Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Merge Discussion

As I originally posted to Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew: I'd like to propose that all of the character articles in Category:Tokyo Mew Mew characters be merged into a single List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, with minor characters and species articles deleted all together. None of these articles meet the necessary notability requirements for existence. As such, they should be shortened up to not be pure plot regurgitation and merged into a single, well-written, well-sourced list.

Additional discussion has already taken place at Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew#Re character list. For a short summary:

  • It is agreed that the character list and articles need to be cleaned up
  • It was agreed that this list needed to be renamed to its current name, cleaned up, and changed to be a regular character list (which has been done).
  • It has been agreed that at least some, if not all, of the currently existing individual character articles do NOT meet the requirements for existence per WP:FICT and need to be cleaned up and merged back here. The first round of those articles that most blatantly need to be merged in have been tagged and are listed on the front.
  • Side story and video game characters do not belong in the list at all, and should only be briefly mentioned in relevant sections of the main article.

Collectonian (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Tokyo Mew Mew talk

(to facilitate discussion, I've copied over part of the discussion from the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page regarding the merge discussions)

(←) The AfD has been closed (result - no consensus). I presume that the best approach would be to get a proper list up and running, merging and moving information as necessary. We can decide what to do with it after said proper list has been compiled. G.A.S 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we can start by at least going ahead and cleaning out the minor list to remove the ones we are pretty sure are not going to stay, like the episodic characters. I've been bold and removed the most obvious ones to me if you'd like to take a look and hit anymore (or put any back if you feel they are notable to the series). Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removals, they are not all that important. I believe we should actually move List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew to List of characters in Tokyo Mew Mew, and then add appropriate sections for all major characters. That way there will only be a single article history. G.A.S 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Move done (moved to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters per standard naming convention) :) I've also done a quick and dirty set up of the major characters using the sandbox. The formatting needs to be fixed, and several articles will need to go ahead and be merged here, but that gets us started I think. Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To merge: The following articles can also be merged into the character list, they fail WP:FICT: Ringo Akai, Cyniclons. G.A.S 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Added :) Collectonian (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(←) Regarding the redirected articles. The links to those pages should be updated and linked to the video games (etc.) section in the main article. I believe we should try to at least mention these characters in the appropriate section. G.A.S 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Some of the links from the main article are redirected back to the article itself. This should also be fixed. G.A.S 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For the video game characters they do not need mention at all beyond what I believe is already there, that a new mew mew or new enemy was created for the game. We can put in the names if they aren't already there, but that's about all they need. In general, unless the game is notable enough to get its own article, their characters don't warrant a ton of attention and are less than notable. I think I got all of the self-redirecting links on the main article. I've also cleaned up the character section, which just needs to be a shorter quick summary of main points since there is a full list now, and added in the two obviously missing ones :P Collectonian (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. (The same would actually go for the episodic characters being mentioned in episode summaries; but if this is to be done – what will we do when there is English and Japanese names?) About the game not being notable – so true – I could not even find enough information on the internet to write a short summary for it in the media list. G.A.S 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Usually, for the episodic characters, we just list the original name, though with the whole Mew Mew power thing, maybe add the dub name in parenthesis with a note in the lead stating that. Collectonian (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

As the started of the discussion, I feel all of the individual Tokyo Mew Mew character articles should be cleaned up and merged here. None of them meet WP:FICT requirements for having standalone article in that none have significant real-world coverage from third-party reliable sources. With the excessive plot regurgitation cleaned up, and the rampant OR, all of the characters can be properly discussed here without any size issues. Collectonian (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the goal, but believe we will run into too much red tape if we try to get rid of the remaining individual articles first (whether by moving content, or via AfD). I rather we attempt to get the list up to FL standard first, by copying content from the articles as needed. We can then remove all OR, then fancruft, then excessive plot details: if the remaining content is a duplicate of the list, we can redirect* it as such, or otherwise attempt to expand on it. *If we were to redirect first, I believe we could run into problems, due to recent editors' habit of redirecting non-notable articles en masse. G.A.S 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It is something that needs to be done simultaneously. If the consensus is merge, then we need to merge and clean at the same time. This list can't get to FL standard if we're stuck with just a bunch of short summaries that link of to a bunch of bad articles. Remember, as long as there is the main link, what is in this list shouldn't be anything more than a brief summary. So basically, what's there now is about all that can be there without merging because everything has its own article. I don't think there will be any problem with red tape as proper procedure is being followed. First, tag and discuss to reach an agreement on which articles should be merged. If a consensus about merging can not be reached at all, then we go to the Fiction Noticeboard for assistance. If consensus is reached to merge, then we do the work and the appropriate redirects.
If someone tries to undo the merges despite consensus, then we correct and take appropriate measures as needed. For the redirecting "en masse" the main problem was not the redirecting itself, which was following policy and guidelines, it was primarily people's issues with one specific editor and his not allowing discussion if the redirects were challenged, and with his not always merging properly. Quite a few merges like this are happening in some other big anime/manga articles without a ton of fuss at all. List of Fruits Basket characters is one that comes to mind, which I've aided in the discussion of, though not the work to avoid spoilers about the ending. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your reasoning, but I do not believe that the existance of subarticles are reasoning enough to keep list summaries brief: According to WP:SS#Levels of desired details, the entry in the parent article should be at twice as long as the daughter article's lead (thus 2 - 4 paragraphs).
I guess my point is, regardless of whether the subarticles are kept or not, we need to get the list up to standard, so we might just as well start there.
G.A.S 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To me, doing that just duplicates the effort. I'd rather do it all at once, tackling one character at a time than having to do everything twice, especially when the character articles will just get redirected when merged. Better to clean and merge one by one.Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why this ever became an issue, I will never know... But the attention these immaterial items gain is unbelievable. Getting rid of all immaterial details and original research seems like a better idea all of the time...
I guess it is not a matter of how we deal with this, but when.
G.A.S 05:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that one tripped me out a little too. And agreed, its primarily a matter of when to address rather than how. Collectonian (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging proceeeding

