Talk:Hattifattener

Untitled

Hattifatteners? You've got to be kidding!

Nyoro Nyoro

So you're an anime fan? I guessed it. I think a redirect is okay, but we need to draw a line about which names are notable to mention. For other moomin pages, the current standpoint seems to be that Swedish (original language) and Finnish (due to their part of Finnish culture) is notable, but the rest not that important. If we would start adding other names, it could attract a clutter of all names in a lot of different languages. Anyway, I think it at least needs to be removed from the lead section, to a separate section in the end, or something. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 08:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is, other languages does not carry as much weight as the Japanese version since they made a few animated series and is the main merchandise producer. I did not add in the Chinese translation there since it is less notable even though it is the first version I have watched.(and the Hattifatteners are the most memorable) I would say that the languages of the major producers of the series should be place at the lead section, simply because they are official namings. I guess it would be better to change the currect sentence to the Japanese animation series named them Nyoro Nyoro so it will not encourage people to add in other languages. MythSearcher^talk 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't any translated names official? Besides, doesn't the Japanese name come from the book translations, originally? Since it's not the English name, or the original, I still have my doubts on whether to include it. Maybe it's better to raise the issue on the talk page for the moomin article, though. As a side thought, would you perhaps know what "nyoro nyoro" means? It sounds similar to Japanese sound symbolism, but it could perhaps be a neologism. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I have no idea what nyoro nyoro means. I don't mean it to be just a translated official name, I mean it is one of the commonly used name by one of the major producers, even if it came from an earlier translation, it still carry quite a lot of weight due to it being one of the episode name. Raising the issue there might be a good idea, though this is the only character I found to have a different name in the Japanese version. Others might exist, but this is the only one I am interested in and yet the name is different. MythSearcher^talk 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The anime is still an adaptation of the original material. That a Japanese episode has the name Nyoro Nyoro, I find irrelevant. The merchandise is another point, but I'm still doubtful. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see if anyone else pops up and add in more languages, or delete the Japanese entry, if nothing happens, then I find it perfectly okay to place it there, if something happens because of the statement, and it is bad, then I guess we can move it to somewhere else other than the lead section. MythSearcher^talk 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds alright, I guess. Nothing to start an edit war about. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

Hey! If some godforsaken Pikachu has its page a kilometer long, so should the hattifatteners (even though the English-translated name does sound very very funny). It's definitely notable in countries where Moomins have gained wide popularity. There's still plenty to tell about them, such as in which episodes they appear and how, how they've been used elsewhere "in popular culture" etc. Just see any pokemon page. --Sigmundur (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Moomin's not some damned anime; I watched it before no one had heard about anime yet... or something. Anyways, it's not from Japan and it was made before today's non-japanese anime. --Sigmundur (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinion aside, the anime is made by the Japanese, deal with it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is meant to be a joke, but I fear it isn't. The fact that someone has written one bad article is not a justification for writing another bad article. Why on earth should an encyclopedia article give such absurd trivial details as each episode particular character appears in? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)