[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Kanokon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kouta or Kōta

[edit]

Seven Seas uses "Kouta", so people are claiming that "Kouta" is official.

Well, the article also uses "Kunpō High School". Is this Seven Seas' romanisation, or has someone just decided to romanise according to their own system, in disregard of Seven Seas' obvious preference for "ou" over "ō". Similarly for Ryūsei,

Does the Seven Seas' use of "Kouta" mean that it has to be used even when romanising purely Japanese titles like Kanokon Radio: Kouta to Chizuru no Yuya Yon Seichō Nikki? One minute "Kouta" (the official English name) is used in a romanised Japanese context, the next minute 成長 is romanised as seichō (official Wikipedia policy). How consistent is that? (As an aside, ラジオ should also be rajio).

It's fine to be a stickler for Seven Seas' "official romanisation" of "Kouta", but what if that leads to inconsistencies in romanisation through the article?

Bathrobe (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot vouch for all those other instances, Wikipedia articles have no deadline, so there is no need to go all or nothing in terms of romanization, especially when we know that "Kouta" is the accepted spelling for one such instance. So, seeing as the world will not be ending tomorrow, the other official spellings will soon become apparent in their own right. But as of now naming conventions say to go with a revised Hepburn romanization of Japanese words or names that have no official spelling. Plus, I guess we could provide an English translation of the radio program title to make the context fit between radio/rajio.--十八 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand my logic.
  • If you're writing in English, "Kouta" is fine (if you accept Seven Seas' romanisation). But if you accept Seven Seas' word on "Kouta", you have to accept their word on the other names as well. You can't have it both ways; you just end up with a jumble.
  • Kanokon Radio: Kouta to Chizuru no Yuya Yon Seichō Nikki is the romanisation of a Japanese sentence; it's not English. Thus, even if you accept that "Kouta" is the official English term for 耕太 when writing English, that shouldn't be extended to direct romanisations of Japanese sentences. The sentence should be romanised as Kanokon Rajio: Kōta to Chizuru no Yuya Yon Seichō Nikki. To take a different example, 齋藤 ヤスカ is known as "Yasuka Saitoh" in English. That is fine. But say there were an article in Japanese about, for instance, 齋藤 ヤスカと日本芸能界との関わり合い, this should really be romanised as Saitō Yasuka to Nihon geinōkai to no kakawari-ai, not Saitoh Yasuka to Nihon geinōkai to no kakawari-ai, or even Yasuka Saitoh to Nihon geinōkai to no kakawari-ai. There is no need to keep the official English name ("Yasuka Saitoh") when transliterating sentences from Japanese. Do you understand what I'm driving at?
As for "Wikipedia articles have no deadline", and "Chill out", I find it interesting that you've brought them out as reasons for dismissing a problem that's been pointed out.
Bathrobe (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I understood you completely. I know we should follow all the official English spellings for the names, but only Kouta's is known for now. Also, the only other character on the list with a diacritic is Ryūsei Kumada, so when we find out what Seven Seas uses for his name, we'll change it then. I was using the "deadline" and "chill out" links as analogies meaning we can keep "Kouta" for now even with having "Ryūsei" as well. And yes I already understood your arguments for the radio too.--十八 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuya Yon

[edit]

I'm as much in the dark about ゆやよん as you are. But according to this website [1]:

ゆやん、ゆよん。/ゆやよん、ゆやよん。/ばゆん。/ゆたゆた。

これらは全てヒロインちずるの乳房の揺動および形状変化を表すオノマトペである。 「ゆやん、ゆよん。」の一節で、サーカス小屋のブランコにも似た揺動感を瑞々しく表現している。 擬態語作成の自由さは日本語の強みだが、それをこのレベルまで生かせる者は多くない。 「ゆやよん」を紡ぎ出す才能は詩人としても名を残しうる域にあると言えよう。 注目すべきはその詩的センスの発揮される対象が、ちずるの乳房に限定されているところだ。 西野はなぜ乳にばかりこだわる？　エロ要素か？　単なる媚びなのか？ 考えを重ねる内、私は根本的な錯誤に気付くに到った。微エロラブコメという先入観が災いし、 乳房を性愛の対象としか見ていなかったのだ。乳房は元来、子を育む母性の象徴ではないか！ 本作を読み解くキーワードは「母」だったのだ。

That is, yuya yon is supposed to capture in onomatopoeic form the swaying of Chizuru's breasts and the ways they change shape as they sway.

So perhaps "bouncing" or "bobbling" would do... as in "bouncing breasts"... it's hard to say.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ecchi Genre

[edit]

Several users have attempted to add the Ecchi label to the genre, only to have it undone moments later. The question is: why? This anime fits this genre perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.3.87 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecchi is not a genre, it's a classification some fans give series depending on how perverted they think a series is. This had been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)/Archive 3#Is "Ecchi" a genre? before. Also see the related Talk:To Love-Ru#Genre?.--十八 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD specials

[edit]

Anybody know the titles of the DVD specials that just came out? I just watched them today and thought they should be listed in the episode lists, or at least somewhere in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.121.115 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding them to the page as you suggested. I'm not sure the exact titles but I know it's 6 eps over 3 DVDs, presumably 2 per DVD. Tyciol (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

[edit]

It seems that the OAV has already been released, but I don't have a reference except for this page. It says here that the first episode was shown on October 4, 2009. Can anyone confirm this? -frotter (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs dump

[edit]

Plot summary in character section

[edit]

Sourced or not, adding large amounts of plot summary to the character section is not what that section is supposed to be for. Tedious, play-by-play events of what the character did over the course of the series does not tell us anything about who the character is, so that should be removed so you can focus on the character's personality and their role in the story without going overboard. Using an extreme example of this was in the description for Yamata no Orochi where more than half of the bio is plot summary:

Yamata makes a later appearance in the seventh manga volume this time with six tails, and asks Kouta to call upon the last two dragons so they can devour the world. This is again put a stop to by Chizuru, but she is unable to prevent another tail from sprouting in a later battle. Towards the end of the series Kouta is informed by Okata that he is the key to awakening the final dragon, but when this happens Chizuru's soul will be destroyed. When he fuses with Chizuru for the final time Kouta meets with seven girls who look like Chizuru who call themselves the Yamata Squad. They tell Kouta that they are the part of the dragon's power which obeys Kushinadahime, and inform him on how to save Chizuru. In the end when asked why they would help him, the Yamata Squad inform Kouta that Kushinadahime is satisfied knowing she found the reincarnation of Susanoo-no-Mikoto. The squad also inform Chizuru that through her "she is loved".

And that's just one part of what I had removed, all of which was straight plot summary that had nothing to do with who the character is and instead going off on some weird tangent describing events in which they played a part. How is including straight plot summary like this encyclopedic or helpful to anyone but the most ardent fans? That sort of stuff is what wikias are for, not Wikipedia.--十八 04:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to WP:AGF here by saying again I wish you had discussed the merge matter beforehand. This wasn't a minor edit that you did so at least letting the editor who was heavily involved know would be helpful. The subject is moot now though so onto the discussion... Character plot info is not uncommon for series articles, the context in the merged off article was sourced and I provided a reception section that overall describes how the characters were received. The characters are sourced using information from the book as not to create WP:OR.
Some of the plot I agree needs to be trimmed, it isn't perfect as there is leftover bits that were never attended to. I don't believe getting rid of sourced content though is helpful here for these types of things that already suffer from many issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Character plot info is not uncommon for series articles." Yeah, and that is the main issue here. It is very common for editors to bloat character descriptions detailing events in which the character played a part, but that's not good editing, even if you primary source it. Of course the sources are going to come from the media itself; that's why plot summaries in the plot section don't have to be sourced. Just because you split off the character list and then added a large amount of unnecessary plot summary doesn't mean that the split was valid, even if you had that reception section, since that was the only part of the article that was out-of-universe. None of the character bios have out-of-universe info sourced to secondary sources, and there was no development section on these characters either, so when 90% of an article is in-universe, and a lot of that in-universe information shouldn't even be there because it's just excessive plot summary, then you can see why I was against the split to begin with. Splitting character articles most often just gives editors the opportunity to bloat character descriptions with unnecessary detail, so a clear way to prevent this is to keep the character list in the main article so it can at least be somewhat maintained and not allowed to go overboard, as is the case here, as I have shown above in the Yamata no Orochi example, and that's just one of around 30 such examples in this character list.--十八 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article just needed cleaning up, it is clear you were against the split but again this is what discussions are for. If you are scared of character bloat then just revert and ask for the page to be protected. I could undo the merge per WP:BRD but then what would that accomplish? Rather than an everything must go attitude, why cant we work together on this as I suggested on your talk-page? Tell me the bits you take issue with for example then we can par it down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once that article were "cleaned up", a large amount of the content would have just been removed, thus removing the main reason why articles are split: size. And it's not like the bloated article was even that long already, so there really isn't any reason to split other than to give editors an opportunity to bloat it. And it's not like I'm saying "everything must go". My edits to the character list that you reverted are explanatory of what I feel is plot summary bloat that should be removed, so checking the diffs of those edits will show you what I mean.
One of the main things had to do with when a certain character appeared, which really has no bearing on who the character is. You can see this here in the first 4 of 5 characters in the gods section. As an extension of this, writing when events took place as in the Yukihana bio with "In volume seven of the novels..." also has no bearing on a given character, or the series as a whole. Furthermore, in the Yukihana bio, although one of her abilities was given ("She can manipulate snow and wind to create blizzards."), this was further expanded on by giving a specific example of that ("This is shown in the manga to hide a wandering Yōkai from human sight, and in the anime adaptation as a way to test Kouta's relationship with Chizuru.") That is just plot summary bloat and shouldn't be there. Also, using language like "She is also revealed..." and "It is revealed..." in the Tamamo bio is just bad writing and should be removed. Even more examples of those and more was in the second diff.
And besides, I'm not wholly unjustified in these edits. WP:TVCAST recommends "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary." And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Characters recommends brief character outlines and that "Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story" which is why I tried to leave the three main characters with the most content in the second diff.--十八 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kanokon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanokon&oldid=1200032191"