Jump to content

Talk:Wolf's Rain

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.242.61.168 (talk) at 13:06, 13 July 2012 (→Russian Story?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnime and manga B‑class Mid‑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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Russian Story?

I read somewhere this is a Russian folk story, being Russian and making it the focus of all my studies I just want to know if anyone has some proof that is/isn't the case?

Thanks!--67.185.245.221 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard anything about it, and never seen anyone try to say it was. If it is, there is little to no proof available, at least not in English. Might have to check some Japanese sites. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to sleuth this because it sure would be neat if it was, now I have to know! Worst case scenario I will have to find out this summer when I am there. I guess that isn't exactly wiki-quality standards but at least I will know heh. It seems likely since on many sites it's alternative title is given in Russian, which doesn't seem ordinary for anime, also read it was shown in Russia. The part I read was a review of it said like "This classic Russian tale told through Japanese anime..." or something, and someone else reviewed it as a sort dark and depressing story method typical of Russian folklore (his words).--67.185.245.221 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, this is true. This is story which takes place in Russia. I wrote some about it, but some bad radish people deleted it coz "needed souces" saying to "come back when you have sources". I told that this is evident facts which is shown in anime. But that russophobes undoing my constructive edits (well, there was one). Sad, but true. Obvious things that understandable from the article subject don't need sourses, I said that... Well, I will leave facts here and info which I wrote in article, maybe you know some sources or maybe you will embark on the path of truth. P.S. Sorry for not very good english. Hello from Russia ;)

I wrote at the bottom of preamble:

"Also, the anime series have quite many references to Russia and some connected stereotypes with it: overwhelming majority of inscriptions are made on russian language (russian alphabet), on frames we often can see vodka and potatoes, and action mainly takes place among northern (probably Siberian) landscapes."

This is really all just facts that are shown in the anime itself. (I can say more - it is only part of references to Russia what I wrote). I hope some day it will be in the article. 188.242.61.168 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

I am starting the review process with the quick fail criteria, then moving point-by-point through the GA criteria. Any comments or responses are welcome -Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick-fail: ; Did not fail the quick-fail criteria. The Reception section does contain some strong praise, so I'll check those sources mentioned and others to make sure that this is well founded and not soapbox / POV. < Discussed below

Editor's Note: I know that the authors of this article have put a lot of effort into crafting and revising the content, and the fact that I am so nitpicky in my review is not meant to diminish this effort, nor to lead you to believe that this is a bad article. Rather, I think the article is quite well written, balanced, concise, and NPOV. I have been very careful in my review, noting even minor problems, because I believe that I owe you no less; to give the article a quick skim rather than a thorough review would not be fair to the amount of work you have already put in, in my opinion. Just because I have noted a problem below, does not mean that I'll refuse the GA nomination based on this problem. I've tried to state which things are major issues and which are minor problems.

