Talk:Urusei Yatsura/Archive 2

Manga date?
It's says everywhere that the manga ran from 1987 to 1987. How is that possible with so many chapters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.103.180 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

References to mythology
Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that Lum is an oni?
 * Check Urusei Yatsura characters ... seems kind of redundant to mention it here too.--David Breakey 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives
In order to make this page more manageable, older messages have been archived. Additional archives will be created as the need arises.
 * Archive 1

Games Added
I added and editted the Games section yesterday and today, but was at work so didn't log in. I'm just posting to validate my work. I only know or 'Lum no Wedding Bell' and 'Endless Summer'... does anyone know the names of the PC games, and if there are any other Game Boy games (for Advance, GBC or regular GB?). Thanks! NatsukiGirl

I added a game list of all UY game.I'm sure that's all of the UY games.If anyone knows another UY game,please let us know. Xcxin 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I collected all of the UY games. Shall we need to create a new article for these games? I'm sure that's will be very useful. Xcxin 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's wonderful. See below for my thoughts on having it's own page. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that section needs it's own page, at least not as it currently stands. I could see the character section being moved to its own article, though. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think just the small section is fine on it's own, unless someone can come up with text that would be article-worthy. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Archie
I don't know if the connection to Archie is fool-proof. The characters in Archie generally seem more wholesome than the characters in Lum. Especially Archie is a very nice and likeable guy compared to the jerk wannabe-player Ataru. 惑乱 分からん 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever heard anyone draw a comparison between the two. I've read many, many articles about UY in the last 15 years, and not one of them has made this sort of connection. I will likely remove the section unless someone can show me some definitive proof of some sort of academic comparison between the two. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; this is stretching the analogies quite a bit. The reverse argument could just as easily be made, and equally nonsensical. Also, there are too many disconnects in the comparisons, esp. comparing Lum to Betty Cooper. The similarities are, in my opinion, simply a result of a tendency toward similar love triangle stories, regardless of culture. --David Breakey 20:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall, this seems to be a result of a natural tendency to see connections where none really exist; while I can't say with certainty that Takahashi wasn't aware of both Archie and Bewitched while writing this, I'd say the odds are slim. This should require credible evidence to remain.--David Breakey 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section and placed it here for future reference:

Once the references are found, I'm fine with it going back into the article, but only then. ˑˑˑ 日 本 穣 Talk to Nihonjo  ε  00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if the guy above was smart enough, then he could find some similarity insthead, to 'Jinny' (the genious girl) o 'My wife is a witch'. Perhaps, maybe)).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs)

Character descriptions
Whoever restructred the character descriptions into that table layout; nice job! it looks much friendlier and more presentable than before.--David Breakey 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I completed Lum's section in terms of general copyediting but haven't been able to get to the rest of the characters as it appears that there is a fair amount to do. --Soulparadox 09:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Classification of Ran's character
There's a 'proper' term for the type of character that Ran portrays normally (the 'ultra-saccharine-cute' persona that panders to every male fantasy concerning 'proper' female behavior), but I can't remember what it is. I think it would be useful to link to an article covering that, especially since it is such a common cliche in manga and anime. Can anyone point out what the proper term is? Also, whether there's already an appropriate article to link to? --David Breakey 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ran is a sort of mix between Candy Candy and Mortissia Adams or Ms Homicide. Effectively, her presence in the history is meant only to revenge against Lum because she grabbed Rei (before leave him, these space-teenangers are really 'matures' for their age..). The best therm for Ran is 'Hipocryt' or even 'Looser' 'Frustrated'. Ultra-Saccharine-Cute sounds well for her 'normal' skin, perhaps it's possible to do better. However, great comedy-fiction (i still heard it's a porn-manga, a lot of guys don't known nothing..), great article too. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Urusei Yatsura English dub
I was looking at the Urusei Yatsura page and I discovered that there was an English dub of the TV series, but when I looked on AnimeNation and ebay I couldn't find it. Does any one know where I can get the English version? Mr Negotiator 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't say anything for other countries but here, at least (that's the U.S.) AnimEigo experiemented with dubbing the TV series. Only the first volume was ever done and it was so badly received, they abandonded the idea. Fortunately, the movie dubs are much better.


