Jump to content

Talk:Little Busters!/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Format for voice cast?

How would I add the voice cast to this page? Would it be added to the character section or would it be a separate section?

Rin (棗鈴): Tamiya Tomoe(田宮トモエ)

Komari(神北小毬): Yanase Natsumi (柳瀬なつみ)

Haruka (三枝葉留佳: Suzuki Keiko (すずきけいこ)

Kudo(能美クドリャフカ): Kaneko Akemii (金子明美)

Mio (西園美魚): Arai Yuumi (荒井悠美)

Yui(来ヶ谷唯湖): Tanaka Ryouko (田中涼子)

Kyousuke (棗恭介): Midorikawa Hikaru (緑川光)

Makoto (井ノ原真人): Arai Yuuji (新井祐二)

Kengo (宮沢謙吾): Oda Yuusei (織田優成)

Jyuichi 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of these names have already been added to the charcter section.--十八 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Manga

Well I just picked up Dengeki G's issue 9 and it says at the end of the Little busters! 4 koma section "10月号つづく" basically "continues in volume 10". I suspect that will be the last chapter considering that this one made reference to the game coming out and that that will leave it to be an even 20 chapters. Either way I'm going to change the article back to saying it is on going for now.

The story also doesn't seen adapted from the game rather than inspired by it, especially this last chapter. (about a RPG titled "Busters Little!") jyuichi 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I said changed it to "inspired" instead of "adapted" from the game. As for the serialization, this troubles me since there's only 4 double-sided pages per chapter, so even with the current 19 chapters, that would mean 80 pages, but if there's going to be more than one volume, that would mean the possibility of only 10 chapters per volume, meaning only 40 pages a volumes which is drastically under what a regular 4-koma volume contains. I have no idea what MediaWorks is thinking by doing this, but it's definitly not normal.--十八 01:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As you said, each chapter is 8 pages in the magazine(8 pages = 4 leafs/sheets) so That would make the tankoban 80 pages (40 leafs) long but a 160 pg (80 leafs) book would still make lot more sense. I actually have a Dengeki Comics EX release sitting here with me (presumably they have a standard format for the brand) it is a 15cm x 21cm book (larger than most Japanese manga volumes) and is 156 pages (78 leafs) so all 20 known chapters would fit the format easily. Maybe they intend to continue running the series? (though I can't see why since such things are primarily for promotion of the game) The volume is definitely numbered tho (see the cover on the Key homepage) We'll have to wait until the release on the 27th. Jyuichi 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The book is 156 pages on A5 paper. [1] If I can get my hands on a copy I will post the chapter count and anything else notable. Jyuichi 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that's really strange. This would mean even if they added in some extra creator comments and things like that, there's probably about 15 or 16 of the chapters in the book; if the manga is still ongoing, it'll be another year and a half until the second volume gets enough content to be published; either that, or the second volume would be really small in comparison. I'll have the latest issue of G's Magazine soon, so I'll relay if there's a "to be continued" at the end of chapter twenty.--十八 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The manga is still being continued in the November issue. Looks like we'll have to wait a while before it ends.--十八 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I updated the manga section with the information from the first volume.--十八 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers for Character Routes

