Talk:Manga/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Fixing references

I made this a new section.Timothy Perper (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Perper (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Still fixing mistakes in the references. Most of them are in citations done with the citation template. Length is down to 95,061kb from the 96,262kb (at 06:32, 31 December 2007) mentioned above = -1.2 kilobytes. Not much, maybe, but I'm only up to reference #38. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Down to 94,879 kB and I've reached reference 108. = -1.4 kB. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My favorite error so far. Reference 195 is to an article in Business Week by Jennifer Fishbein on their website. The web cite template has a place to put "work" -- not sure I know what that means, but there's a place for it. Well, whoever fixed this reference before I got there today decided that the "work" in question was Jennifer Fishbein. I fixed it, but what were they thinking? Timothy Perper (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through them all once. I fixed quite a number, and the bibliography has far fewer errors now. Is it 100% correct? Of course not. I don't guarantee that! But it's a lot better. OK, see "Phasing Out" below. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting New Section on Dojinshi

One of the peer review comments mentioned that there were some serious problems with the dojinshi material currently in the entry. We've just started a new draft section to insert instead of what's there. It's at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxDojinshi and although as of this moment, there's nothing on it, there will be. there are now some references. As always, everyone is invited over to comment and make suggestions. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As I say below, I'm not going to work on the manga article in any detail any longer. So folks other than I will have to do dojinshi. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Why cutted all images about "pre"history of manga? (These on History of manga.) Is the Museum photo the very important and most meaningful? Can these be here or there is some problem with it? --Beyond silence (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember any images about the "pre" history of manga, so I don't know what you mean when you ask why they were cut. "Can these be here..." Can what be here? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As History of manga...:
Image of bathers from the Hokusai manga.
Image of bathers from the Hokusai manga.
Japanese wood block illustration from 19th century
Japanese wood block illustration from 19th century

--Beyond silence 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Those three images are in the History of manga entry, which is cross-referenced from the manga article. I don't think we need to duplicate them in the manga entry if they're already in the cross-referenced article. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why problem is that? The manga article is more poor without these. I don't think everybody see the History of manga too. --Beyond silence 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, whats your problem? Why don't place a Wikipe-tan picture to the introductory as other language featured manga article and take the Image:Manga in Jp.jpeg to the Etymology headline, Image:Hokusai-MangaBathingPeople.jpg and Image:Japan-woodblock.jpg to the Overview of ideas? --Beyond silence 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
See below, at "Images: She goes, she comes." Do you have any idea how many times Wikipetan has been put into this article and taken out? This is genuinely funny. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous addition

An anonymous person just added this to the end of the publications section.

"There has been an increase in the amount of publications of original webmanga. It is internationally drawn by enthusiasts of all levels of experience, and is intended for online viewing. It can be ordered in graphic novel form if available in print."

I put a "citation needed" tag on it and will leave it for a few days, then remove it unless citations are added. BTW, webmanga is a redirect. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Phasing out, from Tim Perper

The time has come for me to phase out my major involvement with the manga article. Back in September or so, when Peregrine Fisher and I began a major upgrade of the article, we set ourselves a list of topics and subheadings we wanted to improve. With the addition of the new shonen section, we have reached the end of that list.

I think we succeeded in moving the article closer to GA status, though it may not be there quite yet. We have also addressed some – not all! – of the peer reviewers’ comments, and in the next few days, I’ll complete my check of the references. That will end to my major work on the article.

From TP: I just finished my check of the references (see above). Timothy Perper (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments Two major issues we did not address are Farix’s concerns about over-referencing and Fg2’s request that we remove examples.

Farix did not list any references that he thinks are redundant or unnecessary, so there’s really not much we can do to meet his concerns. In an article as dense and fact-filled as this one, Wiki Verifiability policy requires citations, so there are lots of references. References simply come with the territory.

Fg2 made only one suggestion for removing an example – he wanted us to remove Magic Knight Rayearth. Given how popular MKR has been here and in Japan, we did not take his suggestion. In general, examples flesh out abstract or general comments and make them vivid. They also serve to anchor the discussion in work the reader might know, and to introduce new readers to new material. So unless Fg2 gives other cases he wants removed, there’s not much more we can do with the suggestion.

