Talk:Azumanga Daioh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Azumanga Daioh has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been featured on the Anime and Manga portal.
WikiProject Comedy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tenth aniversary edition[edit]

Something to watch for, and add when it gets published: New Edition of Azumanga Daioh to Mark 10th Anniversary, with new artwork. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Any specific dates?--CoolPikachu! 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Haven't been able to find one, at least reported in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Source for broadcast format[edit]

Just as a heads up, after a couple go-rounds with the reliable source noticeboard and project talk page, it's been determined that the ANN encyclopedia is not a reliable source and so cannot be used as a reference -- especially not in GA- or FA-class articles. (For news, reviews, and release info, ANN is reliable -- just not the encyclopedia, which is user-edited content.) I've removed all but one reference in this article, but that last one's a kicker. I've found several replacement references to support the statement that the anime was created as five-minute segments compiled into half-hour episodes, but nothing aside from ANN to support that the five-minute segments were broadcast on successive weeknights, which were compiled for rebroadcast on the weekend. If we can't find a replacement source (possibly in Japanese?) we'll have to remove the weekday/weekend part of that statement or face the possibility of the article demoted from GA, so any assistance here appreciated. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional reviews[edit]

Mania.com (formerly AnimeOnDVD) has a large number of reviews of the series, which should be combed through for critical reception of the series. Mentioned here if someone feels up to doing it before I get around to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, currently the only reviews used in the Reception section are for the anime. We need reception for the SOURCE series, the manga! ---Fortunately, there's one for the omnibus edition (from ANN), but that's nowhere near enough. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

refs drop out place[edit]

GBA video game

Nice bus

Okay, I only just followed this link, and I gotta say, the giant face of Chiyo-chan is kinda freaking me out. Interesting, but I'm not sure what relevance the information has. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I guessed that some humor could alleviate the burden :( That was a bus circulating around XYZ city was redecorated with Chiyo-chan for ad. Sure that won't make it to the article but still informative :p That remind me of the Aria coffee shop in Akibara to promote its DVD release [1] --KrebMarkt 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing book another one ref RecycledVol 1Vol 2Vol 3Vol 4

Azumanga Daioh the Animation Visual Book 1Azumanga Daioh the Animation Visual Book 2

2004 Callendar

Tribute to tv show ??? Not ranked

Vocal collectionRank 177

OST 1Rank 72
OST 2Rank 99
Tribute to AzumangaRank 68

OP/ED Maxi singleRank 36
Character songs Vol 8 KaorinRank 49
Character songs Vol 7 SenseiRank 75
Character songs Vol 6 YomiRank 70
Character songs Vol 5 KaguraRank 79
Character songs Vol 4 TomoRank 80
Character songs Vol 3 OsakaRank 63
Character songs Vol 2 Sakaki Not ranked
Character songs Vol 1 Chiyo Not ranked

*blink* I had no idea there were this many image songs. Were they never compiled into an album? Oh, I see -- the second link is the album, volumes 1-8 are singles off it. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD Japanese full releases list

Azumanga Daioh - Class Album 2005 DUBAzumanga Daioh: The Complete 2009 DUBAzumanga Daioh: Complete Collection 2008 DUBVol 1Vol 2Vol 3Vol 4Vol 5Vol 6
Comments: WTF with those 3 DVD box releases !!! --KrebMarkt 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

French Manga News review[2][3][4][5]

My to list:

  1. ADV refs
  2. Audio CDs refs
  3. French reviews translation
  4. Anything else

--KrebMarkt 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the manga reviews, I think we've incorporated (or used alternate sources) everything here that's useful. Have I overlooked anything? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Off beat refs[edit]

Ref 4: Azumanga Daioh on VHS and DVD ref isn't right. It's more a plot summary of the beginning. Your opinion on this one ?
Better to rewrite the part using like: "The compilation episodes, which were the only versions to include the title and credits sequences, were released on 6 DVDs in 2003 and 9 Universal Media Discs between 2005 and 2006 by Starchild Records. A DVD box set of all episodes is scheduled for June 24, 2009;[1] the five-minute segments can be distinguished by their individual titles."

--KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. (I've been focusing on what's here, rather than on what the references verify, at least so far.) I've edited your draft slightly (UMD isn't a well-known enough to use just the acronym) -- does that work for you? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Works fine for me. --KrebMarkt 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR discussion[edit]

