Talk:Planetes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Planetes was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
February 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a former Anime and Manga CotW. (4 March 2006)
how it improvedBeforeAfter
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Planetes:
  • Expand Lead.
  • Create "Creation" section for origins (move Anime and Manga there).
  • Replace "Reception" section by "Reaction" and expand. Include negative comments.
  • Replace "Realism" by "Design", and include themes (get rid of bullets).
  • Merge trivia section in body of article.
  • Create "Other Media" section.
  • Clean "See Also".
  • Find lots and lots of secondary sources!! Print preferred.
Articles that don't exist that this article links to
Articles that need wikification, copyediting, and expansion.

Name order[edit]

How would you feel about changing the orders on Tanabe and Hoshino's names? Almost anyone interested in this anime will probably watch the episodes released by the fansub groups, all of which used the original Japanese name order: "If the name is not widely known and used by English speakers, then stick to the Japanese order." Also I'd like to add a section on the themes of the anime (can't talk about the manga, but I plan to pick that up soon), but I'm not sure that fits with in the scope of Wikipedia. Most of it is fairly obvious (criticism of Japanese 'salaryman' society, ignoring cultural tradition/moral considerations, Buddhist philosophy vs. Existentialism, etc.), but I wouldn't want to violate WP's rule about publishing original analysis. At the same time, writing in English about the themes of some tiny Japanese Anime isn't exactly high-profile work that academics (or anyone) is really clamoring for. How exactly does one go about writing about something with almost no English language primary sources? Also I think this could use a section on the differences between the manga and the anime. Just off the top of my head: a bunch of 'minor' characters were dropped for the anime, in the manga it's a Mars mission and in the anime it's a Jupiter mission. --AsianAstronaut 21:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the name reordering for two reasons. One, because it would be confusing to have Fee and Yuri in western order and Hachi and Ai in eastern order. However, the way you added the kanji and names is fine by me. Secondly, the Tokyopop manga puts the names in the western order and I imagine when the anime is released stateside, so will that.
As far as everything else goes, the no original research is mostly designed to keep people's pet theories about all manner of weirdness out of Wikipedia. In this fashion, if one user truly believes that all Freemason leaders are aliens from the planet Omicron-Persius 8 or whatever, his pet theory isn't treated as encyclopedic. Interpreting a television show, on the other hand, I don't feel applies. First off, I agree with your interpretation (especially about the criticism of Japanese salarymen), so the creators must have had that in mind. I think it's okay to add.
If you have any other ideas, go ahead and add them (or talk about them here - I've almost finished the series, I need to download the last two episodes). RADICALBENDER 22:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't care about the order and thinks its kind of humorous its being discussed. :) But I think writing about the themes of Planetes is important. If you wander into your own personal views, we'll be sure to tell you. Currently the genre of Planetes isn't even addressed really, outside of it having SciFi elements.
Actually, in the Manga it is a Jupiter mission. There is a side story involving Goro, the father of the main character, who was one of the initial crewmen on the pioneering Mars mission. The main story still revolves around Hachimaki and him becoming a member of the Jupiter mision (well, revolves around is a little strong, the manga is more of an ensemble character drama than anything else). -DannoHung

Translated as Wanderers?[edit]

