Talk:Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran

	Anime and manga portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comparing Ran to Kenshin

Let's face it,most of us watched this series expecting Ran to be a female version of Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin.Feel free to discuss this. - R.G. 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukikage Ran is a blatant ripoff of Rurouni Kenshin which was a ripoff of Evangelion which is obviously a ripoff of Pokemon.

Enough asshatery for now. Seriously, don't you think it's rather redundant to be comparing characters from similar genres? Where do we stop, Kurosawa films?

There is a whole page devoted to the genre of which all of these shows are examples; it is Jidaigeki. 69.180.201.215 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes

I fixed the grammar and clarified some bits as I could not understand what was being said.

I fixed some minor things in this very short article, namely WP:EL, WP:POV and WP:TONE.

The article uses "often" too often. Removed where it was too much.
The article refers to Tsukikage Ran as "this series". Changed that.
Correct point of view. Removed "what we know".
"quite unbeatable", "quite a definite", "rather hyperactive", "who is skilled", "it's often Meow who pays", "who is accompanied"... none of that reads well. Changed it too.
Reworded music section.
Put some better external links.

That is all.--Nohansen 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be willing to discuss the need to revert my edit? The article has problems with the wording, (besides the ones pointed out) and reverting just puts them back in.--Nohansen 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits could be construed as vandalism,I'm afraid. - R.G. 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. Vandalism is any addition, removal, oor change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. As I'm rewriting the article in a concise manner to make it easier to read, (following the guidelines of WP:EL, WP:NPOV and WP:TONE) my edit is as far removed from "vandalism" as you can get.--Nohansen 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rewriting was hardly concise.This seems to be an attempt to shorten the article by eliminating important details about the characters,and that constitutes vandalism.This article is not meant to be shortened but rather expanded.It needs to be added to.-R.G. 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit down to 18 words ("The television series follows Ran and Meow, two wanderers who encounter all sorts of trouble in Tokugawa Japan.") of what was previously written in 49 ("Set in the Edo period, this series is about a female ronin named Ran, who is accompanied by a highly talkative wandering martial artist from China, who calls herself Meow of the Iron Cat Fist [Nekotekken no Myao]. Together Ran and Meow fight bandits, corrupt officials and other antagonists.") has nothing to do with stubifying the article. Articles are assessed by how much information they cover, not how many words it takes to do it.--Nohansen 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just stubborness.Your edits hardly cover any information.Don't force me to report you to the administration. - R.G. 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your not liking my edits to the article because you're afraid it could be demoted to "Stub". But besides rewriting in a concise manner and fixing grammar mistakes, I added the nihongo templates and italized Japanese terms (as required by WP:MOS-JA). I also categorized the article under Category:Jidaigeki and combined the "action" and "samurai" genres to Chambara.

I understand you and BiggKwell basically created this article, (once before in Absolute Anime) but you should have brought up your concerns with my edits before reverting them twice.

Understand I can edit whatever it's written into the article and, within reason, you should not prevent me from doing so. My edits are in good faith, after all.

At least something good has come out of this edit war: the article has started to move towards a better class up the assessment scale for the first time in a long while. I just created a "Production" section. I hope you won't revert it along with what I fixed.--Nohansen 22:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have noticed the Production section.I might allow its inclusion if you do not edit anything else . This may be rather iffy since TR was not really based on any manga at all . Let's face facts,your attempts to shorten this article are NOT helping it all and in fact may have the opposite effect.-R.G. 03:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. Now you're just being unreasonable, removing perfectly good info... I followed a fellow editor's recommendation on removing only if I added something worthwhile in return. And what do you mean by "allow"?--Nohansen 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiina's bio

Wouldn't it be better to use Shiina's bio in a List of Tsukikage Ran episodes as a summary for episode 13?--Nohansen 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I just realized it was copied from Absolute Anime.--Nohansen 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve or die

The article must evolve or it will die. It has shown no improvement in more than a year; the content is the same and the grammar is no better. It fails according to WP:EL, WP:NPOV, WP:PLOT, WP:TONE, WP:WAF. It doesn't even conform to WP:MOS-AM, an amazing feat for such a small article. And I believe breaking it down it's the way to go.

