Talk:Suzuka (manga)/Archive 1

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

Manga Chapters

If anyone has spare time or something, please add manga chapters. I'll upload more covers later, they can be found in the category Suzuka images. Leefan 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chapter headings for all volumes to date (1 through 15) have been put up

I am considering adding story synopsis for each chapter??? Little reluctant to do that since the US publishers have only put out the first half dozen volumes: readers who haven't been able to read the story past the current English versions might get upset. Maybe if I have a BIG spoiler alert before the descriptions?

All listings are from the original Japanese books; and the chapter heading translations are mine. If they aren't the same as the US versions, it's all on me.

--fizzman 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

I just want to say goodjob, and that the Suzuka wikipedia entry has gone a long way in just a few months. So far though, not a single article is perfect yet, and I just want to give a general idea of what still needs to be added:
Main Page
The description of characters in general still needs to be improved, and general descriptions of other pages as well. In addition, things like theme and analysis as well as connections to culture could be added for greater effect, as well as some trivia and popularity facts.

Main Characters
Each main character should have a section on discription, and a bigger section on plot, and really minor characters, such as the cat, should go under their respective character page, or in this case, Yamato's page. Yamato's page can also include more on his family, rather than putting them in the minor character's page, since they almost never show up. Likewise for Suzuka's family. The character pages also need trivia, and i would say the best friend for these would be the character profile pages included in the manga. The plot could be split into sections by arc, and contain personality changes and analysis.

Music Page
The music page is pretty good, maybe a lyrics section, and better COACH description and background.

Manga Chapters
Here, this page is not yet considered an article. One of my goals will be to include enough information about the manga to make it article-worthy, such as manga development and trivia. Publisher background and popularity, as well as kandansho (or what ever it was) background.

Since I've taken on this part of the Suzuka project, I'll expand the page into "Article" status. Don't think I'm going to bother with the Kodansha publisher info though... I'll stick to stuff that directly relates to the Suzuka manga series. I probably WILL add the writer's (Seo Kouji) insights towards his creation tho. --fizzman 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)



Anime
This page is so far similar to the Manga page, lacking in article-worthy material and containing mostly summaries and lists. To improve this, background on the release of Suzuka by Studio Comet would help, as well as the english version about to be released soon. trivia, and manga-anime differences would also be welcome, as well as a brief touch on how fansubbing does exist, and that they are illegal now, due to the licensing of Suzuka to the US. a voice cast section comparing the seiyuu and american voice actor would also be welcome, and maybe cover the opening and ending music a little bit, or at least provide a link to the music section.



Like I said, good job everyone, and however much this may seem like commanding, I am merely highlighting my own goals in third person, and no one has to follow it, although I feel that if i express my ideas, it would help. Leefan 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference Section

I know I screwed up the formatting, but I don't know how the references, and div tags work. Yet. When I figure it out, I'll fixit. --fizzman 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it's fixed --fizzman 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review, GA on Hold

Infobox
  • Genres should be alphabatized
  • Find a larger picture, like a larger image of the current pic of the first manga cover; it's much too small
Lead
  • Aunt should not be capitalized
  • 26 --> twenty-six. This should be done for every number in the prose that can be written in at least two words
  • ...under their newly formed...; "newly" is a term that can become dated, as the older this article gets, the more inaccurate that statement will be; remove any phrases that may become dated; others may be: currently, recently, lately, etc.
  • The three paragraphs here are much too small; either merge and expand into two paragraphs, or find more to write to expand the individual paragraphs
Plot
  • Hiroshima prefecture --> Hiroshima Prefecture
  • building/indoor bath; remove the slash and include an "and"; remove the sentō link in paraenthesis and pipelink it with indoor bath so it appears as: indoor bath
  • before arriving at his new home he walks; insert a comma between "home" and "he"
  • Never start setences with "Because", "And", "Or", or any such as these; change the instance of the sentence that begins with Because
  • 100 meter should not be italicized, and besides, 100 should be expressed as "one-hundred"
  • Plot should be longer anyway; this is a manga series that is over 100 chapters in length; I think you can write a little more about what is going on in this series
Does anybody have any suggestion how to do this? Since the series ongoing and focuses on character development, it is hard not to go into excessive details. (Duane543 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
The series must go through story arcs, am I right? You could write up a discription of some of the earlier arcs and give the reader a sense of what they will encounter if they were to read/watch this series. If the series focuses on character development, then show why in the plot section by exemplifying places in the plot that show when and how character development is present.--十八 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Done (Duane543 00:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
Characters
  • The voice actors listing should not be put into small text; this makes it difficult to read, especially for nearsighted people such as myself; place it under the names in new line
  • The first image listed has an underscore in the code; remove it
  • Captions in images should always end in a period
  • Instead of manually bolding the names, place a semi-colon right before the {{Nihongo}} templates; similarly, there is no need to manually italicize the romanized name as you have since the template takes care of this
  • There should be a space in the kanji separating the family name from the given name
Are you sure? Take a look at the article on Japanese wiki, it does not have any space between the family and given name. (Duane543 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
Just asking, but it is fixed now. (Duane543 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
  • And must there be those huge white spaces in between the images? Can you not write more on the characters here to fill in those spaces?
Done (Duane543 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
  • I count 5 red links in this section; consider making stubs for them
Media
  • Remove the second paragraphs in the next three sections and place them in a separate "Reception" section directly above "References"
Something like this (was linked to a sandbox) or were you thinking something different. Right now, that version in the sandbox looks more cluttered and disorganized to me. (Duane543 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
Yes, that is what I meant. I was actually on the verge of quickly failing this article before I got to read the media section as there was no clearly labelled section on Reception. It should be in it's own section to give you more room to talk about the material in the previous section, and most (if not all) GA and FA articles on fiction have separate sections on reception and critial response, or at least that's what I've seen in my experience.--十八 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Done (Duane543 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
Manga
  • Shōnen Magazine should be wikilinked as it's the first time this term appears in this section
  • ...published by Kodansha in March 3, 2004; that should be "on", not "in"
  • Japanese-language --> Japanese language
  • Tankōbon should be piplinked to appear as bound volumes; all Japanese terms should be treated in a similar manner
  • ...and second title to be added under its mature line'; what was the first? Don't leave the reader hanging like that

*24th --> twenty-fourth

  • Suzuka has been compared to other manga such as; remove the semi-colon here, and place it later between "on" and "Suzuka" in the line: since early on Suzuka used similar plot structure
  • Mature should not be capitalized
  • off the sensation they are make out of different ; make --> made
  • along with the windows reflections --> along with the reflections in the windows
Anime

*26 --> twenty-six; 72 --> seventy-two *half hour --> half-hour

  • Sentō should be pipelinked again to appear as bath house
Music
  • & --> and

*Seiyū should be pipelinked to appear as voice actor *Remove the pipelink for King Records and just write King Records

  • Most find the music respectable, but some may detest it when tries to be funny; this seems like original research, and as it doesn't have a cite, it should probably be removed
External links
  • Does the first link to the original author's website really need to be in this article if it's already in the author's own article?
Does the Anime News Network link have to be there when it is also used as a resource for the article? (Duane543 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
I feel that it does as an ANN link is a staple external link in all anime/manga articles, and it's much easier for the reader to find the resource in EL instead of the list of references. For other, less notable links, I may have the other opinion not to do this, but ANN is too notable to leave out of EL, even when it is cited in the article.--十八 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

--十八 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(To make it easier to see): According to WP:MOS-JA#Names of modern figures, it states, For a modern figure (a person born from the first year of Meiji (1868) onward), always use the Western order of given name + family name for Western alphabet, and Japanese style family name+<space>+given name for Japanese characters.; so yes, the space is necessary.--十八 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
  • I thought I might as well bring this up now. The article has now only one image in the infobox. Is it any way possible to find an image of just the logo to put in the infobox, then transfer the manga cover currently in the infobox down to the Media section? And then perhaps an image of one of the anime DVDs can go in the (soon to be) Reception section.--十八 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with a logo, but so far I have not seen one for Suzuka. (Duane543 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
I got one of the logo from a preview on Funimation's website, albeit, it's not the best ever, but it's okay for now. Also, I see in the reception section that there's a point about "oversized objects" that appear in the animation. Is there anyway to get an image screencap of an example of this, because that would be a perfect image to include in that section. Additionally, if you could find a single image which contains the main characters listed in this article, that would be good for the characters section.--十八 06:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't find an image single image with all characters listed in this article. I found a image here where the pencil is somewhat oversize or awkward and here where the umbrella could be described as having awkward or distracting placement. (Duane543 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
I'll just add that I also looked for a group shot image after I removed the single character images to no avail.--SeizureDog 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

GA re-review; not yet

After doing another review of the article and copyediting some minor points, I had the thought to do a check on extra media that may exist that may not be present in this article. Sometimes editors may miss drama CDs, or additional light novels or what not that may have been created on the series, and these are things that should be included for a GA class article.

That said, I did a quick look of the Japanese wiki page and found that a light novel had indeed been published in May 2007. Here's a link to it and here it is at amazon. It seems to have been written by Ayumu Fujisaki, and contains 12 pages within the book that were illustrated by Kouji Seo. Include this and other pertanent information about the light novel in the media section (and add the light novel box to the infobox) and I think that will do it for the GA review.--十八 00:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Okay, I'll pass the article now. Good work, and try to keep the article's quality up with making sure to copyedit any additions in order to keep consistancy throughout the whole article. And of course, added information in reception or anything related to an out-of-universe perspective are always needed.--十八 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Verify

In the Chinese Wiki in it's infobox it states Singapore publisher called Creative (創藝) also produces the manga, but I can't find any secondary source to back this up. Does anybody know if this is true or not? (Duane543 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

I think you're looking for Chuang Yi. A quick google search suggests that they probably do publish the manga in Singapore. --Squilibob 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked their catalog and they don't have Suzuka. So I think it may be an error on the Chinese Wiki site. (Duane543 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

If you want to discuss issues related to the Chinese entry, please use its talk page instead. As for your question, check here for an answer. —Broccoli 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I already checked Chuang Yi catalog. Discussing on Chinese wiki would not work considering that I can't read and write in Chinese. (Duane543 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Ecchi genre inappropriate

Have removed ecchi entry from the Infobox Genre listing. To preclude any problems, here is my rational: "Ecchi" is a phonetic spelling of the letter "H" and represents harenchi (ハレンチ）as well as hentai （ヘンタイ). Although in current usage, ecchi (エッチ) means the actual act of copulation, in literary context, it means explicit sexual scenes. An American equivalent would be "X-rated".
Although the Suzuka series has nudity, it is NOT sexually explicit nor is it X-rated. --fizzman 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that, Suzuka has been deemed by Kodansha/Del Rey ( I hold the manga in my hands as I type this ) as MATURE Content (18+ Blah blah, etc) in the United States.

Honestly that is just for show though. At best it would be "Cinemax/Showtime Softcore" on the scale of the Anime/Manga genres which include gratuitous lude-expression (Off the top of my head Tenjho Tenge (alternatively spelled, Tenjo Tenge) would exemplify this).

My "sub-argument" is that the Suzuka page is rather biased and gives a harsh critical review with the proper sources of those critiques, but overall for being such a new series it is a bit over-the-top with the depth and tone of it's analysis of the series SO EARLY ON in it's inception.

This should be reviewed as appropriate and some comments should be removed as a result of this because it affects the objectivity scale when viewed by lay-persons and/or new fans.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JankenTheOne (talk • contribs) 19:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Might as well step in and add my opinions.
First of all, I'm the one who wrote the opinion on the anime for THEM (Jake L. Godek). When I wrote my opinion of it (the first appearance of the review, when it was written on the forums, was dated November 11, 2005), Suzuka was still unlicensed in America and fansubbers were compiling the series on fansubs. On our site, we don't really divide between fansubs and licensing when it comes to reviews (some of them are even of the shows/movies being broadcasted) and when they do get licensed, mention of the licensing and who did it is made to the review. Also, as for the other sites, they usually give "running reviews" in that they follow each DVD and review each when they become available. Often, while one DVD of a show could get an "A" or 5 stars, the next DVD could be considered just so-so and be given a "C+" or 3 stars, so one some review sites (like Anime on DVD), the quality of the show waves with each DVD, sometimes in curves while on other sites (like THEM), reviews are usually of the series as a whole (and on our site in particular, other reviewers may give "second opinions" on the same anime, though it may be of a different viewing, like our first Card Captor Sakura review was written viewing the fansub during pre-Cardcaptors while the second was written viewing the box set of the original series released in the US post-Cardcaptors). My point being Suzuka, in essence, is still being reviewed on the "running review sites", but so far, reviews on it have been neutral (mine is likely the only thoroughly negative review of it present on the page that isn't a running review, though I may revise my own review). While it IS early to call heads or tails on it as a whole (seeing as the series hasn't been completely reviewed when it came to DVD release),it'd be best for the anime section of the page to say that reviews have been mediocre so far or use another term to mean that the reviews are still being completed as the show goes on in licensing and releases.
And about the ecchi/hentai mix-up, there is a decent difference between them. In categorization, ecchi (despite having a literal meaning associated with adultery) is usually placed under hentai (pervert in literal sense) as a sort of "softcore" form of it, especially in non-Japanese countries such as the US where the consciousness of this fact is switched. Ecchi (the anime/manga sense) usually includes stuff like swimsuits and nudity with no copulation (the latter is why Mahoromatic: Automatic Maiden is often considered as just an ecchi). While it is perverse and some ecchi definently is 18+, not all Ecchi is definently X-Rated (some Ecchi barely skate in as PG-13 at best). Hentai, on the other hand, does involve copulation and is more often than not the "X-Rated" standard of anime and manga. Even though the publishers of it say 18+ (which would likely place it in hentai), the online opinion of its age rating is variable, as many call it 13+ or 14+ and others agree with the 18+ rating. Since it DOES mention nudity but no copulation or sexually explicit conduct (I'm going by what you say, as I never read the manga of it, and the anime is decisively less adult and can be called one of the PG-13 Ecchi), the appropriate genre for the manga (in my opinion) is Ecchi as opposed to Hentai, regardless of what the makers say (they only gave a numerical age rating). Just my two cents. I wish you to be well and have a good night. Jake52 My talk 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you draw your attention to the Ecchi article that the Japanese usage is an adjective can be translated as lewd or sexy, while as a verb it can be translated as sexual intercourse. The English usage (in the context of manga and anime) has vague sexual content (such as skimpy clothing, partial or full nudity), but does not show sexual intercourse. When I put in Ecchi in the Genre section the the infobox, I was thinking in the terms of the English usage. As for the criticism that the article was "biased and gives a harsh critical review", all I can say that in order to get a GA rating on a article you have to cite reliable sources. You can't just put what the editor thinks because it is original research and will not pass the GA review. The reception section is the generalization of many reviews found on the series. The article can change to reflect new reviews, running reviews, or sales figures as long is they come from reliable sources and are cited. (Duane543 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC))