Jump to content

Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Budget is wrong...

... In the article it says the budget for this movie was 8 billion yen (8.000 million I suppose) but in fact, it was 800 million yen.

Quote from official gainax web site:

This was GAINAX's first production. Planned as the first project from Bandai's video production department, with a production budget of 8 hundred million Yen (approx. US$4-5 million at time of production), and music by Sakamoto Ryuichi, it was a one-of-a-kind epic.

Have a look at the full article HERE:

http://www.gainax.co.jp/anime/honeamis-e.html

Oh well, I've just updated it anyway :P

I updated your update. :p --nihon 23:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

"The" is part of the official English title, and should therefore be part of the title of the article. Currently "The Wings of Honneamise" redirects to this page.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments


Deconstruction

Not only does this section not have a single reference, it reads very much as if it is the personal opinion of the poster. I am not in anyway saying that he is wrong, just that this is not the place for it. If there are references that can be cited please do so. In the meantime I have placed the tags for both "non-compliant" and "essay entry". I considered adding Original research or Lack of References as well but as they fall under non-compliant I felt it was redundant.Colincbn 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed sex scene

This movie has a sex scene, which, besides being unwelcome, also makes no sense. (To me, at least.)

Your point...?
From what I recall, it wasn't simply a sex scene but a rape scene, removed for the UK release but included AFAIK in other European releases Alastairward 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was an attempted rape scene, and Yamaga described at length on the film's commentary the purpose of the scene's inclusion.Xenofan 29A 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Variation

http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/oldeva/2001-March/039239.html

I have actual Gainax in-house production materials (character/mecha drawing references and animator storyboards) from The Wings of Honneamise, and they cost me an arm and a leg...The attempted rape scene unfolds differently in the storyboards.

--Gwern (contribs) 20:19 14 December 2009 (GMT)

Cover Artwork

The current image, of Manga's VHS release, should be replaced with the HD-DVD release cover art, which is much more faithful to the look and feel of the film, in my opinion.Xenofan 29A 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To that end, I have replaced the old image with the new one. Xenofan 29A 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Removed from the external links per WP:EL:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your rationale for removing? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
EL is not of the storage of possible refs (#3), nor for including tons of archive links (#4). The second link fails both WP:RS and WP:EL. And per EL, specifically WP:ELMAYBE, reviews should be used as sources in the reception section and should not be added to the EL section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Some more archive links removed in a revert (except on on Geocities which is clearly neither a reliable source nor valid EL).
Of those, AltPop, inwards, and Fansview would need to be shown to be RS before use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you seriously just remove a gainax.co.jp link? I don't even need to justify that one...
  • ELMAYBE, besides being only a guideline, says only that such links are worth considering and would be better incorporated into the reception section. This does not justify removal. If you wish to so incorporate them, I certainly will not stop you.
  • Ex.org is a RS. Why on earth would you remove a link because 'archive unnecessary to use'? This is incredibly sloppy editing.
  • A further example of your sloppy editing is the Geocities link. Given your dismissal, I suspect you didn't even look at the linked page - which is sloppy because for all you knew, it was the personal page of an industry figure and ipso facto, a valuable RS - but if you had, you would have seen it was a Roger Ebert review (very important), and so shouldn't be removed but used (like the other reviews). Even if you had decided to remove it anyway, for being hosted on Geocities, you should have retained the citation information in a 'Further reading' section. Or, if you couldn't even be bothered to do that, you should have justified it in more depth here than irrelevant invocations of guidelines. Even worse, it is sloppy to not take 2 seconds to google random text to see whether it was available elsewhere. If you had, you would have instantly found http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950512/REVIEWS/505120307/1023 . That's at least 3 errors on your part.
  • THEM Anime is, besides being used as a RS in hundreds of our articles, specifically listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources; as a fan of all things regulated & decreed, I'd expect you to have checked there first...
  • Likewise, soundtrackcentral.com is used in ~60 articles & pages as not just an EL, but a RS.
  • Finally, WP:EL specifically says that ELs do not need to meet RS requirements.

