Talk:Karas (anime)

Misc
I talked to a Manga rep at Katsucon who said it got pushed back to September.--136.160.128.23 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I Excised an unnecessary comment added at the end of the story section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.41.51 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of Karas: The Prophecy (Movie) it was released 2005 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0809927/) (Random: Whoever thought Karas was like Batman Begins obviously doesn't get the Karas series Gartral (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole article is practically about The Prophecy and The Revelation, it's just originally they were just episodes. Look at the top and read "Manga Entertainment compiled and released these episodes as two feature length, direct-to-DVD films for the English market." then you'll see that it is stated. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Development
A previous contributor wrote that the series was based on the Dark Horse comic, which is not true. The series is an original concept and was in development since at least 2003 (see the special features of the first DVD, "Original Japanese Trailers and TV Spots," 6 minutes into the video). The character designs were still in development back then compared to the finalized character designs of the comic. EXcentra (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Character background
I wonder if there is some official source of background information on the characters? BTW, I beleive Nue's true form is an oni, not a wolf, at least that was my impression when I watched the anime. I might be wrong, though. Wilderns 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he's a wolf either. He's some sort of creature that pops out two guns from underneath his arms and has a tail.. (Read the Nue article) EXcentra 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karas vol 1.jpg
Image:Karas vol 1.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Go away, Betacommandbot. Nobody likes you, you need to be banned. 71.126.192.8 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I Second. 71.98.12.254 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys are idiots. Somebody comes and kindly explains why an image in the article doesn't meet Wikipedia policy and all you guys have to say is "go away, you need to be banned."


 * EDIT: Actually, on further inspection, it looks like he's just a bot and didn't "kindly" do anything. Well my point still stands. --69.109.122.16 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased Episodes
I was able to watch ova's 4 (subbed) and 5 (raw) at anime expo. Should I add a temporary synopsis for 4 and 5? (I did not understand what they were saying in 5 since it was raw but I got the gist of it [i'd also like to add it's the most amazing ova so far :)]). OVA 4 also revealed Otoha's past; should I add that as well? EXcentra 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karas vol 1.jpg
Image:Karas vol 1.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 ensure 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) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 rewrite
I will rewrite this article in the next few days. Basically the rewrite will conform to the guidelines specified for Wikipedia and Wikipedia Anime (WP:MOS-ANIME). Madlax, an anime FA, is the primary inspiration for this, so it can serve as an indication of what the rewrite will look like. So far, the structure will be: The aim is to get this article graded at a minimum GA class, dealing with Karas the show, and not an in-depth in-universe look of the story. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Summary of article.
 * Setting
 * Where the show is taking place, and the reasons behind it.
 * Characters
 * A non in-universe look at the characters, the reasons and concepts behind them.
 * Plot
 * Evolution of the plot's conception, and the plot discussed through a non in-universe perspective.
 * Themes
 * The themes explored by Team Karas.
 * Production
 * The significant production events behind this show.
 * Reception
 * How the show is received. It will be heavy on the Western reception side, as there are very few established Eastern anime review media/sites.
 * Media info
 * General overview of the media involved with this show.
 * References
 * External links
 * ✅ Implemented. Refinements should be proceeding. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. Joeinwap (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to explain some failings and request clarifications on the following which should help others in their anime articles.
 * MoS compliance:
 * WP:MOS-ANIME specifically states "Article structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects". This seems contradictory to the claim of "Misnamed sections and sections are out of order". In this article, I felt it was better to introduce the setting and characters first before the story, especially in light of how the common reaction to the anime was one of confusion.
 * Nowhere in WP:MOS-ANIME did it state "Media section should be two paragraphs, one for the episodes/DVDs, one for the soundtrack". The soundtrack has only one statement regarding its information which fails to qualify for it having its own section.
 * Which references require tweaking of their format? The article is using a mix of inline citation and shortened notes.
 * How would the images be better arranged? The image placement follows the guidelines with images, in which the characters facing left, are placed on the right. The images are also placed in sections where there is relevant context.
 * References to sources:
 * Of the two 404s, the Gline was eliminated by Serdar who is reorganizing all the websites he was managing (as explained in the now redirected link if you try to access the site). This is a recent event in March, and certainly after the end of Feburary which I had accessed its site. The same goes for PPVJ which had recently deleted long past shows from its site, but I have replaced it with a webarchive link.
 * Which are the sites with questionable reliability?
 * Which statement in the Character section is unsourced? Statements which do not end with an inline citation are taken to be referenced from the source stated at the end of the succeeding statement until the end of paragraph, as recommended in WP:CITE.
 * I disagree that items "sourced to specific episodes need to formatted with cite episode". As stated, the article is using a mix of inline citation and shortened notes. The Reference section would be messy and bloated if every quote from the show is tagged with a properly filled out cite episode, and the template does not support quotes to back up the statements.
 * I do agree the lack of tertiary sources kill the article in terms of WP:RS. It is a pity but Karas viewed on its own was a confusing affair (which I have reflected in the Reception section), and most Western reviewers do not have access to the resource books which were in the Japanese and Chinese packages. Thus Karas failed as a GA, and I have no qualms with that. Thank you for assessing the quality of the article and grading it B-class. Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The MOS is flexible, but I do not feel the confusion aspects justify the rearranging in this case, though part of that is also really an issue with the MOS itself in that it doesn't adequately discuss dealing with settings and themes. (I've started a discussion on the MOS talk page about that if you'd like to offer some comments).


