Talk:The Twelve Kingdoms

message: I started this article as a B-class because it seems to be in better shape than anything that will fall in a Start-Class. I plan to visit and correct this page to get it up to a Featured Article. Any help is welcomed. --Guille2015 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class

message: *Add ISBN ##########'s to the books. They can be found on the Japanese page.
*Remove a bunch of those external links. See WP:EL for policy.
*References need to be in-lined. 
--SeizureDog 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just suggest being careful with elinks, I see no reason to remove anything that is useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Currently im just deleting the links that link to translations to the novels. --Guille2015 02:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a few links in accordance with WP:EL.  Glancing at the edit history, one of those external links keeps getting added back after being removed but since it contains nothing but copyrighted material (over 600 screenshots from the anime) which I'm fairly sure the site doesn't own the rights to, it shouldn't be included in that section. -- 9muses 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would appear that the screenshot gallery link has been added to the article once more. After looking at the IP address and comparing the edit history, I suspect the screenshot gallery actually belongs to the person who keeps adding it back, which is a conflict of interest per WP guidelines as well as the copyright issues. -- 9muses 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Japanese text merely confirms that episode 45 is the final episode. We would need another source for why, and for the initial plans. Doceirias 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Preferably in another article.
*Characters own Pages and another page for the list of Minor Characters. 
*Kingdoms, currently a stub.{—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guille2015 (talk • contribs) 
:Seems like a plan.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed

message: :Image:12k.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 Wikipedia articles 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.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:12k.jpg

message: Are The Twelve Kingdoms books: novels, or light novels?--Nohansen 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. Originally published as light novels, but later reprinted as novels. Doceirias 05:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: I found it striking that there is no information on the opening or ending theme of the anime included in the article. I think it would be to the benefit of the encyclopaedia if someone could add this. ChibiKareshi 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening/Ending Theme 

message: There is no mention of the drama CDs or the soundtrack to the anime in the article. Someone who knows more about them could add them. --Mika1h (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing details 

message: Are these actually light novels, and not regular novels? 70.55.84.42 (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion above. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on your criteria for judging what's a light novel and what's not. Storytellingwise, it's definitely no more a light novel than books by Haruki Murakami or any modern Japanese writers I've had the chance to read. It's a slightly harder read than Murakami, if anything. The writing's not too shabby too IMO. It's classified as a light novel only because it was first published in under the White Heart label, but that's the usual yardstick for classifying light novels, unfortunately. Might be a good idea to update the article to mention that the books were later republished as regular novels, as noted here. In Omne (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light novels? 

message: ive seen the anime in japanese and when it ends and shows images of the next episode you can clearly hear "Juni Kokki" not "Kokkuki"; however the article says that "kokki" is an inaccurate reading--Jim88Argentina (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is. If you look at the reading on the copyright page of the novels, it says こくき, not こっき. U sounds are often truncated in Japanese names; Sasuke is Saske, to use a famous example. But a truncated vowel is a subtly different pronunciation from a true doubled consonant. I'm not sure I could hear it reliably myself, but I doubt many native speakers would have the same problem. Doceirias (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i get it, its spelled "kokuki" but its pronunced "kokki", thanks. Jim88Argentina (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost. It's not pronounced the same as "kokki", but as Doceirias indicated, many people who do not know what to listen for can't tell the difference between the pronunciation of "kokuki" and "kokki" when said at normal speeds. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juni Kokki or Juni Kokuki?? 

message: Oppose, on the grounds that that list should have been deleted ages ago, and really doesn't need to be on here. The Twelve Kingdoms articles aren't in depth enough to justify such an extensive glossary, and a list of dictionary definitions isn't Wikipedia's style. Doceirias (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Abstain on merger, but object to deletion, the list is useful. Of course, support referencing it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't really matter to me if it's merged or deleted, but it doesn't warrent its own article, and similar articles have been merged/deleted in the past. —Dinoguy1000 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed on the trim down and merge.  Some of those listed items like locations in the Twelve Kingdoms can be moved to the list of kingdoms page while more key details can be briefly explained on the main page as a subset of the setting perhaps. A22 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Check the characters article for references to the term list; they are extensive. List_of_characters_in_The_Twelve_Kingdoms Billebrooks (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are better ways to cover the material; what we have right now is a format I haven't seen before, and a pretty awkward one. If the article uses terms that a casual reader wouldn't understand, the article is badly written - define the terms as they are used. That's requirement 6 of any B class article. Anyone needs to be able to read without being sent off to some other article for the glossary. What we have now is an interim solution at best, and should not be accepted as good enough. Doceirias (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Terms Merger 

