Talk:Kimi Finster

Biased, confusing Page

I've been a rugrats fan since I have memory and I have followed the show even until now in All Grown Up, I know Kimi Finster enough to see that the contributors are exaggerating with their point of view about Kimi Finster.

The page has a lack of facts, most of the paragraphs are just speculating about uncertain events of the future or even episodes that might not be real at all.

Plus the page has a lot of irrelevant details, they even included episodes were Kimi was not shown at all which I think it's disrespectful for this encyclopedia.

Finally they are enlisting a lot of skills and traits (which aren't real or shown on the show) for this character but instead of explaining them they just quoted moments were Kimi appeared and the page goes on and on about those moments and repeating them constantly but nothing that could be essencial.

This page needs to be cleaned and the bias should let other contributors to put information too. Tamao 06:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the information here are based off of observations. Granted I am a HUGE Kimi fan so maybe I REALLY got carried away but when I look at it, I do not see THAT MUCH Bias. Ok the stuff about Episodes were Kimi was not in can go, the stuff about Sister,Brother can go until it becomes official. Also, I do not see, with the skills and traits, as us going on and on about those moments. We make observations from the show and consider best possibilities. For example, Kimi IS an opportunist, she's done it one more than one occassion. Oh yeah, the couplings stuff ok we can get rid of too. Also, most of what we contribute are not exaggerations but mearly detailed obersvations. We look at details and listen to dialogue and take them into account, we look for patterns and put them into account. Finally, as stated before, we DO let others contribute, a lot of times we just trim their contributions that's all! The only ones we totally delete are the completely negative ones. We are just trying to keep this article stable and not end up like it did a couple of months ago where someone edited it to be completely negative and anti-Kimi, full of Kimi Bashing and stuff. Name one time we acted otherwise? Staredcraft
• comment The observations you quoted are from fans of her, but you have to understand this is not a fan page, people can't bash her here because everybody has the right to add comments to make it more objective weather they are negative or positive, you guys have no right to delete other observations made by people who find some other things from what you see, Wikipedia does not belong to you, Now look at this : "There are many defining traits which set apart Kimi from the rest of her friends on "All Grown Up". " then you quoted a lot of moments were Kimi was on scenes but you didn't show a trait, besides traits are something the characters have all the time not just one episode key thing, that's just trying to fill the character, Why the episodes where Kimi was not can go in? if she wasn't there is irrelevant, again is a page about the character not a fan page,Brother,Sister especially can't go because is speculating and it's againts Wikipedia policy and is not just that random episode, it's ok if you list the future Kimi episodes but you are talking about possibilities that might not even occur on the show like Hiro being dead, you guys should wait for the episodes to air before adding any information regarding to them, the Kimi profile is pretty much repetitive, you need to mention Kimi's age, friends, hair color several times, when there are tons of pics and informantion regarding to it? one time people added Kimi is selfish which is true, and you guys deleted it, I just say Kimi is an ok character but it has its defects , wikipedia being an encyclopedia should have the good and the bad side of the character, being a rugrat fan I feel offended when people biased have their opinion and don't let other people to have it too, the page is for everybody, of course I like to see so much work on a wikipedia page and I'm glad you are huge fans who contribute a lot but you guys are not owners or editors, being fans of the character doesn't give you the right to edit other contributions, so just let other people contribute even if you don't like what you see and when you are here try to be objective more than being fans. Tamao 18:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment report me if you want, I'm not abusing of anything, several people besides me have tried to edit it including people fanatics of the character and their contributions are eliminated, the page is mainly controlled by you guys and is not fair.

I'm not againts people wanting the character to be known, but you guys need to check the facts before posting them, the page is ok, but it still needs a lot of cleaning because there are things that you see on and on, your pal Staredcraft admited the couples shouldn't be here, and there are other things like the traits, instead of naming them you just quote scenes where Kimi was at, that's disrespectful even for the character, is like you don't like how is she and are trying to fill her, people said she is selfish which she is, but also Angelica and Tommy, and people say it is because of the independence trait they have, something you guys just didn't think but consider it an aggression to the character, I guess that observation is better than "Kimi cooked in Dude Where's my horse but not anymore" what trait is that? The only thing I'm asking for is organization, and I'm not the only one complaining, I'm the first one complaining very different, so if you want to report me go ahead, and please Don't shift the focus on me, I told everybody from the start that I am a rugrats fan , and I like the 8 characters the same, it gets on my nerves that Kimi being the last one to add the cast has fans that really don't like for what she is, she has her own special things like the others if they aren't developed that's something different, and I admit, Kimi needs work but that doesn't mean I'm againts her, she needs more support than the others because she was the last,but an obvious biased person pretending not to be and accusing people to be is low. I recommend you to read the article and check your facts, I told you I'm not againts the future episodes I receive the KC newsletter too just to let you know, but you guys add things that might happen in the episode but you aren't sure about them ,are you?, I'm just asking you guys to wait for the episode before adding information about it. Tamao 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts from an outside observer

First, my credentials: I don't know a damned thing about Kimi Finster, Rugrats, or All Grown Up. Never seen the shows, never really been interested, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with these things, mind. They're just not my cup of tea.