Its been one week with no objections for the merges, as I believe you agree with them G.A.S.? If so, I am going to begin the merge process. Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean the tagged ones (Saint Rose Crusaders, Masha (Tokyo Mew Mew), Chimera Anima, Ringo Akai and Cyniclons)? Yes, please, I am eager to see the finished products. (Please remember to tag the old articles with {{R from merge}}, and list the permanent links to the old articles in this article's edit history per GFDL requirements.)
We should try to find group pictures of the characters, as I believe we could picture all of the (major) characters in less than 5 pictures.
We can also propose the following merges, as there are painfully little information for these (if fancruft and trivial details are removed): Berry Shirayuki, Kish (Tokyo Mew Mew), Tart (Tokyo Mew Mew), Pie (Tokyo Mew Mew), Deep Blue (Tokyo Mew Mew), Ryou Shirogane, Keiichiro Akasaka, Tasuku Meguro.
G.A.S 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on those, which were going to be my next set :) Thanks for the reminder on the edit link. I use the templates but only recently learned about that GFDL requirement to put in the link in the edit summaries. :) I also agree on the pictures. While I tend to like to go with manga over anime when manga is the primary source, we're probably more likely to get good color pictures from the anime. Of course, with the anime, we're reduced to finding fansubs or promotional pictures. I'll check the official site to see if it has anything usable. I'll probably start the merges this weekend. I'm mostly just waiting for the shipment of my volumes of the manga to arrive, so I can reference to specific pages instead of just volumes. Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge additions and progress