message: I'm assuming the guidelines Kazu-kun is referring to is the WP:MOS-AM, but the current revision of the MoS doesn't say "remove info not related to Japanese or English releases". In fact, it was found that excluding this type of information "directly contradicts Wikipedia's normal standards" and the Project's attempt to do so had no consensus at all.--Nohansen (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is on the respective language Wikipedia, and is not necessary or relevant here. You keep citing that particular conversation, but my memory of it was one individual coming in and making very dubious arguments against the clause with absolutely no support until we all got sick of arguing with him and let him have his way. Since it didn't really matter one way or the other. Doceirias (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Doceirias here. While I wasn't around for the discussion, reading through it, it seemed a bit like an editor on a crusade. If there's something inherently notable about either of these language releases that merits a mention beyond the infobox, by all means add it with proper sources to establish notability. Otherwise, there's really little reason to keep this information, and even if it is kept, the best place wouldbe in a seperate list of chapters or (light) novels, properly merged with the Japanese and English release information. —Dinoguy1000 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a matter of notability, but of WP:BIAS. French or German languages releases are certainly not less notable than English language releases and English language releases are not granted automatic notability for the sole reason of being the English language release. Sure, I was one of many pushing for removing foreign language information from the English Wikipedia articles, but I've since seen the error of my ways. The fact that any series, film or book within WP:ANIME's scope has been released internationally (meaning: beyond Japan and the anglosphere) warrants mention in the article's infobox and body. Don't you think?--Nohansen (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced myself, although this is mainly because I'm imagining what List of Naruto chapters or List of Dragon Ball episodes might look like with information and sources for all the different language releases. If you can come up with a clean, compact way to present such information, I'll certainly back you, though. —Dinoguy1000 19:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the first part you just said - I feel that since this is the English Wikipedia, the English translation is more notable than other translations. However, I don't mind including info on other translations in the body as long as it's clean. Hm, I'll start a section to address that... --Eruhildo (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: But it isn't bias - it's the point of having different language Wikipedias. A line in the lead or the lead of the novels section mentioning how many languages they have been translated into, the infobox publishers listing - anything beyond that violates notability. This is the English language Wikipedia, and giving undue weight to publications other than the English language one and the original edition sounds far more like bias to me than the other way around. Doceirias (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Japanese/non-English publication 

message: Some things I'd like to discuss about the Publication section in the article:
* The list - I think this would work better in the table format (using ). I also don't think we really need separate articles for each book - using the table's summary section should suffice.
* The paragraph after the list - To me it seems weird to have it after the list. I was going to say it doesn't belong at all, but then I checked MOS-AM which says that origins or inspirations of a subject should go in the production section. Am I the only one that seems weird to?
* Shouldn't it be "In April, 2007" and "In August, 2007", not "On April, 2007" and "On August, 2007"?
That's about it, please discuss. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read WT:MOS-AM#Page layout. In a nutshell: we don't have to stick to the layout as presented in the MoS; we can rearrange the article in a way that seems more natural or less weird. And yes, that short paragraph on The Demonic Child seems a little out of place.--Nohansen (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link - I haven't had time lately to keep up with all the discussions over there. I thought it would be better to bring up some things here and discuss it before making a bunch of changes. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The novels aren't graphic novels... they're actual novels. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication section clean up 

message: This seems to be missing a list of episodes... that other anime have. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  episodes 

message: WP:MOS-AM says "Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work)"  I'd say that's the anime, even though the original Japanese work is novels; people here tend to get exposed to anime first, the DVDs were released first, the novels are licensed because of the anime's popularity.  And see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_kingdoms_in_Twelve_Kingdoms for prior (though not much) discussion of Youko vs. Yoko.  Youko is used by the primary English work, it's closer to the Revised Hepburn Romanization Wikipedia says to use, anyone I've talked to who knows Japanese says it's better, you can hear the Japanese voice actors say Youko instead of Yoko in the anime. -- Mindstalk (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original work is ALWAYS the primary work. Yes, Youko is the spelling I would use; no, we can't use it here. I could swear we clarified that policy line after similar questions a year or two ago... Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a little digging here; "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed." And thinking back on it, it was successfully argued that the Dragonball anime is significantly better known than the manga, and that we should follow the anime's naming conventions. A similar argument could be made for Twelve Kingdoms, and you're welcome to try, but I'm unconvinced there is a gap in the audiences that really qualifies as 'significant.' Doceirias (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to make three posts in a row here -- in the passage you're quoting above, the words 'primary work' refer to the original work. We had to use primary rather than original because of works where the spin-off adaptions were actually released first. Doceirias (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the original work would be light novels *in Japanese*, using kanji.  The original work in English was anime.  But you're telling me Wikipedia policy is to enshrine inaccuracy.  Great.  Can we at least put a note in the article about the inaccurate transliteration?  --- 12K probably doesn't have a huge following, period, but I'd imagine the people who've seen the anime is proportionally rather larger than those who've read the translations. -- Mindstalk (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a bit of a mess, and there usually would be a brief bio of the major characters on the page, which would often mention alternate romanizations. (Personal preferences aside, Youko and Yoko are both standard romanizations of the name.) If you haven't read the novels, I definitely recommend giving them a try; I thought they were significantly better. Doceirias (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: After deleting it I noticed the other page is consistently using the incorrect names, but didn't have the time or resources to fix them. Per the manual of style, Wikipedia articles use the naming standard applied in the official translations of the source material -- so this article correctly follows the romanizations in the novels. Alternative romanizations are normally taken care of by nihongo tags, like they would be in the character list...and like I said, there should be a listing for the main main characters in this article too, feel free to add such a thing, with nihongo tags. The character list needs a major overhaul to convert the anime romanizations and names and make them in line with the novels, but that's going to have to be the work of someone who actually owns the novels in English. Doceirias (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, this is all one conversation I forgot about in the last two months, isn't it? Sorry about that. Doceirias (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  The anime romanization is Youko.  I just checked the official box set.  And yes, I've read the novels, both the official translation and a fan translation, the translator of which did a comparison of the two.  The official one was pretty good for a Tokyopop translation, but still rather flawed.  Getting Youko's name wrong was the least of it. -- Mindstalk (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tokyopop's translation is done by one of the best translators in the business. Both spellings are equally valid. Your personal preferences are irrelevant. Doceirias (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: A fellow user has proposed all the novels to be merged here. I agree as every single novel article is too small and has some original research.Tintor2 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Twelve Kingdoms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150817005004/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/anime/12kokuki/ to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/anime/12kokuki/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified