Talk:Ranma ½/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from 2007 with some additional discussion from 2006 that spilled over into 2007. Discussion was archived as it appeared on the main talk page and thus may not be in chronological order.

Talk archives for Ranma ½ (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 2 >>

Contents

Who is removing stuff??

why did someone remove all the good information from each characters, like love interest and all that, enemies and stuff. if u had a good reason explin, and no im not gonna read below if there is one, i kinda already did and did not find any good reason... chimasternmay 9-8-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimasternmay (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The brief character descriptions are still around, just without images, and love interest or rivals are handled on the separate character pages, but there has been a suggestion for creating an additional chart in this style: List_of_School_Rumble_characters#Love_Interests and migrating this and the character list into a separate page, which I'm fine with as long as we don't erase them. Dave 07:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Need For a Solid, Brief Intro, to the Franchise

While the Character section is too bloated and perhaps should go elsewhere there needs to be at least a very brief intro to the story. In this character-driven Animanga, this doesn't just mean a summary of the various storylines (which would be very long) but primarily expositing the intricate relationships and unusual characters. Does anyone dispute this is one of the main things people come to Wikipedia to learn, either to find the explanation for a Ranma reference or to pick up the franchise from the middle, or just to understand what this Ranma thing is all about?

At the very least there needs to be an exposition of those that get more than a cameo appearance in the movies. Meaning: Ranma, Akane, Genma, Soun, Nabiki, Kasumi, Ryoga, Shampoo, Mousse, the Kuno siblings, Ukyo, Happosai and Cologne. These characters and their relationships to each other needs to be given in as brief a manner as possible. Must include: love/hate relationships, Martial arts style, and transformation; Of course personality and eccentricities are important. We can't give more than a couple of sentences per character though.Jaydubayubee 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Other possibilities (which I don't favor at this point): Tofu, Gosunkugi, and Sasuke, as these are important characters in some respects and all appear very early in their series. Tofu starts out major and gets pushed aside. Gosunkugi is important in the manga, not the TV series. Sasuke is important in the TV series but is a creation of and only for TV. Late arrivals, the Headmaster, Nodoka and Hinako, might be considered due to their importance. However they are less important than the characters that appear in important roles in the moviesJaydubayubee 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tofu, Gosunkugi, Headmaster, Hinako and Nodoka are all recurring characters based in the original source material/manga, with several contributions to the development, and as such are far more important than 1-shot, self-contained continuity, movie characters. Sasuke is an anime character, but may warrant an entry. Dave 09:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree on these principles: There should be a description of the major characters and their relationships in a visible, easy to read fashion in the main page? Jaydubayubee 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Either through the current brief profiles or through simply providing a link to a separate page in this section. Dave 09:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting modifying the info in the table or getting rid of it? I suggested this earlier, see below. --BrokenSphereMsg me 03:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No I see this as something different from the character list. A section that summarizes the major characters and their relationships, perhaps in the context of plot or story exposition (since most plotlines are driven by these characters and their agendas). I wonder why a short section summarizing things succinctly doesn't exist, all we have for Plot doesn't go past episode one, and before a recent edit details about the children "not knowing" about the parents arrangement and Akane walking in on Ranma in the shower seem to make it into a summary of episode one, rather than the incomplete introduction we have now (there isn't even a mention of Furikan High). Jaydubayubee 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this will work, see my addition to the main page in the plot section "Very Brief Summary of Major Characters Relationships." Its a lot fewer words than the character list. Jaydubayubee 06:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The lack of space turns a character relationship description too one-sided, (Akane _always_ believes the worst of Ranma and the best of Ryoga for example, or Kuno _refuses_ to believe that the pigtailed girl is Ranma. Although I'm not sure about the old "Akane hates boys" inclusion either, as it's repeatedly shown as patently untrue throughout the series, she just hates Kuno and her attackers) and isn't clinical and compressed enough for a series intro. It's much preferable to stick with the character descriptions, regardless is we use a header with a link to a separate page or keep them here, but the further brief notes about the series development were a good idea. Dave 08:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like succinct way you made the cuts to the Plot section and this is developing into a good section seperate from character and relationship description. However, I still think that a more succinct way of telling the relationships are possible than our major character list (which at least shouldn't be removed from the main section until something agreeable replaces it) but maybe this can't be agreeable within the community. I thought it was pretty much indisputable that Kuno refuses to believes the pigtailed girl is Ranma. I suppose one could argue that Nibiki's statement about Kuno's message to Ranma in the manga ("To the girl-half") suggests that Kuno understood Nibiki or at least played-along, as Nibiki says immediately she thinks Kuno doesn't really believe her. But, at the very least we could say something like "Kuno acts as if he doesn't know his beloved pig-tailed girl is also his hated enemy Ranma" because at the least Kuno regularly acts this way. Jaydubayubee 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Nabiki took care to word it as "Her body and soul belongs to Ranma", which predictably made the dim-witted and delusional 'chivalrous samurai' Kuno assume that he had enslaved her. During the match with Kodachi, he later tried to remember the name to write it down. Afterwards Ranma has made a few over-feminine plays to get something from Kuno. I don't think it's so much _refusing_ as being unable to draw the connection. Gender-bending is not something a traditional Japanese noble would find rational. Dave 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In the end, I think its important that one can read a few paragraphs and get enough of a picture so that if they were to watch a Ranma episode in the middle, see a movie or read a middle manga chapter, they could identify the regular characters by their mannnerisms, and would find their frequent behavior to be consistent with the description, and since character behavior is largely about how they interact with each other, its the major interactions that are important. Perhaps a summary can be added to the character list, or at east a chart. Because of Dave's objections, I will not personally make another attempt until some sort of consensus is reached, nor should the character list be moved until something acceptable replaces it.Jaydubayubee 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I made some rewrites to the plot, so let me know what you think. I also rearranged the features section as it makes more sense after one reads the plot. The chart idea sounds good, a similar thing has been done with List_of_School_Rumble_characters#Love_Interests, another anime I'm a fan of. I still wonder though, if it might be better suited to a "List of Ranma ½ characters" page as opposed to the main page. BrokenSphereMsg me 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like some of the plot changes, but since you rearranged the features section in the same edit, I can't compare with the earlier one easily. If you still want to rearrange the features section (which I still don't agree with, as I think it stands on its own and is a much briefer overview) please do it in a seperate edit. Jaydubayubee 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving the list and supplementing it with a relationship chart (we're talking about something in the style of the he/she loves x at the end of "The Art of Ranma½" right?), but definitely not as a first step on the way of deleting it altogether. I think it's an excellent spot-on brief summary for anybody who wants an overview before visiting the separate character profiles. Dave 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar aspects with Inuyasha

