Talk:Saint Seiya: Episode.G

message: For once and for all, Kurumada has nothing to do with Episode G. 
1) On the cover of the japanese tankōbon of Episode G, Megumu Okada is credited for the "manga" (art AND story) while Kurumada is only the "author of the original manga" (meaning Saint Seiya).
2) In a little interview published in the 1st tankōbon of Episode G, Okada explains that Kurumada told him "Do whatever you want to do".
3) In 2004, Kurumada stated in an interview that Okada was "completely free for developing the story of Episode G", and that he was only supervising him a bit (meaning supervising the art of the manga, since Okada is said to be "completly free" for the story), but that gave a lot more time to "Kojiro 2" by his pupil, Yuri Satochi, than to Episode G.
All these facts means that Kurumada basically don't care about Episode G, and has almost nothing to do with it. Which means that Episode G absolutely cannot be concidered canon, since what is canon is what comes from the author, or what the author helped to write. These interviews are the proof that Kurumada really had nothing to do with the story of G, which is thus entirely from Okada, and which has even been contradictory with the original story.
Episode G is not canon, period. So please do not try to write the contrary. Folken de Fanel 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode G is NOT wrote by Kurumada. It's simply TOO different from his usual style to be his. It's more like "original concept" or "original plot" aka Kurumada saying the manga would been Golds vs Titans and leaving everything else to Okada. Just read Next Dimension and compare it to Lost Canvas or Episode G. TOTALLY different stylea of storytelling.Sirtao 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, as much as I'd like to believe that, I'd like to see some proof first. Where can this interview be found, if it exists?HadesDragon (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in an issue of AnimeLand a french magazine about manga and animation. I'm not sure which one since that was a few years ago (definitly prior to Lost Canvas) - but in any case G is officially sanctionned by Kurumada and he has a supervising role on it - saying himself it takes quite a bit of his time (at the time he listed G as one of the reason along with Rinkake 2 he couldn't start working on a new Seiya manga himself). That being said - I also think Japanese authors don't seem to put the same emphasis on canonicity and conistency than their western counterpart. It's not uncommon for spin-off to existing work to retcon and change a lot of thing while still being considered in the same universe. 90.9.166.2 ([[User 
talk:90.9.166.2|talk]]) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about the non-canonicity of Episode G 

message: I have no plan on joining the debate, but I'd like to point out that Chronos and Cronus are two different entities. Please see below for ref, especially Chronos article. It explains the confusion.
Anthonydraco (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronos is conception of time, and Cronus just avatar. 89.22.144.44 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronos 

message: Hi
it is normal we don't have inter wiki to ja: ?
you say 10 volumes, but  this manga is finish or it's 10 for the moment ? thanks
:There isn't a Episode G article in the japanese Wiki. And since EpG is far from finish, I'm going to correct it.
Well, here you have 2 links: the first for the page saying "plot MASAMI KURUMADA" and the next with the scans of Lost Canvas and Next Dimension...
http://community.livejournal.com/stseiya_fanfics/
http://pics.livejournal.com/sagakure/gallery/0000d75k
and that of the different style, the Lost Canvas y wrote by Kurumada and it´s different than Next Dimension, Episode G is different too for the reason there is no Athena to kidnapp and you know all of what will happend in the future, he can´t change the canon history!
:Getter Robot Gō, Shin and Ark have Go Nagai's name as author. But he did... well, NOTHING in them. Getter Robot is all made by Ishikawa since Getter Robot G. Same for Amon Apocalypse of Devilman: it's Yu Kinutani's work. But they still have the name of the original author Go Nagai on it. I think it's common use in Japan. And I'm not talking about Athena getting kidnapped when I'm talking about STYLE, but I'm talking about the WAY events are told, how the characters speak. The Characters in EpG or Lost Canvas speak in a totally different way from the character in the original Saint Seiya, in next Dimension, in Ring ni Kakero or in B'T X. There is NO WAY Episode G or Lost Canvas could be wrote by Kurumada. Zero. None. Anybody analysing them with a critical eye would  understand it.Sirtao 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Kurumada IS the same. Please see Next Dimension. Same style. Even worst, actually. Lost Canvas, Episode G? TOTALLY different style. Different narration-style, the way the characters talk... the author it's a different person. TOO different is the style of these manga to be Kurumada's.Sirtao 11:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: the ORIGINAL Getter Robo was MADE by Nagai and Ishikawa. More Ishikawa than Nagai(whose being busy with his other mangas like Great Mazinger did almost nothing), but it was work of both of them. But Getter Go(and Shin and Ark) is ALL Ishikawa's work. Official sources say this AND you just have to read Nagai's mangas to understand it. Compare Violence Jack, DevilLady, Mazinsaga, ZMazinger and Cutie Honey'90 to Getter Go and you'll see the differences... the storytelling style, how the characters talk, the topics... everything is different from Nagai's works. Devilman IS one of Nagais' most popular creation. Also, don't trust TOO MUCH Wikipedia: the first idiot can came here and change everything just because.Sirtao 11:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 questions 