 * How badly done? Well, Lum sounded like a chipmunk overdosed on sugar: even when she was supposed to be angry. Most of the rest of the cast was just mismatched.--David Breakey 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long for me to reply, thank you very much. User:Mr Negotiator 12:02, 24 January 2007

(UTC)

The British dub was rather good. IIRC Matt Lucas did one voice. It was only a few episodes though and really took liberties with the plot.--Him and a dog 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Planet Uru
I recently began obtaining some of the Urusei Yatsura Shounen Sunday Graphic magazines, from which I discovered that Lum's home planet is indeed called Uru. It now makes sense that the title means to convey that periodically random folks from Lum's home planet come down for a visit and create havoc (intended, of course, right along with the "obnoxious" connotation of the word "urusei"). I have added the following sentence to the Title Explaination section " Uru is the name of the plant from which Lum, Ran, Benten and the other alien characters originate from." -- NatsukiGirl \talk 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Title Explanation
I would like to politely point out that "uruse(e)" is the correct crude term for "urusai", while "urusei" is a combination of the words "urusai" and planet (sei). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I read also this and, for me, it's confirmed it's so. R.T. is well known for her language jokes!--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube
Just to say that there are a lot of stuff on Lum on Youtube. I dunno if they are linkable here, but i had to say it. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most definitely not linkable, if only for legal reasons. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain it better? What's the point to deny links on Youtube?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case you would be linking to copyrighted material being hosted illegally Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then atleast to cite the existence on Youtbube of some materials, no important to link precisely (search engine). Or is illegal even to write youtube now?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there is no need to mention youtube, it has nothing to do with the article. There is no need to tell people they can watch Urusei Yatsura illegally on youtube. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin's of Lum series
Look that, in a number of Mangazine, i read thata R.T. had the idea for Lum influenced by My bedwitch, a US series trasmitted in Japan (in Italy was 'it:w:Mia moglie è una strega'). This adds a bit sense to Takhashi idea, moved in teenager sector.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
Why Lum has tagged for 'lack of sources'? This is another case in which a fictional work is not believed itself as 'reliable source'? In spite of it, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet shows cleary that 'general consensus' is in the opposite direction. In the article, AFAIK, there is nothing unsourced and the folks there shows how important are fictional works as proofs themselves. So the tag should be removed to my mind.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats a really bad example. Firstly that page has been improved since then in regards to sourcing (and the discussion does say it was needed), and there are some crazy arguements there that usually wouldn't hold up ("consensus" there is partly WP:ILIKEIT as much as anything else. Secondly, no one is suggesting this page be deleted for lack of sources. However that doesn't mean that it doesn't need better sourcing. Wikipedia is built around sourcing, if something isn't sourced, it's not considered reliable. Theres nothing wrong with using the work itself, but it depends on context. Simply existing does not make something notable. Urusei Yatsura doesn't have a problem with notability, but this doesn't mean it doesn't need sources to show this, or to verify information such as air dates, number of episodes etc. Although I messed up the references tag (hiding all the references). It needs more, and better sources, but its not going to be deleted for not having them Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad example? The votes against said often this phrase: ''The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources or Outside of what, anything published by Marvel Comics? or As far as I'm concerned, it's the "secundary sources needed" approach that needs serious revision''

This means that the 'opinion' outside bureucracy is eventually that a fictional work doesnt' need much except itself.