  • 1. Prose: ; For the most part very good, but some major issues remain
  • Overall, the introduction is good. However, I would suggest you reference the reception if you are going to spend so long talking about it later.
  • I would suggest linking to an article that explains the concept of OVAs the first time this is introduced.
  • I have fixed a number of minor spelling errors throughout the piece... nothing too major, but it does make me wonder how thoroughly the article was checked before it was submitted to GA.
  • It was checked, but as the main editor and main checker, I've probably missed stuff. Unfortunately, the request for a copyedit sat unanswered for months at LoCE. I'll see if I can get a copy editor to give it another going over.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article links to a 'Characters' article as a main article and (presumably) the source for the section on characters (no other reference is provided in this section). Because of this, the related 'Characters' article definitely needs to be cleaned up before Wolf's Rain is considered for GA status. It doesn't need to be perfect, just address the banners at the top of the page.
  • I disagree. There is no requirement that a subarticle be well done before its main can be a GA. There are plenty of GA's with bad character lists (or worse, lots of character articles). Fixing the character list is on my list of things to do, but I don't think that means it should be required to be done before this can be GA. I'll add the needed references for this section, though. Will that take care of the problem? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of characters, what is basis for using katakana, rather than hiragana, to spell out the names?
  • The anime section is nice and factual. It's good to leave the list of episodes to another article, as we already have a plot outline above. However, I believe that you should do the same with the table listing chapters in the manga section (make it into its own article, or remove it). The text is mentioned above in 'differences', and the chapter listings can easily be condensed into a paragraph or even a sentence or two.
  • with the usual Viz banners added to... - What are the 'Viz banners'? Why is this important to this article? I would suggest deleting this sentence, as it sounds like trivia. A once-over on the article to remove similar trivial things (i.e. things that don't add to the understanding of the topic Wolf's Rain) would be nice.
  • moderate success, considered a hit - Avoid weasel words. What makes a hit? Is it lots of viewers, good money for the studio? Who decides which shows are good and which ones bad? Don't talk about strong appeal without giving me some facts or an actual measure of appeal. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words.
  • The following is a very long sentence, and should be revised: "Reviewers of the Region 1 DVD volume containing the four episodes recommended it be left unbought and skipped as a waste of money, though Bandai's release of the episodes was also considered an improvement over the Japanese release of the series which had the recapitulation episodes spread over two DVDs requiring them to be bought to get the new episodes on the same volumes."
  • The section on critical reception probably shouldn't be so long. While the wording seems fairly balanced (though by no means perfect) and NPOV, the length of the section suggests Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. In a nutshell, I don't believe that the reception is more important than the plot in understanding this anime, yet plot is a slightly less lengthy section than reception.
  • That does not mesh with the anime and manga MoS, nor the Wikipedia emphasis on its real-world aspects rather than the plot and in-universe/fictional aspects.
  • In general, the article is organized well, with a good table of contents and good sections. Wikilinks are provided for subjects when they are first introduced, and covers jargon, company names, etc. One complaint is that the section on 'changes in manga adaptation' feels out of place between plot and characters, which together introduce the series. I would suggest moving this either below the 'characters' section as its own section (since it references changes in characters in addition to changes in plot), or, more preferable, to the section that deals with the manga.
  • Had to fix one error with tense, but overall article sticks to present tense, and when it uses past tense it is not distracting.
  • 2. Links and References: ; Many issues remain
  • There are no sources for the introduction. It is probably not necessary to source things like plot and episode length, but would be nice to pull some references for licensing/distribution information, the statement about the manga being a retelling, etc.
  • A lead should never need sourcing. Anything in the lead should be sourced within the article, as everything in the lead should be. If there is something in the lead that is not referenced within the article, please let meknow.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you should link to the articles on Paradise and Wolves, as these are generally understood subjects and have specific uses in the anime.
  • I found a reference to an article that has nothing to do with Wolf's Rain. This is a big one, considering the potential POV and weasel wording of the associated sentence: It is considered a major hit amongst manga that are adapted from an anime series.
  • I noticed that at the bottom of the 'reception' section, a quote is summarized and then immediately displayed as a block quote. I would suggest you stick with the summarized sentence and remove the block quote, as you already have a block quote by the same author, from the same website.
  • On the same note, 13 references (1/3 of the total) are from the Anime News Network, and many more are from similar sites that cater to an anime fan-base. This article needs to have a wider range of sources, and specifically some sources that aren't geared towards fans. As ANN itself states, "The vast majority of visitors to Anime News Network are over the age of 18 and, needless to say, they're all anime fans[...]" [1]
  • There are only a handful of English anime news sites that meet those requirements, ANN, ICv2, and AnimeOnDVD.com being the ones most often used. All three are industry supported and meet all requirements for being a reliable source. There are a few statements that can be referenced from other sites, like the official site, as well, so I've updated those.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3:Breadth ; After fixes as noted
  • For the most part, this article is concise, and sticks to aspects relevent to the topic.
  • As noted above, there are several instances of trivial information, and a table that should either be relegated to a more in-depth article on the manga or removed. In addition, the section on reception is long compared to other sections in the article, and considering that reception is only somewhat important in understanding the topic.
  • I commend this article for avoiding the 'trivia' and 'cultural references' sections that plague so many similar articles.
  • 4:NPOV ; problems are minor, but should be addressed
  • Overall, the article is very factual and does not drift into POV material. Very well written. However, there are a couple of concerns, especially with the 'reception' section, as noted above. In a nutshell, the article should avoid weasel words, and not give too much bias to certain sources.
  • 5:Stability
  • This article has been stable for the last month, and there don't seem to be any ongoing edits or major changes.
  • 6:Images
  • All images used in this article have fair use rationale or are in the public domain.
  • The article could probably use a couple more images to illustrate the anime, but this is a matter of taste and may not be possible due to copyright issues.

