Talk:Planetes

message: Can anyone get scans of single panels of the manga, one (hopefully memorable and iconic) panel per chapter? My scanner is on the fritz, so I don't think I can use my copies. Thanks! --TcDohl 03:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we even allowed to do that as far as copyrights are concerned? A case can be made for screencaps from the anime being fair use but I think manga scans have crossed into iffy territory. -Loren 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no difference between screen caps and scans.  There's nothing fundamentally different about copyright laws regarding video and pictures.  As long as we meet fair use we're okay.  --Cyde Weys 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few images on the TokyoPop website. Palm_Dogg 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We can use them as fair use, just as long as they're single panel. And the images in the Tokyopop website are only for volume 1, and the images that they do have aren't the memorable and/or iconic images from the manga. --TcDohl 05:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to recommend moving the Planetes#Manga Summary section to its own article.  The anime already has one and the summaries needlessly extend the article.  BTW, DVD 6 just came out and Episode 24 is A-W-E-S-O-M-E! Palm_Dogg 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you don't need to tell us how good Planetes is. And I definitely agree, but we need those single panel scans to make it complete. And I'll get the DVDs in a few days, so I'll do the screenshots.  --TcDohl 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga scans? 

message: This really disappoints me. Having Planetes as the frontrunner as the Anime Collaboration of the Week for three weeks only to be defeated in the last minute, then when it actually becomes the Collaboration of the Week, nothing! The only significant changes that I've seen are the changes I've made to the manga summary. It's still very far from featured article quality, since it's still too heavy on the characters list and the manga summary. All the other changes were deciding where to put the spoiler tags. There's more changes in the last two days right before being chosen as the Collaboration of the Week than on the actual week. Well, this really increases my confidence in the project.--TcDohl 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can add some references and footnotes, I'll nominate it as a good article. Palm_Dogg 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References and footnotes? There's barely any research in this article, if any. It's all just lifted straight out of the manga and anime. And all my other information is from Anime News Network. --TcDohl 07:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References can be from anywhere.  If you ever want this to be FA, you're going to have to show people where you got your info.  If you want some examples of how to do this, check out Starship Troopers, which is a page I'm working on. Palm_Dogg 16:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's all fine and dandy, but some of the places you marked are straight out of the ending credits. Man, it sucks being the only one here that's read the manga. --TcDohl 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just saying if you want FA status you're going to need references, even if they're from Bandai or the Anime News Network.  The lists are also going to have to be merged into prose, but that can be done later. Palm_Dogg 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the week = failure? 

message: Lavie's name is given as Arvind "Robbie" Lavie, but I can't ever remember seeing him called that in the official translation (and he's not in the manga). Is there a cite for this? piman 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the anime. That's what the characters called him in the Japanese (through no fault of their own) and the English dub (intentionally). --TcDohl 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robbie? 

message: Looks good to be. Keep improving it and this could have a shot at being featured. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, go team. We should now put this on the anime and manga wikiproject page as an example article. -  12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! Well, I think we still need to edit this some more along the guidelines set by the Peer Review. Now I'd like to shoot for Featured Article, like its Italian cousin. --TcDohl 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work all around. And now, onward to FA status! -Loren 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: One of the issues brought up in the peer review was the lack of information on the development process. I've found an old interview we can try to incorporate into the article: NASDA (now JAXA) interview with Makoto Yukimura (2002). -Loren 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makoto Yukimura interview 

message: Seeing as this article is a borderline size-warning at 30kB, I believe we need to create Characters of Planetes to take some of the load off of this article.
I figure we keep the first four characters in the main article and then port everyone else to the characters article. The article feels unbalanced with such an exhaustive characters section and other, practically empty ones ("Anime" for example). Any other suggestions? -  17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps the main characters should have their own articles, leaving just a basic summary on the main Planetes page. -Loren 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking about that. Well, I split the other articles, so someone else do the characters article? Also, I think we have enough satellite articles to warrant a category. --TcDohl 18:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created :Category:Planetes -Loren 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It would have made more sense (and it's not too late to change this) to split between the manga and the anime.  With the split like this it makes things confusing for persons who do not already know both and it creates impossible situations for characters and plot. Take a look at high quality articles like the one on Starship Troopers the novel, and all the other media titles that came from it like Starship Troopers (film) or the animated 3D TV series Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles.  Like the Planetes manga and anime they share character elements and many plot elements in common but they are, like the planetes anime and manga again, different media creations. When you look at things closely you notice that while the characters might have the same names in book or film they have deep differences because of the radical differences between the media. So making a common characters article for anime and manga does not make any sense. --AlainV 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gone over some of the previous discussion on this topic I am inclined to agree, at least for the main articles. The articles on the characters themselves can remain the same while noting any personality changes between the manga and the anime. -Loren 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly disagree, and I'll say it as plainly as I can. I believe that two separate articles would have a significantly lower chance of obtaining Featured Article status. Splitting the article would make the scope of the article narrower, and liable to fancruft. --TcDohl 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples of this?  I gave the example of how it's supposed to work, with the printed work Starship Troopers and the other media that were derived from it. Note that the Starship troopers article was tagged as a good article and as a featured article.  This is not done to fancruft.  Right now by the way the planetes article as just been split again, and some could say that it has now become several pieces of fancruft because the split elements can only be understood by devoted fans and updated by devoted fans.  The idea of an encyclopedia artcile is that information is given at several levels and that readers who do not know anything will be immediately informed, progressively.  --AlainV 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of characters section 

