Talk:Shōjo manga

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that until the 1970s, most shōjo manga (Japanese girls' comics) were written by men? Source: Straight from the Heart: Gender, Intimacy, and the Cultural Production of Shōjo Manga
  • ALT1: ... that most early magazines publishing shōjo manga (Japanese girls' comics) folded during the Second Sino-Japanese War due to paper rationing and censorship? Source: Straight from the Heart: Gender, Intimacy, and the Cultural Production of Shōjo Manga
  • ALT2: ... that publishers of shōjo manga (Japanese girls' comics) often discover new authors through their readership, who are actively encouraged to submit stories? Source: International Perspectives on Shojo and Shojo Manga The Influence of Girl Culture
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Murray

5x expanded by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ:
Overall: Earwig flagged one webiste. I added an image. @Morgan695: if you don't like it, feel free to swap it with another. A manga article should have a good image. The date may be wrong in the hook. The article says 1970s. Are there any other hooks you'd like to suggest? This one is somewhat boring. --evrik ^(talk) 23:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Corrected date in ALT0 and added some alt hooks. It looks like Earwigs is pinging a website that is just scraping the text of the article, so I don't think that's a copyvio concern. I removed the image, as it illustrates josei manga rather than the topic of this article. Morgan695 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Morgan695: Can you recommend any image? --evrik ^(talk) 16:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Evrik: I don't believe any of the images in the article lend themselves well to hooks. Morgan695 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Morgan695: Okay, are there any other shōjo images on the commons we can add? What about File:NAKAYOSHIi1954年12月創刊号（1955年1月号）.jpg?--evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Evrik: That image is ineligible as it is not in the public domain in the United States; it's also not used in the article. Did I miss some sort of policy change obligating DYKs to have images? I don't believe this nomination needs an image. Morgan695 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• No, there is no such requirement. Manga is such a visual form of communication, it seemed there would be a good image to accompany the nomination. --evrik ^(talk) 17:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Pass. --evrik ^(talk) 17:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Fair point, the issue is just that the vast majority of manga artwork is copyrighted. Morgan695 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A nitpick - shouldn't it be "most shōjo manga (Japanese girls' comics) were written by men?" as we are talking about the plural here? - 159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. Morgan695 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Magazines

Should we make a list of shojo manga magazines to list on this page? lullabying (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to say no, per WP:NOTDATABASE and the fact that it's just duplicating information that already lives in a more searchable format on List of manga magazines. The list that was formerly on the page was also entirely uncited, and not that this is a reason to not include it, but restoring it would require a lot of banal referencing work that I'm not sure is worth the payoff. Morgan695 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ikeda and the Year 24

Hello @Morgan695:, I corrected few little things on the article. But there is a big issue: Ryōko Ikeda is usually not considered a member of the Year 24 by manga scholars, but she is rather associated to the likes of Machiko Satonaka or Yukari Ichijō.

I'll quote a passage of p.27 of Masami Toku's International Perspectives on Shojo and Shojo Manga The Influence of Girl Culture :

After the 1970s, shojo manga were mainly divided into three categories (Miyadai at el., 1993 pp. 8–25). According to Miyadai, manga were classified by their relationship to major artists of the day: (1) the domain of Machiko Satonaka; (2) the domain of Mariko Iwadate; and (3) the domain of Moto Hagio.

The Satonaka domain is the category in which the artist depicts a stormy life story as a proxy experience for the readers. It is shojo manga as a popular novel that provides an experience that readers could never experience in the real world. The artists in this domain include Riyoko Ikeda and Yukari Ichijo, along with Satonaka. The topics in this group include historical drama, coming-of-age stories, “spokon” (“sport and spirit”), and sexual love (like works appearing in the girls’ monthly manga Seventeen). The heroine is generally a princess or a lady of the court in the Heian Period or a superhuman who excels in sports. Through the heroines’ experiences, readers can identify with the heroines and other main characters.

As far as I know, this division of shōjo manga by Miyadai is the one commonly used by scholars nowadays. The idea that Ikeda is part of the Year 24 (but also Satonaka and others too…) dates back from early studies by Yoshihiro Yonezawa (see Kayo Takeuchi's The Genealogy of Japanese Shōjo Manga (Girls' Comics) Studies, p.83), at a time when the first manga critics discovered shōjo manga, but it is now clearly outdated.

In any case, maybe we weren't clear enough in how we formulated this in the French article, sorry. :/ --—Lady freyja•°^{「どうしたのかしら」} 08:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lady freyja: Are you aware of any sources specifically remarking on this phenomenon, e.g. that Ikeda was lumped in with the Y24 Group by contemporary critics on the basis of Yonezawa's surveys, but later scholarship has considered her distinct from them? There seems to be enough scholarship listing Ikeda as a member of the group (e.g. page 221 of International Perspectives on Shojo and Shojo Manga does just that) that I'm hesitant to take Toku as the word of god here. Morgan695 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the content of p.221 was written by Toku. The passage I quoted was written by Mozomi Masuda.

Anyway, the issue is that the expression "Year 24 group" is at best very vague, and most of the mangaka usually mentioned as members actually hate it and reject it. Kayo Takeuchi's The Genealogy of Japanese Shōjo Manga (Girls' Comics) Studies, as suggested by its title, explains the story of shōjo manga criticism, starting by Yonezawa and as far the Year 24 is concerned, ends with Miyadai, whose classification (and whole study) is considered as "groundbreaking" (p.89). The rest of the article continue on other topics (BL and such…)

The "groundbreaking" aspect of Miyadai's studies is due to the fact that he considered the readership and the type of stories for his classifications, rather than the very blurry notion of "mangaka who reshaped shōjo manga" like his predecessors did.

In any case, Takeuchi herself says in her notes (#12, p.106) that the "Year 24 group" is a very vague notion and she sends the readers toward this article for more information: https://toshonoie.net/shojo/05_list/yamatomo_works/text1998-201605.html

The article is in Japanese, but in short it shows few things: it fails at finding any consistency about what would the Y24 be. That depending of the critics, the members vary greatly, though the typical core members are the "HOT" (Hagio, Ōshima, Takemiya) which are the only constant ones in any listing. It also speaks about how much most of the mangaka hate this expression. Because it was a way to put some mangaka over others, and because there was a lot of feuds between the readers who sent threatening letters and such to the mangaka, especially the ones usually considered at the fringe of the Y24 (〈24年組〉のボーダー線上) like Ikeda. —Lady freyja•°^{「どうしたのかしら」} 14:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lady freyja: Oh I'm aware the passage I cited wasn't written by Toku, I was just citing it as an example of the phenomenon you described, e.g. the inherent vagueness/notionality of who "the Year 24 Group" even is meaning that sources will naturally be divided when it comes to defining its membership. Everything you just said should certainly be noted in Year 24 Group per WP:CONFLICTING, I guess my point is that enough sources list Ikeda as associated with the group that it feels like it's bordering on WP:OR to definitively state in Wikipedia's voice that Ikeda isn't a member. Morgan695 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, personally, I would like to prefer to try avoiding as much as possible this topic outside of the two articles dedicated to the Y24 and Ikeda. Because yes, it's not clear as the sources contradict themselves.

When writing the article in French, we simply followed the logic of Miyadai and his 3 trends as it is a clean and straightforward way of making sense of the 1970s era. But we had to also mention Ikeda because of her Versailles, and thus we naturally associated her with the dramatic trend like Miyadai did. In the English version, you simply ignore the 3 trends logic of Miyadai, but rather consider only 2 trends with the Y24 and the otometic.

Though, I think that another solution is maybe possible: keeping the mention of the 3 trends, but speaking about Ikeda's Versailles outside of the 3 trends. Like this we avoid to say that Ikeda is in this or that trend. But in a way, isn't twisting the sources? —Lady freyja•°^{「どうしたのかしら」} 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lady freyja: I don't doubt that your interpretation of the scholarship is correct, my main concern is about disqualifying Ikeda as a member of the group in definitive terms when sources appear divided on the matter. I'm happy to review the articles and make the changes you suggested. Morgan695 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lady freyja: Revised both this article and Year 24 Group; let me know what you think. Morgan695 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It is nice and well done! I definitely have to do the same on the French article about the Y24 which is totally outdated. —Lady freyja•°^{「どうしたのかしら」} 06:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 10:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'll do this one. If there's nothing on this review by next Sunday (24 July), ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: I've looked through the article, and its references. Everything seems solid, and I'll happily award this an Instant Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just fixed

A ton of biblio links to books that were really journals and mis-typed stuff like that, tried to find DOIs for the journals and such. All the errors from people using "work=" in templates are gone now. I deleted one biblio item, I'm considering deleting the french language books from there too since they don't really add much on the English wiki. French isn't a commonly spoken language in the US (It's not super common in Canada where it's an official language) but getting the books would be even more difficult assuming you could read them. I honestly don't care about manga (although I care about anything Marvel comics has or will put out far less by default) so if I broke something and you revert the whole change... oh well. The citation style on the inlines is really distracting (i.e. the gigantic references table) given how few actual refs there actually are but I'm not touching that. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)