Talk:Gantz/Archive 1

Voice actors?
Doesn't anyone know who the voice actors are for Gantz(English and Japanese)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.228.180 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Images help
Anyone know what im doing wrong, I uploaded the images from the manga mostly from the chapters cover pages. It got removed by the orphanbot after it told me to give the authors info & licensing which I did after I got the " You have new messages". I re uploaded them & some new ones. Old - nishi,cherry,masanobu,sadako. New - Old man, kaze, sakata & added the author & licensing info for them.

Can anyone check & see where im making the mistake for having orphan bot take the pic off. Ssjasper2003 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)ssjasper2003

I'm not sure what you're doing wrong basically, but if possible, awlays point out where exactly you got the images from. e.g. excerpted from the manga Gantz page XX chapter XX. I don't get my images removed very often this way, although some genius uploads one, removes mine and gets his removed thereafter.


 * Weird thing is, my pictures are removed as well, but most of them are still here, even when the details were clearly written and explained, even after pointing out. Says that it's "disputed".

- pmc (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

faults section
as it's pretty unnecesary, unprofessional, and inaccurate, i'm removing it. 76.183.106.17 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

osaka team
hey i was just wondering if the osak gantz team will be added soon --Zetsuie 03:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zetsuie (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Not much is known about them, not even their names just their personalities lol. Seem a bit crazy & mightve been doing it for a while now maybe more than a couple years id say.

All of there profiles were addressed somewhere in between 250 and like 255. I was going to look up the actual number, but I got bored :P. I don't really know if theres enough info. for a whole section, but keep your heads up for more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.134.166 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship section?
This should have mentioned the heavy censorship in the anime, how ADV handled the release, ETC. yea, the manga has lots of sexually explicit content, and nudity, tons and tons of blood (its good that mangas are in black and white(otherwise i might feel nauseaus (forgot spelling)).


 * Heavy Censorship?? I thought that the Anime was more Gory than the Manga. But then again the Manga is Black and white. Still I dont think that Gantz Cesors anything. I believe there is a Censored version of the anime, but I haven't seen it, so i dont know how they did it. --Guille2015 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been currently watching the anime on Anime Network on-Demand and they've had this anime on Uncut, with dubbing I assume, and now they're playing it subtitled, and it's definately UNCUT and UNCENSORED because they have all the bloody, gory scenes intact, and they had the sex scenes in too. --Sabishii Kouen


 * I think he meant the censorship that took place in the original Japanese TV run of the anime. Among other things, the cutting of scenes caused some things to make little sense.  I think it's worth mentioning.  As far as I know there hasn't been any censorship in the North American version, with the DVD having the same uncut and uncensored scenes as the Japanese DVD.


 * The Japanese version of the Manga has naked teenage girls, and teenagers having graphic sex. Since it is illegal to display such things in America and Canada, I assume the American version of the manga censors things like that out.  I've only seen the original Japanese artwork, with English written in by fans of the series. Dream Focus 09:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

too much info and the layout problems
Every character images with frames were done by me. Seeing there have been some new images of the characters, I should try to modify them so the page has a more unified look.

About the character information... the amount of info there is getting rificules. Gantz series is still running, and it is impossible and impractical to update them everytime there is something new come out. We seriously need to trim the information down. What we are doing here is almost like trying to fot the summary of each chapter of the manga into one page. Either we build a seperate page with plots of each chapter, or don't do it at all. The page about Superman doesn't have the plot of each and every issue, so neither should Gantz.

Also, I don't think we need images for the weapons.

In my opinion, we have to create a new page for characters only. I know the gantz information is still running, and its very difficult to update the info each time an issue appears.Otherwise, I created a page for Targets on Gantz thinking on informing what happened in each chapter. I guess it can work better if we reorganize the Gantz main page structure.

P.S. Maybe nobody has enough time to write down about each Superman character. --Robvaler 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)--

That's brilliant! Yeah, we should split the info into smaller articles. Perhaps we could split manga and anime info as well?

--YiantheGreat 09:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)--

I disagree with splitting the anime and manga. I think it would be better to create a Main Character page, a minor characters page, and perhaps a mission summary/synopsis page or series of pages outlining the various events throught the missions and in the plot that develops between the missions. I think a chapter-by-chapter synopsis is probably going overboard.

A separate page for the known rules/scoring system, and even one for the weapons/tools/vehicles might be in order as well. Thoughts?

-Marc Jones (aratsubo at hotmail dot com)

video games
I have added a little section about the video game for Gantz on PS2. It isn't much, just the fact that Konami published it and its website. Anyone know more about it, such as the general reception to it and all, please feel free to add more.

--

I've edited the video game section and decided to name it as Gantz: The Game and I've also followed the section up with three new sections. I didn't delve much, since I don't read Japanese all too well myself. Sections added include Game Modes, Playable Characters and Enemies. If you wish to make those section better, be my guest. =) Piecemealcranky 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much info, namely about the options. Nobody cares that you can change the vibration on or off. Please clean that up 67.177.250.167 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

English Manga
(First off, quickly, a MUCH better picture is needed) Does anyone know if there are any plans for an english adaptation of the manga? Elijya 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know that, but I know that you can get(or should I write download) somewhere in the web. I know they translated it, I read about 100(or more) chapters. User:Kniaz


 * If you could point me in the direction of a site where you read it, Kniaz, I'd be very greatful :) (also, somebody change the picture, it's absolutely horrible) Elijya 07:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You could try http://www.stoptazmo.com/gantz - they have a translation of the first 225 chapters, I believe. (Zephyr414 - unregistered) 16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

response to English manga
Well, It's very easy to get a much better image. The problem is with its copyright. In order not to violate any copyright laws, I think we can only use small images with web quality.

Second, we don't encourage people posting links to unauthorized version of the manga. So the links will have to go, sorry... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.12.31.63 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Small images yes but you can go bigger than whats here, something of the quality youd find on amazon.com is fine. Discordance 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

bigger image
Alright, if we are to use a better image, what are the rules? Friom what I have read so far, it seems that everything we find on the Internet cannot be used...?

Actually until Gantz the manga is licensed by english publish company outside of japan japans laws allow for manga scans and translations.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.23.117 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

anyone still here?
we can still make this article better. how about pictures of the characters and aliens? (and what about the kuruno alien:)?

Images from the internet are fine if your put on their image page a link to where you got them from and use the correct image tag, say who owns the copyright, you should also write why you think the image is fair use, generally list the reasons its low quality, doesnt infringe the copyright holders rights, doesnt damage their sales, helps identify a character/plot element (say which chracter/plot element). Kuruno alien and a comparison between the anime and manga should be added, sorry i dont have much time to help but add as much as you can and ill try to help copyedit it. Discordance 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gantz Bike
Why is the article referring to the bike as "O-Cycle"? The real name of the bike is "Gantz Bike". That is proved in the Gantz Manual, which contains lots of info on both the anime and manga series. I never heard that "O-Cycle" term, but I think this should be fixed.--Kaonashi 04:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Kaonashi 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is really growing too fat
Well, personally, I think we need to trim the article. Gantz manga is still running, as Kurono, after losing his memory, begin to pick up clues of Gantz' existence through this researcher, and now Gantz has been linked to a German religious cult. We can't possibly just keep adding more as the plot goes along. The best way to do this would be to simplify the character bios, maybe even getting rid of a few of them, and we really don't need an entire section talking about every single alien they have encountered.

