Talk:Popotan/Archive 1

Merge characters
Sine there is only one character article, it would make sense to merge them now and split them up later --Balloonguy 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Until the page gets some more details it doesn't need to be divided.Jinnai (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Academic Source on Popotan dance?
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/hidematu/mobile?date=20080302&section=1204467539 - Found this and at least it seems promising based on poor Google translate. It is referenced and appears to be published by a University as a publication, but because my Japanese is very poor I can't confirm it.Jinnai (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first link is the article. The text below is a summary.Jinnai (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article
I'm considering splitting the article into Popotan (anime) and Popotan (video game) as the 2 storylines are so drastically different from each other. Only the characters and the use of dandelions as a major icon & metaphor remain the same as far as I can tell. However, I'm not sure and would like someone more familiar with the game to give some infomation whether the game is actually on a different timeline or whether the anime is a kind of prequel or something. Also, I need to check out the manga and see which, if either, storyline it follows. If all 3 follow a different storyline I don't know what to do as I'm not sure if by itself the manga could make WP:N standards.Jinnai (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Story
In the Story section, Chris first gets a job, then he finds the mansion. Further on in this section, after Chris has landed his place to stay, he is told by the girls to get a job. I don't have the game. Which is it - does he just get directions to the mansion from the convenience store on the first pass, then get a job there after the girls lay down the law, or what? 12.226.24.113 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He gets directions from the store owner first from what I remember and then is forced to find a job. Since he's met them, he asks for a job there and is offered. At least that's what I remember. Been a while since I played it. じん    ない   08:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll fix it. Thanks. - 12.226.24.113 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Well, since Jinnai asked me to check the article, I guess I'll do it here (as opposed to having that at WP:VN's talk page which is what we have been doing). I would also note that a formal WP:PR may benefit, but anyways, here are some problems that I have found. I am not going to look at the plot section, as I myself am never good at writing that section anyways.


 * Lead: Okay, first things first, the lead is too long, in my opinion. One thing you can do here is to merge the few sentences in the first paragraph on the re-releases into a simple sentence such as, "The game was subsequently re-released with additional enhancements and support for the Windows XP operating system, and for the PlayStation 2 with adult content removed." I'd also suggest you to shorten the paragraph on the gameplay further and perhaps merge it to the first paragraph, I myself would think a little re-wording on some sentences would benefit (getting rid of "as well", changing "based off" to "based on", etc.). I would also suggest you to remove certain cites from the lead as they would be in the subsequent sections, as well remove the red links, unless you would be creating an article for those any time soon. Lastly, I would suggest not to use in the lead, apart from the game's title, and use the template when they are first mentioned in the article, though I would suggest you not to mention the names in the lead anyways.
 * Alright, I see that you went through this part and made a few edits. I'd still suggest you to remove the re-releases titles from the lead completely and mention them under release information, as well as removing most of the information, except leaving in one single line noting there are additions, and another noting the PS2 port has no adult content, as they are already repeated in the release, and noting them in full would only bloat the lead. I'd also note that you should only link to Tokyo Broadcasting System with only TBS, not BS-i. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  01:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the nihongo, i believe it was considered best to put that with the first usage, however, I have removed it from the names. I have tried to shorten the lead by going with what similar GA-level articles do, but not sure if it's enough. The release information such as dates are still listed in the lead for the GA VN articles i looked at. I've removed the red-links, but since I don't know which cites to remove, I'll wait to here back on you or someone else. じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the lead is still way too large, and I would really urge you to trim it down. As I have said, removing most of the re-releases information and even the names would benefit to this purpose (and I would really urge you to). I also think that the second paragraph on the gameplay is just too large, and could be further trimmed down and be merged to the first paragraph. As for the certain cites that I have mentioned, I would say those would be perhaps, the cite on the developer, and the cites on the release dates, and the ones referecing the games (which I don't see why you would want to cite all three for one single sentence, as they are still technically the same game of different releases). I would suggest you to get the whole lead viewable in 1024×768 without scrolling (that would be, still having the infobox on the right and the all the stuff on top, including the supposedly cool quotes by random people fundraiser banner, still shown). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll see about removing the dates and cleaning up the gameplay section. ✅ I still don't believe it should be merged as other GA/FA game/visual novels do keep them split, but I'll look at the size and content once i've trimmed it . じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for citations, i asked on WT:CITE and was told it was better to overcite than undercite when something could be claimed at contentious. じん    ない   05:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine for you to not merge them. In all honesty, it's just that I tend to follow a three-paragraph model compared to a four. Though however, it is possible to further trim down the gameplay section and merge it, but don't do so if you do not like the idea. Also, I don't think it would sound logical to use "released for DVD-ROM and PlayStation 2". "For" here has the meaning of "as something to be applied to", and that's not the case for DVD-ROM. I would suggest you to rephrase that to "subsequently re-released as a DVD-ROM and for PlayStation 2", or something among the lines. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am using 4 paragraphs because the last paragraph explains the title. Most games do not need such an explanation as it is either straight forward or the word itself simple. As the average user is unlikely to know that Popotan is not a real word in Japan, the need to reference it's name and explain what it was based upon because of the importance it plays makes the 4th paragraph nessasary. I will try redoing rephrasing the re-release statement later. じん    ない   07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gameplay: First, I would suggest removing the sentence "in the traditional visual novel manner,". I myself don't really think it's something needed, but it's just my personal opinion, perhaps we should later have a consensus and see whether that's really appropriate. As well, I have noticed that there are several sentences in the lead (i.e. requirement to finish one of the sisters before you are able to go through another character and sexual intercourses) not mentioned in the section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an overview (some other things I think would be fine, i.e. the paragraph on the name), and so I would suggest you mention those few lines in the section, and remove it from the lead to make it shorter. The third paragraph would need quite a few cites. You would need to provide sources for sentences like "Petit Ferret attempted to create a more anime-like experience", as well as the few ending with "most visual novels.", as those seems to be quite similar (though not exactly) to peacock terms. Likewise, remove "which is almost never done in a visual novel except in rare circumstances.", as you can't really cite it, and I would also note I have a few visual novels in my possession that has such a feature.
