Talk:The Rose of Versailles

message: Should there be a section on the movie that TOEi announced would be released in 2007? Not much is known at this pint but a promotional poster has been released...Ohtori akio
:Where have you found that information??? Armando (talk|contribs) 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the info, though it is in French http://blog.cyna.net/index.php?topic=4533.0 A poster is available on the page. --Ohtori akio 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments section of that French article eventually leads to http://www.aniradi.com/report/taf2006/toei1.php which appears to be a report on the con where the movie was announced. This is the closest thing to a source I've been able to find. Sunshine Cantabile 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose of Versailles movie 2007 

message: Because of the term's Napoleonic implications and since France at the the time the story was set in was a monarchy, the more appropriate term here is either Royal or Palace Guard, so I've changed all instances of "Imperial Guard" to "Royal Guard."  However if "Palace Guard" is more appropriate, feel free to change it to this.  --BrokenSphere 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Imperial Guard" 

message: I changed the picture to the right becuase putting it on the left, left a big empty space in the article.Angel,Isaac 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Please support the move of the RoV (manga) to BnB (manga), cuz it's the real name of the manga. Check here. Armando.Otalk • Ev 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose of Versailles (manga) to Berusaiyu no Bara (manga) 

message: The plot summary seems to be only 470 words or so, so I've removed the  tag. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Why is The Rose of Versailles divided in four articles (The Rose of Versailles, The Rose of Versailles (manga) and The Rose of Versailles (anime) and Berusaiyu no Bara Gaidens) when everything could be covered in just one? See Wikipedia:VN#Good articles for some examples.--Nohansen (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is great to have separate articles for all different versions of the franchise because both manga and anime versions have their own souls and art-styles in themselves. On the other hand, if the data would be this limited in, for example, the manga's article, it is useless to have multiple articles. Imho, manga and anime should keep their own articles and to be revised and expanded by Wikipedians. Rose of Versailles was one of the first animes which I saw on the Turkish television. Of course, officials weren't aware of the art and maturity in the anime, they were thinking that it was just another cartoon for the children :) Deliogul (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool (about the different versions having "their own souls and art-styles"), but the Animanga Manual of Style says "do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: 1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or 2. The article becomes too large." Looking at the three spin-off articles, it seems neither of the conditions have been met.--Nohansen (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that the first condition would be met in the case of the Gaiden article - it seems to be a sequel to RoV, and introduces a new character based on myths of Elizabeth Bathory.  The plot consists of Oscar etc. trying to escape from this character's clutches. -Malkinann (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four articles? 

message: ANN review --KrebMarkt 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  review 

message: There is no reason for The Rose of Versailles (anime), The Rose of Versailles (manga), and Berusaiyu no Bara Gaiden to be separate from this article. They are all really short, and the information could very easily be covered in this article. This merger is also supported by WP:MOS-ANIME. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: *Support as nom for reasons stated above. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Potentially Malicious SPAM-URL Removed:
*hxxp://www.ladyoscaroverview.com/
*http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.ladyoscaroverview.com
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/36ad3cba9c5a1db93de9477a8d2e69557ab0fb536f3a14ee2d43557872c79421/analysis/1373011105/
*Additional (potential) malware, see:
*http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?hash=9782b22583a9b7a45eed83a313c4d4aa&t=1373010658&type=js
*http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.ladyoscaroverview.com
--Gary Dee 08:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAM Link Removal 

message: I would appreciate a source for this claim. There were any number of commercially successfully shōjo manga prior to RoV, going back to at least 1929. Too many to list, though I could try if you like, starting with Katsuji Matsumoto's Poku-chan series. What it sounds like the editor is really trying to say is, "the first shōjo manga to garner a stamp of approval from dudes." It also sounds like something a Japanese Baby Boomer male manga critics would say, because it was the first shōjo manga they themselves took an interest in (and in fact I feel certain I've read/heard such critics say this). RoV was certainly the most commercially successful shōjo manga that had appeared, as evidenced by the fact that the tankobon edition was the first hugely successful tankobon of any genre, and single-handedly led to publishers shifting their focus from selling magazines to selling trade paperbacks. "Critically successful" is meaningless in the 1970s, because there were maybe three manga critics at the time, all men, and they were mostly obscure, read by a handful of university students. Rachel Thorn (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the relevant sections to better reflect the passage in Shamoon (2012) about the popularity of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First to achieve mainstream success?