Talk:Sakura Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

It seems to me that the article would be best served if it was split—the anime section would certainly make a separate article of its own. DocWatson42 07:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Might consider redirecting the comment regarding the localization and release of Sakura Tasien 5 Episode 0. Well over a year after its release and the release of ST5, the game is still no more likely to be released to the US. It might also be beneficial to add notes to Atsuki Chishio Ni, Sakura Taisen 3, ST5 E0 (and STV itself?) noting the Chinese and Korean releases of those titles (first localized releases of the games outside of Japan.)

Page Clean-up and Reconstruction

I had cleaned and removed much of the information that was previously in this entry, as I also felt that it was time to place them in separate pages. There are still a few more sections to be added, such as reception and related media, which I am currently conducting research on. If someone could please provide information for those sections, please do so. The infobox should probably be cleaned up as well. Screenshots of the different Sakura Taisen groups would also be beneficial.

As was mentioned before, I intend to place the information about the games, animes, and the live action musicals in a list of Sakura Taisen media, similar in form to the Final Fantasy Wikipedia list. However, if someone would like to jump start on that page, his/her help is highly appreciated.

Jay 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the reception and an overview of related media, sections for music and common gameplays between all the main games should also probably be introduced...

Jay 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone please fix this

"Kouran (Honglan) is actually the name of Hiroi Ouji's cousin in China."

This is the only mention of Hiroi Ouji in the entire article. Who's he? Ken Arromdee 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The author of the series! I think he's pulling the leg. It's def. a reference to the Manchukou singer. (Ouji also claims to have been kidnapped and brought to Siberia by Kodansha because they thought he was writing the manga too slowly.) This article needs a lot of clean-up too, I see. --Kunzite 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the page index at the right, it states tht name of the OVA as "Sakura Wars : Le Nouveau Paris", while in the article it is said to be "Sakura Taisen: Le Nouveau Paris. Anyone care to find out which is correct?

Tylerofmaine 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)tylerofmaine.

Sakura Taisen and Sakura Wars are the same things ´cause "taisen" is "Wars" in english,see?. Both titles are correct.--Heliezer--En Pie de Guerra y Siempre Orgulloso!!!! 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

More infos of the Sakura Wars characters

In some of the game sites, we like to give out more information. Yestersay (Monday, May 15 2006) I'd decide to put some tags so contributors who knows about these characters (except the bosses) but i've forgot that it wasn't approved and was quickly been restored back. So I hope to get an approval that we want to know more infos of the characters in Sakura Taisen/ Sakura Wars (e.g. Background, storyline)

So please apporved my ideas. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewwong36 (talk • contribs) .

It does not have to be approved. I'm just trying to avoid having a lot of small articles on characters which will attract people who like to delete such things.

A characters page is perfectly fine. (I'd love to help make it.) The problem is that individual pages aren't ok unless we have enough information already in the wikipedia to fill them.

The way to make character pages per WP:FICTION is to 1) list the characters in the main article. If that article becomes too large 2) create a main page for characters. If a character's section become too large it should be 3) moved to its own page. For example, with Sakura Taisen... We may give the Ohgami his own page but Ayame, Kaede, Yoneda, Oyakata, the Baragumi and the 3-nin musume would all be on the same page like "Sakura Taisen other characters". So, let's start by making Sakura Wars characters and then expanding from there. How's that sound?

Sometime this week I will make pictures for each main character from the article. --Kunzite 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I suggest to take only the main important characters only. Like you've said, Ayame, Kaede and some other soldiers in Sakura Wars, we have to skip that or add it into another section. I know some infos but I think I need more help from other contributers, if you know what I mean.

Andrewwong36 13:45, 16 May 2006 (+8)

Title change to Sakura Taisen

The official English manga version uses Sakura Taisen. The official Japanese version had used "Sakura Wars" for a small time, but it was quickly changed back Sakura Taisen. Opinions? --Kunzite 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about it but, Both of them are still the same title Sakura Wars in English and Sakura Taisen in Japanese.

Andrewwong36 14:15, 16 May 2006 (+8)

Dead Site??

The name "The Sakura Taisen Archives - SakuraArchives.com " at the link site has a problem. I'd can't seem to get into this site. Is it dead or or is it just me?

Andrewwong36 14:15, 16 May 2006 (+8)

It's off and on. I suggest linking to it through archive.org --Kunzite 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Still now working! Are you sure it's sakuraarchive.org? CUz I tried both and still can't get it.