message: Don't know how to address this, honestly.
The article is really good, but it's not something I can show to anyone I try to convince to watch / read the series.
The spoilers and intermingled mentions further in the series make it very hard to show to anyone who isn't already familiar with the series and hasn't seen at least a good chunk of it. For a fresh-comer, many of the plot points get shown in advance here...
It's rather difficult problem to tackle, though.
Anyone else feel that this might be a problem?
--TLein 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight problem with article (structure?) 

message: Re: Re-assessment request from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess. I don't think this article is A-Class yet. It is not as comprehensive as demanded by A-Class, but it's a good article
Here's a couple of points from me, and then an auto-review:
* The article needs a longer lead section with more information from the article.
* Even if the reviews were positive, it should be possible to mention some of the "negative" points brought up by reviewers, even if they like the show as a whole. See RahXephon for example.
* Some info about reception in Japan is also needed.
* Some sections only have a "main article" link in them. Either make that a see also and remove the section heading, or, if you want to keep the subsection heading, write a summary that can go with it.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
**Manual comment: Those that can't be incorporated into the article, could be moved to one of the episode articles.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**“In the year [of] 2075”
**Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
*Avoid using contractions like: wasn't.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to assessment request 

message: Dear PlanetES team,
Feel free to delete this, but I just wanted to express my heart-felt congratulations on what has to be one of the best anime articles I have read.
The accuracy of the information and ease of reading is, simply put, outstanding. The organisation and visual presentation is unchallenged, a head above the rest.
What a welcomed sight it has been and a genuine pleasure to read. I would love to see more of this teams work. If there was an award for best wikipedia article today this would get my vote. Thank you.
A grateful anime fan,
Stimz.
:Thanks. I took over this article a long time ago, and I'm proud to get it to the state that it is now. Anyway, if you want to contribute more along the guidelines of its peer review and its assessment, be my guest. --TcDohl 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work 

message: I have a problem with this line, specifically with "introduces". Yes the anime focuses more on the terrorist activities than the manga, but almost starting a war in space and the political games in the us army isn't political enough? I'll go ahead and change it to "the anime further expands the political elements of the story" and if someone wants to change it back, I expect to read why here. AcidArrow 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. The manga included a few plot points to make the Kessler Syndrome happen by the end but there were no politics before that. The various activists and terrorists until that point were entirely funded by various zaibatsu groups attacking each other for corporate reasons. The manga's approach to politics was so half-assed that the alt superpower the US was defending itself from was the "Federation Republic". — LlywelynII 05:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the anime introduces political elements to the story" ? 

message: Would it be excessive, too unillustrative or too silly to add my favorite demonstration of the "hard scifi" - status of the show: the scene with a volley of laser fire that causes nothing more but the ends of the lasers to flash red, because lasers are completely invisible? :P --Kizor 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. — LlywelynII 05:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional image? 

message: This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article.  Please see the archived discussion for further information.
:The article has been delisted per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Planetes/1. bibliomaniac15 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] 

message: This article could use a little clean-up with the number of unsourced statements made in the summary and analysis portions of the article. While the assertions made are basically true, right now they classify as original resreach. Perhaps there is a critical literary analysis of the manga that we could cite? And I'll do my part to add a bit more information about the manga itself, but please feel free to add more bits yourself. Good article, overall! 3Juno3 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research & Citations Needed

message: What is the point of this tag? If the images in this article are improperly used, surely the right thing would be to delete them entirely rather than just dropping in this tag and walking away? If we're going to leave the images in (and I think we should, on the "fair-use" basis since they are small, low-res and used only to illustrate the article), why not delete the tag? Keeping both images and tag seems illogical.RB1956 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is there because there are too many fair-use images in the article. At most, there should be the cover image in the infobox (a cover of the manga is preferable, as it is the original work), and a group shot of the characters (a user-made compilation image is not acceptable) - see also WP:NFCC#3a. I placed the tag instead of simply removing the images because I'm not very familiar with the series. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how familiarity with the series is relevant to whether this article breaches Wikipedia's guidelines. You say only a cover image and group shot are acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Clearly most of the images in the Planetes article breach that policy, and no familiarity with the is required to see that. I know it's more work, but why not just fix the problem? RB1956 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. However, rather than simply stripping the images with no explanation or replacement, I decided to let someone more familiar with the series review them and see if they could find a suitable replacement image (e.g. a group character shot). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I took down the pictures of the individual characters as I felt that it wasn't critical to the article itself. I would consider taking down the image showing the realism of the series because I'm not sure that it is entirely necessary. But I'm on the fence about that one. -Vcelloho (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With further consideration I do not consider the second image to be necessary. I'm familiar with the series and granted the length of the article I do not feel that it warrants the use of two copyrighted images. -Vcelloho (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Use Of Non-free Image" Tag