Jump to content

Talk:Anime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.207.225 (talk) at 02:27, 31 December 2011 (→‎Kappa Mikey is NOT anime!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAnime was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 14, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Reliable References List

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mKrArbLUS-sJ:www.itofisher.com/mito/ito.girlsgames.pdf+%22Mizuko+Ito%22+Anime&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a I'm adding this one... Professor of Cultural anthropology focusing on Anime, you can't really go wrong... plus cited before and has a PDF.

Minor but necessary

Would an admin please include the following disclaimer at the beginning of the article? I think it is totally reasonable: Template:JapaneseText

"No, we don't need it on the article. Those templates are basically useless anyway. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely don't need it. It's a junk template and {{nihongo}} does a good enough job at explaining how to configure one's computer to display Asian fonts without taking up valuable screen real estate. Also, I like to point to WP:NDA which is a content guideline prohibiting article disclaimers. In fact, in the last deletion discussion, that template was suppose to have be orphaned and then deleted. Why that hasn't happen is not very clear. It was a very odd close for a TfD, but that was suppose to have been the result. —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested revision for weasel-worded sentence.

In the Synonyms section, the sentence:

The term "ani-manga" has been used (by whom?) to collectively refer to anime and manga, though it is also a term used to describe comics produced from animation cels.

could be rephrased into:

The term "ani-manga" may be used to collectively refer to anime and manga, though it is also a term used to describe comics produced from animation cels.

in order to eliminate the weasel-wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it...However, I'm inclined to remove it because I've never heard the term used in that context, and there isn't a source to back up the claim. rzrscm (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I DID remove it because a google search seems to indicate that the only time it's used in that context is in the title of sites for both anime and manga...That doesn't indicate that it's used in that context normally. rzrscm (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent trends in anime are glossier coloring of characters, photorealistic backgrounds and elements of superflat. Also anime plots seem to hyperlink or buildup from previous animes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ll4n (talkcontribs) 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genres Sub-section

At some point in the past, this article included a subsection of anime genres, which have now been relegated to the infobox. I intend on adding a link to the existing List of anime genres which is currently absent, since the infobox only lists a few of them. Would it be appropriate to add such a sub-section again? (mentis (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As you can see in a previous discussion, the section was removed because it was entirely original research and did not cite any reliable sources. The genres section had already been tagged as original research for several months before it was finally removed. Apparently, another editor copied the section over to a new article 5 months late and it has been tagged as unsourced ever since. Since it has been well over two years since the original section was tagged as original research, I'm considering either nominating the genre article for deletion or redirecting it to Glossary of anime and manga. —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anime vs cartoons

It is widely accepted that anime is not a form of cartoon even if the cartoon was created in Japan. There is a fundemental diffrence between the two and that is that a cartoon does not follow a plot line like a anime does. For example a anime will follow a story line that is completed like a book or a volume of books. Whereas as cartoon will not fullfill a story line as such but will just be a stand alone episode that could be watched in any order and still make sence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witherdon (talkcontribs) 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually true, and only repeats several "facts" "known" by people who don't actually know anything. Sorry if that comes off as a little harsh, but it's the truth. There are plenty of anime and manga series which have no real plot or continuing storyline like a book or book series. A few examples off the top of my head include Crayon Shin-chan, Azumanga Daioh, Lucky Star, Nono-chan, and the list goes on. All of those have been adapted into anime series, too, and none have any real plot to them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some cartoons that have plot lines as well. For example, the Spider Man series in the early 90s had several multiple episode story arcs which would not make as much sense if watched in any order.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anime are Japanese cartoons...It sounds like you don't understand the definition of 'anime' or 'cartoon', and I can promise you that what you're saying is not widely accepted. Work on your grammar and spelling, kid. rzrscm (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually not completely true. The term is used this way in the west though if you look at article you would notice a soured statement clearly mentioning that in Japan the term anime is a generally used for all animation.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar: The Last Airbender has been the predominant example of Western Animation that follows a plotline. While I have argued it to be an "anime", from a visual-stand point, it is not. After a good 6-7 years, no one has been able to clearly explain the difference between "non-Japanese" vs "Japanese" animation. Sadly, after all this time, no one from the industry itself managed to make some kind of explanation or research either. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plotline irrelevant

Just a note and likely an opinion. Plotline has almost nothing to do with discerning "anime" vs "cartoon" in this "debate". With Marvel series entering into the "anime world", the "origin" of a story plotline is very much moot. It may be an anime adaptation; but y'cannot ignore that the story itself is very much American. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Paper" Animation

This is a unique form of animation from Japan. First comes to mind: Paper Mario. Another - episode previews to Hayate no Gotoku. If anyone knows what that is called, any info. on that will be appreciated. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not unique to Japan. It is called cutout animation, a recent example being Angela Anaconda. ----IsaacAA (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though what may be unique to Japan is how long cutout animation was dominant in the industry before WWII because celluloid was so expensive, and thus how skilled animators like Yasuji Murata and Noburo Ofuji became in the form.Michitaro (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Anime

Some People Create There Own Anime. How can they make a page for their anime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomsayer-Sama (talkcontribs) 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page is easy but unless the anime in question has been covered by reliable sources (sources that have a history of fact checking and accucry) and that coverage is non-trivial the article will not lasy long. If the anime is something that was created in spare time and the article is meant to promote it then Wikipedia is not the place for it.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lethality?

Japan has very high average life expectancy (like 79 for men and 84 for females or so). Yet, it appears there are suprisingly many anime-related personnel passing away in their (early) 40s, mostly because of cancer. Directors, voice actors and singers, illustrators, etc. Is there any pattern or recognized reason there? Should this be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.129.167 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bunch of nonsense. —Farix (t | c) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are complaints that workers in the anime industry in Japan are overworked and underpaid, which can possibly lead to health problems (though I would agree the claim about cancer is farfetched, to say the least). But even such arguments should not be cited here without authoritative, reliable sources.Michitaro (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change that should be reverted

A part of the lead was changed and I think the original version was better. In English-speaking countries, anime is also referred to as "Japanese animation" was changed to In English-speaking countries, the term most commonly refers to Japanese animated cartoons. The problem is the source for that sentence (Marriam Webster Dictionary) does not even use the term cartoon so the new sentence is now using language not supported by the source. It should be changed back.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In English-speaking countries, the term most commonly refers to Japanese animated cartoons.[2]"

Doesn't go together with the linked definition in [2] "a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.122 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Mikey is NOT anime!

Can someone PLEASE do something about the false "Anime" label on Kappa Mikey article? I am sure that my request on the talk page will not be completed. So I am hoping someone who has the power to make the change stay will do something about it. Anime is Japanese animation according to the definition in the English speaking community. It is NOT an art style, because I have seen many anime that does not have the stereotypical anime look too it, but it IS anime, so don't give me any nonsense. All I am asking is that it be dealt with. Being the super anime otaku that I am, I cannot just ignore this lie on that page that will mislead people. If I have to, I will email the creators and have them say it is NOT anime and send the damn email to an admin. THIS CANNOT GO ON! --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. In the future though you would be better of going to WP:ANIME since this is a page about anime and the other page deals issues regarding articles about anime and anime related topics.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]