Talk:Blade of the Phantom Master

To-do list for Blade of the Phantom Master: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-11-26 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Add all the 한국어names to pertinent characters

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Anime and manga Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The wikiproject does not consern itself with purely non-Japanese works. This series has been included because it includes a Japanese anime movie.

--> This series may have Korean creators but it is originally published in Japan under the guidance of a Japanese editor. So technically, the series is within the scope of the wikiproject too. :) -- 9muses 17:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the artist and illustrator are both Korean, the comic series is first published in Japan, not in Korea. Does this make it a manga or is it all right to leave its categorization as a manhwa? -- 9muses 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered my own question. Never mind. -- 9muses 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By one definition, that actually makes it manga. Those who draw manga need not be Japanese, the requirement is that it's first published by a Japanese company in Japan. --GunnarRene 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added subheadings to this section in an attempt to organize it. Hopefully this won't become too unwieldy. I admit the split between main and supporting is arbitrary though, so I'm very open to shifting them around. I did make a point to include characters who, though they only appear for a few pages, play a significant in the story development. (For example: Mong Ryong, who was Sando's lover and whose headband Munsu wears.) -- 9muses 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't seen the anime, so I don't know if there are any differences between the comic and anime characterizations. These descriptions are based on the comic depictions. If someone has seen the anime, please point out any variations. -- 9muses 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have not watched or read either, so I put up an expansion request for you. :-) --GunnarRene 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) From what I've read of the anime, it appears to only cover events shown in the first volume so there's a good chance only Munsu, Sando, Mong Ryong and Bun Haku Dou will have anime counterparts. -- 9muses 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's never explicitly stated (at least until the end of volume 6, which is as far as I've read) what Miss Hwang's sando is, just that it's "special." It looks a lot like a small Eastern-styled dragon, but it's definitely not an ordinary animal. -- 9muses 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, should we split off the character section into a separate article? it's getting bigger and it'll get bigger, since there's many characters to come in this ongoing series... Boshiaki (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions:

• Would including the real-life historical and folklore references be considered trivial?
• If they were to be included, would it make more sense to group them all under one heading of historical & folklore references or spread them throughout the various sections? Meaning, character inspirations would be included in the character profiles and story inspirations in the manga section?
• All of that would be cited, of course, because luckily In-Wan Youn includes detailed author notes about who's based on what at the end of each chapter/story arc. I think that's okay to reference, right? I'm correct in interpreting that it doesn't count as original research because the writer flat out says, "This is based on that" or "I just stole that name because I liked it"? I know we're supposed to use secondary sources when possible, so care would definitely be taken not advance any position since this information comes from a primary source.
  

Suggestions and input would be appreciated. :) -- 9muses 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can include the information and cite it. It's not trivial as long as you show discression in what you include and don't go too far into the details. You could go with either way of including it, but as you present it, it seems you are most in favour of spreading them, and I tend to agree with that. At least, please avoid making a "Trivia" section. --GunnarRene 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. And yes, the main reason why I was leaning towards spreading the references was because grouping them together would make it seem too much like a trivia section, which I don't particularly care for. Thanks. -- 9muses 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, ADV changed the name of the anime to Blade of the Phantom Master: Shin Angyo Onshi. Should we change the page title to reflect that? (Here's the listing on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Phantom-Master-Angyo-Onshi/dp/B000LPQ6CU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2564833-6580668?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1191021406&sr=1-1) - 9muses 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Can we add the names spelled in Korean? Since the authors are Korean and most of the names are in Korean, it seems appropriate... Also, the authors have given us quite a bit of information on themselves in the Omakes. I'd like to start an article on them, but am unsure how to go around to doing it...Talchum 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added most of the Korean spellings, if anyone sees any misspellings please correct them. Thank you. :)Talchum (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that since there is so many historical references and folk tales in SAO it would be nice to have the stories gathered under one heading. I'll work on that in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talchum (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edits of yesterday and today, 61.119.138.171 (talk · contribs) and 211.129.140.247 (talk · contribs) seem to be the same person, one of which vandalized manhwa article yesterday. Regardless of this, the creators are all KOREAN, and their art world is introduced to Japan, so his/her claim that the work is originally of Japan is not add up. They're already very famous in South Korean and some of their work exported to the US and Europe. This series may have Korean creators but it is originally published in Japan under the guidance of a Japanese editor.. If so, any books published in Japanese become Japanese one? That is very illogical answer and I presented the compromised version as "a cartoon and animation created by Korean manhwa writer and artist..... published by Japanese manga magazine. if he/her does not present a proper logic here, I would revert it to the compromised version and go to ask a third opinion here. Regards. --Appletrees (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCmedia

• Reason As far as I've check on the history of the article, the mention of Korean manwha has been unilaterally removed by OCN.NE.JP user(s) and disruptive sockpuppeer Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) since the last June.[1][2] Maybe, this disruptive removal would've started much earlier. The work is created by a famous Korean manhwa artist and writer published by a Japanese manga magazine in Japanese language and later also published in Korean language. The artists are never studied or worked in Japan, and their fame is established in South Korea. They export their another work "Island" to US, and Eurpoe, so the work in question is technically exported to a Japanese medium. Besides, the work is simply translated from Korean to Japanese and the format is not Japanese style. Until the banned Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) touched the article, the lead was written like this. is a Korean-made comic series written by In-Wan Youn and illustrated by Kyung-Il Yang and is first serialized as a Japanese comic in the monthly magazine, Sunday GX. An anime movie adaptation of the same name was made in 2004.

However, I wanted to end a tendentious edit warring, so I present a compromised version as "a cartoon and animation series created by Korean manhwa artist, and writer...published by a Japanese manga magazine", but the other Japanese anon keeps insisting that it is a manga.

Besides, the OCN.NE.JP anon vandalized the page to try to completely remove Korean nationality of them, so blanked the info and also vandalised manhwa article several times. 61.119.138.171 (talk · contribs), 211.129.140.247 (talk · contribs), 220.104.47.22 (talk · contribs), 221.184.41.234 (talk · contribs), 124.86.248.112 (talk · contribs)

