Jump to content

Talk:Persona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePersona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2014Good article nomineeListed

B class assessment

[edit]

I'll probably get questioned by this later so I'll leave this here. You can't use the encyclopedic section of ANN as a reference. It is considered unreliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the heads up. That was actually one of my concerns in the Staff section. I went ahead and removed the citations. Since that was the only thing in the criteria that failed should I resubmit? KirtZMessage 08:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are places that looked unsourced. If you are sourcing some section with the same reference, source the first sentence and last sentence of that section. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. I was unsure about how the stretching of the Staff/Cast citation would look but it is indeed more appropriate than those ANN refs I had earlier. KirtZMessage 10:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enough for a B. For GA though, you'll have to remove parts that are puffery or "stretching of the truth" such as the whole themes and analysis section. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. GA version wont be ready until end of November or so, after the film releases. KirtZMessage 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

NOne of the sources say "Chapter 1" why can't we use the original? is it because of the "#1"? Why can't we use "No.1" for more accuracy?Lucia Black (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I haven't thought about or tried your suggestions in the months past. The director refers to the film as the first chapter in this official interview (see first line) in addition some of the Japanese news sites such as Famitsu have been using "劇場版「ペルソナ3」第１章" (Notice the "章")—which I've translated as "Persona 3 The Movie: Chapter 1." From a translation POV Chapter 1 seems most accurate from all of the sources I've collected. I suggest we leave the title as is for now the same as we already do with romaji titles until the movie makes it's way to the West. —KirtZMessage 22:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
guess we'll have to wait.
Alright so after 8 or so months, with the release of the BDs and reverse imports to the west with official subtitles by Aniplex etc, I switched everything over to "No." as that has become the most common name and doesn't look likely to change. —KirtZMessage 12:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, seeing the long name made me uneasy for a while. Lucia Black (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"producer" parameter

