Talk:Azumanga Daioh/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Length

"Azumanga Daioh is a relatively short series, both in manga and anime. In collected format, the manga totals a mere four volumes, and the anime only six (with twenty-six episodes split among them)."

I don't see how Azumanga Daioh anime can be seen as a "relatively short" anime series. Almost all anime I've heard of is made up of either 13 episodes or 26 (with a few rare exceptions of series with 70 or more episodes). Xyzyxx 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't heard of a lot of anime then. While 13-26 episodes is common for some series, especially the majority that Cartoon Network licenses for Adult Swim, many animes run up to 52, or into the hundreds of episodes. Even with the anime that only run for 13-26 episodes, the manga versions are usually much, much longer. (The Big O manga is, to my knowledge, still running. So is Inuyasha, I believe.) In this case, the length is more in reference to the fact that it's not terribly long in either version. -RannXXV 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Xyzyxx is correct: less than half of anime series go above 26 episodes. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this comment really necessary?

"Although the series has a cast of cute girls and an obvious lack of men for the most part, it is not considered a shōjo series. It also has some popularity among fans of yuri and shōjo ai (and in the case of Chiyo, lolicon) due again to the lack of presence of male characters and the distinct relationships (close friendships, for the most part) between the girls."

Is it really relevant that people who enjoy lesbian/pedophiliac anime would like this show? even if it wasn't obvious that a show with a predominantly young female cast would attract those sorts of people, is this piece of 'trivia' even worth it's digital real estate? Craig Sniffen 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The first part is in fact valuable information. Japanese manga tends to be very highly targeted at particular demographics and to follow particular "formulas" for those demographics, so someone who is familiar with the formulas might mistakenly assume "shōjo" from being told that the series is about six high school girls who are close friends. (Hey, if all you told someone about Watership Down was "all the protagonists are bunny rabbits", they'd think it was a kid's book...)
The second part is less encyclopedic. The good thing about fans is that they often have a lot of valuable information about a series; the bad thing about fans is that they often mistake "what fans think" for valuable information. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is anything going to become of this? I agree with Craig Sniffen that is seems quite unnecessary. I may remove it myself unless someone comes up with a valid argument for keeping it. As far as I see it, it's fancruft which has nothing to do with the series detailed on Wikipedia. The closest AzuManga gets is Kaori's crush on Sakaki, and that (along with the entire series, save for one mishapful episode for Minamo) has no sexual overtones. Anyone with reasons to keep or remove the section starting with "It also has some popularity among fans" and ending with "between the girls"?
Likewise, could this one also be chopped out? "Among yuri/shōjo ai fans, Tomo and Yomi, Yukari and Nyamo, and Kagura and Sakaki are all popular fan-pairings, though there is not quite as much canon subtextual support for the latter of the three as the other two, which are frequently considered to be strongly-supported pairings. Other popular pairings include Kagura and Tomo, Kaorin and Sakaki (mostly likely due to Kaorin's preexisting unrequited crush on Sakaki), and the more controversial Chiyo and Osaka or Chiyo and Sakaki (this is controversial mainly due to the fact that Chiyo is underaged in the original series, though most fan fiction stories featuring such pairings generally take place several years after the girls have graduated high school and often university, namely, after Chiyo has long since passed the sexual Age of Consent)." I see no relevency to the series here. I realize it's a "speculation" section, but since when does an encyclopedia (even with the webwikiness of Wikipedia) speculate on a series, such as the completed AzuManga Daioh?
Based on replies or lack thereof, I'll surely prune these. --Lesoria 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I concurr. --GunnarRene 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What? This is still here? I took out the offending sections. Just took out a similar section on a Camp Lazlo (?!) page yesterday - who knows what tommorow will bring. Craig Sniffen 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it -- I would have just now had it not been. If someone else adds it, I figure it'll simply have to be removed again until someone can give an agreeable reason for keeping it in. --Lesoria 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lesoria wrote: "I realize it's a "speculation" section, but since when does an encyclopedia (even with the webwikiness of Wikipedia) speculate on a series, such as the completed AzuManga Daioh?". But the encyclopedia doesn't speculate on the series, it only reports popular fan speculation. That's different, and not necessarily unencyclopedic. Fyrius 10:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then sources for the fan speculation must be provided.--GunnarRene 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Reporting on fan speculation, I'll accept that as what it is. I'll question what speculation should appear in a Good Article, and what size of a fan base it requires to include. Straw man question: If a lot of fans speculated that Chiyo-chan was really an alien, or an undersea creature, would that appear as well? Better question: If a lot of fanfics featured Chiyo-chan as an alien, would that make an appearance, even with cites? The latter question is one I'm rather unclear on (and the former not a serious question). Fyrius, do you have a position on whether the above-mentioned part of the page should remain or be removed? --Lesoria 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GunnarRene asked for sources to prove the popularity of the speculation. Well, I don't think I can give you any permanent sources, but you can take a look or ask around at Azumanga-related fora like the Azumanga section on Idlechan, or at shoujo-ai-related fora like ShoujoAi.com. Although I understand that such sources would be out of place in the article. To answer Lesoria: I'm not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia on this kind of things, which of course will eventually get their way, but if some speculation is really popular (as in, with more than half of the fans agreeing about it) then I'd put it in the article. - Fyrius 15:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't speculation though - it's just what some perverts like to write about in their fanfics. Your normal anime watcher won't care, and the people who would care probably have already read one or two. Should the Captain Jack Sparrow article mention that lots of fanfic writers add themselves as a love interest, male or female?Craig Sniffen 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Azuma Kiyohiko (the manga artist of Azumanga Daioh) did do hentai manga before, so it's a possible reason that the readers look for any sexual connotations (whether perceived or real) in his works. -Anonymous 219.95.14.1 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that disturbing. Why can't people just take things for what they are? Pokemon has more sexual theme and tension than Azumanga Daioh. The delusions of hardcore fanboys should not be listed in the article. --67.172.10.82 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Azumanga is rare for a Japanese manga/anime. It has a cast of cute girls but is not lolicon or a shōjo series. Thus without this comment, a reader could (justly!) assume that it was intended to be lolicon or a shōjo series. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Tomo and "Ayu"