I think the anon seems to have no intention to regard a consensus. I requested him to participate in the above discussion, but no answer. I think third opinions are needed for the article. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By one definition, that actually makes it manga. Those who draw manga need not be Japanese, the requirement is that it's first published by a Japanese company in Japan. by GunnarRene (61.119.129.25 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, the work is a Manhwa style (right to left unlike Japanese manga) and originally written in Korean, but only translated to Japanese and published in Japan. By other definition, it is clearly manhwa by manhwa artists. Read manhwa article that you vandalised before. You, OCN.NE.JP user. --Appletrees (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This work belongs to a relatively small portion of comics who were created by non-Japanese but published first in Japan. I doubt there's not a lot of Wikipedia precedence to go on. But I don't see that as a central issue at all. The goal here is to write a great article about this work. Labels should serve only to help the reader understand the subject better, not to cubbyhole or lay claim. I would fully expect the words "manhwa" and "manga" to both be used in this article, because they'll serve to enhance its understandability and help fans of both types of media find the article. Focus on what's important here and be done with the dissection of which comic subgroup it belongs to. Possible sockpuppetry notwithstanding, there haven't been an excessive amount of disruptive edits lately. (Okay, I looked again and there kind of have been. But my message goes out to all the editors of this article, not just those who are actively participating in the discussion, so the message doesn't change.) And for those that do occur, there's the "undo" feature.  :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this work firstly published on manga weekly magazin, so this version is a manga version. Appltree said that this version was translated into manga from manhwa, but he didn't make any citation that the manhwa version when and whom and where was published. Or at least it is necessary for saying this work was translated from manhwa to manga to cite that first manhwa manuscript copy was written before manga version was published. As there aren't any citation, particularly we don't know manhwa version was published or not published, there are only manga version, we have no other choice to say this 'version' is manga. We should wait the citation of manhwa version, by him or anyone. Jazz81089 (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, if Appletree's edits called it a manhwa series. However, from what I can tell, he's calling the series a cartoon series (which manga and manhwa both are), and calling the author a "manhwa author" (which is exactly what he is). As far as the first manuscript copy, that doesn't matter much, since it's the published work that's important here. Personally, I see little reason to not call the series both a manga and manhwa series, and leave it at that. —Dinoguy1000 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a "choice" as to what to call the comic serialization of the series. "Manga" is just a word. Call it a comic! This is an English-language article. If there's contention, use the English word! IMO, because of the multinational nature of this series, it's the best word anyway. This article is almost entirely unsourced. To be nitpicky, "we" don't even know a Japanese version of the comic was produced, either. Any listed citation that isn't currently a broken link pertains only to the animated version of the series. Since there is so much contention over the series' origins and initial publication, all statements referring to either of those things should be removed until they can be reliably sourced. The info can always be added back later. Hopefully we can all take for granted that the Korean manhwa author (which is his profession, not a statement about the origins of this particular work) originally wrote the work in Korean. If you guys can't get past your preferences for asserting its Japaneseness or its Koreanness, then the article will continue to suffer. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us and I can't take for granted that the he originally wrote the work in Korean as there are no sourece of it. But I know that this work firstly published in Japanese manga magazin, and publishted.[[3]], and usually manga series are made with editors (Shogakukan, the publisher) watching for reader's respondences. So it is natural to think that this was written first in Japanse as manga. And to say more, no citation of Korean version was made yet, wasn't it? This work is very specal one becasue this was firstly written for Japanse manga magazin by Korean author and to Japanse manga market first in manga style. So I think he is manga writer when he write manga and manhwa writer when he write manhwa. I think this is not strange. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect where you're coming from, but urge you to take a step back and view things from a larger perspective. You still have no citations for anything you're saying. Yes, I concede the series has been published in Japan. That was never an actual point of contention. Please compromise on the minutiae of non-consequential semantics used in the article. This is an English-language article, and neither "manga" nor "manhwa" are even English words. When in contention, use the English equivalent. The purpose of this is clarity, understandability, and informativeness. I respect your passion about this subject matter and article, and value the contributions you make. I understand your desire to use the greatest precision possible when making descriptions. I think we'd all be thrilled to add more information about any aspect of this series, with proper sources and citation, be it about the series' origin or anything else. What I'm going to do at this point is some general copyediting on the article, as it does need it. I'm going to remove unsourced information and contentious language regarding the series' origin. Remember, once sources are found, stuff can be added back in down the line. Let's all work together on this! :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source that this work was publishted in Japan[[4]]. I think this source is weak in common but no other source of publication was added, so in this point, I think we can add that this 'work' is manga. This work was first published in Japan as manga, and there are no other books utilizable, this book should be categorized one of manga. By the way, plaese tell me what do you think the soureces, in this case. I will searcth them if I could. Jazz81089 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your logic, if a game programmer writes a database program, for the duration of the time that he's working on that database program, he should be considered a database programmer? Or if a Boeing 747 pilot happens to pilot an Airbus A380 once, then for the whole time he's piloting the Airbus, he should be considered an Airbus pilot? The logic here is laughably ridiculous. The author is a manhwa author, even when working on a comic that gets released first in Japan, and no spur-of-the-moment logic can change that. Until reliable sources can be found that clear up this whole issue, all mentions of the series itself being either manga or manhwa need to be removed, otherwise I don't think this argument will ever stop. —Dinoguy1000 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the point that this work is manga, because this work was first publishted in Japan[[5]], and no other source of publication was added. Until now we only know manga version, so we should say this is a manga for availability to readers. And this work is very famous, and a fairly long series, so we can't say this work to be a 'duration' work as you say. By the way I will search some soures if I can. Jazz81089 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Jazz, who are the many of us? By far, you're the only one to blank the manhwa mention, and even if you're not the anon, the two can be not "many". Therefore, you're not speaking on behalf of many people that I don't see in here but speaking of your own point of view. Before the content dispute happened, some of editors above questioned whether the work should be only manga. Even though the disruptive anon sporadically reappeared to blank the Korean mention and manhwa, other editors always restored the info, so I'm not the only or first one who insists on adding the manhwa category back. That does never happen. So please say a thing irrelevant matter.