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Difference between "producer" and "production committee"—KirtZMessage 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The Name of producers of the film is not public yet [1][2]; but this is clear and cannot be denied: 製作: 劇場版「ペルソナ3」製作委員会。
製作 has a specific meaning and that is not "presenting"; it means "production". Furthermore, the role of AIC ASTA in published credits is アニメーション制作 (Animation Production). This role is already covered in the "studio" parameter and should not be repeated in "producer" parameter; this is not correct. Member companies of "Persona 3 the Movie Committee" are not public. Aniplex is definitely a member of the committee; AIC may or may not be a member, this is not clear yet. Raamin (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not hold up. We're using the information the official website has stated for all its meaning and not those of third party sources. Furthermore use of the official English released by Aniplex in the official website is used. —KirtZMessage 02:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the entire venture was a mashup of people from AIC and the P4A Committee and others making the P3M Committee. I should know, I did immense research for this article. Suggesting that the Producers were not made public is something of stretch because the film was already released. I cannot imagine why they would want to hide this information as you so suggest. —KirtZMessage KirtZJ (talk)
This argument totally holds up. Please ask any user knwoing Japanese or someone who knows exactly what a "Production Committee" is. You can't interpret whatever you want from the "English credits" in the P3 film website; "Animation Produced by" stands there for 「アニメーション制作」; this is a different role than 「製作」.
These two roles are very common in anime works. I provide you one example, Attack on Titan: 「アニメーション制作」 (Animation Production) is by Wit Studio. 「製作」 (Producers, Investors) are members of 「進撃の巨人」製作委員会 (Production Committee): ポニーキャニオン (Pony Canyon), 講談社 (Kodansha), Production I.G, 電通 (Dentsu), ポニーキャニオンエンタープライズ (Pony Canyon Enterprise). Producers (as in persons) are people presenting these companies and they form the commitee. You see that in this case, Wit Studio is not part of the production committee.
Please note that director, writer, composer, animation director etc. don't form a production committee. If that is your interpretation of a production committee, it is not correct. Raamin (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ridiculous that you're making this about the Japanese interpretations when the website has English as released by Aniplex. Why then would they have included it? Hmm, maybe it was all just a big show then? Quoting what you said here—"You can't interpret whatever you want from the "English credits"— is just stupid. That's like telling me the word Apple doesnt mean the fruit. I've asked you numerous times now to make a case over at the A&M Project page instead of battling it out here since this would affect Movie articles across the Project. I cannot believe you're making a repeat of that whole CR/Btooom! thing all over again. —KirtZMessage 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the producer and the production company are two different things.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I am is baffled at what Raamin started here; somewhat implying that I'm the bad guy in working on this page. In addition he added a reliable citation needed caption to a sentence when the link directly after it has "©Index Corporation／劇場版「ペルソナ３」製作委員会" at the bottom of Every page on the website—You know since he's all about the Japanese. —KirtZMessage 03:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that apparently KirtZ takes the P3 film website as some kind of dictionary, and disregards completely the Japanese credits and what they really mean. "Presented by" is not a correct English synonym for 「製作」; but does this make "Presented by Persona 3 the Movie Committee" false? No! This simply means that Persona 3 the Movie Committee (the production committee, the producer, the investor) presents you the film.
What I try to say: Producers (real persons) represent "production companies". We either name these companies or the production committee as the producer; or if the "producer" parameter is reserved only for people, in this case it should be empty, and not showing the animation studio. Raamin (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless to debate further. I will prefer if Ryulong made a closing statement here and end this discussion since I trust his judgement; Use of the Japanese or the English credits of this and the reliable citation notice keeping in mind what I said about the "©Index Corporation／劇場版「ペルソナ３」製作委員会" Rather than argue, learning from whatever mistake occurred that resulted in this less than beautiful discussion and edit history mess would be best. What say you Ryulong? —KirtZMessage 04:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion is pointless at all. Such technical discussions are good for community in general.
About the {{cn}} template: Please read WP:SYN. Animation staff isn't the same as production committee member; these are not related. Raamin (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Template:Infobox film/doc and my interpretation, "producer" parameter is meant for real persons. A compromise can be letting the field be empty; and later write the name of producers, when they are published. Raamin (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, what you said above—"The problem is that apparently KirtZ takes the P3 film website as some kind of dictionary"— was quite insulting in addition to the condescending tone you keep putting out, especially considering the amount of time I've spent on this one article; having seen every way in which the team was described across the internet for this one film Project. Look, I get your point explaining it 12 ways will not change it. The reason I'm asking for Ryulong to propose a resolution is because I don't the time to drag this out right now. As for the template—I'm under the impression it is not original research because of the "©Index Corporation／劇場版「ペルソナ３」製作委員会". And fine, we'll use your interpretation to avoid 6 more paragraphs of the same point. —KirtZMessage 04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad if my tone sounded rude. Please read this carefully: Animation staff is not to be confused with production committee member; these are two different things. You can read this ANN article, it is helpful.
"劇場版「ペルソナ３」製作委員会" is the production committee behind the P3 film project, the producer (as a legal entity), the investor. AIC ASTA is the studio responsible for the animation; it doesn't mean that they are a "production company" of this film. It is possible that AIC also invested in the project and is a member of the production committee, but this is not certain at this point.
Showing two lists of animation staff of two separate projects, and mixing these with "Production Committee" founding and speculating about its members is a case of WP:SYN and not correct. Raamin (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that exact paragraph was issued at the start, to backup your first statement eliminating the need for extra 8 paragraphs and tension. Agreed. —KirtZMessage 06:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment

[edit]

