Jump to content

Talk:Nana (manga)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by G.A.S (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 21 October 2008 (Update project assessment per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnime and manga C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Episodes Page

I have started and I'm currently in progress of creating a full Nana episodes and description page. oh and it would be nice if others could help too :p Adreamtonight 00:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji Name

Can anyone please help with the Kanji for the characters name? Thank you! quastar 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime, Manga and Live Action

I would like to suggest that we split this article into the appropiate medium. quastar 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't at the 50 kb suggested limit for article size, and the sections for each medium aren't really long enough to make their own articles. They'd just be stubs on their own, so I don't think the article needs to be split up between anime, manga, and movies. However, making a Characters Of page for the series, and perhaps making a Plotline Of page as well, and replacing those sections with short summaries instead of the long, comprehensive explanations that are there currently could help if you're just concerned about page size. Nique1287 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that since other anime/manga related pages split their content according to the medium. I do agree that the characters might need a new page.
quastar 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most anime pages that I've seen don't split it up by medium unless there are MAJOR differences between them, such that they seem like completely different series, and even then there's often just an explanation of the differences as opposed to completely separate pages, such as with Death Note having sections to explain the differences in the movie on the Plot and Characters pages. Nana is essentially the same across the board, with just minor changes in the movie for pacing or character development without changing the story itself (such as Yasu being the one to suggest that the two Nanas live together, in the movie, as opposed to the real estate agent in the manga and anime), so separating them into stubs would just be sort of pointless. Nique1287 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It needs splitting, also we are not computers, no need to base the decision on the file size in KB. Jackaranga 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not computers, but Wiki has page size guidelines in place so that everyone, even on slow slow dial-up, can access the pages within a reasonable amount of time, i.e. within a few seconds. We don't need to split the movies, manga, and anime apart in this case: there's just not enough difference between them. It's bad enough someone created a page for the second movie when it's completely unnecessary, but that's another story for another discussion. Nique talk 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Genre"

Are we sure that Nana is a shoujo manga? I know the reason why you generally put a manga as shoujo is the magazine that first edited the manga. However, since its contents are somewhat more mature couldn't Nana be considered as an exception? --Quinceps 04:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoujo isn't just for little girls. Nana still qualifies, since it's directed at females (the bare definition of shoujo). They may not necessarily be in the young-teen demographic, but it is directed toward females. Nique talk 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shoujo is specially dedicated to young girls; josei would be a much better genre for NANA, since it is aimed to a more mature female audience.

Well, Shueisha itself lists Cookie as shoujo on its website, although it would fall into the category of more mature shoujo. Josei is generally smut for the office ladies. Stillusio 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kanji"

I don't think there's any coincidence about the double-meanings in the kanji. Mangaka love those plays on kanji's multiple meanings. Stillusio 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 17... end?

I have Volume 17 of the manga, it looks like that's the end, because it shows Nana and Hachi in the future with everyone having gone their own ways and a short recap of what event got them there... and the word owari... could someone double check this? --Hitsuji Kinno 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think so, I saw volume 18 stories being produced for Cookie already Adreamtonight 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw another volume, but it was an anime guide volume... It's been at least a few months... shouldn't 18 be on the shelves by now? Just wondering if it was confusion. 'cause I'm fairly sure Owari means end... *shrugs* (i.e. It's June now... last volume was April.) But I'm willing to be wrong. --Hitsuji Kinno 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i've read up to the takumi story that appears in volume 18 so 17 definitely isn't the end. snippets of the future keep appearing in volume 18 too (although i'm not finished 18 yet, but there seems room for more story.) 070710
It seems that it ended at volume 20. AnaTo (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

start date

I don't know where the November 15, 2002 date came from, but the manga began in 2000 -- so says the Ai Yazawa article and also the Amazon.co.jp listing for the first takoubon (May 2000) [1]. -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong personalities

"One Nana has a childlike innocence and tends to lose touch with reality, while the other is a strong, self-confident singer in a punk band." This analysis is superficial. Nana Osaki is far more sensitive and delicate than Komatsu, but she hides it. Komatsu is also more materialist and concrete...

Blast is a punk-rock band, not a punk band.

Bobbore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.130.183 (talk)

Name capitalization

I often see the series styled NANA, shouldn't the article title reflect that? crashmatrix (talk | contribs) 14:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization of titles, names, et cetera has been conformed to comply with the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). What this means is that although the Japanese capitalize letters, we are working on an English language Wikipedia and therefore must follow the standard English grammar rules. For example: NANA (Japan form) becomes Nana (English form). mheart 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheart (talkcontribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:NANA2.jpg

Image:NANA2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now - but why do we have a Nana 2 section?
Added the fair use stuff. On the other hand, why do we need a section for that movie in this article when it has its own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja neko (talkcontribs) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nana 2 really needs its own article. The movies don't stray from the plot much at all, so there's no real need to split them out from the main article. I find it difficult to believe that it's existed for a year, to be quite honest, though page history doesn't lie. It also needs major cleanup if it's going to be an acceptable article. Looking through the history, it looks like people/bots have tried to add cleanup tags but they've all been removed. Nique talk 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Points

  • Movie Sequel (NANA 2) - section needs attention. It has been 2007 for nine months now, yet in the article section, we have "However, on August 4, 2006, Toho stated that shooting will begin mid-September and that the movie is supposed to be released on December 9, 2006." Anyone who has the release information, feel free to edit the article!
  • Trivia - do we want to keep this? If so, should we remove the box suggesting to remove it?

My personal opinion is that the trivia for this series is good information for those particularly who do not know the story of Hachiko. Mheart 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First should be updated. The second has to be integrated into the article if you want to keep it unless you don't want this article to reach feature status ever... which would be self-defeating in my line of thinking. --Hitsuji Kinno 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]