-Response: I agree that the article is pretty big. But wouldn't the logical thing to do be to create a separate characters page? It would also make sense to have the missions be listed on a separate page as well.-


 * I disagree. The recommended article size limit is usually 32 KB and the Gantz article has not come close to that limit yet, so it's completely unnecessary to trim the article at this stage. We should only consider reducing the article if it becomes larger than 32 KB. Jagged 21:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it might be a good idea to begin offloading sections onto new pages. For example, I'm the guy that just tripled the size of the rules section.  I could have gone on and one for pages on analysis of the rules, and the "false" rules that have proliferated (such as Nishi's contention that if Kato shot him in the head, that Gantz would make *his* head explode instead).  What do you think?  -Marc Jones (aratsubo@hotmail.com) 18 August 2006

Could this article be seperated into Anime and Manga articles? It makes for confusing reading when you talk about something from a perspective and another from the other reference and then sometimes compare the two. 202.12.233.21 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

-The manga and anime are almost identical I see no reason to separate them. I would agree with making another article for the characters though, could maybe go into the aliens in detail a bit more. Betawaffles (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kojima pic
Whats up with the tae kojima pic currently being of director kojima of MGS? Midusunknown 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Split article?
Would it make sense to split the article into Gantz (manga) and Gantz (anime)? This one seems to flip-flop between the two at random. I know they're similar, but they're not the same. --Mister Six 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would hardly go so foar as to call them similar. I agree, the article should be split, with the focus on the more popular anime version. Piuro 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just jumping at the word "popular", but the recent licencing of the manga gives it a chance of succedding the anime in popularity in North America. Furthermore, the manga is the "true" version, and information gleaned from the manga is more relevant towards the "Gantz universe" than what is discovered in the anime.  Even so, I don't disagree that the article would benefit from being split, perhaps having the manga as one and the anime, along with the game and any other spin-offs, as the other?

Tagged
I have tagged this article for wikification, as it seems to draw out onto the eccentricities, theories, and speculations of the story. We should make this article more clear cut, and expand only with necessary information from there. All prominent theories should probably be grouped into a single "Theories" section. Normally I would say leave them out, but for quite a few of them there is almost a universal consensus among fans. Piuro 02:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

unsolved questions
sould there be a sect for unsolved mysteries.

1) what happened to the dog. it just disappeared. is this by intension?

The dog was killed in the Buddha alien mission. It was stepped on by one of the statues For Thine is the Kingdom. 10:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)be0wulf

2) how did Ryōko know so much about the suit when izumi was fighting the vamps?

Updating the character section
Should we mention the Osakans collectively like we do with the vampires? --Bushido Brown 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of updating the character section, I believe Host Samurai should have his own private section, instead of being lumped with all of the other vampires.

I agree, and if no one else gives a good reason not too, the vampire section should be erased with the exception of host samurai. The section is fat, contains very little useful information on the vampires and is hard to read. This will also help remove some of the weasel words. Will also be looking into making the characters section they're own page. Betawaffles (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Female Vampire
Is it just me or does the female vampire look an awful lot like Chiaki Kuriyama? I'm thinking that this character might look like her on purpose, as on the DVD bonus features for Gantz the anime, she said that she enjoyed the series quite a bit. 70.67.143.56 10:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

-It is absolutely supposed to look like Chiaki Kuriyama; that's been established, and she's stated on the record that Gantz is her favorite manga, she loves the vampires, and would absolutely love to be a part of a Gantz live action project, so long at they could come up with a character for her to play that wasn't like her characters in Battle Royale or Kill Bill.

-Looks like Oku did just that.

Cowboy Bebop Influence
The 'bang' reference has done plenty of times in japanese tv and anime as sort of "breaking the forth wall" sort of deal, to tell the audience it is simply a show. The reference needs to be broadened or eliminated as it is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.90.4.163 (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Agreed. I'll go erase that now, since a brief Google search couldn't back up that statement. 74.230.193.146 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty sex?
Yes, it's really dirty.


 * v5 c56 p183: Kurono sits on a toilet bowl with no pants on.
 * v5 c56 pp184-185: Gantz transfers Kurono into the room in front of everyone pantless.
 * v5 c58 p213: Sakuraosa wants to use the bathroom but Kurono does not know if there is a bathroom in the apartment.
 * v6 c59 p6: Kurono asks Sakuraosa for sex.
 * v6 c59 p10: Sakuraosa takes off Kurono's clothing.
 * v6 c59 p11: Sakuraosa faces Kurono's dick at close range.
 * v6 c59 p16: Kurono enters Sakuraosa's body.

See? There's something terribly wrong with the sex. Kurono possibly just put on his pants without any clean up and in a few minutes he's fucking Lara Croft! This sex scene is really dirty! -- Toytoy 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

JakorKnave: "Who cares?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.228.180 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vampire
"The Blond Vampire, in chapter 238, attempted to plunge his blade into the human body contained within Gantz, but was unable to do so. One possible explanation for this is that the body may be surrounded by the same invisible barrier that prevents Gantzers from touching the windows or leaving the apartment until the hunt ends." - Isn't it because he has a microchip in his head like all the others? Thant biker guy died outside of gantz because he had a chip in his head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.235.4 (talk) 17:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * Several people have touched Gantz before, from the middle schooler sticking a finger in his ear to get his attention, to someone else touching his face. It blocked the sword but not their hands.  Does the chip let it read their emotions, and know their intentions?  I don't think the creators of the series really plan things out before hand, so its best not to read too much in it. Dream Focus 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Katouchanlol1.jpg
Image:Katouchanlol1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurono only used Sei Sakuraoka for sex, and said so
The article currently reads in Sei Sakuraoka's section "Kurono holds a strong attachment to her." In the manga he was crying about loosing Kei to Kato, she stated she saw him crying was touched, he then asked her for sex, she agreeing. Then whenever she tried to show affection for him or get him to agree to go out with her, he'd remain silent. When he was dying, and she asked him about it, he said he just wanted sex, and she was there, and he thought she'd say yes. That was it. So no, in the manga, he certainly didn't care about her at all, not getting to know anything about her, nor caring at all, just wanting sex.

In the anime after having sex with her, and going on the temple mission, she did have more lines, but he didn't seem to show too much interest in her around Kei, the girl he was crying over. She even asked him, and said oh, she was worried he might be a guy like that, only after sex.

I read all the manga and watched all the anime episodes, and I'm thinking that should be changed to "Kurono just used her for sex, but she seems to have real feelings for him, despite knowing virtually nothing about him." What does everyone think? Dream Focus 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Although Kurono pretty much forgets about Sei after meeting Tae he does demonstrate some closeness throughout the Buddhist Temple mission and wishes to build a relationship when they come home alive. AKLR

I don't think that he used her purely for sex. I think he was an angsty teenage boy of only 15, he obviously had no people skills. Probably he started out with only thinking "Hey! Hot girl in my lap!" But like how he both liked, and hated Kato, it developed a bit more. He even wants to see her again after she dies, so he seeks out her double and cries over her. 69.207.42.15 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Her double? You are thinking of Kei, who he did apparently have some feelings for.  Sei Sakuraoka had no double, and he never got to know anything about her, nor cared. Dream Focus (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Video game characters... metrosexual or homosexual?
I doubt those are official character descriptions from the game. I'm wondering if it came with any that can be used instead.

Where it says "Masanobu "Homo" Hojo (a former metrosexual model)" shouldn't that be homosexual? He was clearly gay, having no interest in women at all, rejecting the attention of a gorgeous model on his cell phone as I recall in one of the issues he was first in. And why does it say former? Just like Reika, I don't think he gave up his modeling job. Dream Focus 12:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They were kissing when they died together. That would at least be bi-sexual. Metro-sexual covers the character well when no opinion either way is concerned. --Cashed (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

theater song?
Hi, This is one of my first posts on wikipedia and I was wondering if anyone knew the song that was being played in the theater where Hojo was at right before the Buddha mission. I believe it was in Episode 15 of the anime. If someone knows, perhaps it can be posted in the trivia section?

Thanks! Nekrataal7 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)nekrataal7

Spoiler - Anime section
When I first decided to take a look into this anime, I read the first line here on Wiki. It tells the ending of the series without any sort of spoiler warning. The information is clearly in the wrong place.

If no one objects, I would like to remove this line altogether. If that's a problem, it should be moved to the plot section.