I don't think Tomo is a fan of "Ayu" (Ayumi Hamasaki). The anime treats other anime characters as if they were real people (Take Lupin III for instance). Anyway... I thhink when Tomo says that she can at least aim for "Ayu", I think she's referring to the character "Ayu" inthe anime Kanon. That "Ayu" seems to have a hairstyle similar to Tomo. 218.208.213.131 03:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The anime does not treat Lupin nor Fujiko as real people. The characters themselves state that Fujiko is fictional.
In the manga, Tomo aims for "Hirosue" (Ryoko Hirosue). I'm not sure why they changed it to "Ayu" (maybe to get more "current"?), but it is definitely not a reference to an obscure anime character.-Sequitur 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomo herself treats them as if they were real people, which Kagura (Yomi in the anime) objects to, saying "you idiot shes a cartoon character". -- Psi edit 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The liner notes booklet for the ADV Films release specifically states that Ayumi Hamasaki is who Tomo is referring to in episode 20. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Reasons for popularity"

The current "Reasons for popularity" section is completely unsourced. Is it anything besides personal opinion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The series is quite popular. While one could reference a number of google hits, or point at entire image boards dedicated to single characters from it, and so on, and so on, it seems pointless in the face of the fact that a simple look around shows how popular it is. It's not as if the section in question just says "OMG ITZ TA BESTEST SHOW EVAR!", so calm down. -RannXXV 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The question I asked was not "is it popular?" but "is the explanation that is being given for why the series is popular based on anything except the original research of the editor who added it?" Please try to pay more attention to what question is actually being asked than to make sure you get out a condescending response like "so calm down". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I'd have to try pretty hard to be more condescending than you just were. -RannXXV 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You must be trying pretty hard, then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
RannXXV, your comments to this section have been unaccountably rude thus far. Nothing Antaeus said disputed that the series was popular, was not said in a calm and neutral tone, implied that the section said "OMG ITZ TA BESTEST SHOW EVAR!", or was in any way "condescending". Please take a few deep breathes, review Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility, then respond anew, this time, if you are able, attempting to actually answer Antaeus' question in some way, shape or form: "The current "Reasons for popularity" section is completely unsourced. Is it anything besides personal opinion?" In other words, it is taken in any way from any specific sources, or is it just the assessment and analysis of our own editors? If the latter, then Wikipedia's core policies forbid its inclusion, and we should remove it to this Talk page until sources can be provided for any of its claims, even though it's potentially a very interesting and valuable section. -Silence 15:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The article was actually a lot worse than this and has been getting better this year. I know it has a lot of POV language, not just the part about popularity. I believe that the content can be justified and reworded with anyone with the time to do it. Bring to the talk page anything else that seems to be POV langauage or sounds like fan cruft and we can collaborate on changes that need to be made. I'll try and find a cite for popularity now. --Squilibob 05:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"A cite for popularity"?! Did you not read the initial comment either?! Noone has disputed the comic/manga's popularity in any way, not even the slightest bit. What's been disputed is the unsourced section which tries to explain that popularity, "Reasons for popularity", which makes assertions such as "Azumanga Daioh is distinctly different" (meaningless without qualifications, and poorly-written), "There is no overriding goal" (false without qualifications: getting through school and graduation can be considered a goal, and there are various other goals for the individual characters which run through most of the series, such as Sakaki's goal to pet a cat), "nor is there a grand event such as saving the world from some horrible doom" (how does that, in itself, make Azumanga Daioh unusual? the majority of series in existence do not involve a grand event such as saving the world from some horrible doom), "There is no struggling romance to prolong the series or be used awkwardly for the comedy inherent in misunderstandings" (Sakaki and Kaorin don't count?), etc. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are absolute requirements: noone here has the slightest doubt that it would be incredibly easy to verify Azumanga Daioh's popularity: but how are you going to provide reliable references to explain the reasons for its popularity? Until you can provide such references, this section is against Wikipedia policy and should be kept in talkspace or userspace until it's fully citable. Unless you think you can find appropriate citations very soon? -Silence 15:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I added the cite because of what I said about adding justification to the article. Stating something is popular should be cited anyway, though figures would be a better cite. --Squilibob 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That cite can be put somewhere else in the article, then. :-) Information about reception is interesting. Speculation without surveys about WHY it's popular, on the other hand, is original reseach and POV. --GunnarRene 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.comicworldnews.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?column=interviews&page=93 <= this looks like it might meet WP:RS, but it's a rather "puff piece" interview. We'd have to note that she is an ADV employee, but it would give us some sourced material for this section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Azumanga Fighter

