Talk:Anime/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Pronunciation....

No. Just no. The first pronunciation is correct enough (the first syllable is off relative to the Japanese pronunciation, but I guess the point was to document the word's usage in America, and in that sense, I've heard most non-complete-otaku pronounce it that way, so it's correct), but WHO THE HELL wrote in the second pronunciation, /ˈænɨmə/? If I have ANY recollection of pronunciation symbols, that's "anima". The last syllable is pronounced "muh" in this sense.

Even the most uninformed of morons would not think to pronounce it this way! Therefore, I note that whoever documented that is worse than the most uninformed of morons! Someone who has sufficient permissions to edit the page, please remove that stain upon the article =.=" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.27 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-Anime

I've heard that shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, Boomdocks, and Spawn are often times referred to as pseudo-anime because they were animated in Korea. Is this this correct term used for this style of animation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.239.208 (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally have not heard that. I have heard of Avatar being compaired to anime though that was due to having anime influnces in the show and not due to the fact that it was animated in Korea. It may be possible but I have a hard time seening shows such as Boomdocks being associated with anime.--76.71.209.217 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the boondocks article there may have been more anime influcences that I though so it may be possible though a reliable source should be used if you plan to list it. Though to answer your first question being animiated in Korea itself is not the main criteria to be called a psuedo anime.--76.71.209.217 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a one-drop approach to the definition of anime. Besides, a lot of shows are animated in Korea but do not resemble Japanese anime. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Korean animation isn't anime, anyway. rzrscm (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

eg The Simpsons is made in Korea but this is to American specification and purely because of labour costs. QuentinUK (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the concept of production location is moot. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor but necessary

Would an admin please include the following disclaimer at the beginning of the article? I think it is totally reasonable: {{JapaneseText}}

"No, we don't need it on the article. Those templates are basically useless anyway. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We definitely don't need it. It's a junk template and {{nihongo}} does a good enough job at explaining how to configure one's computer to display Asian fonts without taking up valuable screen real estate. Also, I like to point to WP:NDA which is a content guideline prohibiting article disclaimers. In fact, in the last deletion discussion, that template was suppose to have be orphaned and then deleted. Why that hasn't happen is not very clear. It was a very odd close for a TfD, but that was suppose to have been the result. —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision for weasel-worded sentence.

In the Synonyms section, the sentence:

The term "ani-manga" has been used (by whom?) to collectively refer to anime and manga, though it is also a term used to describe comics produced from animation cels.

could be rephrased into:

The term "ani-manga" may be used to collectively refer to anime and manga, though it is also a term used to describe comics produced from animation cels.

in order to eliminate the weasel-wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I changed it...However, I'm inclined to remove it because I've never heard the term used in that context, and there isn't a source to back up the claim. rzrscm (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I DID remove it because a google search seems to indicate that the only time it's used in that context is in the title of sites for both anime and manga...That doesn't indicate that it's used in that context normally. rzrscm (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision of the "Word Usage" section

However, in casual usage the word also appears as a count noun.

This is unacceptable. "Anime" is the romaji for アニメ, which is a Japanese word. Thus, it cannot function as a count noun. The plural is "anime". Plain and simple. It is like the word "sheep". The use of "sheeps" is unacceptable. This sentence is aiding the misconceptions of the plural of "anime" being "animes", around the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.107.126 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition of recent trends

Some recent trends in anime are glossier coloring of characters, photorealistic backgrounds and elements of superflat. Also anime plots seem to hyperlink or buildup from previous animes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ll4n (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Genres Sub-section

At some point in the past, this article included a subsection of anime genres, which have now been relegated to the infobox. I intend on adding a link to the existing List of anime genres which is currently absent, since the infobox only lists a few of them. Would it be appropriate to add such a sub-section again? (mentis (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

As you can see in a previous discussion, the section was removed because it was entirely original research and did not cite any reliable sources. The genres section had already been tagged as original research for several months before it was finally removed. Apparently, another editor copied the section over to a new article 5 months late and it has been tagged as unsourced ever since. Since it has been well over two years since the original section was tagged as original research, I'm considering either nominating the genre article for deletion or redirecting it to Glossary of anime and manga. —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

anime vs cartoons

It is widely accepted that anime is not a form of cartoon even if the cartoon was created in Japan. There is a fundemental diffrence between the two and that is that a cartoon does not follow a plot line like a anime does. For example a anime will follow a story line that is completed like a book or a volume of books. Whereas as cartoon will not fullfill a story line as such but will just be a stand alone episode that could be watched in any order and still make sence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witherdon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't actually true, and only repeats several "facts" "known" by people who don't actually know anything. Sorry if that comes off as a little harsh, but it's the truth. There are plenty of anime and manga series which have no real plot or continuing storyline like a book or book series. A few examples off the top of my head include Crayon Shin-chan, Azumanga Daioh, Lucky Star, Nono-chan, and the list goes on. All of those have been adapted into anime series, too, and none have any real plot to them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also some cartoons that have plot lines as well. For example, the Spider Man series in the early 90s had several multiple episode story arcs which would not make as much sense if watched in any order.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Anime are Japanese cartoons...It sounds like you don't understand the definition of 'anime' or 'cartoon', and I can promise you that what you're saying is not widely accepted. Work on your grammar and spelling, kid. rzrscm (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That is actually not completely true. The term is used this way in the west though if you look at article you would notice a soured statement clearly mentioning that in Japan the term anime is a generally used for all animation.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender has been the predominant example of Western Animation that follows a plotline. While I have argued it to be an "anime", from a visual-stand point, it is not. After a good 6-7 years, no one has been able to clearly explain the difference between "non-Japanese" vs "Japanese" animation. Sadly, after all this time, no one from the industry itself managed to make some kind of explanation or research either. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Plotline irrelevant

Just a note and likely an opinion. Plotline has almost nothing to do with discerning "anime" vs "cartoon" in this "debate". With Marvel series entering into the "anime world", the "origin" of a story plotline is very much moot. It may be an anime adaptation; but y'cannot ignore that the story itself is very much American. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Paper" Animation

This is a unique form of animation from Japan. First comes to mind: Paper Mario. Another - episode previews to Hayate no Gotoku. If anyone knows what that is called, any info. on that will be appreciated. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not unique to Japan. It is called cutout animation, a recent example being Angela Anaconda. ----IsaacAA (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Though what may be unique to Japan is how long cutout animation was dominant in the industry before WWII because celluloid was so expensive, and thus how skilled animators like Yasuji Murata and Noburo Ofuji became in the form.Michitaro (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User Anime

Some People Create There Own Anime. How can they make a page for their anime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomsayer-Sama (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating a page is easy but unless the anime in question has been covered by reliable sources (sources that have a history of fact checking and accucry) and that coverage is non-trivial the article will not lasy long. If the anime is something that was created in spare time and the article is meant to promote it then Wikipedia is not the place for it.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lethality?

Japan has very high average life expectancy (like 79 for men and 84 for females or so). Yet, it appears there are suprisingly many anime-related personnel passing away in their (early) 40s, mostly because of cancer. Directors, voice actors and singers, illustrators, etc. Is there any pattern or recognized reason there? Should this be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.129.167 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of nonsense. —Farix (t | c) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There are complaints that workers in the anime industry in Japan are overworked and underpaid, which can possibly lead to health problems (though I would agree the claim about cancer is farfetched, to say the least). But even such arguments should not be cited here without authoritative, reliable sources.Michitaro (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Change that should be reverted

A part of the lead was changed and I think the original version was better. In English-speaking countries, anime is also referred to as "Japanese animation" was changed to In English-speaking countries, the term most commonly refers to Japanese animated cartoons. The problem is the source for that sentence (Marriam Webster Dictionary) does not even use the term cartoon so the new sentence is now using language not supported by the source. It should be changed back.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"In English-speaking countries, the term most commonly refers to Japanese animated cartoons.[2]"

Doesn't go together with the linked definition in [2] "a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.122 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kappa Mikey is NOT anime!

