Talk:Go Nagai

Did he have anything to do with Gekigangar at all, other than it being a spoof/homage to Getter Robo? Kirsha 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this is someone's idea of a joke, I believe. I am removing it. Bustter 07:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added an archived version of the Mainichi page that the article cites.

A set of pages linked from their Mainichi Daily News front page explains the controversy arising from their WaiWai articles; the company says it was told their articles were "vulgar" and "inappropriate", and they punished some staff members related to the column.

While the one cited here (they call it a translation of "Weekly Playboy") looks very reputable (considering other stuff I saw on WaiWai pre-takedown) and I don't expect everything in the References to be of New York Times quality or whatever, I think their reasons for the takedown are worth taking into account if we seek to use anything else from there. --an odd name 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else think the "Manga by Go Nagai" section should be split into a Bibliography of Go Nagai article? This page is 87 kilobytes long, and there's like 30 kilobytes worth of info in that section alone.--Nohansen (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Support: I agree, and if I don't do it after I've posted this comment, I think you should feel free to split off the list. I also wonder if one of either decade headings (==1970s==, ==1980s==) or a sortable table should be used to partition that list; it looks like a monolithic text wall right now. I might add decade headings after I've posted this. --an odd name 05:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(The biblio has been started. Edit to taste.) --an odd name 06:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I cleaned up the lead and remove the list of manga... but I'm sure there's more cleanup to be done in the article's body.--Nohansen (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most of First success and controversies has details about Harenchi Gakuen, and should probably be moved to some sort of "production" or "development" section there and summarized here. It's also long enough that it may be copyvio (I already see sentences lifted right from the WaiWai page) and may need trimming with or without a move. --an odd name 07:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article has incredibly spotty grammar. I've tried to fix it a little, but the formatting for the citations makes doing so incredibly difficult. I suggest others more invested in this article make further strides towards making this article grammatical. Kouban (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's still a bunch of text in the article blatantly copied from the WaiWai reference, and a whole bunch of references that are probably not reliable. I think you'd be better off finding copied text and taking it out or rewriting it. It can be pared down a lot (I'm gonna be busy, so I can't do it now :( ), and you should cut down any unnecessary text before you continue copyediting--no need to fix statements if they don't belong in the article. --an odd name 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not move the article away from Go Nagai as this is the most common way (by far) his name is rendered in the English-speaking world. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That one here on French Canal+ --KrebMarkt 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The relavent section is:

Unless it can be shown that the inclusion of this information is relavent to the undestanding of the person covered in the article, in regard to the information outlined in the article text, his family and relations cannot be included in the infobox.

- J Greb (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

All of Nagai's brothers are in charge of his companies as shown by the references they had. Yasutaka in particular was the one that introduced him to Japanese comic books and the one that helped start him his career, as Nagai himself has mentioned, besides being relevant on his own and working on several projects along his brother. Kenji Nagai is the one that acts as producer in most of Nagai's anime and the one that commercialized the series outside Japan with d/visual and other ventures and Takashi is in charge of all the commercial aspect of the manga. Nagai's wife is the only one that could be considered not relevant enough in Nagai's bio, yet there is at least one manga by Nagai inspired by her. Ippongi Bang is unreferenced and therefore should be removed.

Regarding the infobox, here are the discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_47#Infobox_in_biographies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_32#Infobox_comics_creator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Biography#Infoboxes ... and, in general, you can check out the manga creator biographies and you'll see that infobox comics creator is not widely supported (Eiichiro Oda, Akira Toriyama, Tite Kubo, Naoko Takeuchi, Shotaro Ishinomori, for example.)

A few things... family first

• Aside from the material in the infobox, the article does not touch on the family. If the siblings are that important to the understanding of the subject life (and keep in mind, this is a bio, not an article on his studio or business) then there should be a mention of them. In that case, there would be a slim potential to have them in the box. Without that, it does breach BLP and should be removed until there is a solid consensus shown that the inclusions are needed.
• Same issue with his spouse. And even "She inspired..." doesn't even supply the slim possibility that covering his business would give the siblings.
• The Infobox - frankly, they show nothing of a coonsensus not to use {{Infobox Comics creator}}. The first is your post stating your preferences, but there is no one else that chimed in. The second provideds no consensus from 2 years ago. And the last... its a list of "You can use..." In that light Infobox Comics creator looks like a more appropriate choice than the genaric Person.