Any news/details/sources for the streetfighter patterned Azumanga beat em up by studio Yuki da ru ma? —This unsigned comment was added by 81.99.4.165 (talk • contribs) .

What exactly is your question? Anyway, I know of a fanmade game called 'Azumanga Fighter Comeback', which is probably what you mean. Its available for download here: [1] I assume it's freeware. Fyrius 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sakaki having Asperger Syndrome

"Tomo's actions can be interpreted as showing characteristics of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Osaka may have some form of Autism, or Attention-Deficit Disorder. Sakaki may also have a high-functioning form of Autism, called Asperger's Syndrome -- she excels in sports and her classes, but doesn't talk much and prefers to stay isolated from the others." I agree with the comments about Tomo and Osaka, for these are pretty obvious, but I think that saying that Sakaki might have Asperger Syndrome is a bit far-fetched. Having Asperger Syndrome includes much more than just talking little combined with being very good at one thing. She might as well just be shy. Fyrius 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agreem, the statement is farfetched. -- Psi edit 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's a somewhat valid statement, given the section name "Viewpoints, trivia and speculation". Calicore 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But it also counts as original research, considering that this article is the first and only place I've seen any such speculation. Besides, Asperger's is just the latest geek trend where every net-addict with difficulty socializing now claims to have it, so whoever added it was probably just projecting their own excuse of the moment onto her. -RannXXV 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's speculation without any canon support, the problem is that it's far-fetched. Nothing about Sakaki suggests a mental anomaly as clearly as Tomo's and Osaka's behaviour. Sure, she doesn't talk much and she's a bit preoccupied with cute things, but you can see subtle symptoms of Asperger Syndrome and other forms of Autism in everyone if you look for them. Fyrius 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree, it's one of the dumbest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Somebody hack and slash it please. Ghettovenger 7:20, 28 July 2006

It has already been taken care of. The statement itself is still there in some form, but it also says that it's not very likely. I can live with that. Fyrius 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. The sections about Osaka and Sakaki should be changed. There's no doubt about Tomo and ADHD, however saying that Osaka merely has ADD is uninformed and saying Sakaki has Aspergers is just weird and incorrect, especially after having just covered Osaka. The author seem to be quite misinformed. Having first person experience (Classic AS diagnose) and also in agreement with other know-it-alls (people with AS... ;) ) and my 'normal' friends who see the similarities between the two os us, I can confidently say that if there is any character in this story that has a case of classic Aspergers Syndrome, it would be Osaka. She's 'slow' but really not stupid, just thinking different, plays with words a lot, clumsy, not very athletic, unusual body language, behaving strange (like the frying pan/kitche knife incident), "living in her own world", not really fitting in in the normal world, falling asleep easily and also she have her special interests, kanji and marine biology (especially sea slugs ^^). Attention problems is a sign of ADD, however also one of AS, and combined with the above mentioned it is a clear sign of AS. She gets along well, but a bit awkwardly, with people and is not very irate, but that doesn't disqualify an AS diagnose, while it actually lowers the posibility for a pure autism diagnose. I recognize so many of both these and many more signs that most people wouldn't even notice, from first hand experience, that there is no doubt about it. Sakaki is a quiet and shy person for other reasons, like her physical size, however, being interested in cute things and cats doesn't qualify as a 'special interest'. Maybe if she, on demand, could tell you detailed information about cat anatomy, pedigree lineages and the specifics on the various fur patterns of domestic cats in the Ural region, it could. Even if it's under 'speculation' it would not be a valid statement for reasons apparent to anyone with more than a minor amount of research. Ion_seal 11:52, 8 August 2006 (CET)

Obviously we can be just as sure about Tomo's ADHD as about Osaka's ADD or AS, or about whatever Sakaki would have. It's all speculation, and Wikipedia should acknowledge that. Azuma himself was no psychologist. He was just a manga author who wanted to create some interesting personalities. So no matter how apparent some diagnosis might be, it's still speculation, and it should be described as such in the article. And it is. So I thought this issue would be settled now.

