# Talk:Doraemon

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DetongChe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Samsung Galaxy S5 Vector.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Memory bread. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Transformation Biscuts. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of media of Doraemon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#List of media of Doraemon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can i please edit the page because i can see somethings wrong here TOHO Animations (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Page protection would be totally pointless if we allowed anyone to edit the page who said they wanted to. You need to say exactly what change you think should be made and explain why, so that a confirmed editor can decide whether to make the change you suggest or not. JBW (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xiao Ding Dang. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Xiao Ding Dang until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Onel5969 TT me 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doraemon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 
Hey. You said that you're active, so I will review this article. This is a big article though, so it may take me awhile. Link20XX (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your good article submission. Unfortunately, this article in its current form does not meet the good article criteria. Here is why: 


### Unsourced/poorly sourced statements:
In Creation and Conception, the third paragraph is not cited by the source.
In the same section, My Anime List is not a reliable source
In Media, this line is not cited: "Since the debut of Doraemon in 1969, the stories have been selectively collected into forty-five tankōbon volumes that were published under Shogakukan's Tentōmushi Comics imprint from 1974 to 1996."
Also in media, this line about the English release is not cited: "A total of 200 volumes have been released."
Also in Media, The series ended with 1,787 episodes on March 25, 2005
Also in media, there is a Citation needed tag
In Reception, "and the films grossed over $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office, making Doraemon the highest-grossing anime film franchise.", you can't use other wiki articles as a source
In Reception, "It was also available in neighbouring Pakistan, where the Hindi-dubbed version was aired until 2016 (Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible)."
In Reception, "As of 2016, Doraemon has grossed at least $5.608 billion in licensed merchandise sales worldwide."


### Other reasons:
Sources in the lead and plot sections are not needed
The entire article in general is written pretty poorly and badly needs a copyedit or even to be completely rewritten in some cases, like the lead
Overall, this article is at best a C-class due to all the unsourced statements and most of the sections just being poorly written. Once these issues have been properly addressed, you can renominate the article, but the result of this review is not promoted. Please also take time to read the criteria on Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I hope that this doesn't discourage you, because you have made some improvements to the article, just not enough. Please take the criticism to heart and use it to improve the article to GA status. Link20XX (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: Thanks a lot for bringing the issues forward. Hope to renominate it in the coming months.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doraemon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 15:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC) 
Per your request at my talk page, I will review this article. Just keep in mind that it may take several days since this is a long article. Anyway, I have one small question before I start, are you associated with Atlantis77177 (the previous GA nominator) in any way? Link20XX (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX: I'm not associated with that user at all; to make it clear, Atlantis77177 was inactive since the beginning of May, a few weeks before my major rewrite and expansion. (I joined in 2016 and mainly active in Vietnamese Wikipedia.) Thuyhung2112 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


### Preliminary comments
@Thuyhung2112: While I review it, here are some preliminary comments I have:

Checked via WP:EARWIG for copyvio, and the highest is about 38%, which is acceptable.
Regarding Images:

The cover of Doraemon has two information boxes, and the fair use rationale is for a comic strip, not a book cover. I would recommend removing one of the two information boxes and changing the rationale to be the rationale used for a book cover. The image File:Heart of Thomas Moto Hagio.jpg is a good example on how to do this.
Done --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The image of the comic strip Doraemon first appears in should have an information box, I would recommend making it look something like File:Alex cartoon (Alex calls the shots, 1993).resize.png this one. Link20XX (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Done --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


### Full Review
@Thuyhung2112: At long last, I have completed my full review. On this read-over, the improvements you made are clear. It reads much better, and is much better sourced than when I last looked at it back in March. Just a few things and I will promote it.


#### Checklist
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
Creation:

The IGN source doesn't actually give their real names of the authors.
I've found that only Fujiko F. Fujio is credited in the cover, and Schilling (2004, p. 39) wrote: "Doraemon's creator was Hiroshi Fujimoto, a member of the most prolific and successful creative duo in manga history ...", so I changed to "Doraemon is written and illustrated by Fujiko F. Fujio, whose real name is Hiroshi Fujimoto." --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Kejut doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Is there a reason you believe it is?
Removed --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Media:

"In addition, as of 2016, four volumes of the manga has been published in English in print by Shogakukan Asia, using the same translation as the manga available on Amazon Kindle. Unlike the Amazon Kindle releases, these volumes are in black and white instead of color" is not stated in source 47.
I trimmed to just "In addition, as of 2016, four volumes of the manga have been published in English in print by Shogakukan Asia." Is it acceptable? Thuyhung2112 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think People's Daily is a reliable source. According to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/PQR, they have copied text from Wikipedia without providing the proper attribution.
Removed --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
"Confirmed cast member of the new American adaptation include veteran anime voice actress Mona Marshall of South Park fame in the title role of Doraemon and Johnny Yong Bosch of Power Rangers and Bleach fame as Noby. The English dub is produced by Bang Zoom! Entertainment" is not stated in source 72.
Removed --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure this is a reliable source. It appears like anyone can edit it.
After some searching of Dora-chan (1980) by Craul Denshi, all I could find were blogs, fan-sites, ... or something like these, so I removed it. I assume that very little was known about this game. Thuyhung2112 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
"Doraemon can also be seen in Namco's Taiko no Tatsujin rhythm game series like Taiko no Tatsujin (11 – 14 only), Metcha! Taiko no Tatsujin DS: Nanatsu no Shima no Daibouken, Taiko no Tatsujin Wii, Taiko no Tatsujin Plus, and Taiko no Tatsujin DS: Dororon! Yokai Daikessen!!" is not stated in source 125.
Trimmed to "Doraemon can also be seen in Namco's Taiko no Tatsujin rhythm game series, such as in Taiko no Tatsujin: Sesson de Dodon ga Don! (2017)." with a Gematsu source. Thuyhung2112 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Reception:

"and $1.8 billion at the box office" is not cited. Per WP:USERG, a wikilink is not a reliable source.
Removed and reworded --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I checked source 187, and "Legal notices were served against several Indian companies, targeting Doraemon and Crayon Shin-chan, as having an adverse effect on children" doesn't appear to be stated in it. I can't find anything in it about legal situations against companies, just them asking for a ban on the series.
Replaced by an Anime News Network source. Thuyhung2112 (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Cultural impact and legacy:

