Jump to content

Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 18 January 2010 (→Sources: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnime and manga Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics 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.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFilm: Japanese Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.

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)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)

Year of Release?

when was this movie made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.220.218 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Animerica Sadamoto interview

Sources for character designs if anyone has time: http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/oldeva/1999-January/024322.html --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 8 November 2009 (GMT)

Sources

Removed from the external links per WP:EL:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your rationale for removing? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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, Collectonian...
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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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, Collectonian, 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 Collectonian 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? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my only comment: as the two main editors working on this article are already aware of your concern, Collectonian, 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)[reply]
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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Space_Force:_The_Wings_of_Honnêamise&oldid=338593434"