"Tomo's actions can be easily interpreted as showing characteristics of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Osaka's behavior is consistent with some forms of Autism or Attention-Deficit Disorder. Sakaki's behavior also is reminiscient of (though not necessarily deliberately modeled on) a high-functioning form of Autism called Asperger's Syndrome, though this is much less apparent." (my emphasis)

What would you want to change about this trivium? I'd say everything you said is in it already. Fyrius 11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hokay, yanno what? My BROTHER has Aspberger's Syndrome. I know what it's like and how to tell who has it. Sakaki? Defenitely NOT Aspbeger's. --Kiwi 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point! The point is that some people are reminded of Asperger's by Sakaki's personality, and those people want this trivium in the article.
Besides, you can't recognize Asperger's from knowing one person who has it. It's different for everyone. And first hand experience is unreliable by nature, especially in subjects like this one. I have an official Asperger's diagnosis myself, I know tons of people with it or with similar anomalies, and still I can't tell an Asperger from someone without it. That's why psychology is a serious subject of scientific study, because not any average Sally or Joe can go handing out labels just like that.
I'm getting a little frustrated here. Sorry. Fyrius 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about frustrating you. I tend to have that effect sometimes. :/
But isn't it kind of against the idea of an encyclopedia to give people the wrong idea, though?
I'm certainly not qualified to give a diagnose, but according to my worldview and experience, I could put Osaka in the ADD file, if I were making a hasty judgement.
Heck, I'd put myself there every now and then. But with all the data, I would have to put her in the AS file, and it seems that most people agree.
Most people seem to agree about not putting Sakaki there as well.
Since it's just speculation, why not speculation that the people with a little knowledge thinks is most correct? If the personalities are so apparent, then why not reflect that?
Pathetic as it sounds, I feel a bit hurt by the current description as I feel that it's not quite correct and would give people a wrong or incomplete view.
To put it simply, I would like to have added that Osaka might have AS. I could of course do this myself, but I wanted to put it up to you good people first, lest it be removed and I become sad. ;_; Ion_seal 01:41, 9 August 2006 (CET)

I see.

While most people may agree about Sakaki probably not having Asperger's, including me, I thought the phrase implying this already had enough ifs and maybes to make clear that it's not very likely, so I thought that should be a good compromise. Don't you?

As for Osaka and AS, just to eliminate misunderstandings: when you say AS, do you mean Asperger Syndrome? Because people also use AS to refer to the so-called autistic spectrum of all disorders related to autism. But I suppose you'd want to add something along these lines?

"...and Osaka's behavior is consistent with some forms of Autism, Asperger's Syndrome or Attention-Deficit Disorder."

I wouldn't really have any trouble with this formulation, even though it would be a bit redundant to say that she might have some form of autism or Asperger's, which is basically a form of autism (right?). So I'd say we could just edit it into this, and if someone who's not here doesn't agree we'll find out soon enough (in the form of more talk page chatter, that is). Fyrius 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much it. By AS I mean Aspergers Syndrome. If you think that it's cluttered, then Autism could be removed, since that makes you think about someone like Rainman, while Aspergers most often is not that serious.
Suggestion:
"Tomo's actions can be easily interpreted as showing characteristics of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Osaka's behavior is consistent with Asperger's Syndrome or Attention-Deficit Disorder. Sakaki's behavior is also reminiscient of (though not necessarily deliberately modeled on) Asperger's Syndrome or a high-functioning form of Autism, though this is much less apparent."
That way, "thought this is much less apparent" have some kind of comparison to the previous sentence as well. Ion seal 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost agree. Maybe it would be a better idea to say "Osaka's behaviour is consistent with ADD or a high functioning form of Autism, like Asperger syndrome" or something along those lines. That would keep the label more general, and (hopefully) that way people won't associate it with Rainman either.

Also, if Asperger is a form of high functioning Autism, the part about Sakaki isn't right the way you wrote it. "Asperger's Syndrome or another high-functioning form of Autism" would make more sense. Fyrius 09:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone supporting the idea that Osaka has a debilitating form of Autism, while Sakaki has a "high-functioning" form of autism: which is what is currently in the article. Throwing around these kind of theories upsets people, obviously.

I've known a few people who have Autism. One could compare it to being around a ghost. Like they aren't really there. Prone to fits of violence, thrashing and aggression. While I could believe that Osaka has a form that mildly dislocates her, like this "Asperger's Syndorme," I could not possibly see it as being anything more than that.