Hello everyone. How about adding a section that compares Ranma 1/2 characters with Inuyasha's? (for example, Happosai/Myoga. Ryoga/Koga or even Ranma/Inuyasha).200.71.186.240 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ranma is similar to many of Takahashi's other words. This is why we have concepts like "Takahashi girls" who are very similar to Akane in fandom. Inuyasha is not particularly unusual in this aspect. Derekloffin 04:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Inuyasha comparisons warrants an entire section on the main Ranma page. It might be fitting for the Rumiko Takahashi page. We don't even have most of the stuff other Animanga franchise (and other Ranma 1/2) pages like a lengthy storyline summary, comparison between anime and manga, or relationship charts. Jaydubayubee 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are the major characters

I don't see a link for Akane...

Look at the Tendo's Alex 'phoenix' Wing 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Images

I've noticed that the Ranma ½ article makes use of images taken from my website, Ranma ½ Perfect Edition, without any sort of accreditation. I wasn't asked permission for them to be used here, and while I have no problem with one or two of my images being used, all of the images paired with the character profiles are taken from my website.

I would really prefer that they be removed in order to maintain some of the uniqueness of my website (http://www.furinkan.com/ranma). I'm not trying to be difficult, but I did work hard on my site.

HarleyAcres 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Harley Acres

  • I agree. I will try to do some scans on my own the next days. Strahlehans 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Bringing this up again. I removed my images months ago but they were immediately placed back up. I don't mind if some are used, but I do have a serious problem with ALL of them being used. HarleyAcres 2:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Harley Acres
  • I'm with Harley here, this is over use of a single site's images and some should be replaced at the very least. Only thing I'm not sure on is if we should stick to manga only pics or if we should allow a mix of anime/manga.Derekloffin 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • nice site man! i love it! all images from this site should be sourced, however the site owner does not own the copyrights to these images so there should be no reserve about using these images when appropriate. --AlexOvShaolin 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That is true, but using every single character image from the site just seems....tacky.Dylan Acres 08:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of split between the folks running the site and the other arguments put forward. Technically the images can be used under the {{comic-panel}} and {{character-artwork}} licenses, however it does also bother me personally that so many have been used on here. Now I don't think there's a problem with using the exact same image (i.e. the character as portrayed in the comic panel) as scanned from the manga provided that someone else did the scanning/image manipulation and did not do the same airbrush effect on them. --BrokenSphere 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just did this with the Konatsu image - one way to replace the Furinkan.com images is simply to replace them with others that depict that character in question that the user scanned or cropped, etc. themselves. --BrokenSphere 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Character boxes, etc.

Just one question, when we edit the character info boxes, shouldn't we try to keep the info at only the basics? I don't see the need to add every character that has ever shown an animosity towards, lets say Akane into the rivals category as it has been happening lately. Also, I would like to point out that we have to keep a neutral stand and not place information that we wish to be true just be cause we like it, as it has been happening in the Pantyhose taro page.

Someone is erasing all new additions on very loose grounds

I tried to flesh out the profile texts from fanon myths to strictly using the manga as a basis. All of the changes are thoroughly referenced, but someone called Edward is constantly erasing them due to conflicting biases / claiming they are 'wordy' (he has used this with profile-pages which weren't turned any wordier than previously, so this claim is obviously a ruse).

