Talk:Anime/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Creating Anime

How is creating anime different from creating animation? This question is directed at the "Techniques" section. KyuuA4 09:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Style Section

Can it be possible to use a list format to describe some style features found in most (or all) anime? Basically, the list would appear like the Genre section. KyuuA4 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Obviously their are detractors of this genre. What are their claims? I'd like to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.111.248.236 (talk • contribs).

I am surprised at the lack of a critical section. This reads like an article by and for anime fans, not the general audience. As for criticisms, it is easy to think of several. Note these qualities do not have to apply to every single anime in order to be accurately descriptive of the medium as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs).
In response to user 64.81.118.101 above...All of that is your own point of view, which is expressly what the wikipedia is not about. Reading though your contribution history though would indicate that you may not be at all familiar with WP:POV. Tarc 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Any section about criticism of anime needs to be verifiable, based on reliable sources, and avoid the use of weasel words and original research. Those were the problem with a previous "criticism" section that someone included back in April, which caused the section to be removed. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I can easily find "verifiable" critisms of anime through google. Right now, this whole article reads like a pro-anime argument. Just because you disagree with somone, it dosn't make their opinion "POV"... -- Selmo 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I googled "Critism of Anime", and another article showed up as a first result. -- Selmo 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Anime is animation from Japan... unless the criticism is about the Japanese people who make anime.. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Anime isn't a "genre". Your example shows this, that criticism is usually about individual works, but to criticize all of anime simply for the sake of having a "criticism" section is just silly. All animes are not always related, you can't generalize it like that. Anime creators have a wide range of styles and approaches and ideas. The only way this is just "pro" anime is because of a lack of "anti" anime, but we can't have "anti" anime because we can't judge it all in one shot like that. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've ran into a bunch of opinions on the web describing anime "childish" animation, among other things. Give me a few days, and I'll try to relocate it. But I still feel this article is biased. (i.e the creator of anime is a legandary artist sounds to me like an opinion, not fact). There is also alot of weasel words throughtout the article. -- Selmo 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, SOME anime are childish, because they were made for childish audiences. Hamtaro is the most prominent example I can think of. Thus, childish vs non-childish is irrelevant. KyuuA4 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, about your "critism is about the Japanese people who make anime". I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Are you asking me if I'm critising the animation companies, or Japanese people? Because I have absolutely nothing agaisnt Japanese people... -- Selmo 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems most of those kinds of things can be corrected via the advice on WP:PEACOCK. I don't doubt that you will be able to find someone who's prejudice against anime by generalizing all of it as one entity, but those kinds of opinions are the POV we should be keeping out of this article. Putting in a criticism section in Anime is like putting in a "Criticism of Theatre" in Theatre or Criticism of books in Book. Here's a question, why don't we have a criticism section for Animation? -- Ned Scott 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, so don't tell that anime is great show it! It'd still be biased. I'd say to fix the bias via the advice on WP:WEASEL. And like I said before, just because you disagree with someone, it dosn't mean you can delete the content. Especially if you're refusing to make the article less pro-anime in an appropriate way. -- Selmo (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not suggesting something appropriate, and I have not deleted anything... Removing things that say "gee wizz, anime is great" would be fine by me. That would be an appropriate way to fix this situation, not to put a band-aid on it called "criticism of anime". -- Ned Scott 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree there seems to be a completely intolerant group of wikipedians who will allow not even a hint of criticism into this article. I don't know what their motives are but they are certainly showing very little of the spirit of an open wiki editing process.--Omnicog 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, I invite both Selmo and Ned Scott to further their discussion on whether there should be a criticism section for this Anime entry on the dispute resolution page [1]. It would probably be better for Ned to state his case against a criticism section first, if Selmo doesn't mind. Jsw663 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
... the hell? -- Ned Scott 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I didn't completely understand your POV before but I'm taking as hands-off an approach as possible. I hope Selmo replies soon though. Jsw663 05:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the whole mediation case is just Selmo's attempt to push his POV about a criticism section. He opens the case within three days of first complaining about the absents of criticism about anime. He didn't even try to negotiate as he claims in the case nor offered any help in writing such a section. Instead, he claims that the criticism is out there to be found by others and then demands that the section be written. That's dictating, not negotiation. And the fact that he rant to mediation so quickly should make his actions suspect. The fact that he opened that case without even attempting to fix what he saw as a problem really irritates the hell out of me.
Now I will say that I think the article will benefit from such a section. But as I stated above and on the mediation case, not just any criticism section will do. And I think the criteria I gave above are more then fair. But the article is better off with no criticism section then a poorly researched, poorly written, and unsourced criticism section. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I'm not trying top push POV, all I want is it to bo be more netrual. Quit lying about me, I DID try to negoaite, but got nowhere. If it irritates you, back off. No one has made me swear on Wikipedia before, so be glad: you've sucessfully annoyed me.
Oh yeah, before you complain about my harsh tone, remember, you're the one who abused me. -- Selmo (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Farix hasn't done anything inappropriate, yet you just flew off the handle. He abused you? .. the hell? He's given his view of the situation and offered legitimate ways to resolve this dispute, and this is your response? -- Ned Scott 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont want to fight. He did however make invalid claims about me, and that's a perosonal attack. -- Selmo (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Everything he said about you is true and was only said to seek dispute resolution. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to keep your cool and maintain civil language, Selmo (I have edited your comments accordingly). Also, everyone is entitled to their POV - do NOT, I repeat do NOT, take TheFarix's criticisms personally. Moreover, the argument can be continued at the cabal instead of filling an anime discussion page with flame wars. Jsw663 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I join Ned Scott in that. Anime is too general to be criticised as a whole. However, sourced criticism is appropriate in context in the rest of the article. Let me bring up a sentence that I would tag with "what the hell"

Due to reduced frame rate, several still shots and scrolling backgrounds, scenes are created with a greater focus on quality than the rest of the production.