Other peer review comments we have tried to address (accepting most of them). But we can’t guarantee that we got them all.

References I’ve been sounding off about references for some time. Helpful and good faith editors have made contributions, but have also added errors, particularly when they use the citation templates. Unless one knows what one is doing with these templates, they are very tricky to use. They also add length to an already long article.

I’ve corrected many of these mistakes plus others that have crept into the bibliography. However, I do NOT guarantee that the reference list is 100% perfect. I’ll continue to fix errors as I find them.

General It will be worthwhile for other folks to consider how to shorten the article. I do not own this entry and never did. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so now it’s up to other people to make decisions about what to keep and remove in content and references both. The only advice I’d give is to be very careful with the references, since many of them appear throughout the article. If one removes base references (= references to which the op. cit.’s refer), one can create a real mess, since now the op. cit.’s have nothing to refer to (= orphan op. cit.’s). Playing with the references can severely degrade the quality of the bibliography very quickly.

Wikipedia footnote policy Wikipedia:Footnotes does NOT – repeat: NOT – mandate or require the use of citation templates. They are useful for inexperienced editors unfamiliar with the structure of a reference, but, as I’ve said to be point of distraction, can be sources of serious error if you do not know how to use them. I prefer direct referencing, but others will decide for themselves how to create new references and (re-)format existing references.

I’ll keep this article on my watchlist and make comments or minor edits from time to time. But after I’ve completed the final check of the references, I will phase out my major involvement with the manga article.

BTW, the text without the refs has about 6300 words by actual count. By print publication standards, that is quite reasonable, even a bit on the short side.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I just finished the checking. So, if you want to edit what I've done, move stuff, delete it, change reference formatting, summarize sections, move things to other articles -- by all means do so. Anyone can edit Wikipedia! Timothy Perper (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Images: She goes, she comes

WIKIPE-TAN IS THE BEST! ^^,
WIKIPE-TAN IS THE BEST! ^^,

One of the most entertaining features of this article is the endless warfare over Wikipetan. Now she's been put back again—after having been taken out several times and added back several times.

My impression is that the people who put her back this time have no idea at all how many times Wikipetan has been put in and taken out. Dare I suggest that these people didn't read the previous history of this entry? Yes, I dare suggest it. Should they read the previous history?

That's a harder question. I myself would, and perhaps other people would. But no rule on Wikipedia says you have to read about what happened before. So here she is again, folks, Wikipetan in all her glory!

This is genuinely funny.

Timothy Perper (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the story is the important, the cause is! I don't know why people take her out. --Beyond silence 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
*Groan* I blame the overzealous !FREEUSEFREEUSEFREEUSE! mindset that's beaten into us here at Wikipedia. It makes users add free use images to articles even when they don't fit the context. So one more time, the reasons why Wiki-tan does not belong:
  1. She does not come from a manga or any other comic of any kind. (She also has never been animated, which is why she should stay of the anime article as well.) She is a single, static image. I would have less of problem if someone ever made a dōjinshi with her, but so far nobody has.
  2. It perpetuates the misconception that all manga is done in the same, moe artstyle. This is only true for manga targeted at younger audiences (and it's not even an absolute there). Hardly any manga aimed at adults uses moe. Five examples of manga done in different styles: Sazae-san, Crayon Shin-chan, Blade of the Immortal, Pure Trance, and OL Shinkaron.
  3. It is a minor self-reference.
So there. Please stop adding her.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why need to be animated?? You are mad, if you have so anger because of this picture. I don't think more about it, if you want be lesser the English article a good coloured illustration. Other language has it, as my Hungarian (magyar) - that is more important for me. --Beyond silence 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew, this adult version made me skip a beat. <3 Anyways, SeizureDog's argument does have merit. Yet, for item 1, "She does not come from a manga or any other comic of any kind", manga "discussed" in the article is under generic terms anyways. Though, I suppose that would imply the requirement of a "professional" manga image. Even so, some professionals like Ken Akamatsu have produced some amateur work submitted under doujin using a pseudonym. As for 2 and 3, yea. I agree. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the image being used here as an example. If someone assumes that the example is the ONLY type of manga or anime style there is, then that's their own fault for being stupid. I do want to address one incorrect statement by SeizureDog, though: "moe" style is used in many manga aimed at adults. If you don't think it is, then you haven't been exposed to that much manga. Granted, it's not the only style (just as with children's manga, or young adult manga), but it's not an insignificant style in adult (not necessarily hentai) manga. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What manga aimed at adults uses moe? I'm talking the 30+ range and non-hentai btw.--SeizureDog (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
She's the only free, modern manga style art that we've got. I think we should use her. If we can come up with other free images that are more representitive of manga for adults, we should use that as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be this difficult to find free-use images to represent manga. Most modern manga creators even have specific statements allowing dōjin to create dōjinshi of their works. It seems as though there should be plenty of free-use amateur manga works floating about. :/ Meh, maybe we can get Kasuga to make 4-koma or something.--SeizureDog (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can "fan art" qualify? Which is just another term for "free-use amateur" work. Of course, I'm going to stick "high-quality" in here as well. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikipetan too, but she was put in (this time) as the lead illustration for the whole article. That gives her (or whoever/whatever is in the lead position) the status of representing or symbolizing all manga for the reader. That image is the first thing the reader sees, and it says "Hey, I am manga, me!"