As you keeping emphasizing that the work is special in Japan because it is the first and only cartoon that gained a huge success even though it was created by Korean manhwa artists with Korean folktales. That means that the work is also very special to Koreans because the work got a big success other than in South Korea. Besides, by the definition of manhwa, it does not only refers to cartoons published on paper, but animations, so the mahwa category is perfectly fine being here, given that the animation is created from the collaboration by a Korean and Japanese animation company which is already referenced in the article. Therefore, the work can be Korean animation as well. You also remember that the cartoon was sold 2.2 million copies including 1.5 million in Japan and 0.5 million in South Korea. You also may acknowledge that Japanese population are triple than South Koreans as well as the fact that the Korean cartoon market is smaller than the Japanese cartoon market. Manhwa in South Korea is really a subculture unlike Korean films, so their success is enough to warrant them to be exposed on famous South Korean newspapers. Besides, you're insisting that Korean manga author would be perfect, but as you know that in Japan, Koreans are divided to many categories depending on their nationality and residence period, and historical, and political matters such as Zainichi Korean. I've heard that many Zainich Koreans become "mangaka" in Japan with their Japanese name, and their works could be called "manhwa" due to their nationality? Nope, their works are solely under manga category unless they forsake their acquired styles in Japan and starts to draw manwha style and their success starts in South Korea.

Back to the point, the Korean manhwa artists may embrace some of Japanese manga features for Japanese readers which can be referred to as "localize". In interviews with them, they said they need a translator for their works to be published in Japan due to their inability to speak Japanese fluently. They could not speak any single word in Japnaese when their work was first published in Japan. Their work style does not change in Japan according to manhwa critics' analysis. (I will add relevant references later, but you do have to add reference for your claim as well, since the article does not have enough citations.)

Besides, manhwa/manga are originally translated into Korean cartoon/Japanese cartoon, so the lead section like an cartoon and animation created by Korean... is NPOV. In Korean Wkipedia, due to the same sharing of the Chinese character, manga/manhua are called "일본만화 Ilbon manhwa" / "중국만화 Jungguk manhwa" (Japanese cartoon/Chinese cartoon), and that goes by all the same manner in Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia. So cartoon and animation does not cause any useless dispute.

Well, I'll be very busy for my real life until tomorrow and have to translate required references later, so you can have much enough time to prepare for your claim than me. I have another matter to deal with other editors in Wikipedia too. --Appletrees (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have tons of background. By all means, please translate your sources when you are able! Sounds so interesting!  :) In the meantime, I hope you're also open to current removal of some of the points and language currently under contention. My intent is not to disregard or invalidate anything you, or any other editor, said. It's all in the effort toward making the article the best it can be. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this work was made in the circumstance of manga magazine system , and we know the work published in manga first, and until now, we don't know no other langege availability. So I think this should be call manga now. I want you to cite the publication information in Korea or other langege, for your advocation to call this a cartoon in first. Jazz81089 (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is not really a good move to resolve the dispute here. Here are all your history, and you appeared here to the specific one from 8 month break? Besides, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) appeared at Pyrus pyrifolia article as well. The contribution history does not explain your appearance and editing.

• 2008-06-05T19:06:45 (hist) (diff) Blade of the Phantom Master‎ (rv. This second series was firstly serialized in Japnese weekly magazine. So this is manga.) (top)
• 2007-11-11T11:34:04 (hist) (diff) Pyrus pyrifolia‎
• 2007-09-07T01:34:55 (hist) (diff) Boys Over Flowers‎
• 2007-09-07T00:59:19 (hist) (diff) m Boys Over Flowers‎
• 2007-09-07T00:58:14 (hist) (diff) m Boys Over Flowers‎
• 2007-09-07T00:54:11 (hist) (diff) Boys Over Flowers‎ (→Trivia)
• 2007-09-07T00:47:45 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (→Boys Over Flowers) (top)
• 2007-09-06T02:54:07 (hist) (diff) User:Jazz81089‎ (←Created page with '{| style="float:right;" || {{User WP Anime}} |}') (top)
• 2007-09-06T02:37:55 (hist) (diff) Boys Over Flowers‎ (→Trivia)
• 2006-10-15T16:10:16 (hist) (diff) Sea of Japan‎ (rv)

--Appletrees (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFcleanup

I have spent many hours creating a custom infobox, just for this article. It is based on the anime & manga infoboxes, but removes country-specific language like "anime" or "manhwa". This series was created by Koreans, and was published more-or-less concurrently in both Japan and Korea. It was a joint project between South Korea and Japan. I will include sources for this fact in the article body when I finish copyediting it.

The infobox I've created acknowledges the binational, joint nature of this series. I have carefully studied Wikipedia naming coventions for Korean and Japanese names -- please don't change their name order! I have also studied Wikipedia's standards for usage of flags. In this infobox, they serve to clarify events happening in one country or the other (such as local comic publication). Flags are not to be used with individuals' names simply to denote their nationality. This not only goes against the spirit of WP:FLAG, it serves absolutely no purpose, particularly in the context of a joint project. Please don't add Japanese or Korean flags anyplace they aren't already present! The animated film was created jointly by two studios -- it was done hand in hand and does not pertain to activities in one country or another. Thus, no flags.

Please don't revert this infobox to the anime & manga one. Its use of neutral language in this unique case is in the spirit of WP:NPOV, one of the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia. hamu♥hamu (talk)

Thanks for adding publication information in Korea. I can know it was really published in Korea. By the way, if this work is categolized and if manga category and manhwa category were exist, I think this work will be belong to both. Of cause this is a comic in big category too, but if this work categorized to it only, I think we will erase fairly information. Jazz81089 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Korean publication information was in the old infobox all along. But because it was designed only for manga, the Korean info was relegated to the collapsible "other publishers" box. I didn't notice it, either, until I actually started working on the box! I had some formatting problems with the the category parameters, so I temporarily removed them. I will make sure the series gets listed appropriately (Manga, Manhwa, Korean animated series, Anime), but it might take a few days to get sorted out. I'm very new to all this! :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks a lot for your efforts.Jazz81089 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new lead paragraph for the article, in which I've tried to use neutral, matter-of-fact language, and I've added in some sources. I'm going to take a look at the sections that come after the plot overview and characters next.

I believe this article could be structured following the page layout section of the manual of style for anime & manga articles. I've looked at some Featured and Good articles from anime & manga, and I think the characters section for this article is currently a bit long. That doesn't mean there's too much information! It just means it's worth considering creation of a "characters of" page for the series and then present only the most prominent characters in the series article. Take a look at Tenjho Tenge versus List of Tenjho Tenge characters as an example. Who goes on what page is a great topic for discussion among those of you here who are big fans.

Please chime in with your suggestions, ideas, info sources, or anything else you think would enhance the article, and please take a look at any changes I've made for accuracy, completeness, and grammar. Copyedit and improve, but please keep in mind what is and isn't supposed to go in the lead for an article of this kind, and please don't add in unneeded descriptive words that could cause contention or be possibly interpreted as POV or nationalistic, and that aren't needed to actually improve the readability or understandability of the subject matter to the reader. :) Thanks everyone for your passion and hard work. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you hard works on this article! I've been extremely busy for some work in my life, and could not even access this article nor add sources that Jazz requests. I will add citations or more contents within this weekend.