(←) I have added the appropriate merger notices to more of the sub-articles (Berry Shirayuki, Kish (Tokyo Mew Mew), Tart (Tokyo Mew Mew), Pie (Tokyo Mew Mew), Deep Blue (Tokyo Mew Mew), Ryou Shirogane, Keiichiro Akasaka, Tasuku Meguro) as I feel that these articles fails the notability requirements, and that if the fancruft, trivia and excessive plot content is removed, these article's content will help to improve this list to featured list status. At this moment, no more improvement to these sub-articles are possible due to the lack of reliable secondary sources, so failing a merger, these content have no possible hope of achieving featured article or good article status. Some of these articles have very little content as things stand now, in any case. G.A.S 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just found this template to tag the old redirects with {{CharR to list entry}}, it may be more appropriate than {{R from merge}}. G.A.S 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So far so good, I think, on the merges. Six remaining, so I'd better get to reading A La Mode ;) Any thoughts on the merges so far? I've been sourcing as much as I can, and for each character I search for real world info. Unfortunately, despite the relative sales success of the Tokyo Mew Mew manga, I have found almost no reviews from reliable sources on it and, of course, the anime has even fewer reviews due to never being released to DVD. :( Once the merges are done, I'll recheck all of the volumes for any additional development info, though so far only Masha has any at all.
I'd also like to suggest adding The Blue Knight to the merge list. Not sure how he was left out, but he's about the same level as Deep Blue, I think, with even less information available. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say great work on the mergers so far! Unfortunately, I believe most interviews – if any – would be in Japanese:(. There are only a few sources with interviews that I am actually aware of; and the Japanese Wikipedia does not have a "reception" section (that could have been translated; or followed to the source, and added from there.); nor do I believe that the other languages' Wikipedia's has sources we are interested in:(. It might be worth revisiting them again, though.
I believe the Blue Knight section can be expanded. Did you read through that article yet? It seems that it is better written than most of the character's articles – for the most part – and where possible, to be sourced to the manga. Could you indicate what information would be left out in case of a merger? It seems to me that the writing style agrees to that used in the list, so any merger would likely be "cut and paste" (minus removed OR/...). G.A.S 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'm going to try to remember go to Hastings this week to see if the 2nd edition of the Anime Encyclopedia I have has an entry on Tokyo Mew Mew, and if so if it goes into character details. So far, the only book mentions I've found was a rather humorous one: Mint mentioned in one sentence, along with Usagi from Sailor Moon, in a book on hairstyles in the Odongo section! :P
So far the only thing I've left out of the mergers is anything unsourcable, physical descriptions, and minor details (so and so tripped on page X kinda thing :P). If there is some indication of a source and it seems pertinent, I've kept with a fact tag. Just took a look at the Blue Knight's article. Its certainly better than most, so it wouldn't require as much work, but the prose needs tightening to better clarify manga vs anime, and to remove the "seems" and the unsourced aspects (like the supposition about the Mew Mew power episode being a pun). I don't think much would be left out, though, mostly just rearranged and reworded a bit. And the refs fixed to use the same formatting as the rest. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind, please edit the article accordingly on the article's page first — please keep move edits, remove edits, source cleanup edits, and "tightening" edits separate, as I would like to go through the diffs on this one:) — before I can comment on a merger go-ahead. G.A.S 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. However, keep in mind that all of the articles do still fail WP:FICT as they all lack real-world information. It will be awhile yet before I get to working on that one, as I plan to finish the agreed on merges first. Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually suspected that they will be merged in time, however in this case I would like some more information than "Before" and "After";). I like the way you combined the "aliens" into one section with subsections, it looks very professional. I believe the same could be done with the other sections as well (esp. Protagonists), but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. G.A.S 10:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) One other thought I had last night while my insomnia was on a roll, if not a merge here (for now), how about a merge to Masaya's page? It would be in keeping with how we have the rest. Alto is covered as part of Ryo's section/article, as are the individual Mew Ichigo/Mew Mint, etc. The Blue Knight is Masaya's alter ego so it would make sense to cover it with him rather than considering it a separate character. Deep Blue is a separate personality all together, that is killed, but in a La Mode, Masaya specifically notes he's lost most of his Blue Knight powers but can still sense the Mew Mews being in danger. What do you think? Collectonian (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Whichever way works better:) The rest of the mergers are very well done, so you are free to merge both of them here in any case. I am not sure how/if the Blue Knight → Masaya merge would work, as they are for the most of the series separate characters. Also, considering that Deep Blue is also Masaya, the combined article would be incomplete:(, so maybe it is better to merge both here? G.A.S 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that, but I think the final volume makes it fairly clear that Deep Blue and Masaya shared one body, but were different personalities. I kinda wish they had explained it better (or maybe its a translation issue), though from what I gathered, Deep Blue "created" Masaya then went to sleep, so Masaya became a separate individual and soul. I wish there were more reviews for the series, especially the end. :P And thanks! I've finally read half of a La Mode (the Ballad of Shinigami novel claimed my reading time for the last few days), and will read the second part tonight so I can tackle the rest of the ones in the list. Then we can revisit the remaining separate ones to see if they can be brought to FICT standards or should be merged. The biggest obstacle, I think, is the severe lack of reviews and coverage of the series as a whole, much less the individual characters. :(Collectonian (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I never attempted to understand the whole DB/M/BK thing—since he/they are but a fictional character:), but thanks for explaining. I agree that it would have been much better if more reviews were available, or if the writers explained the issue in one of the books (since only they could truly "know" this).

