Talk:Genshiken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Genshiken was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 23, 2007
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.

Contents

[edit] Favourite Anime, Favourite Game

I understand that there are alot of similiar named animes and mangas named within their favourites but they are intentionally spelt incorrectly, eg Kugayama Mitsunori's favourite manga being "Anmanga Daioh" instead of Azumanga Daioh. They are meant to be like this. --An 12:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we need any of this information? It tends to be incorrectly corrected in the above way, and doesn't really add much to the article. I'm strongly inclined to rip everything but names and descriptions out of this system, but I'm willing to be talked down if someone feels strongly otherwise. DenisMoskowitz 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Those factoids are integral references of the meta-anime that is Genshiken? --maru (talk) contribs 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel it shows you how much the otaku's love their anime and video-games, to the extent that they even have favourites. Also they reflect upon their personality such as Saki having board-game instead of a video-game as her favourite. I personality find them quite interesting to know and read, plus I don't feel there have been too many reverts because of this. --An 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I finally was looking at this article when I was at home, and corrected all the favourites using the Del Rey Manga translation. Some of them appeared to have been simply translated differently (Yujiro Tactic vs. Tactics Yujiro) but some were entirely wrong (Pudweiser the Movie). If this section is to stay in it needs to be maintained against vandalism. I'll help, now that I know it's correct, but it still seems like more trouble than it's worth. --DenisMoskowitz 16:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I took the initiative to add some links to their favorites, based in info found in the later chapters of the manga, as well as posts in forums online. I hope this isn't too much. Siggy the Surreal 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking the fake names to the actual names is fine - I think it makes them more vandal-proof. DenisMoskowitz 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese plot developments in English article

Would it be appropriate to update this article with more biographical information from the more recent manga volumes in Japan (Sasahara being made the 3rd generation president, Oougi joining, etc), or should we leave it with just the anime information? --Mukashi 07:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stick with what's available in English. --DenisMoskowitz 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem adding stuff that is not available to English readers -- in fact I think that's a great idea and encourage Mukashi to do so if he is aware of ongoing plot developments there. However, I think the article should make it clear which parts are currently only available to Japanese readers, which parts reflect the anime (is it available in English?), and which reflect the manga as English-speaking readers will be familiar with it. I think that a spoiler warning will be sufficient to protect English readers who are not yet familiar with Japanese developments. This isn't a series about massive, dramatic, plot twists anyway! ;)
I don't know whether this distinction is best made by having things in separate sections, or just in the wording of the text. --Kit 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, at least some of the anime is available in English. --DenisMoskowitz 00:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Eh, use this: Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning. --zerofoks 22:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Mukashi- definitely add it. The entry is incomplete elsewise; original source language only matters when it is being linked to or inserted in the article, not when summarized in English... --maru (talk) Contribs 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully with the above the post so long as a spoiler warning is in place I think it is a great idea to have as much information as is out. On that note are there only 7 volumes total? I know that is all that is currently announced for U.S. release but I thought I read someone else there were at least 10 out in Japan? Ryokosha 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, it's been a long time since I've had a chance to read this... Right, if I get the time in the next few weeks, I'll see if I can't expand this article a little. I don't have anything past volume 6 of the manga however (I believe 7's been out for a while now, and 8 may have been released by now as well), so I'm a little behind on the latest events in the manga now. To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been released in English further than volume 4, though I might be wrong. --Mukashi 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The English manga is up to book 5. All 12 episodes of the anime have been released.DenisMoskowitz 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode titles

It would be good if someone were to put up the episode title list and relate them to the plot line. A more specific plot summary would be nice too. --maru (talk) contribs 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done a brief synopsis section, though we can easily expand the table to include details such as original airdate and manga parallel chapters --An 09:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anime/Manga

I am not sure what this article refers to. can someone clear this up? --Malomeat 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are yout alking about the intro? It was a manga that was made into an anime, AFAIK. --maru (talk) contribs 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project G

Should this be in the Genshiken section because its a Genshiken Dojinshi or its own, since its not genshiken, also, it is really small, so i think it should just go in here, theres not much about it so it would just be a permenent stub. I don't know how to do polls but this should be made into one. --YdoUask 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

Ok, as suggested by the person who keeps reverting the artical to an outdated version, I'll post in here, Julian you should to, since you may check history before you do here, ill post a message there too. But I digress. Ok, yes, I wouldn't doubt if the series is over in Japan, but it isn't in America, according to you there are 2 volumes left to be distributed (I don't have volume 6 with me, i lent it to a friend, so i can't tell you when Volume 7 will come out, i recall october..) Volume 7 and Volume 8. Now, if there are two volumes that have yet to be sold how can it be over, there were no annoncements of the cancelation of the Genshiken manga. Just to clarify we are talking about the manga, yes, the Anime only had 13ish episodes and all are concluded. You, Julian, said to " Wait until the volume is out." and "Preview information for vol. 6 is unnecessary for a series that is already over in Japan." First off. The new Volume is out, thats what i've been saying. If I had a good digital camra I'd post a picture of it (I have a cell cam, but its not too good), but i can't do that because i lent it out, i'll probobly have it back in a week or two. But why should I have to prove myself when all you have to do is go into a Waldenbooks or Borders and ask if they have Genshiken Volume 6? In fact, right now, go to waldenbooks.com and search genshiken, right there is Volume 6, and right there I just proved you wrong. It may seem that i'm taking this out on you and only you but, well, if any one else would have kept changing an informative artical of Wikipedia what would you do? Wikipedia is suposed to be a place where you can pass on your knowledge of things. I KNOW that Volume 6 is out because I bought it, read it, and lent it. So, are you saying that, somehow, someway, that never happened? YdoUask 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that the English version of volume 6 is out. In fact, I've had my copy for over a month now; Del Ray sold early editions of vol. 6 at Anime Expo in early July, with copies shipping out to stores shortly afterward. As such, I think it would be wise to update the article, considering the information seems to be updated as of only volume 4..Djseifer 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with the recent changes is that they treat comic events as news, putting them in past tense and reporting on many small changes. Fictional events should always be described in present tense, not past, as they are "happening" whenever they are read. Also, the point of the character section is to describe the character, not to report every action they take. I feel that information about Kousaka cosplaying, Ogiue's Sasahara x Madarame sketches, etc. would be better off in a chapter-summary section. I'll try to find some time to make some of these changes myself a little later. DenisMoskowitz 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ok u guys said theres a volume 9 but volume 8 didnt have a preview or anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.66.61 (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What, do you expect us to buy you a copy, even though you can't read Japanese? Just be patient and wait for the English version to come out. It's only a little over a month away. --Julian Grybowski 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

YES i actually do expect you guys to do that or else you'd be lying also please explain why the next volume preview wasn't at the 8 book i mean are you guys so lazy that you guys dont want to change it its like your certain that there is a 9th book but its been months —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.66.61 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shut up and wait till November 27--SeizureDog 06:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i still dont see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.88.154 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't magically appear in front of you on release day, you have to buy a copy. I thought that this much, at least, would be obvious.--Julian Grybowski (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
well my other ones magically appeared lol

i am still wondering how come they didnt show a preview of the next book are they going to surpise us or something???

[edit] Profiles

I'm the person who has edited a number of these profiles (namely Ogiue's), though I generally have not done it while logged in.

The direction I was going for in rewriting these is to make them less awkward to read, as well as summarizing a character overall, rather than just stating events one after the other. Someone else in another section of this discussion page said that events in the manga/anime could be in a separate section or page, and I'm inclined to agree. While important events are of course part of the characters, I think the profile section should give a reader a summary of the character, leaving elaborate details for elsewhere. SDShamshel 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you did a good job of it. It was a nice mix of old info and new info. Personally I like it as it is right now. BrendantheJedi

[edit] Moved from main article: Season 2?

.i dont know how to use wikipedia but i just looked on the japanese genshiken ?kujian web site ant they ar producing the 2nt season of genshiken somone please help me put this into the page if you need proof go to http://www.kujian.info/ and click movie Im sorry i am bad with code

—TangentCube /c /t  01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC), originally posted by User:65.30.158.48 on the main page

Just looked. They're advertising OVA 2 (episode 14), which will be released with the second Kujian DVD Box on 23 February, but nothing about a second season. --Julian Grybowski 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review; GA on Hold

Problems with Infobox:

  • There is an embedded link in the OVA box; remove it and replace with a wikilink and consider making a page for the studio.

Problems with Lead:

  • Three foreign terms, otaku, tankōbon, and seiyū are not explained. Perhaps pipelinking the last two as bound volumes and voice actors would be better; as for otaku, explain in context what exactly this thing is since not all readers of this article will understand these foreign terms, and if you can keep your readers in one place, it'll be easier for them to comprehend what they're reading.
  • Possibly too short; the critera for the lead states an article of this size should have one to two paragraphs, so you could try to incorperate the others sections in the article not represented in the lead, such as Culteral references, and Critical response.
  • Copyediting; 9 --> nine
  • Consider making a stub for the creator of the series; at that, try to make a stub for the other red linked pages; while this isn't going to affect the GA review, per the criteria, it's a helpful suggestion to make the page look more important.

Problems with Plot summary:

  • Weasle words such as "several" in the first sentence should be replaced with more specific detail; just how many college studnets are there? In the third sentence, Kanji is referred to by his surname instead of his given name; with the criteria at WikiProject Japan, the characters should be referred to by their given names whenever possible. This issue comes up again in the Characters section.
  • Plot could be expanded a bit as it's a bit small.

Problems with Characters:

  • The name Kousaka should be changed to Kōsaka. Same with Souchiro to Sōchiro
  • Misspelled particular in Kanji's description.

Problems with Culteral references

  • First sentence; contain --> contains
  • There is a single inline reference; it needs more

Problems with Anime adaptation:

  • First sentence; explain what Genco is; 12 --> twelve; 3 --> three; 5 --> five; you see what I'm getting at.
  • Change link from Media Factory Inc. to Media Factory; the of in "October of 2006" can be omitted.
  • Link full dates; the December 22 date is not fully linked.

Problems with Critical response:

  • This section is too small. While there is some information on response from the manga, there is none from the anime. Expand this section and cite it with reliable sources.

Issues with External links:

  • These are more improvments than problems really. The ANN link to the anime should be given as it's a standard for most anime/manga article to include a link to ANN.
  • Categories should be alphabatized. Also, you may try to find more categories, though this is merely a suggestion.

Other issues include copyediting that this article should go through to tighten up the prose as when I was reading it, there was some akward wording that made it hard to understand. Furthermore, the source material for this series is the manga, yet there is no section for it in the article; the anime, conversely, gets a section of its own.--十八 04:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

About the names; WP:MOS-JA says "Names should be romanized according to common usage, which includes unconventional romanizations by licensees (e.g., Devil Hunter Yohko and Tenjho Tenge)." Kousaka and Souchiro are the romanizations used by Del Rey Manga, therefore they have to be romanized that way in this article. Kazu-kun 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, then I'll strike out that comment.--十八 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done some work on the lead. Some feedback would be appreciated. --Julian Grybowski 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead is much improved and the issues with it have been dealt with fine.--十八 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ajia-do link in the Infobox is now Wikilinked, as I went ahead and made a page for it. At the same time, I want to bring up one issue about the Characters section: while you recommend that the characters be referred to as often as possible by their given names, they themselves do not do this. When it does happen, it is usually between Keiko and Kanji (brother and sister), by Kousaka when addressing Kasukabe (his girlfriend), or by Angela (an American). Given this, it seems awkward to shoehorn in references to their given names, when they're hardly used in the context of the series itself. Thoughts? --Julian Grybowski 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point, but all I was trying to go for was consistency. If you can make it consistent, then that would be best. Either way, this article hasn't improved much since I reviewed it, and the major things lacking are more on reception and a section for the manga. It's been seven days, so for now, this article has failed. Good luck on the improvements and I'll be willing to review it again when you nominate it again in the future.--十八 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting section / manga chapters page?

So, after putting the main Genshiken article on the backburner for a while (partly due to lack of free time, and partly due to the fact that the TV episodes page warrants more attention with the second season airing right now), I've decided to devote some effort to improving the page again, and getting it up to GA status. So, without further ado...

The main thing that I'd like to add is a section on the series setting. While it may seem rather trivial at the moment, now that the manga's been completely out for nearly a year and the anime will be following suit, it is worthwhile to to help explain the series to future readers by assigning the series to a particular time and place. (One which, I might add, is much harder to pin down in the anime due to referencing things that didn't exist during the manga serialization.) Additionally, this section could be ideal for explaining some of the more general ways in which the Genshiken universe differs from the real world, such as close analogues to real-life events and locations (e.g. "Shiiou University" for Chuo University, "Comifes" for Comiket), moreso than series and publications. Aside from that, I think the time might be right to include the chapters of the manga somewhere, either in a separate section on the List of Genshiken episodes page (which might necessitate said page's renaming) or on a page of its own right. However, I will not act on either of these until I get a sense of what other people would like to see out of the article. Any suggestions / comments on this? --Julian Grybowski 09:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of the lack of responses, I've gone ahead and made a first attempt at a volume / chapter list, but will not substantially modify the main article at this time. If you can add to that article, please do; I only have volumes 4-7 in Japanese with me at the present time, which somewhat precludes me from listing everything. --Julian Grybowski 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research tag

