Talk:Princess Comet

Focusing too less?

Most of the article is too less focused on the series — it's more focused on the creator of Comet-san and the controversy between it copying Ojamajo Doremi (which doesn't even have sources, I might add). I suggest that the information about the creator be linked on his own profile page instead of being listed here, since a lot of it has to do with himself and not Comet-san. --User:Justicebullet 10:33, 5 September 2006 (GMT -8:00)

The information about the creator should go in its own article. The dispute over copying should be given a brief mention, but the POV-oriented original research comparing the two has not place in the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources is already listed with the author of Comet-san, but maybe due to improper referencing, some may mistakenly take what I have typed as irrelevance. (actually they are about the cast). So wouldn't be better to reorganize the previous work instead of simply deletion? otherwise, other wanton RVers may rampantly waste other's secondary research work in the name of "cleanup" ;)

Last to say, I am not promoting myself but just ttrying to asscoiate as amny related topic with anime as possible to provide a wider reading prespective for readers.

P.S. In Wikipedia of other language (Japan and Hong Kong), wikipedians simply either ask the writer for the source or supplement the source instead of prior cleaning up (which is destructive) , since they are more considerate.

You may treat what I have said as loads of bullshit (as many Americans like) ,and if so, I would stop contributing this uncontrolled wikipedia and publish articles to bookstore instead then. Yes, you may say that cultural diffenence cease our co-operation. (User:Hkcbgcs) 08:08, 10 September 2006 (GMT +8:00)

Fist of all, you threats on my talk page that either I must make an accounting of my edits on this article or be reverted them is a sign of ownership on your part and will not be tolerated. Second, using a fan website as a source is generally not excepted as a reliable source, and using information from such a site is often considered original research by other editors. Third, much of what was removed had little to no relevance to the subject of the article to begin with. And lastly, the point by point comparison between Comet-san and Doremi is completely unnecessary, especially when it comprises the bulk of the article. If there is a controversy, mention it by briefly explaining both sides of the argument, give a couple of references from reliable sources, then move on. But giving it more then a couple of paragraphs gives it undo weight. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hence, you approved other's vandalism by RV action. by this, conbritution to this part no longer valuable once the concept of ownership is introduced. Awfully Sorry to say, the otaku page also suffer this. Thus, I will move on to more broad-minded wikipedian other then English instead, the wikipage of which can store more language than your own hegemony. Two possibliity that: (1) you lack the experience of publishing books maybe reflected on your attudite toward editing Comet-san page; (2) Other RVers' are too lazy to realize the importance of additional information for other's technical reference. Dull and oversimiplifed contents will be resulted as other's reseachers are being labelled as "original" with the ignorance of official sites (Comet-san: Nippon Animation, TV-Tokyo; Doremi: TOEI Animation, TVB HK). Sorry to all English uses, all the rest of tComet-san will be moved to Chinese or Japanese Content, and wikipedia seems unwelcome humanities other than objective science subjects.
~:=
No more co-opertation, no more co-ordination, no more maintenance, no more respect, liberal preservation and pluraistic focuses, maybe.User:Hkcbgcs 12:08, 10 September 2006 (GMT +8:00)

Upgrade

So far can this page b upgraded? How and when? --Hkcbgcs 23:55, 26 August 2006 (GMT +8:00)

There was too much original research in the article for it to be classified as B-class. When it's removed, it's a Start-class article at best. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okey so far, but why not put the readable "nonsense" (additional information) into appendix instead of simply deletion? --Hkcbgcs 07:55, 10 September 2006 (GMT +8:00)

Improving the article

Ok, I've removed most of the original research, self-referencing, things that were little to no relevance to the anime/manga, the POV point by point comparison between Comet-san and Doremi, and other unencyclopedic nonsense. Now here are some areas that need to be included or expanded upon.

1. Information about the manga and/or light novel, if one exists.
2. Create a character section giving short bios of each character
3. Information about the origin of the series. (How did this series come into being?)
4. Information about the influences the series and what influences this series has on others.
5. Public and critical reception. (How popular was the series? What did media critics/reviewers say about it?)
6. More extensive information about the production/creation of the anime/manga/light novel.
7. Improve sourcing of details outside the plot/character bios.

Of course, everything has to be verifiable from a reliable sourced. That means most fansites should be avoided. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the plot section and cleaned up the article somewhat. -- (十八|talk) 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The only complaint I have is that you removed the {{cite web}} template and changed the formats of the dates, which you are not suppose to do. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit of character information (was going to use them for a future Comet-san fan site I was planning, but oh, well). However, character info for the twins (Tsuyoshi and Nene), Mook, the twin's parents, Rabapyon, Spica, etc. are not up. I'm also in the process of adding a cast list too! --User:Justicebullet 20:57, 4 October 2006 (GMT -8:00)

Title

Animax didn't give the series the title "Princess Comet". It's possible that it's the title on international prints of the series. 82.41.66.173 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

Animax did indeed give the series the title Princess Comet during its English language broadcasts; see: official website for more information. Wikipedia prioritizes established references over original research. Ganryuu (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that link doesn't prove anything. Animax already recieved the international masters under the title "Princess Comet".77.97.230.248 15:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy No, Wikipedia uses established English references - by ENGLISH SOURCES. There's no reason this article should be using the name "Princess Comet". Especially because most people looking for this series are not looking for it as "Princess Comet" and no other anime has this title issue. Rebochan 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct title should be Cosmic Baton Girl Comet-san --Hkcbgcs 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kometto-San

This article is confusing. It fails to mention that Yokoyama produced a manga and anime version of this story already in the late 60's. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Manga Infomation

There really NEEDS to be more information on the original manga, since it is the source. At least the dates it ran, and how many volumes. CFLeon (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Princess Comet?

If it was PRINCESS Comet it would be Comet-hime, but it says Comet-SAN which means MISS Comet! Since when did the honorific "san" translate to princess? And where's the valid source calling it PRINCESS Comet, anyway?Rayayala17 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Choice of cover image

The general point of the image guideline is that as I understand it, it should be the most appropriate and relevant image to illustrate the topic of the article and improve understanding for the reader. There's no rule that the cover for the oldest incarnation be used. Ideally we would want multiple images for the different versions but my understanding is that this isn't allowed for non-free images. I think the anime is the most appropriate image here, more than the manga because:

1. The anime is by far the best known incarnation of the series and the main topic of the article

2. In contrast the manga is very poorly documented, on the JP Wikipedia there isn't even a synopsis. It is possible that the manga version isn't actually notable by usual notability standards. Certain unsourced "facts" given about the manga in the English wiki are not in the JP Wikipedia, making them dubious.

3. It's not actually clear that the manga version inspired the TV series. JP Wikipedia suggests it might be the other way round. (Looking at the sources available this might well be the case)

I would be fine with the manga cover if the information on the manga in the article can be substantially extended. Right now I'm not really sure the information even exists to make that possible. Fangz (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it more, I'd rather the first TV series be used if not the anime, but the article doesn't cover that at all. Fangz (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't change it then if that's the point. If the source material is TV drama then that is needs to be used. Except people here are too lazy covering it. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's lazy but the paucity of sources. Crappy Geocities are going to be the only thing you will find for the pre-anime stuff. In the JP version the anime is actually split off into its own article. An article move to Cosmic Baton Girl Comet-san might be the best option. Fangz (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The JP wiki already had A LOT of info that you need to get. And most in Japanese which includes the anime. Also Geocites SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SOURCE, the JP wiki cites various magazines and official reference books as it sources. You just don't look that deep enough and just focus on surface-level. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, you added some source links once more that aren't considered reliable sources as well. Really, I said look deep enough and not on surface level. Those again are against the reliable source policy. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Which of the links are not credible? They date from the old internet so they look shady but e.g. the sound image link is the official page on the internet radio, the manga link is the artist's own page, and gamechosun is a reasonable Korean language news site. The former are perfectly fine even if you decry them as self-published because Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF. For the latter, propose a early 2000s era Korean gaming news site, why don't you.

