Talk:Anime/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Anime and American Animation

I believe we should have a sub-section within this article discussing the differences in quality amongst Japanese and American animation, most notably the increased amount of finances that often are put into American animations. --66.192.186.101 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Will we also put in sections comparing anime to animation from every other country? Can it be properly sourced and be a neutral section? What value does it add to the article? AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it will add any value to the article as a whole, and there are points likely to be highly debated. So it won't be neutral. Shadowfoxza (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there are differences *cough*American sucks in comparison*cough* but there is not much of a way to say that neutrally, as just demonstrated without reliable source. Kopf1988 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wstern animation generally has more frames and more "pen strokes" per second, anime is often sketchy and draft-like to save on production costs, even in this age of CGI. Only the most elite anime, like Amano's Aria have uncompromising cell elaboration that can consistently beat standard american workmanship. Even the celebrated Kaleido Sora had obvious animation weaknesses. The majority of japanese anime are long (multiple seasons), forcing studios to avoid highly detailed animation for economic reasons. 91.83.0.82 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Have a source for that? Would be interesting to mention if it's in a reliable publication of sorts. Kopf1988 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

anime IS animation in general. Just call it japanese animation. It's correct and makes more sense.--138.88.250.97 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to spread your bias of Japanese animation.

Yeah what he said LOL Grimmjow E6 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Influence on Western culture?

What about the influence of western animation on the whole Japanese animation process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CN Guy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== Animation –> Anime ==it is not mispronunciation anime is a japanese term for Animation and should be seperated. it is more presace– 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling in this section header. I hope you don't mind. I also corrected the spelling of "mispronunciation." That said, I think you are addressing this with a bias for the English Language (which is understandable!) Some of these words are Loanwords, but more often then not, they become an amalgam of two languages - with only a derivative core similar. It goes the other way too [1]. To categorize "anime" as "just a mispronunciation" of "animation" would be false, after all the Japanese have a word for animation - it's not suprisingly アニメーション. - AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know that, anyweay thanks for correcting my spelling. I was thinking about being a part of the typo team but maybe not. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Evry pwson mskes mistaks.
Anime is derived from the French, which is l'anime... Japanese don't *just* borrow English words. We aren't the center of their world. Another word they borrowed from the French "le pain" which is bred. Such as Kurepan. I really think that people are too ethnocentric when thinking about language--hey! Japanese has lots of loan words. There are some Portuguese, German, and English words in Japanese. Anime happens to be one of them, according to Fredrick Schodt who was the best friend of the creator of anime, Tezuka. Tezuka certainly used French films as an influence, so it's not that far off he'd use a French word. So I'd trust Schodt when he says on page 1 of Manga! Manga! that it's French derived. BTW, I know this article says otherwise, but I just e-mailed the owner and we'll see that source change... or him cough up his sources.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You're mostly, refreshingly, correct there, but animé is not the French word for "animation." They use the word the "animation," just as we do, to refer to animation in general and "anime" to refer specifically to Japanese animation. The French word animé is a verb which means "to be animated." For example, "dessin animé" means "animated drawing," the French word for traditional animation. Perhaps there should be sentence on this at the end of the introductory paragraph or, probably better, in a footnote? As for whom the Japanese loaned and then abbreviated "animation" from – English is most probable, as the native Japanese word dōga (動画) was used before the early '70s when "anime" became the more common term. The word itself is common to several European languages, French and German among them (you may use the language links on Wikipedia to check this).(Turtleheart (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC))
Here I would disagree... first Fredrick Schodt got it from Tezuka who started anime. That's a secondary source from a primary. In addition Japanese anime is not solely from the US as the US wants to think. For example, German and French film were also referenced as well. To think that it is solely from the US is a bit short. And you are also arguing here that loan words have to make sense. This would be linguistic wrangling, but toilet in English is not the W.C. in French nor the toilette in French. Japanese also have a habit of borrowing loan words and warping the meaning in such a way that doesn't always make sense. Engrish often doesn't really relate to the original words. Linguistics doesn't have to make sense to work. Look up the origin of Eskimo v. Inuit. Which did we borrow first and why? Inuit makes more sense, but linguistically, we didn't care for a long time. The problem I have with the Etymology page is that they don't cite their reference and the wording also makes it unsure. v. Fredrick Schodt who is 100% sure. I'd take Fredrick Schodt as the better source.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl power still unexplained

This article fails to explain causes for the absolutely overwhelming role of female characters in anime. In contrast, western visual media is strongly male-oriented and females are usually little more than "talking decoration." The article should devote a paragraph to explain the origins and reasons of this sharp contradiction.

A lot of readers want to know why manga-ku and japanese animators make such a great effort to fill almost all roles with girls (including the most implausible ones)when real-world japanese ladies actually live in a rather repressive society totally dominated by men.

Similarly the article could care to explain why anime heroines (and heroes) are such a young age, often a ridiculously young age. Surely there must be a cultural, feminist or merely economical / business-related ideology behind all these anime "casting" choices.91.83.0.82 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not something native to anime, nor even to manga (I've seen it in a few ukiyo-e prints; it may be still older than that) and seems to me a question better answered by a research paper than an encyclopaedia entry. The short version is that men like looking at women; some of them hit upon the idea if substituting beautiful women for all the people in a workplace. Since then it's caught on and be perpetuated to point that it occurs even in things not aimed specifically at men.
As for being more than "talking decoration" – Japanese geeks, and perhaps men in general, seem on average a bit more interested in knowing women as well as looking at them. They can have a "cute" or "sexy" personality and lifestyle as well as appearance. This would help to explain the occurrence of female warriors and the like in written works (again, I've seen this in things from centuries ago).
I don't understand why you find child main characters usual, that's pretty universal in anything aimed at children as allows them to better associate and "connect" with a character, even if said character is in position of responsibility which no real child would be put in. Kaneda Shōtarō of Tetsujin 28 is key example. Such characters have then gone on appear in things aimed at adults which play on the audience's nostalgia for the child-led series they followed in their own childhood. Additionally, a child is something that everyone has been, so they all associate to some extent with one (as many people have done things like going to school and so on).
As with the bijin thing, it's something which started as a way to appeal to a particular audience but is today just as often used for the "cuteness" of its dislocation from reality. Neither tropes are specific to Japan's animation, nor to its culture as whole. (Turtleheart (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The Manga article is kicking our butts