--Cashed (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gantz DVD.jpg
Image:Gantz DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seperate character article?
It's not very encylopedic as is, so I propose a separate article for the characters. 75.42.88.248 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Other anime/manga have character lists, with only the main characters on the main article page, with the recurring, less main, secondary, etc kinds of characters at the list article. It would make this article better looking if this were done. 70.51.8.220 (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Gants episode now says to discuss merger here
On the page titled "List of Gantz episodes" it reads "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Gantz." It then links here to "Discuss". Why would it be merged at all? Every article about a television show that I ever remembering seeing, has the episodes listed on a separate page. Will whoever decided to put that marker there please post your reasons why. Dream Focus (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could of been a bot. Betawaffles (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing this. There's a discussion at arbcom with an injunction on merging/deleting these until a decision about WP:EPISODE is decided. 70.51.8.220 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

manga chapters
There should be a list of Gantz chapters like the other manga have, which looks like a list of episodes. 70.51.8.220 (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

word for word from manga
I edited the hundred point menu to be word for word from the English translation of the first issue they showed the list. It previously was worded in a way which might lead to some misconceptions. Gantz doesn't just make you forget about the game, but everything that happened to you since you first died and appeared before him, as seen when Kurono left. Under Gantz Equipment, it list the Radar as Controller. I'm going to change that as well now, since on their first mission, someone called it a Radar, and I don't recall it ever being called anything else. I'm reading from the fan made translation, not the official licensed one, so if they officially translated it as something else, please revert and inform. Dream Focus (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

curious about recent addition to the character section
In the character section, it list that in the current version of Gantz, 268, the Old Man got his arms broke. I believe he died, since they left him there, but you can't be absolutely certain yet, since the enemy might have just wanted to leave them helpless. Since all non-fatal injuries are eliminated once the mission is over and you return to the room, I wonder why this is mentioned. Listing what mission they started on and what mission they died on, and if ever they were brought back, has encyclopedic value, but listing their injuries each mission(since they aren't permanent) seems a bit unnecessary. What does everyone think? Also, should any of the characters have their own wikipedia page like characters in some other series have? Is there enough information about them out there for that? Dream Focus (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Reika is carrying him in the final panels. It's hard to see in the low quality release, though. He is likely still alive but in very bad condition. Sakata is definitely dead though. 69.243.158.192 (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Inaba is already dead he felt to the ground with his head on the asphalt. No one can survive that. Well is obviously that He's dead, he surely broke his neck.Envysf 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading info
Change where it says volumes. It says 22. It should say something like 22 - Ongoing.98.226.181.33 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about tags. Back it up or remove it.
I'm curious about two of the tags. First off if you say "This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)" then you should have at least one "citation needed" thing in the article, to show what part is not supported by information provided by the series or in interviews. And I also see "The quality of this article may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words." Where exactly are these weasel words? Please give an example. If you make a claim, back it up. If you saw some weasel words and took the time to add a tag, then take the time to post about them in the talk section. Dream Focus (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know where to find interviews with anyone from the Gantz series?
I Googled about yesterday but didn't spot anything, other than a mention that the DVD of the anime version has interviews with a lot of people. Have they done no other interviews, in magazines and whatnot? Has anyone found anything at all? Dream Focus (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rifle is shotgun? Question of recent weapons edit. Manga versus anime relevance
Chibi Gohan, please explain your recent edit. You edited out my bit "This weapon has also been demonstrated to be far more powerful than the X gun in the Anime, but had no difference in power in the manga." I believe this is relevant, since the Gantz article is about both the Manga and the Anime. If you look at the Temple mission in both, you can clearly see the difference. There was a discussion about this over at the stoptazmo forums, various issues used as reference. Also, shotguns don't come with sniping scoops. Are you sure it translated properly? Is there an official translation, or just a fan sub? In the Anime, Temple mission episode, the guy using the weapon to snipe targets with called it a rifle. Dream Focus (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it has a long range, a scope, and lacks the spread pattern of a shotgun. I think that it is much more like a rifle.--Ascura (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chibi Gohan has once again edited something. Alright.  There are places in the manga and the anime where they call it a rifle.  Shotguns do not have a scope.  If you look up a definition of a shotgun, and that of a rifle, you can see it is clearly a rifle.  The fact that someone mistranslated it in the Gantz manual isn't relevant.  And discuss things on the talk page. Dream Focus (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to check the talk page. Anyway, I have the actual Japanese Gantz Manual, I wasn't reading a translation of it. I tracked some scans so I could show you guys a source

Hell, even Japanese Wikipedia calls it the X-Shotgun (They do note, by the way, that it has a scope like a Sniper Rifle.). It's the third weapon listed, written Xショットガン, input that into Babelfish and you get this translation: X shot cancer/gun (I don't know where it got "cancer," Babelfish isn't the most accurate translator...).

If any of you have a source for it being called the X-Rifle, changes can be made, but if even the Japanese Wikipedians call it the X-Shotgun, any mention of it being a rifle are probably errors in translation.

As a side note, the weapon has been used for close range like a shotgun (hell, shotguns can shoot pretty far), and it is some kind of alien weapon, so it's not unthinkable that the weapon could have a scope. You can't say it's called the X-Rifle just because it has some properties of a real life rifle; that would be Original Research. Chibi Gohan (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Looking at that picture, it looks like it was originally designed as a shotgun, with it made to pull back on the front part to reload it.  They just added a scope to it, and gave it an insane range like a real world rifle would have.  Alright, my mistake.  Thanks for explaining. Dream Focus (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

manga/comic book articles never list the manga/comic as reference
Where it says "This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2008)" what are we suppose to put? In any wikipedia page I see for any comic book or manga out there, they don't bother listing the thing itself as a reference, its simply assumed. Should we list every single issue, page, and panel that every single bit of information comes from? I think that would increase the size of the article considerably. Dream Focus (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

what does the Gantz manual say about the firing power of the x-gun and x-shotgun? What about the swords?
Does the Gantz manual list any information about the firing power about the weapons?

And having seen the Japanese version of it, I'm curious if its only about the Anime, since that is where all the pictures come from.

I think it would be a useful and interesting bit of information to have in the article.

Also, can you tell me what it says about the swords, and why Izumi's can do far more than everyone else's can. Dream Focus (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sending affects whole body even if head is removed before it gets to it.
In Gantz issue 87, on page 10 and 11 you can clearly see the original body the boss of the Temple mission was in, being sent away, despite the fact that its head was already detached, it then moving to form a new body. It shows the body being sent away, and then on page 11, nothing but a foot left, the sending working on it. So even if the part which was hit by the sending first, is removed, the rest will continue to be sent as it normally would be. In the Anime, the same alien boss just snipped off its top bit, and that got sent but not the rest of it. The rules are different in the manga and the anime. Dream Focus (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The book mentioned in anime ?
There's a book called The Labyrinth, by Miranda Frost in the anime, which is mentioned quite a lot. Specially a quote from it's first page "There are no labyrinth's you can not get out of." or "No labyrinth is inescapeable." (i'm not sure which one is the correct translation). Does this book really exist, or is it a reference to a real book ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaang (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nishi's suicide?
I was just wondering about the character bio on Nishi, for the fact that when I read the manga and watch the anima it did not say anything about him shoplifting and escaping from the police. Also in the anima wasn't he seen jumping in his school uniform, leading me to think he jumped off a school building. But I don't know for sure, and was just wonder if anyone actally did know about that and could tell me or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvbanshee (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The anime changed a lot of things. Information can be gotten from the manga, the anime, the video games, the official Gantz manual, or interviews done with various people.  But many things in the anime were made different than in the manga, so you can't rely solely on it for anything. Dream Focus (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's funny because I noticed the manga and anime are strikingly similar. Minus the Kurono alien episodes. Betawaffles (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read my above bit about the sending gun at the temple mission. Also, the aliens acted differently, and the boss only had 6 arms in the anime instead of countless dozens as it had in the manga.  I guess we could make a section listing the differences. Dream Focus (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Illustrated credit
It current reads that Gantz is "written and illustrated by Hiroya Oku." He also has a staff that he compliments in one issue as helping him with the artwork. Do we just list the main illustrator, or does anyone know just how much of the artwork throughout the manga is done by others? Perhaps it should read "written and chiefly illustrated by Hiroya Oku." Or do all series use others to help, and they don't bother mentioning the staff in those articles? Any suggestions? Dream Focus (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it mentioned him doing the Anime. I thought he licensed it to others to do that. Dream Focus (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any influence from Battle Royale? I erased that comparison.
Was Gantz influenced at all by Battle Royale? If not, I don't believe the comparison of the bomb implanted in their heads, is relevant to the exploding collars of that series. I had the exact same idea years ago in a story I wrote about criminals fighting it out on an island, before knowing of either series, so I believe it just a general concept anyone could come up with. You want to keep them in line, you make them explode if they go out of bounds, or do anything you don't like.