 * I mentioned the missing fact about having to play through the afore mentioned scenerios and tried to otherwise tighten things up. I still think that the mini-game is a seperate paragraph as the first paragraph talks about the VN gameplay. The mini-game is not VN much like Little Busters! seperate gameplay. The rest of the stuff I would content should be discussed for consensus on what are the common elements of VN before removing (aside from the stuff that may need citing in the 3rd paragraph and/or rephrasing because those are generally normal gameplay styles. Note that even with your two examples you supported the idea that the way they move round onscreen is an exception with the words "a few". じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the gameplay section, it's just full of original research. You would need to provide sources for "Petit Ferret attempted to create a more anime-like experience", "a lot more high quality two-dimensional computer graphics for backgrounds and character images than is common for most visual novels" (in fact you shouldn't be saying "a lot more high quality"), and "which is almost never done in a visual novel except in rare circumstances." --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded and removed some items. I will try and find information on the motif or reword it to be more neutral if I can't. I will have exact numbers for the number of character image files in a few days so I can directly source that. The way the characters move around onscreen is already cited with the game itself; that does not need a 3rd party for that. じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are getting what I am saying there. What I meant was, in no way you can prove that they even wanted an anime-like experience without interviews or commentary. For the sentence following that, you really can never prove that the CGs are of superior quality compared to the others. I also wouldn't bother with noting the amount of CGs there is, that would be too trivial. Last of all, citing that characters placed in a relative position to the character is almost never done is not possible (and that is also in fact, not that true). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That in-fact, was what I was planning to look for; interviews or commentary if I can get a hold of some of the semi-independent non-web published material. While Poyoyon Rock's website is still up, I do not speak Japanese fluently enough to ask him for an interview about the game and even if I could, I would have to find some way to publish it to meet wikipedia standards. As for high-quality, it may be possible to cite that if it is "high quality for the time" as in the resoultion of the game. That might take some research to see if anyone did a general study of visual novels. For the last part it is also, "and moved around, changing poses constantly (as opposed to just a few scenes or major events), but i can just remove that part. じん    ない   07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, I think you still don't get what I am trying to tell you. It's just uhh, get rid of the comparasion with "other visual novels", or among the lines. For the first one though, all I am saying is, unless you can cite it, don't say that they are attempting to create an anime-like experince, as per Jimbo's quote. Now uhh, I most likely wouldn't come on and check this tomorrow as I really must study for my finals. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  10:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already removed any comparisons to other visual novels, though I had just been basing this on Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two at the time when I wrote it. Since a similar statement there was unsourced I figured it was fine with that I did have. Anyway nothing in that paragraph is original research anymore. じん    ない   18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Development: Now first of all, I would suggest you to remove the templates from the names, it's not really needed. Secondly you should link UNDER17 to Under17. Now under the release information section, I would suggest that you do use the template for the titles of the re-releases and fan disc. As well, perhaps you should remove the hyphens (perhaps reword game-breaking even), and so that you know, nonetheless is a word itself. I also don't really think I like how to section reads out, but it's just me. I will go through the rest of the article later.  --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * i removed nihongo per suggestion and also Under17. As for game-breaking, that is a term often used for issues requiring hotfixes. じん    ない   01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now as for the "game-breaking" wording, that would sound like gaming (or technical) jargon, so I would suggest rewording it, though another person's opinion on this matter would help.
