Talk:Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conflict of interest

• I recently made a few edits on this article; I have a conflict of interest to declare: I am the lead translator of insani, and thus the translator who handled the English fan translation of the work. While there are some things in my edit that are beyond dispute -- "hoshi", for instance, does indeed stand interchangeably for "star" or "heavenly body" or "planetary body" -- others I am left not so sure about (in terms of NPOV). Each Zeiss projector has a very distinctive physical layout, and the layout of "Miss Jena", to my eyes, corresponds precisely to the Mk. 2; however, although Reverie does bear a Japanese name in the original, and the department store she operates in likewise bears a Japanese name, we cannot necessarily deduce from that that the piece is set in Japan (that said, in my mind at least it is the only logical conclusion that we are in Japan). Anyway, please comment and/or edit as you deem necessary. --Gp32 23:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Have just removed mention of the fan translation groups involved in the production from the introduction. These are non-notable, and in my mind skate too close to vanity for comfort. I have discussed this issue with Haeleth before, and both of us agree on this course of action. Again, please see conflict of interest disclaimer above. --Gp32 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Three points:

1. The English subtitle is unofficial and thus should not be used.
2. The total lower capping seems to but more of a stylized formating and shouldn't be forced. It has been determined that all cap titles should not be used, and I think the reverse applies as well.
3. Changed the tildes to a colon spacing. It's a more logical way of writing out subtitles in English.--SeizureDog 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The tile is to be capitalized as per MOS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).

Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized--SeizureDog 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Homo Planetariens?

I thought this was vandelism at first. Is the homo like Homo sapiens?--SeizureDog 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would believe so, it fits with the Japanese. Though where that translation comes from, I don't know. _dk 13:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't fit that well. The Japanese is more along the lines of "Starman". I wonder if it's actually used or if it's unofficial.--SeizureDog 13:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The translator from insani provided the information in this edit and it hasn't changed much since. Perhaps we should change it to Starman?--十八 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Man of the Stars". _dk 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not translating as much as possible. It confuses me on what's official and what's not. The title should read "Hoshi no Hito" (星の人, Man of the Stars), but we can refer the character itself as "man of the stars" in the prose. I'll also mention that we've seem to have forgotten that short stories get quotes around them.--SeizureDog 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have nominated this article for Good Article status.--十八 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

flechette gun?

I know the English translation project uses this but it's not a fitting translation. In the game the weapon was first introduced as a "単装榴弾銃" (tansouryuudanjuu - lit. single round grenade gun with a reading of "グレネーダー” (Gureneedaa - Grenader). Clearly it should be interpreated as a "grenade launcher". 22:27, 29 April.

Ah all right; didn't know the official designation; changed.--十八 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold

This article has been put on hold as although it is of very best quality, this article could still use another section that explains how the visual novel was developed and if possible how the topic has influenced pop culter. Feel free to contact me when these concers have been addressed. Tarret 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I think that the character overviews should be removed/trimmed down, but otherwise this is OK.

2. Factually accurate?: There are a LOT of unsourced statements. 10 sources really isn't enough. Try to cite more quotes from the anime (like ref 8). A few random unsourced statements include: In the original version, Yumemi is only voiced during the beginning and ending scenes, while other characters are not voiced. When Planetarian was released for the PC playable as a CD-ROM, Yumemi had full voice acting.
While dodging detection from killer machines, the junker enters a building with a dome on the roof to search for usable supplies. Inside the dome, he meets Yumemi, who offers to show him a special commemorative projection especially reserved for the 2,500,000th customer, although he is in fact the 2,497,290th customer (Storyline section needs HEAVY referencing to prevent OR claims)
"Hoshi no Sekai ~Opening~" refers to the Japanese version of the hymn, named "Hoshinoyo", and "Itsukushimi Fukaki" is the Japanese translation of the hymn's original title.
I've added the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Unreferenced GA task force/Nominations

3. Broad in coverage?: Y - Although you may not need that much on characters.

4. Neutral point of view?: Y

5. Article stability? Y

6. Images?: Y

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy _U^CP 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(For the record) I do not agree that the characters section needs to be trimmed down as there are only those four that really mean anything to the plot (there are some other characters, but they're too minor, and they weren't even given names). Other than our disagreement on the characters section, I agree with your review on point 2 for the most part, but the story cannot be referenced with the primary material since I've never seen anyone cite a computer game before. And lastly, there was never an anime adaptation.--十八 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GA re-nomination

Third times the charm I always say.--十八 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed again. There are is a shortage of reliable sources. Some of the info appears to be personal observations from watching the program. There is a shortage of any sources. Some of the sources are blogs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that only one of the fourteen sources comes from a blogger (which I just removed anyway for the sake of it), and as for "personal observations", I was not aware that character and plot summaries had to be cited now! If that were the case, then how do you explain featured articles going by without citing plot and character information: The Old Man and the Sea#Plot summary, The Country Wife#Plots, The Lord of the Rings#Synopsis? I'm sorry if I feel annoyed, but pointing out this "personal observations" retract it from becoming a GA is absolutely ridiculous in regards to plot and character summaries, and since those are the only places in this article were personal observatins of the work come from, then I have no other choice but to assume this is what you are implying the personal observations apply to. I just think the fail was much too quick this time, and the points of why it failed make no sense to me.--十八 11:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourth nom

The last nomination was not only too quick to fail, but it was almost entirely unfair, as I have outlined above.--十八 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: one or two minor grammatical errors, but overall well written

2. Factually accurate?: not enough references; and the existing references need to be filled out as much as possible with work, date, author fields, etc according to the Cite Web format.