Other general concepts would be black skinsuits, which you see features in countless series, as well as the ability to summon out a ridiculously large sword out of nowhere. No need to reference any series that did the same thing. Everyone agree? Because otherwise, at first glance, it does seem like the article is suggesting he got that idea from Battle Royale. Dream Focus (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

targets on Gantz(new pages)
I uploaded several images about weapons and aliens correcting the links someone else put before. Because of spoiler danger and article size reason I splitted the article and create a new section "Gantz Targets" (Actually, I think "Targets on Gantz" would be a better title, but I missaved the page with the current title. I'm gonna add more information about the game in the next days.

--

why did he have his memory wiped, i don't understand, was he being selfish or something. why didn't he wish for kei kishimoto, then everybody he cared for would be back. but maybe he wanted a normal life, so that he could be with tae kojima. (damn made me cry too, both of em made me cry (this some crazy shit)).
 * If you get 100 points and decide to quit the game, you have your memory wiped (this is mentioned in the article under "plot"). Kei probably released  Joichiro because Joichiro is a stronger player and has more of a chance to help the team survive than Kei Kishimoto, who really didn't participate that well.  Perhaps Kei was showing a bit of pity as well?  However, these comments really have nothing to do with building the GANTZ article, you may want to find a BBS for discussion of GANTZ.

About the spoilers
Guys, Do you think it is apporiate to have the amount of spoilers it has right now? It really ruins the plot completely! Shouldn't this page be informative without sacrificing the fun of the actual series? Please let me know what you think about this.

-Response: I think that Wikipedia prefers articles to be thorough as opposed to introductions to a series. But it wouldn't do any harm to increase the amount of information prior to the spoiler tag.-

-Reponse: I believe that it is VERY important to note before the spoiler tag (or at the beginning of the spoilers section) how important it is to go into Gantz cold, to learn the mysteries as they are revealed, rather than spoiling. The purpose of the page is for completists or those looking for analysis or reference, NOT for the casual reader who wants to get into Gantz.

Some additions
Looks like the Oni alien section has been cleaned up as well. That should conclude the alien section's clean up. I will check if there is any stuff we have overlooked.

I'm thinking about adding a section talking about the PS2 video game for Gantz. I don't believe it was released in US, but it exists.

addon to aliens,kurono and tae
YO... i would like to thank the ppl that finished the alien section... i finished a little of it uhh i think we should edit some of the stuff and add more characters...

thnx -ORYN

addon to aliens,kurono and tae
would it be ok if i added kurono and tae to the aliens section? i khow they arent really aliens,maybe we should change it to"gantz targets" because the vampires may turn out to be targets as well. though gantz does seem to have a habit of calling everthing he targets an alien:). i would state that neither of them are REALLY aliens,just idenified as aliens by gantz. in case any of you are confused about the kurono alien,its an anime excusive. in the final ark of the anime, gantz assigns kuruno the target of the mission. he is idenified as"kuruno alien"if (anyone can provide the likes,dislikes,characteristics,and qoute,that would be great. i admit that i have not actully seen the show;p) and the group is made to kill him. despite kurono being displayed as the mission target,the two insane hobo killers(ryuji and hajime) are the real enemy. they take advantage of the confusion and began killing the other contestants,and kei unites the group against them. the hobo agressors are killed in the end,leaving only kuruno and the random girl(what was her name again?) kei is then teleported to the very train platform in which his whole deal with gantz started with the girl on his back. it should also be noted that this final ark of the anime is metaphorical,random,and crpytic. its critisized by many fans of the manga as making little sence and being part of the filler ending(my guess is that gantz found out that keis brother was a vampire,and feared they were in league. but then again,the hobo killers were the missions real targets. i khow alot of people think(perhaps rightly so,but who am i to say that?) that this ark is filler,and im sure there are some people who khow more about this then i do. so feel free to edit the crap out of me. at least add a tae alien section,and if you want.... "critism of the anime by manga fans"

and also.....
if anyone wants the profile for the tae alien,its characteristics:small,weak likes:drawing manga qoute:kei-chan

?
so,responce? have we decided to stop editing this article? why?


 * This is Zephyr414 from Shoc's forums for Gantz (http://forum.caticus.com) and I did some cleaning up to the equipment section. I will continue to clean up the grammatical and factual errors and try to find a better picture for the top of the page.


 * I cleaned up the first plot paragraph. Here is the old version:


 * The plot involves a high school student and his friend who are both killed by a train as they try to save a homeless man who fell on the tracks. They are both transported to an apartment where they meet a group of similarly confused people who have also just died. In the center of the room lies a black sphere simply called GANTZ. GANTZ informs the people that their lives have ended. The words, "What you do with your new life is entirely up to me. That's the theory anyway," materialize upon the black sphere's surface.

some other stuff
so........no kuruno alien? i khow the last 5 episodes of the anime are critized as filler and considered non-canon by most fans of the manga,but if we want to by comprehensive,perhaps we should add that. and why isnt there a diffrences between the manga and anime section? how about......a section pertaining to the secondary  gantzers that appear during te missions? i dont khow if we should include all of them,maybe we could make a seprate article. heres an example,we could do it mission by mission "name:inamori takeshi gantz name:blondie appearace:wears a pink shirt under a lavender-colored sweatshirt,has long back pants. also has blue eyes,and as his name suggests,blonde hair with a ponytail. he has an effeminate look to him. weapons:x-rifle kills:almost killed baby onion alien,attempted to shoot the large onion alien,but hit hatanaka instead. description:a teenager that appeared during the first mission. he was hit by a car while taking a smoke break from work. in the anime,he took pictures of kishimoto naked with his cell phone. he was killed by the adult onion alien,though his death in the manga wasnt clearly displayed.in the anime,his head was riped off quotes:"have you ever seen that movie...the sixth sence? its like they...cant even see us.." "why are you naked? are you some kinda fag?" "IM SORRY! IM SORRY!" i khow his name because of a site that shows all the people in the missions,the creator khows because he has read the gantz manual,the site is at http://www.filefarmer.com/gantzball/home.html feel free to use other info on this site for the sake of editing this article,it also has summaries of the manga. thk ppls!

character images
All right, I added some. More will come. Could someone make a table so the layout doesn't look all messed up? Thanks!

more additions coming!
I agree with the O-cycle fix. Gantz Bike seems to be a better option since there is a reference for it. I might try to make the character's pictures in one standard format. The problem is with the vampires. If you have a small pic, you can only show one or two of them, which will feel weird. Maybe we should exlude the vampires? Also, the kid doesn't seem to be that important, to me. Should we keep the kid in the character's list? That Tomb Raider girl might be very important, but the list is based on the manga, so I say we make a seperate list for the anime.

I also feel that there is way too much spoiler in the character info. We don't really need to detail everything the characters have done up to this point, in my opinion. Ganza manga is still running, and there will be more story being revealed. It would be silly to keep adding stuff here as the series runs along.

Alien pics and Manga/Anime controversy
I think we should add pictures of the Aliens. maybe one from the manga(if possible) and one from the anime(if possible)

Onion=just a normal picture of him,i don't know if it would be big or litle one Tanaka=if you could find a full body picture of one smiling,looking like its about to say"yuzo?" that would be great Budda=either rowdy or grumpy looking all angry Chibi=a normal full body picture Kuruno=just a pic of him all freaked out during the mission Dinosaur/Kappe=i honestly have no clue Ring=one of them up close,though i think we should show its collosal size Tae=maybe her in pajamas or after she had been slashed Oni=one of the basic ones,after its transformed.