Stop re-editing them in. Thank you. DarkS Umbreon 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Need I remind you per WP:SPOILER: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. I've posted a note about the vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users pushing personal agenda.--十八 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove significant content from articles. --Tony Sidaway 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the "spoilers" because the reasoning is contradictory to our spoiler guideline. If plot information is to be removed, it is because it is unverifiable or to make it more concise so that it does not conflict with our polices at WP:NOT, WP:NOR, or guidelines on writing about fiction. I'll also note that the original editor who was originally removing the spoilers is a single purpose editor whose only edits were to remove the spoilers from the article. --Farix (Talk) 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that spoilers are important to an article and I agree whole heartedly that the plot/story section should detail the ends of the routes. However, I think it might be better if we don't put spoilers in the character sections especially since the same plot details are discussed under the story section. I say this because many people do use wikipedia to read about something before they choose to play/buy it and that the section is currently less useful because the spoilers scare these sorts of people away. I propose we confine the plot details to the story section. Having the spoilers in the article twice doesn't really help all that much so please take this idea in to consideration. Jyuichi 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. For one, the story section is large enough and doesn't need any more additions. Furthermore, the character descriptions are sparce enough as they are even with the spoilers included, and if they are removed, it makes the character section look underdeveloped.--十八 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
>>I would prefer if they kept them exclusively to the plot section and kept the character sections clean as the over prevalence of them has halted my editing efforts for that page. (http://forums.visualnews.net/showthread.php?t=8407&page=11)
So, what, the only reason why spoilers shouldn't be included is because we should adhere to your preferences? And why would the prevalence of them stop you from editing the page? Because they spoil the game for you? Because you haven't cleared it, or haven't even played it? If so, why are you even editing the page? 218.186.14.42 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
218.186.14.42 - I was making a suggestion not forcing anyone to change the article nor did I edit any spoilers out if you look at the page history. There is no reason to be so angry. I have played some of the game, have you? I am editing the page to improve it, the same reason I would edit any page. Secondly, why are you using comments I made outside of wikipedia to criticize me? If you disagree with me please respond to what I said on this page not what I said on an entirely different site.
Juhachi - I see what you mean, they are quite small. If they ever get large enough to stand alone it might be worth considering though. Thank you for responding in a professional matter.Jyuichi 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would tend to agree on that point, but even then, there's still going to be spoilers left for the Setting and Plot sections, so I'm not sure if it would really matter.--十八 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the spoilers left in the Setting and themes section, I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to move them to the Story section. In the beginning of the game, there are practically no indications that the school life Riki is living is anything out of the ordinary, with the exposition detailing the bus accident and the rest of the team's subsequent creation of the artificial world coming much, much later. Thus, it may be prudent to limit the information in the Setting section to something along the lines of an ordinary high school life; the "secret of this world" should also be included as it pops up very early in the game, but I believe that the explanation detailing what the secret actually is would be best left to the Story section. -SaruKada 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you; it makes more sense since we're talking primarily about the setting and themes themselves rather than the aspects behind them.--十八 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, looks like you beat me to the edit. I think that covers it for spoilers on the main page... -24.82.140.135 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by people who haven't played the game

I'm just going to be blunt.

I took a look at the page and saw stuff like this. 

   Kojirō Kamikita (神北 小次郎, Kamikita Kojirō?)
   Kojirō is Komari's brother and is enployed as a nurse in a hospital. He has trouble keeping his living space clean. Voiced by: Roaki Moriko

The only part about that right is "He has trouble keeping his living space clean.". If you've played the game, you'd see that Komari's brother is dead. And that Kojirou is living in a nursing home ("'enployed' as a nurse" indeed!). And the best part is it's impossible for this to be a mistake by someone who's isn't too good at Japanese or something because he's, like, what, eighty?

Seriously, between the people adding nonsense and the others removing genuine information (see above for the spoilers discussion), this is getting ridiculous. I'd just like to request that people who edit this article play the game first. Please. 218.186.14.42 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed nearly everything under Midori's description. Taken from Mio's description it read: In the real world, she was feeling guilty over having forgotten an imaginary friend she used to have, who comes to life in the artificial world as her sister Midori.. Is the bolded portion not correct?--十八 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
She's Mio's (imaginary) sister in both worlds. She comes to life in the artificial world taking Mio's place. 218.186.14.42 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation

This is mainly directed to Juhachi. I believe sufficient information has been paraphrased from my blog article in order to warrant a citation in regards to the Kudryavka section. While I do not oppose the information to being posted onto Wikipedia, I would certainly appreciated being recognized as a source that you derived it from. 203.153.205.192 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this should be the person at this blog that I recently commented at. I'll provide the citation, but when this article gets reviewed for Good Article status, it may have to be removed later due to blogs generally not being accepted in GA or FA articles.--十八 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review on hold

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

  1. Well written?: The article is for the most part well written. My only complaint is the character list, I personally believe info like that should be in paragraph form, but that's not enough to Fail GA. Though something to consider if going for FA. A few more wikilinks to some words in the ""Setting and themes" and "Story" sections wouldn't hurt either.
  2. Factually accurate?: The "Characters" and "Story" sections could use more referencing. Some of the references could also use some additional information; info like the publisher and/or author if available. A picky detail, but a concern none the less. The other thing is the blog reference, which you apparently saw coming as noted above. Because it is a blog/forum posting it is not considered a reliable source. Another source will have to be found for the citations it is currently used for.
  3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the major aspects of the topic.
  4. Neutral point of view?: Stays within the guidelines.
  5. Article stability? Doesn't seem to be any edit wars.
  6. Images?: Suitable amount of pictures, though the Fair use rationales for them are a bit slim; still acceptable though.