tl;dr: your removals are fail. --Gwern (contribs) 14:44 12 January 2010 (GMT)

tl;dr - short answer is, go learn to read WP:EL - reviews do NOT go in the external link section. Rather than being lazy, use them for the reception or leave them here for editors who actually want to improve the article rather than just thrown in 500 links. Also, archive links have absolutely no appropriate place in EL, despite your continued attempts to claim otherwise. El's do not have to meet RS but that doesn't mean you can just span in fan crap. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:EL says nothing about archive links being inappropriate, and in fact encourages them for dead links
  • WP:EL says nothing to the effect that "reviews do NOT go in the external link section". "to be considered" and "should instead" do not mean "do NOT". (Didn't I already say this?) Perhaps I would be less lazy if less of my gumption was used up dealing with people making articles worse.
  • You are free to call the links 'span crap'. That does not make it so.
Since I see no actual arguments which I haven't already addressed in your comment, I will be restoring them. I am pleased, though, that this time you managed to avoid removing the official Gainax link. --Gwern (contribs) 14:13 13 January 2010 (GMT)
You are, once again, attempting to edit war and bully your way into having inappropriate and excessive ELs on an article by randomly twisting EL to suit your own preferences. The links have been removed. YOU must get consensus to add disputed links, and yes, EL does discourage both. I love how you conveniently declare its just this to suit one argument, then that its that to suit another. You are, as usual, being purely disruptive and doing nothing to actually improve the article. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and that is policy. Now for once, why don't you actually follow WP:BRD and stop RING and wait for others to weigh in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Bullying through? Says the person who just appealed for full page protection - no doubt for her preferred version - and has also just escalated it to the Wikiproject - both without mentioning it here. A more cynical person than I might take that amiss.
And 2 reverts is bullying and edit-warring? You're the one who isn't citing guideline or policy.
Your accusation that I am not improving the article is risible. Have you done anything ever to actually improve this article? You criticize me for being lazy and not working the reviews in - yet why can't you do that yourself? You're getting to be as bad as BreadNinja. 'purely disruptive' indeed! Glasshouses, AnmaFinotera...
And link farm is massively pejorative. Why don't you call it 'fan cruft' as well as 'fan crap' or 'span'? Cover all your bases. Reviews are not linkfarming; 2 OST reviews are not linkfarming; 2 sources on the artist responsible for Honneamise's unique visual style are not linkfarming. Look at WP:LINKFARM; only #1 is even remotely applicable, and half of it is concerned with linking to 'directories' or linking to multiple fansites. This doesn't have even connotations close to the links in question.
I believe I have been consistent in my citations of EL and ELMAYBE. I note that this is yet another accusation without any rationale.
As for consensus and edit-warring: for the past 8 days, no one else has supported your deletions or opposed my addition. NihonJoe, the only other regular editor of this article to edit it recently, implicitly supported them by not removing them and instead adding a template. I have accompanied both of my reverts with detailed explanations, and been above board about it. It is you who has twice marked reverts "minor", when WP:MINOR specifically mentions 'removing external links' as something to not mark minor. Where you hoping that my watchlist was set to ignore minor edits? If that was not your goal, was this another example of sloppiness? If it was neither underhanded nor sloppy, is it ignorance of what a minor edit is? None of the reasons I can think of do you any credit. --Gwern (contribs) 15:09 13 January 2010 (GMT)
I cited the same guidelines, so don't go around throwing false claims. And anyone who is an experienced editor knows that Twinkle marks all edits minor so go complain to them about that. It is not user controllable and I could give a rat's ass if you noticed it. If I was attempting to be sneaky, there are far better ways than something so pointlessly silly when I don't even do something that dumb myself (hiding minor edits - vandals favorite trick). I am not required to add a notice here that a post was made at the appropriate project for further discussion, it is the logical step of dispute resolution. Nor is it my job to work in your desired content because you can't be bothered. I posted them here for someone to do when they had the time and inclination, per guidelines and the consensus at WP:EL that you continue to dismiss. You added the content, you cannot be a consensus of one to keep it when it was removed. And do not put words in other editors mouths by his tagging versus removal. He could just as easily have decided not to bother trying to discuss it with you because the result is always the same. It was discussed at EL not that long ago - except for the official site, archive links are generally unhelpful.[1] There is also an EL Noticeboard where such disputes could go, but you prefer to just keep reverting and, from your remarks at the project, seem to be deliberately avoiding 3RR until you get your way. Go reread WP:CIVIL (as shall I because you seem to be great at making me forget it), WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EL, and WP:BRD. Here is the original lengthy discussion on reviews in EL[2] and the current talk page discusses it even more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it's just sloppiness - you are deliberately using a broken tool. Good to know.
"You added the content, you cannot be a consensus of one to keep it when it was removed."
But your consensus of one to remove it is just fine...
And your cites to WP:EL are actually links to talk pages‽ I use the interrobang because I have never before seen someone seriously argue that long and contentious arguments on the talk page of a guideline are at all relevant. Where on earth do you get off flatly asserting "archive links are generally unhelpful"?