Huh? Which quality is referred to here? Lower frame rates would suggest less fluid animation.... --GunnarRene 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What is obiously meant is: less money is spent on fluid animation of some scenes, so the detail can be increased, and more money can spent on other scenes. Or something like that. Shinobu 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

2 the Ranting Gryphon is the best we can do? Seriously, if we're gonna have a criticisms section, lets get something more reliable than a self-published podcast. Kyaa the Catlord 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you actually listen to the podcast, it's clearly satire. I was going to tag it as {dubious} because of it, but the section's been removed again. We don't use comedic monologs as a source of criticism anywhere else on Wikipedia that I know of. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime is childish at times because some anime is aimed for children. Other anime is aimed for an older audience. Plain and simple. Criticisms could be aimed at the conflict of diffrence of culture, between Japan and Western Countries. Really main criticisms could come from Hentai, and it's more questionable forms. (Loli, Shota) Also it could be the frankness of Homosexual relations, which America still isn't comfortable on. A Gigantic Panda 05:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anime vs Non-Anime

Section moved from article to here:

Distinguishing Anime and Non-Anime

Apparently, there is a distinction among animation differentiating anime and non-anime.

For example, the animated TV series ThunderCats, although animated by Japanese animation studio Topcraft (who would later go on to form Studio Ghibli), is not considered anime. Its creator is Tobin Wolf. It was produced specifically for the English-speaking market. Specifically, the American production company, Rankin-Bass Productions, developed Thundercats. On the contrary, the anime series IGPX was also produced for the English-speaking market. Its creator is Kōichi Mashimo and co-produced by Cartoon Network and Production I.G..

In short, this part of the topic itself is rather confusing indeed. KyuuA4 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the ThunderCats bit as another example of what could and couldn't be classed as "anime" under the AniDB definition. (It also mentions Studio Ghibli, which has been curiously absent from this article.) Someone apparently moved it to a new sub-category and added the first sentence and a bit about IGPX. --Ppk01 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, the Anime vs Non-Anime debate falls under two words: "Content" or "Source". KyuuA4 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I encourage people to go to various forums of anime and ask: "What makes anime, anime?" or "Can non-Japanese countries produce anime?" KyuuA4 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Wonderful Days/Sky Blue (a Korean animated film) an anime? It sure looks like one, but it wasn't created in Japan. Oh, does it count as an anime because it's geared towards adults? I guess "kiddy" shows you see on Saturday mornings are simply cartoons, not animes, because they are geared towards a younger audience. Then I guess that makes Pokemon, Digimon, One-Piece, Sugar: A Little Snow Fairy, etc, cartoons and not animes, right? So, where do we draw the line?