Mexico Publisher
I added the publisher of the manga in Mexico

X-gun
"The X-gun functions by firing nano-sized explosives that stop and explode inside the target." Where does that information come from? --62.226.0.35 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why redirect from a misspelled word? Since when does Wikipedia do that?
At the top of the article it says "For the Klonoa character, see Guntz". Are a lot of people searching for that, and spelling it Gantz by mistake? I don't recall ever seeing any wikipedia pages that do that. On the Guntz page do they offer a link to Gantz? I'm removing it. Dream Focus (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Frequency change head explosion?
Someone added to the radar that too many frequency changes caused heads to explode, as seen in the Dinosaur hunt. First off, I believe that was in another mission, and changing frequency constantly ticked off Gantz, because it made the guy visible to anyone, Kurono's girlfriend taking a picture of him, and thus they having a hunt to go after her. Everyone agree that should be reverted? Is there anywhere in the dinosaur hunt I don't remember of someone using it at all? Dream Focus (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I read the manga I assumed that the guy experimenting with changing frequencies was blown up because he was seen and photographed, not because he changed frequencies "too often" per se. So I agree that it should be reverted. Luis Dantas (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I gathered, the micro charge inside the heads of each of the Gantz members only explodes if they leave the confines of a predetermined area, a "game space," if you will. If they approach the boundaries of this area, an alarm will sound in their head and get louder the closer they get to the limits of the game area.  If they cross the boundary, the charge in their head explodes.Daniel Stapleton (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that part of the article, as well as 90% of the rest was deleted by vote of three people who thought it too long, against my one vote voting to keep it long and thorough. Anyway, to clarify in case anyone decides it worth putting back in, I'll explain.  Just as in the Anime where Gantz made a guy's head explode for bringing too much attention towards himself using an X-gun to try to kill gang members, he did the same thing to a guy in the manga who was standing where everyone was at(not out of bounds at all), but kept playing with his controller and changing his frequency.  This guy had his picture taken by Tae, Gantz got upset, and his head was made to explode. Dream Focus (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags
I see 5 things listed, so I'll comment on three of them here.
 * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since August 2008.
 * I notice on other pages related to comics/manga, that they every fact has a link to what issue and even page number that information comes from. I suppose we should do that. Dream Focus (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article. Tagged since August 2008.
 * Is this an actual rule? What is the limit to determine something is too long?  Also, what the hell happened to the article?  99% of it got erased in the past month apparently.  All of the other information was perfectly valid, so I'm going to be restoring some of it.  If you do wide spread deletion, then explain your actions on the talk page. Dream Focus (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an actual rule. WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:MOS-AM. We aren't here to give a blow by blow and every minute detail about the plot, but an encyclopedic overview. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since August 2008.
 * Original research? All information is from the manga, anime, interviews, or the official Gantz manual.  No original research or any claims that are unverifiable.  More reference tags are needed though.  I'll start adding some. Dream Focus (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OR includes people putting their personal opinions and personal interpretations of the series in the article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of the current article do you feel someone has done this? Put a reference needed tag on it, or post about it here.Dream Focus (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera wrote: (Reorder per MoS - remove Rules - beyond excessive detail and primarily OR of one person; ditto Equipment section - excessive in-universe detail; remove trivia; excess ELs)
 * How exactly does this count as excessive? Anyone wanting to know about the series, needs to know about the equipment, the rules of the game, and other key factors.  I'm adding that back in. Dream Focus (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, true. A production section could also be created, though I only know that the author uses a computer for some draws. It had a lot of speculation about the weapons and plot as well as some overdetailed description of weapons. The article was full of plot last month. I guess that the plot tag could be removed.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained why I removed them all in the summaries, and no, such excessive details is completely unneeded. Read the WP:MOS-AM, read WP:WAF, read WP:PLOT, etc. This isn't an in-depth Gantz fanguide, its an encyclopedia article.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I undid your recent mass deletion. We need a consensus.  Does anyone else believe a listing of all the equipment should be erased?  I vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a discussion on it, do it properly (asking the question neutrally, in a separate discussion, etc). Until then, stop reverting and putting it back as silent consensus (by fact of it sitting like it was for 8 days with no one else reverting it) agrees with the clean up and removal. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. I saw someone just listed this article for a 3O. I agree with AnmaFinotera's removal of information. The other text is way too in-group and makes the article considerably more difficult to read. It's pure WP:FANCRUFT, and doesn't belong. it's also OR and whatnot, but it's entirely excessive (not to mention making the article nearly twice as long!) &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Agree with the deletions. More of the article probably needs to be deleted out. Unsourced information, extremely detailed plot summaries and trivia have no business being in Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess with the above (posted at the same time) that was a fourth opinion. It's good to see we're in agreement. Makes establishing consensus pretty clearcut. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The length of an article isn't relevant, especially when comics like X-men and many others are even longer. What about the part about the equipment?  Isn't that important for anyone seeking information about the series? Dream Focus (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Vampires
I noticed a poorly-worded sentence about monsters and vampires was removed from the plot section. This isn't speculation, there are actually vampires and "monsters" in the manga. If you don't mind, I would like to try and update the plot section with this information, with references of course --kraftlos (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are vampires, and things that aren't aliens but aren't vampires either. I've seen people call them by different names.  I suppose monster would be a good general term.  The aliens take on many forms, such as dinosaurs, statues, and birds in robot human doll like bodies, and you could call them all monsters as well.  If you disagree with someone's edit, just click undo.  Has the one editing it seen the series? Dream Focus (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rollback tools installed, I just didnt like the way the erased sentence read. I didnt know if AnmaFinotera had read the manga far enough to know that the vampires werent speculation, and wanted some input on how the sentence should be constructed. --kraftlos (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on the plot section
To understand the series, you need to understand that they are made to keep fighting until they get 100 points, and then they can go home, as well as the suits and weapons and other gear. Since the article was deemed too long before, I just went and made a section for the equipment on another page, and added a few additional references here and there, showing what page things are mentioned on. I added the 100 point menu, and a link to where detailed information of all the gear can be found at, plus cleaned up how the Plot was written. I think everyone who has read the series will agree, that the 100 point menu and whatnot are highly important for the main article. Dream Focus (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Gantz Wikia considered a fan site?
Since it is hosted by Wikipedia, and I have seen other articles linking to Wikias, I assumed it was just like any link to any other article. But someone reverted my addition, saying that counted as a fansite. What is everyone's opinion on this? It list the same information the official page does, only with some additions, and has a page for every single character ever mentioned, as well as detailed information about them, and other things. It still needs a lot of work done on it, but still, I believe is a valid source of information. Dream Focus (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Wikia should be allowed since it is with the Wikimedia foundation. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't. The Wikia page was a direct copy of the Gantz Wikipedia page and had a whole ton of red links + it is created by a fan. Why shouldn't I delete it? That's like if I put a bootlegged Chinese copy of Dragon Ball into my all-official manga collection. Most pages shouldn't have it, unless it's a Wikia spotlight like Naruto or somethin'. —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying because wikia is owned by the foundation any wikia should be linked is absurd, and contradicted by the external links guideline. Wikis should generally not be linked.  Exceptions must at minimum meet the criteria of WP:EL.  If this wiki doesn't have a substantial history of reliability and dozens if not hundreds of editors, then it should not be linked.  If it has copyvio stuff, it should not be linked regardless. 2005 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't most articles for series created by fans? And yeah, it has everything the official wikipedia article has, I copying it over, but also adding stuff back in that was deleted awhile back.  I was thinking others would go and help edit it once a link was provided.  A link to the page http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Gantz_Characters might've been more appropriet, since that shows something the wikipedia article doesn't have, and links to various character pages. Dream Focus (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A Wikia page is like wikipedia, a tertiary source which uses primary and secondary sources to build a summary article about a given subject. Once cannot explicitly cite a wikia page as a source as it doesn't qualify as a reliable source, however it might be useful for locating primary sources.  What is really needed on wikipedia though are reliable independent sources such as magazines or newspapers, and I doubt you will find that type of source on a Wiki which deals with the subject in a primarily in-universe style.  Please also read this short section, it should help clarify the issue of sources. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't listed as a source for anything. It was just an external link for additional information on the series.  And I found the tag to add to it saying that the original content was from the official wikipedia site, after seeing that is what they did on the Naruto page. Dream Focus (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the external links need to be a reliable source as well. I havent been to the naruto page in awhile.  I'd ask the question on the anime wikiproject and see what they have to say.  --Kraftlos (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See criterion 12 @ WP:LINKSTOAVOID --Kraftlos (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Thanks for finding this.  Substantial isn't clearly defined though, why not a specific number?  Anyway, other people created it, I just copied over information that was deleted from this article for being too long, since I personally found the information to be rather interesting.  It does need some work though, if anyone wishes to go and help edit it. Dream Focus (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction), under "A note of caution" list the new policies, which allow the wiki. It includes information which was deemed unsuitable for this article, and thus moved to a wiki, with a link then added, as official policy dictates.  Please read that entire section.  When editors can't agree over what should be included, and what shouldn't, just make a wiki and copy the other stuff over to it. Dream Focus (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