Andrewwong36 20:00, 18 May 2006 (+8)

Shochiku Revue

This is the second time I've added the info on the Shochiku Revue the first time I didn't really now what I was doing with Wiki and didn't put in a source... but this time I hope it remains up, as while it's easy to remember Takarazuka in all it's shining and current glory it's easy to forget there were other Kagekidans in the 20s and that Ouji had a personal connection to one of them.

Prince Rei 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Live shows cleanup

While the page as a whole could probably use a major overhaul, all that live show info was added to the side box instead of the main article, so I moved it. As it stands, it's pretty bad, but the info is all there to be prettied. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two problems that should be looked at

First of all, the tone of the article sounds like it's written by a very enthusiastic fan with some balance issues.. There's inconsistent neutrality and a poor tone. Phrases like "This is where it all started" as seen in the first video game section, don't really fit in with the Wikipedia tone.

Second, someone should probably clean this article up, organize it better, and put it a general plot summary, I've heard from other people as well, that's it's confusing - many people stop by here to find out the general plot of the franchise, and there is no general summary in the beginning. It's not until you read the summary of the first video game, with some scattershot references that may have no antecedent, that you begin to have a vague impression of what the franchise is all about. For better understanding and to serve the needs of users searching for casual information about the franchise, a general summary of the main idea of the plot, is necessary. It's quite possible to read the entire article and still have no idea about what the Flower Division or other essential terms that are frequently used are. To be sure it's a substantial job, I hope someone does this article some justice. Feel free to disagree, but there seems to be a lot of confusion out there that would be better cleared up with perhaps a plot summary that defines some important terms.

13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I last looked into this page, but true, after looking at it again I also feel that the info is a little bit too confusing. I'll see if I could clean it up and to it justice, as you have said. I'll try to use the featured articles as reference. By this time, I am assuming that this is now more of a metaseries, and that it would probably be best if separate pages are made for the games, OVA, TV series, and musicals instead of dropping them all in one place.

As I am more well versed with the first two OVAs and the games involving the Teito Hanagumi than anything else, I would highly appreciate it if others could also help me out. Jay 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Incidentally, Tony, why did you revert my change on Sakura Wars when I added the spoiler warning back? You seem to be using circular reasoning here:

1) because people won't put the spoiler warnings back, that shows consensus for the rule that says they should stay out.

2) because there's consensus for the rule that they should stay out, anyone who does put one back is violating the rule and should be reverted.

If consensus is determined by whether people put the warnings back, you have to *let* them put the warnings back. It's doubly wrong to determine consensus because people don't put back warnings that you don't let them put back anyway. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the warnings, soon after the policy was rewritten. (Sjones23 removed the warnings, I stand corrected. Must be another page I'm thinking of, which also hasn't changed). It's been like that since June 1st. Noone objected, noone reverted, yet there were at least a few edits since, including some non-content cleanup style editing. You came and added them in, with simply the word "Sheesh" as your edit summery. It sounds to me like you're doing exactly what you're accusing him of doing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll take this to Talk:Sakura Wars because if we discussed every style guideline issue on the talk page of hat guideline the pages would get very noisy. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And here I am. The reason I removed the tag from this article is given in the edit summary: "Clearly marked "Setting" section". It's okay to put it back. I think it's out of place but if people disagree with me that's okay too. I did let you put it back, there is no way I could have stopped you doing that, so I'm not sure what your point is there. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back because "clearly marked setting section" is from a contested policy.

First of all, making changes "based on policy" when the policy is contested is bad form to begin with.

Second, you've claimed that the policy has consensus because nobody reverts the changes. Aside from the other reasons why this is questionable (nobody can revert tens of thousands of changes), it makes even less sense if you don't *let* people revert the changes. You can't claim that there's consensus because people don't revert something when you keep undoing the reverts anyway. It's circular reasoning: policy is justified because nobody reverts, and you can stop any reversions because reversions contradict the policy.

And no, you did not "let (me) put it back". When I put it back you took it away again. If you were really letting people put the spoiler warnings back, you'd just see that they put it back and do nothing.

As for the reason this has been unchanged since June 1, that's because I don't have AWB and I don't go around changing tens of thousands of articles. I only happened to look at this article again now, and I only noticed the spoiler warning was removed now. The fact that I did not immediately revert on June 1 doesn't mean that I approved of the change for three weeks. Ken Arromdee 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But you're not the only other person that looked at the article. There've been a few edits, and surely a number of other visitors to the article that didn't think the warning was nessesary, for almost a month. There's gotta be something said there.