Wonderful Days is Manhwa, I think--Cyhborg 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anime MEANS animation in Japanese, but in English it is to refer to any cartoon produced in Japan. Thus, if it's made in Korea, it's not an anime. Pokemon, Digimon, One Piece, and Sugar are all anime because they were produced in Japan. It is NOT the style of the art that makes an animation an anime. Super Milk-Chan, for example, looks little like traditional anime, but as it is produced in Japan, it is, in fact, an anime.71.100.15.139 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Which holds higher value? The Japanese meaning OR the English meaning. Obviously, TWO meanings for "anime" exists. Ironically, we are not referring to the meaning by the country it originally came from. Nevertheless, anime does have a distinct set of animation techniques. Some aspects of Japanese animation does set it apart from other forms of animation. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the idea of Japanese animation techniques used outside Japan. KyuuA4 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Anime is a "style". Just like manga. For your information, manga is produced outside Japan, and we've seen that happen in the form of webcomics such as Van Von Hunter and Megatokyo. They may not look like the best manga out there - unlike the material we're accustomed to seeing. At least, their products are being published and sold under manga sections in book stores. However, manga is manga regardless of who and where it is produced. Therefore, if manga can be produced outside Japan, then why can't anime be produced outside Japan? KyuuA4 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not "anime" because that means "The MAXX" (based on Sam Keith's comic) would be. In the West, animation from Japan with adult content and sex are called "hentai". {yukikanou 6:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hentai is a form of subcategory of anime. Like cheese is a food. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 14:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I like anidb definition: An anime is an animated, professionally produced, feature film created by a Japanese company for the Japanese market. Rikis 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, an anime can also be created by a Japanese company for another country's market. For example, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust was originally released in the United States. Same with The Animatrix (which IS an anime). Also, the upcoming Trigun film is being made most likely because of the success of Trigun overseas; Trigun didn't do as well in Japan. Fiction Alchemist 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry for the late sign)
Well it's problematic, and I found some discusions: is Animatrix really anime (I don't want dispute about this). If we can't give strict definition to anime or describe anime style (it's impossible ^^), maybe we can just give all definition found on internet. I think no anime fan will agree, that Boondocks or Samurai Jack is anime. Rikis 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Animatrix is classified not as anime, as far as the Wiki article is concerned. However, ANN does list it as an OAV. Undoubtedly, the Boondocks LOOKS like anime; and yes, I'm an anime fan. KyuuA4 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anime should not be restricted to Japanese animation. Instead, more attention should be paid to the style of the animation. If need be, also look into the storyline. Is there criteria to discern animated works as being anime or non-anime? Even so, credit does go to Japan for developing the anime-style. KyuuA4 16:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuh-uhh. Look at Super Milk Chan or Crayon Shin-Chan. Those are anime, and they don't look like a "traditional" anime would. They also don't follow typical anime story-telling conventions, and yet they are still anime. Anime style is NOT in appearances or genre. Fiction Alchemist 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, see the fallacy of the definition of "anime is animation from Japan". Some of this stuff looks like old Western style animation. Aww hell, some of it looks like Canadian animation. Yet, we look at them as anime, just because they're from Japan. While I disagree to quality being a factor in defining anime, we cannot exclude failed Japanese animation from being included into "anime". Or do we? KyuuA4 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Categorizing an animation as "anime" by "style" alone is not something I really want to consider; how "like" a Japanese anime would a US animation have to be for us to call it "anime"? Or would we label it "anime" if the creators claimed it was? If a Japanese animation didn't fit within whatever style parameters were were operating on, could we no longer call it anime? Shiroi Hane 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
But that is exactly what's happening when determining an anime vs a non-anime. Popular consensus labels anime to be a Japanese product. From this, it implies the impossibility of producing anime outside Japan. That is ludicrious. Oh, and yes. I was incorrect with the story-telling conventions of anime. This was due to thinking about Hamtaro which is considered an anime but does not follow typical anime storyline conventions. KyuuA4 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here: I think the definiton boils down to a Japanese company distributing it. The cels themselves might be drawn in Korea or China, to which more of the work is being outsourced. --GunnarRene 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that part of the definition should really include having Japanese language voice acting. Also there are terms like Original English Manga floating around and I think such things could also apply to anime. --Squilibob 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
For your information, shows from the US are brought over to Japan and dubbed on Japanese. Particularly Star Trek: The Next Generation. While that is not an animation, it is an example of a US media item brought to Japan for Japanese voice acting. KyuuA4 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So what about when some of the production is done by a Japanese company, such as the case with Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker? A Japanese animation studio (TMS Entertainment) helped with the production. So is Batman Beyond: ROTJ half-cartoon, half anime? What makes something anime and something else not anime? How much must be produced by a Japanese animation studio for people to label it as "anime"? In the future, if this animation-style becomes more widely adopted by producers all over the world, what will the definition of "anime" look like then? Is anime not popular mainly because of its style (both in animation and story), and not the country from which it originated? Or am I gravely mistaken? If a French chef prepares an Italian dish in Paris, would it make any sense to label it as a French dish? 70.115.234.217 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That one is difficult, but I would say that if the writing, directing, animating, EVERYTHING is done in Japan, then it would be an anime. Thus, Batman Beyond wouldn't qualify. However, I believe that GI Joe: Sigma 6 probably WOULD qualify. Fiction Alchemist 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, some anime do not even have EVERYTHING done in Japan. Some production processes are done in neighboring Korea. KyuuA4 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, moving on... I'm reading through these comments... I'm not singling out anyone in particular when I say this... The word in anime means Japanese cartoon and there's really no honest way around that. Period. Actually, I think it was a mistake for other countries to adopt the word "anime", because now people think they can get nearly anything qualified as an anime, when the word was intended as the label for Japanese cartoons. Perhaps "Japanime" sounds crude, but it sure would keep people from using "Teen Titans is an anime because of the way it looks" arguments. Fiction Alchemist 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if necessary, then the term "Japanimation" will have to come back; yet the Japanese do have a large taste for Eurobeat music. KyuuA4 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to use caps.

Anime means animation; or more correctly, it is how the japanese SAY animation by shortening the word(its written in katakana ). ANIME by the CORRECT definnition are CARTOONS. the word should not ONLY applied to cartoon that come from Japan, the correct word would be JAPANESE ANIMATION. MANGA just is the word for comic book in Japanese. An AMIERCAN COMIC could be called manga (american manga correctly). Yes i did put empthasis between america and japan.

Lets face it. Americans tend to twist Japanese words (otaku, manga, anime, hentai etc.) to make it only apply to Japanese pop-culture, and vice versa(I think) or simply, its a japanese word thats cool-sounding (and vice versa), but dont know the real definition, or language (to be fluent or partly.)

Yes. Avatar: The Last Airbender is an anime.Angelofdeath275 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet, we let the Japanese get away with taking English words and making it distinctly their own. Language can suck in that manner sometimes. Thank goodness for written documents designed to settle such differences. At least, these things try to settle "issues". KyuuA4 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Avatar is an anime. KyuuA4 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Avatar anime, LOL! No. I agree with Squilibob, original Japanese dub must be in the definition.Scineram 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
So then that would mean that Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is not an anime, since it was originally dubbed in English? You're appealing to the West when you originally dub something with professional American voice-overs. "This is a unique anime film in that the original version is completely in English. The Japanese theatrical release was in English with Japanese subtitling. Director Kawajiri created the animation in Japan but came to the U.S. (Emeryville, CA!) to work with American voice actors, sound technicians and musicians. The end product is a true collaboration." --- http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=12422 14 October 2006
Hmm, imagine Avatar dubbed in Japanese. Is that a farfetched thought? Hardly. KyuuA4 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One of my favourite catchphrases on the difference between cartoons and anime:

All anime are cartoons, but not all cartoons are anime.