[edit] Remaining mergers

(←)The remaining characters would require sections at least as long as the others, so we may just as well end up with the list entry in any case (As the individual articles would not add any value, unless they are backed up with real world information). I believe that the current articles are lacking most of the information that is required by WP:MOS-ANIME#Characters. If this cannot be added, they would have very little good article potential. And we cannot have that, can we?. Maybe we should start assessing them sooner than later? (I would rather that, if merge tags are added, the discussions are held at the source articles, as that would allow us to properly assess the articles individually. (We should then link to those discussions from here). G.A.S 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the default when tagging for merges is to discuss in the target page, though we could make new sections here for each if desired. I think it would be better to keep all the merge discussions central, since much of the discussion is here. For the rest of the articles instead of tagging straight for merging, we could start by tagging them for lack of Fict notability and letting discussion start from that to see if anyone can provide the necessary sourcing and info while the first stage of clean up begins? Would that work? Collectonian (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Default: yes, Required: no. Ultimately the location does not matter; but it would help if the disussions are isolated from one another since arguments that are valid for one, is not necessarily valid for another (such details seem to go missing in group discussions).
Unfortunately, I have never seen the notability templates have any effect:(, so I believe that may be a waste of time.
Would it be possible to spend no more than 3 minutes per remaining article, and clear out trivial details and fancruft? (Which would be removed regardless of whether the articles are merged or not); That it might be easier to identify the amount of useful information?
G.A.S 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends. If you and I are the only active editors in the TMM articles right now, then yeah, the notability templates probably will not have much effect, but then neither will the merge tags :P For the merge discussions, I think its better to have them here, even if in individual sections for several reasons: 1, anyone coming to discuss it can see the history and what has already been done, and 2, if the articles are all merged here instead of being hidden over in now redirecting pages. I haven't really seen that anyone is active on any of the TMM articles anymore, besides you and I, since User:Angelofdeath275 was indefinitely blocked back in December. I'll try clearing out some of the crufy and trivial details either tonight or tomorrow on the articles not already tagged for merging to see what's left. Collectonian (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My point with the tags are as follow:
Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Zero. Just tag the light bulb as {{unscrewed}} and let someone else worry about it!—Wikipedia humor
The purpose of any merge tags are to let others know our intention — notability tags does not.
And yes, at the moment only we are active here (To be honest, mostly you—thanks:) ), so any tags are probably just a formality. I actually believe very few people have ever been active in these articles; and definitely not in a long time. G.A.S 05:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Tee hee on the joke. :P I've now done Mint, Lettuce, Pudding, and Zakuro so far. I mostly just removed the extra stuff, per my edit summary. Many still need rewriting beyond some quick stuff to fix the grammar, remove repeating statements, and just improve the prose order and flow over all. Thoughts on what's left? Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Eish! That means that virtually all of them could easily be merged into the list. Too bad about the remaining pictures, which were really good. G.A.S 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...Just finished Masaya and his isn't much better. Gotta give two points for the imaginative theories some folks came up with on stuff though (and their brazen declaring of some of those articles to be B class!). :P I also did a brief clean up of The Blue Knight, but not the rewrite were talking about earlier. That's all of them but Ichigo's, which will take the most work, but also has the most potential (barely) to remain separate. Collectonian (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind adding the appropriate merge tags, or would you prefer to wait until the current mergers have been completed? With the current content it does seem like most of them can quite easily be merged.
Some of the removed content are appropriate to the "Production" section of the main article (Differences between the anime and the manga); consider expanding on this in the main article.
G.A.S 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait until the current is done so as not to get the two parts mixed up conversation wise. The problem is that quite a bit of the changes stuff was not sourced, but eventually it does need that sort of content, in a more general manner, discussing changes made from one to the other. BTW, finally added one picture, of the Mew girls. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: the changes between the manga and the anime — we can continue that conversation on the main article's talk page, it is the proper forum:). RE: The picture, yes, I saw it, and believe it is a good choice; esp. the description. Could you please add the website where it was obtained under the image's source in the table; I believe that is also required? G.A.S 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For a poster, we can also just note it is a scan of the physical poster, but I've added a URL to give credit to the person who actually did the scanning. :) Now, to tackle the chimera anima merge. Collectonian (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Update and Revisit the Minors

Only two left, Berry and Tasuku which I'll hopefully get done this weekend. In doing the Saint Rose Crusaders section, I went ahead and mirrored the aliens by giving each their own paragraph. I also decided to list them by their code names as it is never made clear if the names two use are their real ones or aliases, and only part of a third's is said. Duke's section was hard to right due to the ambiguity about his/her gender. For Sweet Juliet, the Tokyopop versions say female so unless reliable sources specifically say he was male in the Japanese, the discussion on that has been removed. For an update, there are two characters left and the page is now at 60k with 106 references.

Should we revisit the section on minor characters section at this point and reconsider whether to keep or leave, or wait until the remaining merges are done? Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

