Talk:Moe (slang)

message: "Moe used in slang refers to feelings of affection, adoration, devotion, and excitement that embodies characters that appear in manga, anime, or video games, into enforcing who they are."
I have tried to understand what this sentence is trying to express, and failed.
Maybe this is inadequate translation from Japanese?
Embody: "1 : to give a body to (a spirit) : incarnate. 2a : to deprive of spirituality 2b : to make concrete and perceptible. 3 : to cause to become a body or part of a body : incorporate."
What is it that embodies characters here?  Characters in manga and anime generally have (drawn or rendered) bodies already. Anyway, I find this nonsensical.  I suspect 'embodies' is just the wrong word, and maybe instead of "that embodies" it should say "toward" or "most commonly toward"?
And I can't even guess what is intended by the phrase 'into enforcing who they are'. There is no preceding verb that would accept an "into" argument: "refers... into"? "embodies ... into"? And one enforces a condition, rule or law - you can enforce solitude, enforce peace, or enforce the policy against zombies on school grounds - but you can't enforce "who they are".
If somebody can offer more explanation I'll try to hammer it into plain English.
Or if somebody has the original Japanese, I'll ask my bilingual brother to explain it to me.
Spike0xff (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question appears to be this one. I don't know what it means either, and it doesn't seem to backed up by reliable sources, so I undid the change.Tosiaki! (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this sentence even mean?

message: but isn't mentioned in the article. Serendipodous 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that it's not great to have redirects for terms that are not clearly explained in articles. Looking through the history, one point is was a redirect to 2D Love, but that article was deleted, and is now also a redirect.  I think the redirect should either be deleted, or go to Wikt:waifu. If there are reliable sources discussing the term as it relates to moe, then a couple of sentences about it would solve the problem. If not, where else should the redirect point? Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and made it a Wikipedia:Soft redirect. The only relevant links it had were from :Template:Internet slang but I've removed it from that, as well. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Waifu redirects here

message: I notice that there are no reliable resources cited for the lead where it gives the definition. It says, inaccurately, that there is no particular definition of moe, and that it has to do with personality or physical traits of characters. In reality, it has a concrete definition and it means "a feeling of strong adoration towards characters," a statement that can be backed up by reliable sources.  Moe is not a quality of "cuteness" etc. of a character, but a feeling towards a character. As in, "I feel moe about X," and all reliable sources say this. If nobody opposes this change, I shall make this change right now. Some may say that misappropriated Japanese words need to focus on the English usage of it more. I would say that rather, that this is not exactly a misappropriated word in high circulation and that the Japanese definition deserves greater priority.--Tosiaki! (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: The Commentary section is no longer a rough translation from Japanese, but may still require some further revisions to attain perfection. I believe the current notice should be removed, though I am not certain whether I actually have the authority to do so. However, like the previous comment on this Talk page, if nobody tells me otherwise I will attempt to remove said notice myself. --26in9 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary section 

message: In a recent edit here, I have kept the anime/manga project box at the bottom. Having this box in the lead of the article in my view is distracting, I understand we want to promote people to join our project, but feel the central focus should be on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project box 

message: Moeblob redirects here but the article doesn't define or describe it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never even heard of it, it may be a candidate for WP:RfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moeblob" is basically derisive slang for the stereotypical way characters in "moe" shows look, generally used by people who don't like those character designs.  It particularly gets used a lot for Kyoto Animation's typical style for shows like Clannad, Kanon, and K-ON!.  I'm pretty certain I've heard it used on Anime News Network, so if you search ANN for "moeblob" you might find reliable sources referring to the term.  I think it is appropriate as a redirect, as anyone trying to figure out what the term "moeblob" means would want this article (even if it isn't mentioned in the article). Calathan (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay fair enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moeblob redirects here 

message: There has been real life examples of moe like the Korean actress Park Jin-joo. 
Should we add real life examples?
--110.70.59.20 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need to cite reliable sources that connect the actress to moe or else it will be considered original research. Also, for real-life people, especially in South Korea rather than Japan, I doubt it'd be specifically moe but rather just general cute-siness and things like aegyo. Opencooper (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add moe in real life? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @Shibbolethink I don't understand your objections to this edit, as it is both sourced and relevant. WP:PRIMARY is the only stated reason, but nothing in said policy forbids its inclusion. 2A01:827:2CBB:AE01:85EF:7809:C61E:5C59 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned it is a primary source - the inclusion of which is not forbidden by WP:PRIMARY when the only conclusion drawn from it is that the term was in use at the time. Given that it is a very early directly attested use of the word, I don't see how it could not be relevant in the 'origin' section.--2A01:827:2CBB:AE01:85EF:7809:C61E:5C59 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Material must also be DUE inclusion, as described above. It is not enough that a primary source mentions it. See also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIV — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the objection now. One of the sources cited in the article mentions that the term "first became popular in 1993 or 1994 among PC communications users" (i.e. BBS), yet there is no mention of that in the current revision of the article. The relevance of the text I added is to provide a direct attestation of "moe" being used on Japanese BBS communications in 1994, which adds more context for the reader as to how the term was being used at the time.--2A01:827:2CBB:AE01:85EF:7809:C61E:5C59 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more appropriate to include content based on both sources which does not overtly rely on the PRIMARY source or create a novel thesis of the two. Such as:We don't have the necessary sourcing to talk about "duck language" or the dictionary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a workable solution. I will implement the changes you suggested.--2A01:827:2CBB:AE01:85EF:7809:C61E:5C59 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins section 

message: should there be a section for a 'gap moe'/contrasting? i don't think i ever hear moe talked about anymore without it being part of a 'gap moe' as opposed to its standalone definition lol 47.185.204.185 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  gap moe