--Ppk01 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Avatar is not an anime, it is a cartoon produced by two Americans, in America, for Nickelodeon. Likewise, Van Von Hunter and Megatokyo are not manga, they are American comics done in a manga style, and published in digest format. Is Runaways manga simply because they publish it in digest format as well?

Even though "anime" is literally "animation" in JAPANESE, I don't have a huge problem with it being taken to other countries. When they overexagerate the japanese style, such as in Shuriken School, or Kappa Mikey, that goes a little overboard. But Avatar is okay, because it sticks more to the somewhat orignal style, even if the style does vary. The question "is it okay for Americans to make anime?" is basicaly the same as "Are dubs okay?" I don't like dubs, but I don't have a problem with them. Same with American anime and such. - Lightbeam911

History and Synonyms sections

I was just passing by and thought I'd comment that your history section seems somewhat lacking. It goes right from the 20's to the 70's, completely skipping over the 50's and 60's, Tezuka, Astroboy, Kimba, etc. It says nothing about the various waves of popularity in America and so forth. You might want to do some expanding there.

Also, in your Synonyms section, since when has "Manga" been confused with "Anime?" Anime is the Japanization of animation, and Manga is the Japanization of magazine, meaning comics. Has anime fandom truly fallen into such disarray that fans have forgotten the distinctly different meaning of the two words? Perri Rhoades 05:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, many younger fans confuse the two (well, back in the '90s, anyway). --maru (talk) contribs 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The word "manga" is not actually based on "magazine". DenisMoskowitz 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, anime fandom has gone into a disarray such that they'd segregate anime/manga from animation/comics. This is bias to the extreme. KyuuA4 06:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweeping Image Revisions

This is going to be a controversial suggestion (partly why I just didn't do it - sweeping changes tend to get off-the-hip reverts) - but consider it for a moment before replying. Right now there are a number of images in the article - that while appropriate to the overall context of the article, do not fit with the sections that they are in. Therefore, I would like to recommend the following changes; some of these make sense purely on their own so most of them should be considered on a case-by-case basis:

  • The Cowboy Bebop image is fine as it is, however the top of the page might need a style tweak (i.e. move menu to the right)
  • The Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Shiryu images be removed as they are irrelevant in the context of genres due to the fact that links to various examples are provided. Or, they could be moved to the See Also section to fill some of the white space
  • The Astroboy image be moved to the History section as a historical representation of anime
  • The Macross 7 image is fine in it's current location as it is a good example of music in anime
  • The Lum image be moved to the Commercial Appeal as she is a good indication of one of the commercial appeals of anime
  • The Mylene Jenius be slightly enlarged and moved down to the Style section as she is a good stereotypical example of the "big eyes, small mouth" style
  • The FLCL image be removed from the page as it is not a good "overall" representation of anime
  • The Casshan OVA image is removed as a visual example of an OVA is not needed on an "overall" look and feel page. I have added it to the Original video animation page as it is more relevant on that page.
  • The School Rumble fansub image be removed as it does not enhance that small section of the article and is included on the fansub page
  • I'm on the fence about the Castle in the Sky robot image - it's not anime, so it doesn't really fit the page, but it is good white space filler for the section.

Let the dicussion begin XD --Darkstar949 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Cowboy Bebop image is not fine. It doesn't strike me as "iconic" enough to leave it there but elsewhere in the article. I would rather have another image replace it.
  • Keep the Castle in the Sky image for useage in say, real life useage of anime or soemthign similar. --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Finally getting there, though the dreaded whitespace is back at the top of the article. With a contents box as big as it is, maybe there should be no image in the lead at all. --Squilibob 10:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Propose that the image be relocated elsewhere, as an example to a genre of Anime. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think the Cowboy Bebop image should be there. Maybe something from Neon Genesis Evangelion, off the top of my head. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonononono, eliminate any placement of a picture in that top spot PERIOD. --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the older more accepted anime is much more appropriate for a wiki article as it ties scenes that reader more likely to have already seen. Introducing the newer stuff smacks of commercialism - possibly corporate bias if one anime is favored over the other.--Omnicog 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the suggested changes. Perhaps we could try to have images of the discussed anime near the place they are discussed. The Cowboy Bebop image should be replaced with something more iconic. A classic early anime perhaps? Something from the eighties? I'd go for Nausicaä, because it'd fare well in the iconic department, and it would be considered a classic by most. Shinobu 18:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I still say leave the top area blank, because whatever image is up there, someone's gonna complain about it. However, on a completely different tangent, I suggest Astro Boy if an image is decided to be left up near the top. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of Nausicaä and have always liked the idea of Atom/Astro being there but for the layout of the article I stand by the "no image at the top" stance. --Squilibob 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If there MUST be a picture up there, then we could always put a Lupin III picture of there, if you need something classic and historic with a "traditional" anime appearance. Fiction Alchemist 04:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be some iconic, something that is a well known caharcter. Astro Boy fits the bill. He's the first "true" anime, and is an iconic anime character. This Image would fit the bill and the white space perfectly. We need to decide on something very quick, because I want to get the image thing squared away and focus on something else. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should be using a black and white image as the first image on the anime article, it's not manga, it's anime. --Squilibob 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like the Astro Boy movieposter, how about Image:MEHVE - Nausicaa of the valley of the winds.jpg, possibly cropped? I think both this and the AB picture are better than what we have now. Shinobu 00:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So long as it's not that Cowboy Bebop image. I want something iconic, not a pop culture fad like CB. I agree with Nausicaa.--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cowboy Bebop image is fine, it's representative too, you have Spike, who has a slanted-line smile, a line nose, and a long, thin face, Jet, who has a rounded face, a more detailed nose and a line frown, Ed, who has large eyes, a happy, open-mouthed expression, a triangular jaw and a lack of a nose except for a dot, and Faye, who has a small nose and a small, slightly open-mouthed expression. All four have differences in the way their hair has been done, and they have varied clothing types and expressions. There's also Ein, who is an example of how animals look in animé. This is a really good example of animé, as it encompasses different forms and styles, with clear variations between the characters.