This article looks fine. It's well written, informational, and has passed most every aspect of the GA list. Once the issues concerning the references have been addressed within 7 days, I'll be more than happy to award GA status. If anyone has a problem/comment/question, please reply in this section of the talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Regarding #1 - I am patterning the style of listing the characters from similar GA visual novel articles, such as Kanon, Shuffle!, or One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e, and I feel a list is necessary for the large amount of information on the characters available. I added in as many links as I thought necessary into Settings and themes and Story.
Regarding #2 I replaced the single entry to the blog site with screenshots from the game (found on the same site, but it doesn't really matter where they came from as images, right?). I supplied the original quote, translated quote, and cited the video game for each screenshot I used (3). I added as many publisher fields as I could, but for some of them it was not available. And as for the Characters and Story sections getting more references, I realize that this would be useful, but there are many featured articles out there that do not have a single reference in such sections: The Old Man and the Sea#Summary, The Country Wife#Plots, The Lord of the Rings#Synopsis. The characters section especially really can only be accurately cited with supplied quotes from the game, and I have supplied six such quotes as of yet. Anything else I suppose would come from the character index on the game's official website, if you want me to go that far.--十八 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

  1. Well written?: The article is well written.
  2. Factually accurate?: Satisfies criteria
  3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the major aspects of the topic.
  4. Neutral point of view?: Stays within the guidelines.
  5. Article stability? Doesn't seem to be any edit wars.
  6. Images?: Suitable amount of pictures, though the Fair use rationales for them are a bit slim; still acceptable though.
GA Pass

The most pressing issues were addressed. All others are minor details and not enough to withhold GA status. Interesting way to cite video game for note10, never seen that before.
Suggestions to improve article if going for FA. 1) Character lists are acceptable, but Few FAs have long lists, especially of character descriptions. 2) The more you source, the harder it is for people to dispute content. The more reliable sources in an article the more credibility it carries and it never hurts to source anything. 3) Expand development and reception sections.
All in all this is a good article. Good job to the editors, keep up the good work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Re: 18+ version

Due to this blog entry and the scans provided from the next issue of Dengeki G's Magazine, it seems the 18+ version has been confirmed, but this blog cannot be used since it's not a reliable source (though the images it provides are very substantial). Either way, the information can now be added, but it'll be better to wait until concrete sources can be provided, preferably by Key themselves.--十八 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic or whatever but although the katakana is pronounced ekusutashii ie. "ecstasy", the naming itself given in the picture implies that the English title will be "Little Busters - EX". Just a thought, but like you said, probably best to wait for the official announcement by Key. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now I'm taking "Little Busters-EX" as being the shortened version of "Little Busters! Ecstasy", or otherwise it's a different name given to the same product.--十八 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been confirmed officially on the 2nd instalment of Key's Online Radio that there will definitely be an 18+ version of Little Busters!. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the February 2008 issue of Dengeki G's Magazine. Somebody has the release date for Little Busters-EX written as spring 2008 in the wiki article, but it only says confirmed for 2008 in the magazine. Do we have another source for the release date? The magazine also doesn't reveal anything other than Sasami and Kanata being bumped up to heroines, unfortunately. SaruKada (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I got that from a Kagikko Blog entry which stated spring next to 2008, and I assumed they were taking it from the magazine as they reference G's quite a bit in that entry. Perhaps the radio show stated it?--十八 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the Talk Page of Fansub Wiki for the translation of 新春. Basically you can interpret it both ways - however it is probably more correct to say 'new year' rather than 'new spring', as that would make less sense. Though with that being said, I can't comment as I don't have the copy of Dengeki G's Magazine in front of me so I cannot confirm if that phrase was used. I would probably remove the release date as "Spring 2008" and change it to "2008 (tentative)". ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The blog entry I cited above said "2008年春発売" not 2008年新春発売", and that is why I stated it as spring 2008 and not merely 2008. Furthmore, while it may be a typo on the blogger's side, I'd be more willing to accept it as fact because there is no indication of it being false.--十八 07:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There is still no mention of Spring in Key's latest published work, the January edition of VisualStyle. I agree with DarkS Umbreon and change the release date on the article to 2008 -tentative- as putting Spring there would be false information on an encyclopaedic entry. 60.242.79.161 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We've already changed the release date on the wiki page, but for what it's worth the February issue of Dengeki G's states 2008年発売予定, so let's leave it at that until the March issue comes out. SaruKada (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I also remember reading that somewhere previously but didn't have the source to back that up. So there we go - "Scheduled for 2008 release". Thanks for the official word SaruKada. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was later confimred on the radio show according to a blog I read. I lost the link though. So there will be an 18+ release...--Charizardpal (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a useful link to keep an eye on: Key's (temporary?) Little Busters-EX website. SaruKada (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Adaptations: Books and Publications

