Talk:History of anime

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caleblgriffin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude but, grammar and spelling aside, Caleb's edit reads like original research even though he's not wrong about the situation behind dubs, fansubs, and pirating back then. His paragraph is inserted in an awkward place though, right in the middle of a segment about experimental trends. Might be better somewhere else if at all. It also lacks a source for the first half and the sources it does have I'd have to spend quite a bit of money to read them to verify that he's accurately relaying what the sources say: the bit about Cowboy Bebop being the first anime to be broadcast on live television sounds blatantly wrong unless I'm misunderstanding something. And the trend of fansubs lasted way past 2001 and died long before 2021, imo somewhere around 2010-11 was when the golden age of fansubs was over due to the rise of legitimate streaming sites like Crunchyroll and later Netflix but good luck finding a source on that. I was going to edit it but I'm not sure how I should edit it, and I'm hesitant to outright delete sources, so I thought I'd just leave a note here about it and let someone with more experience figure out what to do here. Aozf05 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Walt Disney has created Animation before anime. The japanese culture thought that since the Disney princess's had such big eyes, that they needed to have big eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapseii (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

'07 anime link?

Could somebody please add to the external links section a link where is available for download the 1907 3-second-50-frame-long anime with the boy writing "moving pictures"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.240.223 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the short you're talking about is undated, and the 1907 date was due to unfounded speculation that it might be "up to 10 years" older than the first known animation in Japan ("Imokawa Mukuzo Genkanban no Maki", 1917). Because of the wild speculation, it should be mentioned, however. CFLeon (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

I changed a sub-heading, which referred to WWII as "the war". This is not culturally sensitive. "World War II" has a completely different time frame in Japan, which includes operations in Russia, China, Indonesia, and others even before Japan joined the Axis and declared war on the Allies. Please keep in mind that although the page is written in English, or any other language, it could be read by and must be sensitive to anyone, anywhere in the world. I know this one was easy to miss, but just take care eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.220.192.21 (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A source that might help

Here's an article entitled "A Global History of Anime". It comes in four parts. Part 1. AngelFire3423 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Akira

While briefly skimming through the 1980's section of the article, I was somewhat shocked to see that Akira, often considered the most influential anime ever, is notably absent from mention. I know I sound like a random fanboy, but I'm not. (I don't even like Akira) It's just that so much of modern anime technqiues started in Akira, such as people moving and speaking at the same time, well-detailed future backgrounds, and figures in the background moving, that it's impossible not to give it a mention. Any particular reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.127.59 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient History

"Some have speculated that the cave paintings in Lascaux are remnents of an anime-based pre-writing civilization that existed long ago." Umm..sure. Weasel words - who is speculating this? How exactly would cave paintings be anime-based when they pre-date anime (a 20th Century phenomenon, maybe 19th) by a couple thousand years (i.e., the wording is backwards). You could make a case that cave pantings led to sequential art, which led to manga, which led to anime, but probably not relevant to the history of anime any more than the discovery of fire is relevant to the history of the automobile. I don't expect any sane person to require this clarification, I'm just laying it all down in case the original poster checks back. Foltor (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

otaku subculture

"The 2000s also mark a trend of emphasis of the otaku subculture." I think this needs an example, would Genshiken do? It works well in contrast with Welcome to the NHK which it talked about right afterwards. 68.36.239.42 (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball is repeatedly mentioned as something of the 90's

Dragon Ball came out in the early 0's why is it continuously mentioned as a manga of the 90's and even the 00's (new millenium)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.177.193 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please note that as for Dragon Ball, the original manga came out in Japan in the 1980's and the anime started its television broadcast in 1986. There's a whole wikipedia page on the topic. There is a new anime that came out in 2009 in Japan. Please don't confuse its original release with its American or European releases (which were still in the 90's). 211.7.235.181 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Class

It really doesn't look like that this article is still in Start Class.Violetbonmua (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Co-Productions

So, how would you include Japanese co-productions with non-Japanese companies? Yes, there is relevance here due to involvement of anime studios. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Small Edit

Removed a sentence at the end that linked to a page that just gave a 404 error, I didn't see supporting evidence for when I did a quick check, and seemed to be a joke if I read it correctly. However, I didn't mark it as a minor edit since occasionally I miss something right under my nose, so I wouldn't want anything to be messed up because of that. Redgamehunter (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of anime. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.5/articles/goslingeuro1.5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

The article makes many claims which are completely unsourced and at a glance, several of them are quite substantial claims. There is a wide range of reliable sources available on this topic, and really no excuse for claims not to be properly sourced. This is true of any article but considering the significance of the article to it's subject there isn't any excuse. I plan to start highlighting where sources are needed and remove some of the bigger unsourced claims. This may result in the loss of a lot of the article in places, but that will just highlight the issues with the text.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you here, just be careful not to go into too much detail though that isn't already present on other articles. For example; the first generation, I have put together an article about early anime release info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting Anime Title

I was doing some general grammar and copyedit cleanup, and while I was going through some of the titles under the 2000s section, I was planning on fixing the Guren Lagann title to its original, Tengen Toppa Guren Lagann, but upon checking the wikilink, the official WP page has it titled as Guren Lagann. I'm not sure which title it should go by, the one that's already there, or the longer original title. It's been a while since I've seen the anime itself, and I've seen it being referred to by both titles interchangeably by fans and official material elsewhere on the web. Should I go ahead and change it, or leave it as is? I wanted to make sure beforehand because I don't want to get dinged for it. Thanks. Amflis16 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amflis16: Tengen Toppa is mostly used here in Japan, while in other countries it's simply known as Gurren Legann, so I don't really know if it's necessary to change the title, since even if someone searches for the Japanese title the page redirects to Gurren Legann.

N. GASIETA|talk 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The simple answer is that Guren Lagann is the official English title, therefore its usage takes priority.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research

I noticed in the blurb at the top of the page that the article potentially contains original research (from October 2016). Are there any sections in particular that have this that need cleaning up/citing? Amflis16 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Magical girl genre is missing

Utena isn't mentioned and Magical girl nanoha is targeted at male audiences while madoka magica boosted the creation of more seinen mahou shoujo and gained critical acclaimed worldwide. Someone please mention the magical girl genre. Thank you. Diogatari (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources support your claims? —Farix (t | c) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Utena is significant in the wider history of anime. A notable series of it's time, yes. In 100 years of the medium? I'm not so sure. That's why we need reliable sources. This is an ongoing problem with the whole article, so adding these examples without fixing the rest of the article would seem to be misguided. This is a very complex article to improve as it essentially needs to be written from scratch, and there is just too much to cover. Unless you plan to provide the sources and add the text yourself, you might find it hard to get these mentioned. If they are going to be mentioned than it needs to be in some form of context. Judging from the message you left on my talk page I think you need to see this less as a list of shows/genre's that have proven popular and more as a wider view of the medium as a whole.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we'll discuss about the magical girl genre later. For now, the only thing I disagree with is the Code geass and Eureka 7 revival thing. Those 2 did NOT revive shit. And why is Gurren Lagann even mentioned? Yes, it won the Tokyo Anime Award, so what? The 2000's section is just so wrong, these are all written without any reliable sources. Diogatari (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Gurren Lagann has heaps of critical praise available and it was very well received. It absolutely should be mentioned in the proper context. As for the mecha revival thing, I think you've oversimplified it, Eva lead to a lot of copycats but that may well have been a short term phenomenon. Now I'm not saying that Geass or E7 did revive it, but you are hardly making a convincing argument. It's good that you want to improve the article but the article isn't going to improve if the discussion is going to be driven by statements like "Those 2 did NOT revive shit". This is wikipedia, not a forum. Given that this is clearly a specific problem in the section, I suggest it is resolved on the talk page before attempting to change the text. That was the reason I left some of the statements in so they could be assessed properly rather than just removing them. I'm keeping an open mind here, if we remove the statement it should be because it's been researched. Edit: Looking at the section again, I think the way the whole mention of mecha shows are discussed is just causing issues. I'll take a look at cleaning it up but I need a new keyboard first. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the sources about how Madoka Magica is a social phenomenal in Japan. Also, Utena has won the animation Kobe awards. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of anime. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616074904/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/anime/earliest-anime-found to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/anime/earliest-anime-found
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528022243/http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=2701 to http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=2701

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) 09:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Page needs work

This page needs a serious, serious overhaul. Not only are huge swaths of it uncited and likely WP:OR, it reflects an extremely narrow slice of history that clearly coincides with the editor's or editors' interests: shounen and mecha. For instance, the magical girl genre is entirely absent, except for a mention that Sally the Witch premiered in 1966— further developments, such as popular franchises like Sailor Moon or Pretty Cure, go unmentioned. In stark contrast, there is always time to go into how the mecha genre is doing in each decade, even breaking it down to the "super" and "real" subgenres. The page has also clearly had editors insert their personal faves into it, as can be seen most clearly in the "Notable titles" section that I just cut]. Beyond that, it is also full of sentences that are speculative, dubious or outright wrong, again reflections of OR. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Added Subsections to 1990s level2

I added subsections to 1990s. When I was first reading it I found it confusing how the section was structured. I assumed it would chronological, but instead it was written with a few key focuses on specific anime and then expands on the future influences of those animes as time processes; their mentioning 2000s in the 1990s, that's weird. Adding the subsections gives more context to the style used to write the section. Please keep the subsections. Thanks. --71.225.161.57 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Spirited away

guessing how it was one of the biggest success in anime i think we can add it here 112.200.35.248 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)