60k ... not too bad? Although I rather we see what the effect of the main characters' mergers are. We can have peer/FL review decide on the minors, as it is only a small section, any recommendation from them will be quick to impliment.
It seems to me that the "Saint Rose Crusaders", section will require copy-editing, as the writing seems to be "in-universe" (The others to a much lesser extent). See WP:WAF and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction.
G.A.S 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There is so little on them, its hard to say much about them at all. Its funny how trying to write their section made me realize they are like a huge plot hole in a La Mode. Most is going to be more in-universe than not, though, as there is little information about any of the characters. Masha, somewhat ironically, has the most real-world info because of Tokyo Black Cat Girl. Collectonian (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The solution would probably be more of a style change: eg. Instead of "The teenagers were all born with special powers..." consider "According to the story, Royal Highness, Happy Child, Blue Bayou and Sweet Juliet were all born with special powers...".
It also seem that you are only retelling the story: "Royal Highness is furious when his face is scratched by Berry, but Happy Child makes him retreat." Why is this important? This seems like detail plot retelling only.
"Sweet Juliet seems to have trouble focusing at times" OR? Consider: "On page x of <book> it is shown that...".
It seems that this section will need a major trim and cleanup, unfortunately. (Which would not be so difficult to tell you had I not seen the quality of the rest of the article.)
G.A.S 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, got you. I'll give it another pass through. I think part of that one was just in having to retool the whole article from before. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay...that's the last one done (for now). Wee! Want to tackle giving it a copy edit? Where shall we go from here? Collectonian (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice:). I have already read through the rest, so I only need to visit the newest mergers, which I will do soon. I guess we should merge the other characters as well? We may(?) justify an article for Ichigo, but am not too sure about the rest. How about merging BK, MA, LM, ZF, PF, in that order? G.A.S 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Which MA? Masaya or Mint (or both) :P Collectonian (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
MaA, BK, MiA, LM, ZF, PF — Thought Masaya was done by now...:) G.A.S 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You want to add the tags or should I? Collectonian (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Does not really matter:) I will only be able to continue editing tomorrow, so if you would like to have it added before then, it would be up to you; otherwise I will add them. G.A.S 20:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I did a word count on the article: It is currently 42k of readable prose. There is clearly more than enough space left for the new mergers—which if existing characters are an example—would be 3K to 4K each. G.A.S 08:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. :) I'll probably start in another day or two, or this weekend. Wanted to let the tags sit a bit, see if anyone objected, and give my brain a Mew Mew break ;) Collectonian (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, they've all been tagged nearly two weeks with no oppositions, so I'll try to get started on the merging this weekend, brain allowing. :) I've also added a notability tag to Ichigo. So far, I've found no extensive coverage to help her meet WP:FICT, so maybe tagging might wake someone up (though I suspect not). Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That long already? Best of luck on them, I am looking forward to the final result!
Are there any development information about the (individual) characters out there (as it is usually the most interesting part in the articles)? If there are any available, it should be added to the article in addition to reviewers' comments.
G.A.S 20:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
So far, no, the only one with any development information is Masha, which is already included, and the video game folks that's in the main article. :( Collectonian (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mint

The merger is seems quite good. Her introduction in the Anime is somewhat different: do you think we need to expand on it here? Or in the main article? As for the voice actor change: We should attempt to keep it the same throughout, so either this one, or the rest will need to be changed at some time. I believe one of the more recent discussions was regarding the use of this template, but I cannot seem to find it now. Do you know where the discussion was (I believe it was re. naming convension, where the use of the template would make it seem that the Anime is the original format where it was not)? G.A.S 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it I think it was at the MoS talk page. The Naruto character list up at peer review as well is using the style used here in Mint's. I wanted to try it out here and get feedback before changing them all over. The differences in the meeting should be different, but I'm still working out the wording so each of the Mew Mew sections won't sound too repetitive. :)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merged articles talk pages and assessments

I have noticed that the article assessment of the articles being merged here have stayed the same (e.g. start class); as such I have asked what Version 1.0 Editorial Team's recommendation is in these cases. Their recommendation is that we just remove the Wikiproject's details from the page.

In the same breath, maybe we should archive each of the affected talk pages, and add links to those archives to the archive box on this page.

Your opinion?

G.A.S 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, normally I remove all project templates, and if there is any relevant discussion, I moved it to the archive here. I thought I'd cleared them all from the project after merging. I must have missed some. Just went through and found a few I forgot to do and fixed those. Let me know if you see any others. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character... Deletion?

