Talk:Densha Otoko

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

Book[edit]

Should some mention be made of the book - i.e. both the original Japanese, and subsequent translations, such as the UK/English translation by Bonnie Elliot, published by Robinson of London. Not to advertise it, per-se, but just to cover the actual books that spawned the movie/TV show? AndyboyH 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction...[edit]

According to this article the producers of the show are Hideaki Anno, Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, Takami Akai and Shinji Higuchi. However, according to the article at DramaWiki [1] they are Wakamatsu Jisashiki and Kawanishi Migaku. Can anyone look from a Japanese source which of them really are the producers? Thanks. --Thorri 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you misread it. The four above are the ones who made the Daicon IV animation (and later founded Gainax), which is the animation short the Densha Otoko TV series' opening is based on. However, it's not that clear, so I guess we can go and change it.--み使い Mitsukai 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, so it seems. Sorry for the trouble, I should've read it more carefully! --Thorri 11:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Daicon IV, the DO intro features a girl much like the girl in Daicon IV's intro. Should this be mentioned in the Trivia section? Here's the text from Daicon IV: 'The Japanese TV series Densha Otoko (2005) features an opening that is also a clear reference, featuring a girl with bunny ears surfing around on a train with the same background tune, Electric Light Orchestra's "Twilight".' 208.54.95.129 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Order[edit]

In the cast list, the character names are listed in "Family-Given" order but the actors are listed in "Given-Family" order. Isn't it better to use the same order for both? --awh (Talk) 04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're trying to convert them to GN-FN to comply with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.--み使い Mitsukai 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I've changed the character names to GN-FN as well. --awh (Talk) 02:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anime and manga[edit]

Please leave the template on this page. One of the biggest reasons is that it may attract more good editors to the page and make the article even better. --日本穣 11:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Densha Otoko was a series of BBS posts, and then a book, before some hack made a manga of it... Besides, shouldn't the members of that project have actually made a contribution to the article before claiming it as their work? And, isn't it true that you removed a different project tag to put the Anime Geek tag into this article instead? --awh (Talk) 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to be rude. Having the tag doesn't mean the project is claiming it as their work (not that anything on Wikipedia belongs to any one person). As for contributors, Mitsukai is a major contributor to the article, and he's also a member of both WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Japan. Exploding Boy and Squilibob are members of one or both, and there may be others I've missed. I changed the tag over to the {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} from the {{WikiProject Japan}} tag because the anime & manga one seemed more appropriate given the existence of manga for this series. I'm not sure why you're making such a huge fuss over this since you've only made one edit to this article. --日本穣 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, I think you should change the anime and manga tag because in my opinion Densha Otoko really doesn't fit there. The Japan project tag is a lot better since the manga version is only a very small part of the Densha Otoko phenomenon. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official title[edit]

Please provide links showing this is the "official" title, and not just IMDB's bizarre title. As it is, it's completely redundant for a title. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Densha Otoko title is much better since this isn't only about the tv show, but also about the movie, manga, etc. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 09:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?series_id=485 = Train Man: Densha Otoko is the official title. WhisperToMe 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.com/Train-Man-Shojo-Machiko-Ocha/dp/0345496191/sr=8-2/qid=1166142151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8425160-2237524?ie=UTF8&s=books uses "Train Man: A Shojo Manga" WhisperToMe 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dccomics.com/cmx/?action=on_sale&i=5939 uses Densha Otoko WhisperToMe 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only products released or announced in English are the three mangas from three different publishers, right? And they don't all use the same title. One just uses Densha Otoko. I suggest we stick with that. --Pmsyyz 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title translation[edit]

According to the main body of this article, the reader will be lead to believe 月面兎兵器ミーナ translates into Moon-faced Rabbit Weapon Mina, which is, in my opinion, a misnomer. 月面 literally translates into "moon surface". This is evidenced, for example, by Patrick Zala's (Gundam Seed) order to fire at the Earth Alliance's moon base: 「月面プトレマイオスクレーター、地球軍の基地」. Furthermore, I believe the title is actually a pun meant to imply Mina is actually the mochi making rabbit the Japanese see in the moon.1. --Ishikawa Minoru 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading headline?[edit]

I started reading the part that said "origin", and suddenly I had the whole story including the end spoiled to me. I put up spoiler warning, but "origin" does not sound as if it would tell you the whole course of events (even though it is a real story). I couldn't come up with anyone so I'm not changing it, but if someone has a better phrase, please do.

213.238.233.27 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for film?[edit]

I just watched the film. I think there should be a separate article for it, linked from here, of course, and complete with a film infobox. Any opinions? Michiganotaku 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate a split for the TV Series as well. 124.171.50.88 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV series DVD release?[edit]

Anyone know if the TV series is likely to be released on DVD at any time? I loved the film, and would be very interested to see the TV episodes. 217.155.138.250 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real or Fake[edit]

Was the original 2ch posts and hence the story real or fake, be it the wishful imagination of a Hikikomori or more imagination of some exec/marketing type at 2ch or more like Fuji or Film/Manga producers? Should this be discussed in the article. 203.173.11.157 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt the movie be named first and the drama later in the article, since the movie came out before the series?Jim88Argentina (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

movie-tv[edit]

Shouldnt the movie be named first and the drama later in the article, since the movie came out before the series?Jim88Argentina (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick assessments[edit]

There seems to be accessibility issues in the article making it difficult for the general reader.

  • Unnecessary Jargon are used such as Mega-BBS
  • Why is there an external link to a Matome site? I have no idea what Matome is either.
  • The Matome site is there as it is the forum where all 1,919 posts related to Densha Otoko are on 2channel.
  • Production seems to be jumping through all the media adaptions which makes it confusing.
  • The quotes are unnecessary and looks as if they are used for decoration. There's a quote where publisher weekly explains what the four types of manga are. I feel quotes for reception are the same and are better paraphrased.
  • Shouldn't it be structured so that the novel is the main focus, akin to a Harry Potter book instead of Franchise?
  • There are separate articles so the reception can go to the specific commentary can go to their respective media. Novel and Manga reception can stay
  • Film and drama reception ported to their respective articles.
  • Why is this article still Densha Otoko?

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Densha Otoko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Densha_Otoko&oldid=1206936340"