泥棒の翻訳に気をつけてください（Please take care about the thief's translation.）
Episode127. Chinese (漢, Kan) 泥棒が作った偽のタイトル(Title of imitation that thief made)

Episode127. man (漢, Otoko) 正しいタイトル(Correct title)

泥棒は偽りの情報を混ぜます. （The thief mixes lie information.）

by 機械翻訳(Machine translation) (220.104.45.144 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
 * This discussion was redone over in the proper page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Gantz_chapters Dream Focus (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ain't it cool review about Gantz... why was the link deleted?
The article was titled "GANTZ V1 (Manga Preview)", and it listed a review of Gantz. That website counts as a notable third party reference. I just glanced through the review, but it was about the Gantz series. Dream Focus (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a third party ref, not an official site from the series. It may help to create a reception section, but it is not an external link.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Character list
There is absolutely no need for a character list. The main characters fit well enough without the unnecessary plot details that are already covered in the chapter and episode lists. The summaries will unlikely ever be expanded much beyond my version, so there is no need to worry about size issues either. TTN (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your version is good, but Akira Kurono could be simply changed to Vampires.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was more to keep people from adding the other nameless and unimportant vampires (the three that were killed by Izumi before he was killed), but feel free to change it if you would like. Though if you mean a general description, I added that to the setting section. TTN (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. A Gantz article benefits enormously from having a separate character list, to the point of it being nearly a must.  Some kind of list of characters is definitely helpful, since there are so many; and it is convenient for it to be separated from the main article because the premise leads to quite a few spoilers about the cast.  Exception made for Kato and Kurono, who are after all the first main characters presented and therefore worth commenting upon on the main article.  I am disappointed that the picture of the two of them was removed with no fitting substitute; it gave a bit of color to the article. Luis Dantas (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the character list should be a separate page. So, that's two for the merge, and two against it.  We need more opinions to form a consensus. Dream Focus (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm against such a merge, the character page should continue to be worked on and improved, and if it is a target for fancruft, then editors should keep a closer eye on it. There is a great deal of plot summary in that list that will need to be shortened, but I think a rushed merge would do this article a disservice. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't decide such things by voting or tallying up for and against. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a reception section in the list. I ll be making more clean up.Tintor2 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a notability issue, so that information should be added to this article instead of just resting in a cruft filled environment. The section that I created is the pretty much the most information the characters will ever require besides minor additions and copyediting. There are absolutely no relevant details that will ever require an entire list to hold. TTN (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it concerns the fancruft, the aliens section is a bit of cruft. The length of the list is unimportant as long as it shows notability. Apart from that, having all the characters listed in the main article does not help too much. As I read more your version, I think the setting could perfectly help the characters list and it wouldnt have any problem with length.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the current cruft that I care about. The future content of the article being useless is what I do care about. My point is that there is nothing relevant beyond plot details that cannot be covered in a concise section here. We have a featured chapter list to cover the plot details, so listing them again is redundant. Can you look at my section, compare it to the character list as it is now, and point out the details that make the list necessary? Note that if you consider the aliens to be relevant, they'll be removed from the character list anyway, as they're as important as the fodder characters that die every mission in the long run. TTN (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Without the aliens, the list would be 22 kylobites more or less and it would still lack refs and some expansion of reception.Tintor2 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reception section can be merged, so we don't need to count that toward anything currently. The current content of the "Gantz players" section is 14bkb. Much of the information is useless stuff, like Gantz's nicknames, or plot information. Remove that kind of information, and you have my current section plus Tae and the vampires and minus the other Gantz team. What out of that information is necessary to understand the characters? TTN (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see supporting a merge when no effort has been made to improve the page. I think the article needs some serious work before any merge should be considered.  While a lot (read: most) of the article is fancruft, there are some bits of useful information in there that could be verified.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The character section that I merged into this article (see the history) contains all of the most relevant details on the characters. The only other details that can be placed are the current fancruft details and plot details. The current chapter list covers the plot details, and fancruft is obviously not welcome. After that, there are the development (which is about the overall series rather than just the characters) and reception sections, which would be a fine addition to this article. TTN (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose such a merge. A single list of characters is a perfectly reasonable subarticle of a series, particularly for a series of this length. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I don't want this to come across as a a personal attack, but I think your efforts would be must better spent merging all these ridiculous individual character pages on some of these anime series then trying to merge legitimate subtopics of pages. It's already been established that you're operating under your own rules about whether a character list is justified. I know you want what's best for Wikipedia and I think you'd be doing the community a favor if you nuked some of those pages. (for example Battle Royale). Please don't take this the wrong way. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't merge two pages that were separated from the original because of length
Originally the equipment page and the character page were part of the main Gantz article. But then three people voted to eliminate them and other information, because it was too long. I was the only one around to vote they remain, and thus was outvoted. Anyway, some of the information was shifted to two other pages. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki has more information. Any series with a lot of characters has them listed on a separate page. I can't think of any manga/comic or anime/cartoon article that doesn't. Dream Focus (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, add a citation needed tag if you doubt it exists, or do some Googling
this is where you can find the Japanese version of the famous online book store Amazon, with a Google translation showing you what it says. Since the name of the book and its ID number were listed, it didn't take but one quick search on Google to find that. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gantz wiki link
We were discussing this over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links and I was told that substantial editors, just means you have someone to undo any vandalism. So WP:ELNO is not valid. There is no set number. It has a history of being stable all this time, and there are enough editors about to keep it clean from vandals. As for the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY reason, that is just nonsense. There is enough valuable information there, to warrant inclusion. Dream Focus (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't attempt to twist that conversation to claim the Gantz wiki is somehow valid. No one said anything of the kind, nor did they say Gantz wiki met EL in any way, shape, or form. The site clearly violates EL and will not be added here. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Special:RecentChanges reveals how small a wiki it is. 22 changes from 6 February 2009 to 8 February 2009. No changes at all on 10 February 2009. And most of these changes were made by you. It nowhere near meets the criteria. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The wikia's site statistics shows 63 legitimate content pages, and ListUser shows 9 users with 5 or more edits. Also, reviewing the content pages show that most, if not all, appear to be entirely unsourced - meaning the wikia is effectively an attempted back-door around Wikipedia's no original research requirements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All information is from the manga. There is no reason to list which page and issue every bit of information came from.  And there is no need to add new pages, when everything that could have a page already does.  There isn't really any new information to add.  Will others, preferably fans of the series, please state their opinions on this.  I don't see as how the size of the wiki is relevant in any way. Dream Focus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're presuming we're not fans of the series. For the record, I'm a huge fan. I'm just not interested in seeing links to sub-par content that doesn't meet WP:LINKS.  I also think that the fact that you're a regular contributor there presents a potential conflict of interest.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wiki more developed now, topic raised once more

 * There are now 41 editors who have edited at least once, not counting the bots. The amount of content has grown and improved.  Since another editor has recently posted a link to the Gantz wikia(before it was reverted), we're back here again.  How many believe its a valid link?  There have been thousands of views for some pages, the most popular one getting 17583 hits, thanks to Google listing it fairly highly on search results. There are 72 articles on this wiki, however if that number isn't too relevant, since some subjects have more things to talk about than others, and thus more pages.   D r e a m Focus  02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wiki is now as inactive as it was the last time I checked and it's not slightly too inactive, it's way too inactive to be listed here. Good raise  02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are updates whenever new issues come out, as was done with the recent issue. They are short, and not a lot happens.  It took two years to get through the Osaka mission after all.  Activity isn't relevant, only content.  Does it provide a lot of information someone interested in Gantz would like to see?   D r e a m Focus  02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It still fails WP:EL and still doesn't belong. If fans want to see it, they have Google. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As in all guidelines, those are just suggestions, done by a small number of people, and can be ignored. I look at the history of that page, and see how many times its been edited and reverted.  No reasonable person could ever take such a thing seriously.  You have to form consensus and use common sense.  And I don't see any reason why this would be different than any other external link.  Linking to a place that has a review of something, or a brief entry of something, provides the reader with less information than linking to a wiki which has far more available for them.   D r e a m Focus  16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like there is consensus here not to add it. What else are you looking for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A valid reason, and input from a reasonable number of people.  D r e a m Focus  16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been given several reasons so far -- your conflict of interest, the fact that your wiki is small and inactive, an opinion that it is of low quality -- all of these are valid reasons on their own and when taken together are more than enough reason to exclude your link. How many editors would you consider "a reasonable number of people"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No conflict of interest if someone else post the link. And it is not inactive, you can check the history and see how often someone contributes.  If someone sincerely thinks it is of significant lower quality than the main Gantz article here, then that would be a valid argument.  AnmaFinotera considers almost everything fancruft, and was responsible for deleting most of the original content that had been around for quite some time in the original wikipedia article.  I was curious of the opinions of other editors though.  Three editors total responded above since the most recent discussion, and one below.  Not a whole lot of people.  The quality level now is in question, not what it was months ago.   D r e a m Focus  17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So exactly how many editors need to respond before you agree that there is consensus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since 41 people thought the wiki worth editing at least once, and one person other than myself wants to add it now, against four who are apparently against it, I would think a few more editors would probably convince me. And do you personally consider it to be of low quality, not worth linking to?   D r e a m Focus  17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the quality of your wiki. You don't seem to accept reasonable arguments or WP guidelines, so I'm just trying to establish how many more people need to tell you "no" before you will accept that there is a consensus. So "a few more" means "three more" to me. Is that right? You'll stop this if three more editors say they don't think it should be linked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything is done by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment. The guidelines are constantly being edited and reverted, determined by a small number of people, no vote by the wikipedia editors at large, and are just suggestions not rules.  That's why they are guidelines instead of policy.  And consensus is formed through discussion, until everything is worked out, not someone just giving a flat answer without explanation, and having that mindlessly accepted.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that. If three more editors tell you they don't think the link to your wiki should be included for whatever reason, will you accept that there is consensus? It's a yes or no answer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it back did I? As long as the majority of people say to keep it out, so be it.  I am just curious about everyone's reasoning.  As long as you are thinking for yourself, and not just mindlessly quoting guidelines, then so be it.  And if you agree with the guidelines, then by all means, that is valid.  But you can't just say, "its written there, and even though it is just a suggestion, we should still follow it without thinking".  That's how most people unfortunately are with those things in the AFD, although fortunately more often than not people ignore them and use their own reasoning skills to make a decision.   D r e a m Focus  18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered the question, but if it's just a majority you're looking for, you already have that and you've already been given several reasons, so can we call this closed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When people run out of things to say, then all discussions end. If someone comes by later and wants to add to this discussion, I'll likely to respond to their post if I have something to say, and we'll discuss things.  You don't actually declare something closed on wikipedia.  Many people who are at school or work when this discussion takes place, might not be able to participate right now, or might only check on weekends.  Anyway, everyone's opinion is valid, never hesitate to say what's on your mind.  As long as you sincerely believe what you are saying, no fault in saying it.   D r e a m Focus  18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you when you would accept that there was consensus and you seemed to be saying when three more people agreed that the link shouldn't be included. Then you said when there's a majority, but there already is a majority. Now you're saying that the discussion has no end, which doesn't seem very reasonable - this discussion can end and another one be started if something changes substantially at a later date. All I'm trying to do is get you to state when you will accept that there is a consensus here. I believe there already is, and that any further discussion is pointless, but I would like to know if you would ever, under any circumstances, accept that the consensus is not to add your wiki link. Would you? When? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, misunderstanding. Yes, so far the majority are against having that link there.  Unless more people come in and say otherwise, and thus the opinion of the majority changes, then I won't try adding it back in.   D r e a m Focus  19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was asking. I keep asking you the same very simple question and you haven't given me a clear answer yet. I suggest that this topic remains open for a couple of weeks in case anyone else has a new opinion to offer and then gets archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That happens automatically. All topics remain, until there is enough to fill up the page, then any older topic gets automatically archived.  And yes, I support leaving it here, as happens always anyway, and then when the magical all knowing archiving bot decides to put it away, so be it.  The bot knows when nothing new has been posted in a section for a set time, and puts it away if the page is above a certain size.   D r e a m Focus  20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have received many already. Most importantly, however, is the fact that it is not necessary.  It is, regardless of any growing effort, a fan site of dubious quality at this point in time.  You don't have to like the consensus, and I can't much blame you for it, but it is still what it is.  Don't make it into a bigger thing than it is. :) --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is necessary, but external links still exist, to provide additional information to those interested in a subject. And have you seen the current version of the wiki?  Do you consider it to be of poor quality?   D r e a m Focus  17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer, likely to incite bad reaction: Yes.
 * Brief aside: I'm not talking "metaphysically necessary".
 * Long answer: As far as Wiki subjects go, there are some inclusions that can be considered necessary for a complete (let alone "good") entry, some that can be included in an otherwise good entry, and some that just should not be added at the current time. Considering the fledgling nature of the Gantz Wiki, it falls into the later category.  If it were simply another wiki article then I would state that it needs more work, but that isn't how an external link work.  External links, among other things, are there to provide access at a level not possible under Wikipedia regs.  The Gantz Wiki doesn't even do that at this time; in fact (as a specific example) the plot synopsis (one of the few things you would expect an external link for this topic to elaborate on) is essentially nonexistent.  Also there are more than a few links back to Wikipedia, which doesn't speak tomes for it's "elaborated information".
 * Look, you've gotten quite specific feedback on this, but also the Talk page is not the place to be giving critiques for private websites. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its as good a place as any, it relevant to what gets added to the page. The main page mentions briefly what its about, and then you have a link a section called Aspects of the missions which gives greater detail.  The main page also gives a link to a section explaining the equipment, a character list, and a chart information on who participated in each mission and the results.  The chapter list links back to the wikipedia, that list already rather complete, no sense just copying it over.  Nothing else links back here though.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no it's not the place to discuss your page. It just flat out isn't.  I'm welcome to it being improved an included at a later date, but this is not the place you discuss that.  Discuss it with other editors on that Wiki and/or forums, but at the risk of sounding overly guideline-quotey, Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions like this.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How to make Gantz is explained.
The original writer's comment adheres. http://www.contentparadise.com/static/jp_newsletter/20080425/index.html 219.160.59.193 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its all in Japanese. If I could understand it I would add it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a description of how Gantz was made in the manga. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/The_making_of_Gantz   D r e a m Focus  16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is more or less the same what there is in the production section of this article. It came in volume 1.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

recent edits discussion
My edit eliminated the bald man mentioned twice. Also, you can't say "Without explaining further, the Gantz sphere opens" after the previous paragraph mentions there is a guy in there and green text on the screen. The guy and the text don't appear until after it opens.  D r e a m Focus  16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on that but there is no need describe everything that happens in the room.Tintor2 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

correction
in the artical u said that all the main characters, except kurono, die. this however, is not true in that kurono does in fact die in the manga version and is brout bavk twice so that there are 2 of him,ovce by reika and once by katou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.6.13 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was Oku's (the author's) comment about what would happen in the manga. He may have changed his opinion during serialization.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Manga banned in thailand
It seems to be banned in thailand... 203.161.68.25 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Book causes extensive therapy for kid?
This book is involved in a news story about a boy needing extensive therapy after stealing the book from a public library and keeping it for a year. See my blog post for the reliable sources contained therein: Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This in not linkspam. It has 3 links to reliable sources and I said so. I was just too busy to copy and paste them here. But they are no less valid. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

TheFarix, stop removing this comment. It is not linkspam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkspam#Link_spam says:


 * Link spam is defined as links between pages that are present for reasons other than merit. Link spam takes advantage of link-based ranking algorithms, which gives websites higher rankings the more other highly ranked websites link to it. These techniques also aim at influencing other link-based ranking techniques such as the HITS algorithm.