That said, I've sorta found myself in the position of an unofficial mediator between the folks who want to maintain this page, based on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimi Finster. People are asking me questions about the article, whether it's biased, and so forth. So I've taken a look at the article, and would like to offer the following thoughts:

First off, the article is overly dense and cluttered. You've got a lot of meticulous detail that isn't necessary for an encyclopedia. Just to provide one example, consider the following:

In 'Memoirs of a Finster' it was implied that Kimi knows how to ice skate. Chuckie had been going to her for lessons so he could be ready for a party his friend Nicole was having. At the time, Kimi was distracted due to her discovering of her Japanese heritage, but, in the end, she finally woke him up early so she could teach him. Although Kimi has never been seen ice-skating on the show herself, the fact that Chuckie came to her for help implies that she does know a thing or two about it. It is also safe to assume that if she is good at ice skating, it's possible that she's also a good roller blader as well (part of her wardrobe implies that Kimi, in her spare time, is a roller skater.)

That whole paragraph can be usefully condensed into:

"In 'Memoirs of a Finster' it was implied that Kimi knows how to ice skate. Although Kimi has never been seen ice-skating on the show, Chuckie was taking ice-skating lessons from her in this episode."

And that's really all you need to convey the facts. As an example of a well-formatted, well-written Wikipedia entry about a fictional character, you might take a look at Ron Weasley (or, really, any of the Harry Potter characters).

Secondly, there are several aspects of Kimi's personality and character are mentioned multiple times throughout the article, when they only need to be mentioned once. Examples include (but are not limited to) the fact that Kimi likes Dummi Bears (mentioned 3 times in the article) and the fact that her father is named Hiro (also mentioned 3 times in the article).

Thirdly, the stuff about who's being paired off with who in various slashfic and shipfic fan pages is not something that really belongs on the character's main page. The Harry Potter fans on Wiki have created a Harry Potter fandom page. You folks might consider doing the same, making a Rugrats fandom page and then putting all of the fan-related stuff — especially the who's dating who stuff — into the fandom page.

These are, ultimately, just suggestions. I have no enforcement powers. I'm just a user, like you folks, and merely seek to have high-quality Wikipedia articles. But I think that, if these suggestions were implemented, the article would be improved. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is excellent advice, and I suggest everyone involved take it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with these observations

First of all I want to thank our observers here Extreme Unction and a Man In Black, I'm glad to have neutral opinions about the issue, and I can't have put that better myself, I totally agree with you, and that were my points the article was filled with useless information which is not Wikipedia's interest, I just say the article needs a good cleaning, again Extreme Unction Your points are very valid and i thank you for sharing them with us.

2) I did post some of the ones you named, but those were just observations I did about the character, if you don't like them I have no problem with them being removed, but I don't get why yours which have the same problem with other users should stay then.

I guess I don't need to say more but It's clear that someone who doesn't know when characters appear or not can't talk about the show itself, even if you have fansites to back up your observations I'd suggest you to watch the show someday.

I don't want you to be mad at me ,really, but seems like when things don't go on your way you freak out and start typing in caps, so calm down is a friendly discussion about an article, so take it easy, sis.

Finally, again I agree, th article can be cleaned and improved,as Extreme Unction said the article is overly dense and cluttered, so we should work on it, to condense it and make it a respectable article of Wikipedia, Thanks. Tamao 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tamao, while I applaud your enthusiasm, calling people "sis" and "sister" and being generally confrontational is no way to do anything other than make people emotional and defensive. The idea here is to find things on which we can all agree, and then work from there. So rather than telling Staredcraft how they need reading lessons, and don't know the characters, and are biased, and so on, and so forth, why not take a more constructive approach?

What is there about the article as it currently stands that you like? What do you agree with 100% insofar as the article itself is concerned? What parts of the article can you look at right now and say "This is important information about Kimi Finster, and needs to be in a Kimi Finster article?"

Let's start there and see if we can find some common ground. Once we've done that, then we can talk about maybe adding some other, more contentious things. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deal

First of all, I don't want to sound rude or anything but, don't cover yourself with holy water and pretend that you and Staredcraft were telling me all this time to do someting for the wikipedia page because that isn't true, you attacked me and my points since you started posting in this page and anybody who reads this page can tell you so.

Anyway, Ok let's make a deal, I guess we all want the best for the wikipedia pages so, let's try to re-start it again and those contrversial entries, will be discussed here, seeing the points of view of all of us and we will determine if the entries should stay or not.

I hope we all make an effort to make this page a good part of wikipedia, thanks. Tamao 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this for real?

Are there people who are really biased for/against Kimi Finster?!? I would not have thought it possible! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Large copyedit done

Really, a lot more needs to be done. Please, don't reinsert the trivia section because we are NOT a fan site! It's perfectly fine to link to fan sites that include this information, but unless you can incorporate it into the main text it's really not necessary information.

The section I've not touched are not neutrally written. They are written from the perspective of a fan, and quite sloppily worded. The text needs a lot of tightening up.

One last thing: Perhaps Rugrats needs it's own template? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

File:Newkimi.gif

Kimi

The original photo of Kimi was taken down by an editor (I put it back). Since then, another user added this photo. Do you think it should be included? It's a bit strange. Nonetheless, if someone knows the specifics of how she fell, ripped her pants (I don't remember), you may want to re-add this with a better description. Michael 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Michael 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject France?!

What the heck does this article have to do with France? Is it because she was introduced in Rugrats in Paris? --Candy-Panda 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Native Language

Okay, first of all, this is the biggest mess I've seen on Wikipedia. Secondly, Kimi's native language is English, not Japanese. A commonly accepted definition of a native speaker of a language is "that the individual acquired the language in childhood and sustains the use of the language." (Lee, Joseph J. 2005). The line in the triva about Kimi not using her native language is a contradiction. If she doesn't use it, and never seemed to aquire it in the first place, it's not her native language. (I can not remember my log in information)24.21.209.135 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)