Why am I seeing this being translated as "Wanderers"? That's like translating "Jupiter is a planet" into "Jupiter is a wanderer." Modern usage of the word planet, you see, derives from the fact that the planets seem to wander against the "fixed" background of stars, hence they are wanderers. A think a more correct "translation" of Planetes would be ... uhhh ... Planets. Any idea on this? --Cyde Weys 06:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Planet says: "The name comes from the Greek term πλανήτης, planētēs, meaning "wanderer"", so the Wanderers translation is the most literal. Plus it makes more sense; 'Planets' is not a particularly fitting title for the series, but 'Planetes/Wanderers' has a double meaning, which I think was probably intentional. Heliocentric 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Note then, that this series has a typo in its name. The page for Planet says it's spelled 'ΠΛΑΝΉΤΗΣ', but the anime has it spelled 'ΠΛΑΝΉΤΕΣ' which would sound like 'planetis'. Whoops. :-) Of course, the number one reason for translating this as "Wanderers" is that the show itself uses the text "Wanderers" in the eyecatch when it shows the same word in several other languages. You can't argue with the original makers...
(First time I edit anything, so please bare with possible mistakes =). I am just changing Greek to Ancient Greek, as there is a difference. No one would use "ΠΛΑΝΗΤΗΣ" (or "ΠΛΑΝΗΤΕΣ" which is simply the plural of "ΠΛΑΝΗΤΗΣ" and is pronounced "Planites" by the way :P) for "Wanderer" today (the modern Greek word for that would be "ΠΕΡΙΠΛΑΝΗΤΗΣ"). Only in Ancient Greek does it have that meaning.

the korean 헤매는 사람 translates perfectly as 'wanderers'. -Lordraydens 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As does the Japanese 流浪人. WindOwl 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And the real title typo is sometimes PlanetES or Planet ES, the ES seems really important as the official URL www.planet-es.net is trying to show. Lacrymocéphale 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Almost all the above comments are wrong :) The reason why the title was thought to be mistaken is because the transcription planētes is ambiguous and can denote both the Ancient Greek πλάνητες "wanderers" (sing.: πλάνης) and the Modern Greek (el) πλανήτες [planites] "planets" (the sing. is πλανήτης; πλανήτης is the same both in grc and el, but its plural is different in grc: πλανῆται). Since it seems to be the case that the creators of the series intended to use a grc term for "wanderers", they were right in choosing πλάνητες. Now, the three grc words πλάνης "wanderer" (pl.: πλάνητες), -πλανητής "wanderer (only in compound words)" (pl.: πλανηταί; from -πλανᾶσθαι "to wander"), and πλανήτης "wandering star, planet" (pl.: πλανῆται), which were confused in the comments above, are irrelevant to each other (they share the same root πλαν-, but they have slightly different meanings/functionalities). --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Does that mean the article is currently correct? Doceirias (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is! I have linked the grc word to Wiktionary, so that any reader who wishes to can learn more about it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Manga scans?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
There are a few images on the TokyoPop website. Palm_Dogg 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Collaboration of the week = failure?[edit]

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)

If you can add some references and footnotes, I'll nominate it as a good article. Palm_Dogg 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Robbie?[edit]

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)

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)

GA[edit]

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)

Yay, go team. We should now put this on the anime and manga wikiproject page as an example article. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Good work all around. And now, onward to FA status! -Loren 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider splitting in two[edit]