We're going over territory we've discussed before. If we use Astroboy (say), we're saying to the reader that Tezuka's now old-fashioned style stands for all manga since Astroboy; if we use Sailor Moon, we're saying that all manga can be legitimately represented by a single shōjo image; if we use Naruto or Light Yagami, we're saying that all manga can be legitimately be represented by those shōnen characters, and so on. And the same holds for Wikipetan. That was why we decided to use the manga calligraphy example at the start, because the word, in kanji, does represent all manga, and by definition.

That's why I am not in favor of using Wikipetan to introduce the article. I agree with SeizureDog that no matter how common this particular moe style may be, it is not representative of all manga. Nor is she even a manga character, as SeizureDog has said a number of times, and I agree with him. Yes, Wikipetan is cute, but so is Belldandy, Hikaru from MKR, and Chi from Chobits. This is not -- or it should not be, IMO -- a matter of throwing in My Favorite Manga character to stand for all manga.

One of the comments in the Peer Review was that we need more pictures (from User:Gwern). I agree with him, and there are logical places to put different images, including shōjo, shōnen, gekiga, and other images. But the opening image has pride of place, and we need to recognize that. So I agree with SeizureDog,

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With this statement we shouldn't use any picture in the article. The Wikipedia is must be free the free images are the most important. Realy manga pictures can't use so good in the article from the copyright, so these can't be the primary goal. I think not the best illustrating is better than nothing. But be happy, Wikipe-tan is went! :((( --Beyond silence 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan and a similar lady in the featured manga articles of international Wikipedia

Imaxe del personaxe Wikipe-tan, que contien los estereotipos del estilu manga.
Imaxe del personaxe Wikipe-tan, que contien los estereotipos del estilu manga.

--Beyond silence 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed poor quality image from Overviews section

I just removed the B&W image of ghosts and other supernatural beings from the Overviews section, where it had been added recently by User:Beyond silence. The image is a detail of a larger woodblock print by the 19th century artist Kuniyoshi that shows a haunted house with its inhabitants scaring the hell out of several hapless people. It's one of Kuniyoshi's masterpieces (IMO) but has nothing whatsoever to do with manga at all, I mean, none. Second, the image was only a detail in B&W, and was not, IMO, a very good quality image (for one thing, it was too dark to show very much). Kuniyoshi has an entire entry of his own, which he deserves, but this image is not related to overviews of the history of manga, which is where the image was located. So I removed it. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So then fuck! Remove all picture! Strange, but makers of documentum film in Animatrix thinked this is related with the manga. "Manga (漫画, Manga?) listen (help·info) is the Japanese word for comics (sometimes called komikku コミック) and print cartoons.[1][2][3] In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II[4] but have a long, complex history in earlier Japanese art.[5][6][7]" This picture showing about earlier Japanese art, the root of manga... stupid. English manga article is suck! --Beyond silence 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Be careful, Beyond silence. You're pushing the envelope. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil in your interactions. It's obvious by your comments that English is not your first language, but you can still be polite when interacting with others. If you have ideas for improving the article, please post them here, but please do it in a calm and polite manner. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My ideas declared as shit. --Beyond silence 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex and women's roles