Note that you're adding material in from the jp wiki on the simple assumption that they are discussed in the magazine you referenced, which you haven't looked at. (Why do I know this? Because you mistranslated the title of 全怪獣怪人 as "All things considered". A quick look at the contents of the book - its entries on other stuff for example, do an image search, or reviews - would suggest it's quite unlikely to include the information attributed to it) A simple look "deep enough" would reveal they in fact originated from the sources I added and you deleted. Fangz (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Observe for example that https://web.archive.org/web/20171208122342/https://mediaarts-db.bunka.go.jp/an/anime_series/395 actually describes only the animated segments of the original series. As such, there is no cast listing for the main show, so there's no information on that page to show the first series even stars Kokonoe Yumiko! Did you look deep enough? Fangz (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Those sources you are posting are even more unreliable as they are classified as FANSITES. Wikipedia has rules against those even if you complain as long as you want. My point still stands, not allowed by actual Wikipedia:Reliable sources standards. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Which one is a fansite? The only one that is a fansite is the internet radio, but the point of it is that the particular fansite was given permission by the rights owners so Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF applies. If you have trouble with that one you can remove it individually. Blanket reverting is unhelpful. Be wary of 3RR if you persist in this behaviour. Fangz (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Given your past issues with disruptive edits I would strongly advise you to take a break and then evaluate the sources I added with fresh, not angry eyes. Anyone can see you are not looking at my edits in a rational, constructive way right now. Fangz (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you even know what sources are you adding in? You are using fan sites as sources, that is the gripe over this debate, and you are ignoring it. It is a matter of credible official sources. This is a common rule. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do *you* know what sources I'm adding in? What do you see when you read this website? [1] Who is this a fan of? How do *you* understand WP:ABOUTSELF? Have you gone and read that policy? Fangz (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh also spamming citations that you haven't verified actually contain the information it does is a far more serious offense than using some unreliable sources for the time being. WP:FAKE More precisely, this is a violation of Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT because having not read the original source, you're really just using that reference to disguise the fact that the true source is jp wikipedia. I'm being patient and leaving you to fix this problem because I'm assuming you are acting in good faith but you *need* to fix this issue. Fangz (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a thing, the sources I am been posting are actually from actual print material released in Japan in the last several decades and I'm still yet to actually include everything that is actually been yet to be included. And you're saying that I should what: REMOVE all sources alluding to those. Print media are sources too, and hell, that's what the JP wiki is been using in basically in their version of the article. Its because the series is waaay too obscure today, and that applies to the anime. Material that confirms some facts are in official magazine and book interviews in the years that followed and that is needed for it to be completed.

I just.....I can't. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am saying you cannot insert any source that you have not looked at yourself. That's a fundamental misuse of sourcing. You cannot just casually translate the Japanese article, citations included, you need to verify the sources they use and insert only the references (and ideally, information) you are personally able to verify (try Wikipedia:RX) , or find replacement references if you are not able to. Because if an article has a statement with a ref that you put in, what that says to a reader is that YOU personally vouch for that information being present in the given reference which is where YOU have verified it being from. But in this case if the reality is that you have not verified this information, but really just assumed the Japanese wiki is correct, then as far as you are concerned the true source of the information is not the original source but in fact whatever revision of the JP Wikipedia you happened to look at. This is especially a problem in this case where the referencing in the jp article is already not great. The presence of the "hey there's a jp Wikipedia article on this banner" does not erase the point that Wikipedia itself should be considered an unreliable source for these policies.

You should treat the JP wiki as if it itself is a fansite, because in many ways it is one. It can lead you to the sources you want and give you an idea of the content to include but you cannot trust it. The jp Wikipedia could turn out to be entirely wrong at this particular moment in time, and you copying and pasting from it would give the impression that the resulting article is all well sourced statements from reliable sources when it's nothing of the sort. Consider that in due time, the template at the top might be removed, the Japanese Wikipedia article might be edited, and then there would be no sign to any reader the true nature of a reference. In fact any falsehood that was blindly copy and pasted from a vandalized iteration of the JP article would become extremely difficult to remove because "hey look, there's a very solid looking but inaccessible reference" next to it. This is a worse problem than directly citing an unreliable source because you are combining using an unreliable source (the jp Wikipedia) with misleading the reader about the true source of the information. As that link says, you must CONFIRM the sources support the content.

In terms of the anime I happen to actually own the Japanese books about it. There's plenty of information on that I just haven't gotten around to adding. Though for the particular stuff about the anime tie in stuff that's not in the books, but I believe the particular references I found for it are fine since they are news sites, official artist pages, or the page for the fan activity in question itself. Fangz (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)