First, I didn't erase all new chages, just yours, unless by accident. Second, your edits were wordy, even the editor supporting you agrees they need to be trimmed down. Third, show me one fanon myth you removed. Fourth, much of your posting is speculation. Fifth, you show strong biases in some of your editing. Sixth, it's not a ruse, simple comparing your myriad posts with my revert shows the revert is notably shorter. Edward321 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If he had simply personally taken the time to shorten down and reword the text to take less space that's one thing, but he just reverted it to the previous version which gave very inaccurate descriptions based on the first chapters of the manga alone. That's vandalism, or dictatorial favorism at the very least. Dave 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the character summaries shouldn't even be there. They are needlessly redundant with the main character pages and should be outright removed in place of a simple name list to avoid this whole issue. However, even keeping them there, they are excessive currently. They should not be multiple paragraphs and should be kept to the absolute minimum of description. The current lengths of nearly every one is unacceptably long for what should be a very brief summary. For example take a look at Full Metal Alchemist and it's character summary, nice and short, very brief. Sailor Moon is another one with very acceptably brief summaries. Even InuYasha, which has a pretty bad list for briefness, is still briefer than these are. Now, I'm not going to revert the things, but they need to be cut seriously down to the very essentials. Derekloffin 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's an argument I can understand, but as is the profiles were horribly inaccurate to a reader like myself who has basically memorised and evaluated every reference and incident during the entire series (Which doesn't say as much as it implies. I tend to do that automatically/on first or second read-through for any manga I get very caught up in).
However if they are going to be featured at all and not simply deleted, would it be possible for a seemingly reasonable and objective person like yourself to simply shorten them down based on the current text rather than simply reverting them? Or is it ok if I give it a try myself, as long as they're kept within the same length as the old versions?
Also, then should it at least be all right to expand on the individual character pages based on the entries? Would it be more acceptable if I simply listed references/occasions for every new conclusion (to underline that it's not merely wild speculation), given that people strictly basing their views based on fanfiction myths and anime may othervise heavily object? I did that intitially here, but it turned too long. Dave 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've now made an attempt to shorten all of them down to roughly previous length. Please check through them to see if they're acceptable. Dave 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The simple way to shorten them down to previous length is to just revert them.
The previous versions were largely incorrect, and/or based on the first few chapters alone, giving a false perspective of the characters.
The posts were more than wordy they were verbose and what little content they added was largely speculation.
Funny, I thought exactly the same thing of what was written previously. In the Ryouga profile, the former text was basically inane. Still I could take the time to create reference lists for the shown character traits, if I have guarantee that you won't just erase it on a whim.
For example, Akane is does not have not 'an intense paranoia towards younger men'
In the beginning when she is routinely attacked by people trying to claim her by force, yes, which is one of the main reasons that the relationship got such a bad start when she found him in the bath. 'Younger men' was the most explicit short version of saying 'she states that she hates _boys_ but likes older men like Doctor Tofu just fine'.
nor is she attacked by 'most of the males',
Correct. She is routinely attacked by a horde of sports club members every single morning. I've clarified that tidbit and will continue to do so with any further well-founded complaints.
etc, etc, etc.
Please list every point of content for me to reply to or do something about instead of the 'etc etc etc'
Much of it is not NPOV, either. Edward321 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The previous was far worse in the 'No point of view' regard, especially concerning Ryouga and Akane. Again, I could put in references for the revisions like I did originally, but that seemed to take too much space. In the meantime I'll simply revert to the last shortened down version, which people should feel free to modify unless they take the lazy option. If Derek has the time he can check through it and say what he thinks should be done. Dave 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have re-reverted this morning, as I unintentionally reverted David A's posts which were going a long way to fixing the anoymous posters verbosity. I was tired and less than pleased with the anonymous poster accusing me of vandalism claiming my actions were a ruse for something unspecified, but I still should have taken it to the talk page. I'll wait a bit and before editing the pages again, to let tempers cool, and since David A has put some work in they won't be simple reverts. Edward321 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the IP was due to that I forgot/was too lazy to log in.

I only revised blatant errors (like Mousse getting to marry Shampoo if he defeats Ranma or herself (and judging by their comparative performance against Ranma, he technically could defeat Shampoo at any moment if he was inclined to cut loose) despite Cologne's statement in his first appearance, or that Kasumi say 'Oh my!' all the time and is an oblivious dim-wit, despite making observations and giving advice), added important footnotes (Like that Genma is a very powerful martial artist despite appearances, or that Shampoo has shown incredibly ruthless behaviour on several occasions, apparently based on a stated philosophy) sometimes replacing POVs ('It's a miracle that Ranma grew up with any type of honour with Genma as a father'), or POV's strictly based on the initial chapters (about Ryouga & Akane) with more well-referenced inescapable semi-POVs.

Ryouga is well documented to quickly become nicer and less hostile. He's only trying to kill Ranma during his first appearance, goes to help him during the moxibustion, politely challenges him to a duel for the shi-shi hokodan, helps him and Akane against Taro without any devious thoughts, unlike Shampoo & Mousse, has a relapse during the koi arc (where he actually gains a decisive physical victory to save Akane)but after his shameful behaviour is returned with help during the Musk arc he seems willing to routinely risk his life to help Ranma and the rivalry for Akane is also gone some time after he meets Akari.

Akane's phobia/hostility/paranoia mixture towards boys isn't referenced later on, she _is_ shown as very friendly towards most people who don't belittle or attack her. She _is_ repeatedly shown as feeling inferior and insufficient towards Kasumi, Ranma, Shampoo, her classmates and she does give a very frenetic and tense appearance when she's trying. I also recall that she's been shown as good at schoolwork during the Principal's 'tests in balloon' plot and possibly elsewhere, but that one's more hazy. In this respect she's got all the trait of a hysteric overachiever on the verge of burn-out.

