Talk:Superflat

message: This page has a long way to go.  Superflat is not an easy topic, because the art has many themes, but at the same time very specific criteria.  Generally these themes revolve around these topics:
Consumerism, sexuality, post-apocolyptic with an eye towards social criticism. The thing is not all of it is exactly critical, some plays around with the idea while others harshly denounce it.
Again this is still too general and much work needs to be done on this article.  Murakami has a manifesto that he wrote in his hard to find original bilingual superflat book, that's a good place to start for those who are interested in researching more on this topic.  Unfortinetly this source has many allusions to Animators and artists that americans may be unfamiliar with, for the Animators I'd recommend going to [http:\\www.pelleas.net anipages daily] which has a comprehensive listing of influential animators under the subsection Karisuma Animators.
I'll eventually get around to expanding this article, but its going to require a lot of time to make comprehensive.
--Neilworms 07:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Agreed: superflat is a difficult topic. Nonetheless, this article should have proper citations, no original research and must be devoid of weasel words. As of now, none of these issues are being met satisfactorily. The weasel phrases are particularly jarring. For example, "frequently regarded" by who or what group of people? "Arguably"? "Arguably," says who? ...says a credible source? Also, the language needs to be authoritative. For example, a sentence shouldn't say "so-and-so is regarded as a superflat artist." That gets back into weasel territory. ("Regarded" by who?) Rather, a better version of that sentence would be: "so-and-so is a superflat artist." That sentence can then be followed by a citation. It's simple and to the point. Aside from the obvious fleshing out that's required here, there is much editing needed to what's already written. Thankfully, though, we needn't start from scratch. Cheers, ask123 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation problems, possible original research and a bit of weasel words

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:Tanaka1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the image from this page. Fair use rationale has been innapropriately employed. Other (Free) images surely exist to depict Superflat and/or Moe styles. Depicting an artistic style not exclusively used by a lone artist is not acceptable fair use rationale--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tanaka1.jpg

message: I don't bother much with wikipedia editing these days, but that bit about SoFlo looks an awful lot like a promotional edit, pushing a local arts scene no one really cares much about.   -- Doom (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: SoFlo?