3. Broad in coverage?: yep.

4. Neutral point of view?: yep.

5. Article stability? no edit wars, etc.

6. Images?: all have fair use/ free license.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

and in response to citing the video game itself: you can do it (see FA class articles Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 and their story sections). David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I believe nearly everything in this article that needed a reference has one, so saying that there aren't enough references isn't exactly fair when there isn't much left to reference. And also, most of the references don't need things like "date" or "author" fields, simply because they do not apply. And also, it might as well be impossible to get direct quote translations from the game since if one person were to do it, they'd have to find the same scene in the original Japanese text and the translated text from the English patch, but that can only be done after uninstalling the English patch so that the Japanese text would be visable, so doing that even once would be tiresome enough, since the English patch would have to be reinstalled again for the next translation, and not to mention that it'd be hard enough to find the specific scenes needed that you're trying to quote in the article in the first place.--十八 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pass it, but note that the lack of references for character and story sections could be an issue at FAC. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion, though I doubt this article will ever make it to FA, though who knows?--十八 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Type of Planetarium Projector

I just finished this VN and I'm curious of what model is the projector, so I did a little research. The only information given in the game is that the projector was made by Carl Zeiss - Jena, which implies that it must be manufactured before the company split at the aftermath of WWII. You can also see what the projector look like.

Now, looking at this german site: http://www.planetariumsclub.de/content/category/7/32/46/ I assumes that it was a Zeiss Modell II, since appearantely model IV was produced after WWII. (I dont speak Grman, so I could be mistaken.) I googled some more and found this page: http://www.savethebuhl.org/jake.html which moreless convinces me of my findings.

If anyone can confirm it and add it to the article, I'd be grateful. 220.237.14.177 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that's interesting, but without the game explicitely saying which model it was, any research would be considered original and would not be able to be added to the article.--十八 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's alright. (I did say it's my research above, sorry for being unaware of original research criteria. If it's allowed to live on this talk page, curious individuals could get it.) On further research, it's not a model II actually.... the look on the lenses are different, there's electronic control, and the little balls near the axis doesn't exist on a Model II. Now that I look again, the 'Jena' in "Carl Zeiss - Jena" doesnt necessarily mean the original pre berlin wall company. It strongly resembles a Model IV but I wouldnt say anything further than that, since the designer could mix up projector design himself. The only thing confirmed would be that it IS a Zeiss planetarium projector. Sorry if this annoys anyone. 220.237.10.170 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There several sections, notably plot and those relating to it, that could be condensed. Some hyphenated words and other words to avoid, most notably in the plot related sections.

   Since I wasn't clear, I'll mention the hyphenated word I was refering to: automatically-saved, short-lived, nearly-abandoned.

   Other problems have to due with stuff like in gameplay "Another option includes choosing to save at any time, but there are only five save slots available." which appears to make a judgment call on the number of save slots.

   Other problems are stuff like: The length of Planetarian's story is very short and is the shortest of Key's games.

   Finally not sure that referencing to the Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws is relevant unless their is some indication Yumemi was based around her in creation concept or her devotion is compared to it. I think it may be okay as a "see also" though given the strong tendancies of her.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   While I realize visual-novels.net could be seen as a lexicon for information about various visual novel, I'm not certain the reviews qualify as RS material. Is there any reason to support the reviewer or the site itself being quoted for its reviews? Fixed - ref removed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The plot and characters section needs rework. The plot seems overly detailed given the length of the visual novel and there is no need to list minor characters in the character section; there info can be merged with the plot where they are notable. Fixed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images are tagged, but the fair use rationale is very poor and does not even list the who the copyright holder is and why it's use in the article is relevant. Fixed See Popotan for good idea what a solid fair-use rationale is. Also there is no need for 2 screenshots shown as they are nearly identical. Given their similarity, one is enough to suffice to give an idea how the visual novel looks. Fixed

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are some problems, but nothing here looks like it should be too hard to deal with so I'm putting this on hold.

• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

Discussion

I attempted to condense anything I thought overly detailed or superfluous from the character and story sections. I removed the review from visual-novels.net. I removed the extra screenshot, and updated the FURs in the other two fair-use images.--十八 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted the image and ref removal. Will check over the rest in a bit.陣内_Jinnai 02:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Added commentary in the section.陣内_Jinnai 03:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I copyedited per your suggestions.--十八 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did some edits myself. You should check them over, but I think they should mostly be fine. I'm going to pass this as if there is prose issues, they're minor.陣内_Jinnai 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)