Can someone PLEASE do something about the false "Anime" label on Kappa Mikey article? I am sure that my request on the talk page will not be completed. So I am hoping someone who has the power to make the change stay will do something about it. Anime is Japanese animation according to the definition in the English speaking community. It is NOT an art style, because I have seen many anime that does not have the stereotypical anime look too it, but it IS anime, so don't give me any nonsense. All I am asking is that it be dealt with. Being the super anime otaku that I am, I cannot just ignore this lie on that page that will mislead people. If I have to, I will email the creators and have them say it is NOT anime and send the damn email to an admin. THIS CANNOT GO ON! --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it. In the future though you would be better of going to WP:ANIME since this is a page about anime and the other page deals issues regarding articles about anime and anime related topics.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Anime from the source doesn't match what's said in the article.

This is written in the article

• "In English-speaking countries, the term most commonly refers to Japanese animated cartoons.[2]"

This is written in the source that is cited in [2]

• ": a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes"

It's clear that the source says that anime is a style of animation, while the article(in that specific sentence) claims that it's animation from japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.144.4 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like the definition that was there is actually a reference to the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary. I'll go ahead and revert and then add the new source. Here's a link to the definition, for those curious: [1] --Xaliqen (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition is hopelessly wrong.

I'm referring to "In English-speaking countries, anime refers to a style of animation originating in Japan, characterized by colorful graphics and often featuring themes intended for an adult audience." First, there is no "anime" style of animation. Fireball and Kaiba are two examples of anime with styles very different to the norm. Even without that, there are a huge range of styles especially during different time periods (including small eyes, pronounced nose/mouth (e.g. Akagi) etc). Second, anime isnt "characterized by colorful graphics", as a) there are anime that are black and white, and b) the vast majority of cartoons produced anywhere in the world have colourful graphics. Third, the majority of anime don't feature themes intended for an adult audience. The Oxford Dictionary says "Japanese film and television animation" which is correct (though "typically having a science-fiction theme" hasn't been for decades, only a small minority do). 111.69.226.204 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anime is used in different ways. I've definitely seen it used to refer to an "anime" style, which while not absolutely fixed and omnipresent for all Japanese animation, is certainly existent. I'm not sure about the specifics, however. But, the generally "correct" use I've seen of the term is using it to refer to Japanese animation. E.g. Death Note is anime, but Avatar: The Last Airbender isn't. I'd argue that that should be the primary definition and in the first setence. The other "incorrect" use of the term should still be noted, though. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The current definition is rephrased verbatim from the dictionary (see the source). Definitions are always imperfect, but that's about as good as we're going to get, if you ask me. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. --Niemti (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing removing all definitions from the beginning of the article? Because, I'd need a little bit more convincing before getting on board with that. --Xaliqen (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A link of some interest

NHK Expert's Panel on certain anime classics If someone could find a recording of this, I'm sure it would help immensely for both this and the history of anime article. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Category Terminology within Anime

There are just tons of subcategories, mostly reflecting content and period of production, that are not listed in this article. Terms such as shoujo, shounen, ecchi, moe, slice-of-life, superdeformed and others should be given some recognition as they reflect content within the anime. Refs to come should anyone decide to go forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsemmel (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Somebody's already done this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_anime_and_manga This should definitely be added to the article. What is an article about anime without half the content it should have?

Jsemmel (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Anime is not a style

Has anyone ever heard an argument that any Japanese animation was NOT "anime". No. All Japanese animation is anime, and there are wildly different styles in Japanese animation, therefor it is not a "style" of animation. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed a referenced definition sourced from the American Heritage Dictionary and replaced it with a definition from an English learner's dictionary (e.g. a dictionary using intentionally simplified language intended for non-native English speakers). If you prefer a particular definition, that's fine, but using sources intended for native speakers is probably better, and, keep in mind, there are many solid academic sources which posit a dynamic definition somewhat different from what you outline above. If all Japanese animation is anime, is all anime Japanese? If a Japanese animation director suggests their work is not anime, does that mean they're wrong? If the definition of anime in Japan is different from countries where English is the native language, should this be addressed? If the definition of anime within Japan is different depending on the source, should this be addressed? Rather than saying "yes" or "no" to any of these questions, I'd suggest the arguments on both sides might be more nuanced, and the definition more complex, than it appears on first glance. --Xaliqen (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all anime is Japanese. (No, "Korean anime" is not really anime.) --Niemti (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find not everyone shares your opinion. And I say that just to point out these positions represent opinions, and are often debated, whether it's around a coffee table or in an academic environment. It makes writing encyclopedias more difficult, but this kind of cultural vocabulary arguably almost always has a tendency to change. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to debate really, "anime" is a Japanese term for "animation" (curiously, simply "manga" is also used) that outside Japan means "Japanese animation" (it was once also called "Japanimation" and such), "anime style" doesn't exist even less than "cartoon style" in does (anime can be made in literally any style, from completely realistic to stick figures if you like). Anime-influenced animation is inspired by only various trends (contrary to what its Wikipedia article claims) in anime, by styles of particular artists or studios or what is popular currently, just like the classic anime were directly inspired by early works of Disney (and a singular "Disney style" didn't exist even when Walt Disney was still alive, Donal Duck and Snow White were almost completely different). --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you have strong opinions about this, and I respect that. I don't really fall strongly on one side or the other, but the scholarly literature out there grapples with the meaning of this (not as a central question, usually somewhat tangential). Nevertheless, debate about meaning is prevalent for almost every word out there, and this isn't an exception. I could dig up sources substantiating this, but there are already several in the main article. --Xaliqen (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's take look at the article:

• "In English, the term is defined as a style of animation originating in Japan, often features colorful graphics, vibrant characters and action-filled plots with fantastic or futuristic themes." And often doesn't. Like any other animation from anywhere else. So what?
• "the characteristic anime style developed in the 1960s—notably with the work of Osamu Tezuka" - this "characteristic anime style" of Tezuka is not longer "characteristic" for anime anymore, and for a long time.
• "English-language dictionaries define anime as "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or as "a style of animation developed in Japan"." - lol.
• "As a visual medium, it can emphasize visual styles. The styles can vary from artist to artist or from studio to studio." At least, speaking sense! Because it's indeed a medium, not "a style".
• "While different titles and different artists have their own artistic styles, many stylistic elements have become so common that describe them as definitive of anime in general. However, this does not mean that all modern anime share one strict, common art-style. Many anime have a very different art style from what would commonly be called "anime style", yet fans still use the word "anime" to refer to these titles." - see? Even Wikipedia can get it right. Sometimes. Oh, and it's not only "fans".
• "The influences of Japanese calligraphy and Japanese painting also characterize linear qualities of the anime style." Hahaha. Btw, and it's unsourced.

I'd propose to use modern books about anime written by experts in the subject, instead of relying on "English-language dictionaries". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Btw, I didn't even start this discussion, I only joined it. --Niemti (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Using scholarly material sounds great to me. If I have time, I'll pull out a few more references. I think the point of using a dictionary as a reference is for the sake of concision in the lede. If you feel there are valid points missing from the article and have the reliable sources to back them up, then I don't think anyone's objecting to you adding that info. --Xaliqen (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I should have expected that this would have already been brought up in the Talk page. At the very least, whether Webster's definition (which I wholeheartedly believe is false--one need only look at series such as Shin Chan and Panty & Stocking for it to be made blatantly obvious that there is no single anime "style" of artistry) is included in the article or not, it should be noted that the specific definition of the word is debated. Really, there are only two significant schools of thought--those that consider anime a style of art and those that consider it to be animation explicitly from the country of Japan. I think this would be worthy of noting, and wouldn't require that the article take either side. Xelrog T. Apocalypse (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there are probably more than just two schools of thought (I can think of at least five off-hand). Regardless, if you can provide solid sources, you should include it for the benefit of the article. --Xaliqen (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, those are the two primary schools of thought: national origin vs stylization. With regards to the "sylization" argument, there are certain rules and conventions towards designing anime characters. Some of these rules can be described here: http://animeworld.com/howtodraw/bodies1.html . Additional information and instruction can be provided by the How to Draw Manga books. Needless to say, anime character design is a skill unique to Japan, BUT it is also not limited to Japan. People all across the world can learn these design techniques and ultimately use them in animation. The current case and application is demonstrated by RWBY. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming terminology to etymology

I feel that terminology gives off the wrong feel. It gives the impression that we're somehow going to elaborate all the jargon used in the anime industry whereas the section is meant more as a origin and usage type of section. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Anime industry decline

"Japan's animation industry is struggling. Anime workers are unhappy, toiling long hours at low pay. Sales have been declining...Morale is low. Industry executives estimate nine out of 10 new workers quit within three years.. "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703819904574551834260925714.html This is one of the articles. There are others, but I first need to make sure if should be here.