There's just something deranged about this addition to the article. Like there's something not intirely right with the person who added it. --Salty Morton 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't quite imply that Osaka has anything debiliating ('some form of Autism' isn't really that specific, and Autism comes in many forms, many of which don't stop people from leading a normal life), but since that's what Autism generally seems to be associated with it might indeed be a good idea to stress the high-functioning-ness of her potential Autistic disorder.
How about this:
"Tomo's actions can be easily interpreted as showing characteristics of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Osaka's behavior is consistent with Attention-Deficit Disorder or some high-functioning forms of Autism, possibly Asperger Syndrome. Sakaki's behavior is also slightly reminiscient of (though not necessarily deliberately modeled on) Asperger Syndrome, though this is much less apparent."
Would everyone agree with this? Fyrius 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The original version was somewhat offensive. This is more respectful.
Yet, I still have a problem with the part about Sakaki. She has near-perfect motor skills; a shear sign that she does not by any means have Asperger Syndrome. The whole basis of such in the article is that she is easily distracted by cute things and is shy; none of which are signs of Asperger Syndrome. --Salty Morton 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's far-fetched, indeed, I agree (that's basically why I started this talk page paragraph in the first place). But the reason why it's still in the article is because some people really do believe she might have Asperger's, which should be enough reason for it to stay because this is after all the "viewpoints, trivia and speculation" paragraph. On the other hand, there have been many people who have been offended by it (and edited it out without visiting the talk page first, much to my frustration), so I think some rephrasing might be a good idea, to clarify that it's just a fan theory.

How about this?

"Some fans also believe that Sakaki's behavior is reminiscient of (though not necessarily deliberately modeled on) Asperger Syndrome, though this is much less apparent."

I'm not sure, though, if this is okay with Wikipedia's no weasel words rule. But I think this might be an exception, as the entire paragraph is obviously not supposed to be NPOV. Fyrius 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


"Osaka's behaviour is consistent with ADD or a high functioning form of Autism, like Asperger syndrome" works well for me. In fact, I think it's even better formulated than what I wrote. I didn't want to push the issue, but Salty Morton said it best. Sakaki has near-perfect motor skills, she's the best athlete in school, which would be virtually impossible or at least extremely rare for someone with Aspergers, and that she's shy and likes cute things are not signs of it either. Ion seal 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree about Osaka's part now.
As for Sakaki, if I understand this correctly, you guys still think it's a better idea to entirely delete the phrase. And maybe it is. I could bring this subject up in an Azumanga-fan community I know and see how much fan support the theory gets, and if everyone there seems to hate it, I agree to edit it out. How about that? Fyrius 13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I started a thread about it and got some reactions already, none of which say anything like 'whoa, that's it, everything makes sense now'. Some people say it might be possible, but I haven't seen anything yet that I would call fan support (but see for yourself, if you will). I'd like to wait just a while longer, as there's only six replies yet, but if it stays like this you have my approval to delete. Fyrius 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Twenty replies so far, and none of them are very supportive of the idea. Alright, let's delete it. Agreed? Fyrius 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Ion seal 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this be added to trivia?

In episode 7 (larger one), Sakaki meets Chiyo's dog and she has juice, but when they're leaving, neither of them have the juice. This could also be added somewhere the list of episodes, once the page is made. Cao 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that's more like an animation mistake or something. I wouldn't want to call it a trivium. Fyrius 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Throughout the article, there are many instances of NPOV descriptions, taking away from the entry's quality as a refrence, and making it seem more like a fan's babbling. I will attempt to remove as much as possible, without destroying the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The7thone1188 (talk • contribs) .

First, you need to sign your comments. Second, NPOV means Neutral Point of View, which is what articles are supposed to have. If you mean the sections are tainted by somebody's personal point of view, they are "POV descriptions", though that's still a poor term for them. Third, you don't site any actual problems with the article, or any sections, or the POV they're carrying. Your comment is essentially pointless. Try to be a bit more clear and purposeful in the future. -RannXXV 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This page needs a new image.

It was deleted. A new one needs to be put up (legally, of course). That's all there is to say here.. -Anonymous 219.95.14.1 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The flying yellow cat thing

Does anyone know what the flying yellow cat thing is that randomly appears in the show? Sometimes it will start glowing at random.. It creeps me out. >.> --67.172.10.82 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be Chiyo-chan's supposed father, also referred to as Chiyo-chichi. Look in the minor characters section--I just put a picture of him there yesterday. --Kiwi 14:44, 8 August 2006

Characters with Autism

I removed the comments in the article about Osaka and Sakaki having Autism. There is no evidence that suggests this, making these comments neither viewpoint or trivia, but theory. Sakaki never demonstrated any characteristics; although she does display a trait that may be confused for an autistic one: shyness.

