Talk:Sakura Wars/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It seems to me that the article would be best served if it was split—the anime section would certainly make a separate article of its own. DocWatson42 07:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Might consider redirecting the comment regarding the localization and release of Sakura Tasien 5 Episode 0. Well over a year after its release and the release of ST5, the game is still no more likely to be released to the US. It might also be beneficial to add notes to Atsuki Chishio Ni, Sakura Taisen 3, ST5 E0 (and STV itself?) noting the Chinese and Korean releases of those titles (first localized releases of the games outside of Japan.)

Contents

Page Clean-up and Reconstruction

I had cleaned and removed much of the information that was previously in this entry, as I also felt that it was time to place them in separate pages. There are still a few more sections to be added, such as reception and related media, which I am currently conducting research on. If someone could please provide information for those sections, please do so. The infobox should probably be cleaned up as well. Screenshots of the different Sakura Taisen groups would also be beneficial.

As was mentioned before, I intend to place the information about the games, animes, and the live action musicals in a list of Sakura Taisen media, similar in form to the Final Fantasy Wikipedia list. However, if someone would like to jump start on that page, his/her help is highly appreciated.

Jay 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the reception and an overview of related media, sections for music and common gameplays between all the main games should also probably be introduced...

Jay 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone please fix this

"Kouran (Honglan) is actually the name of Hiroi Ouji's cousin in China."

This is the only mention of Hiroi Ouji in the entire article. Who's he? Ken Arromdee 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The author of the series! I think he's pulling the leg. It's def. a reference to the Manchukou singer. (Ouji also claims to have been kidnapped and brought to Siberia by Kodansha because they thought he was writing the manga too slowly.) This article needs a lot of clean-up too, I see. --Kunzite 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the page index at the right, it states tht name of the OVA as "Sakura Wars : Le Nouveau Paris", while in the article it is said to be "Sakura Taisen: Le Nouveau Paris. Anyone care to find out which is correct?

Tylerofmaine 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)tylerofmaine.

Sakura Taisen and Sakura Wars are the same things ´cause "taisen" is "Wars" in english,see?. Both titles are correct.--Heliezer--En Pie de Guerra y Siempre Orgulloso!!!! 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

More infos of the Sakura Wars characters

In some of the game sites, we like to give out more information. Yestersay (Monday, May 15 2006) I'd decide to put some tags so contributors who knows about these characters (except the bosses) but i've forgot that it wasn't approved and was quickly been restored back. So I hope to get an approval that we want to know more infos of the characters in Sakura Taisen/ Sakura Wars (e.g. Background, storyline)

So please apporved my ideas. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewwong36 (talk • contribs) .

It does not have to be approved. I'm just trying to avoid having a lot of small articles on characters which will attract people who like to delete such things.
A characters page is perfectly fine. (I'd love to help make it.) The problem is that individual pages aren't ok unless we have enough information already in the wikipedia to fill them.
The way to make character pages per WP:FICTION is to 1) list the characters in the main article. If that article becomes too large 2) create a main page for characters. If a character's section become too large it should be 3) moved to its own page. For example, with Sakura Taisen... We may give the Ohgami his own page but Ayame, Kaede, Yoneda, Oyakata, the Baragumi and the 3-nin musume would all be on the same page like "Sakura Taisen other characters". So, let's start by making Sakura Wars characters and then expanding from there. How's that sound?
Sometime this week I will make pictures for each main character from the article. --Kunzite 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay! I suggest to take only the main important characters only. Like you've said, Ayame, Kaede and some other soldiers in Sakura Wars, we have to skip that or add it into another section. I know some infos but I think I need more help from other contributers, if you know what I mean.

Andrewwong36 13:45, 16 May 2006 (+8)

Title change to Sakura Taisen

The official English manga version uses Sakura Taisen. The official Japanese version had used "Sakura Wars" for a small time, but it was quickly changed back Sakura Taisen. Opinions? --Kunzite 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about it but, Both of them are still the same title Sakura Wars in English and Sakura Taisen in Japanese.

Andrewwong36 14:15, 16 May 2006 (+8)

Dead Site??

The name "The Sakura Taisen Archives - SakuraArchives.com " at the link site has a problem. I'd can't seem to get into this site. Is it dead or or is it just me?

Andrewwong36 14:15, 16 May 2006 (+8)

It's off and on. I suggest linking to it through archive.org --Kunzite 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Still now working! Are you sure it's sakuraarchive.org? CUz I tried both and still can't get it.

Andrewwong36 20:00, 18 May 2006 (+8)

Shochiku Revue

This is the second time I've added the info on the Shochiku Revue the first time I didn't really now what I was doing with Wiki and didn't put in a source... but this time I hope it remains up, as while it's easy to remember Takarazuka in all it's shining and current glory it's easy to forget there were other Kagekidans in the 20s and that Ouji had a personal connection to one of them.

Prince Rei 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Live shows cleanup

While the page as a whole could probably use a major overhaul, all that live show info was added to the side box instead of the main article, so I moved it. As it stands, it's pretty bad, but the info is all there to be prettied. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two problems that should be looked at

First of all, the tone of the article sounds like it's written by a very enthusiastic fan with some balance issues.. There's inconsistent neutrality and a poor tone. Phrases like "This is where it all started" as seen in the first video game section, don't really fit in with the Wikipedia tone.

