Talk:Year 24 Group

message: There's information in Manga#Shōjo manga about this group, including critical sources, that could be fruitfully used in this article. Someone more familiar than me with the sources and history should probably do this, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: Tone of this article is too complimentary of the group.  It talks about about they "revolutionized" shojo manga. It claims: "They are said to have made manga into a type of literature." and "Their actions and success paved the way for the appearances of many female manga artists" without backing these claims with any independent source.  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, most of the content is just a poor reflection of the well-worded paragraphs in Manga which describe the group.  If they are as notable as it sounds, it shouldn't be hard to flesh out this article. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. (All sources I've seen agree with that they did, indeed, revolutionizing the genre, but aside from what Matt Thorne has written about them, I haven't had access to anything I can cite.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, even if the sources phrased it that way, the article needs to have a more neutral tone, while explaining the significance of their contributions.  What also caught my eye is that most of the sources were from Matt Thorne (really sure who that is), but I think it probably could use more perspectives.  BTW, how well known is the group?  Would it be as famous as CLAMP?  More famous?  Thanks.  --Kraftlos (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a group in the same sense as CLAMP is a group. It's more of a grouping. As for Thorn, he's considered the most knowledgeable English-language source for information about shōjo manga, so it's not surprising that many (or most) of the references are his. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is other stuff out there, but it's not as in-depth, and may even be wrong because it's so glossed over.  Masami Toku's Mechademia 2 paper may be worth looking up, but I believe Matt Thorn is the only person to have written an entire article on the grouping - in The Comics Journal #269. -Malkinann (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Paul Gravett's 60 years of manga book may also include some information about the Year 24 Group. -Malkinann (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe it did. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: In the sources listed at the end of the list of the flower group, Norie Masuyama is not listed, and in Matt Thorn's Moto Hagio interview, Hagio describes  Masuyama as not being a cartoonist herself, but that she loved cartoons, and she was Takemiya's "brain staff" - which I guess might be something like a muse or person that Takemiya would bounce ideas off. According to that interview, she introduced Takemiya to the idea of male homosexuality for women via Barazoku.  Her role may have been more as a support, part of the milieu, like Junya Yamamoto??? --Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've removed her from this page and the template. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Concur. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norie Masuyama's role? 

message: The lead sentence 
: Year 24 Group (24年組, Nijūyo-nen Gumi?) refers to one of two female manga artist groups which are considered to have revolutionized shōjo manga (girls' comics).
looks slightly confusing. Isn't the term mainly used for referring to the first group, and the post-group is another, related group? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (refactored above to fix formatting) It is a little ambiguous, yes -- it could be read as the Post-24 group as revolutionizing shōjo. I think this is a case where guidelines encourage bad writing -- the inherent nature of the subect requires that there are two groups be mentioned in the first sentence, while the guideline that what they are important for also be mentioned there is producing a semantic collision. I'm not sure at the moment how to fix this. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But wasn't it the original Year 24 group who initiated the revolution? Anyway, thanks for answering. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right -- the original Year 24 Group were the revolutionizers, the Post-Year 24 were the second generation. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Year 24/ Post-Year 24

message: The year 24 group was highly influential in expanding the scope of subject matters in shoujo manga, as far as I have understood it. Should be added to the article. Good sources include writings by Matt Thorn, Paul Gravett and Frederick Schodt. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject matters