Now, I don't know if this needs to be here in this page, but I believe it needs to be somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "9 out of 10 new workers quit within three years" is true. Although the overall Japan Anime industry is declining in someway, there are still many awesome Animes coming out each season. The market in Japan is shrinking, but very large markets still exist all over the world, such as the United States, China, Korea and many European countries. The industry can make profit. Moreover, there are many workers from other countries working for Japan Anime industry. Ynloveacg (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

AnimeCentral no longer exists

It states that AnimeCentral shows in the UK. This isn't true as it closed down a few years back. Someone should really delete or amend that bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.183.93 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

please i need to add some information to this page can you allow me to edit it. i am tryng to add a section on the influence of anime on world politics through the use off soft power

~~

You have two options:

• Contact Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected this page, and request that this page be unprotected. You will need to provide a good reason for this request.
• Type your requested edit on this talk page, in a "change x to y" format, and an autoconfirmed user will determine whether or not the edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk

If it is anything like what he added at Manga,[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manga&curid=18985&diff=521545155&oldid=521150767] then it needs serious work. The addition to Manga was just an extensive series of quotes from just one source. However, that source appears to be a thesis paper that hasn't been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. There is also neutrality issues with depending entirely on one source, particularly with weight of the viewpoint. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Anime addition edited 2013

Anime stands for japanese animaton. Anime was not created/invented by the russians it was in fact invented by the japanese. There are thousands of animes to watch and there are hundres of generes of anime to watch. For people that are new to anime i would recommend the classic anime sailor moon and for animes that are newer i would recommend Black butler, Code geass, Darker than black, Girls bravo, Ergo proxy, Fruits basket, Ouran high school host club, Pandora hearts, Shugo chara, vampire knight, wolfs rain ect. One of the best anime directors is hayao myazaki. Some of the movies that he made movies are: Castle in the sky, Howls moving castle, My neighbor totoro, Princess mononoke, Spitited away, The cat returns and many more. For new comers to anime i would recommend a kiddy anime to watch such as Polar bear cafe, shugo chara, or tokyo mew mew. Even if you are an adult and are a new commer to anime i would recommend animes such as Bleach, Princess Jellyfish, Spice and wolf, Sword art online, and other animes. For the lovers of horror i would recommend Elfen lied, Ergo proxy, and higurash no nako koro ni. For the lovers of romance i would recommend Kaichou wa maid sama, or Special a. For the lovers of mystery i would recommend Amnesia. Lovers of old classics i would recommend pokemon and yugioh. Battle lovers i recommend code geass, gurren lagan. Lovers of girls i recommend to you girls bravo and sekirei. Vampire lovers i recommennd Dance in the vampire bund and vampire knight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.3.180 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

An addition that states that 'anime' is referred to as 日本アニメ in Japan.

ーーーー In Japan, the term anime does not specify an animation's nation of origin or style; instead, it serves as a blanket term to refer to all forms of animation from around the world.[22][23] English-language dictionaries define anime as "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or as "a style of animation developed in Japan".[24][25] ーーーー In this section it should be stated that the Japanese term for Japanese animation is 日本アニメ.

It is not correct either though, And if you check it "Japanese anime" is how you translate "日本アニメ" Even a total beginner to the language can pick out "日本" as Japan and "アニメ" as "a-ni-me". So I don't really see how it is incorrect, because アニメ is not limiting while 日本アニメ is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anime was invented by Russians

in this Video you can see that Snow Queen released in 1957 was the first anime. Do you also think the article should go deeper in questioning if Anime was invented by japanese or what makes an anime an anime, because astro isnt imo?--Quandapanda (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Anime was not invened by the russians. That video shows a russian cartoon which is not the same as anime.24.9.3.180 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)animelover146024.9.3.180 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Snow Queen (1957) wasn't released in Japan until 1993 [2]. It was dubbed in Japanese in the video you provided. As to your broader question of origins and influences, I'd say it would depend on what sources say about the issue as the "style" becomes more globalized. Miyazaki was influenced by movies like Hakujaden (which in turn had some Disney concepts) and the Snow Queen. Tezuka's love for Disney was overflowing. Certain artistic elements in early anime have clear basis in things like Popeye and Felix the Cat. So if a section develops on the development of the Japanese animation industry, there might be room for the discussion. But it all comes down to reliable sources and their interpretations.

GeneralofAll (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Ff there is a way to include...

41.135.29.21 posted this comment on 10 June 2013 (view all feedback).

Ff there is a way to include a video example, that'd be cool!

Any thoughts? Also, we definitely Cannot use this Video to illustrate an example of anime due to the risk of Seizure.

(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

After we rewrite this horrible page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GA push

In reviewing the material against the GA criteria, the article has a couple of long standing issues which actually are big enough to warrant tagging the top of the article. The lede does not need sources. I flipped the position of the terminology and the history to make it more in line. The word definition perhaps could be split off to further examine the details and provide a tidier summary of word. The word usage and synonym section in particular veers further off topic then is necessary. While it could be tightened up considerably, the content is probably best done in an analysis of the word from an encyclopedic standpoint and not a dictionary definition. The history section is good, but is missing the last twenty to thirty years.

The real issue begins with the visual characteristics section. It speaks of general and specific appearances, like the "mallet from nowhere" and lacks the Japanese "talking with hands" aspects among others. But I'd much rather see a full article dedicated to exploring this, and remove a sizable chunk and focus for the broader anime usage.

Story themes is useless right now. Even a casual viewer can tell this is a completely worthless section right now. Production is sourced to a single source. While not inaccurate, it is dated and very specific. Distribution is also chock full of specifics that are dated and out of focus with the broader spectrum needing to be addressed here. "Influence on world culture" is another area in need of cleaning up.

In short... we got major issues here. The entire article may end up needing to be rewritten to be of broad use. I'll mull this over for a bit, but I see numerous splits coming off of this and the tying in of many more pages as links. Anime and manga are absolutely key to have at GA or FA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be rewritten. The article contains large sections about what anime sites speak about anime production and visual characteristics which need to be removed and moved to external links. WJ (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I was waiting for someone else's input on this. I just so happened to have picked up my copy of Anime Essentials today from the library, and I've taken a quick look at this short 125 page book and found that from page 13-75 is really the bulk of the "what you need to know". If we compress it down to even 1/10th of the contents to do a proper overview then anime will be likely at GA level. I've got a few projects currently underway, but I think these difficult articles represent the most value to readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of editing character design section to show how characters are usually designed to show certain personality traits and removing the whole talk about recognizable silhouette making it more simpler. WJ (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual, and easier way, is to draw upon the physical features because of the strong ties to manga which is in black and white. The limited range of shades results in unique hairstyles and hair color, often promotional covers, to become canon for the anime production. While this is not true for many modern works, up until the 90s it was prevalent and commonplace, by then the art style was pretty much fully adopted. Much of this is OR or poorly related to the actual art style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This trainwreck is being fixed, but it is really hard to write a broad summary that is applicable and specific without being tedious for the viewer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Work in progress

I slapped a construction tag on this while I am working on it. Did a few major changes, the biggest being the rewriting and re-ordering of distribution.

