Talk:To Heart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Visual novels task force.
VG To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposed diversification of articles

I propose we split the Toheart article into several new articles similar to what we see in Bleach, so that we end up with:

1) ToHeart

2) List of ToHeart Characters

3) ToHeart (anime)

4) ToHeart (audio CDs)

The reason for this is that I am certain each section has more content to be added, which will push the size of this page even further away the 34 kb "limit". I moot that the original ToHeart be used to focus more on the game, and be used to redirect people to the other new pages. Karn-b 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok so what pages should be made? I agree with everything except the games, I'll explain in my proposal for page names:
  1. A ToHeart page that acts as a general information page. It would have full content on History, Manga and Book and Character designs and would link to the other articles which would be:
  2. ToHeart_(game series) - I know you didn't list this but if we're splitting the article then this section is big enough for its own article too.
  3. ToHeart_(anime)
  4. List of ToHeart characters
  5. List of ToHeart music
What do you think, are the names of the article ok? Initially we can leave the game information in the main ToHeart article and if its still big, or gets bigger in future, it can be separated - Squilibob 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Sounds good! So you mean the original Toheart page will contain summarised info, with links to respective articles?

I am planning to write about each character's seperate scenario in the game, but that will take a long time, if it ever happens at all. I do agree, though that the game section needs its own article.

Also, if we were to give the game it's own section, should we be calling it a 'series' though, as there was actually only one main game? Although I can see how you can justify it as there were several versions. What do you think? If we were to use the word 'series' in the game, we would need to include it in the the title for anime (ie 'anime series') for consistency - in this case perhaps we should just call it 'game' (plural or singular...?) and 'anime' so that it's easier to find.

I'm not too sure about using the word "music" though, as there are quite a number of ToHeart drama CDs out there, which is why I originally used the word 'audio CDs'. Is there a better option you can think of which would emcompass all categories? I was originally thinking of using the word 'discography' (sp?), but it seems a bit cumbersome....

And just as a footnote, if people are up to it, perhaps we should do the same thing for ToHeart2?

Karn-b 13:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well actually maybe we should have a ToHeart series page that has the summarised info, with links to respective articles. It could link to both ToHeart game and anime and ToHeart 2 game and anime - all as separate pages. Sort of what I've helped do with Ojamajo Doremi series although ToHeart is more complicated. I'll make a temporary page in my user page namespace for you to look at what I'm proposing. I'll put it at User:Squilibob/ToHeart series - Squilibob 13:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
And Audio CDs seems like a sensible choice for the page name for the reasons you have suggested. As for the infobox, I've created a mock page for that too. It'll need some improvements but here is what it looks like for now. - Squilibob 15:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. We should also then add a seperate section for ToHeart2 Audio CDs to complete the circle.

I agree with the ToHeart series page, but since ToHeart and ToHeart2 are distinct games, maybe we should maintain the individual ToHeart and ToHeart2 pages so that we can cover everything related to them. So in essence, we would have:

1) ToHeart Series

similar to an index page as you proposed

2) ToHeart

containing brief info on game, anime and characters, while maintaining full info on other sections such as books, merchandise and so-forth

3) ToHeart (anime)

4) ToHeart (game)

5) List of ToHeart characters

6) List of ToHeart Audio CDs

7) ToHeart2

same idea as above - a page where we can continue to maintain info on other related things besides the game, anime and characters

8) ToHeart2 (anime)

9) ToHeart2 (game)

10) List of ToHeart2 Characters

11) List of ToHeart2 Audio CDs

How does that sound?