But I'm not getting through to you, am I? You're dead set on keeping the article as a (mildly) modified copy of Tsukikage Ran's entry at Absolute Anime, ain't you?--Nohansen 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has evolved by the addition of the minor characters section.Breaking it down would only turn it into a stub and that's no good. - R.G. 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All copied content must be removed per WP:CP - even if it means that only a stub is left. There is no excuse to have copyrighted material on wikipedia, this can cause legal issues.

So please go ahead and remove all that was copied from another site (I will do it myself if I can find some time). -- SciFi wiki and Absolute Anime and maybe others.

And by all means feel free to rewrite the content in your own words (I haven't seen the series so I can't) - then there are no more copyright issues and the article is not a stub. Both problems fixed! Ninja neko 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either of you are Wikipedia administrators.In any case,all these terms have no bearing on the article and any attempt to reduce it will be considered vandalism and shall have to be reported. - R.G. 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm no admin, but everyone is allowed to edit this article. The copyright infringement accusation does have bearing on this article, entire sentences appear to be copied from existing sources (links are in my previous post). So they should and must be removed or rewritten. Please read WP:CP for full details on the policy. Before threatening with 'reporting' us, you may want to read it to see why we think these edits to this article are absolutely necessary. Ninja neko 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reworded so no copyright has been infringed as far as I can tell,so I doubt any reductions are necessary. - R.G. 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors (myself included) agree with the change. SeizureDog agrees the trimmed content was cruft. Ninja neko agrees that since the "your" version of the article is a (mildly) modified copy of Tsukikage Ran's entry at Absolute Anime, it should be rewritten. Toothpyx likes my edit and thinks "it was low of [you] to delete [the] plot and production section just because it was 'short'".

However, Toothpyx also said we should throw in the information about Junzaburo Shiina. While I don't agree, I think we can reach a compromise. Shiina's bio is too long for a one-shot character, so I believe it should be reworded as a summary for episode 13 and worked into a List of Tsukikage Ran episodes.

I saw the series once long ago and don't remember the details, but it seems you do. If you really want to better the article, we should work together.--Nohansen 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of infringement issues

article -> "Set in the Edo period, this series is about a female ronin named Ran..."

article -> "...is a female wandering ronin whose skill with the katana is only matched by a love of sake"

sci-fi wiki -> "Set in the Edo period, this series is about a female ronin named Ran,whose skill with the katana is only matched by her craving for sake."

conclusion: article clearly needs to be improved. R.G., it's not up to you or anybody to decide who is allowed to improve it and who is not. Ninja neko 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not infringement.Rather those are facts.Sci-Fi Wiki must have copied from this entry,yet I don't see you going after them,therefore I must assume that you are attacking me which would be a violation of guidlines. -R.G. 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Scifi wiki copied this article. But this article copied Absolute Anime.

Ninja neko: Undisputed facts (such as "Tsukikage Ran is a TV series") don't need to be referenced. That's why the ANN link is, normally, used as an external link.--Nohansen 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> reply: the ANN ref is a general ref for number of episodes, network it aired on, studio, running dates, etc... hence I put it on the top of the infobox which has all this info. Anything that can be referenced should be referenced I believe... Ninja neko 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entry on Absoulte Anime,so I may used it as a basis for this article,but that does NOT imply infringement.-R.G. 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. You are "Rod Gonzalez", right? But, I think, you give up the rights to the copyright once you summit it to Absolute Anime. I think the same thing happens with Wikipedia. You don't own those words, Wikipedia (and AA) do. "Copyright © 1997-2007 Absolute Anime™"--Nohansen 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is no excuse to make the article meaningless,which I believe you have been doing.Those edits you have done are not making the article clear at all.Even Ninja Neko realized this particular point when undoing your edit.-R.G. 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with the wording. Like above, where I reduced the lead from 49 to 18 words. Or Ran's bio, reduced from 113 to 45 words. You can't think something worthwhile was lost: it says Ran's a woman, a wanderer, a master with the sword, drinks sake and is always broke. The stuff about Shiina being her master is covered in his entry.