Now, you do raise a good point: ICC is using a general approach to those producing manga with |manga=y just limits the categories. It is likely a good idea to rifine that. Would you have suggestions for what should be used for writers only and artists only? Base on your archived comment, it would make sense for cartoonist=y and the the combination of write=y and art=y to produce mangaka.

One last thought or two - First, just because an infobox isn't used else where doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Realistically, IIC could be used across most of the profesionals writing and/or drawing manga. That use though would have to start somewhere. Second, infoboxes are most often applied based on "best fit". At times ICC isn't going to be the "best fit". Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore are examples where ICC isn't sufficent and {{Infobox Writer}} is used since their writing carries (and the source of their notability) exceeds just comics. With Naoko Takeuchi, it may be a question prcisely what her body of work consists of. At first blush, it looks like one of two things are happening - she is better known for her writing than her art (not really supported by the article though) or Writer was used improperly to get the "Influances"/"Influanced" sections.

- J Greb (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• His brother Yasutaka is mentioned in the article. His other brothers aren't mentioned because the article still doesn't cover up to that point when Dynamic Planning was created. Also there is nothing in WP:BLPNAME that forbids its usage when the names aren't intentionally concealed, which is the case. What it says is "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." It is my opinion that they are relevant to understand how the works of Nagai came to be known internationally and how he originally started in manga with the help of his brother, who also collaborated in several of his works.
• Fair enough. But the reference that Nagai gave to that work is direct, not merely speculation.
• But they do show that there is no consensus in favor of using {{Infobox Comics creator}} either. When there is no consensus to change something like policies or guidelines in Wikipedia, said things remain the same until there is a consensus in favor of changing things. It's not as if this article is in disagreement with other Japanese manga creator articles either, as I pointed out. There must be first a consensus to establish a change of this kind, not the other way around. Since I'm against this change, I specifically asked about it and no one responded, which means there is no consensus, and, as such, the former status quo was re-established. That infobox may look more appropriate, but unless there is a consensus accepting it from the project that overlooks the article, it shouldn't be favored. And I already addressed why I don't think that that particular infobox should be used.

"Just because an infobox isn't used else where doesn't mean it shouldn't be": Actually it does. The infobox should first be approved by consensus by the WikiProject that oversees the article. Otherwise, anyone can create his/her own infobox and use it for the article he/she deems fit. Also, the best fit applies if the infobox is within the scope of a certain WikiProject, which is not the case here. Naoko Takeuchi work consists of manga, illustrations and song lyrics, the same things as Nagai. Takeuchi only did a children's book for her son, the only thing that she did as a writer, while Nagai has written and created several series which where not created for manga first, such as X Bomber, Mujigen Hunter Fandora or Majokko Tickle, has designed costumes of some wrestlers, like Jushin Liger, the first one of Big Van Vader and Kabuto-O Beetle, and he has also directed a few movies, so the source of his notability is not restrained to Japanese comic books either. And that's not counting his influence in the impact of science fiction works in France, Italy and the Middle East. WikiProject Anime and manga has deemed that Takeuchi's infobox is not contrary to the guidelines, despite that her works mainly consists of manga and that she is mostly known for Sailor Moon, not for her writing style. Same thing with the other manga creators that I mentioned. In short, there is no reason to believe that ICC is more fit than a generic infobox in this article, just like with other manga creators.