Karn-b 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually keeping ToHeart and ToHeart2 pages separate is a better idea and we won't need the ToHeart series page in that case because the two articles can be linked to each other the way they are doing so now. It'll also be easier to maintain.
Also I think the names of the pages are fine but looking at other anime articles, not many use List of characters from xxxxx or List of xxxxx characters. Maybe Characters from ToHeart would be fine to use, since it seems to be the common method. - Squilibob 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, wouldn't be naming it something like "ToHeart Characters" be shorter? The same could go for the other sections, such as ToHeart Audio CDs or ToHeart Game. Perhaps a dash would make it clearer, as opposed to brackets? ie ToHeart - Game

Karn-b 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there's pages like Naruto (anime and manga) and Full Moon (manga) that seem to use the brackets. I think it is convention to name pages like that, though I guess we can name them how we want - Squilibob 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should stick with established conventions then. Shall we get started?

Karn-b 07:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok as long as you're fine with all the names of the pages. - Squilibob 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC) I've made a start on splitting the pages. It's more tidy but work will need to be done to improve each article. --Squilibob 10:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back earlier. The changes look good so far. I'll be making modifications to the articles with more content upload over the next few days. Is the infobox functional on the main ToHeart and ToHeart2 pages yet? I think that the main pages also need a more obvious title and brief description on the game and anime, with a link to the actual full article. That might make it more clear to those who are quickly looking for something.

Karn-b 16:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by infobox -- Squilibob 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Did it. Will be doing it for ToHeart2 tomorrow...will be adding some more information to the Audio CD section as well.

Need more pictures in these articles. They look awfully plain right now ^_^

Karn-b 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to do that or not, though now that you have done it, it looks good. --Squilibob 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification of recent changes

I've tried to clean up the arrangement of articles, given that the article is now apparently too long (more than 34 kb) and the contents section is overly-elongated.

I had a chat with the guys over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga, and the character names having their own individual section is makes the contents area very long, which is what prompted the reversion to the original version.

Other changes include:

-The DVD section has been merged with the anime section -The CD section is now divided into two catagories instead of individual CD names -The 'summary' sections have been removed from the anime section. -The introduction has been cut down, and information moved -The books section has been split into Game related and anime related, instead of individual titles

However, the article and the contents page is still much too long...

Karn-b 16:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ToHeart Spacing Conventions

I also suggest that we stick to the original ToHeart spacing convention, as seen on official ToHeart websites and Japanese fan sites - that is, no space between ToHeart.

Karn-b 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Squilibob 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revote

I think the issue needs to be brought up again as we now have an official English title with the space.[1] I think it's also interesting to note how the Japanese Wikipedia article uses the space as well. On a final note, I think it's been well established that we can't rely on Engrish grammar standards for naming of our titles (such as in our policy against ALL CAPS).--SeizureDog 11:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: the Japanese wikipedia article uses ToHeart2, without the spacing. ToHeart is with the spacing, for reasons explained below. Karn-b 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Interesting. Although there is an official English title, aren't people have an argument over that now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga? Although you are correct that the Japanese wiki does use the spacing convention, in all other official sites, including those of Leaf and Aquaplus use the no-spacing technique. I would argue that ToHeart is not Engrish, but rather a stylistic choice by the original creators. In either case, we have functioning redirects so that any searches are routed to the correct page - functionally, it would make no difference. Karn-b 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make little difference, but it still bugs me. In any case, would you object if I did change the titling?--SeizureDog 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
While I realise it would make little difference either way, personally I find the original form "ToHeart" to be more accurate. I have been following the series closely since it was first released, and feel that this would be the most accurate representation. Is it really necessary to change it? Karn-b 17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
We use the English titles here. The English title of this series is "To Heart" as attested by the TRSI press release. Ashibaka (tock) 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be any strong objections, I'm going to start moving them now.--SeizureDog 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems I got here too late. If we really want to play "official English titles", the ADV manga keeps to ToHeart convention. I have moved them back to "ToHeart", but have kept the changes made to "remember my memories", for reasons as SeizureDog stated. Karn-b 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
But ask yourself this: does the manga holds more weight than the anime? Pikawil 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Or rather, the game+anime+every media reference+blaaarrgghh. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, the Japanese title of this article is "To Heart". 137.22.11.221 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I pointed that out already. Second sentence.--SeizureDog 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue was actually brought up in the Japanese wiki at [2]. To summarise, apparently the original, non-voiced version of the game was released as "To Heart" with the spacing. You can still see that on the original game boxes and screenshots of the original game. However, when the anime was released and the PSE verison of the game was rereleased, they had eliminated the space leading to "ToHeart." You can see that on the [Aquaplus] website, as well as the Leaf website today. The reason why ToHeart is spaced in the Japanese wiki was simply because no one followed up on this comment.