message: I went ahead and did a cleanup of he article as a whole. It was full of gramaticcal errors and such, and since I saw it wasn't gonna be fixed by anyone else anytime soon, I went ahead and did it. The information is all still there, just reworded. I also separated the Titans' profiles into paragraphs, to make reading easier. HadesDragon 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General clean-up 

message: :Image:Current Oceanus.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 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.
BetacommandBot 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Current Oceanus.jpg

message: :Image:Galaxy Crius in Episode G.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 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.
BetacommandBot 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Galaxy Crius in Episode G.jpg

message: There has been some disagreement on what kind of weapon Kreios' Soma actually is. And I would like to ask everyone editting this page for opinions.
I am not sure if it is allowed to link any image here, so tell me if I can. If possible, I'd like to provide an image of all the Titans' Soma here, for the convinience of the discussion.
The question here is: what is Kreios' Soma exactly? Currently, it is shown on the page as scimitar. If it has been officially stated as scimitar, I'd like to see some reliable source cited. Otherwise, I'd like to ask for opinions here. Other possibilities are shotel, khopesh and sickle. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kreios' Soma, what is it? 

message: The 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' thing has been at the top of our article long enough already. Too long, actually. I added most references some time ago, but only up to the volume 4, which is the latest I own. I neither have money to import all the rest, nor the energy to tag. Many of you obviously have all the volumes published. If you can, please tag references in parts that don't yet have it, especially the parts that mention things beyond volume 4, so that we can remove the atrocious 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' thing from the top once and for all.
One more thing: although in practice, tense in fiction can be either present or past, according to WikiPedia writing style and guideline, fiction is written in present tense. There are many parts that require cleaning up in this article. Changing the entire article to conform WikiPedia's format is going to be a lot of work, but I hope we could fix it little by little when we spot any.
For reference, please enter keyword wp:tense in your search. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference tagging and tense change requireded 

message: :I couldn't believe my ears when this "G" project was brought up.
:I met the editor for the first time as the heat of summer ended and it was finally starting to cool down. It was a meeting about an original work, but I was very busy then and didn't have the time to make something like that, so it seemed that I would have to decline. During the meeting, the editor told me "actually, I'd like you to handle a work that's related to an original". It was "Seiya". It has been my first experience dealing with a work "related to an original". Not that I did not want to do something like it, the opportunity had just never come up. And so it was that "Seiya" became the first original I did for another author.
:I don't think "Seiya" needs any introductions by now, because it is famous world-wide. I am making a continuation of it (or, to be more accurate, a story set before it, its "history"). I am also dealing with the work of the master Masami Kurumada, who is one of a kind for me. To be honest, I really worried about what to do, but the chief editor and the RED editorial department finally rid me of those troubles; the editor made a bold decision. And while pouring gin into my glass in a late-night bar, the great master Kurumada told me "Good. You should do it with all your might."
:It is still a work that worries me, but then I'll think "I'm glad I started it." I want to put every effort into it to be able to think "I'm glad I did it" when it is over. And it would be the greatest happiness if the people who read it think "it was interesting."
:Megumu Okada
This quote is only my translation of the text that was published at the end of the first volume of EG, so if anyone notices any mistakes, do point them out. I can post the original Japanese if necessary. Cyn starchaser (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megumu Okada's commentary from volume 1 

message: The rating remains the same since production still has the same issues listed by it's previous assessor. Unless it is commentary from the author himself, it shouldn't be noted. Currently, the production section after reference 8 reads like a style/themes section and should not be included. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the assessment. Should that part of the production section be cut out entirely, do you think, or possibly reworked into other sections? Cyn starchaser (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. If the production section is really short, you can merge it into the manga section. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class assessment 

message: Seems that Episode G is now confirmed canon to the main story.
Here    http://seiya30th.com/series.html
A website launched for the 30th anniversary for the franchise all of the Saint Seiya material was mentioned.
Besides the main story everything else excluding episode G were only given the original creator Masami kuramada in the description.
While Episode G: Draft Masami Kurumada , drawing the Memmu Okada .
Okada is only credited for the art while kuramada the story I believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymen12 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding episode G being non canon or canon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Saint Seiya Episode.G. 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/20110813200350/http://www.paninicomics.it/web/guest/collane_dettaglio?id=1141 to http://www.paninicomics.it/web/guest/collane_dettaglio?id=1141
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408214106/http://www.kamite.com.mx/mangas/caballeros.html to http://www.kamite.com.mx/mangas/caballeros.html
*Added  tag to http://www.chuangyi.com.sg/new2/ccatalogtitle.php?title=%26%2322307%3B%26%2326007%3B%26%2322763%3B%26%2326143%3B%26%2330690%3B+EPISODE.G
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408232216/http://www.akitashoten.co.jp/red-ichigo/2014/43 to http://www.akitashoten.co.jp/red-ichigo/2014/43
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606232626/http://www.paninicomics.it/web/guest/search_news?search=i%20cavalieri%20dello%20zodiaco%20episode%20g%20top%2010 to http://www.paninicomics.it/web/guest/search_news?search=i%20cavalieri%20dello%20zodiaco%20episode%20g%20top%2010
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) 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)