Talk:Bokurano

Futaba and Kai Hata

Shouldn't these two entries be removed from the cast? They are one-shot characters/not major characters.

And yeah, there are some pretty horrible contributors to this article, grammar-wise.

Grammar and spelling

I'm not exactly sure who wrote the majority of this article, but at least one major contributor to this article, possibly others, appears to not know the difference between "it's" (it is) and "its" (belonging to it). I just cleaned up 62 instances of "it's" where "its" was meant, which is entirely excessive. There is absolutely no excuse for grammar that poor. Please run spell check on your submissions before you post them here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Others

Plot:" He persuades the children to test the game and sign a contract." Actually instead of signing on a piece of paper, they performed a ritual - they have formed a contract by placing respective hands (not both )on a unnamed machine.

Neutrality Problem

There is a clear NPOV issue in the section on the "controversy" between the anime director and the writer of the original anime. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a place to prove a point. Articles need to present a neutral point of view, i.e. let the facts speak for themselves and understand the proper way characterize opinions of people's work--be they opinions of the wider public or of a recognized expert. Understanding the proper way to do this, with the help of in-text citations, of course, helps you achieve fairness of tone.

I deleted a phrase indicating that the anime director's public dislike of the manga was a negative thing. Even though you may think so and I may think so, those are both just opinions. These opinions can be expressed (as aforementioned and previously linked), but they must be done in ways that properly characterize people's artistic work, as illustrated in the [[policy page on that subject. That policy page on neturality simply details the minimum requirements for expressing something in a way that is verifiable. That will necessarily involve simply stating the facts and citing reliable sources.

I also added a fact marker in the last paragraph since it appears to be original research. This can be fixed by finding reliable sources to substantiate your opinion and then just stating the facts. Cheers, ask123 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a few things here and there, for example (going to go with stuff that's adptations); the production rights to Full Metal Panic was moved to Kyoto Animation after the first season (They did Fumofuu and Second Raid), Gantz was most defently under the point of "made up for the anime ending" and Hellsing (Second half was "Made up" as they ran though the entire Manga's source that quickly) to name a few. Even some of the stuff that's of thier own design ended up being what could be noted as a mess, the most notible being Final Fantasy Unlimited.Conan-san 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but that's still an opinion (e.g. Final Fantasy Unlimited "ended up being what could be noted as a mess"). Gantz having the "made up for the anime ending" is a bad thing in your opinion. "Making up" the second half of Hellsing was also a poor decision in your opinion. I happen to agree with you, but it's just not appopriate to state opinions like that in an encyclopedia. It must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality rules, which includes let the facts speak for themselves without adding unsourced opinions. There is a section in Wikipedia's neutrality policy page that deals with exceptions -- situations in which opinions can be expressed. Here is that section. It states that opinions regarding works of art can only be expressed if they are opinions held by the wide public or held by a recognized expert. Those opinions may be stated without weasel words or peacock words, and they must be cited properly. If you don't follow these rules, you fall into the trap of using original research (i.e. research by someone not recognized as an expert) and/or using Wikipedia to prove a point -- both of which are against policy because they make the site unencyclopedic and/or a collection of opinions by non-experts. These are all university-level citation rules with which you should be familiar (see Harvard Referencing and Wikipedia's Manual of Style). The important thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or publisher of original research. Cheers, ask123 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I figgured that this was only ging to lead into fuisticufs so I remoded the offending statemenrt, thear, no more prolem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conan-san (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. You can keep it in there though if it's rewritten with sourcing. Also, this isn't a matter of you having one opinion and me having another. We actually share the same opinion here. It just isn't right to put it on Wikipedia. People won't take the rest of the page seriously if even a small portion of it is sugared up up with opinions and personal feelings. ask123 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Noting Each Specific Difference Between Manga & Anime is Tedious and Unnecessary

I deleted a couple of sentences detailing a differences between the manga and anime (specifically, from a point in the episode, "Self-Destruction"). Listing each small difference is really a fansite thing (Wikipedia is not a fansite). It would be crazy to do that here. Imagine how many bullet entries there would be on that list. Any difference would qualify. Further, it is assumed that any adapted material will be different from the original -- each individual difference need not be noted, unless it is particularly significant to the story or has been noted in the press by a reliable source. Then a section can be devoted to the specific differences, written in an encyclopedic manner (not casual, fansite manner). Otherwise, a general paragraph on the divergence between the original work and the adaptation should suffice. ask123 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not having seen the end myself yet I keep hearing about large drastic changes to the end. If it is a significant difference and some one has seen the last few episode I would say that may be something worth noting if it is significantly differentSerton 02:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been against this section for a while (see Talk:Bokurano#Neutrality_Problem). The problem is that the section is not actually about the differences between the manga and anime stories. Rather, it is about the controversy between the creater of the manga and the director of the anime. For that reason, I have changed the section's heading. It still reeks of fansite POV though. I wouldn't be against deleting it entirely. Also, if someone wants to make a real section on the differences between the manga and anime stories, that should be fine as long as it adheres to relevant policies (i.e. Trivia section policy, Embedded list policy, etc.).

Cheers, ₪ ask123 {t} 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bokurano, not Bokura no?

Is there a reason why there isn't a space separating the words Bokura and no? —Tokek 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it's bokurano and not bokura no, as it should be. But since the manga and anime are officially called "bokurano" -- one word -- it's proper to keep it like this. ask123 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% certain, as I'm only ~JLPT3 (maybe 2.5), but I believe the Japanese typically consider markers like 'no' to be part of the preceding word. i.e. "Bokurano" "Fullmoonwo Sagashite" and such as logic. (source for this concept is primary; a half-Japanese friend of mine) I don't know what Wiki's policy is on romanization really, but saw the comment and though I could help clarify a bit. Aidolon 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidolon (talk • contribs)

Normally, per Wikipedia's style guidelines for Japanese, it would be Bokura no, but even before the Viz title made it officially Bokurano, that romanization was appearing on promotional materials for the series, so it was already a more or less official spelling. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's because Japanese doesn't have spaces, so romanization done by a Japanese person can lack them in the proper places. The proper way to do it would be "Bokura no." The creators were just wrong about a writing system that wasn't made for their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.240.161 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that the author preferred "Bokurano" without space so that it would be another 4 syllable (well, mora) title (like "Narutaru", for example). Erigu (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Names of the robots

Please see Talk:List of Bokurano robots#Reference needed for the names of the robots --Acepectif (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Review(s)

• CBB: vol. 2 vol. 3 vol. 3 other reviewer
• ANN: Right Turn only vol. 2 Right Turn only vol. 3
• Mania.com: vol. 2
• CBR: vol. 1-2

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Io9 analysis by Jason Thompson [1]

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bokurano: Ours. 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/20070304225443/http://www.ikki-para.com/comix/bokurano.html to http://www.ikki-para.com/comix/bokurano.html

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) 02:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)