Talk:MOMO (Xenosaga)

The section on "Transformation Ethers" is rather poorly written. Not only is passive voice rampant throughout the section, but certain biases and opinions seem to be prevalent. I've never played the Xenosaga games before, so I can't really edit it to an acceptable degree.

I am in favour of removing the Transformation Ethers section altogether. The other Xenosaga characters do not get sections describing their Ethers in detail, and MOMO's transformations aren't particularly exceptional and don't have any impact on the story. Their mention of Magical Girl Anime under influences is about as much as they deserve. Buugipopuu 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenneth 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)In the Database in Episode3, after finished the game, it's said that MOMO can grow into an adult woman, as well as be able to have children. Due to this it is possible that if Namco have any further plan to continue the serie, we could see a grown-up MOMO, or her descendants in the game.[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Momo III.jpg

Image:Momo III.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Zemalia 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Syntax

M.O.M.O. T.J. Fuller, Jr. (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems

This article has serious problems, and probably should not have been demerged. Chief among them is the misuse of sources, often citing sources to make factual claims that contradict those sources or that do not appear in those sources. There are two killer examples in the third paragraph of the intro, where it is claimed that MOMO is not a robot while sources say that she is, and that only one piece of licensed merchandise has been released and the cited source is a store selling that merchandise. The bulk of the article relies on this, which is a fan-written biography. The sections that aren't are the lead (which has major issues with misusing sources) and the "reception" section, which cherry-picks lines from reviews, often cherry-picking the jokes made in reviews. On top of this, we have four non-free images to illustrate a character with two distinctly different designs, which is at least two images too many.

For these reasons, I am reverting this to a redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, there isn't a single reference in this article that is an independent, reliable source writing about MOMO, rather than mentioning her in passing while describing a Xenosaga game or the series as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source on her merchandise is trivial and probably could be removed. The images possibly could be reduced by articles like Link (Zelda) have far more with far less changes. For the others, i did not cherry pick and while none of the articles talked specifically about her, many of them gave a paragraph or 2 on her specifically beyond just the usualy talking about characters in general.じんない 05:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source is cited only to note that it made two jokes about MOMO. This source is a capsule review with one line about MOMO which is again a joke. This source only mentions MOMO in passing as one of several characters with new voice casting. This source is using MOMO as an example of the game's complete lack of subtext or deeper meaning (which makes the misuse of the source here, similarly missing the reviewer's point, kind of amusing). This source is describing all of the characters as "doe-eyed china dolls", and mentions that all of the younger characters were redesigned.

This is what I'm talking about. It reads like "MOMO" was clunked into Google and whatever came up was slapped on the page. This isn't commentary, it's passing mentions cherry-picked out of articles that aren't in any sense about MOMO, cobbled together in jerky, scattered prose that lacks any sort of thesis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't "cherry picked". I am insulted you would accuse me of that after spending 3 days scouring the net for reliable sources (at least those from the VG list...English sites only). That they do mention her in many of the articles and the use of jokes about her is specific commentary that is relevant; that they make jokes about her is telling in and of itself. That they chose to use her for example is also telling since she is not one of the 2 protagonists. The last one with the "doll-eyed characters" may need to be restated to include all of them, but it's still relevant to note here.じんない 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made the best of a complete lack of relevant sources, but it's just not sufficient. All you have are snarky off-hand comments and trivial mentions as part of talking about larger topics, picking the MOMO-related comments out of tangential articles. The publications are fine for sources, but not for this article.This is not sufficient sourcing for a whole article.

Ultimately, none of these sources are about MOMO, either mentioning her only in passing or using her to illustrate a point about the game as a whole. This needs more time in userspace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine for a minor character, since there are so few to go by. I agree with Jinnai on that point. They still qualify as "reception". Man in Black sounds like he's "defending" the game from the reviewers because of incorrect assumptions on their part, but Wikipedia is impartial. However, the article itself is still non-notable. All of the Xenosaga character articles seem to have a major plot summary overuse. Because of this, I am suggesting that all of them except KOS-MOS (clearly a well-known character) be merged into Characters of Xenosaga. That includes the list of characters and antagonists (which doesn't make sense, since antagonists are characters).--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...what? No, I'm saying that the reviewers barely commented on this subject, in the course of talking about the games as a whole. This article comes off as wanting to correct the references, one of several problems caused by insufficient available sources. I think this should be re-merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It seemed like you were criticizing the references for being "snarky", which is definitely biased against the reviewers. Even if they were "offhand comments", they still qualify as their feelings about the subject. But anyway, since we both think the article should be merged, I say go with it. The references, though valid, still aren't detailed or demonstrate notability enough for a full article.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm criticizing the article for citing snarky remarks at MOMO's expense as though they were substantial factual claims. My opinion of the series is roughly in line with the Edge reviewer's. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - there seems to be a ridiculous amount of character articles, that all read like some kind of detailed game guide with no links or references. It seems like this is blatantly violating Wikipedia's policies on that kind of stuff. I recommend some kind of drive to fix all those crufty articles, or move them to a Xenosaga wiki.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since there seems to be consensus to merge it fine but I ask that the merge preserve the comments made, especially the non-trivial ones. Regardless of whether they were snarky (which i also agree they are), they are the opinions of those reviewers from multiple reliable sources.じんない 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments are non-trivial. That's really my point, a joke at the character's expense isn't a fact or an opinion we can practically cite. "To help show MOMO's importance to the second game, Gamespot used her in a pun on second game's English-translated subtitle" is not an encyclopedic fact (or even correct, as that's not a pun). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point your just trying to blanket any sort of use of comments on her that I found as "trivial." While certainly some of them may be, not all of them are simply because they make remarks on a character to illustrate their point.じんない 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I sure do like that completely uncalled for accusation of bad faith, but no, they pretty much are all trivial. Most of them are jokes or "MOMO and [three other characters] are..." The only substantial one is using the author's confusion towards the character as a metaphor for his feelings of amused disinterest towards the game as a whole. To take it out of context destroys the meaning, making it seem as though it were a commentary on the character when it is a commentary on the game as a whole.

Citing a reference to make a factual claim other than the one the author is making is not good citation. He isn't claiming that he really thinks that MOMO's creators/parents are pedophiles, he's illustrating the point that Xenosaga's only draw is to stick around to see if the conceptual gibberish coalesces into a coherent whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:OR.じんない 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It ends with "Seriously -- any lawyers in the audience can back me up on that." It's not OR to figure that he's not speaking in earnest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you.じんない 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zxcvbnm has agreed that at least some is salvageable. I am reverting this as it appears an attempt to overrule consensus and attempting to blatantly ignore WP:PRESERVE for non-trivial information.じんない 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I support merging, I think that it should be a true merge rather than just a redirect. As in, all sources get moved to the List of Characters as well. So if you're going to redirect make sure that the info is moved as well.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - I see where you're getting at, Man in Black, the article was badly written. It should be copyedited as well.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources that are here are misused, either substantially about something else or substantially misused/misunderstood. They aren't any good for merging for the same reason they're not very good for a standalone article. I could break it down cite by cite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]