 * I don't think game-breaking is necessarily jargon. The 2 words game and breaking describe exactly what happens: the game is broken. I suppose it's possible to reword it, but I doubt it would be made anymore clearly. "Critical" doesn't quite cut it, which is the best word i can come up with. じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * nevermind. I guess the context of the sentence could describe what "critical" means. じん    ない   05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright umm, linking to computer bug with problem, wouldn't really sound that logical to someone who don't know what the term means. I also think substituting problem with error would be better, personally. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is a computer bug and the link does provide some more details about what a computer bug is for the uniformed, but maybe error might be better than problem. じん    ない   07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should link that to Software bug, as that's where computer bug leads to. Glitch would probably work too. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Related media#Anime: Sorry for taking so long, I was taking the finals and completely forgot about this. Anyways, the first thing that caught my eye is the sentence "The opening theme song in the anime done by Under17". Do you mean "is done by"? As well, for the sentence, "The series was designed to focus each episode on one of the four protagonists", I'd say you should drop the word "designed" and change it to "... focuses each episode on ...", and also substitute the word "protagonists" with "main characters", as although they are indeed the protagonists in the anime, it was never said so in say, the Characters section, and so the only protagonist we have established is Chris, which would render the sentence to not make sense since there's only one protagonist as opposed to four. Under the Setting and plot header, I see that you also referred to Shizaku and Keith. I think it would be best to link their names back to the character page, as seriously, I have no clue who they are (you probably should do that too for the other characters under the Characters section). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay rephrasing I did as suggested. The links I made for Chris and all the main girls in the character paragraph. Shizaku and Keith I made in the anime plot section. じん    ない   21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Related media#Music: First I think you should be noting that "Popotan" is the opening theme song instead of just theme, if it is indeed the opening which I am assuming so. I think you shouldn't be mentioning that the theme songs have instrumental versions either, as it is extremely (extremely the emphasis here) common. Apart from rephrasing the second paragraph in whole, you should point out in what format the three vocal songs mentioned is released in (single or album). You should also point out when the maxi single was released (if you are going to keep this phrasing, change the typo too). Also remember to note that the CD released with the PS2 version is an image album. As well, point out what this "first CD" would be in the fourth paragraph. I think you should also move the mentioning of the DVD somewhere else, I don't really think it belongs in the music section. I also got confused by the sentence " ... contained music to anime's opening theme.." (also get rid of one of the periods), does it mean it contains the insturmental version or the theme song itself? I guess maybe you should also rephrase the fifth paragraph. I got confused by reading that. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I move the paragraph on the DVD, I'd like to know where to move it to as it contains both musical and episode elements and is listed on Funta's pages as being a maxi single. じん    ない   22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it the DVD is similar in content to one of the Ef prologue DVDs, or Shuffle! Prologue, I guess you could mention them under the anime section, but if the music is the focus of this DVD, let it stay. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  14:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Getchu and some other non WP:RS sites the DVD appears to be mostly focused on promoting the anime. The music done is for promotion of the anime as well, except for one song in it, "Gemstone" which appears only in that DVD version. Thinking of the wrong CD there. Looks like it may have been more of a promotion for the radio drama. じん    ない   16:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Related media#Radio: This section is mostly fine except this part "... the radio drama's, Poporaji's, theme ...". I think you can get rid of the first "'s" and the comma. Be sure to italic Poporaji, and fix the "|Japanese" to whatever you want to link it to, too. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the 's on Poporaji since that is inside the comma, it is being used to describe the radio drama and thus is grammatically non-essential (though for context of the article it is) じん    ない   07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Legacy: For the first paragraph, I think it's pretty fine, except you should perhaps get rid of "it" in the final sentence and add a comma before the "and". I guess you should somehow merge the rest of the section, either together, or into the first paragraph. The second paragraph isn't sourced, and the two paragraphs are proseline, which isn't really that pleasing. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried to clean it up. I may need someone to do a copyedit if you think still needs signifigant cleanup. じん    ない   08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception#Visual novel: First of all, I got confused by the "visual Popotan visual novel", is that of any special meaning? Other than that, I guess you should rephrase "Japan's national rating" to something else, since that sounds like it is the Japanese government doing the ranking. You should also get rid of the apostrophe from "bishōjo game's", and move the PS2 limited edition extras to under Release history (and perhaps link calling card to telephone card. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I wasn't sure how to do the move for the pre-release info, so it's now just in a slightly restructured paragraph at the end of the release information section. じん    ない   09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception#Anime: I am fine with this section too, except I would suggest rephrasing the sentence "The series has not had all bad reviews though ..." to something else. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that look? じん    ない   08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps use "... received negative criticism ..." instead would work better? --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ じん    ない   09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a little suggestion, but I would suggest you to reply under each of the appropriate sections (i.e. Lead, gameplay, development) in stuff like a PR or GAN (which this one isn't formally any of these but still) for the sake of organization, well anyways. Off topic, but umm no offense, it's kind of hard to follow what you say. -- クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved my previous replies under the section. None of the content was lost. じん    ない   05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved my previous paragraph into those sections too, leaving behind something that doesn't belong in any of them. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can we archive this whole thing after we are done, since it's taking up quite a lot of space. -- クラ  ウド  ６６８  08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)