Talk:Boku no Pico

message: Is there anything anywhere on the plot of the new OVA or any more details on the new CoCo character? There may be something on the main website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.23.159 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pico x CoCo x Chico plot? 

message: Who sung the opening "Happiness" in Chico to Pico? Takoto (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happiness from Boku no Pico was sung by Pico's voice actor, Ayden Muniz, and Futari no Natsu (Our summer together) was sung by Pico, Chico, and someone else, possibly Pico's sister, though I don't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moocowsrule (talk • contribs) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I think this article should be moved to "Boku no Pico series", considering that it's not just about the first OVA but all four. What does everyone else think about this? moocows rule 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the overall series name is Boku no Pico, so no need to move. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main webpage for the series uses only "Pico", but that seems like a rather short title, so I thought "Boku no Pico series" or "Boku no Pico (series)", as Boku no Pico is only the first OVA. moocows rule 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For simplicity, might as well stick to just discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Boku no Pico to be merged to Boku no Pico (series)?, rather than having in two places :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: According to the Japanese page, there's a Boku no Pico car, called "Pico Chico Kā" (Pico Chico Car). See here (Shirīzu Piko#Jidōsha "Series Pico#Automobile") moocowsrule 03:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's vandalism though... Unless it's a video game or a remote controlled car... moocowsrule 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without an actual source, what is on the JA wiki should mostly be ignored. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Surprisingly there are like no sources on the Japanese Wikipedia... moocowsrule 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know...its quite aggravating at times, especially when dealing with older series :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: XD That would be funny if there actually was a Boku no Pico Car... moocowsrule 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny...and a little scary :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea... especially considering one of the scenes in the first ep... where Pico and Tamotsu do stuff O_O D: moocowsrule 06:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I mean in a car... D: moocowsrule 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boku no Pico Car??? 

message: This article has a category tag for yaoi, but as far as I can tell it is shota for men, not actually yaoi. Is there any official statement that anyone knows of as to the intended demographic? Would it be appropriate to remove the yaoi tag? JRBrown (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Didn't want to do that myself if people didn't agree. JRBrown (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Yaoi?

message: Considering how groundbreaking the series is in the sub-genre of shota, I couldn't imagine this article being unworthy of being listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.193.108 (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is shown by coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If it is groundbreaking, it should have such coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: To the anonymous editor who added the :Category:yaoi tag (who I assume is the same editor who added the same tag on the 7th), every piece of evidence I have seen to date indicates that BnP is aimed primarily at men; the creators are men, and the audience is also largely men. I do not doubt that there are also female fans, but BnP is not described or marketed as Boys Love; it is shota for men, which currently does not have a specific designation other than "shota for men", as far as I know. - JRBrown (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A tag needs to be added to the "category" section to indicate that it has homosexual content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.158.81.246 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is that I don't think we have an appropriate tag. It's not yaoi, and it's not bara, so perhaps something along the lines of "crossdressing"? - JRBrown (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this to the "LGBT-related anime and manga" category, since it's more fitting than "Yaoi". Crossdressing doesn't necessarily mean homosexual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.158.81.246 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, BnP isn't really marketed to LGBT audiences, so I'm not sure that is entirely appropriate, any more than having futanari labeled as LGBT. The primary target audience is men who like crossdressing, feminine characters who happen to have penises, not men who identify as gay, bi or queer. - JRBrown (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether men who like crossdressing and/or feminine boys are gay or not is a matter of debate. In any case, the tag isn't exclusive to the audience, but the themes the work contains. I don't think Princess Knight was marketed mainly to the LGBT community, but since transgenderism plays a part in the story, it's considered related.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.158.81.246 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BnP is not yaoi 

message: not moved. per JRBrown below. --rgpk (comment) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This sick show HAS NO PLACE on Wiki. The whole article SHOULD BE REMOVED NOW!31.209.163.158 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Peodophilia 

message: I'm not sure why, but like the title said: Why are there so many spams in this article? Takane Inuyasha (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , could you exemplify? If something is blatantly spam you can remove it. Read: Wikipedia:Spam. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there spam? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boku no Pico. 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/20061115025610/http://www.pico.bz/ to http://www.pico.bz/
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) 02:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Legal status of this show should be mentionned in pediwikia raticle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal status in what regard? Countries like the UK banning drawn erotica because of age numbers asigned to the fictional characters? 86.56.58.8 (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unknowing people would download this show not realizing that it qualifies as "child porn".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status 

message: The article in its current state suggests it is a children's anime. Of course, this is part of a recurring Internet joke when it is actually in fact an erotic show on the verge of pedophilia. Wikipedia is a serious, factual site that should not be treated jokingly. The article is blatantly incorrect and likely to trick innocent people. As shown from the edit history, it is prone to vandalism. I suggest we revert the article to a previous, accurate edit and lock the article from editing. SonnikuSan (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock editing? 

message: Bro, there are underage children in this anime, and in episode 1 there are pedophilia scenes. This should be banned João frey (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Cp