The thing is to get _any_ type of character evaluation _at all_ you can't escape the POVs. That is unless you want to replace every profile page with reference lists for all of their important actions throughout the chapters (and, hey, I've been considering that track for a while now to get rid of the more blatant fanon errors). My modifications were simply replacing previous POVs with more well-referenced/motivated POVs. Your extensive Ranma profile says that he never cheats unless lives are at stake (Really? then what about the shi-shi hokodan arc, against Akane in battle dougi or othervise fooling Ryouga or Happosai? He's _anything_ (non-lethal) goes. Cheating and plotting is acceptable.) and requires the same strict ethics from everyone else (Where exactly is this referenced. It doesn't sound like the Ranma I'm familiar with who will howl at the moon and swear revenge when he's beaten?), and doesn't mention that he often acts out of unthinking selfishness/vanity/ego-gratification (like the reversal jewel or battle dougi arcs), that he frequently uses insults and is a recurring braggart (against his rivals & Akane) etc.

Happosai stopped Taro bull with his _pinkie_ and _can_ generate a battle aura big as a skyscraper. He's definitely far out of Ranma's league heads on, just very very easily outfoxed or distracted. He _has_ gone to great lengths to make both Soun&Genma miserable (through silly methods) and Ranma (through the moxibustion).

Nabiki isn't self-sacrificing or caring about her family in the least. She's been outright stated as usually unwilling to spend her own money except in extreme circumstances (in the arc where Ranma accidentally destroys her concert tickets, which she takes as a mortal sin enough for attempting to frame him for assault/attempted rape) and saves her expenses by stealing Akane's wardrobe or seducing, fleecing and extorting any suitors, but will gladly order expensive take-out despite that she knows Soun doesn't have a lot of money and will get upset (though in the bean-gun arc she is stated to invest her earnings for herself in personal stocks). This is most signified when she doesn't think twice about risking and ruining her family to win a bet against Kasha-Oh and gladly lets the gambling yakuza take onna-Ranma as 'payment' of debts. She routinely creates dangerous situations for her own amusement, like the Ranma/Happosai fight in the bathhouse, the Shampoo/Kodachi/Ukyou attack during her stint as a fiancee, telling Ranma's usual sparring partners about information creating a pile-on attack etc. Though she sometimes tends to be sloppy and take the lazy path.

If you have any further questions about the created changes, please mention them here and I'll answer. Dave 07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I misremembered about the bathhouse battle. She was just there because she anticipated and wanted to to enjoy it. Sorry. Dave 12:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kotaro Makaritoru?

Has it ever been stated if the characters of this series inspired Rumiko when creating Ranma? While the themes and stories are very different, Ranma himself is very similar to Kotaro in appearance, and semi-similar in attitude (he's definitely not as lecherous, but the irreverent 'edge' is there). Akane & Happosai also have close counterparts and Kuno & Mousse both have characters who are at least visually similar. Dave 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there is definite similarities, those same similarities exist in Urusei Yatsura characters as well, which predates this one and obviously is Rumiko's own work. I think it's probably just a general arc-type (however that's spelled) that tends to get reused and mixed together in various ways. Derekloffin 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Section Pages?

I've been noting down battle records and notable explicitly shown characteristics and attitudes throughout the series, referenced chapter-by-chapter. Should I try to shorten these down to become as concise as possible and insert them to the affected character pages (this seems like a good idea for the comparatively short battle sections), or create a separate pages for every character? Help and suggestions how to set up and make this work would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dave 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: If anyone is willing to research for the profile pages, I've set up characterisation reference pages in my sandbox section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A for all the neccessary 'chapter-by-chapter' notes. Dave 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How Ranma is referred to when his male/female forms are discussed

I think this has to be standardized somewhat so that it's clear to readers who are not familiar with the series, anime, or the Japanese language. Personally I tend to use Ranma-chan when referring to the girl form, and I've also seen Onna-Ranma on here (which I likely changed to the former) but have realized that the limitations of this. How about something along the lines of male/female Ranma or Ranma in his male/female form? --BrokenSphere 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean toward male/female Ranma just because it's a bit briefer, but yes neither Ranma-chan nor Onna-Ranma are clear to non-Ranma people and as I understand it neither are very accurate either. Derekloffin 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Male/Female Ranma does sound good. The only other way I can think of is boy-type Ranma/girl-type Ranma, the way the English dub of the anime puts it, but it's not much better or simpler than male/female. --kudsy 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts techniques

Were these ever formally classified by type in any source? I'm pondering the possibility of setting up a list of techniques by type along the same lines that is currently in place for Naruto that could be quite comprehensive. However, the editors who work on Naruto primarily have an official source to go by (databooks), whereas if the same thing were tried to be done on here, division of techniques by type would be largely based on fan assumptions and biases, without official basis other than the manga and anime. --BrokenSphere 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any typing system in Ranma ½ like Naruto. Naruto from the very start made a very clear set of typing rules. In Ranma there was no such thing. The name of a style is often mentioned or important but even a lot of styles go unnamed (like Ryoga's for instance). If you were to set up a technique list page, the most logical way would seem to be by style rather than type as at least that is most often not a judgment call, although you'll end up with a lot in the miscellaneous category. However, as I recall, such a page got toasted over at One Piece (although it was quite the mess at the time too) so try to keep it as clean as possible. Derekloffin 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I thought that by style (e.g., Martial Arts Tea Ceremony, etc.) would be more viable because at least that's made clear in the absence of clear types. This is just an idea mind you, and while all the main and supporting characters have their techniques well documented on here, the minor characters' ones will need some work. In the case of Ranma, some of whose techniques are adopted (from the Chinese Amazons), those techniques would most likely in this scheme go under a "Chinese Amazon" classification rather than Anything Goes Martial Arts. Another potential issue lies in how the techniques currently under the AGMA article would fit into this.
I was thinking of setting up this list of techniques or what have you, as a means of moving those out of the characters' pages were applicable and enabling other, lesser known yet still featured techniques that do get their day in the sun mentioned. This way the chara bios can largely focus on them or an analysis of their abilities without having to exhaustively list their techniques. --BrokenSphere 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, simply moving the fighting techniques lists to 'general' fighting techniques page, and linking to the appropriate areas, should work fine. Wikipedia seems to frown on lists in general areas, so this would be a way to work with this restraint. Along these lines, would you be interested in helping me set up a separate 'battle records' page (in an easily overviewed format) as well? I have almost all the groundwork done after all. Dave 20:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be taking off on vacation in a few days, so I won't start an experimental page of the techniques until I get back, at least. --BrokenSphere 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of character trivia sections

I've gone through and cleaned these up in an attempt to minimize/eliminate them altogether as follows:

  • Moved character name meanings into the leads.
  • Moved mentions re. additional appearances (e.g. video games) or how these differ from manga to anime into the history sections or "other appearances" sections.
  • Move trivia info where relevant into the main article space.
  • Eliminated trivia relating more to the additional voice actors mentioned than to the characters themselves, e.g. "so and so is notable for voice x character in y anime" - I don't see the reason/relevance for including coincidental/notable appearances that these VAs made in other mediums/anime, that info more properly belongs on their respective pages and was detracting from the Ranma characters in question. --BrokenSphere 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Character section migration

This was sort of brought up previously (see Archive 1) but didn't really go anywhere. Looking at the character section, it is even longer than some of the articles for a few of the characters. It could be kept as a means of summarizing info re. the characters listed in question, but it's gotten too long for the main article space and would normally be moved off into its own space. I'm suggesting the following:

  • Migrate the existing character table on here to a new "List of characters in Ranma ½" page with headers and links for the minor characters.
  • Eliminate VA info from the chara table as it already appears on the characters' pages.
  • Set up a new template dealing with larger Ranma navigation and incorporating non-character article space (media, martial arts, other) so that the Ranma characters template only covers characters. This new template would contain a link to the "List of characters in Ranma ½" page.

--BrokenSphere 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just had a thought, why not eliminate the table altogether? The characters in question already have their own pages. However my proposal for a "List of characters in Ranma ½" space still stands that could list them. --BrokenSphere 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm all for getting rid of this character chart. It's cute and all, but is far too attractive for people to start editing (skipping over the main pages for these character where most edits should occur), it's redundant with the main character pages for the most part, selective on what is/isn't shown, and selective on which characters get shown and which don't. I'm all for tossing it in place with a much simpler list as long as said list keeps the summaries to a minimum and treats all characters with pages of their own equally on the list.
Now as to the template though, I'm not sure on that one. Our current navigation template works quite well so far, and unless we have a rash of new pages for characters (which hasn't happened since I've started editing, so about a year+), I don't see the need. If more character start expanding onto their own pages from the minor character pages, then it might be worth revisiting this, but right now it seems like a needless extra level of indirection to have to press on the character page then then character you want when we can just have them immediately at hand on the current navi-template. Derekloffin 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's better to move it to a second 'brief skim listing' page and simply link to that, but think it's a great shame to just delete it. It's a great chart. Dave 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Btw: I definitely don't agree that they're even nearly as comprehensive/informative as the main profiles. Dave 10:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't much have time for editing anymore, but I was the guy who put the chart together in the first place. I agree - it's gotten way overblown (compare the original). If ya'll decide not to get rid of it, then shrinking the pics and reducing some of the verbage would help. I never meant for there to be more than 2-4 simple sentences on each character - just enough to establish why they're a main character. If someone wants to know more, that's what the character articles are for. tylerwillis | talk to me 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I still say moving it is best, since it's a lot quicker to first browse the list than going through every character profile. Shortening them down even further would make it extremely hard to convey a semi-accurate image. Dave 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I managed to convey a semi-accurate image in the summary I just wrote as part of the plot exposition. A list isn't something people come to the main page to read anyway but they want something to tell them about all the characters and the relationships on one foot. I think the character summary profiles have their use for people that want a quick way to get more info without going to he individual character pages which can treat the minutest detail in great depth. Jaydubayubee 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Btw, while I see a reason for the rest of the characters, I don't think that Pantyhose Taro is a major character even by standards that include the Jusenkyo Guide, he only appears a few times and he isn't important to the central themes.Jaydubayubee 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Pantyhose Taro has certainly had several main roles together granting him greater importance than the Jusenkyo Guide, Gosunkugi or Konatsu, and roughly equal to Tofu or Hinako. Dave 07:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Count