Even though this section is not placed as a subsection of "Shōnen, seinen, and seijin manga", it only talks about these themes (Sex and women's roles) in a Shōnen manga context. This has to be fixed, either making "Sex and women's roles" a subsection of "Shōnen, seinen, and seijin manga" or re-wording it to also include info about the role of these themes in Shōjo manga. Personally I prefer the latter option, as it would make the article more balanced. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally titled the section "Sex and women's roles in shonen manga" but that left out seinen and seijin manga (I wrote the first drafts of all but the publications section). However, "Sex and women's roles in shonen, seinen, and seijin manga" was too long and that's not the topic -- that title means that we would have to deal with eromanga and manga pornography. So I made it "Sex and women's roles," implicitly meaning in manga for male readers. The shojo sections have material on sexuality, though erotic redisu manga is not broken out as a subsection. So I'll make the "Sex and women's roles" a subsection of "Shōnen, seinen, and seijin manga". That seems to be the simplest solution.
This article leaves out an enormous amount of material about manga. There's only a limited amount of space, and discussing women's roles in shojo manga would have produced another 6000 word essay! Maybe it's another article some day. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipetan and non-consensual editing

User:Beyond silence has put Wikipetan back against prior consensus, and without discussion restored an image I removed as poor quality and irrelevant to the text and to the article. My sense is that with these changes the article is heading away from GA. I also sense that User:Beyond silence is not willing to listen to consensus nor listen to the preferences and ideas of editors who have worked on this article for quite some time. He is, in my opinion, acting without consensus. He has also violated, I think, norms of courteous and civil discourse on Wiki, not only by using four-letter words but also by openly expressing his contempt for the editors here. Perhaps he feels that he can outwait us, and, by cursing and sneering, frighten us into accepting his bad manners.

I think this situation might have to be brought to WP:ANI.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added later. But on the other hand, I have better things to do with my time and life than try to deal with bad manners and people who vandalize my user talk page (I warned him not to do that again). So maybe I'll just let User:Beyond silence scrawl all the obscenities he wants over this page. Over to everybody else. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SeizureDog's removal of Wikipetan. Consensus is against adding the image and she is not a shojo image. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


You aren't thinking right! There isn't unconsensus here, because it's an other case! One problem say Wikipetan isn't illustrating the whole manga, ok - I think it's illustrating the "for girl" manga, so I paste to there - there wasn't speaking or unconsensus about it! I only want to use a compromissive option, but looks like the "bosses" don't want any picture in the article. So be happy, "I have better things to do with my time" than working to do better an articel which continuetly reverted by others. Be happy, won't anybody se e some picture about manga! But I think if anybody haven't seen every manga can be very important some good illustarting - for those not "the biggest" problem is Wikipetan not a real character. She is free. You don't honor it. Be it, you win, article loss. --Beyond silence 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Since we have some other free images to illustrate manga, we don't really need Wikipe-tan. Keep in mind, I normally encourage the use of Wikipe-tan images, but this is a situation where another image seems to be doing a better job. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • HAHA SeizureDog is funny! He says: "Groan I blame the overzealous !FREEUSEFREEUSEFREEUSE! mindset that's beaten into us here at Wikipedia. It makes users add free use images to articles even when they don't fit the context. So one more time, the reasons why Wiki-tan does not belong: 1. She does not come from a manga or any other comic of any kind. (She also has never been animated, which is why she should stay of the anime article as well.) She is a single, static image. I would have less of problem if someone ever made a dōjinshi with her, but so far nobody has. 2. It perpetuates the misconception that all manga is done in the same, moe artstyle. This is only true for manga targeted at younger audiences (and it's not even an absolute there). Hardly any manga aimed at adults uses moe. Five examples of manga done in different styles: Sazae-san, Crayon Shin-chan, Blade of the Immortal, Pure Trance, and OL Shinkaron."An 1902 "comic" how illustrating the today's manga (after the fist and second World war)...? " all manga is done in the same" It's not really manga style. --Beyond silence 12:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)