From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Samurai Champloo is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

• Archive1
• Archive2

Contents 1 Plot Section 2 Director Trademarks 3 Video Game 4 On neutrality, comparisons with Cowboy Bebop and describing Watanabe as "famous" 5 Episodes 6 Delete cast section 7 Censorship methods 8 Major revision on October 2, 2006 8.1 Follow up revisions 9 The lack of references is disturbing(?) 10 (Off Topic) Broadcast over Free-TV Germany

[edit] Plot Section

...needs serious work. It doesn't give any sort of information about the plot whatsoever, it's more of a short essay listing instances of "you can't run away from the past", an opinion as to the theme. Its reading requires a LARGE amount of knowledge about the series. It's all about this person's opinion of the theme, again. --Naruttebayo 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Someone does need to pretty much redo the plot-- the plot is actually fairly simple, to a degree, yet the section doesn't get that across well. --Melissia 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Director Trademarks

I think that director trademarks should be removed and instead put into Watanabe's own page. I haven't changed anything because I wanted to get a second opinion first.

[edit] Video Game

The article states that the video game was scheduled for release yesterday. Did it come out? And if so, this shouldn't go in the article, but is it any good?  :) ~--Resister 03:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reviews so far are quite positive, which is a bit of a surprise as I never expect too much out of videogame adaptations of anime. --Antrophica 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I own the videogame: it's a very unique game, to say the least. I don't feel like writing a review for it, though... however, you may use swords other than Jin's katana and Mugen's Typhoon Swell, though they have limited durability. I believe they're all supposed to be more powerful than the origonal swords, in some way or another. One weapon, "Silver Axe", allows you to collect money faster, for instance. Another thing is, and this being the most unique one, you can buy vinyl records, which you can change during the game to alter what combos, attacks, and fightingstances you have. You equip two of them at a time, and change between them any time during combat. That's about as in depth as I feel like going into it, for now. The story is designed so that it could easilly be a real episode (or several episodes). Melissia 11:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a videogame, so maybe it deserves its own article. I'd get down to writing one, if I weren't having problems with my PS2 at the moment. --Antrophica 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I own the game, but I'm not exactly sure if I want to make an article about it. That paragraph above is probably the longest description I can immagine without giving spoilers, and I haven't actually completed the game, myself....Melissia 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If we can't write enough about the game we'll just make it a section of this article. --Antrophica 14:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On neutrality, comparisons with Cowboy Bebop and describing Watanabe as "famous"

Here it is. I have absolutely NO IDEA waht this is a about, but... --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"rw. - unless reality bended while I was asleep, comparisons may be made in an encyclopedia if they're constructive and unbiased"

Sorry, but comparing art is not the station of an encyclopaedia. Drawing similarities between Samurai Champloo and Cowboy Bebop, however self-evident they may be to you, is still interpretation. Comparative statements in art differ from, say, comparative statements in science which this is clearly not.

59.167.29.120

When your show has been playing on one station for five straight years because of high ratings, then you are famous. When your next project is greenlighted and licensed by a foreign distributor before it has even begun production, then you are famous. And I don't think we're comparing art so much as we're comparing fact. If anything qualifies for deletion because its interpretation, it's the "Visual metaphors" section, which I probably should never have written. --Antrophica 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The visual metaphors are fun though... just saying. -- Makaio 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, too, that's why I created the section, but they probably go against WP rules as personal interpretation is fancruft. --Antrophica 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you didn't give a reasoned response to my statement. I said "Drawing similarities between Samurai Champloo and Cowboy Bebop, however self-evident they may be to you, is still interpretation". Your response was "no they're not." You haven't given any reasons why such comparisons should be made. I remind you that reverting articles due to dogma is against Wikipedia standards.

2. On the subject of "famous", I shall justify myself since you have mentioned it. Famous is a loaded term. What is famous? George Bush is famous. Would the guy at the bus station know of Shirichiro Watanabe? Maybe not, but he might know of George Bush. But then again, he might not also. You see my point, it is ambiguous.

Perhaps we qualify it: "of Cowboy Bebop fame, where fame means he is known to people within Japan." But would a Japanese rice farmer with no television know of Shirichiro Watanabe? Perhaps not. But perhaps yes. how about "where fame means he is known within the anime community?" But how do you presume to know (where to know = fact), the collective tastes of the (so-called) anime community? You see my point, "famous" is ambiguous and is not fact and based on supposition and opinion. Therefore, we should not make this judgment call of referring to Watanabe as having "fame".

203.10.77.190

He's famous in the anime medium. That's enough. I'm not calling Watanabe famous out of dogma. I'm calling him famous because he is famous and your edits make those portions of the article so boring it'd put a hyperactive kid with a mouthful of chocolate to sleep. If you've got a problem with Watanabe being famous for Cowboy Bebop, then reword the sentence more interestingly. To me, this isn't a problem with whether we call Watanabe famous, because he is, so it doesn't matter if we state it or not. My problem is with your banal paragraphs that drain the vivacity out out of an interesting lead. This may be an encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean we're striving for pedantic terseness.

Additionally, you haven't explained why you think the comparison between Bebop and Champloo is artistic. "There's no running from the past" is a simple, clear cut formula of Watanabe's. It's like comparing Pulp Fiction to Reservoir Dogs.

--Antrophica 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you didn't respond to my statement. I said "famous is a loaded term" and "famous is ambiguous" which invites you to respond by showing that 1. famous is not a loaded term but a defined one and 2. that we can apply this definition to Watanabe. You didn't try to define fame for me, nor did you give any reasons why Watabe should be considered famous. You said he is famous within the anime medium but my previous argument addressed the issue of trying to qualify fame by imparting it to niche communities.

To use a present example, you argue that Champloo is famous because it has been playing for five straight years. What if it had been playing for four years? Would it still be famous? Or three? Or two? Or four months? How many years must a series run before it is "famous"? At what point does fame cease? Where is the line between what is famous and what is not and why? You see my point, it is ambiguous.

You also contradicted yourself by saying "I'm not calling Watanabe famous out of dogma...I'm calling him famous because he is famous." Your general argument seems to be that he is famous because he is. That is dogma. I should report you to the Wikipedia admin.

2. The comparison between Champloo and Bebop is artistic because they are both works of art (I assumed this was self-evident). They are certainly not science. Art comparisons belong in comparative literature or art criticism publications, specialist media sites or fan sites. You should not, for example, see an encyclopaedia comparing the narrative structures of Shakespeare to Chaucer or the appearing briefcase in Pulp Fiction to the one in Reservoir Dogs. These kinds of statements derive from interpretation, not fact. Hence, I don't think they are appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry.

You seem to have a problem with the article because, in your opinion, it is boring, uninteresting and pedantic. In that case, I suggest you start a fansite of your own where you may indulge in florid, esoteric descriptions with as much vivacity as you like. But (and I speak for only myself and what I think, I do not speak on behalf of Wiki or anyone) I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to be written primarily with entertainment value in mind and with a greater priority than factual accuracy or neutrality. Facts and neutrality come first. Factual, neutral writing can be engaging but it should not sacrifice factual accuracy or neutrality to do so.

203.10.77.190

There's no need to keep apologizing me, even though this might seem like a mistake on your part once it's over. I'm a supporter of the genenral nonexistence of fancruft, so I'm not exactly the kind of person who would build a florid fan site. Part of the criteria for Featured Articles is that the article is well-written and compelling. The Samurai Champloo article certainly could use an overhaul, but while I'm trying to give it a fighting chance you're taking it away by reducing paragraphs to stubs because they compare elements of a director's previous work to another. Ridiculous. We may acknowledge identical elements separately, but not compare them within one article? Your pedantic terseness is a menace to the prose of this article. --Antrophica 06:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Then I wish you the best in your project to acquire featured article status for the Samurai Champloo entry.

203.10.77.190

Gracias. --Antrophica 07:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I especially look forward to seeing you present your case for featured status to the the Wiki community who will no doubt accept nothing less than reasonable, logical, undogmatic persuasion. Our discussion has shown me your level of rational debate and willingness to cooperate with other Wiki members and accept their input without insulting them. I am sure the kinds of statement you have made above will go down really well with the Wiki community when you ask them to bestow featured status on this article. Meanwhile, the article continues to...expand. 203.10.77.190

I'm glad you hold me in such high regard. --Antrophica 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I have never seen anyone attract so much crap from people who are arguing over nothing. It's like your name acts as a magnet for bitching. --Makaio 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's the same person who's got my number! --Antrophica 05:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

Should we start considering making episode summaries? Cause I'm going to make a page so we can start working on them. --Makaio 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I made a new archive. Hurray! --Makaio 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I came here hoping Wikipedia had a Samurai Champloo episode summary. So...get on it!

The first 12 episodes now have complete summaries with no pictures, while some pictures have been added onto summaries 13-26 to see the effect. The effect looks good so we'll probably add pictures to the first 12 summaries. -- Makaio 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete cast section

WP:ANIME says: "A listing of the main characters follows the plot summary, with basic character descriptions and voice actor credits (if applicable; see Voiced by: [[{{{1}}}]] ) There is no need to create a separate voice actor section." We surely do not need every single minor cast member listed for the english dub. If these are mentioned on the characters pages, it can be removed. If they're not listed then can be added and then removed. --Kunzite 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Miss Ethereal 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Agree. I came to this discussion page to say that it's really distracting. If someone (like me) is reading from top-to-bottom, the Cast page is useless. It should be moved to the bottom or deleted, with an external link pointing to the list elsewhere on the Internet. –Gunslinger47 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. –Gunslinger47 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the voices been added already? -- Makaio 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship methods

Moving the censorship methods section to the episode page because it has to do with the episodes and it doesn't need to be mentioned but once. -- Makaio 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision on October 2, 2006

Okay, I just removed a fairly large percentage of the article in one stroke, so I feel I should justify my actions. Suffice to say, I think the article was headed in the wrong direction as far as adhering to GA and FA standards. The article has no mention of critical or fan reception, influence, production, translation, or other sections normally found in GAs and FAs. I haven't found anything analagous to the "Visual metaphor" section in any other high-quality articles about television shows. We were approaching something like a section on themes, which is of course acceptable, but we weren't looking at the series as a whole, instead listing minor symbols as they appear in episodes. We might be on to something with the Fire/Water=Mugen/Jin thing, but even that seems more applicable to the character page.

I'd really like to help this article on a great series become a great article. I hope this initial step can lead us in that direction. El Cid 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up revisions

As an avid fan of the show, I was inspired when I saw this post, but discouraged that there wasn't much of a follow up to it. I noticed that Samurai Champloo's entry is missing many of the elements found in other anime pages and likewise wanted "to help this article on a great series become a great article." To that end I've cleaned it up a bit. I've added a section on the style and setting and another on distribution and reception. These were constructed using elements that were originally in, what seemed to me, an overly long introduction. I've also added a few things. I'm hoping to make this article a little more manageable and also a little broader in its depth. SpiderMMB 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lack of references is disturbing(?)

Please add them to the article where needed. Otherwise, parts of the article maybe deleted due to non-compliance.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have just run through the article as it appears today - 5 December 2006 (UTC) - and it is currently referenced. If you aren't used to editing articles from motion pictures, anime, etc., it may not seem it - any unreferenced information in this article comes directly from the anime itself. I have added a note to this effect. --User:AsukaSeagull

Not good enough. You need specifics, and some of the stuff is dangerously close to being original research. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a stupid rule, if you couldn't directly reference the thing which the article is talking about. But you can. Please, though, feel free to flag those sections which you believe need references. --Melissia 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, Around 100 percent (give or take 0 percent) of articles about anime, movie, and Tv series reference the origonal material. It's much like saying: "You can't quote from Hamlet. you can only quote from things OTHER PEOPLE have said about Hamlet." --Melissia 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response from the user who flagged it in a resonable amount of tiem, and since I believe the article itself does not need to be flagged as origonal research, I'm removing the flag. Instead, If you wish to continue protesting the supposed origonal research, please flag specific sections that you believe need sources, and those interested will look them up. Much the same as you would reference Macbeth itself when making an article about Macbeth, much of, if not all of this article references the Anime itself.

As I said, however, please feel free to flag appropriate SECTIONS of this article that you think is origonal research. --Melissia 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Off Topic) Broadcast over Free-TV Germany

I appologize for posting the comment here, but I do find it important for viewers of Germany who might be reading this discussion not to loose a good opportunity.

Interesting for those living in Germany: Samurai Champloo is currently running on Thursdays around midnight (in other words, thursday through to friday). TV Channel is "VOX", the actually primary adult-anime broadcaster (RTL2 shows animes for younger audience, for your information).

Next batch of episodes will be broadcasted on the 8th of March 2007.

Another offtopic remark. LupinIII will be the next coming on Friday in the so-called DHCP-Nachtklub, featuring a batch of episodes starting from Friday through Saturday. Jackpayback 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)