Second, someone should probably clean this article up, organize it better, and put it a general plot summary, I've heard from other people as well, that's it's confusing - many people stop by here to find out the general plot of the franchise, and there is no general summary in the beginning. It's not until you read the summary of the first video game, with some scattershot references that may have no antecedent, that you begin to have a vague impression of what the franchise is all about. For better understanding and to serve the needs of users searching for casual information about the franchise, a general summary of the main idea of the plot, is necessary. It's quite possible to read the entire article and still have no idea about what the Flower Division or other essential terms that are frequently used are. To be sure it's a substantial job, I hope someone does this article some justice. Feel free to disagree, but there seems to be a lot of confusion out there that would be better cleared up with perhaps a plot summary that defines some important terms.

13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I last looked into this page, but true, after looking at it again I also feel that the info is a little bit too confusing. I'll see if I could clean it up and to it justice, as you have said. I'll try to use the featured articles as reference. By this time, I am assuming that this is now more of a metaseries, and that it would probably be best if separate pages are made for the games, OVA, TV series, and musicals instead of dropping them all in one place.
As I am more well versed with the first two OVAs and the games involving the Teito Hanagumi than anything else, I would highly appreciate it if others could also help me out. Jay 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Incidentally, Tony, why did you revert my change on Sakura Wars when I added the spoiler warning back? You seem to be using circular reasoning here:

1) because people won't put the spoiler warnings back, that shows consensus for the rule that says they should stay out.

2) because there's consensus for the rule that they should stay out, anyone who does put one back is violating the rule and should be reverted.

If consensus is determined by whether people put the warnings back, you have to *let* them put the warnings back. It's doubly wrong to determine consensus because people don't put back warnings that you don't let them put back anyway. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the warnings, soon after the policy was rewritten. (Sjones23 removed the warnings, I stand corrected. Must be another page I'm thinking of, which also hasn't changed). It's been like that since June 1st. Noone objected, noone reverted, yet there were at least a few edits since, including some non-content cleanup style editing. You came and added them in, with simply the word "Sheesh" as your edit summery. It sounds to me like you're doing exactly what you're accusing him of doing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll take this to Talk:Sakura Wars because if we discussed every style guideline issue on the talk page of hat guideline the pages would get very noisy. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
And here I am. The reason I removed the tag from this article is given in the edit summary: "Clearly marked "Setting" section". It's okay to put it back. I think it's out of place but if people disagree with me that's okay too. I did let you put it back, there is no way I could have stopped you doing that, so I'm not sure what your point is there. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I put it back because "clearly marked setting section" is from a contested policy.
First of all, making changes "based on policy" when the policy is contested is bad form to begin with.
Second, you've claimed that the policy has consensus because nobody reverts the changes. Aside from the other reasons why this is questionable (nobody can revert tens of thousands of changes), it makes even less sense if you don't *let* people revert the changes. You can't claim that there's consensus because people don't revert something when you keep undoing the reverts anyway. It's circular reasoning: policy is justified because nobody reverts, and you can stop any reversions because reversions contradict the policy.
And no, you did not "let (me) put it back". When I put it back you took it away again. If you were really letting people put the spoiler warnings back, you'd just see that they put it back and do nothing.
As for the reason this has been unchanged since June 1, that's because I don't have AWB and I don't go around changing tens of thousands of articles. I only happened to look at this article again now, and I only noticed the spoiler warning was removed now. The fact that I did not immediately revert on June 1 doesn't mean that I approved of the change for three weeks. Ken Arromdee 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
But you're not the only other person that looked at the article. There've been a few edits, and surely a number of other visitors to the article that didn't think the warning was nessesary, for almost a month. There's gotta be something said there.
And the evidence is clear. I don't know how much is because of Tony's continueing insistence to remove them, but the number of articles that actually has the warnings is TINY. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I removed tags from about 20 articles yesterday. Most of them seem to be added randomly, perhaps by editors who haven't yet unlearned the old habit. There were formerly more than 45,000 articles with spoiler tags and at this moment there are just 8, so the growth of 20 a day isn't significant. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if there's going to be a spoiler warning here... what's the compelling reason for it? Why is this spoiler warning particularly important? Phil Sandifer 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the disputed policy doesn't require that the spoiler warning be particularly important. And the "compelling reason" part of the spoiler guideline is itself a disputed part of the policy. Demanding a compelling reason is just appealing to one disputed part to support another. Ken Arromdee 04:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, seriously, you say there has to be a spoiler warning here. What compelling reason exists for this? We're two editors who disagree with you and will probably remove the tag if we can't see why it should be there. Convince us. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A "compelling reason" is an inappropriate standard which is part of a disputed guideline. Come up with a better standard that is not disputed, put it in the guideline, and I'll be glad to convince you. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to write this article without discussing setting and character, and these involve plot details. The reader should know this, and therefore these tags are redundant, in this setting. This is not really an argument from WP:SPOILER - it's an argument from what it means to be an encyclopedia article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the big controversies in WP:SPOILER is the very idea that spoiler warnings are out of place when they are redundant. It makes more sense, purely from a user interface point of view, for spoiler warnings to go where there are spoilers, even if the user can logically deduce the existence of some of the spoilers without them. The calendar doesn't list only one day of the week on the grounds that the other six are redundant; we ourselves have a search box with the word "search" at the top even though it's obvious that the box is a search box without this title (and for that matter we have a note at the top *and* the bottom telling people to sign using four tildes, even though only one is logically necessary); etc. Whether a notice is useful depends on how it is placed and whether different occurrences of the notice are presented in the same way, not on whether the reader could figure the information out without the notice. Redundancy is not a reason to avoid a spoiler warning. Ken Arromdee 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you express the opinion that spoiler tags "make more sense" even when they're obviously redundant. There are three other editors in this discussion and I'm fairly confident that, even if they understand what point you're trying to make, they will disagree. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)