Distribution old:

Extended content

While anime had entered markets beyond Japan in the 1960s, it grew as a major cultural export during its market expansion during the 1980s and 1990s. The anime market for the United States alone is "worth approximately $4.35 billion, according to the Japan External Trade Organization". Anime has also had commercial success in Asia, Europe and Latin America, where anime has become more mainstream than in the United States. For example, the Saint Seiya video game was released in Europe due to the popularity of the show even years after the series has been off-air. Anime distribution companies handled the licensing and distribution of anime outside Japan. Licensed anime is modified by distributors through dubbing into the language of the country and adding language subtitles to the Japanese language track. Using a similar global distribution pattern as Hollywood, the world is divided into five regions. John Oppliger stated that since 2008, the average cost of producing a dub is about US$10,000 for a single 25 minute episode. With shows typically spanning 12-26 episodes long, costs of producing a professional caliber English dub for a series can run well over US$200,000. Some editing of cultural references may occur to better follow the references of the non-Japanese culture. Certain companies may remove any objectionable content, complying with domestic law. This editing process was far more prevalent in the past (e.g. Voltron), but its use has declined because of the demand for anime in its original form. This "light touch" approach to localization has favored viewers formerly unfamiliar with anime. Robotech and Star Blazers were the earliest attempts to present anime (albeit still modified) to North American television audiences without harsh censoring for violence and mature themes. With the advent of DVD, it became possible to include multiple language tracks into a simple product. This was not the case with VHS cassette, in which separate VHS media were used and with each VHS cassette priced the same as a single DVD. The "light touch" approach also applies to DVD releases as they often include both the dubbed audio and the original Japanese audio with subtitles, typically unedited. Anime edited for television is usually released on DVD "uncut", with all scenes intact. DVDs sales serve as the primary indicator for a show's success, and anime typically must make most of its cost back entirely through DVD sales. In Japan, the average anime DVD of 2-4 episodes are typically priced over "¥7000 Yen (US$92)", overpriced in comparison to the Western DVD market. This business practice stems form helping the rental market aimed at typical consumers in the Japanese market. Only hardcore fans, not exclusive to anime fans, buy the DVDs priced mainly towards video stores and build large home libraries. As a result, DVD prices for anime continued to remain high even as home DVD prices dropped over the years and is often the only way many series break even. Production companies earn roughly 55% and retailers about 25% of domestic DVD sales. New releases tend to sell a lot and the amount reduces with the passage of time, thus initial sales are an important indicator of a series' success. The Internet has played a significant role in the exposure of anime beyond Japan. Prior to the 1990s, anime had limited exposure beyond Japan's borders. Coincidentally, as the popularity of the Internet grew, so did interest in anime. Much of the fandom of anime grew through the Internet. The combination of internet communities and increasing amounts of anime material, from video to images, helped spur the growth of fandom. As the Internet gained more widespread use, Internet advertising revenues grew from 1.6 billion yen to over 180 billion yen between 1995 and 2005. Some fan groups add subtitles to anime on their own and distribute the episodes. These are known as fansubs. Before the popularity of the Internet, fansubbing used VHS as a means of distribution. Often, people will collect these fansubs and upload them to websites which they also put advertisements on so as to earn money, which violates copyright laws in many countries. The ethical implications of distributing or watching fansubs are topics of much controversy even when fansub groups do not profit from their activities. Once the series has been licensed outside of Japan, fansub groups often cease distribution of their work. In one case, Media Factory Incorporated requested that no fansubs of their material be made, which was respected by the fansub community. In another instance, Bandai specifically thanked fansubbers for their role in helping to make The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya popular in the English-speaking world. John Oppliger stated that despite the tremendous increase in global anime digital distribution over the years, streaming does not generate a lot of profit. Sites dedicated to streaming such as Crunchyroll and NicoNico are simply maintaining and DVD larger distributors are only able to use online streaming as a means to attract traffic, generate brand loyalty, and advertise the physical releases. TV networks regularly broadcast anime programming. In Japan, major national TV networks, such as TV Tokyo broadcast anime regularly. Smaller regional stations broadcast anime under the UHF. In the United States, cable TV channels such as Cartoon Network, Disney, Syfy, and others dedicate some of their timeslots to anime. Some, such as the Anime Network and the FUNimation Channel, specifically show anime. Sony-based Animax and Disney's Jetix channel broadcast anime within many countries in the world. AnimeCentral solely broadcasts anime in the UK.

Distribution new:

Extended content

Theatrical viewing of anime has been an enduring method of distribution since the first commercial anime were produced in 1917. Theatrical distribution was the sole method of viewing until the July 14, 1958, when Nippon Television aired Mole's Adventure, the first televised and first color animation. Theatrical anime continue to be produced and re-released on different formats.{{rp|13> Television is a major medium for the distribution of anime, the first anime series began appearing in the 1960s. Direct to video releases, are called "Original Video Animation" (OVA) or "Original Animation Video" (OAV), these works do not release theatrically or are televised prior to home media release. For releases occurring on the internet, website like the Anime News Network have adopted the term "Original Net Anime" (ONA). Home release media are sold through a number of different mediums. Until 2000, VHS NTSC video cassettes were a popular medium for anime, with both Japan and the United States using the same video format. The Laser Disc format was a long term and popular format in Japan until the rise of the DVD format. Around 2000, the Video CD (VCD), was a popular format in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but was only a minor format in the United States; it is closely associated with bootleg copies. From 2000, the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) quickly became the major medium for anime releases, its superiority as a format was a result of its ability to contain multiple audio and subtitling tracks on one disc. Poitras described the region coding is a major limitation of the format that was adopted by the industry to solve licensing, piracy and export problems.

This is probably the first of many major changes to come, while I do not think the new section is perfect, it is a big improvement over the wordy, rambling, and quasi-industry distribution section that was previously there. Is the production cost of anime even relevant to the distribution mediums? I'd disagree for something as broad as this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lots of hidden text and definitely a manga source erroneously applied to anime here:

Extended content

(Hidden: Many commentators refer to anime as an art form.) While different titles and different artists have their own artistic styles, many stylistic elements have become so common that describe them as definitive of anime in general. However, this does not mean that all modern anime share one strict, common art-style. Many anime have a very different art style from what would commonly be called "anime style", yet fans still use the word "anime" to refer to these titles. Generally, the most common form of anime drawings include "exaggerated physical features such as large eyes, big hair and elongated limbs... and dramatically shaped speech bubbles, speed lines and onomatopoeic, exclamatory typography." (Hidden texts: These elements have been given names of their own. (names such as?) - Previous Text used under "Animation Process" See:Discussion. This passage can be reincorporated somewhere Osamu Tezuka adapted and simplified many Disney animation precepts to reduce the budget costs and the number of frames in a production. This was intended to be a temporary measure to allow him to produce one episode every week with an inexperienced animation staff. Some animators in Japan overcome production budgets by utilizing different techniques than the Disney or the old Tezuka/Otsuka methods of animating anime. Due to reduced frame rate, several still shots and scrolling backgrounds, more time can be spent on detail in each drawing. - Will need to work these parts in here somehow, otherwise, omit most of it ) The influences of Japanese calligraphy and Japanese painting also characterize linear qualities of the anime style. The round ink brush traditionally used for writing kanji and for painting, produces a stroke of widely varying thickness. Anime also tends to borrow many elements from manga, including text in the background and panel layouts. For example, an opening may employ manga panels to tell the story, or to dramatize a point for humorous effect. See for example the anime Kare Kano.

