Jump to content

Talk:The Rose of Versailles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Rose of Versailles has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 12, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Japanese manga artist Riyoko Ikeda was awarded the Legion of Honour by the French government for her manga series The Rose of Versailles?

Rose of Versailles movie 2007

[edit]

Should there be a section on the movie that TOEi announced would be released in 2007? Not much is known at this pint but a promotional poster has been released...Ohtori akio

Where have you found that information??? Armando (talk|contribs) 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the info, though it is in French http://blog.cyna.net/index.php?topic=4533.0 A poster is available on the page. --Ohtori akio 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments section of that French article eventually leads to http://www.aniradi.com/report/taf2006/toei1.php which appears to be a report on the con where the movie was announced. This is the closest thing to a source I've been able to find. Sunshine Cantabile 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

What I'm suggesting is mostly cleanup in the form of correcting the many spelling and gramatical mistakes present throughout the article. I'm also hoping to get information for more of the characters and to add more of the minor characters to the lists.

I know everything about the characters and I speak very well english , but not perfect. I have tried to contribute with everything what I know, but I would need somebody to help me in the orthography. Armando (talk|contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is no problem, I'm sure that everyone appreciates anything that you can contribute to the page. -- ChibiViqor 9/15/06
I'm trying to clean up the article, but there're parts that are frankly unintelligible and of which I can neither make head nor tail. Anyone care to parse these?
"''Many people know that she is a woman, but she does not pretend it, as much in his aspect as in his treatment."
"Jeanne told her that she had the royal Valois blood." (Uhm... is she told she has royal blood, or does she tell herself, or does the marquis inform her?)
"After Charlotte, true sister of Rosalie, died, Lady Polignac went to the Jarjayes's Mansion and told Rosalie that if she didn't come with her, she would tell the autorities that Oscar was the protector of Jeanne Valois', the instigator of the robbery of the diamond necklace, sister." (???)
Incidentally, many bits of information about some of the characters and events are rather redundant, since they correspond to the real-world versions anyway. --Winterfox 19:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's:
Although many people knew that she was woman, she didn't pretend to be it, as much in her appearance as in her attitude.
Jeanne told she had...
I dunno what's wrong in "After Charlotte..."
Armando (talk|contribs) 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"In spite of the difficulties they had to go through, the staff could continue with their work and took advantage of this problems." Which problem(s)? These problemS or this problem. Also please clarify the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.213.36.247 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Imperial Guard"

[edit]

Because of the term's Napoleonic implications and since France at the the time the story was set in was a monarchy, the more appropriate term here is either Royal or Palace Guard, so I've changed all instances of "Imperial Guard" to "Royal Guard." However if "Palace Guard" is more appropriate, feel free to change it to this. --BrokenSphere 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I changed the picture to the right becuase putting it on the left, left a big empty space in the article.Angel,Isaac 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Standardization

[edit]

I've noticed that this article and the sub articles frequently mix the Japanense title "Rose of Versailles" with the European title, "Lady Oscar." I propose that first, only one title be used for all the of the articles to prevent confusion, and that the original title be used per Wikipedia standards, because the manga was released in English with the "Rose of Versailles" moniker and the English title is what Wikipedia defers to. For example, "Characters in Lady Oscar" should be changed to "Characters in Rose of Versailles." Rebochan 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Sounds like a good idea, and one that will certainly help with the cleanup needed in this article. -- ChibiViqor 18 January 2007
Yeah, sounds good. I'm moving List of Lady Oscar characters to The Rose of Versailles characters. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible. Redirection pages alredy exist. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose of Versailles (manga) to Berusaiyu no Bara (manga)

[edit]

Please support the move of the RoV (manga) to BnB (manga), cuz it's the real name of the manga. Check here. Armando.Otalk • Ev 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The plot summary seems to be only 470 words or so, so I've removed the {{plot}} tag. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four articles?