Please excuse me, I'm not very good at talk pages. XD I'm am a big fan of Mew Ringo, and it warms the cockles of my heart when she is mentoined on Tokyo Mew Mew websites. Of course, theres been a wiki article for her before an offical profile even came online. I read you planned to delete the character articles, and as much as I kinda thought "y'know, there really isn't a limited amount of space on the internet" I didn't mind much. But, I checked tonight to see all the mews have kept their articles... save Ringo. Now, if Ringo's article was paticularly small and limited, I would understand, but everything was reasonable. Seeing as Mew Berry kept her article, I was confused. I understood you guys can be *coughrudecommentanalretantivecoughrudecommentcough* picky... but seeing as she is mentoined in the main article about four times, and isn't mentoined in the character page (most likely a slip), and you also got rid of the games article... she seems to be getting the short end of the stick. ~Moonie (aka, crazy nooby Ringo fan.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.162.88 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion is not an issue of space on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which help determine if any given article should exist. Fictional character articles rarely meet those guidelines. Ringo's articles is one of many that does not meet the requirements for existing, having no real-world significant and no significant coverage in third party, reliable sources. She is mentioned in the main article because her individual article, which fails Wikipedia guidelines for existance, was merged into the main rather than here. This list is specifically for the characters in the manga and anime series, not those in the single video game. Mew Berry is the central character of the second manga series, hence her being here. What is said about Ring in the main article is about all that can be said about her from available sources. The game isn't licensed, and little additional information is available about her from . The game articles were removed as they also fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being unlicensed, and seemingly little known even in Japan, what can be said about them from sourced material is already said in the main article.
The merging in of individual articles has not been completed. Whether the remaining Mews will keep their articles is a matter for debate. There is very little information about the series as a whole from reliable sources, making it very difficult to justify even Mew Ichigo's article. Those discussions will take place shortly, and if you'd like to join in you may, but leave the rude comments (even disguised ones) from someplace else please. We frown on such impoliteness in discussions as they do not aid conversations, only hinder them.Collectonian (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How has the video game been dubbed "below" the manga, manga spinoff, and the anime? It's a 20 hr game, and there is plenty of story. I know atl east six people who have finished the game, 3 of them who understood at least part of it. Ringo is pretty much the central character of the video game, when you think about it. You play as Ichigo- but the plot really revolves mostly around her. I don't see why you couldn't add the characters of the game- it's not like readers are going to get all nitpicky. If you were to make the video game characters their own section, that would be an article with low standards, do to "lack of offical information". People read wikipedia to get information. Ringo, is very little known. If all you post is what they already know from their manga book- we've got "ringo noobs" as I call them, running around with false information and spreading rumors. ~Moonie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.162.88 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We only post what can be sourced from reliable sources (not necessarily official, but reliable). The video game is unlicensed, and very little is said about it in Japan, much less here. Core Wikipedia policy is not "what someone thinks they know" but verifiability. It isn't the readers being "nitpicky," its called adhering to the quality standards of Wikipedia and sticking to sourcable, notable data. There are plenty of Tokyo Mew Mew fansites that have all sorts of unsourced information. Wikipedia is not the place for such rumors, half-truths, and unverifiable information. Putting such information here would, in fact, do what you claim you don't want to be done, giving people false information. Collectonian (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe the appropriate policy applicable is undue weight; which states that "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." and "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The fact that there are very few (almost none, to be honest) reliable sources available about the character means that she has very little real world prominence to the story, and as such, only a small portion of text is devoted to the character. I hope this helps. G.A.S 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Rose Crusaders

Items requiring further cleanup

  • "His primarily appearance in a La Mode is in making the first attack against Mew Berry by posing as a special lecturer at her school" — Making?? There has to be a better way to say this.
  • "Happy Child first shows himself to the Mew Mews when..." Is this the character's first appearance in the manga? We should information about the introduction of each of the characters to the reader.

Excessive plot detail? I rather the plot detail is left to the manga plot descriptions and we stick to descriptions of the characters – not their actions here. I have summarised the following from WP:MOS-ANIME#Characters:

Lead: ..., including that this is a fictional character, who she or he was created by, what works he or she appears in, her or his role in these works, and why he or she is notable.
Information about the character revealed in the story goes in this section—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakable for a biography. ... special attributes/abilities... Citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate here, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
Development / Production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS.
Reception: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS.

G.A.S 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its excessive plot detail. They have a pretty small paragraph each out of a two volume series. Some context needs to be given for the characters, and all of the other character sections include information on their major points in the plot. Our FA/GA character articles have 2-3 larger paragraphs of plot, usually, in addition to the reception and creation/conception info. We have none of that information available at all, so for Saint Rose, its going to be almost all plot and that's fine I think. We can't add what doesn't exist.
For the specific points, if you can think of another word for making, please go ahead and replace. Performing sounded odd considering he was attacking, and launched sounded to military to me. :P No, it wasn't Happy Child's first appearance in the manga, only to the Mews. All four Crusaders and Duke are shown to readers talking about their plan to kill Berry and eat her. "We should information about the introduction of each of the characters to the reader." Huh? Collectonian (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we add a bit more about physical appearances?
We should include information about the introduction of each of the characters to the reader.;)
G.A.S 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't much else to add about the appearances, without treading the OR territory because no reviewers commented on them specifically besides Duke's robes. I'll add a note on the intro to readers tonight when I can check the page number. Collectonian (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some more questions

Please clarify the following:

  • "Tasuku and the Mew Mews rescues Berry and Royal Highness retreats after his defeat is pointed out by Happy Child." — Is this Happy Child's last appearance? If not, are further appearances important or only minor appearances?
  • "Duke admits their methods were wrong after Berry breaks the spell on Tasuku and the brainwashing done to the citizens of Tokyo to turn them against the Mew Mews." — Is this the conclusion of the manga?
  • "In the flashback where the Crusaders first met Duke, Happy Child is called "Utamaro""—by Duke?
  • "Happy Child attacks Berry by using his ultra-sonic attack, but Berry is able to defeat him when she is joined by Mew Ichigo."—and then...?
  • "They then publically accuse the Mew Mews of betraying everyone one, and with the use of more subliminal messages, are able to turn the public against the Mews Mews"—everyone – who? // and then...?
  • "but also notes that she "guesses" Berry deserves it." —and then...?