Regarding suggestions for ICC, it would be to have a specific field that says "mangaka" or "manga creator". For example, that in the field "cartoonist", instead of having a "yes" option only, that it also had a option "m" for a cartoonist of manga, or to have a "mangaka" option directly. I'm against using the combination of write=y and art=y because there are Western creators that do both without being mangaka, like Dan Jurgens. Personally, I'm not too fond of distinguishing a comic book creator from a cartoonist. For me, what Jim Davis, Dan Jurgens and Akira Toriyama do is the same thing with a different style. But cartoonist has a connotation of someone who draws cartoons for children or in a newspaper, which makes it unfit to all Japanese manga creators that focus solely in erotic material or in compilations. Nagai has not done work for children in a long time and his work isn't known for that. All three options have their own article (comic book creator, cartoonist and mangaka) despite essentially being the same thing in a broader sense, artists that create cartoons. A manga creator generally writes and draws but he/she does that with the help of his assistants and also inks his own work, something that is not common in a comic book creator but it's more in line with what a cartoonist does. Yet, there have been several discussions in the past against merging the articles, because it is thought that each of them denotes something specific in modern culture. Infobox comic book creator doesn't have that differentiation, which makes it completely biased towards Western comics, in my opinion, and therefore unfit to be used for most manga creator articles. There is also the point of notable relatives. There are several cases in manga where the relatives are notable on their own, such as Takeuchi's husband. ICC doesn't allow that and, for example, in Barbara Kesel's article, one has to read the full article instead of giving a quick look at the infobox to find information about her former husband, Karl Kesel. Same thing with Louise Simonson. The idea of an infobox is to give quick facts and this is something that I also think ICC lacks, because it's not uncommon in manga for relatives to be famous and related to the same or another medium, like in movies (James Cameron or Steven Spielberg, for example.)

If ICC fixed these issues or if WikiProject Anime and manga had a consensus in favor of using it, I would not be against it in manga creator articles. Jfgslo (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

First off, I'm not against using the citations - in the proper places. Discussing Yasutaka within the inspirations section and Go's initial works can use the references. Sumiko Higo, if it is proper to touch on the work in question, should be addressed with the reference. But this is within the article text - the one place where the inclusion of other people can be spelled out. The infobox is a thumbnail and it cannot explain beyond "sibling" or "spouse", even with a footnote. Naming the people there, in the infobox, is contrary to the BLP section. And yes, this was known going in with the Kessels, Simonsons, Buscemas, Pinis, Romita, and Kuberts among others. Better the exceptions exist with incorporating family matters in the text than to present a field editors would feel obliged to dig into people’s private lives to fill. And that is something that needs underscoring: most of these people - mangaka, comics creator, cartoonist, etc - are notable for very specific things. Not for putting their entire lives under public scrutiny. In some cases their private lives touch on their professional, yes - marrying co-workers, children following parents, spouses or siblings working together, and so on. In most cases though, we don't know, and really are not entitled to know, who their life partner is, their kids, the occupations of those people, and so on.

On a side note. While it is true a parent, sibling, or spouse may indeed be notable in their own right, that means they may be a subject of their own article. Like Yasutaka Nagai who is a writer in multiple formats. But just because two people are notable, it does not mean their relationship is or that it requires a special note.

As for tweaking ICC, one thing that needs to be made clear, the suggestions I was making would be working in conjunction of the "manga" parameter already in the template. Though on reflection, changing it to "mangaka" wouldn't be a problem and might ease some of the coding.

- J Greb (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Manga creators usually do make their unions known, like Nagai did with his manga about his wedding Happy wedding Go & Sumiko and Takeuchi did so too. That is why I put the examples of Hollywood directors, because manga creators are more related to American directors than to Western comic book creators in how they handle their public relationships. And it's a simple question of putting in the infobox instructions with something like "relatives: only add this field if the relatives are notable according to the project's guidelines" and that's it. It's not as if the biographies aren't being watched by several editors who abide by the policies. If it truly goes against BLP as you say, why is it okay to use it in several other projects such as politicians (Bill Clinton), movie directors (Robert Zemeckis) or writers (Alan Moore)? As long as the information of the relatives is made public without restrictions, which is the case with most manga creators, it's up to the editorial discretion of each WikiProject. Each project decides how much significant value is added by adding notable relatives publicly known in infoboxes and it's up to each WikiProject to decide whether or not the relationship between two notable persons requires a special note in an infobox, which, as you can see, is already being done in several projects, each one in charge of their own infoboxes.

I'm in favor of removing the references from the infobox, but I don't have the time to put them in the proper context within the article because the article is still incomplete. And without these references I can't show their notability. If you truly believe that they should be removed until the text is written in the article, with the exception of Yasutaka, I have no problem with leaving them out for the moment.