This picture is a definite keep. --87.254.65.134 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (This was by me, I had previously forgotten that I had a registered Wikipedia account --Damuna 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Deleted Discussions from the Talk Page?

Darkstar949, how come you removed some discussions on the talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.229.176 (talk • contribs)

I've restored the deleted sections. I will also archive part the talk page after this edit. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Now archived --TheFarix (Talk) 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
News to me - but from the looks of the history log it was a page collision error - namely I used my back button to edit instead of refreshing the page (very bad, I know) --Darkstar949 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anime Definition

Well, under NPOV, is it acceptable to report the different views of the Anime Definition? A short section is now used to describe definition discrepancies. KyuuA4 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article already did that.. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Along with Ppk01's edit, the opening paragraph looks more concise and improved. Details are then included over to the definition section. KyuuA4 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What falls under the criteria of Anime and Non-Anime? As a reminder, the Japanese consider anything animated as "anime"; by which, it is synonymous to the set "animation". Of course, we in the west make a distinction between anime vs non-anime. So, what defines the sets "anime" and "non-anime"? Can an animated product be both "anime" and "non-anime"? KyuuA4 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime in any language but Japanese means animation made in Japan. The style doesn't matter, it's the country of origin. Anime is what would be Nihon no Animeshiyon in Japanese. And no, an animated product can't be both anime and non-anime. --SeizureDog 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that an anime must be a product produced in Japan. That would imply other "ethnicities" are incapable of producing anime. Look at Jazz music. It is a style of music originated from Black people from America. Does that mean other people cannot produce Jazz? Then look at Yoko Konno. Again, Anime is a Style of animation. KyuuA4 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"What falls under the criteria of Anime and Non-Anime? "

Simple answer: If you the japanese language, anything that isnt a cartoon in ANY COUNTRY. not just something from Japan.Angelofdeath275 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If labeled "Japanese anime", then it is more accurate. KyuuA4 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That bring us back to the problem of implying the possibility of "American anime", "French anime", "Korean anime" etc; implying again that anime is defined by style rather than origin and introducing the problems inherant in defining said style. Shiroi Hane 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Anime is a style. It originated in Japan; but it is still a style. 75.34.55.108 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To say this would exclude several animes from Japan. Certainly, in popular culture, we have used the word "anime" to describe a type of style, but to say that anime is a style isn't completely accurate. Several animations from Japan are anime, but use very different styles. For example, Windy Tales. -- Ned Scott 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is a style, then find reliable sources that defines the elements that make up that style as well as resolves the discrepancies when some animated films/series that are widely considered to be anime do not share those elements and vice versa. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Online Dictionary sources label it as a Japanese style, or a style originating in Japan -- not a Japanese product or animation produced in Japan. It is a style. As for the characteristics for the anime style, some searching to describe the style will need to be done. So, the dispute over anime vs non-anime falls under the style definition. What belongs to the anime style? What does not belong to the anime style? KyuuA4 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of the authoritative sources that I've came across do not define anime as a style but by its origins in Japan. But if you did define it as a style, what are the characteristic of that style and how would you resolve Japanese animation that do not share those characteristic but are still called anime or animation that share the stylistic elements but are not refered to as anime? --TheFarix (Talk) 11:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To revisit Something I queried on the wikiproject: would you classify anime as anything animated in Japan (or, at least created by the Japanese since they outsource and 'insource' animation..) included full 3D CGI efforts like Malice@Doll and the Final Fantasy movies and other media such as stopmotion, or just Japanese cartoons (as in traditional or compter aided cell animation). Shiroi Hane 15:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The line between traditional animation and CGI has become so blurred that it's largely useless to make dictions between the two. You will essentially be arguing about degrees, such as a series that is 75% CGI and 25% traditional would be considered anime, so why shouldn't a 90% to 100% CGI series/film be considered anime as well. Or why should a film that is 100% CGI but still retains the "look and feel" of traditional animation be considered anime? Fortunately for us, CGI does appear to be included as anime. Can't say the same for stop motion since there is very little Japanese stop motion animations to begin with. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Duuuuh Farix, The. Listen to the American Heritage Dictionary, anime is "A style of animation developed in Japan, characterized by stylized colorful art, futuristic settings, violence, and sex." Or the blatantly copied&tyoped dictionary.com 'Unabridged (v 1.0.1)' version, "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation, charaacterized by highly stylized, colorful art, futuristic settings, and sexuality and violence."