p.s I changed my screen name for some reason. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when a character list is split out into a seperate article, the character list left on the main article should list main characters and, if applicable for a given series, significant factors or species (see, for example, Elfen Lied#Diclonius), linking to individual articles where appropriate. —Dinoguy1000 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for a split. Character section is just too long, but the info is great - perfect for a chara list article, and it's certainly warranted and in accordance with what I see on other animanga articles. I'll take care of creation and some reformatting. Once done I'll request someone to copyedit & check for accuracy/completeness, because my lack of familiarity with the subject matter makes me the wrong person to do it. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote and rearranged sections for Series origins, Comic, and Animated film. Please peruse, improve, and question! Also, I found three sources that reported plans for the film to be shown at New York Comic Con in Feb 2007, "two months" before release onto DVD. Can't find anything to confirm it actually happened, and I wonder only because ADV released the DVD in Nov 2007, nine months after NYCC, so I thought the project might not have been ready for the NYCC screening. Anyone got info! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have noticed that the series is called Shin Angyo Onshi throughout the body of most of the article. Do you guys think it's better to use either the "offical" English-release name of Blade of the Phantom Master or the translated title of New Royal Secret Commissioner? Also, a lot of items and concepts are referred to by a (usually) Japanese word. Should we shoot for a translated English term, when possible? I realize that a greater number of English-speaking fans probably are familiar with the Japanese title and terms than with the Korean, due to the scanlation of the manga into English, but because of this article's history...you know. :) Also, regardless of that decision, non-English terms should be italicized when initially used, and I think the translated and Korean terms are imperative for inclusion during the word's initial usage. The talk page is the perfect place for everyone to chime in with what word means what, and all that good stuff.--hamu♥hamu (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the animanga MoS, the official English title and terminlogy should be used. When a given term is first mentioned, though, the official English term should be listed first, followed by the original Korean/Japanese (no opinion on order) with romanizations and, if appropriate, literal translations. —Dinoguy1000 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, Shin Angyo Onshi in general usage should be changed to Blade of the Phantom Master. I was iffy because that's just the name of the film, but it's also the article name so BANZAI I'm all for it =D Thanks for clarification about other terms, as well. It will be a group effort to find terms that are both accurate, possibly reflect those used in the film (when known/applicable), and read smoothly enough. "Secret royal commissioner" reads...er, not so smoothly, LOL. What are they called in the ADV Films version? Phantom masters? Anyone know?--hamu♥hamu (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed references in general body of article from Shin Angyo Onshi to Blade of the Phantom Master. Left angyo onshi and mahai as is, for now, with some copyediting and first-use italicizing, until we find/agree on proper terms to use. Question -- are the "horse medallions" actually called mahai or is mahai the rank designation of the medallion wielder? I did some streamlining of the angyo onshi subsection, and may have fouled that up. Original text said medallions were called mahai, and that also the rank was Ordinal + mahai. I can read some Japanese so I'll see what I can find if no one is sure. ((is the MA in MAHAI "horse"?))--hamu♥hamu (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link for this source, which looks promising for series origin info, is now dead. Anyone willing to search for a possible archival or alternate location of the article?

 | last = Okada
 | first = Shin'Ichi
 | coauthors = T. Ohikoshi and M. Nakamura 
 | title = Changing Places
 | work = Jijigaho
 | date = 2005-11
 | url = http://www.jijigaho.or.jp/app/0511/eng/sp08.html

I was lucky enough to find an archival location for the broken Korea Times links. Official websites for the movie (www.munsu2004.co.kr and www.shin-angyo.com) are dead and the archived versions at the Internet Archive seem to be useless. :( --hamu♥hamu (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find existing articles on characters from Blade of the Phantom Master, or plan to create an article on a character, group of characters, or a "characters of" article, drop a note here! This can help ensure consistency between all the articles and that all character articles get linked from this article. :)

• I randomly found an existing article on Munsu. Seems to have a lot of info but needs some work. I wikilinked it from this article. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit interwiki links to correct spelling, capitalization, romanization, etc. These links point to articles on foreign-language Wikipedias, and should point to this article's partner on those Wikipedias. This means that the link's target has to match the foreign article's title, and arbitrarily changing the link to correct spelling etc. will result in a broken link. —Dinoguy1000 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops, that was me! I misunderstood what those links were -- I'm sorry! Do you happen to know a place on Wikipedia that outlines the entire anatomy of an article, to explain what all those little features are, all in one place? So, you know, editors don't do dumb things like break interwiki links. =D --hamu♥hamu (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I don't know of anything quite like that, but you may find the manual of style to be of some assistance... —Dinoguy1000 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important to this type of work that when and where was the first appearance. I expect someone to cite them!!Jazz81089 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, tone down the anger. You are a "someone," too. Do it yourself.