Regarding the tweaking of ICC, I specified it like that because there are a few manga creators that work just like in Western comics, mostly writers such as Kazuo Koike, who although is a manga creator, is not a cartoonist or penciller. They are a minority but nonetheless there are some. The majority of them produce all aspects of their comics, which is why I feel them more related to a cartoonist than to a comic book writer-penciller. There are also many of them that, along with manga, work in light novels, anime, video-game illustration and illustration books, like Satoshi Urushihara, which would make the mangaka title correct but incomplete because it's only one aspect of their work, again like Urushihara, who is notable as a manga creator and an illustrator. But that's not something that I should decide. It would be better if you commented your suggestions in WT:MANGA to get a consensus and make ICC the standard for all manga creator articles. I will go with what the consensus there says. Jfgslo (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair point - bios that verge into "celebrity" tend to treat everything as fair game.

Crunching through it, take a look at {{Infobox mangaka}}. It does use ICC, but tailored to include what you had pointed out.

- J Greb (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is an infobox that I'm more than willing to try. There are a couple of details which could be improved, though.

In the field area, I don't think there are mangaka that work as editors or publishers. In fact, contrary to American comics, I have no knowledge of a Japanese manga editor who is of some note. This is a big difference with Western comics. For example, Osamu Tezuka worked with several editors when he was alive, yet none of them is ever mentioned in fan pages or scholarly papers. And since mangaka are the owners of their work's copyright, they publish in any company they want without needing to publish their own work by themselves. Only a handful of them ever founded companies that publish manga but they are not directly involved, like Takao Saito, who created Leed Publishing with his brother, but the company is not handled directly by him, same thing with Nagai's Dynamic Planning and Dynamic Production, which are not directly handled by him and have only occasionally published manga. Instead of those fields (edit and publish), I would put write, to be used for mangaka that are also notable for working as writers in light novels (like Yuyuko Takemiya) or whose main focus in manga is writing, not drawing (like Kazuo Koike); and I would also add illustrate, for authors known not only for their work as mangaka but also for their work in illustrations, like Akira Toriyama, who is also known for the artwork of Dragon Quest and other videogames, or whose focus in manga is mainly the drawing part, like Yuki Yugo.

There are a couple of minor tweaks that I would favor. Assistant of (instead of influences) if a mangaka started as an assistant of another famous mangaka, like Shotaro Ishinomori in Nagai's case, and Notable assistants (instead of influenced) if some of his assistants became notable on their own, like Leiji Matsumoto, who started as Osamu Tezuka's assistant. As you can read in the article, it is quite common that mangaka start as assistants and this normally influences their styles.

These suggestions are only from my point of view. I don't know what other changes or additions other editors may want to see in a mangaka infobox. Perhaps I'm mistaken about manga editors, perhaps others would deem unnecessary the area part altogether since mangaka already denotes the context, or they could say that influences and influenced work better than my suggested changes. Some may even want to add a Studio field for the many mangaka that created their own manga studios like Saito Production, Dynamic Production, or Bird Studio. As it is right now, I think the infobox covers enough to be proposed in WT:MANGA as the standard infobox for mangaka articles. Jfgslo (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Part of the reasoning for the "area" tags that were left - and you are correct, I am unfamiliar with how common or uncommon it is - is that those are the two areas that doesn’t get lumped into "cartoonist" but do see creative people move into on occasion. As for "writer (other)", that is part of the reason "area" is an override. That allows the flexibility to list out "Mangaka, poet, costume designer" in cases where the mangaka has worked or dabbled in other creative areas.

"Influences" and "Influenced" have a connotation beyond just manga. These include external influences - schools of art or writing, artists, comics creators, directors, etc - that the person is reliable quoted as being inspired by, but may not have apprenticed in or to. The same is true for those that are influenced by a person - they may never have apprenticed under them, or even met them. That said, there is some tweaking, I think, that can be done to either subdivide the two sections or add to them.

At this point though I think I'll throw it over to the Project talk page. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Biography infobox)

- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to Chrontendo Episode 26 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uYA_SEGNM&feature=youtu.be&t=9m20s, link to relevant segment), Go Nagai did the art for the Famicom version of Ginga no Sannin. Surely if we can get better sources this is worthy of a mention in the article, and it's likely that he some work for other video games. >sudo fetch user page >sudo join great conversation 19:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why has the section of his adapted works disappeared? DreamsDreams (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)DreamsDreamsReply

DreamsDreams Because it was just too extensive and it can be found in Go Nagai bibliography. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Go Nagai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716201221/http://www.7andy.jp/esb/docs/special/200711_bible/index2.html to http://www.7andy.jp/esb/docs/special/200711_bible/index2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply