Talk:Kagura (InuYasha)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Images and copyrights 3 More Barefoot Editing 4 Images 5 Appearance 6 Pronunciation

[edit] Merge

Someone who knows about this should read the Kagura (Inuyasha) article and merge any useful information from there into the Kagura (InuYasha) article. Then, change the text of the first article, leaving only the following: #REDIRECT [[Kagura (InuYasha)]] {{R from alternative name}} and save it to make it a redirect to this page. If nobody does, I will in a couple of weeks, but I am not sure if all that information comes from a valid source. -- ReyBrujo 19:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

- I don't think I can do this, but I think you should just erase the second Kagura article,
there are many things that are opinions and not many things that the first one doesn't 
already have.  Also, there are a few things I find suspect to be true.

- I agree you can merge 1 or 2 facts from the first half of that article but the second 
half fom " she loves ..." on down is speculation there is very little or no fact to support 
these observations.In the series Kagura and Sesshomaru relation develops into mutual trust
and some admiration (may be even infactuation from her), then she is killed off before it
develops any further.

That article was converted to a redirect to this one on 24 February 2007 by Boffob (talk · contribs). JRSpriggs 09:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images and copyrights

Since BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs) has been persistently replacing the images in this article by versions which display his ant-footware bias, but which do not have proper copyright information, I decided to make a record here of what images were being used beforehand. Thus when his images are deleted from the system as I assume that they will eventually be, we can easily go back to the images being used previously. Those images were:

• Image:InuManga vol15.jpg
• thumb|Kagura (Manga)
• thumb|Kagura (Anime)
  

collected from just before BorisTheBlade started editing this article. JRSpriggs 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Barefoot Editing

Let's nip this in the bud. Kagura being barefoot is not notable. She's not a barefooter and doesn't need a link to the barefoot page. Her views on footwear aren't know, and frankly not that important to the character. Don't keep editing this page because Rin's page is protected at the moment. Please, don't turn this into another editing war. --Slotedpig 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks later, it looks like it's become a full blown edit war, similar to what happened at the Rin article. I'll request administrator intervention unless all parties can come to an agreement. Lindentree 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking about an "edit war" makes it sound like you think that their spamming for their foot fetish is morally equivalent to my attempts to remove that spam. Spamming is not morally equivalent to removing spam. JRSpriggs 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, some kind of long-term solution seems preferable to an endless revert cycle. Lindentree 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I notified the most recent editor who added "barefoot" to the article, and removed it pending discussion. We'll see where it goes from there. Lindentree 06:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. JRSpriggs 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And there we go; it was re-added twice by the same editor despite the warning. My assumption of good faith is officially ended, but the question becomes how best to get an admin to help deal with this. Lindentree 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is waging an edit war now? ;-) JRSpriggs 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's note for a second, the fact that in her Appearance section, that it is noted she is barefoot is perfectly acceptable. She IS barefoot--not a barefooter, but she is still someone who walks around with no shoes on. I see no reason for the repeated undo of that. 74.70.7.38 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is a FACT that "She is always barefoot" throughout the series. Her being barefoot is more notable than all these tiny teeny details about her clothing (currently in the Appearance section, it is mentioned that she's been wearing about four different kimonos, and each layer of each kimono is decribed, from what color it is to the patterns on it, like "pink butterflies and yellow rings"!). It was too much when the person insisted on describing her as a barefooter and linking to the barefoot page, but for at least the last 10 edits they made, it's been simply: "She is always barefoot." I think this is a good compromise. 134.84.5.x 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in compromising with these spammers because as soon as we accept a "compromise", then they will take that and change it further to promote their foot-fetish. This has happened already in the revision history, if you read it. They will keep changing whatever is there until it says exactly what they want, i.e. that Kagura is a barefooter (with a link to that article) who is always barefoot and that she hates all forms of footware. That is what they want, but it is a patent lie. JRSpriggs 02:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the person editing that in has made sockpuppets to insert "She is a barefoot" into the article says to me they are more interested in their barefoot fetish than an accurate description of Kagura's appearance. And like with Rin's appearance, this is not a notable aspect of the character. --Slotedpig 13:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How very pig-headed! Just because you assume that people will go out of hand for the simple mention of Kagura's lack of footwear, doesn't mean that we should have an edit war, and leave out a perfectly acceptable fact nonetheless, doesn't mean they will. Does it matter if someone has a barefoot fetish or not? Hardly. Editing out that fact is just stubborness on your parts. 74.70.7.38 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is a fact, and for some reason, you all feel that it isn't "professional" to keep such a certain fact there. Well, its ALOT more un-professional to keep facts out simply because you all don't like it. Its a fact, and it stays there, otherwise I'm calling an admin's attention to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

It's not a matter of professionalism. Facts should be relevant to the subject of the article, and since the relevance is disputed, I'm going to remove it until we reach a consensus. I doubt an admin will get involved with a dispute over content, but they might choose to deal with the current sockpuppetry. Also, please sign your comments.Lindentree 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there even IS a dispute is what is so stupid about this. Why argue over whats 100% fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Alright, enough is enough. Someone needs to quit being a dick around here. : < —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, you can drop your fetish editing and give up any time now. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An admin needs to be brought in. This is ridiculous. 74.70.7.38 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you consider creating account after account to add useless trivia is ridiculous, then it sure is. So is this edit war, for that matter, because several different users have spelled it out quite clearly: her being barefoot is not a notable, important, or even relevant part of her character. It's just this guy's single-minded obsession to highlight every single person in existence that doesn't wear shoes. It doesn't need to be mentioned, humored, or even tolerated, because you don't compromise with trolls. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand. Kagura's article has an Appearance section. In an Appearance section, there is no excuse for editing out a piece of information that's clearly a part of her appearance. It's not particularly important that she's barefoot, but since you all seem in such a tizz about it, why not just let him add it? Is it hurting you? Is it painful to your eyes? It's not like it decreases the quality of the article.

No, this is ridiculous because it's such a minor thing that you can all let go of so easily, but you choose not to. What I gave you is just the simple answer to a simple problem. Admins shouldn't have to be brought into this, but if it comes to that, and you can't all agree on something, I'm going to contact one and have them dictate what you can and cannot do. Jeez Louise. 74.70.7.38 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We all agree it doesn't need to be there, save you. Also, just because the section exists is not leeway to add every little thing there is to add. That's why I trimmed it. And again, to let him add it would only justify his edit warring, which is simply unacceptable. You don't compromise with trolls and sockpuppeteers. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're all just being pompous cause you're phobic or something. No one here has yet given anyone a valid reason to keep it out. "Doesn't need to be there?" Why? "Its too minor." Isn't the fact that she has earrings also minor. Last I checked, a person's foot is bigger than a bead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

"We all agree"? Not all. There are 3 (versus 4) persons that don't agree. I'm the one who pointed out that every little detail of each layer of each of her kimonos was described. I see that you (Someguy0830) have finally cut that part out. How about the "green earrings made up of five green beads"? I actually don't care if it's there or not, I just want to point out that it's a smaller detail compared to her feet, but you just ignored all that while arguing that her being barefoot wasn't "notable", "relevant", "important", .... Yeah, "Who is waging an edit war now?" 134.84.5.x 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, you? I'm not the one picking the fight. I never declared war, you all did. You all started bitching, not me. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Actually from what I can tell, you (with the barefoot fetish) started the edit war over on the Rin page by asserting that she is a barefooter and linking to the barefoot page. Slotedpig changed your edits to "She is always barefoot" which I thought was a good compromise. But you wouldn't leave it at that and kept changing it back to "barefooter" with the link, which of course got reverted. That edit war ended when the page got protected.

Then the edit war moved over to this page. After a while, you settled for the original compromise: "She is always barefoot." But by this time, the other side didn't want any mention of it any more, and kept the war going.

So, you (with the barefoot fetish) are the one who started the edit war. The other people just didn't know to when stop it after they won. 134.84.5.x 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, everyone, this is ridiculous. A compromise needs to be made, or I'll find a formal mediator. 74.70.7.38 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Why are you all changing the images for no damn reason?  :< Like taking out that manga image for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Why do you not ask the person who did it? He was Someguy0830 (talk · contribs). JRSpriggs 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, no reason anymore. Its back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Wonderful; the article is now completely lacking images, so without further ado, Imma add one or two. >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Appearance

I completely revamped the appearance section, this time with more detail. Now PLEASE, lets quit bickering, and lets stop making unnecessary biased edits. Doing so, its an act of edit war. :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Kagura is still not a barefooter and doesn't need a link to the barefoot page.--Slotedpig 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, so much for me trying to be fair and objective! It looks like the one with the barefoot fetish has restarted the edit war. Slotedpig, Lindentree, JRSpriggs, and Someguy0830 -- you were right on that with that bit of information, the person would change it further to promote their barefoot fetish, and it has happened pretty much immediately. I give up! 134.84.5.x 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made myself clear, but apparently not: shut, the, fuck, up. >.> If you're so dead-set against that fact...at least edit it to it looks like it hasn't been edited by a 11-year old school-girl. *fixed* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Actually, you made it very clear that the others were right about you. It should be clear to an admin too, if someone actually calls their attention to this. 134.84.5.x 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, just because I used the term "barefooter", I've become a danger to society? Lets see, the definition of barefooter: "Some people who live in areas where going barefoot in public is more or less uncommon nonetheless choose to go barefoot in public part or all of the time. Some of these people call themselves barefooters and make an effort to go barefoot as much as possible." From out very own article too. Seems clear, like this character makes no effort to wear footwear one bit, she's classified under the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

Have you actually read or watched Inuyasha? Kagura lives in a time when being barefoot was the norm. She will never be a barefooter no matter how much you like barefeet. Stop editing that into the article. --Slotedpig 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the history books. Inuyasha's time frame is WAY off, even when excluding demons and dozen other incorrect thingies here and there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

I've studied a little Japanese history, and while there are obvious inconsistencies in Takahashi's depiction of feudal Japan, barefooters don't seem to be a prominent part of Japanese culture/society in any time period. Also, please sign your comments and review WP:CIVIL. Lindentree 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with history books. Just look at the villagers Inuyasha and company meet. A lot of them aren't wearing anything on their feet.--Slotedpig 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is due, no doubt, to their extreme poverty rather than any distaste for footware. JRSpriggs 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the exremely expensive (especially at THAT time) Kagura-dancer kimonos she wears, I'm MUCH more pointing my fingers at distaste. :< Concerning her, I don't think poverty is the question, also considering her allies, who all wear footwear. Odd, ain't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Pronunciation

The aricle claimed that Kagura's name is ronounced "Kah-gu-ra", but that everyone says "Kagra", in the show. This is, to say the least, innaccurate. Japanese has what is called, "whisper vowels", so the letter u sometimes loses its sound. Kagura is one example, as is tetsusaiga in the English dub of the show. 141.133.173.155 (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)