When I ask for citations of policy and guideline, I am asking for quotes. I want a quote from WP:EL - not talk page archives - that archive links are discouraged, that reviews must be references or be deleted, and the whole panoply of your claims. Not vague invocations.
As for NihonJoe: why would he be afraid of me with allies like yourself? My admin days are long behind me, I can block neither of you nor are there any old admins I would enlist in such punitive actions. What then do you have to fear from one tired old editor? And as I pointed out, NihonJoe has been more than merely silent, he's built upon my edits. 'The logical step' is to ask him directly to comment; I have done so.
I count 4 edits by you, and 3 by me. To repeat myself: glass houses. And only you could make my attempts to de-escalate this proto-editwar into a sinister stratagem to game the rules. I will not condescend to you, AnmaFinotera, but recommend only that you re-read EL, remembering the difference between 'must', 'must not', 'should', 'may' and other such useful words. --Gwern (contribs) 15:30 14 January 2010 (GMT)
Since AnmaFinotera is refusing to respond here (despite having the free time to make approximately 400 edits), I am restoring the remaining links. --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 16 January 2010 (GMT)
And I have removed them again as there is clearly no consensus for adding them. Obviously you and I will never agree, so I will wait for others to respond. And meanwhile, not to "condescend to you" but I recommend that you re-read EL as well and remember that "I don't like it" doesn't mean "IRL" comes into play. I'd also recommend reading "WP:CONSENSUS" and WP:BRD, and WP:CIVIL...other ones that some editors may have trouble remembering the messages of. You may also find it help to learn how to summarize other people's comments as I have never claimed that NihonJoe is "afraid" of you, and your argument that "silence is consensus" can easily apply both ways as he also did not revert my removals. So why not stop trying to decide what other people think and let them speak for themselves? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This will be my only comment: as the two main editors working on this article are already aware of your concern, AnmaFinotera, it's far more effective to tag the article as needing the external links moved to be inline links (as I did) than to remove them to the talk page due to your ultra-to-the-letter-no-room-for-any-spirit-of-the-guideline interpretation. I'm not sure why anyone here would be afraid of any other person here (I haven't read through the entire conversation here, so I'm not sure where this "being afraid of Nihonjoe" is coming from). And any admin who blocked someone as part of an edit war in which they were directly involved would quickly find themselves removed from adminship. I certainly would never do that myself, and (if Gwern were still an admin) I wouldn't expect it out of him, either. It may also be more productive to roll up your sleeves and work some of the ELs into inline refs yourself instead of just doing a drive by. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said you were afraid of anything, that was Gwern's unique interpretation of events. It would be just as productive fro Gwern himself to get off his high horse and use the sources. In the time it would have taken him to make his lengthy acerbic remarks above, he could easily have crafted a decent reception section for this rather pitiful plot summary of an article. If he is too tired, busy, whatever, then he has no room to object to the proper moving of the links to the talk page and out of external links where they belong. His throwing half a dozen links on the article doesn't make him a "main" editor, IMHO, not that such a term is relevant in either case. If he actually was concerned about the quality of the article he'd, again, have already just did the reception section instead of just shoving in useless archive link that go against WP:EL and make the article look like a link farm and fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And in the time it took you to splatter this dispute all over the wiki, you could've done that work too.
Notice how the arguments go both ways? I don't have consensus to revert - but then, you don't have consensus to remove. I've shown lack of concern about quality because I haven't integrated the links? You haven't either. I'm not a 'main editor' (despite edits as far back as 2007)? Then you most certainly are not either! I'm going against EL? I've cited more of it than you have - "Professional reviews should instead be used as sources", not "must be used as sources or removed". An argument which goes both ways is an argument which is useless. --Gwern (contribs) 18:24 18 January 2010 (GMT)
Simple - it is you, the one wanting to include disputed links, you must get consensus to retain them. You have none. So either use them as sources or leave them off per guidelines and policy. The onus is not on me to get consensus to remove disputed links that go against WP:EL, but you to get consensus to ignore it just because you want to play semantics with words and, at this point, are obviously restoring them purely to be pointy, petty, and aggrieving rather than having any actual concern or interest in this article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The links are highly relevant RSs which are free of any legal or sourcing taint. Prima facie, they go in. WP:EL supports me. You say I am playing semantics; AnmaFinotera, do you even know what the word 'semantics' refers to, or are you just ignorantly following the colloquial expression? Semantics is the most important thing there is! The difference between 'should' and 'must' is as wide and significant as the difference between 'may' and 'may not'. And being POINTy? What point am I making? You are the one fighting to the death, alone, for a point of guideline it seems no one else agrees with, for a benefit that in your view is small. (To me, a link exiled to the talk page is as good as a link deleted entirely; but you don't seem to agree, which means that you must see the cost of said exiling as smaller than I see it, which means you must see the whole issue as less important than me.) I feel extremely aggrieved, which is an odd response if I was planning to aggrieve someone else. --Gwern (contribs) 16:40 23 January 2010 (GMT)

