Talk:Sketchbook (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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Demographic

There is no way that this is a shonen anime. Even if published in a shonen manga. The slow slice-of-life style and the cast of mostly girls along with the growth of the characters point to seinen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.216.194 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is usual to go with the manga it was serialized in, however, doing so may lead to confusion. If you look up the definition of seinen you will see how this fits. I really don't consider using what the manga was serialized in as valid for a demographic as they sometime go out of their norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.216.194 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that you hold that belief as most people use what magazine it is in to actually call most of what is called seinen as seinen, hehehe. I agree with you 100%, not that it's seinen, but that it shouldn't be branded based on what magazine it is in. Slice-of-life series don't necessarily mean seinen if that is what you are thinking. I'm not sure which seinen page you are referring to, but the seinen page I know of is 100% lacking in any examples of seinen staples and therefore not a great article to ask people to see in order to prove your point. In fact, it's the only demographic article that doesn't have any.

According to the description at the seinen page (which might I add is severely lacking in info), seinen is for 18-30 year old men. It also states that it ranges in deeper subjects such as avant-garde and pornography. There is no way possibly that would ever fit Sketchbook at all. I believe that Sketchbook is more closely related to a new type of manga and anime that aren't aimed at any particular gender. Both genders enjoy these series and they never seem to cater to the stereotypes of a particular gender like shoujo, shounen, seinen, and josei do. While they do deal with more realistic thoughts, they aren't too realistic. I think manga like Sketchbook are basically the "for everyone" type series. AjaaniSherisu (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seinen page seems to be way off. Generally speaking, seinen is a catch-all to anything non-shonen (assuming males are the target.) If you go by that definition then there is way too many anime that defies classification. What I think he meant was look under the seinen list of anime. That makes more sense. However, if they are wrongly classified then that is another matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.146.16 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just from the desciption, it sounds a LOT like shojo. Maybe not super obvious majical girl/ reverse harem anime stuff, but women soiund like the target demographic, even if the anime appeals partially to both genders. 24.181.243.83 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manga was serialized in a shōnen magazine, so per {{Infobox animanga}}, it's not changing. Plus, this series shares very little with the definition of typical shōjo elements. Read the shōjo article if you haven't already.--十八 07:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonara, Kanada-machi

So, like, this page got reverted back to the Stone Age, and I got some messages about verifiability or something. I'm just an artless bumpkin from the Village Green Preservation Society, so I don't know so much about these computers and Newspeak and what-have-you. I am not aware of any scholarly articles or academic studies dealing with this particular work. I don't know what reputable, reliable, or printed source I could ever cite except for the strip itself. If someone were to seriously challenge the assertion that Kurihara-senpai likes animals, I'll be honest, I have no idea how I'd verify my claim.

I have never seen any indication that anyone other than myself is even remotely interested in improving this article, since there has been essentially no new content added in the last year other than what I have contributed. Until that impression changes, I will continue to regard this page as my project. If others have their own ideas, then there seems to be a perfectly serviceable medium to express those right here. I'm not really Hip to how things are done here in Wikipedialand, but I don't see the point in massive, unilaterally-decided deletions of perfectly uncontroversial information. --Nine Elms (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest learning, then, if you are not "hip" to how Wikipedia works. First, this is not your article nor anyone else's. And while you may enjoy the series, that does not mean you can load this article and others with excessive plot and unsourced OR. The article was cleaned up to properly remove unsourced interpretations of the plot (called WP:OR), and undo inappropriate splits of a character and chapter list for a small, six-volume, barely (if at all) notable manga series (not comics, not strips, manga) that has only a bare stub for a main articles. Character and chapters lists are no de facto nor something anyone should make just by default. Show notability in the main article, add real-world context to the main, build it up. Then as appropriate, discuss and, with consensus, conduct splits. There are guidelines about the format and content of manga series articles at WP:MOS-AM, and WP:WAF covers general fictional writing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I've been reading up on Notability Guidelines and made the determination that I am, in fact, not notable, and have marked myself for deletion. So this time it's really さようなら、金田町.　--Nine Elms (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and References

Well Ive dug up what I could find. As far as I can tell this is thie manga author's first manga, it was also made into a tv series as well and has the name ~Full Colors~ attached. I cant read japanese but it looks like it could be notable in Japan and it does have an English review. - Knowledgekid87 2:53, 13 September 2009 (AT)

Published in Taiwan [1] The Chinese Wikipedia has the ISBNs. Arsonal (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what are those item

I have three book related to the series i am still pondering what they are about.

スケッチブックトート付セット

スケッチブック出張版 1

スケッチブックパーフェクトワークブック

Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 08:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the 3rd one: Sketchbook - Perfect Workbook

Source: http://benippon.com/en/catalogsearch/result/?q=Sketchbook - Knowledgekid87 12:26, 13 September 2009 (AT)

The first is something that affixes to bags, and is not a book at all. The second is the Shucchōban already listed in the manga section. The third is a guide book, also referred to as a visual fan book or just fan book by some publishers.--十八 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply. --KrebMarkt 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]