Talk:Shōnen manga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Romanization

Well the furigana and the kanji say this as "shounen". I think we should at least note that "shounen" is the correct Japanese spelling for this. Preferably, it could be moved to "shounen", but I just want to see what you all say first. Emperorbma 06:57 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, this should stay at "shonen", with the long vowel indicated in the article with ō. The kana reading isn't really relevant for English speakers, and Japanese speakers will know it already. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 01:59, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

That and the standard Hepburn romanization for the おう combo in general is an o with a macron (ō). I have yet to see a professional source using the non-standard ou romanization. --/ɛvɪs/ 03:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Romanization without using macrons is actually quite common. It's called ワープロ because Japanese IMEs expect their input in that form. It is also popular on the Internet (e-mail), because sometimes macrons don't work in those environments. Another pro is that it more closely resembles the kana-spelling. This romanization style is also immensely popular with fans of manga and anime. Shinobu 19:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is shonen?

The article starts off with "[i]n contrast to shōnen, anime and manga for men (college age and up) is called seinen." That might be a good start for an article on seinen, but this isn't said article. Further, it then proceeds to ramble about popularity, but never actually answers the first, and probably most important, question: What is shonen?

I'm adding stub because this article seems woefully incomplete.

I second this. Shonen means "young boy" and not much else. This article should be changed to "Shonen Manga". The only thing required of an article about "Shonen" is an explanation that it means "young boy" in Japanese. Delete and change to "Shonen Manga". struggle 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Video Girl Ai might be seinen

Although I am probably not an expert in these matters, I think Video Girl Ai might be misclassified as a shounen, and should be classified as seinen instead. Arguments for change:

• Apparent target audience
• Storyline
• Artwork
• Probably same genre as Love Hina, which is classified as a seinen (but missing from the list in the seinen article)

Arguments against immediate change:

• It might be desirable to wait for an expert opinion
• Currently the Video Girl Ai page itself doesn't contain a classfication at all

Maybe I'll check back on this article sometime in the future. Shinobu 10:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something weird happened to the picture in the stub-template: it was designated missing. Uncapitalizing the first letter solved the problem, however suddenly the older versions (with capital) were showing up okay... Since it works now I won't touch it any more, but still... Shinobu 13:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Shounen" doesn't refer to the content or artwork, but to the target audience, which can easily be determined from looking up what magazine a series is published in, which in this case is Shounen Jump. --130.232.85.15 13:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. In the strict sense shounen is defined as anything published in a magazine with target audience "young boys". However, in English the phrase has started to identify a genre, hence the confusion.

Since you have posted a remark on Talk:Seinen you know what the main problem is: in which magazine a manga is serialized is not a reliable indicator for its actual genre.

Since the discussions on this page and on Talk:Seinen are basically about the same thing, this discussion will be continued there.

Bye, Shinobu 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Few seinen manga published outside Japan?

"Despite a number of significant differences, many Western fans don't make a distinction between shōnen and seinen. This is due to the fact that very few seinen manga have been published outside of Japan."

What is this based on? There are many seinen manga published in Western countries, just have a look att the list on the seinen article. I suspect that this has to do with a common confusion of the definition of the terms shōnen, seinen etc (see Talk:Seinen).

I can't give exact numbers atm, but that's certainly incorrect. --zippedmartin 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How does InuYasha fall under this catogory?

How does InuYasha fall under this catogory?

By being published in one of the big shōnen mags, Shōnen Sunday. --zippedmartin 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that Inuyasha is an manga/anime for boys? —This unsigned comment was added by 207.200.34.177 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, everything Takahashi writes is for a male audience. This doesn't mean it's illegal to read it if you're not a boy. Also, you might like to consider creating an account, and please try and sign your edits on talkpages. --zippedmartin 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to take issue with this comment. What about Maison Ikkoku? Lum and Ranma 1/2 were marketed to just about everyone. BTW, Inuyasha was on at 7:00 p.m. on Fuji TV, which is traditionally a shonen anime slot. Glad that it's over! struggle 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Take issue all you like, you're mistaken. Maison Ikkoku ran in the seinen mag Big Comic Spirits, and Urusei Yatsura and Ranma 1/2 ran in the shōnen mag Shōnen Sunday. Are you confusing 'demographic' with 'government-enforced-age-and-sex-restrictions'? Clearly the actual audience isn't as narrow as only boys aged 12-18. Going by current data, Spirits has 70% male readership, 90% older than 20, and Sunday has 75% male readership, 50% under 20. If you want figures on anime viewers, you can probably find them in Newtype or something. --zippedmartin 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was NEVER proven that Inu-Yasha is intended for males. " Shounen " can mean " young ( it is often translated as " Young Sunday " ) " as well, and in all of the Takahashi interviews I have read, she never stated that her works which appear in Shounen Sunday ( especially not Inu-Yasha ) are for males -- in fact, she practically stated that many of her works are intended for either children or females, because as a young girl, she herself was interested in manga very similar to the ones she creates, but also wishes for them to appeal to males. Here are some of the interviews taht I have read: http://www.furinkan.com/features/interviews/rumiko.html http://www.furinkan.com/takahashi/index.html --IANS 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose rename of this article

Because the current article talks almost exclusively about anime/manga, I recommend replacing the current article with this one, and moving the current article to Shōnen manga or Shōnen anime and manga. As many current anime and manga articles that cover both have either "(anime)" or "(manga)" in the title, I don't think this would throw people off or confuse them as to the content of the article. Rather, I think it will allow for less confusion. --日本穣 06:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the current shōnen article as shōnen manga or anime is a good idea, however this will imply renaming other articles as Shōjo and Seinen for the sake of consistency. I also think that the article you suggested to be put instead of the current shōnen article isn't appropriate for the English Wiki, as it looks more like a Japanese dictionary entry.--紅会心 Kurenai Kaishin 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For the confused, this is in part a continuation of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Bot-powered redirect fixing? (perm), my thoughts can be found there. --zippedmartin 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a new idea for the name of this article: Shōnen (style). This keeps the title of the article short and can be used for anime, manga, or anything else that has to do with this particular style. --日本穣 21:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But... it's not a style... It's a demographic. Unless you want to tell me the stylistic link between say... One, Two, Three, Four, as a random selection. I agree there's a naming issue, due to qualified usage in Japanese, and general confusion in western usage, but misnaming it a 'genre' or 'style' is not a very clever solution. Can we not just have a (better written) page along these lines at root, and something like:

{{Otheruses1}}

Then put something like your page at the DAB? ...which it seems you've done, using the preview button. Calling it a 'style' is simply wrong, though - it's as bad as saying something is 'manga style'. --zippedmartin 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Shonen (media) or something like that? Because shonen manga and anime are a certain type of media, that is marketed in certain ways (korokoro, mangajin, shonen jump). Manga kissaten also clearly seperate the two. But it is wrong to call this article just "Shonen".struggle 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it needs a macron. But seriously, as I said on Talk:Seinen, you're confusing 'wrong usage' in Japanese with wrongness in English. (media) makes more sense than (style) at least - I just question the usefulness of any disambiguation page at the root, the only usage of (most commonly) 'shounen' you'll find in English text is either what this page deals with rather ineptly or shounen-ai. --zippedmartin 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tournament of the Gods

Is the anime Tournament of the Gods a Shōnen anime? (207.200.34.177 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I've never heard of it, but according to the Anime News Network it is. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Angelic Layer better to be Shoujo?

Most of the characters are girls, the main character is so gentle and way too girly, the series has some "kawaii"-ness here and there, plus done by CLAMP. Maybe being shounen for a fighting series but overall shouldn't it be shoujo?

For future reference, to anybody who wants to post a "but is this really shounen/shoujo/seinen": Google "[series name] serialization". In this case, the first hit states: "serialized in Shonen Ace". --130.232.85.15 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"plus done by CLAMP" So? Even if Clamp are all females, they make shonen manga too. Look at Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle.

Sections

The lead of this article is way too long. We need to split this article in sections. Shinobu 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Convert list to category

It might be better to convert the long list to a category. Categories are better suited for this kind of thing. Shinobu 06:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one opposes this, and the list is mostly just trying to do what a category is much better at doing, I will do this in the near future. Shinobu 08:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Shinobu. ₪ ask123 {t} 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Evangelion really shounen?

With all the blood, disturbing scenes, and deep themes, should Evangelion really be in the shounen category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.172.36 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

If it is published in a "shōnen" Magazine (Sunday, Jump, etc.), yes, it is. --217.126.226.68 11:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross shaped explosions, pointless sexual scenes and gore =/= deep and mature themes

I, at one point, deleted Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) from this article, but my change was reverted. I agree, the manga is clearly not shōnen, but this website has decided to list genres (e.g. shōnen , shōjo, seinen, josei, etc.) based on target demographic. Because it was serialized in the magazine, Shonen Ace, they've chosen to keep it shonen.

Having read all of the mangas, I personally think that this is a foolish distinction. Perhaps it was serialized in Shonen Ace because that's where its creator, Yoshiyuki Sadamoto was able to get it printed. Also, many older people read shōnen magazines, and shōnen is the most popular genre of manga. There are many reasons (beyond target demographic) why someone would want his/her manga serialized in a shōnen publication. So, the mere fact that the series was published in Shonen Ace means little to me. Nonetheless, it seems to mean quite a lot to some other users on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, the TV anime adaption of the manga is undoubtedly not shōnen. There is nothing linking it to that genre. ₪ ask123 {t} 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, a user above points out that Initial D was serialized in a seinen magazine (see here) and is therefore not shōnen. According to the system being used here, that user is absolutely right. But which is more shōnen, Evangelion or Initial D? Alas, here's the problem. Initial D is a series for teenage and twentysomething boys (and whoever else is interested). I don't think that's stepping out on a limb. Evangelion on the other hand... The bottom line is that mangaka and manga creators serialize their work in various publications for a multitude of reasons -- not just for demographic purposes. ₪ ask123 {t} 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Planning on adding new, heavily referenced material

Some of you may know this already, but some of us have been working on the manga article trying to get it up to GA status. That process is continuing, but we have also been working on the shonen, seinen, seijin section. That material, it seems reasonable to assume, would fit into this article very nicely after it's been revised a bit—which is a version of Wiki:Be Bold.

I'd like to invite anyone interested in what we've done to read the draft at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 before we put it in here.

We'll have to make some changes in the text to fit it into the narrower framework of this article, but that won't be hard. The introduction of present shonen article, which lacks references and says very little, also needs to be rewritten. In case anyone wonders what I mean by "revision," you can see what's involved by reading the manga article.

So please stop by Sandbox5 and make comments and suggestions.

Thanks.

Timothy Perper (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that our approach goes far beyond arguing about whether a given manga title is shōnen, seinen, shōjo, or whatever. Those issues are quite minor -- though fans can get worked up about them -- compared to discussing the themes and narratives that enter into manga for male readers. In brief, we need to understand shōnen and seinen manga as a continuum that crosses different age groups and is read by both males and females here in the US and in Japan. So we're using the global label "shōnen" as a springboard for discussing the entire continuum of manga for male readers. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add an article about manga for males (shounen, seinen and seijin manga) in a wiki entry about manga for boys. This is not the place for an article like that. --ChuChu (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. That is precisely one of the things the shōnen article is about and for. You have not read or seen the material we're thinking about adding, and are reacting without any knowledge. May I suggest that you (a) read my user page to find out who I am; (b) read the manga article as it has been revised, partly by my own efforts, and (c) examine the material we're talking about on User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 before deciding -- against all logic and the meaning of words -- that material on shounen manga does not belong in an article about manga for boys. May I conclude that despite your name -- a reference, I assume, to Anthy and her little mouse pet? -- you do not know that the word "shōnen" means "boy, young man" in Japanese?

However, for completely different reasons -- they have nothing to do with your lack of civility and welcome (both frowned on in Wikipedia) -- I will probably not be adding the material I discussed for some time. I will not explain why not. Perhaps later, and if so, then we can discuss the issue again, the next time I hope with greater civility than your comment suggests.

Timothy Perper (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what shounen means, but what I meant was, that the stuff in this draft: User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 include seinen and seijin manga, and that stuff should not be in the shounen manga entry.

You asked for comments, and I commented here. --ChuChu (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)