In summary, I am placing the nomination on hold, because I believe that these issues can be met in the week allowed for changes.-Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the GA as the reviewer never came back to answer questions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Plot Summery

Greetings! I just posted an extended (improved) plot summery for the page. I included all the citation needed as well. Hope you approve.69.212.254.162 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted, yet again. As already noted the other times you have tried this, the plot summary is already quite sufficient and your summary contains a glut of personal interpretation (aka WP:OR that has no place here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a way to use my extended text and just change the parts that you think have the wrong "personal interpretation"? The current text has some major gaps and flaws in the timeline and events.69.212.254.162 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no change -- Kraftlos (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short series with very few characters, so there is no real reason for a character list. They're acceptable splits for 50+ episode and 150+ chapter series and series with numerous important characters, but nothing of this sort. TTN (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, sorry, but thats just not true at all. It is a 30 episode series, which is long enough for a character list, particularly for such a complex series. Trying to merge the character list here would make this article too long. There is plenty of information for this list to bring it to FL level, it just hasn't been added yet.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding 2kb with my initial merge and most likely only up to 4kb at most with additional information make this anywhere close to being too long? TTN (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You left out most of the information from the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left out plot information, which belongs within the plot section, episode list, and chapter list. There's probably more that can be added, but I really doubt its going to be more than a few kilobytes. TTN (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing any valid reason not to have a standalone list. Tokyo Mew Mew has a separate list as well, which this list could easily be updated to match, it just hasn't happened yet. Indeed, I'd rather see this article emulate TMM which has no character section in the main article at all, but instead just the plot, with a link off to the character list. Its more ideal for "shorter" series.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how this is comparable to a longer series with double the characters. It sort of fits my criteria for having a list, though that list itself could probably be cut down to at least 40kb quite easily, and a brief character section could be included in the main article just to sum them up. The main reason for having a list is that it is not possible to discuss the characters fully within the main article. From what I've seen of the series and what I've read in the list, it should be quite easy to do so. What exactly would make that impossible other than the personal preference for a list? TTN (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal preference. This is the going consensus in the project. You really shouldn't be making structural decisions about articles simply based on your own set of rules or criteria. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The issue here isn't length, it's quality. This article is assessed at B-Class, the list is unreferenced and assessed at Start-class. I can't see how merging the lower quality list into this article will make it better. Also, there is no rule that states that the series has to be x chapters or x episodes to earn a separate character list. Most 26 episode series articles have character sub-articles, this is done for length, but also because character details are notoriously difficult to maintain. Keeping them separate allows the parent article to flourish without being choked out by the fancruft that a list of characters tends to attract. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...and the only reason this article didn't pass GA is the reviewer disappeared and I didn't bother renominating it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I support the merge, but not the way you did it and not for the reasons you gave. I have to agree with Kraftlos on that point. You can certainly have and use your own set of criteria while editing. But once there is disagreement, more is needed. My suggestions would be the following: The short character descriptions in this article should be replaced completely by those on the list. Only the more outstanding redundacies with the Plot section should be removed. This would add roughly 10kb to this article's size. That would lead to an article size of around 45kb, which is by no means too much. "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced." All three of you know where I got that. (For everyone else: I got it here.) Spin-off or not, a character list is still part of the coverage of the work the characters are from and essentially an extension of the main article. Every significant amount of in-universe information should have an ample amount of real-world information to counterbalance it. In this case, the Reception section could be said to counterbalance the plot section. That would leave the media section to counterbalance a Characters section of the size I proposed. The episodes list, by the way, does not qualify to balance anything, as it consists largely of in-universe information itself. Now, if that WP:FICT approach doesn't work for anyone here, because it's just an essay at this point, then we can simply take a step back. Under WP:N the list as it is now does not establish separate notability. Which brings me to the arguments against a merge mentioned so far. What decides about the right of a separate page to exist is not TTN, Kraftlos, AnmaFinotera, or my personal preference, but WP:N. If a series has 3 or 300 episodes is irrelevant. Same goes for those omnipresent project consensi, to which - conveniently - nobody can ever