G.A.S 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, its his first appearance before the Mew Mews. Royal Highness did the first attack. Other Mew Mews arrived, Happy Child appeared to take him back since he was out numbered. Happy Child later came to do attack two.
  • No, but it is the conclusion of their appearance. It goes on a little further to show the happy resolution with Berry and Tasuku and showing that the Mew Mews are all still friends and working at the cafe though they no longer need to fight.
  • No, one of the others calls him that when he runs to jump off the roof. I'll have to check the panel to see if its clear which one said it.
  • And then that's pretty much it for Happy Child except for minor background appearances
  • everyone = public. The public first surrounds the Mews, then decides Mew Berry made the others evil so they physically attack her. The crusaders do nothing more at that point but watch until its over and they change their ways.
  • That's it. It occurs when the public starts their attack on Mew Berry, but the Crusaders do nothing but watch. I only included it because she was the only Crusader to express any symphathy or other feelings regarding the Mew Mews besides a desire to kill them until its over.
Hope that helps. Collectonian (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"Tasuku and the Mew Mews rescues Berry and Royal Highness retreats after his defeat is pointed out by Happy Child." — Is this Royal Highness's last appearance? If not, are further appearances important or only minor appearances? G.A.S 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems like all of the characters sections ends "incomplete", but it seems to me that this is the way the manga ends as well(?). Could we maybe mention to the effect of "that is it, and they are not seen again"? (I.e. something about their (or just Duke's?) change of heart(?), and deciding not to fight anymore?) G.A.S 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't his last appearance, but all the rest are very minor (pretty much just, seen in a panel with the rest of the group). After each one does their major attack, they fade into the background. After Duke's says she/he has realized he's wrong, they aren't seen again. And yes, alas a La Mode has quite a few plot holes and a rather abrupt end. I personally think it suffers badly from the loss of Reiko as the main story writer. Ikumi does great art, but her writing for a La Mode is not so good :( Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can update the section with the following, we can consider it complete:
  • That each of them features in one major attack, and then fade into the background.
  • That they are not seen after Duke's change of heart.
  • The name of the character that calls Happy Child "Utamaro", or the fact that it is not specified.
  • The conclusion to the final fight in the SRC section. (Maybe move it from Duke's section?)
Regards, G.A.S 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay...how's that? Collectonian (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good:) This section is now much better than what we had.:)
Do you think we should consider adding the picture (in the old article) to the list (But add the names in the description)? I believe it would help to make up for the lack of descriptions for these characters.
G.A.S 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking the same. I've put the old picture in for now, but going to see if there are any that have all 4 + Duke. Collectonian (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the one at the centre in the back Duke? G.A.S 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay...I'm tired, and yes it is :P Collectonian (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm going to actually go to WP:3O since WP:RFC recommends this if the dispute is between two editors. My stance is that the image at the top, which was previously 400px, was much too large to still pass fair use, though User:Collectonian resized it down to 350px after a discussion on my talk page, though I think it should still be at most 300px. Also, the black/white image down below, while at 300px width, still appears very large due to it's length, and I think that it also needs to be resized smaller to comply with fair use guidelines.--十八 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