Seriously. This is sad people. Really sad.... Anime is far more accessible to the American public and we haven't even gotten GA, but they are one inch away from being FA! What's this? So I propose that we should discuss what we want to do about the structure of this article. Give it an overhaul, and perhaps steal a little from the manga article and find other examples of other media that got FA and use their structure for this article!! C'mon! Let's discuss giving this article the proper structure, dump all of the extraneous stuff for now and add it back as needed with sources as we find them. We have all those flags on the front page! We can do so much better! We have more imported material to go by!! More import history! Let's get this thing back to GA.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"They"? The people working on the manga article are likely a lot of the same people working on this one. The manga article is just as relevant and important, and just as accessible given the very large manga sections now in most major bookstores. I've even seen manga at stores like Walmart. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read between the lines? Taking this literally is a mistake. I'd still want to talk about the structure of this article, because in many ways its haphazard, unorganized and lacking. It's still lagging behind... I think with a proper structure, and an agreement onto how to make this page better in terms of structure, this article will be easier to fill out. For example, the lead really sucks. It goes more into etymology than what anime truly is. Making it muddled. What is anime? Shouldn't that be the summery rather than how the word came to exist? Which sections do we still need? Which sections should be cut, which ones have a bias of the author?
This also goes for references. Which types are we looking for v allow? Even if it's a no duh with a wikipedia article, putting something at the top often helps people out.
I also thought that we can use a lot of the making ofs to talk about how anime is produced. For example, Sailor Moon making ofs plus several others show that the Seiyuu voice over the characters based on lip movements on screen. Animation Runner Kurumi is a good example of how an anime is produced, with extras thereof. This may help with some of the referencing.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectionian is spiteful

I swear this she edits out of spite. Yes I am still learning to edit I bet she didn't even bother reading the links. I got it from a legitimate source About.com and even was gonna use the citation keys before my edits was delted.[2] [3]

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you presuming it was intended to be spiteful? WP:AGF and all that, which I will do and ignore the personal attack. I wasn't sure if you were intending it to be a ref or an EL, hence my question in the revert. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I will, however, question About.com's status as a reliable source. Especially given that there is no fact checking or editorial oversight and the author doesn't appear to pass WP:SPS's criteria for self-published sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I also wondered about that. From my understanding, About.com does not screen its authors for expertise or reliability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the bio, her "qualifications" as an expert in the field are lacking. Basically, her credentials are running a business that sold anime merchandise, maintained a self DBZ site on an obscure webhost called TerraShare.com, and went to several conventions. She is no Kevin Lillard. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is unreliable as well even though its from a published newspaper The Japan Times and references EPACT to use as a reference for lolicon as a genre.[4]

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gap

Sorry that I'm budging in and this doesn't have to do with the picture but I would like to point out the huge gap in the page about anime. Please somebody fix it, or I will attempt to myself (sorry for interrupting just wanted to get that out, now please continue with your discussion as though this comment isn't here. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And what "gap" are you speaking of? --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that the page looks different on different computers (I know this because I recently looked at the page with my family's secondary computer and it looked fine from there) but on the computer I am corrently using there is a huge gap between the first paragraphs and the first header ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess, it's the whitespace beside the table of contents. That's normal and should be left alone. --Farix (Talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not talking about the table of contents, I mean a gap between the header "History" and where it actually starts talking about the history. There is a gap there because of the information on the picture. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no gap there. The image is floated to the right and the text surrounds it on the left and bottom. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, different computers often have the view a bit different than the computer I'm using does. And on my computer it seems as though there is a gap. But then again MOST computers likely don't show the gap, so until I have a chance to look at it more clearly from a different computer I will leave it alone. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you take a screenshot of what you're seeing? It would help us understand the problem better. _dk (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Example pic?

Could someone please change the example pic? Moe is nowhere near the quintisential anime style, nor the most common.(Fossilgojira (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, but the image is free, which makes it an excellent choice to use here. There are other free images, too, which could also be used. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That image on the front page

It's kind of stupid, isn't it? Some fanart combining two character traits, and just some random girl standing there.

Surely if you were to put an image at the very top of an article named "anime", it would be a large collection of official anime characters all from well known series and a diverse range of genres, periods, companies, art styles, etc. N-Denizen (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, especially since there's an image that almost exactly corresponds to your standards on the page already.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Well now I see you went and changed it yourself and that's what I saw.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Image on the front page represents anime pretty well, I'd say. Large eyes, anime style hair, drawn in a standard anime style. The community seems to agree if you see it's been featured multiple times. Kopf1988 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What I object to, if anything, is that is that is not "anime style," it is the heavily highlighted and shaded CG graphics style of dating sims and visual novels. It would be more appropriate on a page about that. (Turtleheart (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC))
Considering the discussion of the Old anime vs New anime has basically moved to the Discussion page on the Anime portal, I want to return to discussion of this image. To repeat my point, I think out of all the anime related artwork, material, screenshots, official art and etcetera, that picture is possibly one of the worst choices anyone could have ever conceived of using. What blows my mind is that it's not even a real character, it's just some random piece of work. If I open an encyclopedia and turn to "American comics", what am I going to see? Probably Superman, or Batman. I am not going to see an original piece of work by some unofficial artist called "Baterman" with vague characteristics from both. I think it's appalling that such a useful resource of information such as Wikipedia would honestly believe that this image is somehow a good indicator of such a broad subject. That picture does not sum up anime, it DOES NOT EVEN LOOK LIKE ANIME. As Turtleheart has pointed out, practically nothing that could be called "anime" looks like that image - Light Novels or Visual novels perhaps, but there is no anime that looks like that. Like before, I propose either using an actual existing official character that is famous or popular in anime, or much better, an image that encompasses many different characters. The sad truth is that I could randomly click any anime related article, pick a picture and it would instantly be a better image than what we have right now, because it would actually be a real character from a real anime in a real anime style. Please consider changing it. N-Denizen (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are precedents in other media for what is being said above. ^^;; You can choose the one you want to go with.
cartoon which is currently at B class chose to put a real image of an older cartoon up. I believe this is for historical reference. However, American Comic Book chose to delete the lead image entirely. Animation chose to put a demonstration reel at the top of the principle behind animation, but not an example of the range of animation. Film which used to be a GA article also chose to cut their lead image. Book did the same thing. I would encourage for people to look outside of this media and look for something FA with a similar format need. Anime is a media, though subset of a subset thereof. (Animation-->limited-->Anime)
For the purposes of this page, since it is a media thereof, but not a major one, it might be better to cut the lead image altogether as other medias have and go with the idea that there is no one image that can represent anime. And instead go with no image. Because I rather not perpetuate Western stereotypes for Eastern media. Anime, as this article says, has a range of form, and our job is to report that range of form in a demonstrative way through prose, rather than herald one as the pique of what is or is not anime. The lead, I believe is to introduce the topic. the images in the lead are for when there is a good specific example of what is being talked about. Am I wrong? We have no good singular example of the full range of what is anime. So we should do our best to put the effort into the article proper to show the range by demonstrating with a number of images that illustrate the parts of the article, showing that there is range and so on as the other media have chosen to do so. Since this is a launch article for the most part we can pre-vote and preselect general categories of art we would like to include and put a note at the top for when we create more sections. Is that reasonable? But for now, I would encourage no lead image or a neutral image as some of the other media have chosen to do.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that. N-Denizen (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre Section

The lead section probably should be cut, since Japanese companies do not define by those genres. Action/ Adventure, etc, usually aren't defined by the Japanese companies. If they are defined it's usually the English Speaking nations in question. (since I won't generalize into all countries).

The demographics you can cite Fredrick Schodt, And Gilles Poirtres for most of them--at least the base ones. It should be noted to get to GA that the lists have to be written in prose form. It cannot be list form.

Japanese are more likely to split first by demographic (as seen by manga and also air times of the various anime) and then by theme.

I'd also argue to cut the "Reverse Harem" as it seems like Harem is charaterized by all male or all female. Rather than a particular genre, as citation of Watase Yuu. (Forgot which volume.. I think it was an artbook).

As for expertise, I don't thik Japanese view it that way...

In any case there should be a bit of compensation between Japanese view of genres and American view of genres with a bit of background explanation and sources to back it up.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In addition, I've found that section to be rather... ugly. And yes, indeed. This anime article speaks about the topic from a very Western viewpoint. A real way to clean up the Genre section - blast it away. Convert the "listing" format into brief paragraphs - with limits to just "main" genres. With yea - something like Reverse Harem - is a mere tidbit; and I imply the lack for a need to mention "every" genre that we Westerners could come up with. NOTE: Some comments were repeated. I merely second those notions. KyuuA4 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yeah, this is a really good point. This "Genres" section seems like a really un-necessary thing. I mean, it's obvious that anime covers EVERY genre, it doesn't need to be split up into vague generalisations, especially when people rarely classify anime using genres - apart from perhaps obvious characteristics such as Romance and Mecha - but these are covered, anyway. It's definitely worth changing and making a point that Demographics are more weighty than genre. N-Denizen (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree blasting it away is better than redoing it. ^_^ Should we set an end date to finalize this then?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to give this until this coming weekend, then I'll delete the section if there are no objections. I'll also try to improve the lead a bit since the first line should be a definition of what is anime rather than an expounding of it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have moved the Genres here for "tinkering". Plus, also curious as to how the article would turn out without it. If this Genre section can improve, then it can be integrated back into the article. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was very upset my the movement of this section, it affected alot of things and I find it useful as an anime fan myself, while japaniese companys dont use it, people who read manga do. Anyways it looks like this was moved here and forgotton about so about 2 months to the day I will give it a week, if nobody responds I will move it back. (Knowledgekid87) 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Anime has many genres typically found in any mass media form. Such genres include action, adventure, children's stories, comedy, drama, erotica (more specifically ecchi or hentai), medieval fantasy, occult/horror, romance, science fiction and magical girl. Most anime includes content from several different genres, as well as a variety of thematic elements. Thus, some series may be categorized under multiple genres. For example, Neon Genesis Evangelion might be considered to fall into the genres of post-apocalyptic, science fiction, mecha, and drama.

The following is a list of the major genres and designations that are specific to anime and manga.[1]

For other possible genres, see Film genre.

Demographic

Demographic describes the intended target audience.

Thematic

Etymology

I asked the person on our source if he could give me some of his sources and I gave him mine. After some checking around he gave me back an answer. He might change the source after all. So please keep aware of this and watch the page so we can change it accordingly.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the etymology dictionary now disagrees and no longer supports the given statement. Told you it would. The other citations are not valid. One is a website... and the other one leads to a book, but the author listed, isn't the wone that said supposed statement. In fact, it leads to Mizuko Ito, who is a professor of anthropology at USC. The essay, however, is on gaming, and *nopt* on Anime. I've seen her before and her focus is mainly on importation of anime in culture, rather than anime in Japan. She doesn't have a focus on linguistics or etymology. It is worthy to note that she *does* cite Fredrick Schodt, whom I said was a reliable source for the etymology earlier... and doesn't seem to disagree with him. I can't find any proof in any direction from said listed book that she said such a statement. Even if she did, the citation is wrong, since the particular essay should be listed, not David Birkham, who loves to cite himself and thus looks like a horrid source. Thus, I will say, l'animé seems like the agreed professional academic standard for what the etymology is for anime. Unless anyone can cough up further sources that disagree with this, I'm going to change it by next week. I am *good* at back tracking sources. So *please* give creditable sources.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the moe picture

Like I said, the bishojo/ bishonen/ Moe style is the most common style in anime. most anime out there have female characters with large eyes in all periods, one simply needs to look at anime in generl to notice that. Ignoring that fact is simply an WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Therefor I think a moe-style-example pic should be brought back, however the pic itself was indeed form a visual novel and therefore should be replaced with a pic from an actual anime.

Surely if we want to represent anime with an image, the best course is a picture that covers all styles. Also, the comment that somehow a particular style is "the most common" just because of the eyes is a bit flawed - other aspects of proportion and anatomy come into play when trying to place a particular tag on some form of anime style. Someone can come onto the artle, look at the picture and say "this is a very poor way of representing such a diverse form of media" - after all, that previous picture was not relevant to any well known art style or character that people know of. Surely it's fairly illogical to quote "I don't like it" when you're pushing for only one type of art style to represent so many. N-Denizen (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead was a bit messy, so I fixed it, but it still needs quite a bit of work. I got the rough format down though. Have at it and fix it more. Also does anyone have numbers of these things: Amount of anime produced per year/ production thereof or estimated total anime so far? Profit made from anime within Japan/outside of Japan. Worldwide consumption.

Also I think it's pretty safe to start/bring up the recent licensing issues. There has to be news about this. As it stands Toei and other companies are asking fan subbers to take down their subs even though they aren't liscensed in the US. I've heard that Japanese companies would like to set up their own dubbing companies US side, but this is causing problems with retailers. Particularly because the Japanese companies want to charge Japanese prices for DVDs. There has to be waves or news about this.

I still would also advocate discussing this article's structure and examining it more closely. What section do we want where and when and how? I don't think it's very stable at the moment... but if we agree to a basic structure and goals (listed at the top of the discussion page as a to do list), I think we could improve this article faster.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is anime really pronounced /ə'naɪm/ or /'ænaɪm/? --70.131.216.198 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pronounced, ah-nee-meh. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So why are /ə'naɪm/ or /'ænaɪm/ listed in the article? --70.131.215.35 (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed. --FOo (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead Image

Whose the culprit that readded it without discussion? Please raise your hand. You have an opportunity to discuss it earlier in the talk. There was a time to vote and talk about it too. Unless you can argue that other media articles are completely off their rocker in not giving a lead image because of the problems involved, please don't re-add the lead image. In addition, the image will be nominated for deletion in 1 week if there are no further objections. Thank you. (BTW, if you do read earlier, I did citations on why we should cut the lead image, you'd have to do the same to reverse it.)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Meh, I didn't do it but I still think it's a good image for that spot. Kopf1988 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Not valid... you need support from MOS or precedent in an FA page of similar subject. Since there isn's anyone who could come up with something to justify the image there, I'm taking it off.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I wish I had time to look, but that image is very representative of anime style - it looks like just about every anime I've ever seen. Theoretically there could be better alternatives, but it is an accurate representation. Kopf1988 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem as was addressed is that it's not representative of all styles. As with other media pages, it's either better to give a demonstration of how the media is created , for example a bouncing ball as a representation of animation, a generic form of the image, as in for books they have a picture of an unnamed book, or no image at all. The picture doesn't work overall because it doesn't show such styles as the older-aimed anime. Case Files Ryoko, for example, doesn't have a style like that, but it's still considered anime. Miyazaki's films aren't drawn in that style, but that, too is anime. Our perceptions from the west doesn't mean it's representative of the overall anime style and that's what's required for the leading image--not just one style but something the encompasses all styles. Unfortunately for us, there isn't a singular picture that does so. That's why the lead was cut. Unless someone can come up with bettr reasoning on a MOS level, then the lead image should stay cut. (It's for NPOV purposes)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

"[...] the term anime (アニメ) emerged in the 1970s as an abbreviation, though some state that the abbreviated word is based on the French word l'animé."

Don't know about the source, but l'animé is improper French. The definite article l' would mean that animé is a noun, which it isn't (or at least wasn't back in the 1970s). It's an adjective, meaning "animated". The proper noun would be dessin animé, which means "animated cartoon" (both short and full-feature, regardless of origin or style). --Nikk0 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

http://www.showa-note.co.jp/ What are the two animes shown on this website? (I know the middle one is Doraemon, What's the one on the right?)

Reply on my talk page. Superjustinbros. (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot. Superjustinbros. (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Structure of the article

Through History and terminology is fine. The lead even hold up to some extent. This is what I think we should touch on...

  1. The various formats of anime. i.e. Movies, OVA, television syndications, and those shorts that run for about 10-15 minutes (ONA?). This is tangible and something we can document without much argument.
  2. Visual Characteristics-- We need a hell of a lot more references to back it up, or we need to think closely about how to structure it so it's NPOV and not original research. The Animation technique section is fine because that's verifiable and has references for it. But the two other sections will have to be revised to illustrate the point succinctly.
  3. The other two sections are also fine since it's easy to document those.
  4. I'd like to include a more World POV too and see if we can include a world-wide look at Anime--like the Manga page. What is Anime like outside of the US and Europe? There has to be plenty of documentation for this.
  5. Anime awards? Any awards given out for anime? Any anime of notability that won awards outside of the US? I believe Spirited Away was at least nominated, even if it didn't win. That's of enough note to make this page.
  6. Demographics- I know we cut the genres page, but demographics is of enough note since there is a definite and documentable reason to include this part. For example, Josei, Shounen, Shoujo, etc. A short section on this since it's something purposefully done in Japan should help clarify divisions in Market for Anime. We could touch on marketing too... for example, how Japanese companies are coming into the US market for anime, etc.

I think if we add these sections with references, it will raise the structure for at least enough for a B grade. Any thoughts? Objections? I'll need help with these...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Anima?

This line seems odd: Anime (アニメ, literally - "Anima", taken from half of "animation") Those Japanese characters are "a", "ni", "me", so should the "Anima" be "Anime"? Otherwise, where is that 'anima' idea from? If noone has comment, I think I'll change anima to anime since it reflects the Japanese characters. Kopf1988 (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The source says that Anime comes from the french "l'anime" which comes from the Latin "Anima."--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually no. It is half of "animēshon" (animation) which means it literally translates to "anima". Karaoke is similare as it would literally translate to "EmptyOrch" taking out the "estra". Same with Pāman (Perman). — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I still think it looks weird, is that really necessary? Even if we assume that the word is taken from "animeeshon" and not "dessin animé" (you probably need to look up a lot of fandom and industrial sources from the 70's and 80's to spot the real origin) the comparision isn't flawless. It doesn't really make logical sense to consider abbreviations in different countries as exact equivalents. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jump Guru, you don't have a source for that. I tracked down all of the sources and found them to be leading to false places. If Fredrick Schodt said that Tezuka got it from the French, I will believe him, 'cause Tezuka is a primary source, being one of the first to create anime as it is known now. I would believe that over the American Nationalism. And so does the guy at Etymology.com ^_^ It's possible to have two words imported from different cultures that sound similar and converge over time too.
As for abbreviation, Japanese are known for abbreviating too. They often import Portuguese words without the article. "pan" as in Kurepan has the article dropped on "pan". I did a good bit of checking on the references to make sure that I wasn't being one-sided. The claims that it came from the English came in around the late 1990's as more American-based magazines came in and they failed to research. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I never questioned that the Japanese abbreviated. I just thought it weird to translate Japanese abbreviations literally. As for the origin, I'd like a better source than just hearsay, such as a note in an early specialist magazine explaining the term's origin or something like that. Unfortunately, that requires knowledge of Japanese, and access to Japanese animation-related material. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Felix the Cat

Am I correct in thinking that early American animation such as Felix the Cat and Beety Boop influenced anime stlye? Its just that after seeing some Felix the Cat I noticed how the way his eyes were drawn and his expressions were very simular to that I have seen of anime.FSAB (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, sort of. A lot of Japoanese animation from the 30's to 40's I've seen, seems to be highly inspired by their American counterparts, I think Betty Boop in particular was enjoyed by the artist avant-garde. Also, Osamu Tezuka, who generally is considered the founder (of some sort) of both modern manga and anime highly admired the animation of Disney and Fleischer (Betty Boop etc.) and borrowed much of his visual style from them, including the large and cartoony eyes. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any appropriate part of the article to bring up the online legal distribution of anime?

Recently online video sites such as Hulu and Joost have legally been able to distribute free anime viewings on their websites. Heck, Funimation even has a Youtube account where they legally distribute free anime. Antiyonder (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't specific to anime, though, is it? Prof Wrong (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
well..yes. It documents how such a foreign media is changing in its methods of distribution N-Denizen (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Joost wasn't invented to sell anime, though -- there's plenty of other stuff in there. If you can source any figures that would support a claim that anime is driving uptake of such service (eg "anime accounts for 50% of all viewings on YetAnotherStreamingVideoSite.TV, a percentage that has been steadily rising since 2007"), that would be noteworthy.
Prof Wrong (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical usage

Nothing much, but the fact that 'animes' is never used should be edited to state that anime is not used as animes when talking about "Yes, I've seen a large amount of anime", but it is still used when saying "Yes, I've seen both of those animes", such as the situation with Cheese and Cheeses and Fish and Fishes.

Thanks!

 Done - Yup, sounds right to me - I've adjusted that sentence. If anyone can think of a better way of phrasing it than the way I did, go ahead; I'm not entirely happy with it. ~ mazca t|c 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I've adjusted the sentence a little as it didn't clarify that "animes" is the incorrect plural form. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edit did alter the meaning of what I wrote - that isn't a problem as I was quite possibly wrong. I was stating that while the use of "anime" as a mass noun is correct, it's also correct to pluralise it normally (with an s) when you aren't using it as a mass noun. I was under the impression "I watched all three of those animes today" is correct, grammatically. ~ mazca t|c 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping the new language and sources clarifies the situation. But anime pluralized as animes is not supported by any of the English dictionaries that I've looked at. --Farix (Talk) 14:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again, it is simply that my understanding of the rule is that, in the case of another irregular plural, fish, that it can be used as fish for singular or plural, but varies when saying fish of different types, such as goldfish and salmon. "I saw some fish at the lake", but "I couldn't decide which of the fishes I wanted as a pet." Isn't anime seen the same way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.67.194 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds right, and I doubt the dictionary would be that exhaustive with a loan word. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen that stated as being correct. But your viewpoint is not supported by any reliable sources so far. So calling it an irregular plural would be original research, if not disputable. --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Anime is a borrow word. Anime, is therefore, Anime in plural, because Japanese has no plurals. There is no mass version of the word. Does that make it more clear? It's more like "sheep" than "fish" Where no matter how many group of Sheep you have it's still sheep. It's the same with manga. It's just that many people tend to put on an "s" like they do on "sheep" out of reflex rather than knowing better. When Oxford English Dictionary lists Anime with a correct definition and says "s" is acceptable, then you have a case to argue.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, there are about 500 nouns in English that are loanwords from Japanese. Of these, about 300 are count-nouns (i.e. pluralisable), and of these count-nouns, about 60% do take regular English plurals (i.e. -s or -es), while the other 40% don't (link (requires JSTOR access)). While my personal preference is in agreement with yours, that may just be my personal preference, and the idea that it doesn't happen in English just because it doesn't happen in Japanese doesn't really have any basis. --Thegooseking (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
And of those borrowed words, Oxford English Dictionary still does not recognize Anime as an official English word. Too bad. Your "preference" is not supported by the English language. Find your source and source it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You need to check a newer edition -- anime is in there.Prof Wrong (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Anime is a borrow word. Anime, is therefore, Anime in plural, because Japanese has no plurals.
Sorry Kinno, but it doesn't work that way. Consider that the Japanese word for "sandwich" (sandoichi?) is a borrowing from English, but it doesn't take a plural '-s' (sandoichis). Why? Because the host language -- Japanese -- works that way; the rules of the source language don't matter. Or (sticking with sandwiches), the Italian word for "sandwich" is "panino", the plural of which is "panini". In English we call a toasted Italian-bread sandwich a "panini" and talk about two "paninis"... because that's just how English works.
Which isn't to say that anime does take an "-s", just that it could if English speakers felt it was better that way. However, I'm not convinced that anime is really in widespread use as a discreet item -- I'm more used to seeing it used to describe the category or concept of anime.
The "incorrect pluralisation" mentioned in the article as it stands is a confusing leap of logic at best: the "error" here isn't the pluralisation -- the error (if it can be called that at all) is using it as a countable noun. While I talk about "an anime film" there are people who talk about simply "an anime". The lack of plural in the English loanword arises from our perception of it as a category, not an item.
Prof Wrong (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've just made an edit, and I'll understand if it's removed under NOR, but I googled "these animes" and I thought 8,790,000 hits spoke for themselves -- the word is in use as a countable, even if it hasn't reached the dictionaries yet.
(I prefered the old wording of the NOR policy, when it stated that anything that was patently obvious was OK....)
Prof Wrong (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What you missed is that Google search for "these animes" returns results for "these animals". I'm afraid the only thing it proves is that Google is progressively turning into unusable crap. "these animes" -animals, on the other hand, returns 17000 results, a few times less than "these anime". Squeal (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. It asks "Did you mean these animals" and gives you the first two hits for "these animals", but the matches counted at top and returned in the main list are for "these animes". Flick through the other pages of the list. Meanwhile if you write "these animes" -animals you're excluding many animes that include animals, such as Pom Poko and Princess Mononoke.
So Google shows almost nine million pages that have the phrase "these animes" -- it's pretty clear that more than a few people say it.
Prof Wrong (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on.... Google fixed itself, apparently, so search for "these animes" again, it currently yields 22.400 results (compared to 60.000 for "these anime" and 21.300 for "these animes" -animals). Which is only reasonable. Did you honestly believe that out of 7 million anime-related articles on the net 6983000 contain the word "animals"? Squeal (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence should be "The rest of the world regards," not "regard," because 'world' is singular. You would not say "the world are," but rather "the world is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.151.175 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual characteristics

It would be a good idea to explain more thoroughly how anime-style characteristics differ from American animation. When people see anime, they think big eyes, heads, etc, but these are also characteristics of American animation. I'm sure many of you know that early on, the anime style was adapted from Disney animation. I believe I read that from Tezuka Osamu somewhere in case you want a source for the article. I'm not an expert on anime, so I don't plan on doing any major work for the article, but I just wanted the editors to know that it's wanting in that area. - Cyborg Ninja 12:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the definition used in the article, anime is any animation produced in Japan, whether or not it is idiomatically what we might expect from anime, so there may be no real commonality in visual characteristics that spans all of anime, or the differences in visual characteristics between Japanese and American animation may be more due to the respective styles of individual artists than a national thing. It does seem like there should be specific visual characteristic differences between Japanese and American animation, but that's probably very hard to verify at all, let alone with sufficient objectivity. --Thegooseking (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement by The Goose King. For non-big eyed-anime, Master Keitan comes to mind. There is also all of Miyazaki--which is certainly anime too. Tere is some running thread of "limited animation" in anime, but with the advent of computers, this, too, might change. There are some 3D anime coming out as well... So it's hard to define anime besides that it comes from Japan and uses Japanese aesthetics of the times to create it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been a general struggle to even quantify the "anime style" - as visual characteristics may or may not be transferrable from one style to another. Personally, I'm rather curious about differences in production methods - or even methods to design characters, settings, and other visuals. There may be distinct differences there. Yet, such answers can only come from sources describing the making of an anime vs that of a non-Japanese cartoon. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Who decides what is representative?

@‘The representative styles of "classic" and "modern" anime art.’: who decided what is to be considered representative in this image? I have the feeling that the style chosen (at least for the modern part) is a bit one-sided, especially compared to image below, and may not even be the most common. Shinobu (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which style are you talking about? There are eight in each image. As for your title question, the editors of the article decide. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is valid, which is why there is no lead image. We are working on the NPOV for the rest of the article. This article needs to be restructured, see above.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago, and I assure you it is one-sided. It was added by "Otaking", a guy who likes to praise old anime, and apparently doesn't enjoy the concept of fair representation of both new and old worlds. On the left you have high quality small productions that focused on heavy shading, and on the right you have long, low budget kids shows which do not focus on shading. Additionally, the images on the left show evidence of close-ups and dramatic scenes where art style would be a focus, and on the right you simply have randomly chosen scenes. Add the fact that there are only four picture to represent decades' worth of anime, the fact that images do not represent animation of which modern anime focuses more on, and how I could easily present eight images right now that could display the complete opposite of Otaking's argument (modern anime sometimes does use detailed shading, older anime sometimes does not), and you have a biased image. I did remove it, but it was readded, and plans for a better representative image were made, but it seems they were not implemented. You only have to look at the case of representing an entire anime article with one image to see it's not adequate. It would make more sense to remove it, and probably just expand on the image below it, which shows a detailed look at lots of different styles. N-Denizen (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this too. Why is an old 4chan troll image included in the article? I call vandalism. 83.30.249.164 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed unbalanced, but that's only to be expected from idiotic, GAR-loving Americans. and Lucky Star isn't a kids show. No, it doesn't matter what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.105.240 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your sources before making such claims.--76.111.56.192 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

60% of ... is Japanese

In the section on 'influence on world culture' it would probably be notable to mention the 60% thing, but I've read conflicting reports on what is 60%. They say:-

  • 60% of all animation worldwide is Japanese,
  • or 60% of animation broadcast on TV worldwide is Japanese,
  • or 60% of new animated movies worldwide are Japanese,
  • or 60% of all animation viewed by children worldwide is Japanese.

Those are the ones I've seen; there may be even more. Does anyone know which it is, and have any good source to back that up? --Thegooseking (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First Section

Why doesn't the text "...has also become widespread in countries in the Western World such as Australia, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Russia, and Sweden." have a [Citation Needed]-thing next to it, when it should? Shouldn't there be anything pointing to a source of the claim?

Swiiman (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern: Anime and American Audiences

The second paragraph in this section needs to be edited. This sentence: "It is also important to note that the Western world abandoned their ancient pagan beliefs during the middle ages, whereas Shinto has remained relatively unchanged in modern Japanese culture," not only ascribes the negatively understood term "pagan belief" to Shinto, but also implies that Western beliefs have somehow progressed beyond those pagan beliefs into something superior to Shinto. Then, the second sentence; "Because of this, Shinto has been able to provide over eight million deities and their surrounding folklore for anime creators to utilize," is illogical following that inaccurate first sentence anyways. And while I'm sure that Levi's article is an informative read, I think that it has been negligibly summarized in this paragraph. I also think that this section, if it is going to focus on Shinto's influence on and presence in anime, is inaccurately named, for while American audiences do lack that basis of cultural understanding, it is what American audiences DO perceive that should be important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr10 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) '

I'm finding this section to be drastically non-neutral. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Job titles

Should the article contain something describing the various roles of different people/companies in the animation process such as the Sakuga Director and the role of in-between animators and such. Two source are here in wao's post and here, though I'm not sure either can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelFire3423 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issue?

Unless someone can offer a reason why the character design section is tagged for not being neutral, I will remove this tag. The tag was added on August 12, 2008, but the problem was not explained on the talk page and was not obvious to me. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just checking that and didn't find any discussion about it. I think it should be removed. 200.82.91.91 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it may have something to do with the use of indefinites(mostly,may,commonly). The "summon a mallet from nowhere leading to the concept of hammer space" is probly also misplaced as western animation use it too. That being said, I'll go ahead and remove it and if someone has a problem they can put it back up and explain their reasoning. --Wilson (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken See also link

The link the the See Also section should be updated from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Glossary:Japanese_film_credit_terms to the non-deleted page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Japanese_film_credit_terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.15.2 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit! ^^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Places of interest

I know that anime is popular all over East Asia, but why is Singapore spelled "Singaporehas"? Is there any specific reason for this, or is it just a spelling error? Should it be corrected? More technically, should Singapore be considered an East Asian country? I always knew it as part of Southeast Asia. There's also anime from Indonesia. One that I know of is called "Beauty and Warrior". I'm sure someone can find it. ForestAngel (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Singaporehas is defiantly a spelling error. In fact it has since been fixed. Your right about Singapore being a southeast Asian country, so I fixed that and added Indonesia. RP9 (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tentacles

How can this be an article on "Anime" when it doesn't even mention tentacles?

OK, sure, maybe "anime" means "cartoon" in Japan - thats all good and well, but the *English* wikipedia is supposed to be about how speakers of *English* understand the term as it is used in *English*. So, to an English-speaking audience, whats the primary difference between Anime and Cartoons?

What they'd call "Adult themes" 30 or 40 years ago. These days, its "mature audiences" or something like that, but whatever.

OK, sure, maybe it doesn't have to be tentacle rape porno, it could be something like the trend-setter Akira, which was free of direct, graphic depictions of sexual acts, but it sure made up for it in gore and science fiction.

Come on, do people actually think Pokémon when they think of Anime? I sure as hell don't - Pokémon is a cartoon, man! Zaphraud (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do. Thanks to Cartoon Network's Toonami, along with the adaptation of the Wizard of Oz, it's often one of the first animes a Westerner is exposed to, along with Sailor Moon and DBZ. ForestAngel (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To speakers of English, the term anime means Japanese animation, simple as that. The word cartoon is more complicated, see the Cartoon article. Yes, Pokémon is a cartoon. The only anime that are not cartoons are CGI anime. I do not see how tentacles are related to Japanese animation. 87.94.142.199 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The description/definition you are proposing is not supported by reliable sources. Statements that cannot be verified using reliable sources cannot be included into the article. Since all of the reliable sources define anime as Japanese animation and has not given any other definition for the term, then that is the definition the article uses. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if a source for it can be found. But I would shy away from sources on themselves and look for a source that correlates this directly to avoid undue weight issues. Oh, and the term "cartoon" is rather vague, and could potentially describe adult works as well. Pokemon (the show anyways) is pretty inexcusably anime and by many interpretations a cartoon as well. Although a cartoon generally pertains to being humorous not childish, I think anime, as with other fanciful genres, is often thought of as something for a young audience only regardless of this. RP9 (talk)

21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) sorry but if pokemon iz the first anime u think of u r sad or like 5 yrs old srsly and nobody even watches pokemon NE MOAR!

Hmm... moving on. I can't say it's the first I'd think of, but I know a lot of people who would generalize pokemon as an anime. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokemon is a cartoon made in Japan...Which makes it an anime. Tentacles aren't a common staple in anime...Some anime involves tentacled creatures (including some Pokemon), but a majority of it doesn't...It's most likely to be found in hentai, anyway. rzrscm (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

...Tentacles. Wow. I think this guy is referring to an abstract area of hentai... which is another matter entirely....69.151.145.127 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys just got trolled by the op. Damn. Tentacles btw is a form of anime porn where an anime like female is well raped by tentacles by some monster or food in the shape of tentacles. Yes Pokemon is an anime, its Japanese animation, just because its aim at kids doesn't make it less of an anime, anime can be made for any age group, get over it. Stop applying your "if its popular hate it" bs view that has griped Americans lately.98.82.103.91 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Various sources, such as here, here, and here describe anime as a "style of animation" originating from Japan. The Terminology section makes this clear, but why is it not reflected in the lead? The source after "The world outside Japan regards anime as 'Japanese animation'." states "a style of animation originating in Japan...", so how does the source support this? RP9 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anime is not Japanese

Went i was a kid on teletoon they use to call the show animation domination... and it was canadien anime and american anime. Saying that anime is japanese anime is not seeing it form a netural perspective. Family guy, simpson, or anime other american style anime is also anime ( animation ). For this reason alot of thing ahlf to be change. The article should not be anime and manga but anime and have an under title that sayed anime and manga. I am not a good edit and am not good inuff to change a whole article please correct this thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.15.53 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DAYANA

How old are you? 12? "Animation Domination" has never even referred to their cartoons as "anime"...Because they're not. Here in America, anime only refers to Japanese animation, which is what this article is about...Japanese animation rzrscm (talk)
As commonly used outside of Japan, anime refers specifically to Japanese animation. This usage is pretty well documented. --Farix (Talk) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn that the Japanese use of the term for "all animation" is also noted. All this would require is an entry from a Japanese dictionary. But yes, for now, Western (and non-Japanese) uses of the term has a heavy connotation of "animation from Japan". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes they do, although even there it is clear-cut anymore. However, this is an English Wikipedia, not Japanese therefore the term the way it is used in English is appraopriate just like other loan words, like alchohol. Their origin and meaning in the original language should be noted, but the usage in English is what matters most. 124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate on that, articles are about subjects, not words. This article is about the subject of Anime, and the title should be whatever word best refers to the subject in a given language not how the subject is interpreted among the speakers of a given language. RP9 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the the above section, I think this is not necessarily true. RP9 (talk)
Anime is usually referred to as Japanese because there is more emotion, plot, and animation quality in it, whereas the typical 'western' cartoon/animation is more of a single episode that is not connected to the other episodes in anything other than the characters.
That's not true at all...The term has nothing to do with the emotion, plot, or quality...Most anime actually has very limited animation, even compared to American cartoons, and it doesn't always have an ongoing plot. There are plenty of western cartoons that have an ongoing plot (X-Men, for example)...Anime is called anime because that's what they call animation in Japan, so since we don't live in Japan, we use it to differentiate Japanese cartoons from other cartoons. rzrscm (talk)

There are always exceptions to these rules, OVA usually consist of only one or two episodes (although I recall a certain Sc-fi that called itself OVA after 100~ ish episodes)

So, I guess, Anime is kind of like an animated Soap Opera kind of thing. Hm... =124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No...Not necessarily...I don't mean to beat a horse's corpse, but anime refers solely to JAPANESE ANIMATION unless you live in Japan. In the 11 years that I've been into anime, it's only been recently that people have been coming in and trying to argue that anime isn't only Japanese animation...And it's always younger (teenage) people who have only recently gotten into anime making the claim. rzrscm (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

everytime i type in "list of anime films" or "anime films" or list of "anime original", i get redirect here. why? if no such article exist, then it still shouldnt be redirecting here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

anime films is reasonable redirect, but the others could be deleted.陣内Jinnai 02:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Such a list is not necessary anyways. That's what Categories are for. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

there already is a list of manga licensed in English, why not one for anime?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Anime" and "anime inspired animation"

Hi, the article says

Non-Japanese works that borrow stylization from anime are commonly referred to as "anime-influenced animation" but it is not unusual for a viewer who does not know the country of origin of such material to refer to it as simply "anime".

Is the "commonly" appropriate here? I would assume that the vast majority of the English-speaking people who know the word "anime" understand it to refer to the *style* and do not care whether it was produced in Japan or elsewhere. If the term "anime-influenced animation" is used only in scholarly/business/fanzine context, then the word "commonly" does not apply.
It would be nice to back either point with evidence; but that would have to be a survey among the general public, and I don't know where to look for that. I can point out however that the Webster Online entry (which is supposed to record common usage) defines anime interms of style, not country of production. Until more solid evidence turns up, perhaps we should just replace "are commonly referred" by a noncommital "may be referred". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've almost never heard anyone who is familiar with anime refer to it as a "style", except to make fun of those who aren't familiar with anime. The term is always used as a synonym for Japanese animation. Anime like Ninja Scroll or Vampire Hunter D have nothing stylistically in common with Pokémon or Shugo Chara!. So in that respects, the Webster's dictionary definition of "anime" is very much incorrect. We will need to find a more authoritative source for the correct definition.[5] —Farix (t | c) 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is very worrisome. If "anime" were to mean simply "Japanese animation" then the name of the article would be in question, as WP rules requires an English name to be used when possible. But I would rather trust Webster on this one. (Dictionary makers usually base their definitions on general usage of the word as found in large newspapers, magazines, etc. I don't know about Webster, but some 20 years ago the the OED was already using large database of such texts to check their definitions.) Needless to say the same word may mean different things to different people; but again, note that a Wikipedia article on anime must be written for general readers, not only for those who "know" (or like) anime. All the best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Stolfi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
But are we not suppose to provide the correct definition so long as it is backed up by reliable sources? And I don't see how anime being a synonym for Japanese animation should affect the name of this article. Anime is the more common name. And the fact that we are writing for a general reader is more reason why we should provide the most accurate definition possible instead of an inaccurate or even incorrect definition. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the confusion. Forget the renaming. My claim is that "anime", for the general public, means a general style, and not "Japanese animation". Webster is a reference that supports that. The reference you gave seems to say that common people agree with Webster, while a particular anime outlet says it is the origin. The latter view is understandable since they presumably have business ties with Japanese producers; but "animation offered for certain outlets" cannot be the basis for the Wikipedia definition. The question is: what are the *average* "anime fans" fans of, exactly? Would they care for a Shugo Chara! look-alike animation made in Korea or China? Would they care for a new series of Bugs Bunny cartoons made in Japan, with the original style? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
here's a source talking better about the evolution of the name meaning: [6] The into doesn't really say that the usage of "anime" means non-Japanese anime-inspired works. It was published in 2009. If the usage is there, it should be given due weight - ie it appears more academic and expert commentary uses anime to define something that isn't anime-inspired and as such those types of sources are generally considered higher quality. Usage of the term, if there is RS evidence should be noted, but not focus on it.陣内Jinnai 02:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's a conversation example: (my dad) "Why do they look so weird?" (one of my siblings) "Oh, because it's anime." (my dad) "Anime?" (same sibling) "You know, Japanese cartoons." To most people, anime will always simply be used to describe Japanese animation regardless of whether or not it's technically correct. It's like calling "champagne" made outside of France "champagne", it's technically wrong, but most people don't really care. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been into anime for 11 years, and I would never refer to anything made outside of Japan as anime, nor have I ever heard anybody refer to anything made outside of Japan as anime until recently, which honestly baffles me. There are a lot of different styles in anime, so it's ignorant to try to apply it to a style...Some American cartoons may be influenced by certain styles of anime and try to emulate it, but that doesn't make it any more anime than getting plastic surgery to look asian makes you asian. This is a stupid argument that only exists out of ignorance. rzrscm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps you only speak to people who are as dedicated to the subject as you are, or perhaps only to people who are very precise with their speech. Most people with only a passing knowledge of the subject say this all the time. People call acetaminophen "Tylenol" and adhesive medical strips "Band-Aids" even if they're not made by Johnson and Johnson. In some parts of the USA they even call a Pepsi a "coke"! All of these uses are technically wrong, but absolutely common. It would be wrong for an encyclopedia to ignore reality and pretend that no one ever speaks that way.
Why are you so dead set against mentioning that some people use the words more broadly than is technically correct? APL (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when it comes to this "argument" or "subject", we are dealing with the powers of culture and language. Unless there are enough numbers, credible people, or supported reasons to even consider "non-Japanese anime", the chances of acceptance of "non-Japanese anime" is very slim. Yet, for a word such as "mangaka" or "manga artist", there does exist acceptance more or less of non-Japanese artists. [7] I suppose, it may only be in due time for the general development of "non-Japanese anime"; but that's something that's possible in the future. For now, the general fan culture and industry does not accept or market "non-Japanese anime". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I beg to differ. A casual "anime" watcher like myself tends to consider the prospect of something like... say... "American anime", which depicts the very same (or similar) "style" as Japanese animation, or as we commonly know as "anime". But unfortunately, such an "unusual" concept is subject to the "main" culture among Western "anime" industry and casual fanbase. Yet, it was nice vacationing away from this topic for quite some time. Yet, because of the outright refusal to even consider something like "American anime" or "anime produced outside Japan", this concept in of itself is stamped out. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Anime

A 3 second animated clip was discovered and is believed to be as many as 10 years older than the 1917 anime.