Anime is a style of stylized colorful futuristic violent sex. Obviously. --zippedmartin 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan doesn't belong

Her image has been bugging the crap out of me for some time. On one hand, she is a free image, and we do need to try and use them, but my problem is that she is not from any anime. Of which I mean the image is not from an animation at all. So in reality she shows the manga drawing style instead. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, as the two styles are the same, but it's still driving me nuts. I'm romoving it, and I'd move it the manga article, but there doesn't seem to be a good open spot for it. --SeizureDog 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Finite 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but all the images on the article are single frames anyways. We also have Image:Laputa-robot-ghibli.jpg, and no one has said anything about that. If someone wishes to publish this article and can't use fair use images then all they have is... Image:Laputa-robot-ghibli.jpg. Again, all the images are single frame stills, thus none of them are "anime". We use the images because they show what some of the anime styles look like, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but they're from an anime, right Ned? Ah, well, it's the same drawing style so until somebody goes forth and publishes a PD or GDFL anime, then Wikipe-tan is all we have to show the drawing style in fair-use-less versions of Wikipedia. --GunnarRene 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The simple solution to this is to make a Wikipe-tan anime. Let's go bug Kasuga again :D *gets killed* _dk 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipetan is an example of an anime drawing style. The point is a demonstration of an anime drawing style, and what better example than one that represents Wiki. We can also put fan art in that section instead. KyuuA4 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan art is still a copyvio. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's fan art of Wikipe-tan. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistics about Anime?

where to find statistics about Japanese Anime, like the number of series produced, the number of episodes, series/year, episodes/year, and names? AshrafSS 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime news network is a good place to look. If you have patience, animeNFO is good too. I'll check if these are under external links and add them cause they are good sites for this article.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Common characters/ themes?

Does anyone have a list of common character types in anime (samurai, catgirl, space pirate, etc...), or know where I can get one. Something big, not just 10 or 15 types of characters.

Also, common themes or elements. Like, demons coming, main character has to stop them, training to become the strongest "Blank". You get the idea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.166.40.74 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

The TV Tropes Wiki is excellent for this kind of thing - check out their Anime Tropes page, from which you can also find character types, genres, settings, and culture notes. DenisMoskowitz 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I've tagged three sections that could seriously benefit from inline references: Music, Animation process and Production types of anime. If any of the five books listed which haven't been turned into inline reference per WP:FOOT can be used, that would be great. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Popularity in the United States

I'm moving this section to the talk page to be worked on, since.. yeah.. it's pretty much made of one man's quote and as I said before, it's better to correct these things than to just counter them with a "con" argument. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime’s current popularity in the United States can best be described as a cultural cult hit. With the exceptions of child-oriented series (some being highly edited to conform to Americans’ standards of what childrens’ shows should be, sometimes to the dismay of fans of the uncensored version), anime remains largely unaccepted in America’s mainstream society. AnimeNation’s John Oppliger had this to say on the matter:


And I'm moving it back, since it says pretty much everything that needs to be said, from a credible source (he has his own section in a Wikipedia article). So, unless you can find some specific problem with it, keep it there. Anything else that could be added is just personal observation and would have no direct references; there aren't exactly dozens of studies on the popularity of anime. Add anything you wish here and work on it, but for now the above stays in the article. This is a nessecary section, in my opinion. -- Samurai Drifter 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's horribly one sided, and I'm not sure if we should quote THAT MUCH of his review. (copyvio?) The section also needs to be called something more like "Response in America" or something to that extent. There's several articles on the "anime craze" and so on, it shouldn't be hard at all to find more than this. I don't disagree with this guy at all, that's not my point, but the section looks like shit. Calling it a cult hit? True or not, that's not how an encyclopedia article should be written. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A big massive quote like that does look like crap. Best way to describe the anime reception outside Japan is to briefly describe the growth of the anime market in various regions. This requires a look at the anime markets in the US, Europe, Latin America, and beyond. Though, I do wonder about Africa. After a quick Google check, there are plenty of South African anime sites. KyuuA4 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't large quotes be placed in Wikiquote? That is what it is for: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Oppliger. --Squilibob 07:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Any articles on the "anime craze" undoubtedly are discussing Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! The few that discuss adult-oriented stuff make the people who like it seem like total freaks and perverts. Good luck finding stuff though. And the term "cultural cult hit" was taken from the book "Anime: From Akira to Princess Mononoke" by prof. Susan Napier (used as a reference elswhere in the article). Not to mention, the quote contains information from AC Nielsen. Really, it's pretty much everything that needs to be said in one quote. If you want to add more, though, be my guest. -- Samurai Drifter 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvement --> no Need for mediation?

I'm hoping that as this article is improved, along with following SeizureDog's advice, then the Anime criticism section would be addressed eventually, thus hopefully negating the need of the Anime mediation case. If Selmo wants to put a criticism section, perhaps it should be edited for improvement rather than just deletion? (This is just a proposal). Jsw663 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're fine with having a criticism section except that it should not be pure OR and properly sourced. This has been the main problem and the reason that the prior one was removed. Kyaa the Catlord 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but until such a criticism section is written, and/or if Selmo abandons his mediation case, we still have not yet reached that compromise - and thus the mediation case must still remain open until then. Jsw663 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize he had opened a mediation case until I went hunting for it. Isn't it normal to announce that there is a mediation underway on the article for which he's requested mediation? (Not that his case has any real merit, his criticism section did not meet WP standards and was perfectly acceptably removed on grounds which were stated in the edit summaries.) Kyaa the Catlord 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything to mediate at this point. Selmo appears to have given up on the section since his last two attempts where reverted for using dubious sources. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've left a message on Selmo's user page. If I receive no response on any of the Anime pages, on his / my user talk page for a week from now, I'll deem the mediation case as having been abandoned and thus close the case. Until then, perhaps we should just wait / help improve this Anime entry until then. Jsw663 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NoMoreLinks