 * For the media section, again its partially a failing in MOS clarity, however for articles, media types are usually separated in subsections, but for this case, at the least, separating the two would be appropriate due to them being different media types.


 * The references should use consistent inline formatting and accurate formatting. The ones below the specific references don't seem to be necessary as they are just a listing of the DVD volumes. DVDs don't have pages, yet several references to DVD volumes are listing page numbers. The reference section would not be messy nor bloated with proper episode citations and specific quotes from the episode are not necessary for backing up the statements, only the episode cite, particularly when the time point is already included. In the quote boxes, the references should be on the source rather than in the quote itself.


 * Unsourced statements: "Manga Entertainment also promoted the hero in Karas as "a cyberpunk version of the Crow"." Are all five of the last sentences in Mikuras section from that single source? Some of the rest I considered unsourced because of the questionable sources issue, namely sourcing statements from a DVD volume rather than something more specific. There is a mix of good, specific sources, and inappropriately broad sources. A DVD volume in an of itself is not a valid source for anything except its existence (and then its unneeded). Those sources, like #3, need cleared up and made specific to either episodes or DVD features.


 * For the questionable ones, I'm not sure if DVDTalk qualifies as an RS. While it has its own article, its unclear how much oversight is given with the reviews and what the selection pocess is for reviewers. DVDActive.com and DVDFuture.com seem pretty borderline as well.


 * For the images, only one is one effected by "in which the characters facing left, are placed on the right." The rest can, and should, be stagged left and right if possible, for a neater appearance.


 * I hope that helps some. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the references, I am using a mix of inline and shortened forms (ref: CITE). I consider good references as those with authorship, date, title, ISSN/ISBN and such fields filled out. Each volume of Karas has a DVD and a booklet (説X). The references with page numbers are not DVD references but booklet references. For the DVDs, each has special programs, such as "The Making of Karas", "Project K", and interviews. Having to fill out these fields time and again for each entry which come from one part of a reference source (said DVD volume) would be messy, especially with duplicate fields again and again (ISBN, DVD volume, authorship, date). Hence shortened forms are a good choice, reducing the clutter in the references section.
 * The five last sentences of the Mikura section are indeed from the one source at the end of them. Manga's proclaimation of Karas as a cyberpunk Crow is from their press release which is on the webmaster assets in the External Link section (WP:EL recommends to avoid linking ELs in the main article). There are two left-facing images (the Yurine/Karas, and the Nue CG). I have tried staggered layout but they came worse off when it comes to flow of reading by pushing the beginnings of paragraphs off to one side on my resolutions (1680px, and 1024 px). Hence the mostly right aligned images. This aesthetic issue cannot be helped with Wikipedia allowing readers the freedom to read in whichever preferred resolution. Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If those are DVD booklets, that needs to be clearer. I disagree on using shortened forms as the references are confusing and it is not clear where much of the information is coming from, like those DVD booklets. It is particularly odd that you feel it would clutter the references when the references are cluttered with repeating references from various websites.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood what I mean by clutter, judging by what you just said. Compare:
 * Karas Vol. 3 (DVD), Project K.
 * Karas Vol. 6 (説六), Interview — Keiichi Sato, p. 14.
 * Karas Vol. 2 (DVD), Making of Karas.
 * Karas Vol. 6 (DVD), Making of Karas.
 * with this:
 * Tatsunoko Production staff. (2006-03-01). Project K (Vol. 3) [DVD]. Taiwan: Proware Multimedia International. ISBN 471-8-481-10359-7.
 * Tatsunoko Production staff [2007-12-11]. "Interview — Keiichi Sato", 説六, Karas (in (Traditional Chinese)). Taiwan: Proware Multimedia International, pp. 14. ISBN 471-8-481-10362-7.
 * Tatsunoko Production staff. (2006-01-09). Making of Karas (Vol. 2) [DVD]. Taiwan: Proware Multimedia International. ISBN 471-8-481-10357-3.
 * Tatsunoko Production staff. (2007-12-11). Making of Karas (Vol. 6) [DVD] in (Traditional Chinese). Taiwan: Proware Multimedia International. ISBN 471-8-481-10362-7.
 * Now imagine all those ISBNs, Tatsunoko Productions, Karas Vol. X, Taiwan, etc, all spelled out 24 times in the reference section instead of six times in shortened form. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew what you mean, and I think it would be fine, particularly since that's only 3 listings for the DVD making ofs if you are using named refs :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no? There would be 24 references for the booklets and DVDs of the 6 volumes, each with its own ISBN, author, date, section, title, etc; not 3. Now that I look at it, I think the dicussion is getting moot since it seems to be based on style preferences, not policy. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's both. Short references are generally used with a different citation style than the one being used here, so its a mix of styles when the MOS calls for consistency. I also feel its being inappropriately applied as the point of short style is that there is first a full ref, then future use of that reference uses full style.  I do not see that being done here, leaving the references unclear. References need to be clear enough that anyone can go find that reference and confirm what it says relatively easy. If you check some FA level articles, you will see the issue of full references and "clutter" is not really relevant so long as they are nicely formatted, not to many people are gonna be bothered by having more details rather than less. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)