Autism is a debilitating mental disorder, one that completely dislocates people from the world around them. I find it in poor taste and ignorance to throw about these kinds of statements. --Salty Morton 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is already being discussed here for a few months or so. It seems to be quite a complicated issue. For example, autism is NOT necessarily a "debilitating mental disorder that completely dislocates people from the world around them".
Please continue there for the sake of not having to repeat everything said. Fyrius 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

New image

As the article looks sort of lacking without an image, I was bold and uploaded a new image. It should be fair use: its from the intro sequence and thus falls under the category of a TV screenshot. Tell me what you think. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs a) a copyright notice b) a fair use rationale for all articles that it's used on. --GunnarRene 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Done and done. My only thought is that it might be too high resolution: is that a problem for TV show screenshots? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It should be scaled down, and the old version deleted, to a resolution where you can recognize the characters, but not a lot more than that. 400px max, in my judgement. --GunnarRene 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think this really is a screenshot. It looks more like an amazingly accurate redraw to me, or maybe it's official concept art. Anyway, I don't think this is a capture from the actual animation; I can't find any differences in even the tiniest details, but it just looks too sharp to be a screenshot. Would that be a problem? Fyrius 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, this DOES look like a trace of some kind. Publicity images are also allowed as fair use images, but then the image must be given the correct license tag.--GunnarRene 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked back again and indeed it isn't actually from the episode: its from some sort of vectorized version of it. I have no idea what the legal status of it is then, but obviously I could simply go back and screenshot the episode: problem solved. Its not as if we need a copy this high resolution anyways. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Fyrius 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I went and did some digging through my files and I found where this originated from: this flash video of the Azumanga intro. While we're at it, anyone have any idea where this came from, and how? The only possibility I've thought of is that one of the original animators exported some of the vectorized footage to a flash file and released it. When I get home I'll replace the image with a true fair-use one. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked about the flash at /azu/, and someone there gave this site as its source. I can't read Japanese, but it seems like an elaborate fansite rather than anything official. Fansite often tend to be a lot more elaborate than official sites for some reason. Fyrius 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Problem solved. Took a screenie from a DVD copy, sharpened and contrasted it up, and it should look pretty good. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Name Language Absurdity

First, I have to declare I have nothing to do with Azumange Daioh. My home base is Detective Conan. This posting is merely linguistic.

In pages of individual characters (Ayumu Kasuga etc), there is a "name translation" box, which listed differential translation of the names in China and South Korea. I don't mind listing their Chinese and Korean names (In this case, Chūnrì Bù / Běipíng and Maeng Sun-jeong / Busandaek etc), but I was a bit miffed to see the Korean name actually translated. In my opinion, unless that translate name has a special meaning (eg Busandaek) so it has to be translated to make things clear, names are not supposed to be translated. They are supposed to be transliterated.

What's more absurd is the editor(s) even tried to translate the name with the surname, which usually has no meaning at all now... Samuel Curtis 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Popularity

I think it is important to somehow get across in the article the fact that Azumanga Daioh is (and why):

  1. In many ways very different from most other anime series.
  2. Unusually popular both in and outside of Japan for a series of its type.

However, I can't seem to come up with a way to express this in an encyclopedic manner (which is why the Reasons for Popularity section is now hidden). Anyone have any ideas for how to express this in a manner that could be properly sourced and stay within NPOV bounds? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Chobits

If I remember correctly, I read, in the references to popular culture, there was a reference to Chobits in episode 17 where Osaka and Tomo used the word "Mii" (snake) instead of "Chii", with similar mimics. Was this removed? Why? I thought it was interesting. Ion seal 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that as well, but I strongly suspect it was original research. The actual joke, as I understand it, is that Osaka and Tomo are using a popular mnemonic to try and remember the animals in the Chinese zodiac. However, because the word used for "snake" in that mnemonic is a bit obscure, they get stuck and can't remember how to complete the mnemonic. I think some fan just watched that episode, didn't get the actual joke, and thought it was a Chobits reference. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they have trouble remembering the mnemonic, but then they remember that "this year was the year of the dragon, so next year must be the year of the snake", and thus, lazy as they are, don't bother remembering the rest of the mnemonic, and having concluded that then next year is the year of the snake, starts mimicking Chii from Chobits.
It's so very similar to Chobits that if the first part is a joke, then the second part must surely be one too, at least surely enough to warrant a note, don't you think?
Does the manga have more information?
Ion seal 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The "notes" section of the manga could be used as a source if it is listed in there. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters in Korean

Each of the characters, on their individual article pages, has their name rendered into a Korean-to-English translation. Where does this come from, and how is it relevant? Does anyone (Korean, Anglophone, or otherwise) consciously think of Sakaki-san as being "Excellent Entreaty of Plum"? LordAmeth 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In Korean version of Azumanga Daioh THE ANIMATION, all of characters are changed into Korean people and are given new names, such as Yi Tae-hee (I Tae-hui) corresponding to Miss Sakaki. Literally, yi/i （李） means "plum", tae （泰） means "excellent", and hee/hui （希） means "entreaty", indubitably. I don't know what the translator thought at deciding new names. Hanasato the Azumaddict 12:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is, I think translating the Korean names into English is absurd. Samuel Curtis 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

Someone (Ashibaka) deleted the following trivium for being original research.

