Talk:Wolf's Rain
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Character list
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was no change -- Kraftlos (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a short series with very few characters, so there is no real reason for a character list. They're acceptable splits for 50+ episode and 150+ chapter series and series with numerous important characters, but nothing of this sort. TTN (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry, but thats just not true at all. It is a 30 episode series, which is long enough for a character list, particularly for such a complex series. Trying to merge the character list here would make this article too long. There is plenty of information for this list to bring it to FL level, it just hasn't been added yet.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- How does adding 2kb with my initial merge and most likely only up to 4kb at most with additional information make this anywhere close to being too long? TTN (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You left out most of the information from the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I left out plot information, which belongs within the plot section, episode list, and chapter list. There's probably more that can be added, but I really doubt its going to be more than a few kilobytes. TTN (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Still not seeing any valid reason not to have a standalone list. Tokyo Mew Mew has a separate list as well, which this list could easily be updated to match, it just hasn't happened yet. Indeed, I'd rather see this article emulate TMM which has no character section in the main article at all, but instead just the plot, with a link off to the character list. Its more ideal for "shorter" series.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see how this is comparable to a longer series with double the characters. It sort of fits my criteria for having a list, though that list itself could probably be cut down to at least 40kb quite easily, and a brief character section could be included in the main article just to sum them up. The main reason for having a list is that it is not possible to discuss the characters fully within the main article. From what I've seen of the series and what I've read in the list, it should be quite easy to do so. What exactly would make that impossible other than the personal preference for a list? TTN (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a personal preference. This is the going consensus in the project. You really shouldn't be making structural decisions about articles simply based on your own set of rules or criteria. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see how this is comparable to a longer series with double the characters. It sort of fits my criteria for having a list, though that list itself could probably be cut down to at least 40kb quite easily, and a brief character section could be included in the main article just to sum them up. The main reason for having a list is that it is not possible to discuss the characters fully within the main article. From what I've seen of the series and what I've read in the list, it should be quite easy to do so. What exactly would make that impossible other than the personal preference for a list? TTN (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Still not seeing any valid reason not to have a standalone list. Tokyo Mew Mew has a separate list as well, which this list could easily be updated to match, it just hasn't happened yet. Indeed, I'd rather see this article emulate TMM which has no character section in the main article at all, but instead just the plot, with a link off to the character list. Its more ideal for "shorter" series.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I left out plot information, which belongs within the plot section, episode list, and chapter list. There's probably more that can be added, but I really doubt its going to be more than a few kilobytes. TTN (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You left out most of the information from the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The issue here isn't length, it's quality. This article is assessed at B-Class, the list is unreferenced and assessed at Start-class. I can't see how merging the lower quality list into this article will make it better. Also, there is no rule that states that the series has to be x chapters or x episodes to earn a separate character list. Most 26 episode series articles have character sub-articles, this is done for length, but also because character details are notoriously difficult to maintain. Keeping them separate allows the parent article to flourish without being choked out by the fancruft that a list of characters tends to attract. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed...and the only reason this article didn't pass GA is the reviewer disappeared and I didn't bother renominating it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support: I support the merge, but not the way you did it and not for the reasons you gave. I have to agree with Kraftlos on that point. You can certainly have and use your own set of criteria while editing. But once there is disagreement, more is needed. My suggestions would be the following: The short character descriptions in this article should be replaced completely by those on the list. Only the more outstanding redundacies with the Plot section should be removed. This would add roughly 10kb to this article's size. That would lead to an article size of around 45kb, which is by no means too much. "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced." All three of you know where I got that. (For everyone else: I got it here.) Spin-off or not, a character list is still part of the coverage of the work the characters are from and essentially an extension of the main article. Every significant amount of in-universe information should have an ample amount of real-world information to counterbalance it. In this case, the Reception section could be said to counterbalance the plot section. That would leave the media section to counterbalance a Characters section of the size I proposed. The episodes list, by the way, does not qualify to balance anything, as it consists largely of in-universe information itself. Now, if that WP:FICT approach doesn't work for anyone here, because it's just an essay at this point, then we can simply take a step back. Under WP:N the list as it is now does not establish separate notability. Which brings me to the arguments against a merge mentioned so far. What decides about the right of a separate page to exist is not TTN, Kraftlos, AnmaFinotera, or my personal preference, but WP:N. If a series has 3 or 300 episodes is irrelevant. Same goes for those omnipresent project consensi, to which - conveniently - nobody can ever point a link. Even if we had a solid consensus with 100 project members agreeing on it, project guidelines don't overrule WP:N. Next point on the list: If there is enough information to get the spin-off to featured list status - once that information has been added - then there should be no problem with merging this list until at least enough info has been accumulated as to establish notability for a stand-alone article - after all, this isn't an Article for Deletion. Hmm, what else was said... Matching Tokyo Mew Mew's character list? That's a C-Class article. When you proposed merging the Dragon Ball characters, you listed as one of the reasons to merge, that the articles could not reach GA status. But now you want to bring this list to C-Class? And no, the fact that Tokyo Mew Mew is a featured article is no argument here. To make this point valid, Tokyo Mew Mew would have to be a featured topic (or at least the character list would have to be featured as well). Which brings me to the last but maybe most important point. Since when are we opposing a merge on the grounds of ruining the target articles rating? I refuse to believe that - the featured article status in particular - is meant to encourage only putting the kind of information on an article, which appeals to potential FAC reviewers, while the cruft is dumped out of sight for long time storage. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the last part there. I never proposed merging the list of Dragon Ball characters to its main article, nor would I. TMM's character list is currently C, true, but its also being prepped for FL after having all of its individual character articles merged into the main list. It would be B but I haven't gotten back to finishing up Ichigo's section. When that's done, it will go up to B, then it will be peer review, creation/conception and reception section added, and it will go for FLC. And I'm sure you know TMM is listed as one of our planned featured topics. The Wolf's Rain character list is not in the best of shape, however unlike those individual DB character articles, there IS information there and I fully believe that with work it can be brought up to FL status. I just haven't had the time to get it going because I keep getting distracted by other stuff. As a whole, the characters have received plenty of third party coverage meeting WP:N easily. Could the individual characters support individual articles? No, that's why they don't have them. However, this was and remains an appropriate split from the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't propose merging DB characters to the main article, but into a list. That's relevant to my argumentation, because I did not argue about where to merge things rather than what deserves its own articles. - It is my opinion, that stuff like this comes into existence when articles on fictional topics are allowed to grow without providing for their own notability. - If you plan to work on the main article and on the list anyways and the sources indeed exist, then how is it asked too much to add a handful of them to establish basic notability, before pushing the main article to featured status? I think that would be a fair trade-off for not having to deal with a character section in the main article. - My support is not based on the assumption that the character list can't reach FL, but on the opinion (backed up by WP:N), that if a list, not establishing notability, can reasonably fit into its main article, it should be placed there. - Maybe I should mention, that I'd switch to opposing this merge, if the list's references section held at least two or three third party references, instead of nothing. - By the way, isn't it funny, that 4 deletionists can't agree on a merge? :) -- Goodraise (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And yes...this is rather funny (and maybe a little sad :P). Why must I work on the list first when the article is closer to where it needs to be? I rarely do a list first over the main article unless I don't plan to do the main article. I prefer getting the main article to GA/FA then working on bringing the lists up to the same quality. I don't think one should feel they have to do one or the other. The list has notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You say it's notable, and judging from my experience with you, that's probably true. But how are other editors supposed to know that? When I look at that list, I see a pile consisting purely of in-universe material. I'm not asking for the world here. There's no need for in-line citations. Two or (yet better) three third-party entries directly placed in the References section, nothing more than any good stub provides. And as far as I'm concerned the list is a part of the main article - falsely placed in its own page - until basic notability is provided. If a stub has to establish notability from the moment of its creation, then the same is true for spin-offs even more. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Three third party RS have now been added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Notability concerns resolved. More than I expected. Good job you two. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Three third party RS have now been added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You say it's notable, and judging from my experience with you, that's probably true. But how are other editors supposed to know that? When I look at that list, I see a pile consisting purely of in-universe material. I'm not asking for the world here. There's no need for in-line citations. Two or (yet better) three third-party entries directly placed in the References section, nothing more than any good stub provides. And as far as I'm concerned the list is a part of the main article - falsely placed in its own page - until basic notability is provided. If a stub has to establish notability from the moment of its creation, then the same is true for spin-offs even more. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And yes...this is rather funny (and maybe a little sad :P). Why must I work on the list first when the article is closer to where it needs to be? I rarely do a list first over the main article unless I don't plan to do the main article. I prefer getting the main article to GA/FA then working on bringing the lists up to the same quality. I don't think one should feel they have to do one or the other. The list has notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't propose merging DB characters to the main article, but into a list. That's relevant to my argumentation, because I did not argue about where to merge things rather than what deserves its own articles. - It is my opinion, that stuff like this comes into existence when articles on fictional topics are allowed to grow without providing for their own notability. - If you plan to work on the main article and on the list anyways and the sources indeed exist, then how is it asked too much to add a handful of them to establish basic notability, before pushing the main article to featured status? I think that would be a fair trade-off for not having to deal with a character section in the main article. - My support is not based on the assumption that the character list can't reach FL, but on the opinion (backed up by WP:N), that if a list, not establishing notability, can reasonably fit into its main article, it should be placed there. - Maybe I should mention, that I'd switch to opposing this merge, if the list's references section held at least two or three third party references, instead of nothing. - By the way, isn't it funny, that 4 deletionists can't agree on a merge? :) -- Goodraise (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the last part there. I never proposed merging the list of Dragon Ball characters to its main article, nor would I. TMM's character list is currently C, true, but its also being prepped for FL after having all of its individual character articles merged into the main list. It would be B but I haven't gotten back to finishing up Ichigo's section. When that's done, it will go up to B, then it will be peer review, creation/conception and reception section added, and it will go for FLC. And I'm sure you know TMM is listed as one of our planned featured topics. The Wolf's Rain character list is not in the best of shape, however unlike those individual DB character articles, there IS information there and I fully believe that with work it can be brought up to FL status. I just haven't had the time to get it going because I keep getting distracted by other stuff. As a whole, the characters have received plenty of third party coverage meeting WP:N easily. Could the individual characters support individual articles? No, that's why they don't have them. However, this was and remains an appropriate split from the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as the character section is too long to include in the main article, and now has plenty of references to stand on its own. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Can't see any reason to merge it. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reference 18
[edit]I'm not sure if this is specifically breaking any "rules" or anything, but I'm kind of objecting to this and didn't want to change it without some discussion first: "Other critics have complained that while the show had an original and innovative storyline with beautiful visuals and appealing characters, the episodes themselves were poorly paced, undeveloped, and plagued with plot holes.[19]" I'm not sure when this reference was added - it may have been valid at a point before episodes 27-30 came out, since that is when it was written - but I think it should just be taken out of the article now since all it contributes is false balance. But that's where I'm getting mixed up. The series being undeveloped and having plot holes could have been fixed by the newer episodes, but "poorly paced" I really just don't know. It's definitely not Dragon Ball Z, so I think that's invalid, but I don't think that's up for me to decide if that reference gets to stay in the article. What does everyone else think? 99.194.201.86 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
External Links
[edit]Why are there two fan-comics, hosted on deviantART, linked before any of the official websites? Why are two fan-comics linked at all on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.241.165 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)