3O works for me, as well, though considering you are basically arguing against the policy that allows 300 pixels to be the minimum size of the smallest dimension, not just height, it may be good to ask on the relevant policy page. I resized the first down so that its shortest dimension is 300px, and I resized it in the article. The image in the image space was borderline, so I agreed with that. As for its use in the article, if it fair use in the image space, its fair use in the article, and its size is only an issue of image placement guidelines, not fair use. It is the primary illustration of the list, and due to its placement, it helps full up the white space beside the large menu. I think this image placement is fine, as it mirrors that done in other similar character articles by a consensus of several folks, in lieu of having it at the top right corner.
However, I firmly believe that the second image perfectly meets all fair use requirements. I myself resized it to ensure compliance, and its smallest size is now at the 300px requirement. The full size would be the manga page itself, which would be thousands of pixels in width and height. Reducing the size would make the top character nearly impossible to distinguish, which would also violate the overall image use guidelines. That character is the leader of the group, and their particularly costume is discussed within their section because of its resemblance to the white robes worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's size does not just have to do with image placement guidelines. That's spelled out quite clearly at WP:FUC where it says, Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace. This is instituted so we don't have an image 1000s of pixels large in the Image space, while it's only 300px in Article space. I realize you resized the top image down to 375px from 500px in the Image space, but I'd be willing (and I'm sure others as well) to argue that it should probably be no more than 300px in both Image and Article space.--十八 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but if the image in the image name space meets the requirements, then it also meets them in the article. It can't be an okay size in the image, but not in the article as the image in the article will always be equal to or a LOWER resolution than the image space. The image meets the fair use requirements in the image name space, so it meets it in the article space. And, please look again, I resized the first image down to 300px on its shortest dimension, which is in perfect compliance to the rule. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
I believe fair use criteria is subject not only the main space, but to other space as well. For example, we can't have galleries in categories because of fair use. So the same rules apply to image space as in main article space, hence my opinion that the image in image space should also be resized down to 300px width. Plus, if we just resized down to the smaller dimension, in this case height smaller than width, then sometimes we may have a problem, like if the image was over 1000px in width, but only 300px in height.--十八 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Having a gallery is a whole other issues, its having too many non-free images, not an issue of size. In such an extreme case, the image would violate the basic Image use policies, which notes a max size of 550 in an article, not non-free. And really, comparing that to this is something of a red herring. For the first image, it is 350x280 in the article, again well within the compliance requirements. Shortest dimension is under 300. Full size image is 375 × 300. Exactly at 300, again well within the guidelines.
Resizing the second image down anymore, when it doesn't need to be and already meets all fair use requirements, will degrade the quality and viewable, making it less than useless. I think you are really misinterpreting what that statement was trying to say (i.e., don't try to put an image in an article at 300px width when the uploaded image is actually much larger and violating the fair use policy...it doesn't speak to this issue at all as the image in the image space meets all fair use requirements. Anyway, its obvious you and I are just going to continue in circles here, so how about just waiting for the 3O, though I'd still prefer the topic be brought up at WP:NONFREE since your request would be a de-facto change to the current standing policies by saying that it now much be 300px on the longest dimension instead of the shortest and it will result in dozens, if not hundreds, of images having to either be resized or deleted. That would the vast majority of our manga covers as they are usually 300x477 when good size covers can be found. Also all DVD covers and other book covers. And film posters, etc etc etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No you misunderstand my intentions. Let's not talk numbers here, let's talk practicality. The first image is, currently, 350x280. Now, I have a fairly large resolution as we have discussed in the past, which leaves a vast amount of white space even with the image taking up the top corner of the space, but then I don't see why we should be clamoring to fill that space up when it's an unavoidable result of long table of contents. The point is that, in cases like this one, there will still be a great amount of white space, even if you try to fill it with some 350px image, and anything larger would be crazy (like if you tried to fill the entire white space with the image). Not to mention that large images generally look obstructive, such as IMO the second image, which stands at 275x445. I don't know about you, but in all the time I've been on wiki, I have seen very rarely images of this height and width used in articles. Most DVDs/book covers/film posters are held at 200px or less (230 or so in infoboxes). Look at Air (visual novel) at the DVD image down below. It's held at 175px in the article, and 227px in the image space. I don't have to tell you that Kano and Minagi are very hard to make out in that image, even in image space, but the reason it's not so large as to encompass the entire Anime section is for fair use purposes (and the fact, as I've said, that it would be obstructive for people with lower res screens). Think for a second about people with lower resolutions. That 445 fills more than half of my screen from top-bottom, and people with lower resolutions probably cannot even view the entire image in one screen; that is precisely why it should be resized, and is the reason the width limit is strictly held at 550px for those while lower res screens. I realize that the second image in this article provides context in regards to the KKK-looking costume, but I don't think we should start having the prose dictate if an image should be large or small. I know images are meant to be used to illustrate topics in an article, but we have fair use guidelines to dictate how they are used, and low-res images are always preferable to higher-res ones.--十八 05:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Again , the image is in keeping with all relevant guidelines and the size and placement of the first image was dictated by consensus. Both are in keeping with all guidelines and policies regarding non-free images and fair use and do not need changing. I've seen the very small images you have uploaded, and I think they are undersized to an excessive degree, making some, like the Air character images, not even really worth including at all (and, are of sizes I have myself replaced with larger more appropriate sizes in my editing). Fair use doesn't mean you have to make it so tiny no one will even bother looking at it. It means be fair. The sizes here are perfectly fair use, well within all non-free requirements for resolution, and provided appropriate illustration to the sections they are used in. Again, I feel you are making a horrible mountain out of an ant hill, and are really misinterpreting the policy in a way that is, frankly, detrimental the images you upload and use in articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

My interpretation of the "low resolution" recommendation is that some scans are high enough resolution that the image, when reproduced on a printed page, is nearly indistinguishable from the original work. There is no hard requirement for "no more than 300 pixels wide" or whatever, such that an image fails to be fair use if you're 1 pixel bigger. To reproduce a high-quality picture, you'd need far greater resolution than the 300 or 400 pixel images being discussed here. The sizes used currently in this article seem adequate to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)