Although the series has a cast of cute girls and very few male characters, it ran in a magazine intended for boys and is not considered a shōjo series. Despite being aimed at a male audience, the characters are never treated as sexual objects, fan service is limited to swimsuits worn during trips to the beach, and the most risque moments are occasional discussions about bust size (normally Sakaki's). Even Kaorin's quasi-romantic fantasies never culminate in more than hand-holding or polite hugging.

I don't think it should be deleted, though, because it doesn't seem OR to me and I consider it important enough to be kept. What do you guys think of it? Fyrius 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that (1) the series is explicitly declared not to be shoujo and (2) the series is explicitly aimed towards a male audience and (3) there is any "fan service" in the series. Ashibaka tock 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(1)The manga ran in Dengeki Daioh, a decidedly shōnen/seinen (probably right on the border) magazine. There is nothing remotely shōjo about it. Only a very small number of series are ever "declared" to be shōjo, shōnen, or something else. The determination is made by what magazine it runs in.
(2)The magazine it runs in is aimed squarely at a male audience (anyone who reads it can clearly see that based on the topics coverd in the magazine), though it's always possible a female will pick up the magazine and even enjoy it. Taht doesn't change who the target demographic is, however.
(3)I do agree about the fan service, though. The really isn't any, even when they are in swimsuits. Outside of the sukebe teacher, there's no ogling or emphasis placed on anything that would be considered fan service. It's just an eccentric take on high school life (students and teachers). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's true or not doesn't matter, original research means we don't reference someone else saying. If you really want to include then maybe try looking at some reviews of the anime, I'm sure someone has said something to this extent that we can reference. -- Ned Scott 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Fyrius, I'm leaving it to you to either provide sources for everything I've marked on the article page, or delete the trivia. I'm going to be gone for a few months, so I will trust you to make this a good article. Ashibaka tock 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe gived valid points. And why do you need citation, to prove what only fan service is beach scenes? Do you really need citation what is shown? Maybe you just nagging? Rikis 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Only the part saying "and is not considered a shōjo series" would need a citation, as this probably violates the no weasel words-rule. I'll put a [citation needed]-tag on it for now.
Everything else is just factual information. There are hardly any significant male characters, Dengeki Daioh is a magazine aimed at a male audience (this may be disputable, but that should be done there), the characters aren't treated as sexual objects and there's practically no fanservice. Fyrius 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I only just saw the tagging overkill you inflicted on the "Viewpoints, Trivia & Speculation" paragraph. I think you're missing the point of that part. It's basically a paragraph intended for OR and speculation, as long as it's within the usual boundaries of verifiability. And even if it weren't, many of the things you marked as needing citations aren't the type of information that giving citations would be appropriate for. Like "Chiyo's elementary school friends look like the teachers", "Yuka sounds like Yukari and Miruchi slightly sounds like Minamo", or the trivium that this topic is about. Surely you don't need anyone else to say it before you'll believe that Yuka sounds like Yukari.

As for the ADHD, ADD & Autism trivium, it links to articles that provide all the background information you need, like the symptoms of the disorders. If a reader would want to verify those assertions, they should just read the linked articles and compare the symptoms to the characters. The same goes for the "magazine intended for boys / aimed at male audience" part and probably some other trivia as well.

I do think a lot of your tags were appriopriate, though. Fyrius 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The ADHD/ADD thing is outright nonsense and is a plain example of the sort of trivia that belongs on a fansite and not on Wikipedia. It cannot be verified by watching the show. It is a matter of opinion. Ashibaka tock 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The ADHD/ADD thing is likely joke. I seen a humorous image featuring the two characters and text saying "ADD/ADHD: There is a difference" (keeping in mind I myself have ADHD, I do still find such things funny) on places like 4chan. In any-case, it has no place in the article and is inappropriate, joke or not. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Come on, guys. We've been discussing this for months already. I had hoped we would finally have made enough compromises by now. We've already picked the most careful wording we could, with many "ifs" and "maybes" to avoid being interpreted as original research.