For ToHeart2, the lack of spacing was deliberate from the first release of the game. Notice how the Japanese wiki also uses ToHeart2 as the title of their page. However, officially, no spacing is correct - as follows the intended format of the creators.

Karn-b 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UE "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, even ADV hates you: [3] Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I know it should be ToHeart, but there's a few wikipedia policies they can hit us with here. Technically you could argue it can't be ToHeart because of the policy about stylised titles, (and should be changed to Toheart - bleah). --Squilibob
o.O Yeah, the alternative sounds even worse. Well, looks like Squilibob's voice of reason wins out here ^_^..remember WP:Civility Karn-b 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And for the sake of argument, WP:UE is a guideline as opposed to official policy. In addition, it asks to "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works", which in itself is a highly arguable topic, as I am certain you can make the case for both ToHeart and To Heart in a verification search. Even with the English sources, you can find both conventions - as a result, this yardstick is mute.
Looking at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, which are also guidelines, there are two main points to look at and their meaning. Firstly, it says that article naming "should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" so that there is a "minimum of ambiguity". Now if we were talking about McDonald's and Maku Dorulando (which is the Engrish standard for saying McDonald's in Japanese), then obviously it is a problem, and does not meet the yardstick in this case.
However, with ToHeart and To Heart, in either case the article diverts to ToHeart. Moreover, a lack of spacing would not create ambiguity because the two words are distinct and different. Let's now look at another part of the guideline, which states "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Building on what was said before, the article name is clear enough for the casual reader to search and find the article - and with the redirect, people will be able to find the article and there will be no confusion over the meaning.
Which finally brings us back to the issue of accuracy. As previously stated, although originally released as "To Heart" was later changed to "ToHeart" for all subsequent releases. From an accuracy point of view, the latter is correct.
This case is also supported by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks), which states that using "CamelCase are a judgement call" and can be used when "it reflects general usage". As said previously, the "general usage" yardstick is difficult to prove in this one. However, it's unique way of writing ToHeart does make it more distinctive and "makes the trademark more readable" and recognisable.
To further support that last point, WP:UE states that "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language". There is no commonly used English name, given that this is of Japanese origin. The publishers do offer a transliteration of the トゥハート title: ToHeart.
Karn-b 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Exactly. Our titles are based on names and not logos.

"There is no commonly used English name" You aren't even a good liar.

In fact I am hard-pressed to find an English source that does NOT use the spelling "To Heart".

Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of debating the accuracy we should just make mention of it in the articles. Too much effort is being spent on a space. --Squilibob 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Calling someone a "liar" is hardly a show of goodwill. Shii, let's focus on the article and content rather than personal attacks, ala Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, WP:Civility. I would most probably continue to counter this point in a spirit of sportsmanship, in order to add flavour to this article.
Squilibob, how good is your Japanese? I have a whole collection of both online and offline resources which may help us improve the article. Also, the Japanese wiki article on the same topic is extremely detailed, and may help us improve the content here. Translating it alone would take quite a while... Karn-b 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
My Japanese is limited. I can't translate anything. --Squilibob 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to know any Japanese to look at English sources, which should be the only sources you consult. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's true, but things like Japanese sales will be easier to verify from Japanese sources I'm sure. We need to cite why it was successful for the companies that made it and why it helped make visual novels successful. --Squilibob
Japanese sources are vital in this article, considering that is where it came from. English are insufficient to provide all the information needed. In fact, research in general requires that you look at all sources in order to gain the most accurate picture. Karn-b 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody disputed my sources, which include both English publishers and three separate reliable English reference sites, I went ahead and moved the pages back. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contary, Real Life means that people normally are not available 24/7 to counter every assertion. For your information:
These are a mix of both Japanese and English sources, including sources which has also been quoted from the same website.
To compare, there are four separate "reliable" websites in English, two "reliable" Japanese sites (with more to come if necessary) and two seperate sources, in both Japanese and English.
In addition, a quick search of google for anime blogs have shown that the majority of them use the correct, non-spacing convention.
However, the argument presented for camelcase as stated in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) has been ignored. As I have refuted all other guidelines which may related to this, the camel case argument automatically wins. In fact, not one single point of my argument has been logically countered. Don't do it with emotion - that will not get anyone anywhere. We are all here to contribute with good will - feel free to provide solid arguments back, but don't ruin the fun. Civility is the key word.

