Talk:Anime/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The definition of anime as "Japanese animation": what is anime again?

Anime is a "style" (or a medium); and it should be defined as one. Just like manga. For your information, manga is produced outside Japan, and we've seen that happen in the form of webcomics such as Van Von Hunter and Megatokyo. They may not look like the best manga out there - unlike the material we're accustomed to seeing. At least, their products are being published and sold under manga sections in book stores. However, manga is manga regardless of who and where it is produced. Therefore, if manga can be produced outside Japan, then why can't anime be produced outside Japan? KyuuA4 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What falls under the criteria of Anime and Non-Anime? As a reminder, the Japanese consider anything animated as "anime"; by which, it is synonymous to the set "animation". Of course, we in the west make a distinction between anime vs non-anime. So, what defines the sets "anime" and "non-anime"? Can an animated product be both "anime" and "non-anime"? KyuuA4 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to head off a revert war at Miss Dynamite. What is the WP stance on non-Japanese productions that self-identify as anime? The standard Western definition of anime has been, from the late 1970s until recently, strictly "Japanese animation". Similarly, manga is strictly "Japanese comics". Of course these distinctions do not exist in Japan where the words simply mean "animation" and "comics" respectively.

Starting in the late 1990s, more and more works outside Japan are self-identifying as anime and manga due to being inspired by the styles prevalent within those media (IMHO to call anime and manga "genres" is as spurious as calling Hollywood and Bollywood "genres" of film). While there are convenient names for Korean and Chinese comics (manhwa and manhua respectively), American manga-inspired works (amerimanga) (which I heartily encourage the use of), and even American anime-inspired animation (amerime), not all these terms are widely used. Do we bend the definition of anime to include works with little to no Japanese involvement in the production like Totally Spies! or Samurai Jack?

I disagree with some of the self-identification here, and I don't think self-identification is the be-all, end-all of classification. It would seem to me a lot like remaking Manon des Sources in the California countryside without a single French cast or crewmember, and insisting it's still a French film ... or for that matter, calling Kimba the White Lion a Disney film because it's inspired by Disney and has talking animals in it. But if WP consensus would prefer to classify amerime and amerimanga as subsets of anime and manga, then consensus wins.

Please, discuss!

No one outside a small set of very deluded people in the US considers any of the apery going on over there as manga. American comics have a long and worthy history, the sooner these people forget about trying to be Japanese and just go back to being creative and original, the better it'll be for 'em. --zippedmartin 20:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with some of that sentiment, even though my personal opinions on the American comic industry probably have very little to do with WP naming taxonomy! ^_^ If people are inspired by manga, who's to prevent them from making comics, right? That I think demonstrates the need for terms like amerimanga (I like the ANN descriptor "world manga"). Even the Philippines has a perfectly valid term for native comics (komiks) ... say, there's a missing WP article right there!

At the same time, there's plenty of apery going on in mainstream Western comics ... much more of that oeuvre is DC/Marvel superhero-of-the-month than it is Elfquest or Preacher or Transmetropolitan. (Or, sum up as: Rob Liefeld is still employed.) So I think pointing the blame squarely at amerimanga creators for the dearth of creativity in the American comic industry may be a bit oversimplified. I think the entire reason much of the work being passed off as "manga" is self-labeled that way is simply because manga sells. -- Miwa 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

well, manga is actually simply something that came from the japanese not having money to make actual movies, and the art style came from looking at mickey mouse and suc from dizney, along with some older cultural influences, but mangaitself was origionally sorta like showing motion and such in still frames, anime on the other hand has simmilar history, and anime also has a history in japan of being a way of geting around the censors, such things like Hentai, while not for everyone , came from attempts at cultural freedom of expression, and defiance of censors. while it is true that anime comes form japan nad the orient, I still dont see the problem with some americans trying to get in on a good thing, except that they cant keep kidding themselves, they can call a series like avatar : the last airbender anime all they want, but its anime STYLE, nothing that isnt from japan, or at least the orient, can be alled anime without lying through ones , possibly misinformed teeth. well, thats all i have to say on the subject for the moment.Karaveks voice 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the debate going on in the Miss Dynamite article as well as here, and in the hopes of providing some direction, let me point out a few things. In Wikipedia, we are concerned entirely with what is, never with what should be. This is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Therefore, if there is verifiable evidence that indeed non-Japanese publishers have successfully co-opted terms like "manga" and "anime" to describe their own products, then we cannot forbid such uses here. How we may feel about the issue is utterly without relevance. Personally, I think manga and anime are still largely used to describe Japanese creations, and therefore it's better to use terms like "manga-inspired", but I doubt that will be true for much longer. I've noticed Megatokyo is often shelved in the Manga sections of bookstores these days, and whether we like it or not, we must pay attention to that public perception. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, a random policy linker. As I said, this is limited to the US. Also, you might want to check a large, modern, dictionary - I'd be suprised if they didn't give a definition. That US firms want to redefine various terms for their convenience is not in doubt, but they've not managed yet. --zippedmartin 14:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason that some comics like Megatokyo and Sorcerers and Secretaries are filed under manga is probably because of who publishes them (MT is under DC's manga imprint and S&S is published by Tokyopop) and probably the format they're published in. And Zippedmartin is right, I could link to random policies too, like, oh, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias --ColourBurst 04:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What if Dark Horse was the one who published the "comics" mentioned? Would that imply the removal from the manga category? I think not. KyuuA4 16:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