So this time. Then, this article don't risks to be deleted, but the folks there, if you read carefully, were largely of the opinion that a comic is a source itself. So we can discuss about the adding of sources, but it's ridicolous search outside a comic something that describes it, while, as an fictional opera, it's clear that he lives in a his own universe, not real. So what's the point? We can add some websites? And then? I have some magazines, but whait, they are italians and the non english sources are not likely accepted. If yes, i could proof the hell of this article and evend doubled his dimension. So to me, as a former 'expert', there is nothing that a reader/viewer of this series couldn't confirm with a simple, direct observation. Something like 'moon is yellow, expecpt at her rise, when it's a bit red'.

Frankly speaking, your request of 'more and better source' is even not explaining why they are needed? About what? In what aspect?

Finally, when someone adds tags like this, i think he would do better (before) to search and improve himself an article, rather than force do to it to other contributors. You could done it better (it's enough to use Google, i imagine), but atleast you discuss this in the talk before do it, not eventually after. Hey folks, where are the proofs, the episodes, the links for this and that? It's called collaboration. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming the comic/manga/whatever isn't a valid source itself (I frequently use the source material as a source on some articles - where appropriate, which is the key thing to note), however that doesn't mean something existing is notable, and the comic existing does not establish notability. However, none of that is relevant to this discussion or article - the comic in question isn't relevant to this discussion so this is an argument over nothing.


 * This article needs more sources the same as any other article on wikipedia should have sources. It doesn't matter if these sources are third party of first party, as long as they are reliable and appropriate (hence my removal of some which don't meet criteria. In addition, improvement tags DO NOT requrie explaning or discussing in this case, especially something as straight forward as a reference related tag, which speaks for itself. Discussion is not required for such a simple improvement tag, and discussing it first is a complete waste of time. Also I'm not forcing it on others, I'm making people aware of it. I have made some small changes to the page, but I'm editing many pages currently, including a page that will be submitted for Good Article status when I have completed my work on it. This page is on my watchlist, I will add to it gradually, and I've made more recent edits then you have so I don't see your point.


 * More reliable, accurate sources=good. Tag to show this=good. There is very little to complain about here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo in the introduction

 * The series tells the story of Atari Moroboshi, and the Alien Lum who believes

Ataru obviously. I can't edit the main page for some reason... Remove this comment when it's corrected. 90.33.26.122 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I read that section at least 4 times when writing the page and didn't notice. But then I had been working on the page for 9 hours straight at the time :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Manga Impact
Manga Impact: The World of Japanese Animation, 6 December 2010, ISBN 978-0714857411; pg 244:

Urusei Yatsura plays a crucial role in the development of anime fandom in the West. Beyond the sensationalism of anime erotica and the boys' club of giant robots, Urusei Yatsura was one of the first franchises to present a world rich in Japanese mythology and with an unapologetic and contemporary twist. These exotic details made the television show, manga, and movies a favorite with nascent otaku, who delighted in the obscurity and spectacle of each episode. The protagonists are teenager Moroboshi Ataru and space-alien Princess Lum, and the image of Lum was perhaps the definitive icon of Japanese anime, certainly in the West, throughout the Eighties. The pair meet through a chance encounter in the first episode, as Ataru stumbles across the invading forces of Lum's otherworldly empire. Chosen through an apparently 'random' computer system, Ataru is challenged to a game of tag against the beautiful bikini-clad Lum, daughter of the invading king. Through a succession of chance exchanges that see Ataru winning the game of tag and ending up betrothed to Lum, the series charts the surreal relationship between lascivious Ataru, jealous Lum and an eccentric mix of ensemble characters. Aside from introducing a generation of budding anime and manga fans to the complexity and imagination of Japanese mythology, it is important to note the importance of Urusei Yatsura establishing anime comedy. The loaded pauses, surreal slapstick and comedy of errors that Ataru and Lum inflict upon one another weave a rich social picture contrary to the ostensibly violent and serious view of anime driven by other franchises. The incredible sensation of fun that exudes from Urusei Yatsura is timeless. D.S. [David Surman]

--Gwern (contribs) 19:49 23 December 2011 (GMT)

Copy Edit Notes
I did a copy edit and re-wrote some sentences to make them read easier. I did not cut much. I think it is improved by my efforts but only time will tell. Regards Montykillies (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Montykillies (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture section
Coming back to this article 4 years after a very heavy rewrite gave me a bit of a surprise in the Culture section. As much as I like the idea of this section, it's far too large and dominates the article. I'm of the opinion that it can be safely split into it's own article, with some of it's better and more directly relevant points being summarised either in other aspects of the main article, or in the character list.

Aside from making the main article easier to read and more focused, it would also prevent the section's own issues from dragging down the rest of the article. This would allow for both the main article to be of high quality, and for the possibility of improving the culture section as a stand alone article in it's own right. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot needs to be reduced some, the culture section almost entirely OR, while it is not inaccurate - the presentation is a problem. I added the animage grand prix details, which might condense a little better, but that's excellent coverage in a major publication on its notability over a number of years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started to reduce the culture section where the information is either not directly relevant, or the sources are bad/non existent/unreliable or just plain don't support the statements. Some of the remaining information can either her moved around the article or merged to character pages. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing unnecessary information from the article. This article has so much potential to become an FA - it's popular, won awards, and has its own legacy. If only we could find more information on the manga and the anime adaptation's production. ごだい  (会話) 12:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned that the information was allowed to exist in such a state for so long. Dumping large amounts of badly or plain unsourced original research into an article that was of decent quality beforehand would usually get more attention. I guess no one dared to read it properly or check the sources because of the sheer size (same volume of data as the rest of the article!). As for FA, it would need substantial new sources to make themselves known (I would want to replace any Furinkan or gamefaqs source for starters. They would cause problems in a FA review if left). As it is, we need to look to 90s and early 2000s magazines for further information, I don't think we will find much new information in books. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I may have enough sources to re-include an abridged culture section to the article, or at the very least enough info we use in production and then could expand on at a later date. I'll summarise what I can and then decide the most suitable way of organising the information. Of course, any additional sources would be great. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to read that. I think an article like this benefits from such a culture section. While poorly referenced and implemented the section as it existed for a long time did give a lot of useful background information, imo. It is possible that other people thought the info was useful as well but, in spite of noticing flaws, didn't remove it while unable to improve on it themselves. Have you found anything that was in-accurate in the material you removed? Poorly sourced, certainly, but the idea itself was solid, imo. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the information wasn't necessarily inaccurate, some of it wasn't even specifically linked to the series. How I'm going about it is to narrow down the sourceable and interesting information, and cross link it with non series related sources that can be used for further reading. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no idea where to start cleaning up. You're right, we'd need magazine (especially Japanese) articles from the 80s and 90s. If someone is proficient in Japanese, we can contact Furinkan.com webmasters, I think. IMO, an "Impact" or "Legacy" section would really benefit the article. The series was popular in Japan and I'm sure it left some kind of impact there culturally. If we can find more information on it, we can include it as well. ごだい  (会話) 07:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first three references, Animeigo liner notes and the two part Animerica interviews, present in the current article can be used to source material for a cultural background section in this article, a section which can then be expanded when additional sources are inserted. (Where necessary in the case of available Japanese texts after translation of relevant parts.) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be continuing to mine AnimEigo's liner notes, but so far my attempt to turn up some form of guidebook to use across all the UY articles isn't turning anything up (by contrast I have 4 coming for Lupin III). I'm starting to acquire Animerica's form the early 90s again. I'm pretty sure there was at least a section on the series in a early 01/02 copy of Protoculture Addicts (or possibly Animerica), if so it was probably an issue that had the Evangelion feature by Jonathan Clements. I'll be hoping to bolster cultural stuff with reviews, so I'll do that along side expanding the reception. I've got some juicy bits from a popular sci-fi show to add too, although there are additional points that I've been unable to source yet. Either way it can go into Reception until we have enough for a legacy section. Additonally I'd like to replace as many Furinkan sources where possible, while they are perfectly fine for now, replacing them would prevent possible complications when we do get to GAN (I'd rather not play pot luck with the reviewer). Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search on Google Books and there seems to be a short sentence on UY in the book Schoolgirl Milky Crisis: Adventures in the Anime and Manga Trade. Gilles Poitras' book Anime Essentials: Every Thing a Fan Needs to Know also seems to have information on UY. The Japanification of Children's Popular Culture: From Godzilla to Miyazaki may have some information too. We should probably replace Furinkan.com sources with their original sources since it can be questioned during the GAN. Btw, this seems to be a good interview. We should probably check Italian, German, and French magazines too. ごだい  (会話) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a search earlier and have a couple of those open in tabs already. I counted the Furinkan refs, a third of the total page refs are from that site. A complete removal is probably unnecessary (at least one of the articles is by Toren Smith, much like your link - which amusingly is also on Furinkan :p) but I'd like to see the numbers reduced. One of the issues of Animerica I'm after has a Takahashi interview, however I suspect it's the same as already used in the article (Animerica issue 2).Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the discussion of Urusei Yatsura in Hiroki Azuma's book Otaku: Japan's Database Animals. I don't know if you have that one open already -in tabs or on your desk- but otherwise it may be one to consider. Looks really useful for this article because Azuma touches on Takahashi's inspirations and influences (including a modern re-interpretation of folklore) and in turn examines Takahashi's own impact on Japanese (sub)-culture. [Edited] Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of mentions are basically the same from source to source, but it does look like that one has some additional examples. I've picked up a bunch of anime/manga books I found useful from google books for a pittance on ebay/Amazon marketplace and crucially, the Animerica with the 8 (or rather, 6) page Takahashi feature has arrived so the article should get another thorough working on this weekend.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I've started but it's going to be a right pain to do it properly. The problem, for me at least is trying to decide how much is directly relevant and staying away from drifting into too much detail, weight and avoiding it being essay like. Even with sourcing, it's proving tricky. As far as mentions in general publications go, most of them are proving to be either all saying the exact same thing (no surprise) or only offering snapshots. I don't think I can do this section alone, if only for flow and style.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a double edge sword for me to mention other sources and to make suggestions about this article or a culture section in particular because I can't or don't -immediately- incorporate them myself either. Besides the sales and popularity aspects etc there is the historical background in which the work was created - the social and cultural influences on the artist/creator prior to and during the creation process - followed by social and cultural impact of the work or oeuvre she herself created.
 * At the risk of sounding pedantic or presumptuous, I think you are on the right track. These sections, especially the impact on society and the real world, are the essential sections of any article. The culture section isn't just trivial background, it is the historical context in which the work was created. The details of the work itself, plot character design etc, are the elements which differentiate this specific work from other -similar- works in the same medium but in a way those are the easy parts. The context in which a work was created and the real world influence and impact is the core of an article. This will probably come out more judgemental than intended but I think it is now possible to appreciate the effort put into it by the creator of the original culture section (who probably didn't write that section in his/her native language). This bit requires a thorough knowledge of the society which spawned the work and a thorough knowledge of the societies it influenced. I think few editors will disagree that this is the difficult part. Perhaps it helps not to think of improving this article further in terms of hours or even days. There is no deadline :) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Star trek TNG
I've added the series being referenced in the Star Trek:The Next Generation episode Up the Long Ladder. However there are at least two more episodes that I've not yet been able to find good reliable sources for. In Elementary, Dear Data, Ataru and Lum are used in a mathematical formula on Morriaty's blackboard, and in The Icarus Factor, the Japanese signs in one scene also refer to the series. Is anyone able to provide reliable sources (i.e. not memory alpha) to tie these down? Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)