Comment: As far i'm concerned, i don't view this anime OST review as RS because it's an user submitted review. The argument that others articles use that website reviews is a clever way to dodge RS issue but i have yet to see why it should be given weight to that user submitted review. Perhaps because there is no other OST review available and thus any review regardless its quality rather than no review at all reasoning is applied here. Another point is instead of using the archive link please use a working/active one. Thanks --KrebMarkt 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's user-submitted, yes, but apparently it has to go through an editor before actually being posted. (Akin to Metafilter perhaps in being user-generated but still a RS.) The argument isn't a clever dodge but just a reminder that policies & guidelines are descriptions of what the community actually does, not prescriptive mandates passed down from Moses; if all those other articles use it without issue...
But I'll remove it anyway; a questionable soundtrack review isn't nearly as important as reviews of the actual movie. --Gwern (contribs) 18:24 18 January 2010 (GMT)

Refs droppout

For development

Others reviews

Not sure those reviews can weight much versus the ANN or the Mania review. --KrebMarkt 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I think I've said elsewhere, the nt2099.com site is a RS, and it's useful because it gives us historical context ("Back in the 70’s and 80’s, the majority of anime films were typically edited compilations from popular television shows. One of the most popular examples of this are the “Mobile Suit Gundam” trilogy films which more or less compiled and edited 50 TV episodes. And many films were created by live-action directors and the main sponsors of these films were national sponsors and toy manufacturers (this is explained in detail by an accompanying booklet included with the box set written by Hikawa Ryusuke)."). --Gwern (contribs) 17:16 23 January 2010 (GMT)
Maybe. What hurts is as far as i could check nt2099 is a big black monolith, we have zero info on why they are credible and worth mention compared to others reviews opinions. To make the things worse this site has a wikipedia article J-ENT which is like begging to prodded or sent to Afd.
So i think we should focus on using our most credible reviews first before considering using nt2099's one. --KrebMarkt 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a few "J-ENT" usages elsewhere, but rather few.
But I'm especially not concerned about using that review because it specifically cites the booklet. If you assume that these reviewers are incompetent and ignorant (but not dishonest), then the statements are useful because they're just plagiarizing/summarizing the reliable booklet; if you assume they are competent and knowledgeable, then there's no problem at all. Either, we're fine. --Gwern (contribs) 19:59 23 January 2010 (GMT)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise. 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) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Much to add.

A lot of info is missing from the article. The hero became an astronaut after he failed to get high enough marks in basic flight school to go to fighter pilot training. You see the space programme is not serious, they only get second-class personnel. Their work is meant to offend the opposing superpower, they have no other purpose. The space agency succeeds AGAINST the will of their own government.

The girl protagonist is actually a prostitute. This is obvious in the scene where her shoe's heel breaks and and a lot of money falls off. (This footage may have been deleted from puritain anglo-saxon releases.)

The launch of the space rocket is clearly modelled after the soviet R-7 missile (Sputnik's and Gagarin's booster). 81.0.68.145 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe it should be in the article, then add it in yourself with appropriate sources. And, please, do not make another stab at "Anglo-saxons" (British) people again, you have been warned about that before. "(This footage may have been deleted from puritain anglo-saxon releases.)" - Seriously, stop being derogatory towards British people. ScarianTalk 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The scene where the girl's shoe breaks and money falls out is included in the UK release (which would be presumably different from the "anglo-saxon" US and European releases... If there is a line in any director's commentary, please quote it, otherwise leave it uncited.
As for the "clearly modelled after" comment, leave that out please. There's enough rubbish of that type on Wikipedia. Personal opinion is uncalled for, if you can cite something, include it Alastairward 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with some of your assessment. True, the fact that the space program gets second-class personnel is important, but it's not obvious Ruiquinni is prostituting herself. When she is first seen, she might be in a red-light district, but her behavious is most definitely not that of a prostitute. The money from her shoe later could just as easily be from begging, for instance. IIRC, the film never explains it. StaticSan (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any explanation of where her money comes from other than the job in the field she has chopping vegetation Alastairward 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why the need to hide it in a boot then?:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.138.5.233 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Made major change to critics response section (August 2019)