A thread to centralize work toward the issues brought up on the GA review page. I plan to start a copyedit pass soon, before tackling other issues that people don't get to before me. As a heads-up, I'm looking at combining the Plot and Characters section, following precedent of recent GA articles for short series; in particular, given we have the List of Characters and (at least for now) independent articles for each of the main cast, we don't need a third summary version here as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully support you.
You should leave me to look for references and focus on copy-editing just leave a citation needed tag where needed. This week-end was insanely brisk with Goodraise doing reviews and what enfolded from those reviews. --KrebMarkt 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Least I'm being nice...plan to only have 2-3 GARs going in the project at once ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for that.
@Kreb: I'm quite willing to let you handle the referencing. The big challenge I'm seeing is expanding the Reception -- there's a lot of reviews out there of both manga and anime that aren't being used, far more than I have time to digest this week, given my offline deadlines. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I also support the merging of characters into plot. I don't think it's so much a short series thing, but I'm generally in favor of doing it for GA's. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There -- folding done. Possibly we could expand a bit on the story -- or rather, non-story, with info culled from reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we're down to the last few bits of cleanup requested by the GAR -- one of which is fixing the archive citations. Is anyone up for doing this? It seems every time I try to cite an archive link, I do it wrong (not to mention, my corporate overlords are blocking the Wayback Machine as "proxy" so I can't do any of these until late tonight). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Me Me Me Me... I'm still hanging around. Just don't get burned up. --KrebMarkt 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, no burning allowed. I'm not a witch. I'm not! —Quasirandom (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Done or so. i will give another run to the soundtracks section which need clarifications. --KrebMarkt 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd run done. We need to add an others books section for the two visual book released. Azumanga Daioh the Animation Visual Book 1Azumanga Daioh the Animation Visual Book 2, Is a sub-section visual book needed ? --KrebMarkt 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Um. Good question. As currently structured, there isn't a better place to add this. Lemme think about it, if someone else doesn't come up with a place first. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
With the sparse nature of the video game section, maybe could rename it to "Other media" and then pop the visual books there? Otherwise, would say yes, just do a section for Visual books or Other printed media or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts were moving in that direction. :-) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There -- did just that. What else is remaining? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reception work[edit]

I'll let you guys drop this in, but hope it helps:

In Manga: The Complete Guide, Jason Thompson refers to it as a "charming comedy" and a "quiet master of the four-panel form", praising the series comedic timing and use of running gags. He felt one of the series' best points was its "character-driven writing", but does warn that as its moe nature and the jokes that revolve around the "vaguely pedophilic teacher" might disturb some newer readers of manga.[2]

Also, at the end of the review, Thompson states that "the title is a pun of the artist's name and the magazine where it was serialized. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, that. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The load of Mania refs:

Manga Vol 1|Manga Vol 2|Manga Vol 3|Manga Vol 4|Manga Omnibus
Anime vol 1|Anime Vol 1 W/ Box(used 1)|Anime Vol 2|Anive Vol 2 other reviewer|Anime Vol 3|Anime Vol 3 other reviewer
Anime Vol 4|Anime Vol 4 other reviewer|Anime Vol 5|Anime Vol 5 other reviewer|Anime Vol 6|Anime Vol 6 other reviewer
Azumanga Daioh: Vocal Collection Geneon Release|Azumanga Daioh Soundtrack Volume 1

Have some fun ;) --KrebMarkt 07:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copying down from above, links to French Manga News reviews:

volume 2, volume 2, volume 3, volume 4
Is anyone up to digesting the above? We would of course not include ALL of them, as that would be undue weight, but representative opinions about the manga and the anime are being asked for in the GAR. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Games?[edit]

Re:refs While Azumanga Puzzle Bobble certainly exists, it's very tough finding reliable references for it ( a similar thing goes for the Lupin III games also released on Sega Naomi). I'd image gamefaqs probably isn't good enough as the current ref. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamefaqs has only been found by the WP:VG project as reliable for stuff on the data page. However, the mere existence is not enough to warrant detailed inclusion. Nor does GameFAQs state the nature of the game as official, unofficial, etc. It just list the name, the date published , the region published and who published it.じんない 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the doujin games for now. If we find any indication they really are relevant to the subject (the series itself) beyond "they exist" we can restore them. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As Gamesfaq is RS for WP:V I think the is no more "it exist" issue for that section. Does everyone agree ? --KrebMarkt 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- the games are verified. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Existing and mentioning its existance, yes. Detailed commentary on it is another thing.Jinnai 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing on the games, they should all link to the data page, not search page. The data pages are the only pages on GameFAQs that meet RS criteria.Jinnai 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think this is the next section to tackle. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There, done. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dropping this here for now: ASCII MW's Yotsuba website for referencing the two console video games. For possible replacement of the GameFAQs refs. (Not that this was the ref I was supposed to be working on ... ) Except, of course, this one doesn't list the release dates ... —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I drop the flamming torch and ready some silver coated stakes. I thought the WP:V issue cleared. Here some redundant ref: GBA game Famitsu|GBA game Amazon.co.jp|GBA Game Nintendo Japan schedulePS2 Video game Amazon.co.jp|PS2 Video game Bandai official website. Funny that none fit the perfect RS reference. --KrebMarkt 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, we have enough for WP:V purposes. I was just hoping to find better (including better descriptions). Good stuff there. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The WP:V issue was cleared, although improperly cited, with the GameFAQs citation.Jinnai 04:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Live action hoax[edit]

