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)