Talk:Blood+
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Blood+ has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Haji/Hagi
It looks like this hasn't actually been discussed on any of the three articles, and with the current regular changing (and reverting) by the anon user, I think it would be good to talk this out and reach a consensus for consistency and to help with the back and forth on the spellings. So let's figure out which spelling of Haji's name would be the best to use in the article.
Here's my attempt to sum up the reasons for each use, as best as I can figure out, to get it started:
Haji - official spelling in English release of the anime, used on Adult Swim's web site for the show, proper reading of the katana, seems to be the more used spelling in many places from a google search
Hagi - spelling given on Production I.G.'s official english site for the show, spelling used on Sony's web site for the show, and it seems to be the spelling that will be used in English versions of manga and novel adaptations per Dark Horse's web site
Did I miss any points? Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Though I don't agree with the user reverting w/o talking about it, I did, up to this point, think it was Hagi, but UI've never had a problem with Haji, either. Since both are used I would probably go with Hagi per what Collectonian said about it becoming the official english spelling, however, its a good point that there are more links to Haji, so maybe it should be that way. As you can see I can't really make up my mind. Neither spelling bothers me, but it should be uniform...one way or the other. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it should be kept the way it is now (Haji). There's a note about the Hagi spelling under his article, so I don't see a reason to change it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is naturally very confusing due to the fact that even in the Closed Captioning for the English-dubbed episodes on Adult Swim, the spelling vacillates between "Hagi" and "Haji." In fact, some characters pronounce the name differently. Anyway, regarding the spelling in the article, I agree with Blizzard Beast - the note at the end of the character article should suffice. (But maybe the note could be at the top for further clarity?) HeavenlyEire (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The most common spelling should be used, which is currently "Haji". I would link to that policy/guideline, but I can't remember where I saw it. However, under "Hagi Plays J.S. Bach" only "Hagi" should be used for clarity. I agree with HeavenlyEire that the note on spelling in the character article should probably be near the top, but I can't see a good way to do it and still make the article flow well. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- If provided you only have to look at the ending credits to the anime for the official spelling. It's Wiki Policy to use the common name, which in this instance it has been noted to be Haji. Considering the whole article is centralized on the anime, whatever official titles and translations are given based on the anime should be used. Any others are seconday (e.g. manga, etc...) and cam be noted in the article under the main title of the character. Fox816 (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- So it looks like consensus is to use Haji. The footnotes on the main and episode articles have footnotes to this affected, while on the characters list, its been noted at the top of Haji's section (though some anon has twice tried to make it a hidden comment). Collectonian (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The ending credits spell his name "Hagi". This image should speak for itself. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hmmm...looks like they can't decide how to spell it either :P Dino, do you remember which episode you saw Haji on? Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
For what it's worth, the subtitles on the DVD release spell it "Hagi." Kerochan no Miko (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reception
http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/disc_reviews/7088.php - AoD review of the first box set (sticking here until I or someone else has times to put into article)
Feel free to add links to any other reviews/reception info from reliable sources that can be used to expand that section. Collectonian (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chiropteran plural; Chevalier and Queen caps...
Something that's been bugging me for a while is how "chiropteran" should best be pluralized in the articles. If we go by way of language, than its proper pluralization would be "chiroptera"; however, as I recall, the dubbed anime seems to use the term "chiropterans" (and this is the term I tend to use when editing). You may also want to have a look at this really old discussion. Along a similar vein, should "chevalier" and "queen" be capitalized, or not? —Dinoguy1000 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think chevalier, queen or chiroptera should be capitalized as they are not proper names, just identifying terms (like dog, cat, horse, etc). For the chiroptera thing...good question! You've probably noticed I've been back and forth on it myself, but I think you are right. The dub uses chiropterans for plural, as does the manga, so that is probably what we should use. For singular, though, is it chiroptera, or chiropteran? I've seen both used, but the manga uses chiropteran. Collectonian (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- ~snick snick~ I'm guessing chiropteran would also be correct. I really need to hurry up and get my hands on the first DVD set...its supposed to have some extras that would help with the production section. Collectonian (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was always under the impression that "Chevalier" stood for a named group, like "Schiff", but eh. Also, "chiropteran" would be more Greek than Latin, but since the use is Anglicized, use English singluar/plural construction. —TangentCube, Dialogues 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, so it seems we're in agreement that "chiropteran", "chevalier", and "queen" should not be capitalized, and the plural form of "chiropteran" is "chiropterans". Barring any objections, then I'll start making necessary changes across the Blood+ articles (should these also apply to Blood: The Last Vampire?). —Dinoguy1000 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've gotten the three Blood+ articles clean, but feel free to recheck, especially on the chiropteran/s one. I don't know on Blood: The Last Vampire. They are separate and I can not remember, at the moment, if they use chiropteran or chiroptera. They do not, however have chevaliers or queens, so it should probably be considered separately based on the film and its manga/novels rather than on Blood+'s Collectonian (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blood+ navbox?
Does anyone have any objections to making a Blood+ navbox? if not, I'll go ahead and create {{Blood+}} with links to the main article (of course), the lists of episodes and characters, and to Blood: TLV, and then add it to each page. —Dinoguy1000 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I would object as I feel it is unnecessary. The articles are already linked very nicely and appropriately. There are only three Blood+ articles, so a template seems very excessive. The main has proper links to the subs, and the two lists are well linked. However, it may be something to consider later, as I'm pretty sure the manga and novels will end up being broken into separate lists, as more volumes are released. The episode list will probably also end up being broken into separate season pages once all of the summaries are in place. Then it would have six and a template would be good. So that said, I guess maybe creating it now would be fine to. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Looks good to me! :) And perfect timing since the edit with the span tags finally spurred me to get off my lazy behind and get those two other lists made :) My only concern is the inclusion of Blood the Last Vampire. I'm worried people will think they should go through and add BtLV info in these articles or more of BtLV's links to the template when it shouldn't. Collectonian (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks! I fixed the template to link to the new articles. It was weird - I was testing the template and all of a sudden the links weren't working right. Then I noticed you reverted my edits, so I posted here, and suddenly you split the article! It's a lot better now. TLV: Yeah, I wasn't quite sure what to do with that one. It probably should left out entirely, I guess. I did think of using two dots to separate it from the rest of the row. What do you think? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hmmm....I'd say just take it out. While it was the basis for Blood+ being created, they have little relation beyond that and its only even mentioned really in the main article. I've put the template on all the articles. It should be pretty stable for awhile, though once all the episode summaries are done, the episode list will probably be split into 4, but that will definitely be awhile yet :P Everything else should now be good. Unless the video games every get licensed, its unlikely we'll be able to get much more information about them, so no splits there ;) Collectonian (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think the formatting is fine. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
(unindent) Ooh, nice work, you two! I went ahead and made a couple of edits to the navbox before reading this, so I added TLV to a "Related" group without knowing that you two had decided to omit it. If you prefer it not be mentioned at all, I'll remove it, otherwise (IMHO) it looks pretty good. —Dinoguy1000 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, no - that's really good, I wish I had thought of that. The linking on the title is good, but I'm worried it's not obvious enough. Maybe listing Blood+ in the Blood+ section would be good just in case? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What happened to all the backstory that used to be in the plot section?
I remember part of the plot explained things about the series such as vampires existing in the past and how they became Chiropterans over generations. Where is all that? Link's Awakening (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was pure fan speculation, personal opinion, and guess work. As none of it could be verified through reliable sources and none of it existed in the actual anime series, it was appropriately removed. Collectonian (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, that was the other issue, a lot of mixing between Blood+ and TLV. Blood+ first novel is out (yay) and I have it on order, so if it has any thing discussing it, I will add it to the article somewhere. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