"2001" for both countries is not exactly in contention and takes very little effort to confirm. In fact, several of the listed sources state it. Check them. Any online retailer will have some kind of publication dates, though it won't be clear whether they are initial or reprints. And before you go on a tear about how the exact publication date in one country was before or after the exact initial publication date in the other and therefore this series must be called manga or manhwa, keep in mind that serial magazines can only hold so many ongoing stories at a time. In general, a new serialization cannot begin printing until some other serialization finishes. The chance that two magazines could begin simultaneously publishing the same story on the exact same day is just about zero. What matters is the spirit and intent of the authors and publishers. Please don't start up the unproductive, nationalistic, mean-spirited "this must be called manga!!!!!!" stuff again. Work to improve the article (genuinely improve it in a substantiative way), don't just yell at people about your preferred terminology. A very FAIR compromise has already been reached. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any anger. I want to know how this work was made. This work is very rare case. So you should know this one to be watched by everyone. You wrote what I don't know, so I want know them. If you have a source, you shoud cite it, and if you haven't it, the point should be deleted, this isn't a natilalsitc attitude, but a normal one(WP:source), wikipedia is a dictionary what a fact is written with a source. Be calm. Jazz81089 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz, while I agree with you on these statements requiring references, I do not agree with your one-sided treatment of them. On that note, I removed the "manga" comment you inserted in the article, and tagged the Japanese serialization as needing a citation as well. With something so obviously contentious as this, we need to be very careful to properly cite both sides of the publication data. In short, I do not disagree with the Korean serialization requiring citation, but I do disagree with not requiring the same of the Japanese serialization. As for serialization dates, if you or anyone you know has access to this type of information, you are free to add the exact date the comic started serialization in both Japan and Korea, but keep in mind that just because one may have started before the other, does not make the comic one or the other. For all intents and purposes, this comic can currently be considered both a manga and a manhwa series. —Dinoguy1000 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your advice for citation of publication dates? Just link to the publishers' websites? (which are already linked in the infobox and in the portion of the article about the osa-logy, guidebook, and gaiden special issues). These will be for the collected volumes, only, naturally. I have no idea where to even find anything else, which I think is a common problem for most series that aren't enormous blockbusters with tons of English-language info. Have you seen this kind of thing contested on a lot of manga series' articles? The series is no longer being published, so I think any publisher-created websites specifically for the series will be long gone, if they ever existed. I certainly haven't run into any. Anyone, anyone? :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>Dinoguy1000::I think this work will resid both side, though you may not think so. This was a manga when this was serialized in Japanese manga magazine, I knew it at that time. So I think this work could be called manga. And Probably this work can be called manhwa, because the Korean author can perfectly write this as manhwa, but I can't make sure it. What I want to do is that how this one wrote, and categorize collectly if both category exist. A Correct Category is needed for readers. About citation of manga version, I will serch them. Probably they exist.

>hamu♥hamu I want to know the source of virtually simultaneously serialization. It is a very interesting.Jazz81089 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "you know" doesn't matter. Your personal recollections of publication doesn't make the series more manga than manhwa, and it doesn't mean it could "probably" be called manhwa, either. It is manhwa. The article already says the series was published as a manga in Japan and as a manhwa in Korea. I must add here that you aren't giving anyone a chance to get anything done before you start complaining and tagging stuff. This article revision only started a couple of days ago, by a person who had never even heard of the series until that time. I have reworded a ton, added substance to, added citations for, and continued to flesh out this article several times a day since that time. Can you give me a freaking chance before you go gangbusters with the tagging and the getting all up in arms about stuff again? I'm doing this in good faith, okay? I'll take out the stupid "virtually-simultaneous" statement, okay? Will that make you happy? Please also note your willingness to search for info on Japanese publication but not for Korean publication data puzzles me. You don't need to know either language to be able to get some basic info, using copy-paste. Cheers. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>hamu♥hamu Manga and probaly manhwa have appropriate genre, so will call them manga or manhwa. So I know it is a manga, and all Japanese readers think so. We read them and buy them in the bookstore, and think so naturaly. As you say they doesn't matter, but a motivation, as we read them. OK? I want to write correctly, and I wish you think so. Thanks.Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>""You don't need to know either language to be able to get some basic info, using copy-paste.""??? You can easily judged them as a Korean pubication data in Korean langage?? I can't it. I want to know how it will be could by the one who can't read Korean langage. Jazz81089 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried it? And can you not see I am acting in good faith, doing my damnedest to get the citations you so fervently request? I can't do anything while you continue to just argue and argue about every single thing I write. Go out and get some sources yourself. Go get the Japanese publication sources that you keep promising, okay? And they'd better be in English if you won't accept Korean publication data in Korean. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:source is a very NPOV strategy. And I want know the magazine name of serialization in Korean langege, because you wrote that it was serialized. I didn't write it, but you did. I will erase it if I edit the part, because I don't know any of the infomation. It's your task if you wrote it, then it can't be done, it can't bear wiki strategy WP:source. I know the Japanese serialization, so I have a motivation to cite a source, but Korean is yours because I don't know any of it. I want to write correctly, and I wish you think so. Thanks. Jazz81089 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]