See here

124.180.48.127 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

Found an interesting fact: "The number of Japanese anime DVDs exported to the United States increased from 2.1 million in 2000 to 12 million in 2005". [8] -- deerstop. 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

bloody nose

i don't think the bloody nose is based on any tale, it's just exaggerated expression of getting excited. This actually happens in real life sometimes. For example Casanova writes of how when he knew that he was to be staying with a beautiful girl he was so excited that his nose bled for 15 minutes. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uigaup (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, bloody nose has been used in East Asian comedy movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ll4n (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also on the topic of facial expressions, I didn't see the "K-O" or "X" eyes listed. I know they are usually associated with younger children's Anime, but shouldn't they be included? Yellow1996 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture "Anime Eye"

I think it's just ridiculous to have a picture such as that eye as the main picture. I mean, honestly that eye stereotypes the way your typical western person sees anime. It makes me shiver. I think it should be changed >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigochild777 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The "eye" is part of an article series box on anime and manga. It was chosen because that style of eye is one of the very few identifiable elements found in most anime and manga series. —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well said, I concur. (though I was a bit thrown off by it when I first arrived at the article) 72.191.116.59 (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha...I was thinking the same thing and thought about bringing it up here. rzrscm (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with the above that I consider the eye a rather bad choice to describe an entire genre. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole category of potential images to choose from. The pickings are not quite as slim as people think (based on comments I've heard before). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This is being discussed here, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, finally the picture has been changed. Not that it's really that much better -.-... You know what we should really use wikipe-tan O.O... She's beautiful, and works very well for this kind of purpose! I think I might try, but I probably can't do it. Even if I managed to it would probably get reverted very quickly. Well I'll just see how things go. Indigochild 03:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh nevermind. They specifically state "<!--Please do not add Wikipetan, doing so will be a cross namespace link, a practice frowned upon in the main article space. For more info see WP:SELF.-->" near the top of the article source. Not sure what they're talking about, but whatever... >.> Indigochild 03:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think that'd be an appropriate image to use, anyway...It'd be better to use an image that originates from Japan. rzrscm (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Adult Content"

I've noticed a few cases of anime (especially OVAs, and including "This Ugly Yet Beautiful World") that will go so far as to show womens' breasts, yet are not distinctly considered hentai as long as they don't go farther than that, and are not necessrily considered 'adult'(uncertain). I know that restrictions on more adult matters for a younger audience are slightly lessened in Japan, but should this particular consideration be noted in this article? 69.151.145.127 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To add on, I've been noticing greater use of censorship. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A few cases? Most of the anime I've seen in the last ten years has had harmless nudity...Even Dragonball Z has nudity in it's original, unedited form. rzrscm (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the genrers in amine is ecchi which is a gerner that borders on the conten nomaly referd to as hentai. ecchi has mostly been aimed at older viewers but recently it has been coming in more and more. however it is mostly covered by objects or light. however to increase the sales of anime box sets, the anime is less censored. also current trends in japanese culter shows that romcom style serises are currently more popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witherdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"This Article"

This article is suppose to be about Japanese Animation (Japanese Animation redirects here and under Animation related topics if you click Japan it links here), this article is called Anime, because it's suppose to be a synonym. But in this article Anime is not clearly defined as Japanese Animation, it just says it usually refers to a style of animation originating in Japan and than says the term may also be used for other animation originating in Japan or to anime proper, irrespective of style. BUT it doesn't say what Anime is. If it isn't agreed that Anime is Japanese Animation, than this article should be renamed.

Fafas (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition sourced to the first sentence is from a dictionary, which is a reliable source. I think it's more a question of, is this the definition we should use (in which case, what reliable source do we replace it with) rather then should we rename the article. Either way, the article is at it's likely search term.Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the article title be "Japanese animation" instead? KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Many watchers, including myself and Japanese watchers, find the exclusivity of the term "anime" to any and all Japanese animation to be arbitrary, and define it based on style. However, this issue is mentioned in the "Definition" section, and an established majority of reliable sources use the term "anime" under the definition that the article uses. Therefore, "Anime" is probably the best name for this article. However, it might be useful to add a note to the top of the article that says something like:
Tezero (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Then in that case, the article title should be "Japanese animation" to be very explicit. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the word "Anime" seems to be a synonym. However, I'm sure that at the first place the definition of this word "Anime" is a Japanese animation. You can find other latest version of (hardcopy, online or offline) dictionaries such as Oxford and Wordweb. I think that if people wants to look for non-Japanese animation, I suggest the note to the top of the article that should say something like : "For non-Japanese animation, please see <link>". Kimberry352 (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anime&oldid=338216987 Hmm, maybe this is the start of the problem. Fafas (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm.. Can u pls explain it here? From what I know, Anime (in Japanese word) is to Cartoon (in American word). Similarly, Manga (in Japanese word) is to Comic (in American word).Kimberry352 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, to a non-anime viewer, anything that is anime IS a cartoon. 'cause technically, they ARE the same based on (a) how they're produced, (b) basic techniques (the Japanese do indeed include their own variations though), and (c) medium. If anything, the discussion of "anime vs cartoon" is ridiculous just because of semantics. If it is necessary to isolate the Japanese style of animation, then it'll be better to be explicit. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an English encyclopedia and anime refers solely to Japanese animation made for the Japanese audience in the English-speaking world, and the article makes it clear that anime refers to Japanese animation...Anime isn't a specific style of Japanese animation, and the article makes mention of the different styles of anime. I've been an otaku for ten years now, and I've read just about every book published about anime, so I'm quite educated on the subject, and I would never refer to something like The Boondocks or Avatar as anime and find it quite insulting when others do. With that said, it would be unnecessary to change the name of the article or to add any kind of disclaimer to the top of it.
rzrscm (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Anime News Network – Lexicon". Retrieved 2006-11-17.
  2. ^ a b c d e "www.g4tv.com/animeunleashed/features/50642/Anime_Glossary.html".
  3. ^ a b c d "www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/19/entertainment/main1819670_page2.shtml".
  4. ^ ""Anime News Network Encyclopedia: Moe"". Retrieved 2007-08-21.
  5. ^ "search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040427zg.html".
  6. ^ The romantic element is arguable. "Happy Lesson"., an anime about a boy with five moms is listed as a "harem show" in this review while the "Happy Lesson OVA". is listed as a "faúx harem show" in a review from the same source. Retrieved on August 9, 2007.
  7. ^ "Anime News Network Ai Yori Aoshi Manga Review". Retrieved 2007-08-21. This review suggests that the term Seinen may be used as synonymous with that of Harem or even romantic comedy.
  8. ^ A good example of this treatment is with Oh My Goddess! which is "often called a classic example of a 'harem' anime" despite the short-lived nature of most of the romantic rivalries and the focus on one romantic relationship. Quote from Fujishima, Kosuke. Oh My Goddess! (manga, unflopped) Volume 3. p. 187
  9. ^ "Anime News Network review of Ah! My Goddess DVD 1". Retrieved 2007-08-09.
  10. ^ "'Toon porn' pushes erotic envelope online".
  11. ^ "Is anything taboo in toon porn?".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime/Archive_10&oldid=1167447647"