I think it should be nuked unless there is a RS mentioning it. --KrebMarkt 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep looking for sources -- I remember when it happened, or at least the rumors it sent flying, and every so often, a question comes up about it on anime forums, so it's still somewhat current. It may have been covered in ANN or AICN, or possibly Japanophilic news aggregators. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I will give it time it is not that i don't want to keep it but that one is just an bonus objective. --KrebMarkt 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I definately recall it getting a fair bit of coverage, but ANN has very little [6]. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And they apparently never followed up on it. *sigh* —Quasirandom (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tracked down a post on this page (search on "Azumanga") that links to sources for the initial announcement -- both now dead links. If we can resurrect them in some archive or other, that would give us a start. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Given I haven't been able to track down anything reliable enough, beyond covering the initial announcement without any followup, I'm removing this from the article. I'm copying the text here for further work, including one hopes someone tracking down Japanese coverage:

Live-action hoax
After the animated series ended, there was a hoax announcement of a live-action adaptation, as being created by the Tokyo Broadcasting System and Suntory and which would be named either Azudorama Da Yo! or Azumanga Daioh: The Drama. Professional-looking promotional material and photos were prepared and presented on the internet using actresses who closely resembled their animated counterparts.[3]

Any editors interested in restoring this are strongly encouraged to find sources we can use to cite it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be the source of the hoax? I don't speak Japanese, so someone who does might want to have a look. The earliest archive.org version of the page dates May 28, 2003, which is consistent with the date on the natsumemaya.net page. The Aniota website is available on archive.org. Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As best I can tell, that was part of the propagation of the images, but was not where they were initially posted -- but I haven't located that. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We just need one RS mentioning that hoax. We don't need to know where the brushfire started as we would need a RS ref to verify that it started there. Things are already complicated enough --KrebMarkt 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Has TBS never said anything on the matter? Maybe some of the actresses/actor are on record denying involvement? One thing I wonder is if it really was a hoax, we currently have just a few images and a lot of rumors. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Production info[edit]

Quoting from the GAR:

Lacking production information beyond the title section, and considering the DVDs contain quite a bit of making of type info, this is a large oversight.

This may be a big stumbling block, if this really is essential to GA. I don't have ready access to the DVDs so I can't confirm whether there's anything from the anime staff about the adaptation. I do know that I've heard nothing, not even rumors, of any statements from Azuma about origin/inspiration of the manga -- and it's not like he's completely reticent, as he's talked about Yotsuba&! (even if it's all behind a language barrier to me). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw on the feature list, there is directory and cast commentary and some other making-of type stuff (though knowing ADV, its only on the first releases and not in the thinpack box). If the manga has no notes, that kinda sucks. I saw the first VizBig at a store recently, but hadn't looked through it more than a quick flip.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yonkoma format manga usually doesn't have space for quarter-page ads, so creator comments are left to afterwords (which Azuma avoids), interviews, or nothing. A couple manga volumes have good translator notes, but nothing else. (VizBig? You mean ADV's omnibus edition? It's a straight compilation reprint of the volumes, without even editing the page numbers.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant. They look so similar on the shelves and didn't really flip through it. Semi off topic, but I picked up Viz's VizBig of Hot Gimmick and it was nice. They included the color pages and all the designer notes and what not. And actually fixed the page numbers with the table of contents (unlike Tokyopop's first volume of Fruits Basket which was the same as it what it sounds like ADV does on their Omnibus', blech). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You are evil. You picked my curiosity ;) Ok Hot Gimmick has now plenty RS references stockpiled in its discussion page Cheers --KrebMarkt 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I stopped at the local used video shop on the way home, and found volume 1 of the original ADV release. The only extra on the DVD itself is production sketches (plus clean OP/EP); the included booklet, however, has voluminous translation notes, some of the sketches, and -- a page of quotes from the Japanese production staff. Unfortunately their comments are largely trivial (from animation director Hideki Tachibana: "After episode 2, I learned to neatly split disposable chopsticks. Now, if I could only find a way to stop hiccups.") and even those addressing the production process are empty ("I wanted to do this right"-sort of thing). Dunno whether they got more informative in later volumes, but if this is typical, there won't be enough for a real Production section. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have all six volumes of the original release, and the booklets are similar for each disc, though, obviously, tailored to that particular disc's episodes. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Unless someone knows of other resources out there, it looks like a Production section won't be able to get off the runway (if it can even taxi from the gate). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation info[edit]

Closely related to the preceding, the GAR points out that most of the Anime adaptation info is unsourced and, as they involve comparing two sources, thus is in Wikipedia jargon original research. I've yet to read a review that says more about the adaptation than "it follows the manga closely". Unless anyone finds something more detailed, I suspect it's time to trim that paragraph down to just that, source with a review or three, and move on. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks[edit]

Done mostly please copy edit that hard boiled madness --KrebMarkt 09:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to figure out how to link the articles for the two soundtrack albums -- as {{See also}}s? (Or should we merge those articles, including the track listings, into here?) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Still needed: release info for the Vocal Collection. And, um, the deadline's today. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
10th anniversary soundtracks re-release Lantis, June 24, 2009 --KrebMarkt 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

manga[edit]

No direct ref for the thai publisher as its page is under construction, i found a ref to a thai bookstore. --KrebMarkt 09:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not ideal, per WP:RS, but it'll have to do. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Check Internet Archives to see if there is an older version.Jinnai 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing from avenue unfortunately. Negibose comics is an event organizer first and a manga publisher second. --KrebMarkt 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, time to leave that and move on to other things. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A ref to Shogakukan: Azumanga release blog need to archive the ref thought because the page points to the latest blog entry :( KrebMarkt 05:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Click on the calendar dates to watch some freaky Javascript in action. Am I correctly construing the machine translations that the new edition will have new color pages? or is it newly colored pages? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not understand what's about really even with translation tools. All i understood a that re-release is that will be 3 volumes releases one per fictive class year, in the same format than Yotsuba&! and that the newly serialized chapters will be included in those releases, one new chapter per volume. --KrebMarkt 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, about the three-volumes-one-year-each. Any idea what's meant by format of Yotsuba&!? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I got all those information from a scanlation. Funny they translated a whole slice of ad and other goodies line-up, in our case that give how many targets we need to source. The manga re-release will have approx 5" x 7" pages so that with Yotsuba&! they can form a feel great lineup. Additional information: there will be an anime & soundtracks re-releases in Japan (scheduled June 24, 2009) along of a more commemorative material book probably in the fall. Scanlation tagged it The Osaka world's fair. Now we just need the RS refs that means stay alert and wait mostly. --KrebMarkt 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New avenue of review: From Bill Randall's blog it's strongly implied that he reviewed the manga in [The Comics Journal] #292. Now we just need to access that review either in paper for or electronic one. --KrebMarkt 09:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth asking over at WikiProject Comics if anyone has the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kimura's 'obsession'[edit]

While disambiguationg the moe link, I noticed that a source calls him "vaguely pedophiliac". I think that's wrong, I recall a scene clearly showing that Kimura is not interested in Osaka or Chiyo-chan, which makes him ephebophilic, not pedophilic. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the scene (which is in both manga and anime), Kimura is directly asked whether he includes Chiyo in his liking for high-school students, and after a beat he replies "High school is high school!" -- which creeped the girls out even more. But yes, ephebophilia should be linked to -- if I missed a link to pedophilia, let's change that to match. Oh, wait, that's a direct quote from a reviewer that has it. No, that needs to stay, because it is a reviewer's interpretation. (This is what happens when I read to fast -- duh.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't happen to remember the anime episode this occurs in? I don't really mind watching the series again (and again and again ...), but just for checking, that would be overkill. ;) WRT the quote, I didn't mean for it to be changed, but maybe a footnote explaining the mistake? In the plot section, the link goes to ephebophilia. Oh, and take your time, my attention span is closer to Osaka's than to Tomo-chan's. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Use of {{sic}} might be best here with a footnote explaing and linking to the correct term.Jinnai 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I remember this in the manga (and, actually, I'm pretty sure I have a strong mental image of *that particular* strip); IIRC, it happened shortly after Kimura was first introduced (and I was the one who added the link to ephebophilia, BTW ;) ). ···「ダイノガイ千?!? Talk to Dinoguy1000 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How about using "disturbing, with a self-acknowledged 'love [of] high school girls'" instead of trying to decide which term to use? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I like Rdfox's solution better - explaining explicitly what ephebophilia vs pedophilia are might be considered offtopic. --Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
For which -- during his introduction or replacing the reviewer quote? The latter is, um, dubious. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you... "Pedophilia" is used as an umbrella term, and although there is concern that the reviewer is using it in its most general sense (covering all persons under the age of majority), we can't let the article become distracted by explaining about pedophilia vs ephebophilia and what we think Kimura's thing is. --Malkinann (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't want to distract the article with that. However, "pedophilia" is what the reviewer used and to change that would misrepresent what he wrote. Thus my question of which mention of Kimura's obession is under discussion, to be clear. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Both, IMO should be mentioned. He is clearly stating an inaccuracy as fact.Jinnai 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you find a reliable source labelling Kimura's obsession as "ephebophiliac"? As he says "High school is high school", in regards to the apparently pre-pubescent Chiyo-chan, his obsession could be understood to cover all girls under the age of majority, the broad sense of pedophilia. I don't want the article's reception section to become a coatrack discussing pedophilia vs ephebophilia and diagnosing which specific one Kimura's got. There is also the issue of weight - although Kimura's obsession is the thing that will offend people most about the series, compared to the other two teachers, he plays less of a role. --Malkinann (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I would question the credetials the person has in determining something then as being "vaguely pedophiliac", as that is a clinical term clearly not supported by the primary source. Other scenes like when he was asked why he teaches at high school (episode 5) his answer was because "I like high school girls." That statement strongly suggests he does not care for pre-pubescent females. The scene was also in the manga (though don't remember what page). Point being their is just as much to support that the editor is wrong. Since their isn't conclusive evidence that he likes specifically only adolecent girls or all young girls, that quote should not be used unless the soruce can be vetted as an expert in psychology, or multiple RSs claim he is pedophic, or we cite what he said and put a footnote stating that the proper terms is likely ephebophilia.Jinnai 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Another point: "vaguely pedophiliac" could be interpreted as the reviewer not knowing what to classify the proper psychological term as he may have noted his attration to the high school girls, but thought that wasn't pedophilia, but couldn't come up with a more proper term due to his limited training in psychology.Jinnai 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey, what have I done? ;) Ok, I finally found the segment I was referring to, it is "Even If You Don't Fight" anime episode 11. The girls have physicals, Kagura leaves the examination room, Kimura asks "How was it?". When Osaka comes out, Kimura obviously loses interest and exits right. (So much for my memory, no Chiyo-chan here.) OTOH, in episode 15 segment "Kimura's Family", he produces a drawing of Chiyo-chan in fairy costume. Sadly, I haven't found the elusive segment containing "highschool is highschool", but I was fastforwarding, so I might yet find it. It's existence seems pretty much confirmed, I found two online posts referring to it. A few further facts:

  • Kimura states verbatim: "I like highschool girls and stuff!" (anime episode 4 (not 5) segment "A Fun Profession")
  • there are several definitions of pedophilia, the clinical term referring to prebuscence, legal terms possibly including all minors
  • we have only one reliable source commenting on Kimura's 'obsession', whose usage of the term is not known (can somebody check?)
  • depending on Chiyo-chan's development, her puberty could have begun before highschool and ended with it, or could have begun after highschool, the latter being more probable, based on her low bodyweight
  • even ephebophilia might not be applicable seeing as how Kimura is married, and we don't know about his preference

My suggestions are:

  • In the Plot section, instead of diagnosing him, we simply quote him, because we can source that.
  • In the Reception section, the quote is footnoted with a remark that this statement leaves room for interpretation/is problematic/you get the idea....
  • Could somebody speaking Japanese please mail Kiyohiko-san and ask? Radical idea, but it might work. ;)

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that labelling Thompson's statement as problematic is in itself problematic - explaining what pedophilia and ephebophilia are is off-topic. --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely because it could relate to character. That in and of itself makes it not off topic, especially if there is a problem with an inappropriate or questionable use of the term as it applies to the show and his character.
However, maybe the quote would be better suited for the character list page? Either way, I think Paradoctor's idea is best we can do without clarification from the reviewer.Jinnai 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I regard explaining what pedophilia is in this article to be offtopic because it is not the major theme of the comic, and I am concerned that explaining what pedophilia is takes the focus away from Azumanga Daioh and puts it onto 'what is pedophilia', which is not appropriate for an article about Azumanga Daioh. The quote could certainly be ported over to Kimura's entry in the character list, as it is rather poor. --Malkinann (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This is what footnotes are suggested use for.Jinnai 00:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I regard defining pedophilia in this article to be wholly inappropriate and off-topic, regardless of whether it is footnoted or in the main body of text. --Malkinann (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is proposing to define or explain pedophilia, we have an article for that. The problem is that there are conflicting definitions of the term, and the "evidence" from the series is far from clear. Even the reviewer is talking about "vaguely pedophiliac" (my emphasis), and a footnote explaining the reasons for the confusion might be helpful to some readers. Paradoctor (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but as I said the quote and footnote should be moved to the character page.Jinnai 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Err, sorry, did I give the impression I was opposed to that? I'm not, and will testify so in court, if requested. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think a footnote is needed - the lead of the pedophilia article deals with the varied definitions of the word, so I think a link there is sufficient. --Malkinann (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The pedophilia article can't point out the conflicting hints from the series. I have a suspicion that Kimura's role is more in the spirit of Loki than anything else. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like a synthesis to me - 'this hint plus that hint, therefore, this reviewer's position is problematic'. --Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb break[edit]

A footnote here is the best thing because we cannot determine what it means exactly. We should avoid sythesis, yes, but we can point out that its unclear what definition of pedophilia Kimura's character fits and unclear whether the reviewer might have meant something else.Jinnai 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources examining which definition of pedophilia Kimura's character fits? --Malkinann (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No, but nor is the statement clear what the reviewer intended. We do not need to make an assumption in a footnote, but we should clarify that the verifiable evidence leaves makes it unclear which definition the reviewer was meaning. That is the basis of what footnotes were designed for. Only if we go and assume the reviewer meant this even when he said that would that come into play.Jinnai 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I regard a link to pedophilia to cover the definitions of pedophilia adequately. We do not need to gather evidence to diagnose Kimura. The definition of pedophilia is versatile enough to cover all people under the age of majority, which is the general sense of the word, if you don't know of ephebophilia. --Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It is specifically because of the wording used and the verifiable statements make it unclear whether the reviewer is talking her about pedophilia in the legalistic sense, ie any minor, or did not know the proper psychological term. It is because he says "vaguely pedophiliac" and not "pedophialiac" that it becoems a problem and a simple link will not suffice. We can't say what he means. That would be synthesis. However we can note the problems his wording brings up and why its unclear what he meant here.Jinnai 23:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No, creating problems with Thompson's wording (where none really exist, because of the versatility of the term pedophilia) and noting the instances of "is-Kimura-a-pedophile-or-isn't-he" in the series is synthesis. --Malkinann (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does because its unclear what the reviewer meant that word given the context of the show and the phrasing he used. It's not sythesis as we are not putting 2 facts together to arrive at a conclusion.Jinnai 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to want to say "this scene plus that scene, therefore Thompson's position is unclear and confusing", which is synthesis. --Malkinann (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I am saying the wording of "vaguely" added to the general context of the anime Azumanga Diaoh's main characters being highschool girls makes it unclear what the reviewer meant.Jinnai 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thompson is not a reliable source wrt the use of "pedophilia". Can we agree on that, Malkinnan? Paradoctor (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the addition of the modifier "vaguely" makes it more clear - it indicates to me that the reviewer is using "pedophilia" in the more general sense of the word, and that Kimura's tendencies aren't a focal part of the comic. I thought you guys didn't want to discuss the use/definition/explanation of "pedophilia" in the article? --Malkinann (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)They aren't the focal point of the article, but they are the focal point of his character. In addition, as Paradoctor mentioned, the reviewer isn't a RS on the definition of "pedophilia" and imo his use of the word "vaguely" makes it more unclear if he thought of the more clinical term, ie pre-pubescent and did not know the proper term for high-school aged girls, ephebophilia, or the legalistic term for any minor. IMO the former is the case as I don't see any reason of adding the word vaguely otherwise. However, that's just my opinion. Its clear if 2 people reading the same line can come to 2 different conclusions for something that, while not important for the main article is important for the character, it needs to be addressed. (and ultimately whatever we decide the quote should be moved to the character article where its more appopriate).Jinnai 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Malkinnan, "vaguely x" tells us nothing about which definition of "x" is used, only that Thompson thinks Kimura is not clearly pedophilic. I don't see any way of considering him an RS. If Thompson was an editor here, this statement would look like this: "vaguely[weasel words] pedophiliac".
I suggest we let things gestate a little while, I mailed Thompson asking for clarification. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Jinnai, I moved the quote to Kimura's section a while ago. Paradoctor, thanks for the thought, but any email you receive from Thompson is inadmissable, unless he publishes it on his blog - as it can't be verified by anyone but you and he. I don't see why you don't consider him an RS, as he has been an editor for the Shonen Jump magazine for a few years. I would suggest looking in other RS to find out what they say about Kimura. Kimura is not mentioned at all in the Mechademia paper, but in Mania he is treated as Kaorin's foil - she would go about confessing her love to Sakaki, but she must first fight off the attentions of Mr Kim Kims, and spends all her time doing that instead. --Malkinann (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"unless he publishes": Yes, I'm aware of that. Then again, nothing prevents us from asking him doing so, or for permission to upload the mail to Wikisource. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, maybe nothing comes of it.
"you don't consider him an RS": Nobody's an RS for anything but a handful of specific topics. I do not doubt his grokness towards manga, he's just not an RS wrt pedophilia.
"suggest looking in other RS": Absolutely. Doesn't change a thing about Thompson, though. Worse, if another (manga) source says the same thing, we have no way to know whether they mean the same thing. That's the problem.
"Mr Kim Kims": That's Mr. Kimura-sama to you! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, this is Jason Thompson; Paradoctor asked me to contribute to this page. This is the first time I've ever edited a talk page on Wikipedia so please forgive me for any formatting problems.
As Malkinnan correctly guessed, in the quote from "Manga: The Complete Guide," I'm using the term "pedophiliac" in the broad sense (and the legal sense) of anyone strongly attracted to people under the legal age of consent. (Since it's a running gag that Kimura is always trying to see his students in skimpy clothes and talking about how much he likes high school girls, please don't nitpick the word "strongly"...) I'm aware of the term "ephebophiliac" but it's so rarely used I didn't feel it was worth splitting hairs to use it in the review. Of course, Kimura is married to an adult woman, and doesn't actually *do* anything with any of his students, so he's not a literal pedophile... but "vaguely" pedophilic, I think, is accurate.
It may seem like an unnecessarily strong word to use in the article, but I wrote "Manga: The Complete Guide" for parents of manga readers and people who had little or no prior experience with manga, and I think Kimura's behavior could seem a little alarming to this audience, since it's one of the only things in "Azumanga Daioh" which might make it less than totally suitable as an all-ages book. Adults expressing ambiguous interest in pubescent/adolescent girls is not uncommon in manga, but it raises eyebrows in America. This doesn't change the fact that Azumanga is a great book, but I didn't want to gloss over this element.
For what it's worth, my father is a child psychiatrist. Khyungbird (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode guide?[edit]

I found only two, TV.com and Wonderland, and they only feature synopses of full episodes. If none exists, I volunteer to write one. Please tell me there is already one! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Azumanga Daioh episodes, which is already linked in the article. It does need summarys though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
... I'm not sure how one can summarize an episode. (Though it'd be easier than for the manga.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, first thing I looked at. I was somehow under the impression that WP:OR applies, but descriptive use of primary sources is permitted.
Quasirandom, your edit summary had me worried! ^_^ Summary should be easy, keep to facts encyclopedia readers can verify themselves without specialist knowlegde, if they have access to the sources. List characters, places, what happens, relationship to other episodes, recurring themes. So, that means I have been volunteered? o_O Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Stick to what happens, and to who. Relationships to other episodes and recurring themes is getting away from what a summary is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that is completely incorrect for what a Wikipedia episode list is for. Your suggestion would be more applicable to a fansite episode guide, but would not be appropriate here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You summarize an episode the same as you do a chapter or movie: straight-forward noting of the major points of what happened, in 100-300 words (350 if complex plot). Stealing for an FL for an example:
"Abel is sent to Ishtvan, a city ruled by the vampire Count Gyula, to find the "Star." He meets Sister Esther Blanchett, a troubled nun he learns killed one of the Count's lieutenants to avenge the murder of her foster mother. At the urging of a man named Dietrich, Esther plans to carry out another assassination. However, Count Gyula's troops arrive, kill Dietrich, capture Abel and Esther, then burn down the church."
Short, to the point, if a little in need of copyediting again :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant, I'm not sure how to summarize an episode of this series. There's barely any stories or jokes that last a full five-minute segment. It's an anthology of sketch comedy sketches, most of them lasting barely a minute, pegged on a few story scenarios. "Major points of what happened" implies narrative, which in our case we have not got, for the most part. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL, see what happens when I answer to fast? Hmm...not really sure what to do in that case. Almost makes me wonder if it needs summaries (similar to why there is no list of sesame street episodes - nearly impossible to write any real summaries of it). Maybe just note the story scenarios? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the episodes do have a major theme atleast, such as the festival episodes, the one summer break ones, etc. However, a lot of them are broken down into segments that aren't really connected. Whatever is decided here, I will probably use as a basis for List of School Rumble episodes as it has a very similar, if not even worse situation.Jinnai 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If you guys think this and School Rumble are bad, try 2001 Nights - the chapters are completely unconnected except for some background technology, despite them all happening in the same timeline/universe (that's right; no common characters, no common plotlines, etc). Coincidentally, anyone who has access to the series care to take a stab at writing summaries for it? =D ···「ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk to Dinoguy1000 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oy. AD at least has continuity of characters and a discernible progression of time through the school years. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode 1x01 available here. Cheers, Paradoctor (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And already we have an object lesson in the pitfalls of summarizing a plot: that's not a clay pigeon but a baseball, and the sounds include the distinctive ring of an aluminum bat hitting a fly ball. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Corrected. As long as I can shoot them ... ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Supplimentary lessons[edit]

So how should we handle the Supplimentary Lessons in the infobox -- an additional box item? Putting them in the manga box doesn't seem to work, what with having a separate period of serialization, different serializing publisher (how is this working, anyway, to have one publisher serialize but the original publisher collecting the chapters in a reprint edition?), and not being part of the English licensors' editions. But an additional manga box also doesn't seem to quite work, what with it being only three serial numbers to be included in the new edition instead of separately collected. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Next Steps[edit]

So -- here's what I see as the next steps to improve the article (and as the GAR nominator pointed out, there's enough material here to make this potentially ready for an FAC):

  1. Incorporate additional reviews noted in #Reception work into the Reception section.
  2. Incorporate (and delete) additional reviews now included in External links.
  3. Source the live-action hoax and return it to the article.
  4. Incorporate additional information about the video games notes in #Games?.
  5. Update the article with info, as it becomes available, about the 10th Anniversary and Yen Press editions.

Anything else? Aside from, possibly, reorganize the soundtracks into two lists/tables, of albums and singles. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll check through my various Animerica issues to see if any have articles on the series. I'm almost certain at least one issue mentioned it as I have a vague memory of seeing that pink hair. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Coo. And thankee. (And, added one more thing touched on above.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You may be able to find some scores for the 2 official games at Famitsu.Jinnai 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just got previews from the Famitsu [7][8] :( --KrebMarkt 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
here and here. These sites meet WP:VG's reliable sources for the "press ratings" section.Jinnai 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
[Great. That would do :) --KrebMarkt 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional French review[edit]

Fact to add: Manga section. Azumanga was the first Yonkoma translated in France (Nicolas Penedo, Dico Manga, page 56, ISBN 978-2-215-07931-6, 2008). Spend 30€ for the first & sole French Manga focused dictionary so i better have a good use for it then. --KrebMarkt 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually interesting enough to warrant mention, I think. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Grrr (Evil mode on) Azumanga entry in that dictionary say that it's a "series related to moe genre targeting a public otakus interested in girls intimacy. However this series also found a public of teenagers girls which refusing to be assimilated to otakus deny to read it. This manga having a feminine public is understandable as it celebrates connivance between girls and humour/comedy" (Evil mode off)
I feel, i read another manga than what was described --KrebMarkt 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I ... see what you mean. Oy. Still, it's reliable criticism, so we should try to incorporate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Attempt a more polished translation: a "series related to the moe genre, targeting admitted(?) otakus interested in relationships(?) between girls. However, the series also found an audience in teenage girls who refuse to be identified as otakus. That this manga has a feminine audience is understandable, as it celebrates (what the original word for connivance?) between girls and comedy." How's that? I don't quite get the grammar of "deny to read it," I confess, so I left it out. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
KrebMarkt, if you mail me a scan of the entry, I'll try to translate it. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks but i guess i could handle it as i'm a native French speaker & reader. I guess the part of the issue is the meaning given to terms Moé and Otaku. I will left her the French original extract so you can try to improve it.

