Talk:Uzumaki

Untitled

I'm guessing this needs to be simplified to just a basic description of the manga instead of the overly complex chapter breakdown here? 24.47.198.134 07:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

family name of Naruto

Anyone ought to mention that Uzumaki is also the "last name", I mean "family name" of Uzumaki Naruto (Naruto Uzumaki)? --Geopgeop 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Uzumaki just means "spiral", or rather "whirlpool, coil". Uzumaki Naruto is named that way as a pun; a naruto is a fishcake that often has a spiral pattern on it. Has nothing to do with this manga, at any rate. --193.11.222.179 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Naruto needs to be made here. Completely unnecessary.207.225.185.246 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 rereleases of the manga

were the 2002 editions of the manga read right-to-left or left-to-right ? the 2007 editions are read right-to-left (japanese style) ?

Original release

Anybody know when the original release date was? The article says the English version was released in 2002; I found this article from the Dark City article, which mentions they were released around the same time (both Dark City and Uzumaki). --'Kash (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was probably before 2000 (the release of the movie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.135.146 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The spiraling shapes

Will make you go
Insaaaaaaane
:--68.161.155.108 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'tis true!!!!! I'm scared of spirals and pregnant ladies now! If you follow hte spiral with your eyes, it makes your head feel funny..... O_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.24.104 (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Split request

I'm not sure if anyone ever posted any comments on this, as the link used to go to Talk:Discussion.

However, I'm posting here to say I disagree with the split request, at least for now - primarily because it would leave a pretty empty article, and do we really need an additional page to cover recaps of one obscure and short manga series? Most series I read about on here don't have recaps at all. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Split declined. And plot material removed per WP:Not plot. The article needs sourcing or merging into a parent article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Review

Vol 3, Vol 2 and Vol 1. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

House of 1000 manga - ANN, The Horrific Mechanations of Junji Ito’s Uzumaki - Sarah Horrock, Anime fringe Advance review vol.1, ComicBookBin vol.1ComicBookBin vol.2, ComicBookBin vol.3, ComicBookBin Deluxe Edition -- Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Active Anime v1, v3; Mania #1, #2; Comics Village vol1, vol2, vol3; PopCultureShock 1, 3; Sequential Tart reviews. All are listed at WP:A&M/I. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• About.com horror manga list Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• ANN GN1 Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ref(s)

Uzumaki film page @ JPop (archive)

-- Lucia Black (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Frustration with archives

trying to look for the release dates of the 1st edition through the web archive of viz media and for some reaosn, all of the links connecting to the 1st edition don't work. very frustrating. Lucia Black (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

near GA quality (i believe)

@Gabriel Yuji, Rapunzel-bellflower, and Dandy Sephy:

Thanks for all for your work everyone. I believe its very VERY close to GA. The only minor issue is we need to find info on the 1st editions of viz media's release. Other than that, the article looks great. i really hope it passes soon (depending on whoever wants to take the review). Lucia Black (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) How lovely. I'm also wondering if there is a cite for the serialization? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

the magazine serialization? yeah, i'm sure the reviews have covered it in there somewhere. Lucia Black (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The manga apparently covered from Weekly Comic Spirit #7, 1998 upto Weekly Comic Spirit #39, 1999. With the lost chapter being in #9, 2000. Lucia Black (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say the division in the reception section is unnecessary. "Accolades" by instance is not precise as the section includes information on sales. Being more annoying I can say the reception is unnecessarily big: it corresponds to 8,328 out of 20,968 bytes ([1]). A way to simplify it is to try a issue-by-issue rather than reviewer-by-reviewer approach. I saw this commentary and I think it's true. Also, IM(A)O, the grading scheme/numerical value is unnecessary. Well, these all are just opinions... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, i'll do it like that, but theres an issue when certain reviewers aren't covering specific volumes but the manga as a whole. perhaps the series review goes on top and specific volume reviews at the bottom? Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. if theres issues where is where, it can easily be re-organized. Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's difficult to rewrite a reception with a issue-by-issue approach, never mind. Maybe just a trim in the current opiniones; you could try to summarize the reviewer's main opinion on it in sentences as short as possible. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The section is good now. :) But I only want to point out that when I mentioned issue-by-issue I was not referring to volume-by-volume but topic-by-topic, like in the above mentioned link. As a short series, I've tried something similar in Wāqwāq#Reception by grouping similar commentaries from critics. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: If you still prefer the proposed over the current, i can find a way. most of it is just covering the story and art which varies by volume, so i personally believe its best as it is, but i'm willing to change it anyways. Lucia Black (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's just a suggestion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok let me know if you see any issues with the article. Lucia Black (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone can verify any of the other translations: Conrad Editora, Brazil; Tong Li Comics, Hong Kong; Galago, Sweden? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. see what i can find. I'm more concerned with the 1st editions. i'ma bit OCD on it. I'm also trying to look for ways to verify the specific months of the initial Big Comic Spirits serialization.