Removed for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed much of the OR and Synth in the "Influence on world culture" section, which involved a near-complete rewrite in order to fix it.[3] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Every section except for the lede has been rewritten or worked on in some form, the result has been a major shift in tone, sourcing and word choice. Many dubious elements including an over-emphasis on Disney's 12 steps of animation has been addressed. I've removed the book on anime simply because it does more harm than good at this point, it will need to be done from scratch with careful attention given to its pieces. This should be done after both anime and manga reach GA status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is moving along now, I'll continue to tweak and expand as necessary, but the page is likely nearing GA quality for an overview. However, much of the information that should be split off to be covered in detail is currently poorly utilized and covered including the ailing Anime industry page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• With a bunch more citations and work I have decided to nominate it because it is more broad and detailed than ever before while retaining the same functional size. It should meet the criteria now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RWBY is declared as anime

RWBY is not listed as an anime on ANN, anidb, myanimelist or anime-planet. Verdict: the general Western audience that care about anime don't see it as an anime. You might as well remove or modify "The web-based series RWBY is produced using an anime art style and has been declared to be anime." to "The web-based series RWBY is produced using an anime art style and has been declared to be anime by some." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.230.79 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We cannot state "by some" because it will prove it's lack of confirmation. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the text says "declared" and numerous places including its own creators bill it as such. Both its placement and accuracy is properly reflected in the section about geographical origin versus the stylistic art form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Then use "declared by its creators and others". The way it is now worded makes it seem as if this is an undisputed fact, when this is clearly not the case. Even RBWBY's own page on Wikipedia states it is "anime-styled". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.230.79 (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template

Fix the anime pronunciation template, don't conceal it in a ref instead Kwamikagami. Also WP:BRD does not mean edit war. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS-JA, the Japanese language text should be included in the lede. It is not footnote material. There are too many pronunciation guides though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks ridiculous in addition to being gibberish. You might start by at least fixing what you restore. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I got rid of all of them except the IPA one so I don't know what else there is that you say needs fixing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We should keep the IPA, not delete it, as long as it can be confirmed. — kwami (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I kept the Japanese IPA and got rid of the English one, my mistake.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

General

• Many of the references are incomplete and need to be moved into citation templates for uniformity. The ideal would be to have shortened book refs and everything else under a References section, and a Bibliography section below with the more complete book citations in alphabetical order.

This is not a GA requirement. I may or may not do this within the week.

• Many of the book refs lack page numbers where the cited information can be found.

Poitras' and Brenners' books are cited with the rp template for pages. These are found in-line. Is that what you were concerned with?

These aren't the only books used, and in spot checking other books the page numbers are not cited in-line.

• Some of the references used are not as authoritative as they can be - lots of web pages when a book could be preferable.

Is there a problem with the sources? If so please, list the ones you have issues with and why they should not be cited.

Well, most of them are passable but not as strong as a book would be. It's not something to keep this from passing GA. The bigger issues with citations are below.

• refs 2 and 9 are the same
• refs 3 and 10 are the same
• refs 15 and 20 have page in the citation, not in-line, and lack isbn. There are many other examples where the refs have the page number in the citation, not in-line, and/or don't have the isbn, that you will find when you look through the references section. The placement of the page number needs to be consistent for all refs.
• ref 17 is Manichi News, not HDR Japan
• imprinttalk ref link doesn't work
• remove comment from ref 33
• refs 34, 42, others - location of publication? Check all book references and add the publication location if it's missing
• * Link for ref 35 is dead.
• Refs 43, 50, 63, 64, others - lack basic information (who where when etc). Check for other examples of this issue
• Ref 49 - substitute a more permanent and authoritative source than youtube

• I've found some examples of over-linking. Terms should only be linked on the first usage in the lead, body, image caption and infobox.

Overlink is not a issue of the GA criteria, but I'll check for any duplicates that are not helpful.

It is, under 2a in the layout criteria. But I see that I misstated this - items can be linked as frequently as once per section, typically on the first occurrence.

• Make sure all dates use the same format (day month year, or month day year); spell out the name of the month for consistency between the article content and references.

Not a GA criteria either... but I'll try and get this done.

• In general, there is a lot here that is not as developed as it could be, so it currently does not meet GA standards for comprehensiveness or detail. There are examples of very well developed (GA/FA) articles on anime in Italian and Catalan. If you run them thru Google translate, you'll have a lot more content to add. As a bonus, many of the sources used in those articles are actually in English. They also incorporated some good images, which I've added to the article now.

This doesn't help me address your issues; it is too vague. What issues in particular do you find lacking for this article?

I'd really recommend that you look at the Italian and Catalan versions above (especially the Italian one, in my opinion), run through translate.google.com so you can see. They're both FA and this article doesn't need to have that level of detail, but they will help you see what this article could/should be in terms of scope, as well as critical detail elements that are missing here. For example, in the history of anime, the article does not identify the first anime serial - basic information that needs to be here. It also doesn't offer a balanced overview, focusing too much on particular individuals - the result of over-reliance on too few sources. When developments are discussed, dates are often left off, leaving the reader struggling to follow the chronology. The emergence of key genres is not adequately discussed either, with the sole focus on mecha. The history section is a great opportunity to identify groundbreaking creators and examples of anime. In addition, there could be a discussion of thematic characteristics of the genre. In the Italian version, there is an excellent discussion of the prevalence of certain types of themes and how these reflect Japanese cultural influences and references, including things like Shinto and Buddhism, bushido, post-apocalyptic/nuclear themes etc. In this article it might possibly fit under "attributes". The Cultural Impact section and the Production section are both underdeveloped as well, skimming over or omitting major aspects of each. See below at the bottom for a translated version of the table of contents from the Italian version.

Hello Lemur, my name's Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever. I wish Chris should continue and quicken this process of getting "Anime" to good article status, but can I take care of the parts you want him to improve here? —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The references and more detailed aspects of the content in the first paragraph need to be moved into the body. The lead should only summarize later content, not introduce anything that is not more fully addressed in the body. Shorten the first paragraph to better summarize the meaning and usage of the term, and move the refs into the body.

References do not need to be moved in, but I did try to address the first paragraph better.

The MoS states,

"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."

Nothing in the lead is about a living person, there are no quotations, and I don't believe the material is likely to be challenged (but maybe you would disagree - what do you think?). To the extent that content is cited in the body and is unlikely to be challenged, citations in the lead are redundant. Since leads are meant to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects," the content in the lead needs to be covered in the body, and that's where the citations go (not the lead) unless the information is likely to be challenged or covers a living person. This is part of the GA criteria under 1b (lead) and 2b (citations). If you do believe certain material is likely to be challenged, let's discuss it here so we can reach that editorial consensus.

• The second paragraph, beginning "The earliest commercial Japanese animation...", has several sentences beginning with the word Anime. To avoid repetition, would you please revise these sentences for greater variety in structure?

Did some tweaking.

• In the last paragraph, the sentence beginning "Despite having a fraction of the domestic film market..." is confusing because it seems to mix film and television. Be more specific; were dubbed Japanese cartoon serials popular overseas before dubbed animated films? Which markets did Japanese animation expand to first, and where did it enjoy the greatest popularity?

The domestic film market was listed as 55% from documentaries. The source did not expand on it. Also the first media to enter America were pre-War Japanese films... not the Tezuka-style art associated with the media, but purely animation based on geographical origins. Though Astro Boy was a major breakthrough for America.

Expand on the lead with this kind of information. But please try to revise the wording in the lead for clarity and organization. Right now there are ideas combined in sentences when each idea really should be separated out and expanded upon. More careful word choice and sentence structure will make the entire article easier for readers to understand. My comment below is another way of saying the same thing.

• In general, the lead is a little confusing because it attempts to summarize too much in too few words, and because the words chosen are sometimes vague. This is a long article so it's okay if each of the paragraphs in the lead are twice as long. Take the words you need to adequately summarize and express the ideas in the body, and take the time to choose those words with precision. Approach it from the perspective of a person who has never heard of anime before or ever seen any Japanese manga or anime in their life. This is the article they're going to come to, so it needs to be accessible to them and not make assumptions about prior knowledge.

Will do.

Definition and usage

• ref name="ae" it is claimed that a range of over 100 pages explains the point made in that sentence. Surely the point can be found on one page, and if not, this is original research.

This is your error. Every citation includes the page number, inline.

Unfortunately in this style of citation the page number isn't immediately evident, particularly as it is difficult to distinguish from the superscript ref number. I won't ask you to change the cite style, although a clearer format would improve the article - but please do remove the page range from that reference to improve clarity.

• The first sentence is typical of the prose challenges in this article: "Anime is an art form, specifically animation, that includes all genres found in cinema, but it can be mistakenly classified as a genre." This is confusing and I had to read it twice to guess what was intended here. Reword the first part. The second part, "but it can be mistakenly classified as a genre", is a separate idea that needs its own sentence, and it also needs to be reworded. Remove "mistakenly" (non-neutral) and discuss the elements of the anime genre, because it clearly *is* a genre of animation, if not a dramatic genre. The problems in this sentence could be fixed if you use some word other than "genre", like maybe "style".

I'll tweak this tomorrow.

It's not just this but the entire article that needs to be tweaked for clarity per the suggestion above.