Karn-b 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

CamelCase is for trademarks that are all one word such as OxyContin. I think the rule that applies here is "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment."
Also, you need to use English sources, not Japanese. This is not the Japanese Wikipedia. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), there is an obvious conflict in the rules. In this case, the rule on CamelCase is used where "it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable". However, at the same time, as you correctly pointed out, it also asks to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" which puts two two guidelines in conflict.
However, it would be difficult to judge what is "general usage", as we have seen sources which use both the spacing and non-spacing convention within the English language. Also, the question if whether it makes the trademark more readable is irrelevant, as both ToHeart and To Heart are equally readable, like "OxyContin" or "Oxycontin ". In this case, the trump is the "judgement call". Since the text formatting and capitalisation rules are not violated, then the judgement call for CamelCase is valid. The trademark is officially "ToHeart". Whether or not it is one word or not in CamelCase is not covered by the guidelines, so that argument is irrelevant. The result is that ToHeart should be the article name.Karn-b 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT

I spent a fair bit of time looking at the copyright tags on the bottom of ToHeart/To Heart cds, dvds, models, PS games, etc hoping to see either ToHeart © Aquaplus or To Heart © Aquaplus. Unfortunately everything uses the logo as copyright, English and Japanese, it doesn't matter either way. I don't think we can build consensus on websearches in this case. Certainly the Japanese wiki and ANN are inconsistent. Besides I can log onto both and change them discriminatly if I wanted to. ANN is almost as user driven as a wiki. Even if I was able to find out what the copyrighted name was, it may be copyrighted both with and without the space anyway.
There is no consensus, too few people to do a poll and so you can either take it to mediation and hope to get somewhere or just leave it be. --Squilibob 06:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry there was an edit conflict (took so long since I am at work). I don't think either of you are getting anywhere to be honest. Really, why can't we just make mention in the text of the article that the name can be either. There's no real black and white here, clearly anyone can see that the logo does not have a space and yes the English version is using a space. It won't really matter if as long as it 1) is consistent and 2) mentions both as correct. --Squilibob 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing up again

So this article is spaced, but about half of the other articles are not. Any objections to me going ahead and moving everything to the spaced varients?--SeizureDog (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We need some consistency. --Squilibob (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the goal.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the articles