@KirtZJ: this is a very well written article. I would encourage you to take it to WP:GAN and then perhaps to WP:FAC. You're likely to get more constructive feedback that way. Best. 64.40.54.96 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I'm currently in the process of planning a major expansion along with some tweaking. After that's over with I'll propose it at WP:GAN. Thanks for the assessment. —KirtZMessage 22:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Persona 3 The Movie: Chapter 1, Spring of Birth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Since I'd like to get my own nomination reviewed (and a second is almost done), I think it's only fair that I review this as well as Arkham Origins to help with the backlog. To that end, I'll write up the few issues that I think stand between this article and something I'd be happy to call a GA:

  • First, and most glaringly, the plot section is really short. It's almost like an advertisement, in that it doesn't state what actually happens past the first act or so. This is nice for fans who don't want spoilers, but Wikipedia recommends otherwise. Can it be expanded significantly? Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to help improve this article Tezero. The plot was the first thing I would have expanded, unfortunately I'm not in a position where I am able to view a film from Japan this soon in its release cycle from where I am. If I'm not mistaken with films of this nature, WP:ANIMANGA usually waits until they make their way over to the west through official release media before summing up an adequate plot. Although if someone had viewed the film in Japan they are more than welcome to contribute in this section. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's not ideal, and you should still fix it when the film comes out here, but I'll let it slide. (I'd just torrent it, but you don't have to.) Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job citing the main character list. What about the supporting cast, though? This shouldn't be hard, considering that you were able to find sources for the main characters. (The main character list is also a little excessive in detail for the type of section it is—anything past a sentence or two, per film article conventions, should be moved elsewhere, like the Production section—but I'll let this slide for now as this isn't an FAC.) Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of the film in relation to what it is based on, the supporting cast is not as noteworthy as the main cast so I'm still debating as to whether or not I should leave or remove them. In any case, they were all collected in the table over here. Any thoughts? —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not cite them from this, like the other article does? Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Sorry this took so long. —KirtZMessage 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "Finally" isn't really necessary in the last sentence of Development, but if you're keeping it, add a comma.
Comma added. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of all the italics in the second paragraph of Marketing. Kotaku's a website and the rest are elements from the film and real-life places, if I'm not missing any. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The film is based on the Persona 3 video game and the full moon happens to be an integral part of its story and gameplay. Aniplex undoubtedly tried to apply use of this feature to the real world to increase the hype for the film. This makes its noteworthy as a promotional tactic. Its also included in some of the sources, mentioned numerous times in the official twitter account and the official website has a lunar calendar. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Sorry. Can't believe I missed that. Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the second paragraph of "Reception and themes" was in another section a few months ago, however when the critic began talking about the themes of "teen suicide" I figured it may be best to have the sections combined rather than splitting the Reception. I tried to make it look something like this section in The Dark Knight article, despite there not being any analysis. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I wish there was more in the way of reviews to flesh actual reception out and thus split Themes, but I'll buy that. Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of the article: why was "coming" deliberately misspelled? If there's no available reason, leave it, but it seems like an odd bit for the source to leave out. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been a promotional tactic however, there was no available reason released at the time. Although if I find something in the future I'll be sure to cite it. —KirtZMessage 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the source adequately asserts that the misspelling was deliberate. To be less presumptuous, remove that last clause and add a [sic] after "comming". Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? —KirtZMessage 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Let's do this. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Fuuka/Fuka

[edit]

In the game and the official English subtitles for the film, a character's name is written as Fuuka but every instance in the article is written is Fuka. Is there a reason for this? It makes no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.250.239 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles may be official but they are bad, and in this case we actually have the character biographies on the official website which has "Fuka". It seems like it is much like the Aigis/Aegis thing. —KirtZMessage 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they're official, regardless of if they're "bad", then that's what we should use. Besides, WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we should use the spelling most English-speaking readers are familiar with, which in this case would be Fuuka. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to article titles. You cant treat this article as if it were the VG. It is separate. I already made my point, not much sense in repeating myself, but as I said, it is similar to the Aigis/Aegis matter. —KirtZMessage 15:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Persona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Persona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persona_3_The_Movie:_No._1,_Spring_of_Birth&oldid=1208316405"