random? no. anyway, why not just say its japanese style, kinda like the iferiour US brands of electronics are modeled after japenese electronics...Karaveks voice 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What about things that fans identify as manga or anime, or manga or anime styled? For example, many people consider Stan Sakai's comic Usagi Yojimbo to be manga, yet Sakai himself doesn't. Also, about the whole "death of creativity in American comics", well, that's only true if you glance at the racks for five seconds and consider everything in the superhero genre to be automatically "uncreative". But I digress. People can hate on Teen Titans the cartoon all they want, but the fact remains that, for better or for worse, anime and manga have made their mark on other cultures, and I believe this should be mentioned here. I guess my point is, this whole discussion subject seems to me like yet another attempt, thinly veiled or not, to somehow cite the "superiority" of anime and manga and set them at odds with their non-Japanese equivalents. Comics and cartoons are comics and cartoons whether they come from Japan or not. MasterGrazzt 08:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can say this. In the Japanese language, "anime" refers to all works animated. "Manga" refers to all works comics. So it would be appropriate to call everything "anime" and everything "manga" in a loanword way of using words. At the same time, I personally find that non-Japanese works that self-identify as "anime" tend to be the least worthy of being called "anime," while there are less pretentious works that intentionally or unintentionally fit better into the anime "style." Now, think about what makes a movie a Hollywood movie. A movie is Hollywood when it's financed by a Hollywood company. Likewise, if you want to make a distinction between anime and animation, an objective rule of thumb can be to decide by whether a particular title has Japanese financing. This makes sense, as I wouldn't call American animated shows that were farmed out to Japan "anime" in the discriminating US-English way, and that goes back to these shows being financed with American money. Likewise, the Disney shows that were made at the Disney Japan studio would not be "anime," even though a lot of famous Japanese animators worked there. To wit, what would you call the animated segment in Kill Bill or the animated work that is The Animatrix?--Outis 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations.  :) -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - should SpongeBob ever be considered an anime? That would be ludicrious. KyuuA4 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as American-made shows using anime style (Totally Spies! and Samurai Jack as mentioned above), I prefer the term "americanime". 69.158.141.33 08:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In art forms such as animation, art & comics you must remember that origin does not matter. The defining point of an art is, style, if a show or comic is drawn in America or Japan the style of the show or comic will still be the same as the artist makes it. ~~Seve

I disagree. Nobody calls Wong Kar Wai's work French even though it's heavily influenced by French film (the guy got invited to Cannes to judge, for goodness sakes!) And I realize there are heavily elements of Chinese culture in his films, but American culture is heavily featured in American comics based on Japanese manga/anime styles, so the difference is, again? --ColourBurst 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some artists may use animation as their means of expression, but the form of animation that fans want to call anime is not art. Anime is popular enternainment. While popular entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive, art is only an element that embelishes anime. Origins and who finance an anime title certainly matter, as long as you prefer to narrow the scope of what anime is. If you don't like that, use the word "anime" interchangeably with "animation," as it's used in the Japanese language.--24.5.125.75 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, it isn't art? Art can be commercially financed and produced: most dramatic presentations (plays, musicals, cinema; as well as television serials, cartoons, &c.) are. --FOo 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Many anime are art, and all anime are fundamentally Japanese, to argue otherwise is a waste of time and only betrays ignorance on the subject. There are already pages for anime-inspired works in other countries and they do not belong here. Finite 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, anime is pop art, as opposed to pure art. Those who are seeking something more sublime are projecting more of their wishful thinking into the medium than seeing the reality of the entertainment industry.-24.5.125.75

You would be right if anime only referred to saturday morning drivel, but as it encompasses works on par with plenty of your oh-so-special pure art, you are very wrong.Finite 14:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more worried about the stereotyping that's going on in the Miss Dynamite "manga" (which looks nothing like manga from Japan - it looks more like North American comic strips than anything). Just having a Japanese woman (who isn't even really Japanese - Chin is not a Japanese name.), especially a heavily stereotypical one, doesn't make it "manga", no matter how much the author wishes it. --ColourBurst 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to Move the Cowboy Bebop image

I want to move the Cowboy Bebop image further down the article, into the Characteristics section above or below the Dragon Ball Z picture as an example of space opera, drama and action. In its place can go the Atomic/Astro Boy or another suitable picture. The Cowboy Bebop picture along with the Anime and Manga portal link creates a lot of whitespace at the head of the article on quite a few different monitor resolutions. I and several other editors have tried formatting the page around the picture but after many different revisions I believe it is the picture itself that is the problem. I know that this is the sort of change that you propose first and change later to prevent arguements so comments and objections please! --Squilibob 10:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Support: I too prefer that the Cowboy Bebop image be moved to a more suitable location and have Astro Boy be bumped up. Use the "First" Anime that garnered Mainstream Appeal and is the definitive icon of Anime.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support this proposal. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do it. DenisMoskowitz 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was what, the second time i've seen Cowboy Bebop put in places where it was never meant to be? See my revision on Witch Hunter Robin for an example of using Cowboy Bebop wrong. Is it just me, or are there possibly more cases where the use of Cowboy Bebop references might be misused? --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Object The Cowboy Bebop image is suitable on the top. The meaning of the image is better than the other images. Besides there no such thing as "First anime that garnered mainstream appeal". The Cowboy Bebop image portrays anime better. RevolverOcelotX

There were a couple of reasons that this move was made. It was a format problem with a large image that created whitespace because it was used in conjunction with the Table of Contents, instead the smallest image on the page was moved there - Atom from the history section (that immediately succeeds the lead section anyway, it was only moved up a short distance). The other reason was that I wanted to use Cowboy Bebop was to become an example of genres. That is why I have now moved it back into the genres section. I'm sorry you object, but there was a consensus for this weeks ago. --Squilibob 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a large white space even with the smallest image. You need to find another image to use as an example of genres. And theres no clear consensus to move the picture. RevolverOcelotX

The idea is to reduce the whitespace and that was addressed. Why do I have find another image to use as an example? Give a reason. If the support of Nihonjoe and DenisMoskowitz wasn't given, then I wouldn't have changed the page, but it was. That was consensus which I didn't need but asked for anyway. I don't understand why you are changing this back when it has been like this for many weeks. I'm not going to revert it again as I don't want to start an edit war, but I would like other people to voice their opinion. --Squilibob 10:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is ALOT of whitespace even with the smaller pic so it doesn't make much difference. The smaller picture is at best sub-par. We could probably get rid of most of the whitespace by resizing and re-positioning the Cowboy Bebop picture. And there are better pictures to use to represent example of genres. Perhaps a good mecha/sci-fi picture? The image at the top should be perfect. I believe the picture at the top should be intelligible, technically good, showing a typical anime face, and representative stills from different kinds of anime and the Cowboy Bebop picture fits the bill. RevolverOcelotX

Cowboy Bebop is an overhyped POS anime by American Otaku. I move that the area not have an image at all. Or replace it with something more iconic, like Neon Genesis Evangelion. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is no place for fanboy elitism. Cowboy Bebop is just as notable as EVA. Finite 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

293.xx.xxx.xx, Wikipedia is not the place for fanboy elitism. Please see these official policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. RevolverOcelotX

One could also argue that putting in the Cowboy Bebop image can also violate the rules you just posted. Mind giving a VALID reason why the Cowboy Bebop image should stay in place instead of "just because it illustrates anime great?" Why does Cowboy Bebop have any more provenance over Astro Boy?--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Astro Boy works just as well, since it is an early enduring anime icon. Finite 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying either anime have "provenance" over the other is biased and POV. But the fact is the Astro Boy image is WAY too small and low quality to be the image at the top. The image at the top should be portray the typical anime quality. The Cowboy Bebop image is a good representative stills from different kinds of anime and of illustrates the typical anime better, and is technically of better quality. RevolverOcelotX

We currently have four users agreeing to the proposal and one against. If anyone agrees with RevolverOcelotX's arguements against moving the Cowboy Bebop image and the Atom Boy image back to where they were please speak your case. I will be moving the image if there is no further resistance because the Cowboy Bebop image again takes up too much space and RevolverOcelotX has reverted Shiro Hane's attempt to fix the problem where the image's size causes text to wrap inconsistantly at low resolutions. --Squilibob 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the problem was to reduce whitespace at top which has already been addressed. Using the smaller image actually creates more whitespace. The larger image is clearly better at the top. I don't see any text wrap inconsistantly. What browser/resolution are you using? RevolverOcelotX

Ah yes, it has been fixed. I would like to point out that Image:Cowboy bebop01.jpg is actually smaller than Image:Astroboy.png and always has been. However I'm going to raise a new section about some of the images, so please leave your opinion there.

Is it or is it not an anime, thati s the question...

Have anyone saw the new television show called Boondocks, which is based on the popular comic strip? People are drawn with big and colorfull eyes, and their texture is also alike the all the animes and mangas I saw/read. So is it an anime or is it not? Kniaz Monday, April 10 17:26 pm

It's about as anime as The Simpsons. Ie, some koreans probably did the colouring-in. --zippedmartin 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You should probably check the credits before saying such a thing. I'm not jumping on your butt, but that could be viewed as stereotyping. Just sayin' -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You kidding? The official sites don't even credit animators, let alone say how the rendering's done, the kids don't care. As for 'stereotyping', the US animation industry has long outsourced work to the far east (not that there's much of an industry left these days beyond 3dcg). Japan is doing much the same now. --zippedmartin 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

By "far east", you mean South Korea, which is the only place I know that actually does such work (I've certainly never heard of China doing it, and I don't think you were thinking of Southeast Asia at all). Anyways, South Korea and Japan are not the same place (and the context which you wrote your reply could be interpreted that way), which is probably why NatsukiGirl replied to you. --ColourBurst 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Critisim of anime: Use of weasel words

I've tagged this section because it makes an excessive use of weasel words, such as "some people have", "some have found", "many people will cite", and "Some [animators] have". Attributing opinions to anonymous sources should be avoided and linking to just one source is not going to offset the anonymous nature of the attributed opinion. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the whole section be deleted since it does seem to be bias and makes unsubstantiated claims? --205.188.116.68 00:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. DenisMoskowitz 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Still a question...

My question was simply put "is or is not the new television show "Boondocs", based on popular, partly racist and stereotypical comic strip an anime? Note that it is drawn in anime style." So, please tell me if IT IS/YES or IT IS NOT/NO and then give the reasons. No "near to", "close to", "perhapes it is", "most likely", etc. If you just wish to give me the reasons, but not sure go on my userpage. Kniaz 18:19, 12 April 2006

No. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer is entirely subjective. However you might be interested in this quote from creator Aaron McGruder:

"I've always been a big anime fan, and I've always wanted the Boondocks to look like a show that was made in Japan," McGruder said. "And the reason why is that anime is really just Japanese animation directors that are mimicking American cinema." [1] --Dforest 12:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In our context here on wikipedia I believe that if it is widely accepted, then it is classed as an anime. Does the series feature in anime magazines? Can it be bought from online anime stores? Does it appear in anime sections of retail stores? Is it listed in several popular online anime encyclopedias? These are all questions that can answered "yes" for shows we call anime. --Squilibob 01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all: Thank you for the straight answer Nihonjoe, but you could have given more resons; dforest, have you ever heard of persuasive essay, it's when you persuade the reader not giving him the chance to see two points, but only one, the one you want the reader to see; um...squilibob, the question was straight, so please answer straight: YSE or NO. ****, why can't you people responde with a straight answer, why!? kniaz

Sorry. (^_^) No, Boondocks is not an anime or manga series. The author may say he was inspired by anime and/or manga, but just being inspired doesn't make it so. Boondocks is a political commentary comic (and maybe cartoon now?) that leans somewhat to the left (based on what I read once a week in the local newspaper before they dropped it). It is not anime. It is not manga. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the link for anyone interested in more info about this comic: The Boondocks. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the straight answer. P.S. Boondocks is a show which is airing on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. kniaz April 23, 2006