What I have added is not "present for reasons other than merit." It is added precisely because of the merit, then I specifically state the link contains 3 reliable sources, and that is the truth. The reliable sources are directly related to the subject matter of this wiki page.

Further, since Talk pages do not appear in search engine results, I am not "tak[ing] advantage of link-based ranking algorithms". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just link to the three news articles, instead of your own personal blog? Crestview Bulletin Anime News Network Sun Sentinel  This case seems ridiculous.  She tricked over two hundred people into signing a petition at a Christmas parade, to ban pornography from the library.   D r e a m Focus  14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dream Focus, and thanks for adding the links. We all know Wikipedia activities take a long time.  I just tried to shorten the time by adding the link I did but clearly stating it was there only due to the 3 valuable RSs it contained.  Who know TheFarix would come along and decide to ignore what I said and make a mountain out of a molehill. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Review(s)
Mania.com: manga vol. 7 manga vol. 8

--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Added your refs to Refideas above. – Allen   for   IPv6  17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Active Anime: vol. 13

--KrebMarkt (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One more added. – Allen4names 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * AICN vol. 13 & 14 AICN vol. 15 (Sorry adding it above is too time consuming when you are scooping +50 reviews into Wikipedia talk page) --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mania.com: manga #12 manga #13 anime Complete Series
 * Active Anime: manga vol. 15
 * ANN: Shelf Life complete DVD

Gantz sells over 15 million copies
On the cover of Gantz issue 332, it states the manga has sold 15 million copies. I have thus added that to replace the outdated information which stated it sold 10 million copies. Verifiability does not require an online search for the information, since people quote books all the time. Please discuss this on the talk page before reverting me to show outdated and thus inaccurate numbers. Does anyone sincere doubt the source?  D r e a m Focus  20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Google news search for "gantz" and "15 million" shows two results. Is http://manga.about.com/b/2011/01/24/manga-movie-gantz-brings-out-the-stars-at-hollywood-premiere.htm reliable?  http://www.asahi.com/ seems to have moved their article but you can read the summary in the Google news search.    D r e a m Focus  20:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone search for "Gantz" AND "15 million copies sold" in Japanese? The official sites its sold on, in Japan and other nations that it's been translated and released in, probably mentions that.   D r e a m Focus  20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem about accessibility is that the reference "Gantz issue 332" does not state anything as a reference. It does not state in what issue of the magazine was serialized, what magazine it is, what date (it just says 2011 and there are lots of magazines published in a year). Moreover, it is completely unformatted so readers and editors will understand less what does it mean. The reference from about.com is reliable, but I see no reason to remove previous updates of sales as they keep a record of the manga's sales. I'll check that-Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy/paste copyvio
The edit at was a copy/paste copyright violation from the cited source, as all this editors' edits today were. Twinkle labeled my revert as vandalism, which is not quite right. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Production Section (possible error)
It is stated that the Gantz creator was inspired by a book called Time Murderer by Robert Sheckley, as far as I can see on his Wiki page and on Amazon, there is no book with that name. Some further looking on Google came up with a book called Time Killer, by the same author. So I'm just pointling out here that perhaps there is a mistake.

FrozenDelight (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While I don't know if the inspiration is correct, the story was originally printed under the title Immortality, Inc..Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The name it was published under in Japan is what matters. They might not have a difference in "Murderer" or "Killer" in the symbol they used.   D r e a m Focus  17:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Genres
There is no reason to eliminate a genre from the infobox simply because someone stated in a guideline page that "In general, two or three genres should be sufficient for most articles." First off, it says in general, not always, most articles, not all articles. Don't limit things. The current genres its listed in are Action, Psychological thriller, Science fiction, and Horror. Horror is something readers will understand straight away. Psychological thriller is something more vague, and doesn't just cover horror films.  D r e a m Focus  08:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are still ignoring the rules. Three genres is the limit and no more are allowed. If you think Psychological thriller was vague, then why you didn't remove it?Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those aren't rules, they are just general suggestions, and they don't specifically limit things. You are thus far the only one who wants to limit things to three.  Others have already stated at various times they want more in there.   D r e a m Focus  18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That other users like it is not a valid argument. It's not a suggestion, but part of the guideline to avoid placing similar genres which would undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there references for any of the genres? —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Publishers Weekly is down right now but the other references at the top and in the Review(s) section of this page should be useful. – Allen4names 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need references for things like that. Its more along the lines of common sense.  Anyone who has read it will confirm its science fiction, thus the Gantz spheres, suits, weapons, aliens, etc.  It also is horror fiction, and fits Action (genre) quite well.  Look at the definition of psychological thriller. Psychological_thrillers Does any of that sound like Gantz?
 * Psychological – Elements that are related to the mind or processes of the mind; they are mental rather than physical in nature. Sometimes the suspense comes from within one solitary character where characters must resolve conflicts with their own minds.
 * No, there is nothing mental here. Its all quite physical and real.
 * Psychological thriller – Characters are no longer reliant on physical strength to overcome their brutish enemies (which is often the case in typical action-thrillers), but rather are reliant on their mental resources, whether it be by battling wits with a formidable opponent or by battling for equilibrium in the character's own mind. The suspense created by psychological thrillers often comes from two or more characters preying upon one another's minds, either by playing deceptive games with the other or by merely trying to demolish the other's mental state
 * Nope. That's isn't Gantz either.  You fight your physical enemies hard to survive.

Gantz is science fiction, it is Action (genre), it is horror fiction, and it is a Thriller (genre). And please don't try to combine unrelated things just because you believe there should only be three genres when it clearly falls into four different distinct categories.  D r e a m Focus  07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material... This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception" —Verifiability


 * Since the genres have been challenged, sources are required. Ideally, genres should be sourced anyways instead of relying on editors' observations. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's if you doubt it is true, and challenge it. Do you sincerely doubt that it is science fiction, or any of the other things I listed?   D r e a m Focus  13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and searched for it, and found the Gantz manga referred to as an "action" manga, as science fiction, as a horror manga, and as a thriller manga. Added in some of those references found.   D r e a m Focus  14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The back of the Gantz manga volume collection calls it manga/scifi/action.  D r e a m Focus  14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You could also say it's Romance, a bizarre sort of Dystopian Slice of Life, Dark Comedy, Tragedy, Mysticism, Bildungsroman, Erotica, and a gazillion other things, simply because it's one of THE longest mature audiences serious mangas/visual novels in existence...BUT the best fit is none of the above: it's essentially a WAR NOVEL in a scifi/horror setting. The 'psychological' elements people mention amount mostly to PTSD/terror/shellshock, the war crimes and terrorism stuff fits right in, as do the civilian life vignettes, the flashbacks, etc. etc. And so does the 'action', which really occupies very little of Gantz - the entire 386-chapter series covers 10 hour-long missions and like 5 fights that aren't missions... These are only used as a plot device to throw together a bunch of random average people, apply extreme psychological stress to these characters, and use that as a prism to look into them and deconstruct them. 68.183.124.21 (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's a comic, not a novel. I'd say that science fantasy would probably fit this series the best, but that's just my opinion. Ginsuloft (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The four things listed under genre have references to back them up. That's why I got them to be there and stop anyone from edit warring them away, when we had this discussion over two years ago.  It can't be considered erotica for just a few pages here and there, and it isn't a romance since that isn't a dominant theme to it.  Please check the dictionary definition and/or the Wikipedia article for any genre you believe it falls in.   D r e a m Focus  16:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)