And the evidence is clear. I don't know how much is because of Tony's continueing insistence to remove them, but the number of articles that actually has the warnings is TINY. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I removed tags from about 20 articles yesterday. Most of them seem to be added randomly, perhaps by editors who haven't yet unlearned the old habit. There were formerly more than 45,000 articles with spoiler tags and at this moment there are just 8, so the growth of 20 a day isn't significant. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if there's going to be a spoiler warning here... what's the compelling reason for it? Why is this spoiler warning particularly important? Phil Sandifer 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the disputed policy doesn't require that the spoiler warning be particularly important. And the "compelling reason" part of the spoiler guideline is itself a disputed part of the policy. Demanding a compelling reason is just appealing to one disputed part to support another. Ken Arromdee 04:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, seriously, you say there has to be a spoiler warning here. What compelling reason exists for this? We're two editors who disagree with you and will probably remove the tag if we can't see why it should be there. Convince us. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A "compelling reason" is an inappropriate standard which is part of a disputed guideline. Come up with a better standard that is not disputed, put it in the guideline, and I'll be glad to convince you. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to write this article without discussing setting and character, and these involve plot details. The reader should know this, and therefore these tags are redundant, in this setting. This is not really an argument from WP:SPOILER - it's an argument from what it means to be an encyclopedia article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the big controversies in WP:SPOILER is the very idea that spoiler warnings are out of place when they are redundant. It makes more sense, purely from a user interface point of view, for spoiler warnings to go where there are spoilers, even if the user can logically deduce the existence of some of the spoilers without them. The calendar doesn't list only one day of the week on the grounds that the other six are redundant; we ourselves have a search box with the word "search" at the top even though it's obvious that the box is a search box without this title (and for that matter we have a note at the top *and* the bottom telling people to sign using four tildes, even though only one is logically necessary); etc. Whether a notice is useful depends on how it is placed and whether different occurrences of the notice are presented in the same way, not on whether the reader could figure the information out without the notice. Redundancy is not a reason to avoid a spoiler warning. Ken Arromdee 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen you express the opinion that spoiler tags "make more sense" even when they're obviously redundant. There are three other editors in this discussion and I'm fairly confident that, even if they understand what point you're trying to make, they will disagree. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Name Spelling

I changed the spelling from "Leni" and "Latchette" to "Reni" and "Ratchet" respectively. Though some may argue that the "R" in Japanese is interchangeable with "L", in the official Sakura Taisen movie artbook (where their names were written in English), the use of "R" was deliberate, given that Orihime's surname was also written as "Soletta", and Brent's was "Furlong". Jay 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

European Star Division merge

The European Star Division was merged with the Teito group because officially they belong within the Teikoku Kagekidan, according to the organizational charts in a Sakura Taisen game guide for "Sakura Taisen ~Koi Seyo Otome". I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll add the reference in (including the page) as soon as I get it back.

The fact that the group is the predecessor to the Tokyo Flower Division than the Paris Flower Division is also present in the organizational chart.

As for the reasons why it existed, admittedly I haven't played Sakura Taisen V, so I don't know if it was stated there that the Star Division's purpose had been to fight against demons, but in the new episode made for the PS2 remake of the original Sakura Taisen game, it was shown that the Star Division was actually participating in World War I, which made Kohran spiral into depression as she believed that machines (in this case the Eisenkleid) were meant to help people, and not kill them. For now, I left their purpose blank.

Lastly... and I've always wondered about this... where was it ever (officially) mentioned that Kaede was the deputy commander of the Star Division?

Jay 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anime Information Needed

Someone has deleted virtually all information about the anime, making this page just about the games. Also all links to the anime redirect here. CFLeon (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever any information about the anime or the other franchise on this page? I dont think so or at least I didnt found something as I browsed randomly through the history pages. I think its all there List of Sakura Wars titles and no one have yet created single pages for most of those, but only redirects to this page here instead? (That at least is the story the history pages tell for many subjects - As far as I have seen only the movie did get its own page, all OVAs are only redirects the rest have perhaps not even that (at least no links at the list page at all) --Stan T. Lor (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Sakura Wars characters

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 of this discussion was to not merge The1337gamer (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

