Talk:Anime/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Too Many Errors on this page

There needs to be organization, the anime page is a MESS. We have romanized Japanese titles mixed with English titles. I think there needs to be a system where the anime is listed as it's Japanese name, followed by romanization, and then the English title after that. It is very very confusing and unencyclopedic for it to be jumbled like this. I'd be willing to help clean this up... but I'm not going to do it all on my own... we also all need to agree to it or else trolls will just throw a fit and change things around to suit themselves. natsukigirl 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to see the proposal towards the bottom of this talk page to split the article up and "kind of" merge it with List of anime. As far as Japanese/English titles, if there is an official licensed English title, you should use that. If a title is not licensed in an English-speaking nation (and thus has no official English language title), Japanese should be used. This is an extension of the naming conventions, which states "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." RADICALBENDER★ 20:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't buy that. English speakers who do not know the American titles DO EXIST (Maybe someone gave them the original title and they need to look up what the English is, or perhaps some people may be wanting to learn Japanese and be searching for the original title)... therefore the original titles should be included along with the translated title. To not do this would be unencyclopedic and is also going against the wiki NPOV. natsukigirl 20:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
On the chance that someone happens to know the Japanese title but not the English title, they will search for the article directly and, in that case, we redirect original Japanese titles to the English article title counterpart (like Shin Seiki Evangelion). Otherwise, the articles are perfectly fine for featuring the Japanese title. There's no need to feature them in the list and clutter it up further. It has absolutely nothing to do with being encyclopedic or NPOV. RADICALBENDER★ 20:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Better example: Shingetsutan Tsukihime (which used to be the main article) now redirects to Tsukihime, Lunar Legend, which is the official title of the American DVD release by Geneon. If someone remembers the title as "Shingetsutan Tsukihime," they type that in the search box and, boom, they're at the proper article. RADICALBENDER★ 21:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Still not buying it. My initial point was that it's jumbled up, some of the list is romanized, some is English only. There needs to be both. It doesn't matter of each individual page has all the details, the list must carry the basic titles. the ORIGINAL and the translation. Also, it's a way of confirming that you have the correct item. For example, I saw "His and Her Circumstance" on the list... and and I had to do look it up to find out it was actually "KareKano" that means that the list is unencyclopedic, NOT useful, cumbersome. The idea is to not have to jump around all over. So yea... not only should there be both, as it stand, the list is a jumble of different formats... it needs to be streamlined, regardless of what is decided. natsukigirl 22:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
And yet, had you searched for Kare Kano, His and Her Circumstances or Kareshi Kanojo no Jijo, you would've found the correct place each time. No one is going to come to anime or list of anime to find a particular anime title, so arguing about the merits of including both languages just because some titles have English titles and others have Japanese titles is moot. They will go search for the article. Don't make this article another example of poor information design by adding a bunch of superfluous information. I'm through debating this. RADICALBENDER★ 23:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
So... you disagree that an ENCYCLOPEDIA should be NEAT and ORGANIZED and INFORMATIVE? You're a lost cause then, I'll get some people together, clean it up, and that will be that. I sincerely doubt your usefulness to wikipedia. natsukigirl 23:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
There's no reason for personal attacks. I can see that in the case of someone looking to see if their favorite anime is in the list, having both names helps streamline this page. However, that's not the purpose of this page - this page is for people who want to learn more about anime in general, and the list is for people who want more information on a particular genre. It is organized into genre, having one name instead of two for each title keeps it more neat, and it's informative by providing examples. As for coming up with a consistent rule for what title is used, there is one: we use the name of the Wikipedia article. DenisMoskowitz 15:31, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
there's no need to exaggerate the situation. I'm simply pointing out a wikipedian who doesn't agree that everything should be NPOV. Learning more about an anime in general INCLUDES the original title for so many reasons it's appauling that no one can understand that. IT's neat, but VERY unencyclopedic to not place both names together. What is so difficault about putting the actual title next to the English translated version? since this is English Wiki, then English would naturally go first, but leaving out the original title is unencyclopedic. And for the LAST TIME, as the page is CURRENTLY it's a jumble of BOTH... some titles are romanized, some are translated... this is UNORGANIZED. Get with the program please... ugh, this reminds me why I don't like anime anymore... the fandom is just off it's nut. natsukigirl 16:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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"):
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 --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)

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)


Hateful sentence

I think cowboy bebop sucked. I think Tenchi Muyo lost my attention after so many transitions and different version. I've been watching anime for the longest time. Why is cowboy bebop even part of the mainpage? I liked the fact that people added astroboy. I was hoping to see a sailormoon picture since it was one of the widely known animes on american tv including on the USA network in the 90s.
Cowboy bebop was just on tapes and then came to america on cartoon network or w/e. I think sailormoon has more importance than Bebop mainly because it has more episodes. Bebop makes a person lose interest after seeing the same scenation as, "I'm poor, i need to catch a bad guy." Wow, real great! thanks, you didn't impress me this episode. Atleast with outlaw star gene had to run from pirates or other bad guys but find a cool way to do it while have new characters introduced that actually seemed important. Sailor moon had different plot attributes also. If all of you think Bebop is great, *shakes head* V_V baka jingai... --Cyberman 12:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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.

