Talk:Shōjo manga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page move?

Should this page be at "Shojo", since convention does not call for wapuro? WhisperToMe 05:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WTM, for once we agree! Jpatokal 06:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This should be moved, then. I'll fix the redirect links. WhisperToMe 01:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if "shoujo" should be considered a loanword by now. (But I'm leaving the page where it is; I suspect that's just my POV.) --Aponar Kestrel 00:10, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

I think "shoujo" should, in fact, be considered a loanword, and while the page is fine where it is, this should probably be discussed in the section that differentiates shoujo as a market term, rather than a genre term. "shoujo manga" is a market in Japan. "Shoujo" in English is arguably a loanword indicating a genre. It is not uncommon for loanwords to differ in meaning from their sources. Consider the different ways that "zen" is now used in English, for example. Edalton 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be named "Shojo Manga"? I don't think any Japanese speaker would think of manga upon hearing the word "shojo"--it just means "girl". (Hence, "shojo manga" = "girls' manga".) Damien 05:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll be deleting Inuyasha from the list since it's not shoujo. Takahashi isn't called the queen of shounen for nothing.

distinction by publication?

It's confusing to analyze shoujo manga by content; wouldn't it be more sensible to also distinguish them by publishers? Admittedly there is a lot of crossing-the-line like the article says, and it seems the only distinction between some so-called shoujo manga and a mainstream manga (if there's such a thing) is in the magazine that these manga titles run in.

In fact, by publishers is *only* way to look at it. --zippedmartin 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fresh article

I did a complete rewrite. I'm no a expert on the subject, nor much of a writer, so encourage people to edit. --zippedmartin 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels?

How does this article fit under that project? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shōjo anime and manga

I made a separate article for a list of shōjo anime and manga. I plan on doing the same for shōnen and seinen. --Kuroki Mio 2006 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a case of where categories are far, far better. Lists of tens of thousands of items are not very useful, or maintainable. --zippedmartin 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Love Hina?

In the "Western adoption" section... surely no-one seriously calls Love Hina a shōjo anime, even in the West? - Eyeresist 08:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See the references, yes, people really do. --zippedmartin 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Hi. My name's Matt Thorn. Some of you may know my work on shoujo manga. I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia, but would like to contribute to this article. I took one look at the editing markup and my head started spinning. (It took me long enough to learn HTML!) Maybe this sounds really lazy (or perhaps even arrogant), but I wonder: if I were to write something for this page, would any of you more wiki-savvy people be interested in/willing to format it for me? I ask this with this greatest reluctance, but finding an hour to write something for this article is hard enough; learning the markup from scratch is something I'm adding to my long list of "things to do after I've retired."

By the way, I really think this article belongs under the title "Shoujo Manga." What if someone someday wants to write an article on "shoujo" (as in "girl(s)")? After all, there is a surprisingly large body of literature in Japanese on the subject of "shoujo," and that phenomenon itself might merit an article. And, as others have pointed out, in Japanese "shoujo manga" would never be abbreviated as "shoujo," just as "hamburger" would be rendered meaningless if someone tried to abbreviate it as "ham."

Also, the phrase "Shōjo manga has its roots in Meiji era reforms, and then the manga expansion in the 1950s" is absolutely mystifying. I think this is a reference to things I've written on the rise shoujo magazines at the turn of the century, but a lot more explanation is needed for it to make any sense at all.

I also think everything about "shoujo anime" should be moved to a separate article, but then again, since the article title is so vague....

If anyone is interested in helping me to contribute to this article, please e-mail me matt@matt-thorn.com

Thanks!

Hi, most of the current article is my fault, so I've emailed you with an offer of help. Editing is a pretty free-and-easy thing though, just dive in and splat my poor prose. Have a look at Wikipedia:Introduction, and be bold in making changes, all contributions are welcome and honest mistakes are easy to fix.

I guess next it's going to be Jon Courtenay Grimwood coming along and objecting to me taking the mick out of him for calling Rumiko Takahashi a shoujo mangaka. --zippedmartin 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese, "shoujo manga" would never be abbreviated as "shoujo", yes. However, in English "shoujo" does not mean "girl"; it is a term for a genre of anime, manga, and (rarely) similar works. If you want an article on "shoujo" meaning "girl", it's right here.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

History

From the article

"In Japanese folklore, shojo are sea spirits or sea demons. They have bright red hair and they dance on the waves. They are not dangerous to sailors. Sake is their favorite drink. They can be lured ashore with sake."　I think this folklore never exists. Please cite the folklore and Japanse title.Mythologia 15:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Western Market

This article states that a survey produced a landslide in boys favouring female-orientated anime/manga above male-orientated anime/manga.

The problem is that the opposite seems to be true in Europe and the US. I'm not sure if this is true, but on TV channels I know of and in the media shops I've seen stuff like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are the mainstay while stuff like Cardcaptor Sakura and Sailor Moon are hard to come by. All I can get on the matter is edited Westernised rubbish.

Is it normal for this to be the case? Because I find it hard to grasp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabbitlover (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).