• "Some sources claim that anime... but others believe..." Who? (this is vague)

You got two major sites and Schodt's book containing the essays.. do we really need to attribute a specific individual when it is widespread?

Then I'd remove the discussion on sources and state it another way. Maybe something like "The origins of the term anime are uncertain. Proposed sources of the term include X and Y"

History

• First sentence - were Japanese animators pioneering animation alongside contemporaries in the other listed countries, or experimenting based on earlier work in other countries?

This would tread into OR and is poorly documented. Even the first works to be shown are highly contentious still and is the subject of research. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Then remove the bit about pioneered in other countries, because the way it's worded now implies option A (Japanese animators pioneering animation alongside contemporaries) when you're not sure.

• Second paragraph - first two sentences are unclear. Is the first sentence about Japanese cel animation only? Without this clarification, the second sentence describing competition from another form of animation doesn't make sense.

Most of these works are not extant; but it was not just cel animation that was present. Is this a problem?

Yes, the second sentence doesn't make sense unless the first sentence is only talking about cel animation, which you would need to make explicit. So reword this section to be more precise.

• Could you expand on what exactly was the influence of Snow White on Japanese animators, as well as the relevance of Tezuka's adaptations of the Disney animation technique? Why do either of these things matter?

Aside from making a feature length animation be viable and being a subject of inspiration? That is all that is in the source.

State it. Make it explicit. And if you can, find other sources that can expand on it.

• Was the growth of manga popularity in the 1970s in Japan or internationally?

International, with France. Poorly documented it seems.

I'm raising these questions for you to address in the article. Could you add the info there, not here?

• Who called Tezuka a legend and god of manga?
• Last paragraph of the history section - everything after "His work – and that of other pioneers in the field..." is unreferenced but needs to be supported with citations.

Distribution

• Last paragraph, I invented "Anime have been available for home distribution since the 1980s" as a place holder for the real information. We should know when home releases were popularized in Japan, and which countries were the next to catch on, in approximately what time period. Would you expand this and add the necessary references?

Genres

• "includes important historical works like Tezuka's Astro Boy" - why are these important historical works? Can you find other adjectives that are more objective?
• Explain what the Mecha subgenre is
• This entire section needs to present all the major subgenres with links to their respective articles, including a short summary of what "defines" each of these sub-genres. What defines the harem sub-genre, for example? Right now, from an outside perspective, some of these come across more as themes than genres ("sports", "martial arts"?).
• "While originally pornographic in terminology..." - this is unclear. When was the term in use to describe pornography, and when/how did it change?
• Explain what happened post-2000 in regard to the use of homosexual characters, for comedic effect and otherwise

Attributes

• The first paragraph is vague and contradictory. Is anime distinctive or not? Does it have defining/unifying features or not?

Animation techniques

• "Artists like Noburō Ōfuji pioneered..." I revised this sentence. Would you verify that the content is still correct?
• When did Fuji announce an end to cel production?

Animation technique

• "mainstream anime as using fewer expressive key frames and more in-between animation." - what does this mean, in non-technical terms?
• The sentence beginning "Unlike Disney animation where the emphasis is on the movement" is awkward and unclear - please reword. Also, why point out Disney? Not Western animation in general? How do we tease this apart?
• "Oppliger stated that anime is one of the rare mediums..." this doesn't seem to fit here. The focus of the paragraph is on animation and settings, not casting.
• "The cinematic effects of anime differentiates itself from the stage plays found in American animation. Anime is cinematically shot as if by camera, including panning, zooming, distance and angle shots to more complex dynamic shots that would be difficult to produce in reality." This is a significant claim, and one that doesn't ring true. I also skimmed and didn't find this claim stated in the piece referenced. If this is true, there would need to be several sources to back it up, and ones that are more academic than the source used, which is the opinion of a non-specialist. I would also like to see more references to back up the claim about whether voice acting is done before or after the animation.
• In the discussion on super deformed characters, include a link to an anime illustrating this type of character. Also add citations to support the information contained in this section.
• " Poitras traces hairstyle color to cover illustrations on manga" - unclear, reword

Characters

• "Body proportions of human anime characters tend to accurately reflect the proportions of the human body in reality." - Although this is cited, the citation link is 1) dead, and 2) when looking at the cache of the site linked, doesn't seem very credible--it's a basic how-to page for drawing what seems to me as a specific form of it. This statement seems to be contradicted later on in the same paragraph, too, when it speaks of the "occasional" many variations on body proportions. Instead of speaking of Anime generally when it comes to animation styles, perhaps it would be better to consider combining this with the Genre section of Anime?

Industry

• "In 2001, animation accounted for 7% of the Japanese film market, above the 4.6% market share for live-action works." What accounts for the other 89% of the Japanese film market??
• "As the internet gained more widespread use..." how does this relate to anime?
• "The anime market for the United States alone was worth..." can you find more recent data than 2007?
• "Dubbed animation began airing in the United States in 2000..." - this overlooks Japanese anime series that aired earlier, like Speed Racer in the 1960s, and joint US-Japan productions in the 80s with Japanese character design and animation like Transformers.
• This section should discuss the most profitable anime television series and movies, both in Japan and in overseas markets.
• " top ten anime titles having previously aired" - previous to what?

Influence on world culture

• This section needs to be significantly developed. There is much that can be said here. The section also needs references to reliable sources.

Fan response

• When did anime clubs arise, and what is the anime boom?
• Explain what cosplay is.

"Anime style"

• The organization of this section is unclear. It would be best to title this section "Anime-influenced animation" with a link to the Main Article beneath it. Introduce the concept with examples, then describe the challenges (is all animation anime? What about satire?).

That concludes my review for now. This article does need a bit of work, but I think it can reach GA this time around if you're willing to take some time to do a full copy edit for clarity, organization, word choice and grammar/spelling, fix the formatting of references and improve their quality and frequency of use, and expand the content in the places indicated. The extent of issues above kept me from being able to focus on the article as a whole in terms of comprehensiveness and organization, and I would want to do a second go-around after the above issues have been addressed. We can get this article over the GA hump and I hope this review helps motivate and focus the effort. Keep up the great work on anime topics! This is a huge one to tackle and you're a champ for taking it on. - Lemurbaby (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best, this is a very important article and I didn't want to make it overly long. Much of the information is very easy to put up and add. I used page citations for Poitras' and Brenner's books, did you have a problem with them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an important one, and it's okay for it to be as long as it needs to be to summarize and provide context for the other main articles that stem from it. Take the time you need and if there are comments here that are really not clear please let me know so we can discuss them further.

Italian version (FA)

1 Definition

2 Format

3 History

3.1 The origins

3.2 The post-war

3.3 Manga and television : the birth of the anime industry

3.4 Anime boom

3.5 The new animation serial

3.6 Industry and current market

4 Cultural references

4.1 Shinto and Buddhism

4.2 Bushido

4.3 Senpai and Kohai

4.4 Sense of duty

4.5 Man, nature and technology

5 The production process

5.1 Planning

5.2 Screenplay and ekonte

5.3 Animation

5.4 Sound

6 The language of anime

6.1 Animation Limited

6.2 Directed film

6.3 Time Dilation

6.4 The signs of anime

7 Main Authors

8 Key animation studios

9 Genres and subgenres

10 Anime overseas

10.1 Asia

10.2 North America

10.3 Europe

10.4 Latin America

10.5 Africa

10.6 Australia

11 Notes

12 Bibliography

13 See also

14 External links

Not sure if it was covered it

But I just took a look an there's a lot of stuff to work on. For example:

• "Typical anime girl" illustration that I removed.
• "According to Ke Jiang, a Japanese animator for Disney, told Anime News Network that animators in Japan, like everywhere else, study the techniques of Disney in school, anime has a distinct set of conventions that Japanese animators must learn and apply." - could it be any more awkwardly worded?

The whole article needs a basic copyedit. --Niemti (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy edited. --Niemti (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, yes the need for copy edit was covered. I reviewed six of Chris's nominations simultaneously so we are working our way through them one at a time. Just finished the process for Neon Genesis Evangelion, which is happily now at GA. Watch this space. :) - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

This edit broke a lot of the referencing so I have undone it.[4] With that being said, I am going to be expanding and conducting the copyedit afterwards. I've asked for some help in checking this article as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Chris, since it's been almost two months since the initial reviews and other editors have contacted me to close them, I've gone ahead and done that. But you've got all the suggestions you can work from to improve these, and I'm still here to help clarify what I identified as issues to fix. When you've finished revisions, renominate the article(s) and I will be able to review and pass them faster. This way the pressure is off you to work fast on all of them at once. - Lemurbaby (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• To be fair I wondered why they were still open. I simply do not have the language skills to get and read the Japanese sources required to make them GA. I've exhausted everything in English and questioned remained. While GA can have a gaps or be very broad in coverage, I suppose it needs more detail. Most of these sources are not in English and I didn't feel like puffing it up with what should be three different article's worth of text. Though the real reason could just simply be that I don't want any more conflict in this editing space and I nominated all these before the problems got bad - and I simply do not like editing it as a result now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable References List

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mKrArbLUS-sJ:www.itofisher.com/mito/ito.girlsgames.pdf+%22Mizuko+Ito%22+Anime&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a I'm adding this one... Professor of Cultural anthropology focusing on Anime, you can't really go wrong... plus cited before and has a PDF.

What does this sentence mean

"As the internet gained more widespread use in Japan, online advertising revenues grew from 1.6 billion yen to over 180 billion yen between 1995 and 2005." How is this related to this article? Kuwaity26 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Kuwaity26 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source seems to be saying that as advertisement revenue goes up, so does the amount of content being consumed, but that is not directly related to anime, as the source itself indicates, it applies to all content industries.--Cattus ^talk 23:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Anime is dangerous?

I have read a newspaper said that anime is dangerous in Malaysia. I like to put this info into article. So these is the local net newspapers I got from the internet

1. English translated form Kosmo!
2. English translated from mStar Online
3. Forum with newspaper said about the dangerous of anime in Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNN95 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

The source in the article says the anime market in the U.S. was worth $4.35 billion in 2007, but this source says it was US$2.829 billion.--Cattus ^talk 00:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I just found more recent data, so I'll just replace the older data in the article.--Cattus ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Should remove that bullshit example of an expressive template

It looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old weeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.203.202 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Where Is It?

The anime sections on Wikipedia used to provide a wealth of information about anime/manga related art and drawing styles (and how to do it). Where the fork is that information now? If it's still there, it would be cool to have some links in the "anime" or "manga" pages. Otherwise, external links to such information would be good. 79.227.183.7 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When was this? It might have been deleted over time as wikipedia was never meant to be a guide to project. It has always been an encyclopedia. One that gives general information about the subject, with some details here and there. NathanWubs (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Most likely it wad deleted per WP:NOTHOW.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

À

120.28.231.84 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is the truth?

This article needs some explanation regarding the fact that westerners watch anime only because they are ashamed of World War II. In reality, no one really likes anime, they watch it out of guilt. 74.90.216.235 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please back up your statement with reliable sources that have enough weight to make such a claim valid. Also your interpretation seems to only focus on Americans as they were at war with Japan during world war 2. I from a european country have no stacked in the whole japan business and yet I still watch plenty of anime. NathanWubs (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Request

Please add this article to Category:Otaku. I'm anonymous user, so I can not edit it.--121.102.123.168 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no relevance to that category with this article, and your persistence in adding other unrelated article to that category makes me suspect you are banned user CensoredScribe. But that category needs to be cleaned up as I see a number of articles in that category that simply has nothing to do with otaku. —Farix (t | c) 23:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger of anime industry

I think anime industry should be merged into this article. That article is short and its content could (and should) be in this one. If there's no objections I'll do the merger.--Cattus ^talk 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, unless someone can go through the article and clean it up. More than half the "references" are a joke, not being real references. It looks like it was copied and pasted for part of it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I see this as beneficial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, it was only because a user copied the content of this page on it. I just fixed it. 172.56.21.44 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I support this merger. I don't see why an industry page was needed in the first place if it was just going to be copy-pasted from this article. —Kirt^Message 12:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge. Incomplete data tables in the separate article. The licensing section is essentially covered under the main anime article. So, the anime industry article is pointless. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Animé

The extensive archives here attest to the active involvement on this page; their content attest to the active desire to "correct" or "improve" people's usage of the term, rather than accepting WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Animé currently continues to redirect to the Brazilian sap used in varnish described by the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., which is insane. Google pulls in a lot of French responses but 'tree sap' doesn't show up in the first 100 replies. (Granted, Wiktionary should have that sap definition and I'll add that in a minute.) It doesn't show until around result 250 and continues to be overwhelmed by references to Japanese animation.

So a the redirect should obviously point here (easy-peasy) and b there needs to be a hatnote dab or link to an animé (disambiguation) page for the other sense (some people here seem overly protective of article space, as seen by the reply to the user wanting the Japanese text box that—afaik—MOS requires) and c the article should mention animé as a common alternative English spelling of the Japanese word officially romanized as anime. Which is where I expect for there to be pushback. Still, per the discussion in Archive 5, users Prosfilaes and Thnom were right and Xaliqen and None Error were wrong. We're not a proscriptivist dictionary. We should simply be noting and explaining what other people are doing, not calling it "wrong", "substandard", or omitting it. — LlywelynII 12:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, pulling in the "right" and "wrong" language, that's sure to bring people together here. Your characterization of that old discussion isn't very accurate in my opinion. I think it's possible you're reading a lot into the whole thing that isn't even there. It doesn't look like there's even much of a disagreement. 2601:647:1:C201:2167:BDCA:1ABF:7231 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of anime

That definition doesn't exactly work. For example, if Silver Link, the company who made the anime Baka and Test moved to the U.S., and made another season, would it not be considered anime anymore. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

SuperPollo es el mejor es mas powerful y guapo que todos y yoda les gana a goku, itchigo y naruto juntos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.179.0.192 (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this whole "anime definition" thing has been in contention for a long time now. A scenario like that has been mentioned numerous times. Looking at Wiktionary, the definition there covers all bases. So, if the definition section models itself covering the now-different aspects to anime, then the definition itself improves its standing. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Anime is just the Japanese equivalent to the English word cartoon. Therefore, the word is used to refer to any cartoon. Products marked Anime or when an American refers to Anime then they're usually referring to cartoons made in japan, but not always. The reality is that any cartoon from anywhere in the world can be legally referred to as Anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.179.72 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Netflix

Things will really take on a new spin, as we now have a major US company declaring its intent on producing anime. Not cartoons. Not anime-influenced. Anime. [5] KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's this, Netflix is distributing anime, not producing anime. And another thing, anime should be defined as a form of animation produced in Japan, if it isn't produced in Japan, it would be anime-influenced animation. It is very simple. Kittytoe90 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

Definition and usage of 'Anime'. The article states that some believe that it's origins in French to be a myth- but who believes this to be a myth? It is fair enough to claim that anime is a contraction of animeshon, but as to origins, the usage of anime goes back to the earliest days of animation in Europe. Emile Cohl referred to himself as the inventor of les dessins animes ( the animated drawings). He wrote an article for the newspaper, L'Echo des Paris on the 2nd of March 1923. The article is located on page 5. His earliest films date before this. So to state that anime was used in France when the Japanese anime became popular in the 1980's can't be accurate.

The newspaper can be viewed at BnF Gallica.