Since you are using two images in a row, they should be placed in Template:Multiple image.
Done --Thuyhung2112 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
That is all. Address them and I will pass it. Link20XX (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thuyhung2112: The changes are sufficient. I am closing this review as Pass. Congratulations! If you want to nominate a fact from this article to appear on the main page, you can find out how to do so at WP:DYK. Link20XX (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So there was a change in the demographic field in the infobox, in which "Children" was replaced with "Shōnen". Is there any proof of this? LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@LucianoTheWindowsFan: The change was made with this edit on 20 November 2021 by an IP editor who made four edits that day. There was no explanation for the change. The article generally describes the character as relating to children, but the feature films as shōnen. I'd be comfortable with changing it back to "Children". SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I also support changing it back. Demographics for manga are determined by the magazine the series was published in. The page for CoroCoro Comic states "Its main target is elementary school-aged boys, younger than the readers of shōnen manga". Link20XX (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Source: https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/lucknow-building-collapse-how-doraemons-quake-tips-helped-6-year-old-stay-safe-earthquake-in-nepal/articleshow/97324278.cms Vijay6767 (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple errors and inconsistencies within the page. The table I added today is to correct the error. Please don't leave the mistakes and let me fix them. Or fix it. Bananado (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the article has lots of original research content (that should be deleted as well) doesn't mean that you can add whatever you want under the excuse that you're "fixing errors". Or you add sources to back up the content that you're adding or you simply don't do nothing at all. We must edit based upon the sources that we have, not simply under what is considered the "truth". Xexerss (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Originally, even if incorrect information is stated without a source, it is left unattended. So why is the correct bibliographic information from the correct source removed? I have also included the source. Bananado (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It needs something way more specific than "the colophon of the published book and the number of publications". Xexerss (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The date of issue is written on the colophon. The number of published stories is actually counted. Bananado (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Why it is so important to include the table and the magazine's chart anyway? I, personally, don't see what kind of useful information contribute to the article that cannot be simply written in prose (if needed). Xexerss (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The graph solves the misunderstanding of the serialization period at a glance. The table instantly clears up the misconception that all episodes are included in Tentomushi Comics. It is true that those erroneous descriptions actually existed. and still exist. Bananado (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Be sure to cite the source. I will correct the error, so could you please guide me to "write the source properly" without undoing it? Bananado (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The English version of wikipedia has been translated into various languages, and the current situation where false rumors are spreading is troublesome. Bananado (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
But the article explicitly states that "the stories have been SELECTIVELY collected into forty-five tankōbon volumes", it was never stated that ALL the chapters were collected in the volumes released under the Tentomushi Comics imprint. The number of volumes listed in the infobox (45) is simply because the Tentomushi Comics edition was the first one released. Regarding the magazine's chart, I still see it as problematic, given that it was published in various magazines, it would be very cumbersome to back up the publication periods shown in the chart and justify its use. I think that simply listing the magazines where it was published is enough. If you want to include other editions that are not currently included in the article, you could cite the the first and last volumes of said edition, like the other ones included in the second paragraph of the 'Manga' section. I don't think this info warrants a table though, but details about the other editions, volumes and their respective chapters, are worth to be included in the List of Doraemon chapters article. Given that you said that you own all the books, it would be more appropriate to start there. Xexerss (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The erroneous description was there until recently. They are also translated into multiple languages. Also, there are still some errors. Charts can clear up those misunderstandings in an instant. Bananado (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The charts in the series are based on data that has already been extensively validated. over 15 years. The data has been published in multiple books, including official ones. If you can't trust that, I don't think you can trust anything. Bananado (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the tankobon table helps clear up misunderstandings at a glance.
In the infobox, only the information about the whole work is described, and by posting "Complete Works", "Plus", "Color Works", etc. in the table, it is possible to prevent misunderstandings that are spreading widely. "Plus" is misunderstood as a sequel elsewhere. "Plus" is just a book title, not a work title. Like a "color works". Bananado (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I will fix the mistakes on the page with source. If there is an error in my edit, could you please point it out? Even if you add a useful figure with a reference, it will be deleted altogether, so I don't think the error will be fixed forever. Bananado (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I will remind you again of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The issue is not whether the content that you're adding is correct or not, the issue is the lack of sources to corroborate said content, and justify these additions just claiming that you own the volumes or that you've got the information from official sources, without stating which ones are those, is not how this site works Xexerss (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, then let me know where did you specifically find this chart or name some of these official books where the data can be verified. Sorry, but just saying "the data is available out there" is not enough. Xexerss (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
"Fの森の歩き方"(Shogakukan)  https://mediaarts-db.bunka.go.jp/id/M355510
"Perfect data of the Doraemon"(NeoUtopia) https://mediaarts-db.bunka.go.jp/id/M188902
Hundreds of people have scrutinized and revised the error since the 1990s. Bananado (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hundreds people of research organizations, not just one individual, scrutinize the data, and Shogakukan admits it. Bananado (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, this is more helpful. By any chance, do you own these books as well? If that's the case, I wouldn't oppose to include the magazine's chart with references using Template:Cite book. It would be helpful too to include the specific pages where the info is available. Xexerss (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
yes. I own over 1000 books. I will scrutinize the materials carefully. I always base my writing on sources. Please let me correct any mistakes posted without source. Bananado (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I just want to correct the wrong publication year, etc., and the verifiability is also guaranteed, so why can't I fix it? There are still unsourced errors. Bananado (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Underbar dk:
Well, I thought in my initial edit (which is now your edit currently) Special:Diff/1185990770 with Furigana Ruby text seemed OK to me, until I found プラネット sound like <<Planet>> and not ?<<Wakusei>>? 惑星.
And I search again and saw [舞台版ドラえもん「のび太とアニマル惑星（プラネット）」 - Nelke Planning - ネルケプランニング], 
so I gone from my Furigana Ruby text Special:Diff/1185990770 → to before Ziyaad boi edit Special:Diff/924348015. 
I ask if both are alternate (?naming/pronounciation?) as I don't know about Japanese... --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

mmm...レールガン <Railgun> different from 超電磁砲....I see... --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
In this case the showrunners want 惑星 to be read as "planet" (or more accurately, puranetto) instead of its usual reading "wakusei". 惑星 is not normally read as "planet", just like 超電磁砲 isn't normally read as "railgun" if you strictly use its Japanese readings, but is in A Certain Scientific Railgun. _dk (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering my edit was reverted for not having sources, I'll attempt to justify them with them now.
For one, the Japanese article for Doraemon's final chapter/episode does mention all three of them in the article as seen here: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ドラえもんの最終回, there are also Chinese and Vietnamese articles about the same thing.
As for sources, there are a few articles discussing the "final" chapter such as: https://news.infoseek.co.jp/article/magmix_131669/ and https://middle-edge.jp/articles/1BGUG?page=2 Noob282 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR (there are no citations for the section in the Japanese article either), and Middle Edge largely relies on user-submitted content; see WP:USERG. Xexerss (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article, the word "spawn" is present. I've read this article multiple times before without noticing anything of it and I think it serves a good purpose for me, but I just realized that the word "spawn" is a video game term, and if used otherwise, it seems to be derogatory. Just wanted to point this out. BrightSunMan (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)