External links - review sites

Are all these review site external links necessary? I'd like to prune it down to one or completely remove them. If anime review sites are important to anime then a separate article would exist for it and the links would be there instead. --Squilibob 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been re-reading WP:EL and am going to remove links that do not fall under the style guidelines. Several anime review sites have been added in the past few days that do not fal under these guidelines. Here is a snippet of WP:EL that this applies to:

1. For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Internet Movie DataBase, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews.
2. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

--Squilibob 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'database' section is currently looking a bit top heavy while we're on the subject.. Shiroi Hane 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be linked internally, AnimeNfo and ANN have their own articles for instance. --Squilibob 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Meta Anime Review Project attempts to collect reviews from various other review sites. I don't know how complete their site is as I just recently stumbled on it from another article. But it could be a good way to narrow the review links into, hopefully, one link. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Site claims it is a beta version, but a good point. I have moved the AnimeNfo and ANN links so that they point to the wikipedia articles and not to external links. --Squilibob 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is beta, but it is functional. (I'm one of the maintainers there. *cough*) -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is with the POV tag?

This article is in excellent conditon. Where is the neurality disputed and for what reason?Finite 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See below. I was in the middle of writing my response when you posted your message. (^'-')^ Covington 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Note

Hey all,

First of all, great job with the article. I like how anyone who has never heard of anime can read this article and understand the basics of anime by the time they get to the end.

I placed a POV note on top of the page because I feel that the article is biased. As a former anime fan (I had been a fan for at least five years.), I understand that the anime community is mostly anti-American and pro-Japanese, and I know how hard it is to deviate from this standard. However, this is Wikipedia, and we are supposed to present an neutral point of view.

Here are my comments:

• The "Western Distribution" section seems to be biased against Western audiences; it seems like it is saying 1) Westerners only do it for the money, 2) Western dubs are no good, and 3) Japanese anime is better than Western ones.
• The entire article seems to say that only Japanese anime counts as "anime", as there are no references to anime written in other nations. Some people believe that only Japanese works can be "anime" but others don't; it would be great to have some information about both views in the articles.
• From "Animation Style": "Many non-Japanese cartoons are starting to incorporate mainstream anime shortcuts and symbols to appeal to anime's tremendously growing fanbase and cut costs." Ouch. So every group who is trying to go cross-genre is doing this for money? Maybe the superhero comic book artist is an anime fan herself, and she is drawing anime-style because she loves anime.
• Again from "Animation Style": "Osamu Tezuka adapted and simplified many Disney animation precepts to reduce the budget costs and number of frames in the production, though it should be noted that Disney films made in the west are not anime." Remove the last clause. It's understood that Disney films are not anime if the distinction as said earlier in the article is that anime is meant to be made efficiently and Disney films are meant to be made with detail. Also, it unnecessarily jabs at the West as being "not good enough". Compare this to a neutral point of view sentence in the same section, "The most common is the large eyes style drawn on many anime characters, common mainly due to the influence of Osamu Tezuka, who was inspired by the exaggerated features of American cartoon characters such as Betty Boop and Mickey Mouse and from Disney's Bambi."

Thank you for listening to my concerns. See you around Wikipedia.

(^'-')^ Covington 21:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I knew there were a few POV sentences in the article but only because you pointed multiple ones out that I now realize how many there are. --Squilibob 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"The entire article seems to say that only Japanese anime counts as "anime", as there are no references to anime written in other nations. Some people believe that only Japanese works can be "anime" but others don't; it would be great to have some information about both views in the articles."

Saying non-Japanese works can be anime is not an opinion. It is factually wrong. In my clumsy words, Anime is animation created by Japanese, which reflects Japanese culture & Japanese sensibilites, or in the apparent absence thereof, the Japanese point-of-view of non-Japanese culture (i.e. Cowboy Bebop is American culture filtered through a Japanese lens). This last point is what differentiates anime from animation simply produced in Japan, i.e., the difference between Evangelion and DuckTales.

Giving article space to Totally Spies and Avatar fans is asinine. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated, but anime is not just big eyes, sweatdrops, and super-deformed characters. It's a reflection of the deepest, most innate sensibilities of the Japanese people. This is an undeniable truth. It sounds somewhat elitist, I know, like saying "you have to have been an old white guy who lived 200 years ago to write chamber music", and it's not implying that non-Japanese animators are inferior or incabable. It's just that I have yet to see a piece of animation with the true soul of anime from somone who was not raised Japanese. --Marcg106 04:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of "Eva vs. DuckTales" is a gross oversimplification -- Japan produces its fair share of crap, and I'd wager that the biggest reason we don't see more groundbreaking animation from America is that networks aren't willing to risk funding something that breaks the mold, not because creators are lacking in talent compared to their Japanese counterparts.

That said, I'm personally of a mind that "anime" should refer only to cartoons (yes, I said the "C" word :P) made in Japan for Japanese audiences. The distinction is based simply on geography, not quality, IMO. Besides, anime-inspired Western cartoons already have their own article.--Filby 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Eva. vs. DuckTales" is also horribly inapt, given Pokemon, Beyblade, Yugioh ... -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that with my edit, that all of the POV concerns mentioned have been addressed by the wiki users. So, I removed the POV tag. My entry may need some cleaning. Definitely be my guest and use your right to edit, fellow users. Fiction Alchemist 05:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fansubs

Just wondering, how come the following are no longer present in the article:

• proper fansubs and speed-sub comparisons.
• types of subtitling.

NeoDeGenero 12:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article for fansubs that the Anime article links directly to from that section. The fansub section is supposed to be a short introduction and the Fansub article should be the place where all the details are given to the reader. Imagine how long the article would be if every detail of the history of anime, licensing of anime and fansubbing was included. Comparisons and types of fansubs must go in the fansub article itself. --Squilibob 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This is kind of like insisting that proper subtitling technique should go in the article for film. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I have a problem because i don´t find something about Rosen Maiden. Thanks for your atention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.76.25.100 (talk • contribs) .

The Anime article is not intended to list all anime. If you want to know something about Rozen Maiden try that article, and spelling it correctly. DenisMoskowitz 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Short (5-10 minute) animes

I sometimes stumble upon anime series where each episode's duration (including opening and ending sequences) is only 5-10 minutes, such as: Oruchuban Ebichu, Dameko Doubutsu, and Panda Z. Is there a special category for these short animes? And are these "real" series, or are they simply produced as fillers? Thanks.

Oh, they're real series alright; some, like Di Gi Charat, are even fairly popular. But no, I don't think we have separate categories. Not that many of them, and so far as I know, they range up from the mere minutes to fill 20 minute series, so where would one draw the line? --maru (talk) contribs 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Azumanga Daioh was originally aired in short segments and I don't anyone would argue that that is not a "real" series. --Shiroi Hane 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Did it really? I had thought that it was the manga that was in short segments. The anime episodes released in America were full-length, at least. --maru (talk) contribs 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know till I read it here on WP: "The anime, which aired from 8 April 2002 until 30 September 2002 was broadcast in five-minute segments every weekday, and as a 25-minute compilation each weekend". --Shiroi Hane 01:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. That's a rather odd way to go about producing and showing an anime, IMO. --maru (talk) contribs 01:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's kinda how the Simpsons started...--SeizureDog 11:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean starting an anime, I meant producing an anime. It makes sense popular shorts can be spun off into full standlone series, but not that one would deliberately produce full-length anime in short-sized segments. --maru (talk) contribs 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images on the page

I would like to raise the point about images again. Most of the images are 300px wide. I have resized the two Macross pictures before but editors have reverted it. Can we have a fixed width for all the images please?

There are two Macross images. I've tried to remove the Mylene one twice and it keeps being reverted. Can we have some diversity please? The Macross image in Music is good and we have Lum as our example of female depiction. Do we need this Mylene image?

Two of the images raised in question last year (Talk:Anime/Archive_2#Not_all_images_used_are_optimal) are still there. I would like to keep a Cowboy Bebop image and an image of Lum as they are good examples, but when this was raised there were some good points made. The current Cowboy Bebop picture isn't even used on the Cowboy Bebop article as of writing and as mentioned previously, the Lum .png has two people in it. --Squilibob 10:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Howabout this image for Astroboy? It's big enough, suitably sized for insertion, and shows it's nice age in being one of the first recognized Anime?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bra Size 45

OK, we can't be serious all the time. Warning, catchy tune. --02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a big Amen, and five hits (ref to James Brown's Sex Machine). I rank this music #2 to Gunther's Ding Dong Song. Gunbolt 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)