Talk:Tokyopop/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mobile Suit Gundam

The primary Mobile Suit Gundam manga is not a TokyoPop licensed property, therefore it does not belong on this list. Only the Blue Destiny side story is a TokyoPop title.
Compare:

Greyweather 01:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Mobile Suit Gundam" is actually referring to the entire Gundam series. WhisperToMe 05:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TOKYOPOP, not Tokyopop or TokyoPop

The name of the company is TOKYOPOP explicitly in all caps; see all company literature such as its press releases and its website. pfahlstrom 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And typography of logos isn't relevant for an encyclopedia article. --zippedmartin 00:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the logo, just the name of the company. But since as you've pointed out WP:MOS-TM decrees that companies are not allowed to have all-caps names, I will bow to consensus. pfahlstrom 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixx/Tokyopop Boycott

I've just ran across this article and I'm surprised that there is no information about the controversy of Mixxzine's second year because of its format change and its handling of Sailor Moon along with the early boycott of Mixxzine and later Tokyopop during that time. This was one of the more significant events in Tokyopop's history.

I would include it, but I don't think I will be able to keep a NPOV since I was neck deep in the controversy at the time.--TheFarix 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to hear more. I was buying the magazine at the time of their first year onwards, but they didn't give much detail in the magazine itself, and all I ever read online was slandering of Levy, the owner. I do know about the handling of Sailor Moon's Michiru and Haruka, and was disappointed, but it was better than the dubbing of the anime. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If neutral, reliable sources can be find, then it should be included. Part of the problem is that at the time, the magazine itself probably wasn't big enough to warrant coverage in national news. I'll search around, though, and see what I can find. ANN and AnimeOnDVD may have covered it, hopefully neutrally. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa's folly

~~user:pfahlstrom may be Peter Ahlstrom of Tokyopop. He came in and removed some verifiable data from the criticism section, claiming POV.~~ The changes of names in the TP version of Initial D is not POV, although the wording could be brushed up. Also, 5'0" is the average height for women in Japan, making Karin's 4'11" not 'chibi', even by Japanese standards. Based on that information, which can be found in the human height wikipedia article, she may actually be relatively tall for her age. Kyaa the Catlord 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I grant your chibi point, and your rewording of that section is much better than the original, but I didn't touch anything about Initial D. I have always attempted to be an ethical wikipedia editor—I have no problem with valid NPOV criticism, and you can see that I have not touched the well-phrased though unsourced criticism in the criticism section. However, I do have problems with new unsourced non-NPOV additions. In this particular case, while TOKYOPOP has long been criticized for its OEL titles, I did not notice any particular upsurge in this criticism after the HarperCollins announcement; most people who have a bone to pick about the issue picked it to slivers already about a year ago. I agree that this criticism should be addressed somewhere in the article; however, as I have been well aware that I am not the one who should be addressing it, I haven't added anything on the subject. This new paragraph which was added by user:66.65.94.135 was unsourced, clearly non-NPOV, and full of weasel words. I have now attempted to reword it in a less POV manner (as well as fixing the spelling mistakes which you unilaterally restored); does it meet with your approval? I have also, with a bit of searching, found a citation for it, but it's a pretty poor one; since you are the one who say that this information is verifiable, please find a better citation which will verify it.

Also, when you reverted my edit, you failed to keep the wikification I performed, leaving in <i> tags. Please be more aware of this type of thing in the future. pfahlstrom 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that bit. I didn't actually see that you had removed that section beforehand due to scrolling length issues. What most disturbed me was that someone from the company came in, removed text that could be taken as a criticism and was calling that POV. This is on par with congressional aides editting wikipedia articles to make their bosses look better, imho. The criticism section is dying to be rewritten and sourced. I'll try to do that later, if I have time.... (Ugh, I really don't want to cite blogs and forums but a lot of the TP criticism is direct from the fanbase and only available in these places.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great start on the citations, though the ref names are a bit...*cough*...creative ;). As for the congressional aides parallel, I don't plan to attempt any edit which would prompt me to hide behind an IP address. pfahlstrom 15:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a good summary of the feelings portrayed by the articles I found. :P Personally, I find most criticisms of TP to be simply fanboyish whinging. I'll try to find some more sources for that part later. Kyaa the Catlord 06:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Refactored to strike out Kyaa's lack of good faith. Apologies to Peter. Kyaa the Catlord 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. pfahlstrom 15:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:COMICS

While the article on Tokyopop is already covered under the Anime and Manga WikiProject, it is to be noted that Tokyopop also distributes original (domestic) English-language manga in the United States and elsewhere. See Peach Fuzz, a manga produced by Tokyopop in the U.S. and syndicated in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle. Thus the Comics WikiProject should also cover Tokyopop and its English-language manga. --Geopgeop 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the the WP:COMICS label. While indeed Tokyopop distributes original (domestic) English-language manga in the United States I believe the WP:COMICS label is insufficient in representing the whole of the company as beyond merely print works Tokyopop also distributes anime series aswell. Ariolander 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping both wikiprojects from covering this article. The more the merrier! Kyaa the Catlord 11:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Anime and Manga WikiProject is a subsidiary of WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Television and WikiProject Japan all of which could fit this article. Surely the child project that covers all these works just fine by itself. Ariolander 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Success & Criticism