You could consider splitting the article in two. One for the Anime amd one for the Manga. I tried reading the manga, several times, but found that it was too deep into Japanese philosophy and current Japanese concerns with manliness and social skills to keep me awake. Then I discovered the anime and bought the first DVD, and then all the DVDs available (I am eagerly waiting for volume 6, the last, to be available in Canada) and found a series which, to my eyes, had very little to do with the manga. The tone is completely different. The level of realism is something else. The characters actually seem real in the anime while they looked symbolic in the manga. Because of all this I find I have a great difficulty in adding things to the Planetes article, with long term improvement in mind. It seems to cover both the Anime and the manga but sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. --AlainV 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split in two. I think your concerns are quite valid, but I think it's nothing you can't already add to the current article. But if you really want to add to the article, keep it one step at a time, and keep a goal in mind. --TcDohl 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's impossible to have any goal given the radical differences between the anime and manga. That's why I don't see how I can possibly add or improve anything past the little I just put in, with the exception of correcting new typos (if any pop up) or a fact here and there when other sections are added, eventually, by other editors. --AlainV 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe what we can do is for you to just add whatever you want to the manga section (which I think is seriously lacking in the first place). I'll serve as the editor of whatever comes in (and I'm getting pretty tired adding new stuff to this article). So just try, and let's see what happens. So now, I guess your task is to add whatever you can add to the manga section, and let me take care of the rest. --TcDohl 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You read what I wrote up there too fast. It's the other way around. I'm not interested at all in the manga, because, from my point of view, it's mired in Japanese philosophical mumbo-jumbo and it just disregards the technological questions which form the basis of science fiction. This is not surprising given the attitude Makoto Yukimura has towards technology. Just read the article Loren has linked to below. You'll see that Yukimura deliberately avoided getting information on how things actually work in space, because he did not want facts, reality to influence him, his "artistic vision". This is going away from science fiction and into fantasy. When they did the anime they took exactly the opposite approach and put a very solid scientific and technological basis to everything. Just look at the care they put into cutting off the sound when we have exterior shots in space, getting zero gravity scenes perfectly (within the boundaries of the limited animation of the anime TV series genre of course) and linking elements of plot to the nature of exploration and exploitation. The anime is classic science fiction in the Clarke-Asimov-Heinlein tradition while the manga is a fairy tale set in space. --AlainV 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're splitting the article again, we have room to put stuff in the pretty much barren Anime section. So, I guess that's your opportunity. --TcDohl 18:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree with the suggestion that the Anime and the Manga are significantly different in their themes and execution. The final message that the anime leaves the viewer with (seriously, they spend like... 20 minutes on this in the last episode) is one of the importance of the connection between humans no matter what the situation. It's definitley true that the Anime explores the theme of exploitation of the underclass more, but I feel that suggesting that the manga is a fairy tale set in space while the anime is more classical is preposterous. I'll grant you that my memory is a little rusty as I haven't read the manga since last summer, but I'm reasonably sure of the basic similarity. --DannoHung 07:26, 19 Aprial 2006 (UTC)

I just went to a store to check on all the volumes and what I saw again in that manga was tons of late 20th century tech for a story that's supposed to take place a hundred years later. The anime takes technology into account instead of using it as a general effect or backdrop. In the two cases it,s Art but different types of Art. Just read the interview with Yukimura Loren linked to below. But regardless of the nature of the sotires we,re talking here of two different media: Print on paper versus a TV show. --AlainV 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Without my copies of the manga on hand, I'll have to assent to your account in the interim. If the point is simply to discuss them as different works in different mediums, I'll raise no argument with idea of separating the article. I'm sorry I misunderstood your point. --DannoHung 05:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Makoto Yukimura interview[edit]

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)

Splitting of characters section[edit]

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? - Phorque (talk · contribs) 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Created Category:Planetes -Loren 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slight problem with article (structure?)[edit]

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)

Response to assessment request[edit]

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.{{#if:{{{1|}}}| For example, **{{{1}}}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|**{{{2}}}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|**{{{3}}}}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|**{{{4}}}}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|**{{{5}}}}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|**{{{6}}}}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|**and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.}}<ref name="copyedit">See footnote</ref>

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

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)

Pronounciation?[edit]

How is "plantes" supposed to be pronounced?

Plan eh tace Doceirias 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that "tace" as in rhymes with "trace" or more like "days" ("tayes")? Thanks!! Argel1200 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Trace. Doceirias 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not even close. Σούπερμαν (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Here are I few sources I intend to use in the article.

Manga Reviews:

Dozens of tohers are available at the moment. My guess is that we should have enough by now to justify anything we feel like putting in the article. What we need to make it through FAC is more print sources. Thay just love print sources, they can't get enough of it. Magazines are good, scholarly essays and books are better (althoufht after only 3 years I wonder if it will already be in any anthology.)


Enjoy!--SidiLemine 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see more Japanese sources and reviews. I have had much trouble finding them, and hopefully others would be luckier in the search. --TcDohl 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese yet, but I will try to find Japanese reviews and put up the adresses.--SidiLemine 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so as I said, I can't read Japanese, so I can't know what's a reliable source, or even if it has any interesting material. But if you do, maybe you can try this:

Please let me know if there's any good in that, or what you're looking for exactly. --SidiLemine 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources:

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"the anime introduces political elements to the story" ?[edit]

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)

Additional image?[edit]

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)

Good article reassessment[edit]

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)

Space Opera? Something Else?[edit]

Could this page be considered for space opera? What about other classifications? Just wondering. --SharkfaceT/C 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I put down in the genre section that it was a slice of life manga/anime. --SharkfaceT/C 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really space opera, no. It's too close to being mundane science fiction for that. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be considered slice of life? The manga might qualify for that. --SharkfaceT/C 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I consider it slice-of-life, but I'd want a review or other reliable source to back me up before claiming it was, as that's my interpretation. Genres that are about style and manner are tricker to apply than those that are strictly about trope: "It's got a rocket ship? So clearly science fiction it's not original research." "It's a satire? That's just your opinion." —Quasirandom (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It has slice-of-life elements (more so in the anime) but that describes the shows style more than it does the genre. It is a hard sci-fi show that happens to spend a bit more time on the lives of the characters than most; worth mentioning in a section on style, but not fundamental enough to the show's nature to add to the genre field. I admit the line is sort of fuzzy. I mostly took it out because it isn't such a prominent part of the manga. Doceirias (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. And THAT is a classic example of why we'd need reliable sources: Doceirias and disagreeing over which form has more slice-of-life elements. It's an interpretation, which is original research. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, there are no reliable sources for genre (ANN genres are added by readers, and frequently insane.) We have to default to consensus, which often means we go with the simplest version. Doceirias (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless, of course, a genre is identified by one or more reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The anime series is a classic group of Hard science fiction tales because of its close attention to Science and technology, while the manga is closer to the ancient style of scientific romance because it places mystical considerations before scientific realities, even though it does not dismiss them completely. The problem here is that manga and anime reviewers (the usual reliable sources for manga and anime summaries) are not SF readers and don't know much about variations in this literary genre.--AlainV (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's straight-up slice-of-life hard science fiction. No space opera here (see Arcadia of My Youth for some space opera). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Alain, I am simultaneously an SF reader (just finished re-reading The World Treasury of Science Fiction), a manga reader, and an avid anime watcher. That being said, I still have trouble with the variations in the genres. As for this page... can we come to a consensus that this anime/manga is slice of life? --SharkfaceT/C 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with changing it to Hard sci fi or mundane sci fi (no comprehension of the terms myself) but I tend to feel like Slice of Life is more a condiment than a main ingredient here. Feel free to vote me down, I'm not particularly attached to the idea. Doceirias (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the manga ( I gave up after 3 volumes, being disappointed about the lack of hard science fiction in it) but I know that the anime (which I bought and watched several times) is hard science fiction. I went to look at the "slice of life" article and it states that a work under that category contains no sciencwe fiction. It would seem then that hard science fiction and slice of life are incompatible categories. --AlainV (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I've got issues with that article's description; note that it's been tagged for sources to substantiate the definitions offered for a while. (So far my attempts to get the Literature project to take on cleaning it up haven't gotten anywhere.) All the reliable sources agree that Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou is a slice-of-life story, despite being postapocalyptic science fiction. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, the sci-fi elements are the spice, and the book is primarily concerned with the daily lives of the characters. But then, I thought the Planetes manga was far more realistic than the anime, which was filled with bullshit about ninja. Doceirias (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The ninjas were only in two episodes. My proposals:

  • We put the genre as hard science fiction.
  • The debate on whether or not this series is slice of life is separated into two topics: manga and anime. The manga is vastly different than the anime, dealing with more philosophical and existential stuff while the anime is more science oriented. It's entirely possible that one of them is slice of life while the other isn't.
  • More sources on the hard science fiction elements of the story should be added.

Input is always welcome. --SharkfaceT/C 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research & Citations Needed[edit]

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)

"Use Of Non-free Image" Tag[edit]

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)

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?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)