<outdent>Ok second try:
Publié au Japon dans les pages du magazine "Monthly Comic Dengeki Daioh", cette série s'apparente au genre "moe", ciblant in public d'otaku portés sur l'intimité des filles. Mais elle a aussi trouvé un lectorat chez ces même jeunes filles qui, refusant d'être par là assimilées aux otakus, nient toutefois la lire...On comprend pourtant que ce manga intéresse defait un public féminin, puisque ses histoires célèbrent à la fois la connivence entre filles et l'humour.

"Published in the pages of the magazine Monthly Comic Dengeki Daioh, this series related to moe genre, targeting an otakus public interested in relationships between girls. However it also found a readership in those same teenagers girls who refusing to be identified by that way as otakus, deny to read it... We understand however that this manga appealed in fact to a feminine audience, as it celebrates friendship/complicity between girls and comedy."

Moé: This term induces all at the same time notions of obsessiveness, voyeurism and fetishism. The works related to that tendency/trend however don't offer any scenes of explicit sex, but flatter the the reader desire of protection toward the characters. [...] In the Japanese mental universe (which sexual frontiers & codes of behavior differ radically from the references in use in Occident), those stories represent no less than a real perversion. (Nicolas Penedo page 356)

Otaku: An otaku is a passionated, a "fan", dedicating the integrability of his hobbies even sometimes his whole life to the compulsive veneration of his passion object. [...] In the worst cases, the exclusivity of the relationship linking the otaku and his "obsession" can lead to the loss of the sense of reality with the external word that the person, became totally unadapted for life in society, choices to retreat on the self and the physical lock up. This ensues that this no life attitude (in English in the article) that the otaku qualifier, applied to pathologically unsocialized persons, resonated in Japan with a deeply/highly pejorative connotation and/or contemptuous one. (Nicolas Finet page 411) --KrebMarkt 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like she's using moe (slang) and otaku much like they are in English, with perhaps the latter slightly closer to the original Japanese sense. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Another polish attempt: "Published in the pages of the magazine Monthly Comic Dengeki Daioh, this series is related to the moe genre, targeting an otaku audience interested in relationships between girls. However it also found a readership in those same teenagers girls who, refusing to be identified by this as otakus, denied they read it... We understand, however, that in fact this manga appealed to a feminine audience, as it celebrates friendships between girls as well as comedy." —Quasirandom (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I buying that one with the as well as option ;)
  • I made more translations to be sure that the French review is interpreted correctly. I now understand better the passage of the teenagers denying to read Azumanga to not be tagged otaku. Another reason is that Moé & Otaku dictionary definitions could also be used to beef up the articles of the same name which lack that kind of coverage.
  • I have a question: how much can cited without falling into the COPYVIO? --KrebMarkt 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The international standard for fair use is flexible, but one part of it is what proportion of the text has been quoted. For an entry that's a paragraph long, you should be able to quote one, or maybe two, sentences for these purposes, but probably not any more. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that concise answer. I conclude that i'm close to Copyvio every time and i should hurry to hide in discussion archives translations not used in articles ;) --KrebMarkt 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but when we're discussing the translation, we're talking about the text itself, and as such, fair use allows more to be quoted. As such, I think these talk page translation are okay. By "these purposes" above I meant, quoting the author in support of a topic, such as defining a term. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Homepage of the dictionary (French), WorldCat Paradoctor (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah -- thanks. And for correcting the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you! _| ̄|o Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing reviews[edit]

ANN reviews the series. Again. This series? It's got legs. Also, I note that it specifically addresses adaptation issues. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

ANZAC Madman Entertainment release[edit]

This was cut from the article:

Madman Entertainment licensed the series for release in Australia and New Zealand with the first volume Azumanga Daioh:Entrance awarded a controversial MA15+ Restricted rating by the OFLC.This was due to Kimura's antics during the episode Pool! Pool! Pool! that the OFLC took offence because all the girls are minors,thus making it the only western nation to give Azumanga Daioh a high rating as other countries have given it "PG" ratings.Madman Entertainment was quite shocked along with long time Australian fans and Madman Entertainment did consider appealing against the decision to the Review Board, but eventually decided against it. The other volumes are rated PG with the exception of Volume 2 with a G rating and Volume 3 with a M rating.

I'm unsure that the given ref [9] is RS, second issue is this single reference can't cover all the facts presented and last one some undue weight due to the over detailed description of the Anzac release. --KrebMarkt 11:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yen Press edition review(s)[edit]

Erica Friedman --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New article for volume list?[edit]

The list of volumes/chapters in this article is really ugly and unfitting...perhaps it should be split into its own article or something like that. It really breaks up the page. Lovepopp (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we don't. We don't split volumes list for series with less than 5 volumes and secundo we don't split based on subjective criterion like "It's ugly". --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've compacted the manga volumes table by putting the chapter lists into 2 columns. David Bailey (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well would have been an obvious move save that for some volumes you lose the information on how the chapters are ordered. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)