I have replaced the current notice that was in the external link section with the one at {{NoMoreLinks}}. I'm not sure how much linkspam this will prevent, but I do hope the higher profile of the notice will grab the attention of most spammers and dissuade them from put their links on the article. I also do think that all new links should be reviewed here before they are included in the section. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just cleaned up the external links section again.
Are there any approved external link sites yet? I did not feel that any of them proved worthwhile. If I have trod on any toes then I apologise. Perhaps it's worth puplishing a list of sites here that have been approved by consensus. Regards LittleOldMe 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section (again)

An anonymous editor has inserted another criticism section. Like previous attempts, it doesn't make any references to any reliable sources. It similarly appears to be someone's opinion inserted into the article. The opening sentence also contains the weasel phrase, "It is self evident to many impartial observers," which presents an opinion as fact without having to cite a source for that opinion.

However, rather then outright deleting the section, I'm going to tag it for a while. If it doesn't improve after a few days, it should then be removed. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime is a medium. Having a criticism section here is as ludicrous as having one on Book. I am deleting that ignorant bash-fest NOW. Finite 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
True. Any criticism should be directed at individual anime works. KyuuA4 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Music, Techniques, Companies, and Production types of anime section

Just a reminder that if these sections don't receive some inline references soon, they could be removed in their entirety under WP:V. This is a shame, because these sections contribute a lot to the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, huge failure on the part of using citations around here. However, that can be cleaned up. KyuuA4 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Final warning, if these sections don't get any inline references in the next couple of days. I'll be removing them as unreferenced. They have been tagged as needing references for long enough. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has bothered to add inline references, I've removed them. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop Image

Do we really need that Cowboy Bebop image on the right? I think it's been up for way too long, and that we can definately find a more appropriate image. Astroboy is one obvious choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B.A.B.E. (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very good example of the anime style, personally. It contains various different characters, each with their own distinct anime-style image. Besides, there are other images throughout the article that illustrate some of the other popular anime series. Astro Boy seems very appropriate to be put in the History section, as it's really the first "proper" anime series. I say leave the Cowboy Bebop image where it is. --Ppk01 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed above at the section Sweeping Image Revisions. Shinobu 10:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Promote talk/section to pronunciation of "anime" (both English and Japanese).

Sorry. Being semi-new to the Wikipedia community, I didn't mean to impose on anybody.

But, because I've been hearing "anime" pronounced in so many various forms, I'd like to have some people devote a section to just the pronuncation of the word "anime," of which would include both the Japanese pronunciation as well as the English pronunciation. Although, yes, anime is derived from the word "animation," I feel that is justly why people should contribute to a section on how the hiragana/katagana is pronounced as well as how the English version of the word is pronounced. Besides, it'll look better than a description lumped into the introduction of the article.

Rather, in addition to the IPA pronunciation method (because most people don't seem to understand it), add another part of it, such as:

あ / ア "ah" is pronounced like . . . I don't know. the "ah" sound in "art?"

に/ ニ "ni" is pronounced like the word "need."

め/メ "me" like in "maid" or "make."


I mean, while trying to consider everybody's respective accents, this should still come out fairly clear.

I really don't think there is a need for such a section. A pronounciation guide should only needed for words that are not in common use in English. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anime Definition

Well, under NPOV, is it acceptable to report the different views of the Anime Definition? A short section is now used to describe definition discrepancies. KyuuA4 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article already did that.. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Along with Ppk01's edit, the opening paragraph looks more concise and improved. Details are then included over to the definition section. KyuuA4 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is unnecessary to the topic of anime - it really belongs in the category of Japanese language. "The pronunciation of anime in English differs significantly from Japanese. The first vowel is further forward in English than Japanese: [æ] is more likely than [ɑ]. As English and Japanese stress words differently, the second vowel is likely to emerge as an unstressed schwa ([ə] or [I] in English, whereas in Japanese each syllable carries equal stress. As with a few other Japanese words such as Pokémon and Kobo Abé, anime is sometimes spelled as animé in English with an acute accent over the final e to cue the reader that the letter is pronounced as Japanese [e]. However, this accent does not appear in romanized Japanese, and English native speakers may produce [eI]." seems to meander down a linguistic bunny trail. In my opinion, the section could be removed without any loss to the article, but I do believe it needs a trim-down at the very least. -- User:mfrisk:mfrisk 08:27, 18 November 2006

anime music

I think we need some sort of article regarding anime music, or more like companies that realease anime music and the bootleggers. i dont know, this just crossed my mind. Angelofdeath275 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We had one but it was deleted (I don't know why, but my guess is lack of citations for a long period of time.) Sasuke-kun27 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just scroll up. KyuuA4 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Top anime in Japan

TV Asahi has published a list of Japan's favorite TV anime (And a list of 100 Favorite Anime selected by Celebrities)
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=9652
Top 10 All-Time Anime Manga According to 80,000 Japanese Fans
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=9617

This isn't really important for this article. KyuuA4 06:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

+ POV issues. Shinobu 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anime derivation - Language

Just to clarify, my understanding was that 'Anime' as a term is derived from the French term for animation, which is 'anime'. This also explains the archaic tag of 'Japanime'. I do study Japanese language, although not the French, and using the term 'Aniimeishan' would not be difficult for the Japanese language, so this makes more sense

203.206.28.90 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had similar debates about this before. If something like that is added to the article or replaces something else then it needs to be referenced from a reliable source --Squilibob 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Anime in America

I noticed this odd sentence in the article: "In the late 1960's, the United States saw its first large-scale exposure to anime in the Speed Racer TV series, a dubbed version of a Japanese series."

