Talk:Haibane Renmei

message: Although I am definitely a fan of Haibane Renmei (thus possibly biased)—I can honestly say that this article has surpassed the Start class. Please re-evaluate this article.
In addition, an article of this length (30 KB) is long enough that it could be cleaned up into a Featured Article (like Serial Experiments Lain—currently 38 KB long—was). Expand the article, branching out into separate articles if necessary, even if this means a mini-template connecting the pages (for example, Suzumiya Haruhi). Perhaps even start a Haibane Renmei work group.
I only have time to contribute the occasional edit, but I would like to see this article as the best it can be—even to Featured status.
"Say it! We've got spirit! ... We've got drive!"
- Kagura, Azumanga Daioh
Charcoal feathers unite!
76.26.104.194 (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article needs quite a bit more sourcing before it can be B Class. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nihonjoe - the article definitely needs more sourcing. If I have some time, I'll try to add a few. Also, if anything is going to be split from the article, I think it should be the section on the Haibane race as it is more on Haibane than the series. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like an excellent split--just being a separate subject wouldn't quite do it, but in fact it would be easy to verifiably source, since ABe released an entire doujinshi just for explaining about Haibane. The only problem I can see is a potential lack of real-world influence for the Haibane... Except, wait. If nothing else, it inspired an omake series by Fred Gallagher, in which he reimagined his Megatokyo characters as haibane. There are probably other famous things that have referenced the series in similar ways. --Masamage ♫ 17:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I forgot about the that omake. That would be an excellent thing to mention. I think it might be enough to get away with splitting the article. I'll read over WP:WAF some more to make sure. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *You might consider turning the material on Haibane into a sub-article of this article. See the biographical article on Isaac Newton for an example. Simmaren (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're actually talking about the same thing. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does 'sub' article versus 'separate' article make any practical difference? --Masamage ♫ 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not. The distinction is a matter of cross-referencing and scope. The main article normally summarizes the topic briefly and refers readers to the sub-article for details. Simmaren (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Kay. Sounds great, then. :) --Masamage ♫ 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start-class? 

message: By way of collecting links to reviews for a reception section, here's a glowing one from ANN of volume 1. Feel free to add to the collection and/or use this in the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception links 

message: I'm about to make a sweep on this article and make some content changes which are required to remove some significant original research in both the plot and character sections.  This is obviously a narrative work that is greatly open to interpretation (and brilliant in that regard, as an aside) and heavy with metaphor, and I think a lot of the content here veers a little too far into the realm of fan theories in making assertions about the relevance of certain imagery and metaphors which are not actually explicitly spoken to in the story nor are in any way sourced.  In fact, I just removed a claim which was explicitly noted as fan speculation.  But there's plenty more that clearly is one person's interpretation of elements which are left vague by design in the narrative.  So, for example, a claim in our current character listing for Rakka reads as follows: "It is implied that she died by falling down a well.  Someone precious to her tried to save her, and they both ended up dying. That person was then reborn as a crow in order to follow her over the walls and call out to her." I received a completely different impression from the story.  There's never any mention of a well in Rakka's dream (she seems to be plummeting from a building).  I felt the story was very strongly indicating that Rakka was a suicide (as was Reki (stood in front of a train) and probably all haibane who are "sin-bound").  The crow wasn't someone who took a mutual plummet down a well (which seems a little silly and contrived) but rather someone close to her who tried to stop her, but failed (the crow pulls at her dress in the dream as she falls, in a vain attempt to save her) -- this was how she "hurt" that person. 
I'm not flaunting WP:FORUM here in addressing my interpretation of these narrative elements just for the sake of it, consequently; I've done so specifically so I can point out that this isn't a place for my best guesses nor the ones already present here; even though I'm very much convinced my interpretation makes the most sense (and could happily go on another paragraph or two on exactly why), it still remains just that -- an interpretation of a story that was clearly geared intentionally towards ambiguity and allegory, with strong hints as to the nature of the former lives of the Haibane (and particularly, their deaths), but with nothing ever confirmed.  You can't even say for certain that the Haibane are deceased souls in a kind of state of gentle purgatory; that's certainly the assumption most everyone makes from the start through the finish, but nowhere in the plot is this actually said outright.  The Haibane don't even seem to think about it in these terms, not that they outwardly express anyway.  Anyway, point is, there's a bit of speculation in here that needs to be excised to more honestly represent the plot, without filling in the inherent ambiguities with our own best guesses.  Snow talk 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on some changes 

message: Noting here for future reference that the following sentence had to be cut from the article:
* 
While almost certainly true, the source cited is dead and  I have been unable to verify it from any other source. Please restore this information is you are able to find a source supporting it. Charcoal feather (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 revisions