Talk:Case Closed

Why not Detective Conan?

The article says that this anime is known in Japan and in MOST countries as Detective Conan. Yet, it was titled as Case Closed. Just because it is called as Case Closed in United States and that Wikimedia Foundation is in United States, you will favor the title "Case Closed" more. I thought Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Does the number of those who know this series as Case Closed surpasses the number of those who know it as Detective Conan? eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just realized there was an ongoing discussion about the title. Sorry, I haven't come across it at first. Well, I'll just leave this post here. I don't want to add my comment on the above discussion. There's already a bunch of serious guys there who've said what I've said. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, also every time a name is brought up they have it in english, why I wonder did they change the names to things so dumb, their names were fine. Now we've got Japanese people with names like Jimmy, do you know how ashamed I felt being an American when I found out we called him Jimmy? Why didn't they just keep the names the same... but that's not the question for hereSpinningfox (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fansite. And, per policy, this website is for English speakers only, and by English speakers it refers to Anglosphere.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. English is already being taught at schools throughout the world. English today is not limited to the Angloshere you're talking about. I came from the Philippines and I know most Filipinos can understand the English Wikipedia. People from other ASEAN countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and East Timor can understand English as well. They may not be fluent in speaking it but at least they can read the English Wikipedia. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!}

I Personally Think we should change it to Detective conan. most fans will literally GAG on the English names... is it unverifiable to say "The names were changed in the theory that it would make the show more accessible to western audiences, a theory that was disasterously debunked"

The names were changed from what I hear because Gosho hoped to market for the general market, not just hard core anime fans... but most americans arentt able to enjoy this sublime mixture of Angstful romance, unrequited duty, self doubt, and goofy humor. ---- Conan Fan 7:58 June 24th

Per our guidelines, it will remain as Case Closed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, can you just enlighten me on what guidlines lead to this results? I always have the problem of shut these people up, but I couldn't.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it would be better to have the article called Detective conan, I mean most Americans probably like the original title better (Detective Conan) Anyway big fan of Detective conan!--Spittlespat (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM and WP:MOSJP, as well as the overall consensus of the Anime and manga project. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That cite of the Manual of Style doesn't really effectively address criticism of the article title, and the consensus appears to ignore some salient points. "Detective Conan" is an official English title. It's used by rights holders closer to the original intellectual property than the FUNi license (TMS, from which FUNi licensed the right to dub the animation). It's not a transliteration, it's plain English. There is even another officially licensed English adaptation which uses the title "Detective Conan" (broadcast by Animax Asia [1]). The decision to favor one set of regional licenses as "official" seems more to accommodate commercial interests than maintain scholarly neutrality.

On the other hand, the English title "Detective Conan" does not appear to originate with the original intellectual property itself (held by Aoyama and the publisher Shogakukan). Works published by Shogakukan dealing specifically with the comic (such as the serial in Weekly Shonen Sunday, the "Love Conan" that covers the comic version, and the graphic novel story collections) do not use that English. Given that the Viz graphic novel license does not require sublicensing from TMS (reference the rights section in the "Case Closed" graphic novels), it could be argued to be as "close to the original intellectual property" as TMS's license.

Anyway, my point is that this is by no means a controversy that has been adequately addressed by the current consensus opinion. The decision to use the title should be reevaluated from time to time, especially if it becomes clear that none of the "Case Closed" licenses would ever be complete adaptations. 74.233.233.147 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Esatparax whatever your name is Wikipedia is not just only for English people you're right about it not being a fansite but I'm sure alot of chinese people and Japanese people and people from India (trust me I know 4 people from India and they all seen and like Detective conan I'm sure they would like the original name better!--Spittlespat (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since most of our English readers are in North America and the UK, I'd probably say it should be called whatever it is called in those regions. –xeno (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, per WP:MOS-AM, we will continue use Case Closed, the official English release name of both the manga (primary work), the anime series, and all of the movies. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least put the original Japanese names in parentheses next to the English names? The first place "Shinichi" appears is nearly halfway down the article, and it's in reference to the TV drama. In the original works, Jimmy is Shinichi, and just reading the plot summary at the top won't reveal this. --Foursixtwo (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I have put up a notice for any future editors to see. I don't know if that is allowed, but I want further Detective Conan claims to be deleted without further notice.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Movies Section