After having a read through the Clannad article, I realised that this article lacks a Books and Publications section under the Adaptations section. As of now, I can only contribute my information about the Perfect Visual Book which was released on 20 December, 2007. If this section goes ahead, I'll add my information as it's needed. I'm sure there are other publications which would benefit from the addition of this section too. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the visual fan book, I don't think there are many other notable releases related to books and publications. I have come across some anthologies (manga, and light novel), but I didn't think they were notable enough for inclusion. Clannad being the exception since on top of the visual fan book, there was pre-Clannad and the set of stories in the Official Another Story collection drawn by a notable third-party artist (GotoP) and re-published in a bound book form. Not to mention that the Another Story collection is also being released over mobile phones, and has had manga and drama CD adaptations from it. Little Busters!' short stories on the other hand are illustrated by first-party artists (Itaru Hinoue and Na-Ga) and have never been re-published in bound book form (only having appeared in Dengeki G's Magazine). The visual fan book I'd say is notable enough for inclusion, and could be tacked onto the "Short stories" section which could then be renamed to "Books and publications". And then how much information do we have about the contents of the book? I was meaning to purchase it, but haven't gotten around to it yet, but on the other hand I have the visual fan books from Kanon, Air, and Clannad (so it was easy to include info for the Clannad visual fan book).--十八 10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you guys want to go ahead with a "Books and Publications" section, I can supply information regarding the Perfect Visual Book as well as pretty much all of the comic anthologies out there. SaruKada (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Providing info on the visual fan book would be of great help, but do we really need to mention the comic anthologies? They are drawn by many different artists and were never serialized in a magazine.--十八 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess the addition of the information regarding the comic anthologies will serve to provide the reader a greater insight to what is offered under the Little Busters! umbrella of merchandising. I'll go ahead and add a little bit of information regarding the Perfect Visual Book, and you guys can edit it and correct it as you wish. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New manga (2008)

If I am reading the announcement page correctly, it clearly says that the manga will be in the May edition of CompAce and NOT the March release. I also don't know how the date for March 26 came about as 2月26日(火) clearly means Tuesday, February 26 and that is the date that the April edition of CompAce goes on sale and which the announcement of the manga will be made, not the date for which it is actually published. Can someone else with better Japanese proficiency confirm this for me? ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 issue of Comp Ace will be released on March 26, 2008; practically every manga magazine in Japan has a system of having the issue month and the release date set over a month apart, and Comp Ace is no different. Furthermore, the link you've provided says something about the April 2008 issue (out on February 26, 2008), but I know that it clearly says the manga will start serialization in the May 2008 issue out on March 26, 2008.--十八 07:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. ~ DarkS Umbreon (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

www.product.co.jp seems to be dead

Reference 16 is not accessible for me and neither is the origin website of www.product.co.jp. Just me having connection problems or...?

It's not dead. Minori and a bunch of other eroge companies are blocking non-Japanese IPs. Check Minori's site.--十八 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I figured was the problem. I guess the references are left in so IPs that aren't blocked (presumably Japanese ones) can look it up if they wish? --Remy Suen (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The refs are left in because they were working fine before they blocked them, and are still accessible through Japanese proxies. I even brought this problem up at WP:JP, I think, where they said that the refs shouldn't be changed since they are no different now than other offline sources like books or journals that can't easily be accessed by everyone.--十八 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference

I hope the writer will quickly add the necessary references for this article. If not, I'm afraid it will not be able to keep the GA-class in the next review --113.170.150.88 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Refs added for the Books and Manga sections.--十八 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, very thanks :) --113.170.157.111 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese title

Please advise: romaji and kanji name of this book (also added to this article) --113.170.155.49 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Interview

Not really needed, but okay.--十八 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Busters!/Archive_1&oldid=1190143164"