[edit]

Why is The Rose of Versailles divided in four articles (The Rose of Versailles, The Rose of Versailles (manga) and The Rose of Versailles (anime) and Berusaiyu no Bara Gaidens) when everything could be covered in just one? See Wikipedia:VN#Good articles for some examples.--Nohansen (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is great to have separate articles for all different versions of the franchise because both manga and anime versions have their own souls and art-styles in themselves. On the other hand, if the data would be this limited in, for example, the manga's article, it is useless to have multiple articles. Imho, manga and anime should keep their own articles and to be revised and expanded by Wikipedians. Rose of Versailles was one of the first animes which I saw on the Turkish television. Of course, officials weren't aware of the art and maturity in the anime, they were thinking that it was just another cartoon for the children :) Deliogul (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool (about the different versions having "their own souls and art-styles"), but the Animanga Manual of Style says "do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: 1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or 2. The article becomes too large." Looking at the three spin-off articles, it seems neither of the conditions have been met.--Nohansen (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that the first condition would be met in the case of the Gaiden article - it seems to be a sequel to RoV, and introduces a new character based on myths of Elizabeth Bathory. The plot consists of Oscar etc. trying to escape from this character's clutches. -Malkinann (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

review

[edit]

ANN review --KrebMarkt 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

There is no reason for The Rose of Versailles (anime), The Rose of Versailles (manga), and Berusaiyu no Bara Gaiden to be separate from this article. They are all really short, and the information could very easily be covered in this article. This merger is also supported by WP:MOS-ANIME. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
[edit]

--Gary Dee 08:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special manga

[edit]

Here there are the last chapters of special manga, but they're in French.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rose of Versailles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this. Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Just needs a few things before it can be promoted:

Checklist

[edit]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Sourcing:

  • Comic Natalie is published by Natasha, Inc, so that should be added to those references as the publisher.
    • Done.
  • Link to the article for Anime News Network in the references from them where it is not linked.
    • Done.
  • References 45 and 47 need an author.
    • Done.
  • Reference 59 needs to link to the article on Natalie (website) and needs an access date.
    • Done.

Images:

  • The image of François Augustin Regnier de Jarjayes is tagged with a message stating "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
    • That image seemed to be dubiously sourced, so I swapped it for a new one.

Other:

  • This article lacks even some critical reviews. You should get at least 2 or 3 in Reception.
    • Done.

Small question

[edit]
  • How much of this was translated from French? I'm just curious; this won't effect the GA review and you can completely ignore this if you want.
    • Almost entirely. The bulk of the previous article was sourced primarily from fan sites; probably a consequence of the original article being written in the mid-2000s when there were few/no mainstream English-language sources on the series.

Anyway, that is all. Resolve them and I will happily pass the article. Link20XX (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Riyoko Ikeda
Riyoko Ikeda

Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Absolutely fascinating article. The wording of ALT1 doesn't quite make sense, but ALT0 and ALT2 are approved. ezlevtlk/ctrbs 04:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First to achieve mainstream success?

[edit]

I would appreciate a source for this claim. There were any number of commercially successfully shōjo manga prior to RoV, going back to at least 1929. Too many to list, though I could try if you like, starting with Katsuji Matsumoto's Poku-chan series. What it sounds like the editor is really trying to say is, "the first shōjo manga to garner a stamp of approval from dudes." It also sounds like something a Japanese Baby Boomer male manga critics would say, because it was the first shōjo manga they themselves took an interest in (and in fact I feel certain I've read/heard such critics say this). RoV was certainly the most commercially successful shōjo manga that had appeared, as evidenced by the fact that the tankobon edition was the first hugely successful tankobon of any genre, and single-handedly led to publishers shifting their focus from selling magazines to selling trade paperbacks. "Critically successful" is meaningless in the 1970s, because there were maybe three manga critics at the time, all men, and they were mostly obscure, read by a handful of university students. Rachel Thorn (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the relevant sections to better reflect the passage in Shamoon (2012) about the popularity of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rose_of_Versailles&oldid=1207262007"