220.237.123.9 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "les dessin animés" is not the same thing as "anime". Anime is a contraction of "animeshon". You do not put an "s" after anime even in the plural: You say "I like anime", not "I like animes". Likewise, you say "I like animation", not "I like animations". You're in the minority here, as all the experts and experienced scholars disagree with you. Vivexdino (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the French version of the article where even they say that Japanese anime is a shortened form of "animation". (translated version) Vivexdino (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The source for "...but others believe this to be a myth derived from the French popularity of the medium in the late 1970s and 1980s" is Anime News Network's Lexicon.[6] There has been some contention of whether the Lexicon section is a reliable source or not, but it could use a better reference. As for your claim that "anime" is derived from "dessin animé", without a citation to a reliable source stating exactly that, it is purely original research. —Farix (t | c)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Aphmau14 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Anime are really cute and don't forget the kawaii eyes!!!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RWBY being released as "American anime"

In regards to RWBY's Japanese release, this is stated in the article: "In addition, the series will be released in Japan, under the label of "anime" per the Japanese definition of the term and referenced as an 'American-made anime'." What purpose does this serve? The Powerpuff Girls, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and the Simpsons are also called "American-made anime" in Japan. They're "animation from America". It even acknowledges that it uses the Japanese definition, and so has no bearing on the American definition the section is trying to articulate. 71.86.210.72 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article about how the Japanese also have a similar issue to how the use of the word anime, https://journal.animationstudies.org/sheuo-hui-gan-to-be-or-not-to-be-anime-the-controversy-in-japan-over-the-anime-label/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakechi89 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

anime or animé

Footnote a says that the term is "also informally romanized as animé."  Can someone please expand this footnote with more explanation?  Why would anime be considered more-formal and animé be considered informal?

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Accented e's aren't used in romanization in English anyway so maybe that's the French or amateur romanization? (though even frwiki uses "anime") I agree that some expanded etymology is called for to explain the origin. Wiktionary might contain some useful information. Opencooper (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My assumption is, as with other similar uses of "é", it is sometimes written that way to indicate that the "e" is not silent. The obvious example being Pokémon, which (again, my assumption) is written like that to make it clear that the name is "PoKe" as in "PoKetTo" not "Poke" as in "with a sharp stick". Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In the early days (the late 1980s and early 1990s), some English-language distributors and anime/manga magazines frequently used "animé" to clue people in on the pronunciation. This has fallen into disuse now, and it is rarely seen anymore. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

add pronunciation characters/?/

/?/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4107:9B00:E1F3:636C:4A40:C28D (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

in English we say /ˈanɪmeɪ,ˈanɪmə/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4107:9B00:E1F3:636C:4A40:C28D (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

115.224.90.15 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

I would like to add that anime is a form of cartoon, since that anime is an animation and cartoons are animations. Degree23 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Put simply, just because both humans and dogs are mammals, does not make humans dogs. — IVORK _Discuss 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I respect your decision, however, even though both of these are comparing two different things, those being discussed in the former have more in common with each other than those being discussed in the latter, the only difference being its origin. In the latter, both are completely different with them only sharing one comparison. Again however I will respect your decision. 17:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be inaccurate to label anime as cartoons. Cartoons are illustrations intended for satire, caricature, or humor. Anime, on the other hand, is simply the Japanese term for animation and this definition is backed up by multiple reliable sources already cited in the article. While some anime, such as Crayon Shin-chan, can be classified as cartoon, not all anime are cartoons. The Gundam series, Serial Experiments Lain, and Ghost in the Shell are just a few of many examples that are not cartoons. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409032645/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2005/05/20/ask-john-why-do-americans-hate-harem-anime/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2005/05/20/ask-john-why-do-americans-hate-harem-anime/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.understandinganime.com/cinematography.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canime.co/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

2605:E000:6210:C300:3908:5549:6987:3B77 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140828232509/http://www.viz.com/books/print/starting-point-1979-1996-volume-1/5855 to http://www.viz.com/books/print/starting-point-1979-1996-volume-1/5855

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118151209/http://www.animestatic.com/articles/what-is-anime/ to http://www.animestatic.com/articles/what-is-anime/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Memes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.187.30 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Grammatical Correction (Under the Genre tab):

"By contrast, some anime subgenres incorporate ecchi, sexual themes or undertones without depictions of sexual intercourse, as typified in the comedic or harem genres; due to its popularity among adolescent and adult anime enthusiasts, the inclusion of such elements is considered a form of fan service."

I believe "sexual themes or undertones without depictions of sexual intercourse" should come after a colon since the term "ecchi" is being defined within the sentence itself.

Proposed Edit:

By contrast, some anime subgenres incorporate ecchi: sexual themes or undertones without depictions of sexual intercourse, as typified in the comedic or harem genres; due to its popularity among adolescent and adult anime enthusiasts, the inclusion of such elements is considered a form of fan service. Kurozeto (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The phrase "sexual themes...intercourse" can be read as a parenthetical subordinate clause, in which case setting it off with commas is correct punctuation. The alternative reading of the phrase "sexual themes...genres" can also be read as a definitional clause, in which case the suggested colon would be correct. Since there is another subordinate clause immediately following the semi-colon, the first reading is simpler and therefore easier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anime and special effects

I'd say that anime article don't give much space to the special effects made by japanese authors.

Second: the light and other special effects are really another kind of stuff respect to anything else apparead previously. I'd say that also those deserve a proper paragraph. Do not forget that the 'special effects' are all in a cartoon/anime and japs were very keen to invent a lot new in their series. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Amines are compounds and functional groups that contain a basic nitrogen atom with a lone pair. Amines are widely used in chemistry Not sure why this talks about some Japanese word that seems to be the same as cartoons but in English amine is used in chemistry not cartoons Julia9363 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Amines have their own page. aboideau^talk 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The chemistry term is amine not anime so unless the argument is that people typing anime are regularly looking for the chemistry term and misspelling it I don’t see an issue. Also, anime is used in english to refer to animation that airs in Japan so saying the term anime isn’t use for cartoons is inaccurate.--67.68.29.90 (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

Anime is also propaganda as well, the art style was made for mongering hate towards the Chinese. An example of this is Norakuro; Norakuro is a black dog enlisted in the “Mokenrentai” (Fierce Dog Brigade), an Imperial army of dogs fighting in a war against the enemy Monkey Army. This war-time comic first appeared in 1931 in Shonen Club (Boy’s Club) magazine and was clearly based on the Japanese Imperial Army of the time. His creator, Suihō Tagawa (1899-1989), served in the army and used his experience as a basis for his strip. Norakuro is a stray black-and-white dog in an army of white dogs who blundered his way while being a Private Second-Class. Mason8788 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 01:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Employment practices within the industry

I saw an episode of Asian Boss recently on YouTube that interviewed an animator within the industry - it detailed that wages are still pitifully low, hours long and employment practices particularly gruelling unless you're well-know or at the top.

It also detailed a charity providing cheap accommodation for animators to support their careers, and though this is a really informal reference source, I know this must have been covered elsewhere by other news outlets. Could be have a section under 'Industry' about employment practices?

(also, sorry if this section ends up at the bottom of the Talk page - mobile editing seems to do this for some reason.)

--Ineffablebookkeeper (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.253.211 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

UwU and OwO are used in anime faces 71.241.206.22 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.84.132 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Anime and Manga" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anime and Manga. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Anime and Manga until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

== Filler ==

Filler (literally "filling"), although the use in English is not limited to this, is a term used by the community of anime fans to describe episodes or entire arcs of an anime series whose plot is not based on the manga from which the series has been adapted. Fillers do not occur in original anime series, only those from a manga, light novel, or other content source.

The production of fillers covers several ways:

• Create a complete filler saga between two manga sagas, having a previous story and characters;
• Make the anime look like an American show, creating small arcs in the story.
• Extend a particular battle, journey or dialogue by several episodes.

=== Examples ===

The "filler" episodes of some anime series are:

• Dragon Ball: Episodes 29-33, 42, 45, 79-83, 127-132, 149-153.
• Naruto: Episodes 26, 97, 99, 101-106, 136-219.
• Naruto Shippuden: Episodes 57-70, 93-111, 144-150, 177, 183-196, 223-242, 257-260, 279-281, 290-295, 305, 307-320, 347-361, 394-413, 416, 427-451, 480-484. Sareville (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, you need to provide reliable source(s) that support any additions you want to make (blogs aren't reliable). Moremoreover, this is a pretty generic term that's not specific to cartoons, so there doesn't seem any point to add. Moremoremoreover, even if the term is cartoon-specific, the concept isn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Delete references links from url animenewsnetwork.com Is spammy website and appear at least 12 times only on this page. Sareville (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sareville:  Not done: Per the note of "Anime News Network" onWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational, which of the ANN references qualify as not reliable? What reliable sources would you like to use to replace them?

Yes

Videos about anime Fking iss (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)