Hi! It turns out that the movie did not go direct to home video, but had a release first in US and UK movie theaters during 1994 and 1995, in the English dubbed version, and during that time many print newspapers did reviews on it, including the one by the previously quoted Roger Ebert who, when you read the whole review, was actually writing the piece to recommend one of those local theater showings.

Though many of the reviews at the time were highly positive, some were mixed and some very negative and I believe this gives a more nuanced picture than the earlier version’s assertion that the movie had received universal acclaim from film critics since its release. As said I took out the previous 4 citations but 2 of those 4 critics, Ebert and McCarthy, were in the 14 I added so maybe I changed it less extremely than it might look at first.

People are also still arguing even today about what “anime style” means, why anime is that way in Japan, and what anime should or shouldn’t be…I’m thinking about the controversy over that recent Netflix documentary, Enter the Anime. So I found it super fascinating to look at these old reviews and realize some of the same debate was going on 25 years ago in everyday American and British newspapers. If you look close at the reviews cited, for example there were cases where you’d have two papers covering the same urban area such as Dallas/Fort Worth and Los Angeles, except one paper liked the film and the other paper didn’t like the film.

The reception the movie got from the newspaper movie reviewers really was mixed and complex, and I think the record of that would benefit the article. In a small way it reminds me of reading about the critical response back in the ‘60s to 2001: A Space Odyssey, even though that is a much more famous movie. It was actually why I used the phrase “Critical response,” modeling it on the critics section in the 2001: A Space Odyssey page. Hopefully that isn’t pretentious, but 2001 is rated a good article, so I thought it was also a good model to try to use.

Even though some papers that are still major online today weighed in on the film way back then, such as WaPo and The Guardian, I can really understand if these Royal Space Force/Wings of Honneamise reviews just weren’t known about before. The 1994-95 time frame seems to have been right before newspapers started going online, so they may have only ever appeared in the print versions.

These reviews may be behind paywalls or not otherwise searchable on the web, although they are definitely available in libraries that have some archives on the old microfilm format, which is where I sourced the newspaper and magazine references. The clue that sort of unlocked all this in the first place was finding an old issue of an anime fan magazine, Animerica, that listed the cities and the dates where the movie was going to show, otherwise I would have never been aware that these reviews existed, or even where to start tracking them down in the library.

One newspaper cited, LA Village View, no longer exists, but it is mentioned in the page for the paper it was taken over by, New Times LA, so I linked to that page in the reference, which I thought was the best I could do with the situation. Actually New Times LA also doesn't exist anymore, since apparently a lot of papers that were around in the '90s have gone out of business or changed names since news media went online.

One strange thing I noticed is that even though one of the 1990s sources added is actually available online, Richard Corliss’s “Amazing Anime”, the online version does not contain the quote about Honneamise used in the reference. In the microfilmed library edition of the article, the quote was visible in a sidebar giving a timeline of anime, adjacent to the main article. The archived online version of “Amazing Anime” http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,34340-1,00.html contains the main article text but not the sidebar text.

I don’t know if this is due to how the archiving was set up, but it’s got me wondering if other online archives of print material are always 100% complete as well or whether sometimes they might get abridged in some fashion. Maybe it has something to do with how they set up the OCR? I’ve seen old Microsoft scanned books where images were fuzzy but text was more clear, and my guess was it was because they made the settings for the text. If they were doing batch scanning jobs maybe things got skipped over occasionally, like text if it was in boxes instead of columns. Just a guess though.Iura Solntse (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Split Sequel section into previous redirect page for Uru in Blue (January 2020)

Hi! I noticed that on the Japanese Wikipedia, “Aoki Uru” is a separate article (jp:蒼きウル), and as the “Sequel” section of Royal Space Force has expanded I think it has become suitable to do the same in the English version. What I did was leave a short summary on “Aoki Uru” and a “Main Article” link in the “Sequel” section then move the rest of the “Sequel” text to the Uru in Blue page which has previously existed as a redirect to “Sequel” on “Royal Space Force”. At the moment the 1992-93 section of Uru in Blue is the most developed but I plan to cite more information on the late 1990s period in the near future.

Uru in Blue was actually one of three titles that previously redirected to the “Sequel” section...the other two are different names the sequel has been known by, Aoki Uru and Blue Uru. Out of those three I picked Uru in Blue to be the main article name because it seems to have been the official English title for this project since 2013 although I reference how the other titles have been used by sources in the past. Then I removed those three redirects from the Royal Space Force page and added into Aoki Uru and Blue Uru redirects to the Uru in Blue page.

I think the separate page for Uru in Blue makes sense because there is a fair amount to document about the project (not surprising since it has almost a 30 year history now) and yet...although it’s described as a sequel to Royal Space Force the references on it show a definite difference, for example it being set a half century later and deliberately sharing no characters or situations with the first movie. Also the basic identity of the two works is different, that is Royal Space Force is an actual movie completed back in the 1980s that you can watch streaming right now or on get on Blu-ray, but “Aoki Uru” is a concept for a movie that has never actually been made as yet. It has a different backstory and different issues behind it, so I don’t think it should exist mainly as an end piece to Royal Space Force but as a separate article if that makes sense.--Iura Solntse (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi! As there are a fairly large number (26) of Japanese proper names that do not currently have an English wiki page devoted specifically to them that are nevertheless referenced at some point (sometimes multiple times) in the main body text of the English Royal Space Force article I think it would be better to remove those names' previously inserted Japanese page links entirely rather than have the reader so frequently encounter names in the text denoted in red as happening to have no devoted English article at present.

This may at first seem like information is being removed but as pointed out the previously inserted links are of somewhat limited utility in the context of the English-language wiki article as they naturally direct to Japanese-language wiki pages. In the absence of those Japanese links hopefully the English body text itself already presents the basic context relevant to this article behind the use of each of these particular names (for example the article notes Shigeru Watanabe as being a film producer, General Products as being a fan merchandise company, Fumio Iida as being a key animator, etc.) even if they are among those Japanese people and entities that lack English wiki pages of their own at the present time.Iura Solntse (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Morgan695 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this. Full comments to follow, but my immediate reaction is that structuring the article as 14 master sections, many of which are very large, makes the article very unnavigable. I would recommend before I review, that you structure the article to resemble something resembling the list below. Morgan695 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Plot
  • Cast
  • Production
    • Development
    • Writing
    • Pilot film
    • Design
    • Screenplay
    • Animation
    • Music
  • Release
    • Marketing
    • Japanese release
    • English-language release
  • Reception
    • Japanese critical response
    • English-language critical response
  • Sequel
  • See also, notes, etc

Hi I talked the nominator into nominating this for GAN and told him I would help out so I will also take part with working on concerns. GamerPro64 17:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Iura Solntse: @GamerPro64: Sure, that's fine. I think it makes the most sense to implement the article re-organization I recommended above before I start my review. It shouldn't be just difficult, just adding subheaders and moving text around. Morgan695 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that you don't have to follow the exact format I suggested above; if it makes sense to merge/remove/add subsections, please do so. Morgan695 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The headers been worked on. GamerPro64 19:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • "later to share the Academy Award for the soundtrack to The Last Emperor, served as music director" interesting trivia, but I'm not sure it belongs in the second sentence of the article.

Plot

  • The article in general suffers a bit from WP:OVERLINK. In the first paragraph of the plot alone, "middle-class", "spaceflight", "satellites", "preaching", "red-light district", "astronaut", and "orbit" should not be linked. I would recommend doing a proofread of the article to remove wikilinks from terms like these that are easily understood in context.

Voice cast

  • Both the Japanese and English casts need to be cited, ideally with a secondary source but if not, citing the work itself is adequate (see Adolescence_of_Utena#Cast)

Development

  • Again, check for overlinking
  • When using the term "OVA" for the first time here, spell out in full (i.e. "original video animation (OVA)") and then use the acronym for all subequent uses

Pilot Film

  • Uncap "Film" so header reads as "Pilot film"
  • Italicize Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg

English-language release

Further reading

  • These reviews should be integrated into "English-language critical response" or removed. None of them, with the possible exception of the DVD Talk review, feel substantial enough to stand on their own as Further reading; the Carl Gustav Horn link is also broken.