My idea about Japan? Japan is a bad culture and no true anime fan wants to say that. But it's true and they are all in denial. That's somewhat why I stopped studying Japanese and became more interested in China because of their soon to be superiority. --Cyberman 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Szczerbiec01 4:41 PM, July 27, 2004

What does that have to do with anything? All PoV should be removed, whether be pro or con. Facts are the important thing. Any personal problems you or anyone else may have should be kept to yourselves. EreinionImage:RAHSymbol.JPG 00:38, July 11, 2005 (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)

I agree with you Matsurika. I don't think it's particularly common for series to be episodic, although of course some series are more episodic than others (just as with television series anywhere). I don't feel that this is a detail that should even be included in the article.
Another problematic comment is this: "It is very common for one title to spawn several different releases." I would disagree that this is "very common." The majority of anime don't spawn multiple releases (and not even multiple seasons). Fadeblue 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)

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) 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)

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, 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) 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)

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)
I agree with Xaliqen on that since, I've seen many different types of anime. American, German, Korean, Chinese, and even vietamese. Japan is not the only person who creates anime, but they just started it and now everyone that enjoys anime, trys and sometimes is a succes in making more anime shows. Also I've talked to many anime fans, from all over the globe which means that anime has now become an international phenomenon. --Sumizome_queenofdarkness 10:43, 02 September 2005 (UTC)
Also I don't believe anime is just for kids I mean i know that there are many kid shows that involve anime which is true. Most anime though, I think are meant for more for teens and adults. Like for instance "Appleseed", "Final fanatasy", or even "Fushigi Yugi" --Sumizome_queenofdarkness 10:43, 02 September 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.

Image:Cowboy_bebop01.jpg

  • 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.

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!

Image:Gatchaman_screen_capture.JPG

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

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...
Image:DRMN 01.jpg
--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:
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. EreinionImage: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. EreinionImage: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)

"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. EreinionImage:RAHSymbol.JPG 21:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Similar styles in American culture

Jhonen Vasquez's art stylings, particularly I Feel Sick, Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, and Invader Zim, also have characters with large eyes.

The TV series Martin Mystery, Totally Spies, Winx Club, and several other cartoons also have anime stylings, too.

Just because there are minor similarities does not mean they are related in any way. That's like saying dogs and horses are the same thing because they have long snouts. You really should check for facts, for accuracy. Also, animation style that is inspired by Anime does not make it Anime. EreinionImage:RAHSymbol.JPG June 28, 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Hi Angie, thanks for responding here (remember to sign with ~~~~). I think it's fair to say that many modern comic book artists and animators in america have been pretty heavily influenced by 'the anime style', and it's relevant to mention that in those articles. However the issue here is what's appropriate to 'forward link' from the anime article.
Looking at a parrallel example, the Ukiyo-e woodblock prints of the Edo period had a pretty big influence on many later artists in the west, I'm not an art historian, but just checking what links there you'll see Gustav Klimt, Edgar Degas and Paul Gauguin. Looking at the article itself though, you'll see that's only mentioned in one sentence near the end.
So, while some sort of content about what influence anime has had on other popular culture around the world is relevant, rather than placing it near the top of the article in a section about how disney influenced Tezuka and later work, it should probably be living in it's own section, and encompassing rather more than just Vasquez. Both Xaliqen and I have opted out of actually starting it, though... Feel free to try, but I'd reccomend a little research outside your zim hobby before trying. --zippedmartin 28 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)

A Little Change

Hi! I changed the article under "Terminology" a little, saying that in Japan, manga refers ONLY to comics. I have lived in Japan for eight years, so I am sure the information is correct.

  • The term manga is used primarily for the print medium, but it has been historically used to describe animation as well. For example, the very first Japanese animated television series was 1962's Fairy Tale Manga Calendar. Even now, some in the older generations of Japan still refer to Disney films as manga because the earliest Disney animated films and the term manga predate the Japanese use of the terms "anime" and "comic." This is roughly similar to how animation was initially called "cartoons" in English after their printed predecessors (and are still called that today). Egan Loo 20:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yay!

I hereby declare this article to have no outbound wikilinks to disambiguation or redirect links. Yay! — Ambush Commander(Talk) 18:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job. DenisMoskowitz 19:57, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
Thanks! — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Recently added link by anonymous editor

  • Galaxy Anime Television: The only place on the web where you get to hear from people within the Anime, Manga, and Gaming industries plus previews, reviews and more.