Strangely enough, this is next to a picture of Astro Boy (released to U.S. in September, 1963). Astro Boy was followed by Eighth Man (US: 1965), Gigantor (US: 1966), Kimba (US: 1966), Prince Planet (US: 1966), Marine Boy (US: 1966), and The Amazing 3 (US: 1967). In fact, of the eight anime series released in the US in the '60s, Speed Racer was the last. Am I missing something, or is this sentence just wrong? Rizzleboffin 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one raised an objection to the above, I've re-written the paragraph stating that Astro Boy was the first anime to be broadcast in the US, and including a little more info about anime in the US in the '60s & '70s, with the Fred Patten article as the source. Rizzleboffin 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good addition, need more citations like that in this article. --Squilibob 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

what about adding www.animereference.com to the links it is a new and fast growing site about anime and manga series and characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.93.141 (talk • contribs) .

MySpace Link

Why is there a MySpace Link in the Introduction which is not shown in the edit box?!? --Anon.

Someone beat you to the revert? --Gwern (contribs) 03:27 24 November 2006 (GMT)

Why is there no Criticism?

This nonsensical article is not NPOV. There needs to be a criticism section for it to be so. Hell, everything else has one. There are many links (putting it lightly) to other pages adn discussions on the net to justify the criticisms that people have about anime. Hell, there are even some on this very site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon#Racism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Popo#Controversy

The NPOV writers of this article should not be allowed to keep the just criticisms of anime out of this article because they think it tarnishes it so. This topic needs to be in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.33.24.132 (talk • contribs) .

Make one. Find some sources and create one. Its wikipedia, if you want to include something, do it. Kyaa the Catlord 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also hard to criticize something so general as anime. The examples you provide are about specific series, which is much easier to give criticism on. I've said this many times before, but I believe the best way to make this article NPOV is to remove the overly positive POV rather than adding negative POV as a "band-aid". -- Ned Scott 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I start to think that we should have a Criticism section for the sake of having one since we're so often charged for not having one here >_> We can make something like "Anime has often been criticized for being blah blah and blah, for example *insert quotes and links here* however, these comments are often pointed at a particular genre or series. One must note that anime is a broad medium that yada yada yada and that people who criticize anime in general are ignorant pundits." _dk 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe, if it could be sourced, but does it really make sense at all? Wouldn't it be better to just keep a note on this talk page that criticism about a specific series or genre should be placed on the relevant article and not in this article? For example Film does not have a section of criticism against film, even though some think that moving images are evil. There is indeed a section called Film criticism, but that contains information about the film critic occupation, not criticism against film in general.--GunnarRene 08:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Heck, I wonder if I could get Genvid to let me write a "criticism of anime" feature so we can use it for this article. :P Kyaa the Catlord 08:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, that's not a bad idea. We could have a section that isn't the criticism itself, but about criticism on anime. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

About anime critics and film critics critiquning anime, and perhaps if they approach it differently. We'd be somewhat limited to the English-language world, but as long as we're clear on that we should be OK.--GunnarRene 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropiate to have a criticism section for anime as a whole. If there are numerous negative reviews of a specific anime series or movie that would be fine, but only on its respective article, not on a page discussing the entire medium. Finite 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not comfortable with being a GA yet

The article just doesn't feel like it knows what it's talking about.

  • The use of in-line citation is critical for an article of its length and fan-ish nature (by which I mean it needs to be shown these opinions are in hard print and not just users). Additionally, quotes and statistics are also given without in-line citations, and those are the two types that always demand an in-line.
  • Far, far too much unsourced opinion.
  • Only foreign country given any text is USA. This is bias; it needs information on how anime does in other countries. I think having a FA in Russian makes it clear that other countries are into anime as well.
  • Switches between putting anime in italics and not, not consistant.
  • Lead is too short for its size.
  • "Anime is produced by Anime companies." No shit. Prose gets redundant.
  • It kinda feels like there's too much emphasis on the word itself. Terminology feels like it should be able half as long.
  • Moé is only mentioned one as a "genre". Moé is a very important part of anime, and the industries trends of becoming more moé in most areas or more realistic in others (most Gibli) need to be mentioned. This information can be found in Little Boy: The Arts of Japan's Exploding Subculture by Takashi Murakami. Unfortunately, I only checked out the book so I can't add that information.
  • The culture of anime and otaku needs to be mentioned as well.
In short, it still needs quite a bit of work.--SeizureDog 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
What sort of extra information should be in the lead? Just a summary of some other sections?
Pretty much. At least that's my understanding of WP:LEAD.--SeizureDog 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If the terminology section needs to be reduced, maybe some information could be moved into the Anime and manga terminology article. Though I like the terminology section as it is.--Squilibob 10:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Oppliger, John (2006-01-13). "Why Does Anime Have So Little Exposure on American TV?". Ask John. AnimeNation News. Retrieved 2006-09-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime/Archive_7&oldid=1171579320"