way around. MythSearchertalk 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In the very least, these "trivia" bits need to be lumped together. All the cameos should be in one subsection, all the Love Hina references in another. Kyaa the Catlord 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Response

What on earth is that? it is just some critics POV, not encyclopedic and totally original research of that person. Especially this is the style of the mangaka since day one, even in Love Hina and series before that like AI. When did this become a major issue? Also, a web site review is totally not reputable and thus should not be used as a source. I will be deleting that section now. MythSearchertalk 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but The Comics Journal is a published magazine and has about the most reputable critical opinion you're going to find. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain personal opinions, but opinions by established critics is something we are supposed to have. Just because it is negative is no reason to delete it. I shall be restoring it. If you still wish to fight me on this, we should debate in on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga for other members' opinions.--SeizureDog 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea it is published. Now as the source is given, then I guess it could stay. However, I must say that critic obviously have no knowledge on what style Ken Akamatsu draws in, and is purely POV on that topic without enough research. MythSearchertalk 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well duh it's POV. That's what critics do, give their POV. And if he said nothing about the drawings being different. He was talking about how the story was presented. Love Hina = 18ish guy being surroung by cute girls; Negima! = 10-year-old being surrounded by cute girls. His arguement was that having the central character be prepubesenct underminded all of Akamatsu's good points. Read more carefully. --SeizureDog 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, the manga is targeted to the same audience, most don't care what the target is, the nudity is shown to attract audience, not the main character, and nudity is one of Akamatsu style from day one. (not counting his Doujin H-manga) I am talking about his style of story, having more fan service than necessary style, not his drawing ability. MythSearchertalk 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, you should probably work on finding a positive review to balance the section out. As much as I agree with the viewpoints made, I don't like the only opinion in the article being negative.--SeizureDog 12:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't care whether it was published or not. Just using one person's view in a critical response section is just POV. I'm not trying to be a fanboy here, but if you're going to bash a series without repersentation of the other side, at least cite multiple sources while doing so.BrendantheJedi 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just said that. Find a credible review.--SeizureDog 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I think you're right. The Critsism section needs to stay. There seems to be an edit war going on here. Still, instead of silencing the opinion of the lone hater, could someone use Lexis-Nexis or something, and find a positive review of the Negima manga? I know they exist, but this is matter of lazyness/lack of resources. BrendantheJedi 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity is needed in the article not subjectivity. This is not a book review ReddyRedWolf

[edit] Let's try to come together here.

I'm here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga by request from SeizureDog for mediation. This is one of the steps in the dispute resolution process. Hopefully we can resolve this before this matter would need to be taken up by the Arbitration Committee.

First off, let's remain civil. Nothing here is intended as a personal attack on each other, or the subject involved.

With that, let's look at the article in question. First off, Wikipedia:Manual of Style explicitly states in Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles that "Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." This is a Wikipedia guideline. I understand that there has been a lot of work done on this section, and as such, the information should be included in the rest of the article so that the work is not lost.

Secondly, there is no need to edit out profanity in the article. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not censored. In this case, the F-Word is taken from a direct quote, and should remain.

Third, regarding the NPOV complaints regarding the Comics Review article, it does not violate the policy to include sources from a POV standpoint, as long as the article itself remains NPOV. It can be argued that by not including negative information it imbalances the article the other direction. Many articles include a "Criticism" section that addresses the opposing POV without giving the POV undue weight. The answer to the negative article is therefore a positive article. If a positive article cannot be found, then maybe the article is not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia having an article under current Wikipedia:Notability guidelines.

Just some things to consider, hopefully we all can get along? --RoninBKETC 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critisism

To avoid Arbitration, I think instead of starting an edit war, how about we try and work this out. Deciding that Negima does need an objective look, I agree with Seizure Dog, at least partially. So how ever-else cares about this article, I suggest you please help look for a positive view of Negima! BrendantheJedi 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I do have one suggestion. Most of the reviews I've been seeing so far in my search have are usually on the early end of the series; usually during the first volumes of the manga, and the entirety of the first Negima Anime. I suggest looking elsewhere, when the plot has soldified. BrendantheJedi 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/g/Talk%7ENegima%21%7E_Magister_Negi_Magi_3d94.html"