Talk:Star Blazers: Space Battleship Yamato 2199

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Star Blazers 2199 → Space Battleship Yamato 2199 – This show is not called Star Blazers 2199. It is Space Battleship Yamato 2199. To call it otherwise is incorrect information. As of yet, there is no American version of this show, and if there is, there's no guarantee that it's going to be called Star Blazers. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, It should be given the correct title . Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Enelsonian (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This show is not called Star Blazers 2199. It is Space Battleship Yamato 2199. Therefore, I've made changes to reflect this..Enelsonian (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that show 『STARBLAZERS 2199』 is meant to be this work's title outside Japan: [1], [2], [3]
STARBLAZERS 2199 is definitely not fan-made. Raamin (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you still believe that Space Battleship Yamato 2199 is the correct title (for the moment), then please contact an admin, to read this discussion and move this article and List of Star Blazers 2199 episodes to reflect the proper name. Raamin (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should be named Space Battleship Yamato 2199 , the show is going to be released in western as StatBlazers 2199 but the original name is Yamato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.126.221.84 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — 91.126.221.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:UE if it has an English name, then we use that name, which is how all other anime/manga are currently done on Wikipedia. When it is licensed into English, the article switches over to that name -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. It DOESN'T have an English name yet. That information comes from a lone source which has been quoted in the "multiple sources" above. (And it's ambiguous at best. Far from something concrete.) If and when it is officially announced that the show is to be called Star Blazers 2199, then the title should be changed to reflect that. Otherwise to have this article under that name now is wrong.Enelsonian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then shouldn't the main SBY article be on Star Blazers? Shouldn't Nausicaa go by Warriors of the Wind? Shouldn't Haibane Renmei be called Charcoal Feather Federation? Shouldn't Google turn up the main SBY 2199 site and information on the show when I search for Starblazers 2199 (and just FYI, there was no space between the two words in the announcement so the title of this article is even wrong from a grammatical angle) instead of a few articles referencing the Nicovideo broadcast and this wiki page (which I might add, uses the two titles inconsistently even when someone reverts any corrections to the page, and STILL fails to mention the announcement about the international release ANYWHERE on it). ~~ Obnoxious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.210.166 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — 71.237.210.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The first series should be under "Star Blazers", but your subsidiary point is meaningless. Naussicca received theatrrical release under Naussica, not under Warriors of the Wind, further, the current DVD is under Naussica, not the long superceded VHS release. Clearly, the Disney release is the major English license and it also has a name used in English. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet you still can't justify why a show not called Starblazers 2199 (or Star Blazers 2199) by any source other than a scene taken from a podcast, is being listed under that name. (and you conveniently evade the other points the previous poster has raised). This is a place for factual information, not wishful thinking by fanboys of a series from the 1980'sEnelsonian (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE: When it is licensed into English, the article switches over to that name

And only fanboys would insist on using the Japanese name whatever happens in the English language market. If this is licensed into the English language market, then we should use that name, per WP:UE.

I haven't evaded any points, I've pointed out what title to use when an item has been licensed into English, I haven't said which title I support in this case, that's just your personal assumptions on the matter, since I haven't yet lodged an opinion on which title I would support. I've only said what title should be used when the title is licensed into English.

-- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE: When it is licensed into English, the article switches over to that name

Yes, exactly, and your point being...

QUOTE: "I've pointed out what title to use when an item has been licensed into English,"

It has not been licensed into English, when and IF it does get licensed into English, then the article title should most definitely be changed. I've never stated otherwise, nor do I have a problem with it. But it HAS NOT. The ONLY information and source provided is two frames from a podcast, which in turn was referenced by two other websites. That's it. nothing more.

Until such time as reliable and official sources have announced such a venture, the article title is inaccurate. Period.

This is not fanboy speculation, this is pure fact.Enelsonian (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No seriously, if you're going to defend this title for this article then you should probably actually ad in a reference to that Nicovideo broadcast to actually...y'know...have the international release mentioned as well as explain the inconsistent title (since the Japanese title translates DIRECTLY to English as Space Battleship Yamato 2199), and make sure that the two different titles are used consistently. Also yeah, the other SBY pages probably should be switched over to Starblazers, that's a great idea and you should TOTALLY do it. ~~ Obnoxious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.210.166 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — 71.237.210.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Say, do you even bother to read responses? Like the one Enelsonian answered? You do know this is the English wikipedia and not the Otaku wikipedia, right? As you already know what video that is, you should do the linking. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: If and when it gets released in English, the title should change. As of right now, no one is calling this "Star Blazers 2199" outside those quoting the livestream.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - We don't make up English translations when the name doesn't exist in English. The name of this series is not "Star Blazers 2199", it's "Space Battleship Yamato 2199". If it becomes "Star Blazers 2199" in the future, we can consider renaming the article to that. Until then, however, we use the name that, y'know, it's actually called by. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It seems a bit odd to add a name from a video (which arguably uses the name simply because English language viewers will have seen the original show under that name) when the show itself has the title written in English on the box. Every episode begins with the title card saying 'Space Battleship Yamato 2199' in both English and Japanese, as visible on the article image. Is there a good reason this should be ignored? 124.170.102.187 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Star Blazers and Space Battleship Yamato are separate series. There's separate pages for them, just as there are for Super Dimension Fortress Macross and Robotech, and Space Pirate Captain Harlock and Captain Harlock and the Queen of a Thousand Years. And there is no evidence of any English release, and even if there is one, they likely won't call it Star Blazers. That name is owned by an American company who wants to use it for a live action film (Separate from the 2010 Japanese Yamato film), and most anime fans, even those who watched Star Blazers, know it as Space Battleship Yamato. And they're the only ones likely to care if it was released in English, as the people who only know it from Star Blazers likely wouldn't be interested in the new series if they even knew it existed.108.209.184.9 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For the reasons with the name. Does anyone else think it is ironic that the External link to ANN is to Space Battleship Yamato 2199 (TV) and it doesn't contain any mention of 'Star Blazers'. The issue probably related to the previous release as Star Blazers, which despite what our article on the series says, is rather disputed by the Anime Encyclopedia... but that's a different matter entirely. Its not known as Star Blazers in any official capacity and the direct meaning is Space Battleship Yamato 2199. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - There are weak grounds for the use of this name. --Tarage (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Yamato wreck in the original series was based on the assumption that the warship sank intact.

Show a source of information. This information is not found in the official website of Japan.

If there is a source of information, I want to read it. 219.160.58.64 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't found any reference saying the wreck is either a decoy or rebuild to function as camouflage. The second episode clearly shows the spaceship rising out of the wreckage just like in the original series with multiple characters clearly referring to it as camouflage to HIDE the ship, not divert the enemy's attention from the spaceship as a decoy. 94.213.111.225 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

-While in the original series they rebuilt the wreck of the Yamato to build the new space battleship.. In the 2199 version the "wreckage" is fake and is just a camuflage cover for the new battleship under construction (they even made a history about how it was built and why it was close to the surface.. due to the ship having a new unknown engine and they couldnt build it near cities in the underground) .. so the article is wrong to say that the UNCF rebuilt from the wreckage of the Yamato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.122 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yamato -> Star Blazer Article Change?

Seems like they're gearing up for a release here under the Star Blazers name, with the relaunch of the official website, plus some posts on twitter seem to indicate they may have shown a dub at Anime Expo. I don't have exact information, but it seems they're going ahead on the Star Blazers name. So... should we change the article to that name? For reference, here's the official website. Mendinso (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What if the English dub features changes from the original just like the original 80's series did? Even the original Star Blazers has an article separate from the original. I believe it should be either a separate article or, since the new franchise isn't as big as the original (yet), a separate section. In either case, I don't really like this article being moved to Star Blazers 2199 simply because I see them as two separate shows if the dub has many changes. People should be able to properly see the differences between the shows and they should be treated as equal, not reducing the original version as simply a minor foreign series that is adapted for a Western audience. I discovered Star Blazers via the original title. But that is just my opinion. 94.213.111.225 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Spare us the forum talk, if you don't mind. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.71.126 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Differences from the original series

Can anyone who watch the original series confirm if "the Earth forces attacked first when they meet the Gamilas" is an original subplot or not? I didn't watched it in full and I don't remember if that happened there. Bass-Kuroi (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This particular plot point was not included in Star Blazers, the English translation of the original series. I can't speak to the Japanese version.Wyldstaar (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No .. in the original series Gamilas attacked first as they wanted to move to Earth since their world was dying. One of the bigest changes in 2199 was this shocking fact.. Gamilas send a small fleet to scout the solar system and Earth Defense send a fleet to attack them right away without provocation.... that convinced the Gamilas that humans were "barbaric" and so their all-out war. Also a couple of lines from Shultz and Melda sugest that at some point earth was given a choice to surrender but didnt accept... considering how the earth goberment managed and hide the first contact incident didnt seem hard to believe they refused to surrender too thinking they could win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.249.187 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the piece regarding the 'spiritual element' at the end of the list of changes. Of the three examples provided, only one would fall under "spiritual", and one actually is incorrect (Misaki, at least from what I saw in the series, was not telepathic but was under the control of Sasha when she was in the automatic navigation chamber... if this is incorrect and someone can cite references in the series or other locations please let me know) Telepathy is not really spiritual in nature - it's more standard fantasy/science fiction fare. If other examples are found of spirituality it can be re-added. Vortex (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)