External links

  • What is the significance of the four unformatted Internet Archive links to the Gainax site?

Closing comments

  • @Iura Solntse: @GamerPro64: This is a well-written article, and will happily pass it for GA once these changes are made. If you seek to take this article to FA, or even just develop it further, I would strongly recommend including a "Themes and analysis" section that sources scholarly articles on the film. There is a depth of material on this film in academic writing, paticularly the sexual assault scene, and the article feels somewhat incomplete without it. However, the article as currently constituted is more than adequate to meet GA standards, once these edits are made. Good work. Morgan695 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Well done. This is a good article. Morgan695 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi! Morgan695, thank you very much once again for taking the time to review the article, and here is a breakdown of my current edit as reflects your outline:

Lead

• "later to share the Academy Award for the soundtrack to The Last Emperor, served as music director" interesting trivia, but I'm not sure it belongs in the second sentence of the article.

I believe it is appropriate to retain it there as reference 161 notes he was the only member of Royal Space Force's main staff known to the general public and was therefore a more prominent lead creative credit on the film than even the director himself. Sakamoto's Academy Award was for a film released the very same year as Royal Space Force so the context of that mention is close to the work under discussion.

Plot

• The article in general suffers a bit from WP:OVERLINK. In the first paragraph of the plot alone, "middle-class", "spaceflight", "satellites", "preaching", "red-light district", "astronaut", and "orbit" should not be linked. I would recommend doing a proofread of the article to remove wikilinks from terms like these that are easily understood in context.

I removed most of the links from the Plot section.

Voice cast

• Both the Japanese and English casts need to be cited, ideally with a secondary source but if not, citing the work itself is adequate (see Adolescence_of_Utena#Cast)

I was able to include a secondary source for the Japanese cast but I’m not currently aware of any reference that would list the full English cast other than the work itself so I cited it in that way for now. If I come across a secondary source for the English cast list in the future, I will update that citation.

Development

• Again, check for overlinking

• When using the term "OVA" for the first time here, spell out in full (i.e. "original video animation (OVA)") and then use the acronym for all subsequent uses

I changed the mentions of the OVA term as indicated, and removed an additional 47 links from the Production section, 19 from the Release section, and 12 from the Reception section.

Pilot Film

• Uncap "Film" so header reads as "Pilot film"

• Italicize Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg

I made those formatting changes.

English-language release

• All images have proper rationales except File:HonneamiseHD.jpg here, which is currently licensed for use in a lead infobox. The image should be removed from the article, as it does not communicate information that File:Royal Space Force Poster.jpg doesn't already.

I removed the File:HonneamiseHD.jpg image.

Further reading

• These reviews should be integrated into "English-language critical response" or removed. None of them, with the possible exception of the DVD Talk review, feel substantial enough to stand on their own as Further reading; the Carl Gustav Horn link is also broken.

I removed the “Further reading” links.

External links

• What is the significance of the four unformatted Internet Archive links to the Gainax site?

As with the “Further reading” section these seem to be very old parts of the article. They reference the 1997 Japanese studio sessions in which the movie’s sound FX were re-recorded for an anniversary release of the film. I decided to remove the introductory comment link and then only retain the first of the three links of the report on the sound recording event as the first link itself has a link to the second and third parts of the report. I also chose a different capture date for that link from the Internet Archive as all the images were gone from the original one. There doesn’t seem to be a capture that has all the images but I found a date that has about half still present so it’s an improvement. I then moved that remaining link of the original four out of the External links section and instead made it part of a citation in paragraph three of "English-language release” (reference 208) since that section had previously noted that the English-language Bandai Blu-Ray/HD-DVD uses the 1997 re-recording.

Closing comments

• @Iura Solntse: @GamerPro64: This is a well-written article, and will happily pass it for GA once these changes are made. If you seek to take this article to FA, or even just develop it further, I would strongly recommend including a "Themes and analysis" section that sources scholarly articles on the film. There is a depth of material on this film in academic writing, paticularly the sexual assault scene, and the article feels somewhat incomplete without it. However, the article as currently constituted is more than adequate to meet GA standards, once these edits are made. Good work. Morgan695 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That’s a good suggestion about a Themes and analysis section and I’ll look into it.Iura Solntse (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Space_Force:_The_Wings_of_Honnêamise/Archive_1&oldid=1165258618"