Talk:X (manga)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

length

This page is rather large, lengthwise and bytewise. It should probably be broken up into component pages. - mako 06:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Difficult

The Seiyuu lists are representing both the cinematic film and the television series. The list of episodes pertains solely to the television series. Merging the pages and breaking the two Seiyuu lists up would be problematic, as the film has no subpage of its own, which would result in a large and ungainly Seiyuu list sitting right in the middle of the main page. If you can find a way to do it, more power to you, but any way you look at this, it's going to require a lot of work.

Modified Hepburn

I've edited all of the text in order to better reflect modified Hepburn romanization, the standard form of romanization employed in English transcriptions of Japanese. This was done in attempts to end the petty see-sawing between romanizations of names (some days, Tōru is "Tohru" in this article, other days she's "Tooru", and sometimes she's "Touru") and to try to hold this article to a higher standard of quality. Please respect my efforts.

Understanding the difficulty in keeping names consistent, is it really necessary to use to diacritical marks for Tokyo? To be honest, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I reckon that the average reader of the Wikipedia has no idea how to interpret the diacrits. Wouldn't it just be better to pick the romanization used in the anime, manga, movie, or ANN/ANf and stick with it? The Japanese template could address your concerns about accuracy but still permit the use of the normal English alphabet. That aside, this looks like a fairly well done article for a franchise I enjoy!--Monocrat 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed instances of "Tōkyō" to "Tokyo." --Monocrat 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it is necessary. All macrons have been removed from the mainpage. I've yet to check the characters page, but I'm rather upset by this. I can understand the removal of Tōkyō's macrons, although I personally disagree with this. I have MANY problems with Wikipedia's standards (or lack thereof) when it comes to the treatment of other languages, but there's little I can do to change them without causing a major upheaval which will likely get me nowhere. Wasted effort isn't my thing. Regardless (and I know that I will be told that I'm personalizing this far too much), I've put an AWFUL lot of effort into this page, and I'm starting to become very angry that Wikipedia's unjustified standards are disrupting not only the aesthetic of this group, but also the structure of the group. Removal of the subsections on the terminology page made navigation MUCH more roundabout and less ergonomic. I created these subsections so I could link Japanese terms in other articles within the group DIRECTLY to the term in question, to ease things for those who are not familiar with Japanese or X. Other comparably pointless edits are being made to a system that I had set up with a specific structure and purpose, and are being defended with the frivolous "standards". I'm sick and tired of it. The macrons for the proper names are being reinstated. If you don't like how it looks, or if it doesn't agree with standards, tough. I'm a fan of X, and I've a deep respect for linguists who designed romanization methods, as well as for languages themselves. "Fuma" is not pronounced the same as "Fūma" in Japanese. There are no inherent verbal stresses in Japanese. The "u" vowel receives stress by application of a macron or circumflex in romanization. In Japanese-proper, the "u" is doubled. "Fuma" is NOT Fūma's name, regardless of VIZ's awful translation. I don't want to turn this into some sort of flame war, but I can't accept the dictatorship of frivolous and slipshod "standards"—a misnomer if one ever existed—being used as an excuse for the dumbing down of this group of articles. The point of an encyclopædia is to present FACTUAL, ACCURATE INFORMATION, not to make things pretty and Anglocentric. On rationalization of "making things easier for English speakers who don't even know the rules of their own language", we might as well eliminate the terminology section entirely, and start calling Seishirō the "guy who guards the cherry blossom burial mound" instead of the Sakurazukamori. There is no actual logic behind such an argument, other than the weight of Wikipedia's trivially substandard standards. SumeragiNoOnmyouji 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you don't like Wikipedia's standards, that's your problem. The term "standard" does not denote quality, simply uniformity. Secondly, this is the English Wikikepdia, so things had better be anglocentric. Third, since English does not require the use of diacrits, it is unfair to expect a generalist reader to understand any such marks, except perhaps the acute and grave accents--and those only because of high school Shakespeare. These points demolish your argument. If it is to be on the English Wikipedia, even "X" can and per policy must deign to be accessible to even the lowliest, literate redneck in the Ozarks, or a learner of the language on the coasts of the Great Lakes of Africa. Diacrits, as a purely academic tool in the English language, are not accessible. Next, I study Japanese, so unless you're a native speaker, please don't lecture me about what is and is not Japanese and what the language does and does not require. All of this said, I agree that the technical, Hepburn form must be included in the article, but only once, and for that purpose, use Template:Japanese. Tell me, how do you pronounce "Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus?" Do you use the reconstructed Latin pronounciation (done by respectable linguists), or do you simply pronounce it like it were English? And please don't stoop to insulting straw-man arguments like the Sakurazukamori one above. No one is suggesting that.--Monocrat 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumour

It's a terrible thing get people's hopes up...

"It has been rumoured that X will start again in the Summer of 2006, though why Gohou Drug was pulled has yet to be explained."

What is the source of this rumour? Considering it is a rumour, it does not have much of a basis as it is.

The source is a member of CLAMP saying that they were getting it going again but needed to find a venue suited for it now... traditional shoujo mags were hesitant what with the events of the day being so bad these days. Check this out: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature.php?id=245 72.192.237.134Ismail

Yes, I've seen that interview. I'm just wondering where exactly someone figured out "X" might continue again in Summer 2006 because I don't see any hints of it in interview, only that a lot of social incidences during the time left the publication of X a senstive matter.

Theres an X Remix out there now... no idea what it is though... anyone know?

Not a literal adaptation of Revelation

I'll try to verify this, but I read somewhere that X was based on a Japanese legend/premonition that the end of the world would come in 1999. While the work does borrow imagery from Christian traditions, which are popular in Japan, it is most certainly not a literal adaptation of the book of Revelation. Termyt 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The TV Anime section

If no-one minds, I'd like to condense down the TV Anime "synopsis", which seems to have come direct from the original (separate) article without modification, and just focus on the details of its production and where the plot differs significantly to the manga and movie (e.g. the violence being much toned down, no buildings full of innocent people destroyed etc.) rather than repeat the entire plot (and give away the ending!). Dave-ros 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to keep the ending (with a spoiler warning), since it it something original to this adaption. But otherwise, I agree it would be a good idea to replace the current synopsis. --KagamiNoMiko 11:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew! Hope you guys like the rewrite I did, but feel free to add, modify etc. Anything's better than simply retelling the manga synopsis, eh? Incidentally, I've only read the first two volumes of the manga (damn Americanised translation, not as good as Tokyo Babylon), so is that bit in the OVA explained, where it seems Kakyou was shot with a sniper rifle before he could save Hokuto? Was this to do with stopping him from using his prescience to change the future? It certainly looked like he'd "snuck out" from home (using his blankets as a rope)... Dave-ros 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! This should also make the "Differences between manga and anime" section superfluous.

The Kakyou scene you are referring to is from his side story in volume 15. He runs down the stairs to escape, but otherwise everything happened in the manga just as you described. It's never really explained, but it's certainly implied that he knew what would happen to Hokuto and tried to stop it. (I'll never understand why he couldn't just tell her what would happen if she trusted Seishirou...) It's never said why he was shot; I always just assumed it was because they thought he was trying to escape. --KagamiNoMiko 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I took out the superfluous section, but added in one of the points it raised. However, some of that section was rather POV (I wouldn't call episode 10 a "waste of time" -- episode 17, maybe!), so I hope the useful bits can be added back again sensibly.

One more point: would it be useful to move all the voice actor information to the X Characters article and its sub-pages (Dragons of Heaven and Dragons of Earth), so it's not taking up space here? Kind of like the format I used in Space Battleship Yamato characters? If people think it's better as a table here then I won't kick up a fuss ;-) Dave-ros 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind either way. As long as the information is easy to find... --KagamiNoMiko 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarot

Hello. I was wondering, maybe, someone ought to make a list of Tarot cards corresponding to particular characters. I know this has been already done in individual character entries in the lists, but I think it would be more comfortable if there was a more or less complete list somewhere. I'd've done that myself but I don't know where it'd be best to put it. :) --Koveras 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nr.	Card	Character	Nr.	Card	Character	Nr.	Card	Character
0	The Fool	Saya Monō	VIII	Justice	Karen Kasumi	XVI	The Tower	Tōru Magami & Tokiko Magami
I	The Magician	Kamui Shirō	IX	The Hermit	Satsuki Yatōji	XVII	The Star	Kusanagi Shiyū
II	The High Priestess	Hinoto	X	Wheel of Fortune	Kakyō Kuzuki	XVIII	The Moon	Nataku
III	The Empress	Kanoe	XI	Strength	Yuzuriha Nekoi	XIX	The Sun	N/A
IV	The Emperor	Kyōgo Monō	XII	The Hanged Man	Subaru Sumeragi	XX	Judgement	N/A
V	The Hierophant	Seiichirō Aoki	XIII	Death	Seishirō Sakurazuka	XXI	The World	N/A
VI	The Lovers	Kotori Monō	XIV	Temperance	Arashi Kishū
VII	The Chariot	Sorata Arisugawa	XV	The Devil	Yūto Kigai

Irony

I wonder if this subsection has its place in this article. I've left it in for now, but I'd rather take it out. What do you think? --KagamiNoMiko 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound too encyclopedical, indeed, however, that's an intersting subject... Maybe, it should be merged with plot? --Koveras ^☭ 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if the plot is extended to be a true summary with all spoilers, it doesn't fit there otherwise. --KagamiNoMiko 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, why didn't anyone remove this section? First of all, it's could counted as fan speculation. I personally do not see any irony in Nataku killing Fuuma's father, and then being killed by Fuuma. Also, Satsuki isn't even dead in the manga yet. More than anything else, it's not even the correct usage of irony, and my English!nazi ways hur over it. Irony is defined as "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected (dictionary.com, 5)" which is the boardly accepted view of it. I don't see how we wouldn't expect either of those things to happen. Also, if we're going to talk about irony, the writer missed the biggest point of irony which the fact that Kamui chose to become a Seal to save Fuuma and Kotori, but his choice is what ultimately caused Kotori's death and Fuuma's... betrayal (for lack of better word). If that's not ironic enough to make the section, I don't see how those two things could be. I'm removing this section. --Kyuu 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

New X

The October edition of Clamp Newtype contains new X material entitled volume 18.5. Bendono 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"New" is relative, they're the chapters of volume 19 which were released in Asuka before X's hiatus. --KagamiNoMiko 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Satsuki

The section on the anime states "Some (such as Kasumi Karen and Yatōji Satsuki) are killed despite remaining alive in the manga," but didn't Satsuki die in the exact same way in the manga? Of course, that part might not have been written yet at the time the anime was produced; I don't know. But still. --12.42.50.51 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting the phrase "For now, she remains alive in the manga" in her entry at Dragons of Earth. I only have the first two volumes so I don't know myself, but have all the volumes released in Japan also been translated and released for the English-speaking market? If not, her death might occur after the end of the English language run, so most Western fans wouldn't know it had happened. If this is indeed the case, we should of course mention it, and amend that paragraph! Dave-ros 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of X has been translated - Satsuki is still very much alive, though Beast is showing signs of jealousy. Of the main Dragon-related characters, only Seishirou, Nataku and Kanoe (as of vol. 18.5) are dead. --KagamiNoMiko 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh. My mistake then; don't know why I thought that. --12.42.50.52 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanoe died? Interesting- maybe somebody should write that into her character profile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.4.1 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

TV series infobox

Is this extra box really necessary? Almost all of the information in there is already given in the infobox at the top of the page. --KagamiNoMiko 08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I recently added some info to the article, but it still needs work. ~~I need to work on the lead, the motifs (fate and dreams) have to be expanded~~, and I still haven't written the themes. I uploaded what I had because now it'll be easier to see what's missing or lacking.--Nohansen 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need a reception section. If anyone has reviews, sales figures or a list of awards (if any) of the MANGA, please contribute them.--Nohansen 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and external links too. Besides Anime News Network, are there any good manga databases? I wouldn't like to link to fan sites, or the imdb, or tv.com.--Nohansen 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About the links: there are currently none to the anime adaptations, although both are notable. I see two possibilities: either post them into this article's EL section or start separate articles for the movie and the series. PS: Btw, {{anime-links}} is really handy in the anime articles. --Koveras ^☭ 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I know all about {{anime-links}}; I use it whenever I edit an article. I guess I'll use it here, too, if I don't find good external links to the manga. I'd like to keep the article as focused on the original work as I possibly can.--Nohansen 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've figured that much. The article is named "X (manga)", after all. ^^ Regarding your request for manga links, I've rummaged my bookmarks and haven't found anything except ANN and AnimeNFO. :( --Koveras ^☭ 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Total chapters

An anonymous editor recently added that the series spans 178 chapters. By my count, it's 144. Which is right?--Nohansen 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom

Self-nomination.--Nohansen (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Interesting article which I enjoyed reading, even if I'm not a manga fan

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is good, there are some MOS issues with footnoting and short choppy paragraphs
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
the sources themselves look good, but some of the footnotes may need to be relocated within the sentences to properly cover what they are citing
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It would be nice to have a bit bigger section covering the plot
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Note that I'm not a manga fan, and I'm doing a lot of comparing of this article to other Manga/Graphic Novel GA articles.

General note on citations, Several times I see citations that are on the first phrase of a sentence, with the rest of the sentence uncited. Are those footnotes intended to cover the whole sentence, or are they specific to the phrase they cover? The reason I ask, is that in a number of places, the phrase that is footnoted is something like "Kamui", (footnote)... (rest of sentence)" which is an odd way to reference something. Usually footnotes go at the end of sentences unless they are specific to a particular fact, but a name isn't a fact that needs to be footnoted, so I'm a bit confused.

General note on paragraph length. A lot of the paragraphs are short, only one or two sentences. Short, choppy paragraphs are harder to read than more fully developed paragraphs. You might consider consolidating or more fully developing many of the paragraphs.

Details:

Lede section, it could stand a bit more padding, especially from the Publication sections and the Design sections.
Lede section, last paragraph, the first sentence needs a source citation.
Plot section, really could use expansion, by a good bit.Looking at other manga GA's, most have longer plot sections.
Characters section, the second paragraph, are the Dragons of Heaven and the Dragons of Earth the two factions referred to in the "Following Kamui's arrival, two factions.." sentence? If so, you should probably spell that out for those of us who aren't fans of the series. Never underestimate the power of people to not understand things, which means you need to spell things out explicitly.
Those two subsections on the dragons could use a source citation if possible.
Publication section, first paragraph,the last sentences need source citations.
Same section, second paragraph, is footnote 9 dealing with the whole last sentence? If so, it should go at the end of the sentence, not in the middle. See above.
Same section, it would not hurt if there were source citations for the paragraphs that dont' have them.
Adaptations section, TV series subsection, the first paragraph. The phrase "acts as a primer for viewers not familiar with Clamp's manga." is opinion and needs a source citation.
Design section, Development subsection - last sentence needs a source citation if footnote five doesnt cover the whole sentence.See above.
Same section, Influences subsection. Third paragraph, does footnote 28 cover the whole sentence? See above.
Same section and subsection, fifth paragraph, Last sentence needs a source citation.
Same section, many of these paragraphs are short two sentence paragraphs, that might flow better merged into a smaller number of paragraphs.
Same section, Themes subsection, Second paragraph, would help non-fans if you explicitly state what the predecessor series/book/whatever is.
Same section and subsection, Last paragraph, is footnote five supposed to cover the whole of those last two sentences? See above.
Same section, Motifs subsection, first paragraph is only one sentence and should be merged or expanded.
Same section and subsection, a number of the rest of the paragraphs are stubby and could be merged or expanded to make the section read better.

If you have any questions about my comments, feel free to contact me at my talk page or on the article talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow folks to address these issues.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of that, but I'm having trouble with expanding the plot. Aside from what it's already there, there's not much more that I can write. The "Plot" (and "Characters") section cover pretty much what the series is about without going into "excessive details of twists and turns in the story". Maybe someone else could give it a go...--Nohansen (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall mentioning many of the same points in the peer review. :) As for the plot, I think you should just summarize what happens in each volume in one or two sentences (who makes their first appearance, who kills whom) and mention that the story is not yet concluded. And don't mind the spoilers because, frankly, a summary has much more encyclopedic worth than a plot introduction, since you can get the latter anywhere on the web. --Koveras ^☭ 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when work is finished so I can look it over again. It'd be helpful if for the specific detailed issues above, you'd put a "Resolved" or "Fixed" in bold type after it so I know it's been taken care of. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. The plot section probably would need expansion for Featured Article, but I understand about the WP:MOS issues also. It's a fine line to tread. I'm promoting it, and will take care of the epaperwork right now! Congrats!Ealdgyth | Talk 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot?

I see that the article has three images of the manga (for which I commend you btw, more manga articles need examples of the actual manga work), but no screenshots of the anime for comparison. Could we maybe get one for the "Adaptations" section?--SeizureDog (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Do we need screenshots of the movie and the TV series or just one will suffice? There's a slight difference in the artwork, after all.--Nohansen (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Like I said in WT:MOS-AM, no one but AnmaFinotera has objected to the way this article is organized. Others users have agreed the MoS is just a guideline and formatting that doesn't exactly fit into the current MoS is fine as long as it still follows the spirit of WP:MOS-AM. In addition, AnmaFinotera's attempt of bringing the article in line with the MoS damaged the way the information is organized. Since I never intended to use the "Media" section the same way other articles use it, the prose seems clunky and doesn't flow any better.

Furthermore, I "proposed" a change based on my experience editing articles. If the layout I propose (or some reasonable facsimile) is the layout the editors involved in the discussion prefer, it won't be expected of anyone else to follow it to the letter. Articles that look like what this article looked like before my most recent edit won't have to change because Animanga Manual of Style says so. The MoS is a list of recommendations. The MoS is flexible. The MoS is a guideline, not policy.

If AnmaFinotera, or anyone else, has any issues with the way this article is organized, please bring it up in the talk page first. I know I don't WP:OWN this article, but I've {{maintained}} it to the very best of my abilities since it made GA. If you're going to argue for a change, please bring an argument other than "follow the MOS". Because, to quote Juhachi, "using the oh well, here's the MOS, so there argument is cheap".

I don't willfully ignore the guidelines. I knowingly work within them to achieve the best work possible... even if it means veering from them just a little.

Ignore all rules: always a policy and one of the five pillars. Thank you.--Nohansen (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So, rather than actually just waiting for the MoS discussion to actually finish, you'll just keep edit waring (which multiple people chastized you for, along with refusing to let the discussion continue and continuing to do your own thing). This layout, quite frankly, sucks and I find your refusal to accept that your own personal egotistical love of your own version is not a valid reason to disregard the MoS rather disturbing. Yes, the article needs to follow the MoS, and that is a valid argument. This article will never be FA (but then again, no article you have worked on ever has made it that far). We all get that you hate the MoS or not (which is not blatantly obvious you do since you repeatedly and willfully dismiss it as nothing of value at all). Your reverting and refusal to even allow actual discussion to finish shows that you do willfully ignore them for no real reason but your own tastes. IAR doesn't apply, nor does FIVE. There is no reason for this but ego. I will wait for the MoS discussion to finish before reverting again since there have been enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Names

It might be worth noting that lead character Kamui's name is the Ainu word for "god" (generally romanized kamuy but pronounced more or less the same way, and likely related to the Japanese kami). Cheers from a language geek -- Erik Anderson, 207.118.47.246 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article alludes to this in the second paragraph of the "Influences" section ("Kamui", like "Christ", doubles as a title that alludes to the character's divine nature) and links to the kamuy article.--Nohansen (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)