Someone really needs to seperate that segment into a clearly defined "success" and "criticism" section, because it's tough to follow solid ideas in that large and detatched section due to the blending. I'm not familiar with TOKYOPOP all that much, so someone else here needs to take the time and rewrite the article segment. 68.189.82.81 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Success and criticism also has many unsupported facts that need citation.--65.96.253.2 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where to put this, but I was cleaning up the page to reflect the fact that the plural form of 'manga' is still 'manga.' It is not 'mangas' because Japanese does not have a plural form. I noted two uses of 'mangas' on this page and corrected them. 74.195.238.31 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)LSE

Well I took the liberty of mentioning Tokyopop's contributions for Manhwa in the United States. Note I brought text sources with me. No really we need to clean this section up. Whoever added that needs to tell where the info came from. While I might agree with it as I have read some of it before tis useless unless we can cite it properly - Ariolander 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Manga

I saw the list and I thought "shouldn't this be incomplete"? I looked for some titles I've heard of in ads 'n' stuff, like Comic Party, I don't see it there or I haven't looked hard enough....but, I saw a Manga named "Comic Party" before that wasn't published by Tokoyopop....I saw it in a store and I have the manga by Tokyopop.

Lists

Part of the clean up should involve the removal of the lists. Best to be moved into a separate article, and the lists themselves need some clean up. KyuuA4 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Public or private comany?

Is this a publicly traded corporation, or is it privately owned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Sources for "Americanization"

Here is a good source to begin populating the "Americanization" section of the article. It is an open letter to Anime fans regarding the changes that were made to the initial d franchise for a North American domestic release (manga and show) [1]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Americanization. Deleted due to Vandalists?

I sense Deja Vu. It's like when EA altered the wiki entries for their pages trying to remove negative publicity from their articles to make them look good or something. The Criticism section use to have a whole bunch of information from what I remembered. Why in God's name was it removed?

The fact is that the criticism against TokyoPop is constructive with legitimate facts and it should be kept up there out of fairness and to provide a unbiased article.

Please protect those entries next time. And stop the Americanization fanboys from screwing with the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.28.242 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That section needs expanding. You can be bold and add back to the article this source is a start and can be integrated into the article [2]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no vandalism. The information was removed because it was completely unsourced. We do not just post rumors or anything else, but verifiable information backed up by reliable sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to expand the section with a couple of references. It needs work, but it's a start. I need some other sources, and need to expand the section beyond the changes made to inital d. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, thanks for the clean up and fixing the refs - my wording left a bit to be desired, I wasn't intending to use non-neutral wording. I wrote the section quickly. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) I wish we could find a better section name, though. Criticism automatically gives a negative connotation, which usually results in it being considered non-neutral. I thought about moving it into the history section, with a different lead in, but not sure it works well there either. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Localization Changes" or "Changes as a result of Localization". The Viz Media article also uses the term "criticism". AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Alas, most of our anime company articles are not in such good shape. I'll see what the companies MOS (if there is one) suggests. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out this [3] for an Anime News Network Editorial about Tokyopop's changes. It's from co-Editor-in-Chief of ANN. He takes issue with the usage of the "100% Authentic" stamp on edited manga and makes some other points. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However this article [4] states "Other than the Americanization of language, the [Tokyopop] manga are true to the original format, reading from right to left." There is some good information about the company history in there as well. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Both should be good. I have a link somewhere to TPs original announcement about stopping flipping. Probably somewhere in the Marmalade Boy articles since it was one of the first to not be flipped. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what else I can dig up - know they also completely changed the name of Tramps Like Us for the U.S. release as well. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they have renamed several series, but that doesn't necessary mean its something they received a ton of criticism for. They renamed Karin to Chibi Vampire to avoid confusion with another series. I'd still love to know why Kimi wa Pet became Tramps Like Us, but not sure they explained it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This link is interesting [5], as is this one [6] There was an article I read yesterday when digging for links that took issue with the tramps like us renaming, I'll have to find it again. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...good stuff for the history section there. I think coming from 1998, it should probably go there rather than controversy since it was when the company was still young, but if nothing else, we can get it written and sourced, then figure out arrangement. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more reading [7] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that last one meets WP:RS :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably so, but there are some inline links that are valuable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources to Support claim of American products

Here's is a the manga for Jim Henson's Labyrinth [8] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Link support for World of Warcraft manga [9][10] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added these references. They are bare an unformatted. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tokyopop Group and split

Per the latest update, it looks like Tokyopop is going to rename itself to Tokyopop Group, and have two subsidiaries under it: Tokyopop, Inc. and Tokyopop Media. When the restructuring is done and the name official, I propose this article be renamed to Tokyopop Group, with redirects created for Tokyopop, Inc and Tokyopop Media. I do not thing either subsidiary will need a stand alone article, but the article will need to be expanded to include a subsidiary/divisions section (again, once the restructure is final). Much like has been done with Central Park Media (though with more content), Viz Media, and A.D. Vision. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both the subdivisions of the "new TokyoPop" should be included in an entry called something like "TokyoPop Group" once the changes are announced officially. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of keeping this article, just moving it to the new name with the subsections on the Tokyopop, Inc and Tokyopop Media sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a single mention of contracts

I'm surprised that this article doesn't make a single mention of the sustained criticism by reliable sources and known industry figures about Toykopop contracts? --87.113.65.148 (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some of those reliable sources? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw I know I've got the article somewhere. They apparently use contests to sucker up-and-coming artists into unfair contracts to make sure they get as little as possible and/or lose the rights to their stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This alludes to it, as does this and this from Comics Worth Reading. --Malkinann (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)