Talk:Emma (manga)

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move or Redirect?

The AnCOTW reasons suggested we move this back to Emma (manga) and I think I agree. My only objection is that if there isn't enough info to warrant two articles (one for anime, one for manga) we should keep all info in the one article and call it "Emma (anime and manga)" a la Naruto (anime and manga).

Considering this article is small and needs collaboration to grow, I say we take the second route. What say you? - Phorque (talk · contribs) 15:32, 08 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, best to keep all under one page, after all we can sort out all the information here, and if we can't all fit it on one page, we can split it later. --Onizuka-gto 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the appropiate name for the artitle be "Emma: A Victorian Romance"? Emma (anime and manga) seems wrong and poorly thought out.--Nohansen 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of currently evolving consensus in the project is that the title should reflect the first form of the work, from which the others derive. Thus, this would become Emma (manga), with redirects to here from Emma (anime) and Emma: A Victorian Romance (plus alternate punctuations). Thus the main article Bleach (manga) despite the anime being better known. But there is much confusion on this matter. —Quasirandom 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Emma (anime and manga)" is awkward, I would put it under Emma (manga) as well per Quasirandom's reasons. Ninja neko 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put this up as a formal proposal then? —Quasirandom 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also completely agree that it is best suited under the title "Emma (manga)", as it was originally a manga series first and foremost, and is also the same format used in the Japanese wiki. Let's go ahead for a move. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for admin help for moving -- Emma (manga) has edit history, preventing me from moving it myself. —Quasirandom 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was move back to Emma (manga). —Quasirandom 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- because this article's been moved about before, a formal proposal, just to make sure we're all on board: that we move this article to Emma (manga) (leaving a redirect behind and fixing all the other redirects) —Quasirandom 00:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have agreement by silence, if nothing else. I'll close the discussion and work on the move in a bit. —Quasirandom 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Quasirandom 00:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Quasirandom's suggestions and naming conventions as series first originated as a manga, first and foremost. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction

Both the manga and anime versions of Emma are unique for being set in a setting seldom visited by either medium without some fantasy or speculative element.

I believe this statement is badly worded, and the core of the statement is wrong. I'll give a week for it to either be clarified, or I'll be deleting it. Also Anglophile statment about a living person needs backing... otherwise it'll have to be taken out per the rules of wikipedia. --Hitsuji Kinno 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to any way you see fit. Also, she admits that in the Emma omake, volume 4. --TcDohl 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emma episodes

I've separated the Episodes into their own list, as I've substantially expanded upon that section (with summaries to follow sometime soon). --Darkbane ^talk 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maid cafe citation

Currently the link for the maid cafe in Shinjuku leads to a page without any real information, just a bunch of unhelpful links. Brutannica (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the heads-up. Time to go look for a replacement. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception info

Just a heads up, the Library Journal listed this as one of the best graphic novels of 07. Might want to add that. --erachima talk 11:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo -- good one. Added, along with a little cleanup work to make the article more closely conform to guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: ANN reviews season 1 and season 2 —Quasirandom (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another ANN review of season 2. They're piling up! —Quasirandom (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T.H.E.M. anime reviews season 2. More attention = yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About.com review of volume 1. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the March 2010 "Manga Moveable Feast", here the worth mention reviews (pass for RS or SPS test):

vol 1-3 vol 4-7 Shirley by Brigid Alverson (wrote for Publisher Weekly about comics & manga)
vol 8 vol 9 vol 10 Comics Worth Reading
Sherley by Kate Dacey
Vol 1-2 by Michelle Smith (Pop culture shock reviewer)
flashback review manga ending David Welsh (wrote for Tom Spurgeon Comics Reporters)

There is also a review in a blog hosted by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin --KrebMarkt 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANN: Jason Thompson

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josei or Senien?

While its cataloged as a senien but it sounds more like a Josei as especially by its content and subject matter. Why would be classified as a Senien itself instead of a Josei? Which the latter it sounds more like. Thanks.-Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.8.28 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is seinen because it was serialized in a magazine that is published for a seinen audience. Keep in mind that a given manga magazine runs several different genres of series, to catch the attention of a wide audience -- not every young man likes the same kinds of things -- and while outside of Japan we might have a concept of a typical series for an audience, it is much more limited than the reality. Thus the apparent oddities such as a story fueled by nostalgia for childhood like Yotsuba&! being shounen and a gritty post-apocalyptic adventure like 7 Seeds being josei. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel?

I only got partway into this manga series and have not yet read the novel Emma written by Jane Austen in 1815, but for anyone who has, are there any similarities between the two, or is the shared title a coincidence? Y12J (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only similarities are the titles. The Victorian guide book of this series does mention that novel, and the first paragraph says something like "This is not the story of Emma the maid, but Emma the noble young lady." —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Emma (manga). 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) 20:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section?

I believe this article is missing a plot or plot summary section, any thoughts on this? I would be interested to know if anyone have written something to start with, if not, I'm happy to start writing something if it's worth the time, thanks. -- Clareita (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stownar or Stowner?

Hello, I wish to stress the fact that the official English manga translation has the governess' name as "Stowner", not "Stownar", the source of the name for KS could be a human error or it could be official. The translation of the manga is done by Sheldon Drzka, the copy I have is published by Yen Press. --Clareita (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]