point a link. Even if we had a solid consensus with 100 project members agreeing on it, project guidelines don't overrule WP:N. Next point on the list: If there is enough information to get the spin-off to featured list status - once that information has been added - then there should be no problem with merging this list until at least enough info has been accumulated as to establish notability for a stand-alone article - after all, this isn't an Article for Deletion. Hmm, what else was said... Matching Tokyo Mew Mew's character list? That's a C-Class article. When you proposed merging the Dragon Ball characters, you listed as one of the reasons to merge, that the articles could not reach GA status. But now you want to bring this list to C-Class? And no, the fact that Tokyo Mew Mew is a featured article is no argument here. To make this point valid, Tokyo Mew Mew would have to be a featured topic (or at least the character list would have to be featured as well). Which brings me to the last but maybe most important point. Since when are we opposing a merge on the grounds of ruining the target articles rating? I refuse to believe that - the featured article status in particular - is meant to encourage only putting the kind of information on an article, which appeals to potential FAC reviewers, while the cruft is dumped out of sight for long time storage. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the last part there. I never proposed merging the list of Dragon Ball characters to its main article, nor would I. TMM's character list is currently C, true, but its also being prepped for FL after having all of its individual character articles merged into the main list. It would be B but I haven't gotten back to finishing up Ichigo's section. When that's done, it will go up to B, then it will be peer review, creation/conception and reception section added, and it will go for FLC. And I'm sure you know TMM is listed as one of our planned featured topics. The Wolf's Rain character list is not in the best of shape, however unlike those individual DB character articles, there IS information there and I fully believe that with work it can be brought up to FL status. I just haven't had the time to get it going because I keep getting distracted by other stuff. As a whole, the characters have received plenty of third party coverage meeting WP:N easily. Could the individual characters support individual articles? No, that's why they don't have them. However, this was and remains an appropriate split from the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't propose merging DB characters to the main article, but into a list. That's relevant to my argumentation, because I did not argue about where to merge things rather than what deserves its own articles. - It is my opinion, that stuff like this comes into existence when articles on fictional topics are allowed to grow without providing for their own notability. - If you plan to work on the main article and on the list anyways and the sources indeed exist, then how is it asked too much to add a handful of them to establish basic notability, before pushing the main article to featured status? I think that would be a fair trade-off for not having to deal with a character section in the main article. - My support is not based on the assumption that the character list can't reach FL, but on the opinion (backed up by WP:N), that if a list, not establishing notability, can reasonably fit into its main article, it should be placed there. - Maybe I should mention, that I'd switch to opposing this merge, if the list's references section held at least two or three third party references, instead of nothing. - By the way, isn't it funny, that 4 deletionists can't agree on a merge? :) -- Goodraise (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes...this is rather funny (and maybe a little sad :P). Why must I work on the list first when the article is closer to where it needs to be? I rarely do a list first over the main article unless I don't plan to do the main article. I prefer getting the main article to GA/FA then working on bringing the lists up to the same quality. I don't think one should feel they have to do one or the other. The list has notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's notable, and judging from my experience with you, that's probably true. But how are other editors supposed to know that? When I look at that list, I see a pile consisting purely of in-universe material. I'm not asking for the world here. There's no need for in-line citations. Two or (yet better) three third-party entries directly placed in the References section, nothing more than any good stub provides. And as far as I'm concerned the list is a part of the main article - falsely placed in its own page - until basic notability is provided. If a stub has to establish notability from the moment of its creation, then the same is true for spin-offs even more. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three third party RS have now been added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Notability concerns resolved. More than I expected. Good job you two. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference 18

I'm not sure if this is specifically breaking any "rules" or anything, but I'm kind of objecting to this and didn't want to change it without some discussion first: "Other critics have complained that while the show had an original and innovative storyline with beautiful visuals and appealing characters, the episodes themselves were poorly paced, undeveloped, and plagued with plot holes.[19]" I'm not sure when this reference was added - it may have been valid at a point before episodes 27-30 came out, since that is when it was written - but I think it should just be taken out of the article now since all it contributes is false balance. But that's where I'm getting mixed up. The series being undeveloped and having plot holes could have been fixed by the newer episodes, but "poorly paced" I really just don't know. It's definitely not Dragon Ball Z, so I think that's invalid, but I don't think that's up for me to decide if that reference gets to stay in the article. What does everyone else think? 99.194.201.86 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf%27s_Rain&oldid=502055338"