Anyway, please read the topic above and continue the discussion there, if you must. Fyrius 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"... the "Viewpoints, Trivia & Speculation" paragraph. I think you're missing the point of that part. It's basically a paragraph intended for OR and speculation, as long as it's within the usual boundaries of verifiability." Am I reading this right? It seems like the editor is stating that if a section header is inserted that announces the section as a haven for unencyclopedic content, suddenly unencyclopedic content becomes okay for the article, as long as it's in that section. Needless to say, I don't agree with that theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with describing unencyclopedic content in an encyclopedia. While it's true that even within this section it would be wrong to present outright speculation as encyclopedic facts, this part of the article is made for reporting popular viewpoints and fan speculation. So we're still dealing with verifiable facts here, although some of those might still need a citation toverify the popularity of the viewpoint. Which is why I also agreed with many of the "citation needed" tags that Ashibaka added. Fyrius 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yomi is pretty obviously anorexic. 137.22.3.34 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

137.22.3.34, will you please quit vandalizing the page? It doesn't make your case any stronger. Also, in defense of the trivium in question: it doesn't say that the characters have any disorders, only that their behaviour is similar to the symptoms of the disorders, which is a verifiable and true fact. Read the linked articles on high-functioning Autism and ADHD and compare them for yourself. Surely you'll agree that at least a few characteristics would remind you of Tomo or Osaka respectively.

For any further discussion, please read and reply to this topic instead. Fyrius 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obviously, since the only source for this trivia is the show itself, it can be debated endlessly. Per WP:TRIVIA and related proposals that were actually accepted as guidelines, Wikipedia is not the right place for speculation.
I moved the trivia to http://en.anime.wikia.com/wiki/Azumanga_Daioh - a much happier solution. Ashibaka tock 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, congratulations, you ridded the article of its main source of controversy. Personally I think it's a bit of a waste, considering how long we've all been working on it, but if this is more consistent with the rules of Wikipedia it's probably the best solution. And it'll save us (or me, at least) a whole load of time and trouble that would otherwise go to waste in pointless debates that are never really solved. Fyrius 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MHO is that the trivia and speculation section was probably the most interesting part of the entire article. There are many pieces of trivia that I didn't even think about but that made watching it a whole lot more interesting. There are things sourced in the series itself that is pretty obvious and interesting enough to have here. Speculation, while more unfounded, is also very interesting. Speculation such as that Tomo and Yomu would be lesbians or that Osaka/Sakaki/Tomo have various kinds of AS/Autism/ADHD is things that wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were true, and that I have overheard in online conversations and other forms of media, that apparently enough people speak of to make it worthy of mention, but that I have yet to see a scientific paper on, so it's quite hard to find a definite source for things like that. I would rather have to read a number of possible subjective opinions than the absence of an objective fact. I agree that some things can be debated back and forth, but removing the entire segment is a bit harsh. It DOES say "Trivia and Speculation", so anyone with half a brain looking for facts will at least disregard the speculation bits. $0.02 Ion seal 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ADV's Thinpak

Does anyone know why ADV released (re-released?) the 5 DVD Thinpak? Was there a legal reason behind it, perhaps? Either way, I added it into the page for those who would be confused as to why they only have 5 discs. Sosei 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No legal issue involved to my knowledge. This is just something ADV typically does with a series after completing its disc-by-disc run. There are boxes like it for numerous ADV series, such as Martian Successor Nadesico. Michael Hopcroft

Transliteration of name

Is there any specific reason why the shows name is written Daioh? It should be daiou or daiô, i've never seen ou been written oh in any other context. AniDB also writes it as Azumanga Daiou. - Tobberoth

As noted in the Title Origin section, the 'Daioh' part of the name comes from the magazine Dengeki Daioh. This magazine writes the 'Daioh' part of its name in English on the cover (as well as in Japanese), and has always used the 'oh' spelling, possibly to aid pronunciation by people would don't know how to pronounce Japanese. Omnisentry 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It would actually be "daiō," not "daiô." according to the WP:MOS-JA, except that the official English title is "Azumanga Daioh," and that's how it's most commonly known in English. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I hate "daioh", and I barely tolerate "daiō" (but I do because it's wikipedia policy). I prefer daiou because it makes going from kana to romaji easier, imo, since it translates part by part, da->だ, i->い, o->お, u->う, thus daiou to だいおう, or 大王. But yea, the official English translation that the Japanese creators came up with was Daioh, and it's licensed in the US as Daioh, so Daioh it stays as per wikipedia policy. --Wirbelwind 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

Really, is there any need for it. I gotta agree it is pretty niffty and funny but maybe best if removed Singing guns 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is verifiable and its interesting information. No reason not to have it--its not as if the article is too long. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

November 5 Edits

Upon closer inspection, much of the "new" information supplied by 68.70.160.167 was directly lifted from the fansite that the mentioned user had removed in his/her last edit. I'm reverting it back to version before his/her edits. Mariana 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)