Talk:Anime/Archive 3

message: Cited as a source in "A short history of anime." sidebar to Slafkosky, Jenny. "Anime: Popular Japanese animation easy to find." The Oakland Tribune (CA). January 13, 2005. Petersam 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article citation

message: This section has been moved over to the Talk:Notable anime page because the section was moved to its own article. nihon 16:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What belongs in Notable works and how it should be limited 

message: I noticed some possible flaws in the Genres section that might warrant discussion. Some I have already edited (how is Neon Genesis Evangelion 'controversial'? Source for this claim or maybe change in word choice seems necessary), but in mentioning the Evas it shows though they are really biological living beings. Is this really pertinent to the larger point, that specific works can often be very hard to categorize? It seems like the discussion of the example Neon Genesis Evangelion as a genre-bending show becomes more an opportunity to talk about the show itself. The last line of the paragraph, This was simply offered as an example of how a series (especially, because of its length, compared to a movie) can encompass many genres, and can be very difficult to classify under any one specific one, I think should be deleted entirely as it is largely redundant. Would others agree that this paragraph could use a bit more streamlining to remain on-topic? NatalieS 00:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a controversial anime, I'll cite this that I mentioned a bit further up if I may (as it's still hilarious), however, feel free to edit the section however you see fit, don't remember when it was added and I agree it seems redundant. --zippedmartin 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Genres under Types of Anime 

message: I'm not sure it's worthwhile to have a "critically acclaimed" section - probably just about everything out there has been acclaimed by some critic or another. DenisMoskowitz 14:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critically acclaimed? 

message: The notable anime section is getting, for lack of a better word, invaded by titles that seemingly have no business being listed, such as Naruto, Crest of the Stars, and The Big O. I suggest a rationale and/or specific criterion to be established before adding to the notable works section. I also recommend an audit the section to try and remove the nonessentials. Ereinion  01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed some criteria I thought might be good in the earlier conversation "What belongs in Notable works and how it should be limited."  That said, I believe the best way to figure out which titles belong and which don't, is debate and final consensus reached on the discussion page (in addition to following the simple rules of waiting three years & etc, my reasons for which I listed earlier).  This way, people can get a chance to justify series that they feel belong, and then the community can decide or perhaps even vote on inclusion.  --Xaliqen 03:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Anime 

message: why is it... i checked the Anime article it was good and ok, but now ALL CHANGE!
*|First lets start with the "Genres, there should be a list and a short note/ meaning of what it means, and wish to link to a subpage of the full meaning and types
*"Notable names in anime" that just looks like a waste, it needs to be deleted, just a Header and a little small info, and their an't any list of the names
*"Production of anime" does that link to Notable names in anime? if it does, please put in in bold, not another header, and why is that there? who wants to know about people making it, for god sake put it in a subpage, becuase if people see a article with too much info they won't bother to read it
*"Manga artists" WHY IS THAT THERE, it is about anime not artist, the list and names should go at the subpages just like how Production Of Anime should go
*"Giant Robot (Mecha) anime" Big O wasn't a anime? or was it?
Anyway you people are suppose to move "Groundbreaking anime" into a sub page, it suppose to list the catagory of it like Sci Fi, when someone clicks it will list all Sci fi ground breaking anime, or to consum pages, it should be list of Groundbreaking anime
now lets do some clean up and move some data/information into a subpage and make this anime easy to read
><ino 03:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no need to shout. If there's something that needs to be changed, please be bold and do so. Everyone's been proposing possibilities, but we'll never find out for sure unless it happens. So be bold. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!? 

message: Hi,
I noticed that one user I've been keeping an eye on (due to a large amount of silly, arrogant or POV  edits) has changed the definition of "Anime" in the anime category from Japanese to "Worldwide" animation. 
If Anime refers specifically to Japanese animation, it should be changed back; if it refers to a style of animation originating in Japan, it should be changed to that. Or maybe neither; but "worldwide animation" is meaningless and possibly inaccurate (it doesn't refer to a universal animation style).
I'm not an anime fiend, and I don't intend starting a flame war; I want advice on what to replace this with.
Fourohfour 12:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anime" is the Japanese word for animation.  In English, it generally refers to Japanese animation, though a small minority use it to refer to non-Japanese animation in the "anime style" - that is, sharing characteristics with the mainstream of Japanese animation.  Someone who did not understand the "passport word" nature of the term might think that, because it simply means "animation" in Japanese, it should mean "general animation" in English as well.  But if they have a history of bad edits, it's more likely they're just being a jerk. DenisMoskowitz 15:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally use it the term 'anime' in two ways: (1) to refer to the distinctive art style used in most "anime" cartoons and "manga" comics (since it removes the Japanese designation from the word, considering that such a style could theoretically be produced by any trained person in any culture), and (2) to refer to cartoons/animation draw in this style.  One of the main reasons why (and examples in which) I use 'anime' to refer to the art style is when describing The Boondocks comic series. ~GMH talk to me 20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, for one, the word "anime" is not a Japanese word. It's a shortening of the word "animeeshon," or animation, using Japanese syllables. My source? Just experience with the language and formal teaching. Gibson Cowboy 09:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Tradition and culture of Japan have nothing to do with Japanese animation being called "anime." As it says in the main article, it's just a shortened version of the Japanese pronunciation of the word "animation." Simple as that. --nihon 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just been adopted to refer as anime to be generally Japanese styled/influenced animation rather than American styled/influenced animation. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'Anime' Japanese or not?