Julian Grybowski:

I added the original research tag to the article because I didn't have time to alter the content in the instances of original research and weasel words. I apologize for not leaving a note on the talk page -- I figured that the instances would be obvious. The entire second paragraph is what's in question. It's very well written, and I, personally agree with its content, but, nonetheless, it goes beyond stating the facts (and letting them stand up on their own) and dives into the realm of original research. It also contains a few weasel words, which would normally be acceptable if this wasn't an encyclopedia entry. I'll go through the instances contained within the paragraph one by one.

  • "Genshiken is known particularly for it's down to Earth portrayal of otaku in Japan..."

Firstly, "earth" shouldn't be capitalized here (but that's besides the point). Who says that the portrayal of otaku in the show is "down to earth"? That is an opinion, not a fact -- even though I personally agree with it. Also, "is known" is a weasel phrase. It suggests that the statement is common knowledge, when it is actually not.

  • "...who have frequently been stereotyped or otherwise caricaturized by the Japanese media."

This is certainly true but could use a citation. Someone can always come around and ask, "says who?!" Someone might feel that the charaterization of otaku in the Japanese media fairly represents these people for the way they are. You and I might disagree and feel that they are caricatured, but we are not everyone. Why not quell the argument before it starts, right?

  • "It represents their habits and personal quirks without flinching, subtly criticizing its characters at times, but never sacrificing their humanity."

This is total original research -- it is an individual's opinion. It uses "subtle criticism"? That's a personal assessment. It does so "without flinching"? More personal assessment. It "criticiz[es] its characters at times, but never sacrific[es] their humanity." That's a compelete opinion -- there is no ambiguity. I don't think more explanation is needed here.

  • "This allows him to breathe more life into the characters..." This is an opinion that could be altered to be a fact. It is an opinion that the characters have life breathed into them. Some people might feel that they're insipid, not full of life, regardless of the details of 1960s manga and anime that are injected into the show. Why not simply describe how the characters are flourished and let the facts stand on their own?

That's as far as I got. The paragraph is well written but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Opinions can be stated when characterizing opinions of other people's work, but they must adhere to Wikipedia policy. If you read the "Characterizing Opinions of People's Work" section of the policy page, Neutral Point of View, you will see that opinion are allowd in certain instances. The policy states that an opinion may be used in articles as long as the opinon represents an interpretation held by the general public (e.g. Shakespeare was one of the most influential writers in the English language) or is an interpretation held by a notable individual in the area of interest (e.g. the opinion of a top-echelon Impressionism expert on a Manet painting). In the latter instance, the name of the expert would be given and his/her opinion would be cited.

I hope this answers your question... Cheers, ₪ ask123 {t} 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when this happens. A perfectly good article gets corrupted by some stupid users that come in and just add the opinionated comments inbetween things. I'm quite sure none of that was there when I was writing the article. I'd have no qualms with you (or someone else) just removing any OR statement.--SeizureDog (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add Ramen Tenshi Pretty Menma section under Cultural Reference

I've add Ramen Tenshi Pretty Menma section using sample from Kujibiki Unbalance section above it. I do not split it into a new article because short of information (we can wait until it is made into full season like Kujibiki). If there are any comments or corrections (English is not my mother tongue), leave it here and thanks in advance. Mikamura (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical response

The critical response section could be more fleshed out and balanced. It is not big enough and doesn't have one particular citation where needed (it's just one instance that I found -- it's a tiny section). Also, many reviews on anime websites (which is used as sourcing here) are hardly critical and often simply dote over the show at which they're focusing. It would be more credible to look for other reviews outside of, say, Anime News Network. Anime fans and Anime website reviewers are often not as scrutinizing as general media critics. For instance, if the anime in question is a TV show, a general TV critic (with familiarity in anime) will often be more scrutinizing than an anime-only reviewer. I'm sure there is a mix of positive and negative reviews out there. Either way, let's represent the actual critical response. Of course, it is debatable whether or not a "critical response" section is needed here in the first place. ask123 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)