Spanish publisher official site

-- Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(Conflict) Let the international relase with me. I'm Brazilian, so it's easy to find about Conrad edition; and, I usually add info about other language releases of manga, so I'm used with this kind of research. You can focus on 1st Viz edition. :) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok sounds good to me. Lucia Black (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian, Hong Kong, Swe den, and also South Korean versions. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• vol. 1 1st ed. Amazon
• vol. 2 1st ed. Amazon
• vol. 2 1st ed. Amazon

Finally found them, don't know if their the most high quality sources. but their there. I'll put them in later as i have company (unless anyone here wants to do it). Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for your hard work. I don't think we have too much to work on. Does anyone mind if i put this upto GA review? or are there lingering issues? Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind. :) Personally, I would like to give it one last copyedit before it goes up to GAN. I won't do that right now, since I'm tired now. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, i usually just give it a few days anyways for the sake of it covering the "stability" criteria. Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself, i thought the article looked pretty good and nominated it anyways. i'm sure it will be on hold if theres anything that needs copy-editing. so we'll still be able to get things done either way. Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. :) I noticed that the note I put in the lead for laypersons about seinen manga is gone. I find this a bit upsetting, and wish we could have discussed this first. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower:I didn't think it was that important since there was a link to it already. but if you feel that strongly about it, it could be added again. I'm not really too concerned about it. Lucia Black (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It's one of the small details I usually put in an article to make sure that the general layperson can understand it too. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, if i make an edit without discussing it, and you want to discuss it, i encourage that. I rather discuss it then go through an edit war. Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. :) Discussion is productive, edit wars are not. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

While copyediting ("ce" in the edit summaries) I noticed a few things that I was unclear about:

• Is the second Japanese onmibus edition basically a re-release with some new content?
• The first paragraph in Reception is a mix of sales data and awards. I feel that it would be something a reviewer would comment on.
• Also, the amount of quotes in the reception section is a bit overwhelming, and the numerical scores/grades seem unnecessary to me. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower: There are two omnibus editions (or wide ban in Japan). Both versions include all chapters including the lost chapter, but the second release contains commentary from Masaru Sato, which i find incredibly odd. it seems that the reason for it is to promote the manga adaptation of Masaru Sato's work "The Patriot's Rasputin" which was adapted by Junji Ito himself during the time. I'll try to shorten the quotes, and uses more paraphrasing. I'm reluctant to take off the ranking though. Sales and awards is pretty common in reception. I originally divided it by two subsections: "Sales and accolades" and "Critical", but as pointed out by User:Gabriel Yuji Sales and accolades was too short and possibly inaccurate. Lucia Black (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So, Sato's definitely not the composer then? Darn... I can paraphrase some of the quotes if you'd like. What I meant about the mix of awards and sales data was that I can't remember seeing the two together. Separately, yes.

Also, what makes the Wordpress blog reliable? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower:wordpress blog not so much but Sarah Horrocks was cited in one of the reliable sources in tge RS list of WP:ANIME. i could look for the specific one if you like. Also apparently Masaru Sato (the composer) used to be a diplomat who wrote a book, so it may still be the same person. Lucia Black (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[2] The Comics Journal (reliable source) shows a direct link to the page of Sarah Horrock's review. As for the review section, i could keep the sales on top, and the awards at the bottom. but their both really small. so that's why i kept them together. Lucia Black (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely interesting, but I'm not sure that's enough to include her. Her bio doesn't show anything convincing. I'm going over this now, because I know reviewers look at Wordpress blogs and mark them as unreliable. You can replace her review with this, if you'd like.

Oh my gosh. I am so confused now. I'm leaving the "is he the composer, is he not" matter in your capable hands. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on who is who from wordpress blogs. its like a livejournal from the primary source. But with that said, i dug a little deeper and found that Sarah Horrocks is/was an author for ComicsAlliance and she has received an interview about her previous works, shown here: [3]

I'll just leave Masaru Sato without a link, since i'm not so sure who is who. they both have the exact same name (kanji) but i'll just leave it as is. as for sales and awards, i noticed theres only one peice of sales thats more or less related to the award. so i still think it matches. Lucia Black (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we'll just have to see what the reviewer writes. You might want to add the part about Horrocks writing for Comic Alliance in the reception. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I need a japanese translator for this, [4] interview, it may cover some Uzumaki, or other Junji Ito articles. Lucia Black (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone here can help: Wikipedia:Translators available#Japanese-to-English. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. i just asked someone. Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the first paragraph

The story originated when Ito was attempting to write a story about people living in a very long row house, he came to the conclusion of spiral shape based on a mosquito coil.

Generally speaking, you wouldn't say "spiral shape" is a conclusion. From the context I suspect what was meant was he came to the conclusion that he should write a horror story about spirals, but the previous half of the sentence makes it seem like there's might be more to it (why do we need to know what he was writing a story about at the time? It suggests somehow the previous story is relevant to his selection of spirals as a topic).

76.126.3.199 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No the conclusion of the spiral shape still relates to the previous sentence. Junji Ito concluded he could make the row house really long by giving it a spiral shape. And its important to know because this is what lead to the creation of Uzumaki. Junji ito directly relates this event as to how Uzumaki came to be in two occasions, one in Da Vinci Magazine and again in an episode of Japanorama. Lucia Black (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also if you look carefully, its not divided into two separate sentences, but a single one. what you're seeing is a coma, not a period. Lucia Black (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried tweaking the wording a bit, hopefully it still makes sense. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interview verification

I have removed this likely non-existant source:

• "Ghost Story Roundtable". Da Vinci Magazine. 10 (7): 184, 185. July 2003.

It was added by Lucia Black. It appears to be made up by a Tumblr user. Lucia has not doesn't seem to have verified the existence of the alleged source herself the content of the original article itself and is basing her use of the source upon a clearly unreliable translation from some random Tumblr user (1). Without access to the original text, or a reliable translation, that source shouldn't be used to reference a potentially contested claim in a WP:BLP. I will be awaiting Lucia's proof that this source exists, and supports the statement it is used to reference. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I found out about the interview through fansites in efforts to finding other more reliable sources. A couple of fansites listed this interview in their news feed long before tumblr even existed. So when i searched for the magazine, i found the tumblr translation, but its not the sole reason why i used it. Like i said before Da Vinci Magazine is a real Japanese manga magazine published by Media Factory. Anime News Network sites it multiple times. The link to the magazine site is right here. Further more, in this site proves that the magazine issue exists, with the proper date (although the issue number is different, that isn't abnormal as sometimes the issue number changes when including the volume number). In that link, it lists the contents of the magazine and shows Junji Ito as an Interviewee alongside Junichi Nakano (seventh bullet down)

The information sited in Da Vinci Magazine was was actually cited again in Japanorama. Although it gives a slightly more detail.. Lucia Black (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Lucia, for taking the time to reply constructively to my request for discussion. It means a lot to me that you agree to do this and it reassures me that I was probably wrong to suggest a siteban for you. I retract my concerns over the source's existence, as it does seem that it is real. However, I am still concerned that we reference that interview solely on the basis of an unreliable translation. Have you been able to find the content of the original article (in whole or in part), or any reliable references that mention this interview? I can't seen to find that "Japanorama" you mention which cites the original article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I found out about Japanorama through youtube. The link is here. Junji Ito appears in the episode himself, so it should be considered a first-party source. That and Japanorama aired on BBC and on UKTV, so its not an obscure source. Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Without sourcing directly to Youtube, I do think the Japanorama episode is absolutely a perfect, reliable first-party source for this article!! How about:

• Jonathan Ross interviewing Junji Ito (16 April 2007). "Kaidan". [[Japanorama]] (Documentary series). Vol. Series 3. Hotsauce TV. Retrieved 13 August 2014 – via BBC Choice, BBC Three. {{cite AV media}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

Would that be okay with you? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Its already cited in the article, it would just need to be updated. Lucia Black (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did that. Thanks again for taking the time to talk it out calmly and explaining the situation so that I could help. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned with Da Vinci Magainze exclusion...but for now....i'll let it go. I'll find a way to get the physical copy. Lucia Black (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I'll keep looking also; I'm sure it could be a great source but we unfortunately just cannot rely on a random Tumblr translation. :/ ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The interview was translated by Alexis Glass the same month that the magazine issue was printed.[5] Alexis Glass was a contributing writer to KFC Cinema, a now-defunct but widely referenced source (both in Wikipedia and the relevant scholarly writing) of information and criticism covering Asian cinema. He is, therefore, a reliable source in the field and can be trusted as a translator. I'll note that the volume listing as "No. 111" is backed up by the National Diet Library, though you guys appear to have already covered that angle.--erachima talk 03:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for taking the time to double-check this (and prove me wrong!). I'm glad we were able to improve Wikipedia's reliability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also useful if we don't have them: [6] [7] [8] --erachima talk 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well we now know that it doesn't originate from tumblr. I found another source, but entirely in japanese. so i will need a translator. [9] Let me know if it can be translated. Lucia Black (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing specifically in there about Uzumaki, I'm afraid. Mostly about the new Tomie and some general background. --erachima talk 03:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the episode credits

I think it may be better to ignore the credits in the infobox and instead just list the episodic stuff in the episode table itself, because this show is incredibly confused in how it wants to credit anyone or anything. In the first place, we're dealing with English-translated credits of a show done in a Japanese production pipeline (essentially, we have one series director and various episode directors in charge of processing episodes, versus a showrunner and various directors).

In that respect I'd like to establish a general equivalency of language here and garner any ideas from anyone.

The term "Director" is equivalent to "kantoku" (監督), or "series director." This is the person in charge of overseeing and establishing the work. Now, clearly, there are two people credited, but they're not assumed to be directly involved in processing/directing the episodes themselves.

The term "Episode director" is equivalent to "enshutsu" (演出). As mentioned, this is the person who processes the episode, issues retakes at various points of the episode's production, and decides things that may not be in the storyboards.

The term "Assistant director" has various equivalencies, but none of them are being used as the Japanese pipeline usually uses it. Instead, it seems to have only been used in the first episode to refer to Koucihirou Sohtome's role (he was the "enshutsu", episode director), which he himself described (via the Tweeted source in which I asked him myself).

I believe readers who are unaware of the differences in production models will not understand the difference between "Director" in the episode tables and "Director" in the infobox, so I think it might be best to instead move them together as "Director / Episode director / Storyboard" and have notes in that regard. Since the studio isn't really in question, that's pretty straightforward and those could stay where they are regardless of how many of them there are. Sarca sc (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Anime production issues

Just gonna leave this here. One of the show's executive producers commented on (and then deleted their comments on) the show's production and the drop in quality between episodes 1 and 2.

https://www.cbr.com/uzumaki-producer-episode-2-quality-drop-reveal/

It might be worth trying to move the show's production issues (COVID, the show being stuck in development hell, etc.) into a subsection. — Gestrid (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Given how much there is to talk about, it might actually make sense to create a separate article about the anime. Mlb96 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I'll leave that to someone with more time on their hands, though. — Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)