Care to explain why your link merits inclusion? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This article attracts spam links like flies. I'm just done a major purge, throw objections this way. --zippedmartin 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No objections, I'll just police the article more carefully in the future to prevent this buildup again. :-) You know, the people who are most likely to get their feathers ruffled are anonymous editors. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The most viewed Anime of all time.

Forgive me if I already posted this, as something in my head says I have, but I've yet to find anywhere on the web the information for the most viewed anime of all time, nobody seems to have an answer. I figured an Encyclopedia would have the answer, so checking Wikipedia, I found nothing. Wouldn't it be good to mention this piece of information in here, if somebody knows it? --Talv 16:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that piece of information would probably be impossible to find out, ever. Figuring out even what criteria to use to determine the most viewed would be a protacted debate in itself.
Perhaps Anime EPISODE narrows it down. In the U.S. I believe the final Episode of Mash remains to be the most watched single episode of anything on American Television to date, although I can't say i'm 100% sure. Either way, the information HAS to be out there, somewhere. --64.252.52.210 20:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
If I had to hazard an educated guess, though, just in terms of number of people worldwide who have been exposed to a particular franchise (anime and manga), I'd probably have to go with Doraemon. But no one could ever really know for sure. RADICALBENDER★ 16:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Counting only Japanese viewership, I think Sazae-san is possibly in the lead. I wouldn't be surprised with Doraemon either. But I agree that even that depends on the criteria used for determining "most viewed." Fadeblue 21:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Shoot all new links on sight

As you can see here, another anonymous editor has edit a link to the website Noated, with the rationale noated seems popular enough to warrant a listing as well. So, I swung over to the site, and read it's intro. Fairly generic, seem to be popular though. It has 11,368 users, but compared to other sites (AnimeSuki having 39,563 and being the de facto standard for unlicensed anime distribution)... well, I'm not sure. It will stay for now, but I'd like to propose something for this page: it's shoot all new links on sight if they do not have discussion on the talk page. We can put a little comment above the links asking editors to discuss the addition of new links onto the page on the Talk page before they do so, otherwise, their link will be promptly removed. That way, anonymous editors can't get away with statements like "it seems popular enough to merit inclusion." (what is "popular enough") — Ambush Commander(Talk) 18:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I shot it (and turnpike). Unless the site is noticably different from the ones we have (ie, not a forum or jumped up search engine) and is not *hugely* popular, there's no real need for it linked from the main article. I also killed all See Alsos that didn't have reasonable articles. --zippedmartin 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well in this case, I was the person who added it, and I'd be happy to argue it's merit here with you on this page. There appeared to be no precendent set or concensus that all new links be brought up in here first, so I followed the be bold guideline. What I meant by "popular enough" was a very active community forum, there is over 400 posts per day on the site in question. The bulk of those posts are users trading unlicensed anime, and it is by far not a start-up site looking for a free link, this forum has been a part of the internet anime comunity since 1998. A recent setback two years ago forced a complete loss of all data and they had to restart the site from scratch again. The ownership has taken steps to insure its continued survival into the future buy setting up some revenue generating sections, however these don't seem to be doing very well, the primary use of the site is the forum and torrent database (where only unlicensed titles remain listed). Just because you prefer one site over another does not make this one unpopular or mention of it unwarranted. Observe the experimental User:LinkBot plucked noated out of the search engines as a reccomended link for this very page in December 2004, barely a month after I included it last year and someone removed it, citing it was advertising. --68.209.108.64 21:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! It's really nice of you to drop in to discuss the addition of this link. There appeared to be no precendent set or concensus that all new links be brought up in here first, so I followed the be bold guideline. However, there has been a definite trend towards distrust to new links because of persistent linkspam that plagues this page. Wikipedia:External links. The bulk of those posts are users trading unlicensed anime, and it is by far not a start-up site looking for a free link, this forum has been a part of the internet anime comunity since 1998. However, there's nothing that distinguishes it from the big players (i.e. AnimeSuki, which even has its own Wikipedia article). Observe the experimental User:LinkBot plucked noated out of the search engines as a reccomended link for this very page in December 2004, barely a month after I included it last year and someone removed it, citing it was advertising. I'm sorry, but you have it wrong. LinkBot, while scanning a version of the page that had this link before it was removed as linkspam, simply had a link suggestion about a phrase near the Noated link, and thus Noated was inadvertently included in the page. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
It appears you're right and i misinterpreted the InfoBot page, my appologies. --68.209.108.64 03:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
To add to Ambucom comments above, has an alexa rank an order of ten times lower than the other external links we have, and no novel content. As for the 400 posts per day, I note that a lot of these are in Automated live feeds forums, the general 'Anime Discussions' forum has only ~5,000 posts, compare that to ~100,000 on the ANN one - or smaller sites ~20,000 on Anime Planet, and even ~40,000 on Christian Anime Alliance (a site nearly worth including for having the funniest thread on any anime forum). In summary - noated is just not any more noat-able than all the other content-farm sites around. Sure, there's info on there, but it's just cribbed from other sites, and the traffic isn't as high as the animesuki, which is the only other content-farmer we have at the moment. --zippedmartin 02:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
You should look at the alexa ranking for noated.com then, as explained previously some time back noated hit a problem and had to start over again, the domain name changed at that time to noated.net due to a domain ownership issue. Noated.com is where you'll find the alexa hits, which, by my assesment outweigh AnimeSuki's by far. Whatever though, this isnt' personal for me, I was justr trying to too a good deed, for a good site. You guys can remove the links and promote whatever your favorite places are all you like. --68.209.108.64 03:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I should also note that the majority of the posts on the site are not automated feeds, the marjority of them are file trading type posts. I believe work is being done to give more areas and motivation for discussion of various anime topics in the near future, but as you have AnimeSuki listed (which is mostly file sharing) with 1/400th of an Alexa ranking, I hardly think there being a high volume of traffic there trading files excludes it from inclusion here. --68.209.108.64 03:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Smaller is better on alexa, as a comparison google has a rank of 3. Personally I think suki is useless as well, but as you point out, it does have a vastly lower alexa ranking than noated. --zippedmartin 03:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
well, I've never really used alexa, what do I know --68.209.108.64 03:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, enough of this popularity contest stuff. Instead, please sign up and help write this page! Could be a much better article on anime. --zippedmartin 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I probably won't make the time. I just happaned to be here as I was messing with MediaWiki, and thought I'd look up Anime and see what was here. --68.209.108.64 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable Works/Notable Names Article Split Proposal

I would like to propose that it is time that we start considering that the Notable Works section be split into a new article separate from the overall anime article. For this I would like to submit the following justifications for consideration:

  • The current article is over 42Kb long, which exceeds the recommended Wikipedia conventions; removal of the Notable Works would reduce the article size by approximately 11Kb, which would bring the overall article down to approximately 31Kb
  • The section leads to the anime article being excessively long, with approximately 4-5 pages of information being nothing more than the Notable Works
  • The section is one of the more edited parts of the article and is subject to a good deal of controversy as to what is in fact a notable work, and what is just a popular series.
  • A dedicated page would be conducive to better discussion of what should be on the page and what needs to be removed

As you can see there is a very good technical reason for such a split to occur, and it would also contribute to the overall flow of the article making it feel less "list like" and allow for more detail to be put into some other sections. - darkstar949(talk) 1428, 23 August 2005 CST

Sounds good to me. The cut would be pretty clean too. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe we should move the Notable Names in anime section too... even though it isn't as big, it certainly is list-like. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Concur, Notable Names is going in that direction as well - darkstar949(talk) 1500, 23 August 2005 CST
I disagree, a split is not the solution. What's needed is enough actual article content so those sections could be removed entirely. As a split list, List of notable anime is against guidelines, and would probably be vfd-ed. --zippedmartin 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
However, as it stands now the section is a major problem for the article and is causing the "list like" feel. Perhaps a better idea may be to limit the section to "Ground Breaking" anime that both won awards and created a new concept within anime. - darkstar949(talk) 1623, 23 August 2005 CST
I'd suggest what needs to be done is the writing of prose that explains why certain work is 'notable', thereby making the list redundant. Huge task though, and not one I'm going to be attempting in the very near future. --zippedmartin 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have done some looking around and we already have some pages such as the List of anime, which should be VfD-ed, however, if we rewrote the Notables where each entry had to have at least a sentience justifying it's inclusion on the list it would avoid being VfD-ed. Darkstar949 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If we were to limit the amount of works to be mentioned it could free up enough space to create a run-down explaination of why each anime is indeed notable, and what makes it so significant. It doesn't have to be something grandiose, just something to clean it up. Ereinion 23:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I moved Notable anime to its own section and began with the brief description for each as to why they were listed. nihon 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anime/Archive 1

A number of old sections from the talk page have been archived and moved to a new page, the criteria for the move were any sections that had not been edited since 2004 or where single post sections. Please feel free to add any additional pages that you think may be appropriate for the archive. The archives can be found at Anime/Archive 1 - darkstar949(talk) 1500, 23 August 2005 CST

Spoom

This is mostly crap dont listen to most of it they dont know what they are talking about. one minor thing is that transformers is the only true american made anime called manga

I removed the above addition. While the first sentence is accurate, it's not very constructive. --zippedmartin 00:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/i/Talk%7EAnime_Archive_2_cb17.html"