---

This separate character list is completely unsourced and overgrown (video game trivia). All major characters can be covered in the #Characters section of the main article. If the list garners enough sourcing, it can always spin out summary style. I find it hard to fathom how any part of this could be contentious. czar 05:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The list appears to encompass media beyond just the video game, as there is anime, graphic novels, OVAs, manga, etc. (See List of Sakura Wars media) I'm not saying it should stay, but it is fairly typical of lists found for other anime/manga franchises, even if this one is rooted in a video game as the primary media. The lack of sourcing is an issue but I find it difficult to believe to believe sources don't exist. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Descriptions should be trimmed and sourced but there is a sizable set of lead characters for the franchise's main teams (Flower / Imperial Troupe, New York, and Paris). That they span the multiple media titles makes it useful to keep as a separate list. Characters considered significant should be listed under Cast/Staff for each title. Other characters should be grouped and organized under secondary / supporting characters and groups as with List of One Piece characters. The list as it stands is pretty good for size. The Paris and New York characters need the bulk of the trimming. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: As Angus says, multiple media complicates things. I always look at character lists on an individual basis and in this case there should be plenty of critical discussion of the characters for the Anime and Manga adaptations even if we can't find english sources for their game appearances. This is the sort of article we should look to improve first. Furthermore, I think that the lack of separate articles for each entry in the game means that the article would be trying to cover too much. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - While we may be rather strict when it comes to stand-alone articles for a single fictional character, conversely, in my experience, the grouping of "list of characters" for a game type lists seem to be far more loose, and the wider grouping for an entire series is even looser, and then a wider grouping of a multi-media franchise even looser. It needs a massive WP:INU-based effort of trimming, but I'm certain there'd be enough sourcing present when the topic scope is so wide... Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: [1] [2] [3]. These are some reviews I found. I guess if a reception section could be made with these or more sources, I would oppose.Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviews would mean that the characters might be worth mentioning in their respective media article, not that the characters are independently notable as a group. Also the IGN wiki intro page is generally considered user-submitted. I'm not sure about T.H.E.M.'s reliability. czar 04:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even if the descriptions were shortened and only the main characters were listed, the list would still be long enough that it is better to place it in its own sub-article. Calathan (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• I just want to clarify that there are four opposes above to keep an overgrown (38kB of prose) and entirely unsourced article. No one has offered sources that suggest why this set needs to be treated as separate (independently notable) from the series. Even if it were to be trimmed down and left unsourced, what's the general notability guideline rationale for keeping it separate? Wikipedia:But there must be sources! czar 04:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Summary style approach states that it is considered standard practice on Wikipedia to split sections such as character lists from articles on fictional works when those articles become too long. It also makes it clear that for such split list articles, the article relies on coverage of the parent topic rather than passing the notability guidelines separately. It does give a caveat that such articles shouldn't be about an individual character or plot item unless that item is separately notable, but for a list like this is it not required or expected that the list has coverage separate from the main topic. No "general notability guideline rationale for keeping it separate" is needed. You are correct that the list needs sources and the content needs to be trimmed, but as I stated, that would still leave too long a list in my opinion for the main topic. Calathan (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just to echo the above, while the character list needs aggressive trimming and sourcing I don't think it would ever end up short enough it would be appropriate for inclusion in the main article. --Polm23 (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I created a reception section but it still feels a bit small. Help would be needed. Also the list could use some nice clean up.Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Reviews

• Sakura Wars TV THEM Anime
• Mania.com
• Sakura Wars OAV THEM Anime
• Sakura Wars TV Vol 1 Mania.com
• DVD Verdict

--Malkinann (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix link rot. – Allen4names (contributions) 14:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gifford, Kevin (July 2005). "Sakura Taisen Volume 1". Newtype USA. Vol. 4, no. 7. p. 165. ISSN 1541-4817. Wayback issue link
• Brice, Jason. "Sakura Taisen v1". Manga Life. Silver Bullet Comics. Archived from the original on January 7, 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Santos, Carlo (February 17, 2006). "Sakura Taisen G.novel 1". Anime News Network.
• Tolentino, Josh (June 18, 2009). "Japanator Recommends: Sakura Taisen". Japanator.

Add manga reviews. – Allen4names (contributions) 15:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sakura Wars 2 Sales Info

There's an interesting tidbit in the article that Sakura Wars 2 sold 500,000 copies in its first week, making it the second-best selling dating game of all time. However, there are several issues with that:

• The IGN source linked gives the 500,000 figure but no sales timeline or ranking info.
• The VGZone site 404s and (via archive.org) gives a timeline of several months, not a week.
• The source for the ranking info 404s and isn't on archive.org due to robots. I found the source Japanese article and while it looks mostly OK it's now quite old (2008) and a personal blog. Some of the numbers are from Famitsu (good!) and some are from VGChartz (less good).

Given all this I'm going to update the references and tone down the ranking statement. --Polm23 (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sakura Wars. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205095655/http://community.livejournal.com/takarazuka/16166.html to http://community.livejournal.com/takarazuka/16166.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312085645/http://kotaku.com/gaming/famitsu/famitsu-readers-vote-for-their-top-100-games-158432.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/famitsu/famitsu-readers-vote-for-their-top-100-games-158432.php

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) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sakura Wars. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007081732/http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/?pageid=article&t=18247 to http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/?pageid=article&t=18247

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) 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)