Talk:School Rumble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSchool Rumble is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 26, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 5, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 16, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 4, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 8, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 30, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Refs dump[edit]

Season 2 DVD complete set Mania.com --KrebMarkt 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Active Anime vol. 14-16 Mania.com vol. 14-16

Third Semester[edit]

Any word from Funimation about when are they going to get around to releasing Third Semester? --TheHande (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed them about this back in November 2009:
RE: School Rumble Third Term DVD release?
From: Feedback Manager <[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi xxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your email and interest in FUNimation. We do not have any plans for Third Term at this time.
Stay connected with FUNimation by visiting blog.FUNimation.com.
You can also find us on Facebook and YouTube.
Rojas
Feedback Manager
FUNimation Entertainment

Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxxxx [1]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:27 AM
To: Feedback Manager
Subject: School Rumble Third Term DVD release?
Hello,
I know you are releasing the School Rumble DVD Most Awesomest Collection on December 8, but am curious as to what your plans are for releasing the Third Term, given that it only had episodes 25-26 animated and summaries for "episodes" 1-24 were posted officially. Also, are you planning to release all of the School Rumble anime together at a later date?


Thanks,
xxxxxxxxxx
BrokenSphereMsg me 17:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for not to replacing vol.13 to vol.1?[edit]

I honestly don't see that big of a reason to not replace the random vol. to a more consistent and practical number such as the first (or last) volume. If it's for characters, i doubt it will hurt the article in anyway.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also for the artistic reason. Vol 1 does not really give a good show of his artisitc style, something that cannot be described without WP:OR. If you saw the first volume cover, you'd know why. Combined with the fact it would also bias readers into thinking tenma=main protagonist and harima=not main protagonist. Beleive me, I've seen this bias out there based on the vol1 cover. Those are also considerations when deciding what kind of image to show. #1 =/= cannot be anything else ever. It just means there needs to be a good reason. It was brought up at the FAC a couple of times and after I explained things, no one objected.∞陣内Jinnai 14:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But let's think about it, artistic style. I don't think we need to worry too much about "bias readers" but the fact, that the anime clip shows the level of art style doesn't seem that big of an issue. I just think it's a lil too subjective...alot subjective. I just don't think changing it will hurt the FA-class at all...it just seems like a lil bonus even though we do have a lil anime clip.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do need to be worried about biasing readings per WP:NPOV (yes it deals with text, but you can have NPOV violations with images too, just far less common). The first volume cover does not present in this case the most neutral version of the things. There is no hard-and-fast rule where volumes 1s must be placed on the top with no exceptions ever. This is a valid case. I've had this discussion at WP:WAF and at the FACs, at the GA, at several other disucssions that deal with images and pretty much without dissent (and those who did were basically arguing WP:FAIR requirements for all fair-use images in the box to have detailed discussions about the artwork). Therefore volume 13 here has a very wide consensus as an exception to the rule for all the reasons given above.∞陣内Jinnai 23:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OF what things does not properly? I mean, there have been various series where not all the characters appear in the cover. Volume 13 just looks completely random. IF we go by that logic, why not just use a Free image of the two characters instead?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just alot more in-story relevance rather than franchise-wise. Isn't that why we use NFC images such as Manga/DVD/Light Novel Covers?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there have been plenty of series where there aren't all the major characters on the cover. Usually those are where the major antagonist isn't depecited. SR doesn't have a real antagonist. First covers do tend to try and depict the main protagonist(s) in general. SR doesn't do that and it has biased people (and even a few reviewers out there in the past) to believing there is only 1 main character, Tenma, and someone like Harima is only a supporting character. Also first covers also try to depict the artstyle for the artwork, the first cover doesn't do that. The first cover isn't always the best choice just because its first.