Sense the issues has been raised, what do you think better orginizes the Movie Section on this page. I think the chart does wonders, it orginizes it in a very neat, useful way. I think it used to be in prose form a long time ago, but this made it look less sloppy. So should it be left alone (stay in wiki-chart form) , or be made into "prose" (written) form? - Prede (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To "offically" ad in my view, I strongly feel the section should be prose. The movies should be listed in release order, with the titles in the proper {{nihongo}} template, details on director/producer (where different, release date, a short (1-2 brief sentences) summary, and English licensing. The current table really just lists titles and release making it little more than a catalog. The first two paragraphs of the section, on movies 10 and 12, are a partial implementation of that idea. Prose is neat and tidy, particularly when well written. If the section gets too long, which is likely with the number of films, then they can be broken off into an appropriate list, and the section here reduced to a lead out to that. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well what we used to have there was nothing more then the names of the movies, year they were released, and amount of money they made, written in prose (I think). That's why they made it into a chart so long ago. If there is enough info to turn the whole movie section, into something similar to the first two paragraphs of the section, then it would be nice to add to this article. I thought you meant remove the chart, and just write out (almost in a list) money they made, and year released, and title(nothing more). That is what was there, and that is what looked messy, so they turned it into a chart. For now though, the chart works. I don't know if there is enough info to make the whole section like the begining, but if there isn't we should just keep the chart indefinitely. - Prede (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You could write a short paragraph saying a Detective Conan film has been released every April since 1997 and split the chart into a stand alone list, like what AutoGyro did with Lupin III's TV specials section.--Nohansen (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Collectonian, you have removed the incoming numbers, together with the citations.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the box office numbers were unreferenced, and that belongs in the reception section. That, however, has no relevance to whether or not the movies should be listed in prose or a table. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced? Check this diff again, you actually removed the references for box office numbers. OK, those websites did not work any more, but when I added them, they worked. I thought links that don't work any more can still be references.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph above them was referenced (and in absolutely horrible fashion...over 10 links shoved in a single REF!). The links don't work, however, so they can not be verified. Dead links must be replaced in order to still be references, with with the updated link (if moved) or an archive link (if available). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use < br / >, in the chart? other charts use them(where needed) for displaying the English and Japanese names of Movies(Tv speaciles), and it helps orginize it. As of now, it is starting to look a bit messy, and streches the column over more then neccessay. Either use < br / >, or create a new column for kanji and Romanized titles of the movie. - Prede (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The BR is unnecessary, and it doesn't look messy at all to me. Its supposed to fill the column, that's kind of how a table set to fill the width works. The titles should not be put in separate columns. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is everyone else's thought's on this? I just think it looks ( a little) messy , and useing BR would clean that up. A new column would work too. I don't mind that much though. Just a suggestion... - Prede (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The table is meant to be turned into prose eventually anyway, right? If so, there's little reason to worry about how it looks. Regardless of that, though, I feel that neither <br/> nor a seperate column are necessary, and that the table looks fine now the way it is. —Dinoguy1000 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now worried on this section. Not that I can't make it into prose, but the possible length it would ensue. It would make it potentially longer than the anime section, not to say the manga section. (I need expert on the manga thing. It was kept this short mainly because of a lack of published, reliable source...--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposed deletion of several DC/CC character articles, per WP:FICT

I have no reason to believe the following DC/CC character articles would possible to have off-universe notability in the forseeable future:

• Chianti (Case Closed)
• Korn (Case Closed)
• Tequila (Case Closed)

Although I'm not prodding or afdding them yet, but I want relevant editors consider merging them into List of Case Closed characters.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have raised an AfD for these articles. Please discuss accordingly.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The only one I can consider keeping is Chianti, sense she is in a few episodes. However sense I have not seen past episode 83, I don't really know how important she is. If all these characters are minor, please merge all the important info (and the sources I found for them) to their section on the character page. I did do some work fixing up their sources, so it be nice if you keep that info alive. - Prede (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, you can move those you think as important. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean Merge the characters and the important info(and my sources) into the main character page? Will do. - Prede (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'll do it tomorrow or the next day. Been really busy lately, thus me absense on Wikipedia. Just on to check watchlist really. Make sure those character pages are not deleted before I merge them. Thanks ^.^ - Prede (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got your message, Samuel. Chianti and Korn have appeared in a few episodes so far(425, 464, and in several episodes of the recently aired longest BO arc: 491-504) Therefore, their importance in the series may enhance over time, but as of currently, I don't mind the merge since their roles are limited. The only article I don't approve is Tequila (Case Closed) since he only appeared and died in one episode and has one or two flashback scenes. CH (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Short stories

The short stories (名探偵コナン 特別編) exist! There are 31 volumes. You can see here, here and here, so don't remove it!!!!! --Horsee (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

...please. Those are called "Special editions." No wonder even I was confused.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What Samuel said...those are not "short stories" those are re-releases of the original. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No; they are original manga that uses CC/DC characters but are not drawn by Aoyama, but his assistants. For some reason, they are called Special Editions. Horsee, please use the nomanclature of Special Edition.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Those don't get an infobox then, just a short section in the media section. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Idea of what should be done for List of Hiroshi Agasa's Inventions

There have been discussions on the fate of this article, and also the APTX4869 section of List of Case Closed characters. My idea is to merge these two into an article List of Case Closed objects-- what are your opinion on this?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

List of case closed objects doesn't sound like a great idea, the title also doesn't sound so good too! It's good as it is doesn't need any improvement.--Spittlespat (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up the page

A lot of the refs are broken links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone fix the movies back to a table format.

Also the episode pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 21:03, August 23, 2008 (UTC)

No, the movies are in prose per consensus and the MoS. The episode pages are in the appropriate table format? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)