And Shiina's entry is overblown for a one-shot character, it's basically a plot summary. That's why, I think, the best option is to turn it into the episode summary in a list of episodes.--Nohansen 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to improve the article.You have merely tried to shrink it down until it became meaningless.I can't accept that.If you want to add something to the article,add,but taking things out just because you think there are too many words just isn't the way to improve things. If you keep this up,I may be forced to report you.-R.G. 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BETTER says Be concise: "Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean that it is always better to use fewer words; rather, when choosing between otherwise equal formulations, choose the one that is more concise. Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles."

Of course, it also says "Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article." And by following my list of episodes idea, we'd be doing just that.--Nohansen 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my recent edit put an end to your crusade.--Nohansen 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to R.G.) You say repeatedly that you are against shortening the article, yet you blindly revert edits that actually make the article longer just because you disagree with the editor. While you throw around accusations of vandalism and threaten reports, I think this kind of tendentious editing pattern would actually kill any point you tried to make. —TangentCube, Dialogues 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the "Production" section that Nohasen keeps putting in has ONE glaring error.There is NO Ran manga.I would know if there were. R.G. 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.G. You do realize...

My version of the article is now longer than yours and you're the one removing information?--Nohansen 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't making things easy,you know.You want to include episode outlines,fine.But reducing character descriptions is just wrong.-R.G. 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime MoS says "describe the characters in modest detail, including voice actor credits." You're removing the credits, and giving an overly detailed description.--Nohansen 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reducing character descriptions to remove excess detail and fancruft is acceptable, per WP:FICT. This article isn't supposed to be summary of what happened in the series; it's supposed to describe the real-world impact the series and it's characters have had. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Nohansen has done is vandalism pure and simple and I intend to report this to the adminstration. R.G. 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A solution?

You may wish to take your version of this article to Simple English Wikipedia and leave this one alone.-R.G.

You misunderstand the purpose of that Wikipedia. —TangentCube, Dialogues 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly.That Wikipedia suits A certain user's editing preferences perfectly.R.G. 19:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode List Table

Instead of bickering in here, why not place some of that energy into summarizing the episodes? Just two-three sentences each. That's all that's needed. KyuuA4 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far KyuuA4,so seem to have gotten the right idea. R.G. 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one problem: T__T the moment I correct the grammar, R.G. will revert it.--Nohansen 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in the episode summaries but that's it. R.G. 19:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

A manga exists: Yahoo Books JP. Authored by Suezen, the tankobon was published on November 2000. Combined with Daichi's comments at Anime Expo 2002, I'm guessing the manga is a dojinshi that gained popularity after the television series and thus collected.--Nohansen 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a Doujinshi,then it's hardly a professionally published manga to me.Further the cliaming the series was based on a manga when this is not so is a lie.Further evidence of vandalism. R.G. 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info

I worked the fates of the minor characters into my recent edit. It is shorter than before, but it says the same thing. Remember WP:MOS-AM ask for "modest detail" in the character section, even more so when it's minor characters. Then how come there no "Modest details" on other anime articles?These reductions still smack of vandalism to me.R.G. 04:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.G.: If you feel the desire to revert (once again), take a deep breath first. Consider you'd be removing (once again) for no apparent reason information required by WP:MOS-AM. Consider, too, Wikipedia's WP:OWN and WP:3RR policies. Also, consider you can edit whatever you want into the new version. And, finally, remember no one owns articles.--Nohansen 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the debate about the profiles on Mei, Stephanie and Shiina, and that some of the information came from Absolute Anime. Personally, I don't care if the information DID came from Absolute Anime... because it was ME that wrote those original articles (you might want to look on the bottom of the articles to see who wrote them)!

If the admin of the site is listening, please allow them to add the edits to these articles. I really don't mind if they use information from Absolute Anime... provided that it is in their own words and not repeated verbatum. Elwin Blaine Coldiron 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew you (and R.G.) wrote the AA Tsukikage entry. See here: "I understand you and BiggKwell basically created this article, (once before in Absolute Anime)". The dispute it's not over copyvio.
It's about reverting changes that, like NeoChaos said are perfectly acceptable per WP:FICT.
It's about deleting info (I wrote) just because...
It's about bringing the article in line with the guidelines and policies I've been waving around for the last few days.--Nohansen 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is hardly what the guidelines meant.The article as it was dealt with FACTS about the characters.What has been done by Nohansen omits any and all facts,leaving only meaningless comments.THAT constitutes vandalism.Other anime articles are "too wordy" for Nohansen's taste yet nothing has been done to them.I suggest that the administration deal with this somehow - R.G. 04:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, content disputes are not vandalism. Read the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Second, it is unreasonable to expect every editor to maintain every article. We are not bots, and just because we happen to edit one page and not another does not make our edits invalid.

Third, you have been accusing Nohansen of vandalism, yet you revert his work seemingly without considering the merits of every change he makes, such as the more-descriptive caption in the infobox and the kanji/rōmaji in the episode list—which he added first before you reverted him, by the way—and tell him not to edit the article or only edit certain parts of the article. This is a case of aggressive ownership, and runs contrary to the pillars Wikipedia is founded on.

If you can't see eye-to-eye, use Wikipedia:Requests for comment—but I imagine people will look at your actions here and not look too favorably on your position. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no merit whatsoever.The changes he has made are more in line with reducing the article to utter meaninglessness rather than following any acceptable guidelines. I suppose I could have accepted the additions to the infobox if he had let it at that, but that was not the case.I invested a lot in that article to see this happen. Tell me one thing,TangentCube,if someone had done something similar with an article that you had invested a lot on,how would you react?-R.G. 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, you shouldn't contribute to wikipedia. There's a warning at the bottom of the screen every time you edit:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. "

That's just the way wikipedia works....

Anyhow, I returned to see the article protected, so where's the discussion on getting to a consensus? Is this the topic? Shall we make a new topic? Without accusations from either side :D ? Ninja neko 06:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad how far this has gone. KyuuA4 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly,don't contribute",that is just an excuse for vandalism.I reverted what Nonahsen did because it was obviusly vandalism. When contribute to a particular article,I like to put in facts,not meaningless comments.R.G. 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, we're supposed to be reaching a consensus... Anyway, as I didn't find any more evidence (besides Daichi's panel at Anime Expo) the manga came before the series, I reworded the main body to reflect: 1) a manga does exist; and 2) that Daichi was influenced by old jidaigeki TV shows. I forgot to changed it in the lead, but I intend to rectify it as soon as the protection is lifted.--Nohansen 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the Infobox material, which should NOT be touched, the rest of the material is not vandalism. Just contributions. If wording needs to be fixed, then fine. KyuuA4 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated elsewhere,it was a doujinshi and it came AFTER the series.This whole thing was NEVER about article ownership but rather,I don't believe in allowing misinformation on articles.When I contribute to an article,I like to put in facts.Solid facts.I begin to wonder about your good faith in this matter.However,if you really mean what you say,and that's a pretty big IF,we shall wait and see.R.G. 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please... Yesterday you swore no manga existed. And I quote: "There is NO Ran manga.I would know if there were." Then you said "it's hardly a professionally published manga". Of course, how could it be? It's only published by Kadokawa Shoten and authored by Suezen (a.k.a. Fumio Iida of Royal Space Force and Roujin Z) and Daichi himself.

You're just making up arguments as you go along. How are we ever suppose to reach a concensus?--Nohansen 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expect people to claim,let alone believe,that a doujinshi is the same as a professional manga is stretching the point.A manga is published by a professional company.A doujinshi is a fan publication.It may be a good doujinshi and for all I know,it may have Daichi's blessing,but it's still a doujinshi.Further it is not listed by Anime News Network,since they do not cover doujinshis.R.G. 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. When it comes to any series, only professional publications are mentioned. To mention a "doujinshi" is like referring to a "fanfic". KyuuA4 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put,KyuuA4. - R.G. 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reword the lead

How bout we change the lead to read:

Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran (風まかせ月影蘭, Kazemakase Tsukikage Ran, lit. Wind-borne Moon-lit Ran) is an animated action comedy written and directed by Akitaro Daichi. The series follows Ran and Meow, two wanderers who encounter all sorts of trouble in Tokugawa Japan.

Tsukikage Ran aired throughout Asia and Latin America on the Animax network. It is licensed in North America by Bandai Entertainment.

A doujinshi manga based on the anime was published in 2000 by Kadokawa Shoten.

Then in the article's manga section, we should add that it is a doujinshi adapatation, to avoid confusion.

If we can all agree on this already, we can ask the admin to update the lead, since it now contains incorrent info ("...based on the manga"). Ninja neko 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically incorrect, Ninja Neko. At Anime Expo 2002, Daichi said "Tsukikage Ran was originally a manga in Japan. I read it, and I thought it was really spiffy. I tried to be very faithful to it..."
This volume says it's authored by Daichi and Fumio Iida, and published by Kadokawa Shoten with the ISBN 4-04-713372-8. I think that qualifies as "professionally published".
The stuff about that volume being a doujinshi was speculation on my part: "Combined with Daichi's comments at Anime Expo 2002, I'm guessing the manga is a dojinshi that gained popularity after the television series and thus collected". Call it the Haibane Renmei-scenario.
I already explained myself once before: "as I didn't find any more evidence the manga came before the series..."
The rewording I was gonna make was change "based on the manga series of the same name" to "and produced by Madhouse Studios", since it's a fact that can't be denied.--Nohansen 11:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Ninja neko on this.-R.G.

We can't say "A doujinshi manga based on the anime was published in 2000 by Kadokawa Shoten" because we don't know for a fact it is a doujinshi. Didn't you read the five points I just made?--Nohansen 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Dig up some sources. KyuuA4 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) We know there is a manga, as it has an ISBN and listings on Yahoo Japan and Amazon.co.jp, if not more. We know Daichi said he based the anime on the manga, from the AoD link Nohansen provided. We do not know conclusively whether the manga preceded the anime, other than from interpretation of the AoD source, and we do not know whether the manga is a dōjin work or not. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,Tangentcube,but as KyuuA4 wrote,only professional publications are considered.There has been no indication whatsoever that this anything other than a Doujinshi collection.As stated before it has not been listed in any Anime News Network entries,so any claims that this an official manga are on shaky ground.Nonhasen has not dug up any sources as KyuuA4 required.-R.G. 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"only professional publications are considered"—you mean like with Haibane Renmei? And it doesn't seem you've even been reading other people's arguments—you wouldn't even acknowledge the existance of the manga until after listings for it were dug up, and you're claiming that manga published by a professional company aren't professionally pubished. And why are you using ANN as a basis for inclusion? ANN's entries, complete or not, are also user-based, and are not reliable where it concerns existence or the lack thereof. Since I see no indication that this is a dōjinshi—just idle speculation on Nohansen's part that you ran with, apparently because it suits you—the burden of proof lies on you, because there is an indication that it's not—whether or not you choose to see it. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because ANN is more of an authority on these matters,perhaps the leading authority,and in my experience,it is indeed reliable.The burden of proof does not lie with me,but with Nohansen.As for Habaine Renmei,it was an anime based on a doujinshi.That does not mean Ran was based on a manga or a dojinshi at all.I fear you might undermine your credibility if you insist on this.-R.G. 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Anime Expo 2002, Daichi said "Tsukikage Ran was originally a manga in Japan. I read it, and I thought it was really spiffy. I tried to be very faithful to it..."--Nohansen 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you do not understand the concept of reliable sources. Using IMDb, ANN's Encyclopedia, or any other database that relies on user-submitted information (hint) for its content is inherently unreliable. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANN has among its staff people who handle this kind of research.That sounds reliable to me. - R.G. 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, where is the ANN entry for Sekai de Ichiban Yasashii Ongaku (世界でいちばん優しい音楽), the winner of the 1995 Kodansha Manga Award in Shōjo? Surely that wasn't a dōjin as well? Or how about Shana Ō Yoshitsune (遮那王義経), the 2004 winner in shōnen? —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part where it reads "Mistakes made during translation"?You're grasping at straws there.A rough translation filled with mistakes is not proof of anything.

I'm still going with Ninja neko's suggestion.- R.G. 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part where I said "as I didn't find any more evidence (besides Daichi's panel at Anime Expo) the manga came before the series, I reworded the main body"?--Nohansen 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mistakes made during translation" is not the same thing as "mistakes that could happen during translation". (emphasis mine) —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not,but when Ninja neko made this particular suggestion,you went and changed your mind.

Ninja neko,if you're reading this,I apologize for the way this has dragged on.As I stated,I approve of your suggestion,Ninja neko.You may proceed.- R.G. 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you "We can't say A doujinshi manga based on the anime was published in 2000 by Kadokawa Shoten because we don't know for a fact it is a doujinshi."?--Nohansen 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have heard about a doujinshi like this some time ago.You don't have a leg to stand on.That fact remains that an unofficial publication based on the anime was done.That's all.Now let Ninja neko handle this- R.G. 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you "heard" about a doujinshi? Sources. What are your sources?--Nohansen 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same sources as you apparently.As well as a comment on a messaging board - R.G. 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. None of my sources write of a "Tsukikage Ran" doujinshi. They do write on the series being based on a manga, and a tankobon being released after the series. And I believe they're a tad more reliable than "a messaging board".--Nohansen 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't rely on a doujinshi. They are always fan-written manga which do not usually follow canon. Elwin Blaine Coldiron 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no proof that it is a dōjinshi. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk. I've been civil up to now,but my patience is not without its limits,so I suggest you accept Ninja neko's suggestion.It IS a doujinshi.End of discussion.ANN IS reliable.Period.I have better things to do with my time than to argue until doomsday.Don't force me to bring in charges of harassment as well.Are we clear?-R.G. 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you choose to obstinately stick to claims made contrary to the evidence provided is your decision, as is whether or not you want to start "pressing charges". If Ninja neko's proposed wording is what finally makes it into the article, the claim that it is a dōjin must be marked with {{fact}}, because to call something amateur when it's not is in error—and for one who claims to base his additions on "solid facts" rather than "meaningless comments", I hope you realize that. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, :ANN defines a doujinshi as "non-professional and/or self published comics". [1]. The Tsukikage manga is credited to Daichi and Suezen (both professionals) and published by Kadokawa Shoten (a well-known Japanese publisher).--Nohansen 05:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, just trying to find something nobody would object to:

Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran (風まかせ月影蘭, Kazemakase Tsukikage Ran, lit. Wind-borne Moon-lit Ran) is an animated action comedy written and directed by Akitaro Daichi. The series follows Ran and Meow, two wanderers who encounter all sorts of trouble in Tokugawa Japan.

Tsukikage Ran aired throughout Asia and Latin America on the Animax network. It is licensed in North America by Bandai Entertainment.

A Tsukikage Ran manga was published in November 2000 by Kadokawa Shoten.

We could add that it is probably/arguably a doujinshi with a fact tag.

A Tsukikage Ran doujinshi "fact tag" manga was published in November 2000 by Kadokawa Shoten.

If it's published in November 2000, and the series started running in January 2000, It's not very likely that the series was based on this manga. It may have been a different manga you heard the guy refering too. Ninja neko 16:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's pont #3 in your list up there. In that case, we'd really need a source to prove that it was the inspiration for the anime series. The current listed volume was authored by the series director? Ninja neko 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, assuming the claim that the manga was a dōjin is true, it's quite possible that the anime was based on it (per the AoD link); regardless, since it was published at one time by a professional company, it stopped being a dōjin at that point. I would say something along the lines of "Originally a dōjinshi, the manga version of Tsukikage Ran was re-published by Kadokawa Shoten in November 2000." Remember, though, that the burden of proof lies on the contributor.

At this point, I can't help but wonder if there's any relevant information in the printed volume itself. I can't read Japanese, though, so buying it won't help me any. —TangentCube, Dialogues 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the manga section is written is pretty neutral and verifiable. It just states a manga (not a doujinshi, nor the "manga the series is based on") was published by Kadokawa on November 2000. I don't think it needs to be changed.

The line "based on the manga series of the same name" in the lead should be removed, just because I can't find any source that confirms AoD's Anime Expo report.

If someone finds anything that clears up the nature of this elusive publication, please share it.--Nohansen 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sries started on January 2000,the publication in question in November of that same year.Again proving that this could be a doujinshi collection to which Daichi might have contributed some material,not neccesarily a manga per se.

BTW ,I'm currently on vacation and trying to enjoy it.Ninja neko.I intend to be back in a few days,STILL standing by my decision.-R.G. 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dōjin manga is still a manga. —TangentCube, Dialogues 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking: Who published the manga again? Regarding verifiability of the manga itself, check on the publisher itself. If the item does have an ISBN - then it's definitely professional work. KyuuA4 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccessarily. - R.G. 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANN

I've noticed a few comments above regarding ANN as a source. As an anime encyclopedia, it is not a valid source as it contains fanbased material and does not have policies similar to NPOV. Citing ANN's encyclopedia is similar to citing other anime wikis. However, regarding news items, ANN is very valid. Editorial material is also valid content but not absolute. KyuuA4 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode List Summaries

For a tip on how to write up an episode summary, take a look at:

It is more than acceptable to describe some of the content of a fictional work. KyuuA4 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit

{{editprotected}}

Please remove "based on the manga series of the same name" from the article's lead, as this statement cannot be verified (yet). Ninja neko 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please change the second instance of "女だてらに強かった" to "南蛮娘はデカかった" in the episode list. The second occurance is an error. —TangentCube, Dialogues 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection has expired. I've made these changes. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga

Pulled from RG's discussion page commented by: TangentCube

yes, there is a Tsukikage comic; it's a one-volume piece, published by Kadokawa Shoten, with the ISBN 978-4047133723. It succeeds the anime, but it exists. —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, searching through the Book Sources page provided by Wiki, it seems only WorldCat can verify its existence. Hmm, for such a rare book, this could be a collector item. ;) KyuuA4 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow,I doubt there is any listing for such a manga in any manga listings and even the listing in ISBN seems iffy at best. - R.G. 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards, R.G. You have to prove it is a doujinshi.--Nohansen 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.You have to prove that it's a manga.There is no manga listing for the series anywhere.-R.G. 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN, publisher and authors are not proof enough?--Nohansen 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really,since the site in question is in japanese.- R.G. 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat isn't.--Nohansen 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I find it ironic that a source is disqualified just because it is in Japanese. KyuuA4 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't prove a thing,I'm sorry to say.- R.G. 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is it that amazon.co.jp, eBook Japan, Kinokuniya BookWeb, Yahoo! Japan, and jbook.co.jp are selling? Don't try to cop out by claiming these sites are in Japanese, either, because it should be obvious that there are more resources for Japanese media in Japanese than in English. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what they're selling... "a doujinshi", right?--Nohansen 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sites are interested in the difference between a doujinshi and a manga as long as it's in their catalog. - R.G. 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand how you came to the conclusion it is a doujinshi. Doujinshi are non-professional, but this manga is authored by two recognized artists. Doujinshi are self published, but this manga was published by a well-known Japanese publisher. It doesn't fit the definition of doujinshi.--Nohansen 04:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, doujinshi are illegal. Tajima Yasue got sued for selling a Doraemon doujinshi at Comiket. Do you honestly believe those sites are selling something a doujinshi, too?--Nohansen 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Not all of them are illegal, they wouldn't organize entire conventions for selling illegal stuff. But that's an interesting bit to add to the dōjinshi article! Ninja neko 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, not all of them. But if fans are using copyrighted characters without the owners' say-so, they are illegal (like the Doraemon doujinshi). But, like the news article says, most copyright owners don't bother (unless it goes "beyond the limits").

On the Tsukikage manga: it credits Daichi and is published by Kadokawa. Therefore, not illegal (nor a doujinshi).--Nohansen 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Suezen a recognized artist. - R.G. 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Suezen" is also known as Fumio Iida. He has an ANN entry. He is recognizable (maybe not to you). Still, that doesn't explain how you arrived to that erroneous conclusion.--Nohansen 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,this is interesting.As for the possibilty of it being a doujinshi,I suggest you check the doujinshi article and read it thoroughly. - R.G. 04:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From dōjinshi: "Dōjinshi are self-published Japanese or English works... made by artists or writers who prefer to publish their own materials..." Kadokawa Shoten is not a circle, nor is it a pen name for an artist, amateur or professional. This means that, even if it was at one point a dōjin, once Kadokawa picked up this title and printed it, it lost any dōjin status it may have had, just like how Counter-Strike stopped being a self-published work when Valve started selling it in retail stores. —TangentCube, Dialogues 09:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to revert every edit I make? What was wrong with "[Meow] gets into plenty of trouble, but Ran usually bails her out."? It sounds better than "Meow is not one to 'look before she leaps', getting her into plenty of trouble from which Ran has to get her out from."--Nohansen 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt shortening character desciptions to a meaningless sentence helps an article any.I believe in giving facts as I have seen them.Other anime articles have extensive character descriptions which by Your standards would cause an article to fail,yet these have not been tampered with.-R.G. 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a "meaningless sentence"? The only substantive difference is the part concerning her personality, and that can be covered in a different sentence. —TangentCube, Dialogues 09:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.G: How would "my standards" cause an article to fail, when I've written two recognized articles? "My standards" are just fine, it seems.--Nohansen 14:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed something.Both Suezen and Fumio Iida have TWO separate entries on ANN. - R.G. 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to open an old can of worms here, but it's been a month since the doujinshi statement was tagged as needing citation. Since no evidence of the manga's amateur/self-published status was provided, I'm changing it back. Ultimately, whether it's a doujinshi or not, it's still manga (and that fact doesn't need a citation).--Nohansen 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it published in a magazine? Somehow I doubt it. - R.G. 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was published under the Kadokawa Comics Ace (角川コミックス・エース) imprint. While I haven't been able to pinpoint where it was serialized, it could have been originally published in any of Kadokawa Shoten's magazines (including Shōnen Ace). On a related note, Appleseed and the sequel to Alien Nine were not published in any magazine.--Nohansen 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade to B

Is the article up to "B" class? It has plot, characters, media and a referenced production section. Does it need anything else?--Nohansen 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of episode summaries, as soon as I finish Vandread. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran. 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/20071019031544/http://plaza.bunka.go.jp/english/festival/2004/animation/000457/index.php to http://plaza.bunka.go.jp/english/festival/2004/animation/000457/index.php

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) 00:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]