∞陣内Jinnai 14:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked though all of the covers on Amazon JP and vol 13 is the second appearance of main heroin, Tenma, on the cover. The one main reason why I can think of not using the vol 1 cover is because its art style is completely out of place with the rest of the volume covers. Therefore, it does not depict what a typical School Rumble volume cover looks like and would be inadequate in identifying the series, which is the main purpose of the lead image. In this instance, picking a cover that is consistent with the art designs of the other volumes is more important than using the "first cover". And since we do want to use a cover with the main heroin on it, volume 13 is the best cover. —Farix (t | c) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not use the last volume? Which happens to have more characters including the main heroin.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, still heavy on the subjective view. The only thing that breaks the art style of the other covers is that it has a close up of the main character. Consistent with art design to what degree?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The style used for Tenma is also not the one used mostly throughout the series. You'll note she looks different in the vol 13 cover. As for an alternative cover to 13 (other than 1), There's no reason to change that unless it does something this one doesn't do better. Showing every character would be something more for the character page.∞陣内Jinnai 15:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOw that's too subjective, even for you...so she looks different? Wasn't the main point you were trying to say is that this cover has more than the first? BUt when i mention the last, it just happens to be shrugged off?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My points were:
  1. It showed the 2 main characters. While there is some subjectivity to that, its been confirmed by others, including RSes.
  2. The art style doesn't show the overall art style of the series and volume 13 does.
Now later ones including more characters does not contradict that statement because my reasoning for that was that the first volume would (and has already) biased people into believing their is only 1 main character in addition to the art style not being the primary art style of the manga. If you go with Farix's definition that only the art style is the criteria, then yes a later cover with more indivisuals could be better. I'd say its not.∞陣内Jinnai 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And my pionts are:
  1. Volume 1's cover does not match the style used by all later volumes and would not serve to identify the series to the reader.
  2. Volume 13's cover is the earliest cover that both features the main heroin and matches the style used by all volumes except for the first. There is simply no need to go with a later volume.
On top of that volume 22's cover doesn't have a very good depiction of half of the characters to begin with since they are in "insane laughter" mode, expectantly of the main heroin. —Farix (t | c) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safer, not to add any personal opinion on style, and art, and why volume 13 is best over volume 1 or 22. There is ALOT more subjectivity than you realize. Jinnai, you only admitted subjectivity to your first point and again shrug it off on your second. The Farix, it's not the need to go for a "later" volume, just a lil more reasonable number to use. It's quite random volume for various subjective reasons. and depiction of the characters? I highly doubt that's valid. The problem is...it's too subjective.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the first volume is also subjective, ie that it conforms to others. That is a subjective viewpoint in that conforming to others is better.∞陣内Jinnai 21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BN, you basically asked why a later volume was chosen as the lead image over the first volume. Jinnai and I have given our own reasons as to why this is appropriate for this article. May I remind you that there is no guideline specifying that the first volume cover be the lead image. In fact, the only guidance is that the image be "a movie poster, a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or another related image." There is no expressed preference for the first volume nor is there an expressed preference for Japanese-language vs. English-language covers. It comes down to which cover do editors think best represents to subject. But point that because other articles predominantly using the first volume cover means that this article should is basically an other stuff argument. —Farix (t | c) 02:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinnai, in what way is it subjective? the difference is the image shows the very first piece of media. Or last to show the final piece. The things you're worried about aren't the same, because they're more worried about different elements. Looking into things way too deeply.

@The Farix, i'm not talking about just "any" late volume. Still, i think we're at the point where this is only supported by personal preference. Which is why we should just stick to the standard.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. There are valid reasons for not using the first (or last) that both I and Farix have pointed out and others (in previous dicussions) have agreed with.∞陣内Jinnai 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but it's gotten too subjective, it's subjectively valid by putting importance to some things, and making excuses for not using the other and i say that because, you're suggesting that the last volume is also breaks from the other volumes. Again, it sort of defeats the purpose of even using non free media...if we want to make the lead image be about in-story or the most subjective thing, then we might aswell not use non-free images at all and just use free media.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a matter of subjectivity in creating an article and chosing what image to use. FE: Japanese over English. Chosing to keep the Japanese volume even when there is an English volume out and more likely to be the one the English speaking world identifies with is a subjective decision and yet we do that all the time with anime and manga articles. There's no policy or guideline that says we have to use English covers and so subjective decisions are made. This is not that much different.∞陣内Jinnai 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you see where this is going? You're saying "we make subjective reasons in order to make exceptions" But how does that make it valid?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point is that we never make any objective decision. All of the decisions about what image to use is subjective. FE: Sailor Moon does not use the manga vol 1 image. It is because we have such a vague policy and guideline that any choice is subjective and ultimately a case-by-case situation. In many cases vol 1 can suffice. However, consensus can make exceptions both broadly and locally. This has been done here in the past and currently. (Myself and Farix for different reasons think this is okay. You have an issue with it. Given the past situation, Wikipedia tends to want things to be left alone.∞陣内Jinnai 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANd that's where we differ, I want a standard with images, you want don't want one. And frankly, to me, that's a lot to ask. To me exceptions would have to be broad enough to be a standard for a certain media or not at all, or the media itself was promoted or produced or has a certain info that differs from the standard. To be honest, you've taken it too far just to prove this point. I still object to Sailor Moon, but it's free media, so it's most likely going to stay. And the one and only thing i hate is the lack of urgency when it comes to certain topics like these. I'm always discussing these things practically alone. And i don't agree the guidelines are meant to be vague for the sake of having exceptions such as these.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's put it this way. You have been the only person to raise serious objections to the image since it was put into place. There were some raised at the FAC, but everyone there seemed satisified. I'd say you're alone in thinking the image should be changed.∞陣内Jinnai 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only alone at the moment because there's no other people joining in, it was a long time. ANd for the record, at least i'm consistent, and trying not to rely on subjectivity (and keep things to have a standard). You admit, you look for the exception, so don't you think that shows a sense of bias?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency for the sake of consistency? That's not the best argument either. That's not how Wikipedia works.∞陣内Jinnai 02:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency for the sake of not being bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is using a later volume cover which is more suitable to identify the series showing WP:BIAS or WP:NPOV? Are you suggesting that the lead images in animanga articles are purely decorative and is not there to identify their subjects? —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again Farix it's not about using just any late volume between first and last, i do believe last is to help show the series was complete. However, I don't think they're decorative, and do notify their subjects, but what their subjects are? IN-universe related, artistic style, facial expressions? These are things we're deciding for ourselves. Not what is really confirmed or not. Subject to "in-universe" is what you make of it. In third person view, it is a series,franchise, media, whatever you wish to call it. You want the image to take care of that aswell. I myself find it stepping it closer to in-universe. that and i find the reasoning way too subjective...it transcends beyond normal reasoning in my opinion because it relies on in-universe aspects.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe is only really a concern when it deals with WP:PLOT. Here it is an editoral decision in the same way we go ahead and chose what words to use on a page to summarize sources. That is a subjective decision and thus there is no reason to say that being subjective here is anything different from the editorial decision editors make every moment on article text. There is a consensus here, it can and has been argued and found to have validity by others who have no vested interest in this article.∞陣内Jinnai 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it deals with more things...And, what i'm saying isn't as subjective as you may think.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to agree to disagree because you're not going to change my mind (and it doesn't appear to change Farix's) and neither of us seem to be able to change yours.∞陣内Jinnai 19:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think i'm making a valid point regardless. You're focuses on in-universe and highly subjective things... and it's not the general things to worry about. I mean, at least, if we're going to argue about subjective things such as this, it would have to at least be because the article differs greatly. If not, then you're going against the standard, for lil reasons, and if we go by that, should we change all the other front covers? it's more than the common exception, it's an exception for the sake of being an exception.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether another cover should be changed should be done on a case-by-case basis.∞陣内Jinnai 04:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the article itself differs from the standard. In which case, the reasons for this can happen to any article. and i'm not saying that's a good thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't honestly think of another exception like this. Therefore your assertions that anything can be used I find a bit far-fetched.∞陣内Jinnai 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If i were to rely on subjective things such as that, Claymore and Arakawa Under the Bridge come to mind right on the spot. The constant evolving of artwork of long running series would make all the other series make original artwork differ greatly between the changes. It's too subjective still...video games often just show a logo on a cover, and i know they are two different medias, but they are both media focused on visuals.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on School Rumble. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on School Rumble. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on School Rumble. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed that Media Factory took legal action to defend its Intellectual Property.[edit]

In the third paragraph The article states that Media Factory aggressively pursued its intellectual property without providing a source that they did so. Nanoic (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check the 'Controversies' section. Lead doesn't need citations when the content is sourced in the body of the article. Xexerss (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"School Rumble(video game)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect School Rumble(video game) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § School Rumble(video game) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_Rumble&oldid=1208217545"