I think the next step is to get some more references. There's plenty of content on each of the pages but hardly any references. --Squilibob 05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look at my sources. Although how exactly does one go quoting animations and games?
Also, I was considering creating a "List of ToHeart Media" section, merging the books and CD section into that.
Karn-b 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well we don't have to quote anything, just cite sentences that state facts that can be easily verified. The fact that it was created by Leaf, the fact the anime was produced by KSS, etc. As of May 2007, the only thing we have cited on this article is the drama. --Squilibob 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The drama, ironically, is sourced from the Japanese wiki. I remember reading somewhere we cannot cite wiki, am I correct? I would be at fault there, but it would certainly be time consuming to find another source. Karn-b 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have begun adding some basic cites. Another thing we should be looking for is reviews. It shouldn't be hard to just cite everything and as I get time I'll be doing so. I wouldn't worry too much about citing another wiki until we get the articles to a stage where the articles can be scrutinized by others. Judging by the anime article in its current state, it's the least of our worries. --Squilibob 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that renaming either of the ToHeart audio CDs articles into the List of ToHeart media as you suggested is a good idea. While we're at it, should the game articles be called ToHeart (visual novel) keeping in line with WP:VN's guidelines? --Squilibob 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for taking a while to get back. I agree. I'll start to write more material to cover the books section as well.
By the way, is there a policy/guideline somewhere which states you cannot provide extended summaries to TV episodes? I'm referring to the anime article. I am also concerned about that one because the latter summaries are taken directly from the English ToHeart DVD website - obviously violatation of copyright. Karn-b 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting my inspiration from List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, where each episode is given a brief comment, before breaking off into it's own article containing a full summary. How would you feel about doing something like this?Karn-b 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I had been thinking about reducing the first few episode summaries in the anime article as per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. "Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them.". Reason being that the other episode summaries are already concise. If you want to go the other way and expand the short ones then that's fine, as long as we don't violate the above two policies.
ToHeart is only 13 episodes and an omake anyway... unless you're planning to merge all three anime articles? --Squilibob 06:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ToHeart Series Template Update?

In order to accommodate the article, I propose restructing the series template to have a horizontal format, which can accommodate additional articles - something perhaps similar to the aa! megami-sama template. I do intend to follow and create additional articles for each character, as there seems to be enough material to warrent one. A good example would be the one on Lucy Maria Misora. We would be, able to effectively prepare for the future. What do you think?

Karn-b 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did like that it was different but a redesign is probably in order. I don't like the overwelmingness of the aa megi-sama template. It is way too busy. If I had to make it again, I'd go with something small like {{Bleach info}} However if the template is designed well then I will change my opinion. How about we make some mock prototypes like last time? --Squilibob 06:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few prototypes, this time using the navigation template. There are two versions:

What do you think? Btw, ignore the colours for now...they were randomly chosen.

Karn-b 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like the first version.--Squilibob 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Two words: no time no time no time no time....
I'll get the box up and running then, if there are no objections? Karn-b 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although one of the main problems with the first box is balance: it just looks fat downstairs. It is simply an athestic design issue though, and I don't mind using either one. Karn-b 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd suggest we implement the first box, but cut out the individual characters links to begin with. They're mostly red links anyway. Also instead of using the Navigation template, the class="collapsible collapsed" could be used, since it is bugless.--Squilibob 07:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've begun to change the template. The colours will need tweaking as you said. As for the characters, do we need all of the characters to have an article or would just the articles we have now be fine? --Squilibob 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm so sorry...been impossibly busy at work lately...I don't think I will be able to do much more until at least the beginning of next month. But I think you're right - at first, let's have a combined article for the characters like before Karn-b 03:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Toheart boxart.gif

Image:Toheart boxart.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging?

I saw how the editors of To Heart split the article almost two years ago, but when I look at the articles now, most of it is plot summaries and dvd listings which can go into the media page. I suggest moving episode listing and summaries to a separate page, dvd listings to the media page, and remerge the general page, game, and anime page. Toothpyx (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No plot synopsis

As one who has not watched the series or played the games, I have NO idea about the plot of this game other than that its a dating sim that took place at school. Couldn't someone add a plot or story tab? --71.107.217.63 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a visual novel, not a dating sim. I can't help on the plot though, as I've never played/watched the series. Given the multiple endings and simple premise though, a plot section might be pretty hard to put together.--SeizureDog (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The anime is also lacking one. At least if one cannot be based around the game because of it's relevance (ie it's in Japanese and unlikely to be played by most native-English speakers), the anime is in English and should have a plot synopsis. Similar pages like Popotan give the synopsis for the anime, but not the game.Jinnai (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)