How is it that the show has 7 seasons if it only ran from 1989 to 1992? Something must be off here, no? LordAmeth 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope; look at this. --BrokenSphere 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused, but, alright. Is it basically trying to say that the 143 episodes of "Season 2" are what's being counted as Seasons 2-7, and that's why there's 7 seasons in only a few years? LordAmeth 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing you have to remember about Japanese anime, unlike NA animation, they run back to back seasons. No summer breaks, no repeats. And, in Ranma's case, they had a short 1st season (only 18 episodes). So, with 52 weeks a year with a fresh episode each week, and 4 years, you get room for about 208 episodes, more than enough to cover Ranma's airtime. In fact there was weeks skipped and other short breaks, but in the end it still works out. Derekloffin 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I am used to anime series which last 13 or 24 episodes or so, and do not have "seasons", so I wasn't clear on how this was counted. Domo. LordAmeth 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The image exclusions

I think I've sifted through and added a free-use rationale to all of them, so the modification should no longer be necessary. If somebody could check if it's sufficient and then could rewert the page to its previous format, this would be appreciated. Thank you. Dave 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We try to keep the use of non-free images to a minimus, to comply with our non-free content policy, which is much stricter than US fair use law. See WP:NFC and Resolution:Licensing policy. See also especially WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8.
  • Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
  • Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
ElinorD (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct. The images were not removed due to a lack of rationales, they were removed because the number used is inappropriate, excessive, and decorative. Even with rationales, they may not be put back. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Noted, but there is an odd row of four "edit" links visible near the lower right corner of the "Ranma Saotome" section, overlapping the text "above is caused by". Would anybody be interested in reformatting that, or is it just my Firefox browser that has some compatibility or display issue? Dave 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks okay to me, and I'm using Firefox, but in any case, I wouldn't have any idea how to fix it. I had, in fact, been looking at the excessive use of images on this page for some time before Seraphimblade removed them, but hadn't known how to do so myself. ElinorD (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As to those odd edit links, I see them in Firefox but not in Epiphany, so that particular problem appears to be on Firefox's end. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tendo Headstone Translation

I'm curious as to what is written on the Tendo gravestone for Mrs. Tendo. As near as I can tell, the manga doesn't give you a clear view of the writing but the anime did. Anyone knows what it says (since my Japanese is non-existent)? Derekloffin 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Ranma a "harem" series?

As far as I know, the harem (genre) began in 1992 with Tenchi Muyo. Besides the fact that more than two characters have their eye on the protagonist, there's not that much to go on with the classification. The clichés and stereotypes associated with the genre began with Tenchi.

Consider this:

So how can a manga series from 1987 be associated with the genre?--Nohansen 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the first article states "Arguably beginning with Tenchi Muyo in 1992" Indicating that there is argument to whether the harem genre started with Tenchi Muyo. My reading of the article seemed to mean that it started the trend rather than actually being the first example of an harem anime. Second the 2nd linked article clearly states that the harem genre is defined as "...the harem genre, the narrative concept of featuring one male protagonist surrounded by adoring females" I think Ranma 1/2 qualifys with the pursuit of Ranma by a succesion of females as a main or side plot device. Most notably Kodachi, Shampoo, and Ukyo. Showers 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The definition of Harem (genre) on wikipedia itself is defined as "Harem is a term used to describe Japanese works wherein a single average male character is surrounded by numerous (usually 3 to 7)[1] attractive females, most of whom are romantically interested in the main character, usually depicted as a lovable loser." While Ranma cannot really be called a lovable loser being one does not seem to be a rule set i stone as indicated by the use of the words "usually depicted." The first part of the sentence of the definition certainly holds true to Ranma 1/2. Showers 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It can be argued though that Ranma doesn't fit into the "average male character" definition however, as he is the best martial artist in his peer group. However I do also note that Tenchi Masaki appears to be "average" as well, until his Juraiian abilities surface later to debunk this. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. John Oppliger has a bunch of columns where he lists "harem anime" and not once does he names Ranma as an example. Also, that Answerman column up there credits Tenchi as the "grandfather" of harem. If Ranma was harem before Tenchi was harem, then Ranma would certainly be the "grandfather" of the genre.--Nohansen 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Three more columns where he writes about harem series, not one mention of Ranma. Maybe someone should send an e-mail to the "Ask John" column: Is Ranma ½ a harem series? to read his response (if he publishes it).--Nohansen 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that he says he started in 96/97 I would definitely say that John just is rather focused on the one's he's probably most familiar with which Tenchi just happens to be timed about right for. Ranma is older than Tenchi but it also couldn't be considered the grandfather as Urusei Yatsura predates it, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised that something predates that. I also wouldn't call Tenchi average, as he is clearly depicted, as the series progresses, as very abnormal. Even the spin off, Galaxy Police, has an abnormal guy in the lead and it too is pretty clearly a harem anime.

Possibly the reason he excludes Ranma is either one, Ranma only actually lives with 1 of his love interests normally, or two that Ranma started primarily as a manga then became an anime while Tenchi started as an anime and became a manga later. However, I wouldn't be the least surprised that he simply hasn't considered it, or is unfamiliar with Ranma. However, in any case we aren't using his definition, we're using Wiki's and wiki's doesn't make and living disposition or source constraints. Although it does talk about being average, the examples it uses of the genera actually contradict that restriction too. Derekloffin 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely argue against Tenchi being a 'lovable loser'. He's quite extraordinary in mental fortitude, bravery and discipline. He's somewhat reserved, but takes all his duties very seriously. Ranma is a gung-ho martial arts prodigy, school star athlete, and adventurer, not exactly a 'lovable loser' either, even if he has rather limited control and doesn't take school seriously, although he generally gives as good as he gets.
Come now every 'lovable loser' Harem star I can think of has "mental fortitude, bravery and discipline." What they lack is assertiveness and have a milquetoast personality (Tenchi, Keiichi, Kei, Suguru, Hideki, Karou etc; But not Ranma or Ataru). Jaydubayubee 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Tenchi is pretty assertive, but he's Japanese, structural respect is a part of the culture. He's an athlete, an A-student, and is surrounded by the most powerful and (In Washuu's case the mentally strongest, who is the only one actually pushing him and everybody else around) women in the Universe, and still manages to hold his own, he simply doesn't domineer them, he's one strong will amongst many. Just because you don't treat women as pets, doesn't make you a pushover. He's incredibly tough, and gradually gets more influence of the others. In GXP he's the defacto head of the household. Seina on the other hand fits. Then again, if 'loser' is a term for being a general failure, I'm not sure why it's used in the first place. It's a preconceived inaccuracy.
Ranma isn't really mentally stronger than Tenchi, he's just a guy largely doing whatever he wants, outside the structures of general society. Tenchi is still coming from that background of heavy discipline, which is less fitting the loser archetype in the first place, even if the viewers probably would deem any anime character going through their everyday work routines a loser, if they simply watched an animated mirror. Inaccurate, but we watch this stuff to fulfill a certain sense of freedom, so our perspectives get a bit mixed-up in the process. Dave 13:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, would the term still apply despite that actually gaining several of them at once (i.e. several wives/lovers/mistresses/a 'harem') never was an option, and that their affection is generally displayed in a 'cautionary' overwhelming manner? They're far more likely to hit him several times with blunt objects than tenderness. It's hardly implied as a positive situation in any respect. It's out-of-control amusing chaos. I've strictly perceived it as a martial arts comedy, with occasional sweet moments between him and Akane. Just my two cents. Dave 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I traced the lineage of harem comedy when editing the magical girlfriend article (see the talk page there, also the Anime page). Fans divide into how narrowly or broadly they construe the genre, however, in general "genre" are by nature loosely, rather than narrowly defined. Urusei Yatsura is singled out by some as the first harem comedy. Broadly, a harem comedy is any romantic comedy which is very much like a situation in which a male protagonist cohabits with, and/or becomes romantically entangled with, multiple female characters.Tenchi Muyo is the template for most later Harem comedies though a number are more like Oh My Goddess!. "Very much like" means that actual cohabitation or romantic involvement need not ensue (aka Happy Lesson or Dokkoida?!). Ranma should satisfy even the most narrow definition: he lives with three girls and has a very tangled romantic life! My opinion is that Ranma CAN & SHOULD be referred to as a harem comedy. Tenchi is often mentioned and not Urusei Yatsura, Ranma 1/2, or Oh My Goddess! (the only three harem that predate Tenchi in my experience) because Tenchi became the inspiration and template for later Harem comedy, not because it is the earliest example of a harem situation. Jaydubayubee 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While I tend to agree, this has been enough of a point of dispute that I've decided to go with a referenced genre listing. The Harem genre in particular seems to mean very different things to different people. Derekloffin 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be our most prudent option at this point. Perhaps an editor's note should be added that will state that genres will not be changed in the Ranma 1/2 infobox without being referenced or discussed first. Showers 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Go ahead and add it if you like. Derekloffin 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
done Showers 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I can just see this becoming a huge debate. Uh, If I may put in my two cents... Ranma 1/2 is a harem series. I'm not going to say a lot, I don't know why Tenchi Muyo is the "grandfather" of Harem, when Ranma 1/2 is much older, but I agree with user:Jaydubayubee. Even if Tenchi Muyo was dubed the "grandfather of Harem anime/manga", Ranma is older, and should thus be treated as such. It's of the Harem genre, just look at it- even if the main character doesn't quite qualify as a "lovable loser"- so can't we just put this to rest? Mizu onna sango15 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, making a little bit of an effort then: The entire definition as presented seems very flawed in itself. The original term means having a court of assorted wives, and/or concubines. Taken to include anything with more than one recurrent attractive female character interacting with the male protagonist as a harem would definitely be taking it too far. Taken to omit anything where the male isn’t a complete pushover and absolute failure at life (which of course is subject to personal opinions, priorities and subjectively favoured talents) would remove pretty much everything, including GXP, given that Seina becomes a success despite negative causality adjustment. Not to mention that I’ve noticed a few (like the pretty awful Inukami, but I’m not keeping much track these days) where the lead is more of the ass-wipe that Bleach-style fare fans crave as the only ones ‘worthy’ of validation. I.e. taking anything except gleeful serial killers as a loser archetype, as I’ve heard a few nutcases mention here and there, is pretty out there to start with, even in the above much milder definition of simply being a delinquent to fit.

Basically I can agree that Ranma½ is a harem series if taken in the rational approach of: “Anything where several female characters have a non-passing, overlapping romantic interest in the male lead, regardless of the latter’s possession of traits a singular viewer would either applaud or condemn.” But I find it pretty absurd to cherry-pick which fit and which don’t from any far more extraneous angles.

Silly example: “That sultan chopped the heads off his wives and ate the hearts of his enemies so he’s a bad-ass and couldn’t have had a harem. While that other sultan was nice to his children, treated others with respect, worked hard and had firm principles of decency, was a spineless worm and milquetoast and thus was a lame-o harem-monger.” That’s pretty much how much sense it makes, trying to mould a source-definition into a political statement instead of a rational one through personal opinion-piece essays, hearsay and rumour mongering alone. The truth would be that both fit equally well from a strictly rational standpoint.

The only true point of content/discussion should be if a mutual attraction is required or just general stalking? Should multi-angled consummation be required, and if so why is it defined as a harem rather than playboy (no, not the magazine, the term) series? Should multiple marriages be required to almost literally fit the term? Should multiple marriages + consummation be required, or strongly implied as occurring down the road, to truly fit the term? Basically “Tenchi Muyo! OAV” and “Tenchi Muyo! GXP” would fit using the last true definition, while “Oh! My Goddess!” probably wouldn’t. Urd once tried to bed Keiichi. Peorth made several attempts, but past their introduction stories never again, and he’s not interested. He’s strictly a 1-woman guy. “Urusei Yatsura” probably wouldn’t, since Benten, Sakura and Ryonnosuke despised Ataru, Shinnobu lost interest after Mendo entered and due to Lum’s provocations. Oyuki was only interested in a brief affair. Ataru was chasing, but everyone else was running, without any hanky-panky whatsoever. “Ranma½” might qualify since the lead is ‘sort of’/unwillingly engaged to 3 girls with continuing interest for him, although he only returns it to Akane, and they’re both so awkward that they’ll probably stay virgins until their late 20’s. (Which raises the question of whether Ryoga will gain the courage before or after going sterile? ^_- ) Still, starting to custom-fit a word to strong biases of whomever wrote a certain article rather than factual evaluation seems extremely suspect to start with. Then again, ask different (all-2D-spectra, left and right, north and south) people what they think a ‘fascist’ is and then check how well it fits with Mussolini’s actual ideology. Not very well probably, just a personal viewpoint of totalitarianism, or convenient word to spread propaganda. Turn a term hollow enough and you can make it mean anything.

Conclusion: The term itself should be ‘returned’ to strictly being a clinical categorisation, rather than deliberately enforced as heavily opinionated, and if this is done, then Ranma½ might qualify, and Tenchi Muyo definitely would. Dave 12:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help urgently required: The completely removed images for the character rosters

I talked a bit with a Wikipedia editor about possible mitigation/compromise regarding the complete removals (User talk:Rettetast), but regardless, it seems like a great shame to cut them all out, since they do indeed, as required for validation, "help a reader understand a topic" i.e. put the visual entertainment characters in context, while any description is extremely bland in comparison. See this page for references: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. If you can help build/put into words a better case/validation this is very urgent, given that it will only be a few days (a week?) until they are all deleted and never come back, crippling a large part of the entire Ranma section. I.e. you don't have the opportunity to do it later. Thank you very much for all help. Dave 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ranma Memorial Section Questions?

Apparently,[1] there was an ongoing mourning/memorial section running in Shonen Sunday a number of months after the Ranma manga ended, in which a great deal of fan questions were answered. To quote: "Rumiko Takahashi herself, while working on a new manga feature for this Fall, has even come forward to console her fans with unrevealed secrets of the series. Want to know what would happen if Mousse got contact lenses? If Ranma had fallen half-in, half-out of a Jusenkyo pool? So do thousands of Japanese fans, whose letters to Takahashi have been answered in the Ranma Memorials." It does sound like the goldmine for any Ranma fan, and a great source of nuggets to be mined for these pages, but only very few of them were translated for the address above. Are the many remaining questions available anywhere? Any help is greatly appreciated. Japanese transcripts are fine. Dave 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, has there ever been a "Ranma½ Profiles Manga" similar to the one for Inuyasha (or the ones for Naruto and One Piece)? Or was this a time before such books turned popular? Dave 12:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't, it could be due to differences between Shogakukan and Shueisha. BrokenSphereMsg me 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranma ½ Wikia?

Is there any interest in possibly setting one up to act as a counterpart to the content here as well as include material that may not be relevant to the series but not up to Wikipedia standards, e.g. the deleted items list? AFAIK ones for several fictional series have been set up and content being migrated or posted there if its inclusion gets disputed here for various reasons. --BrokenSphereMsg me 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe you need to have your own server to handle that, but I could be wrong. As to is it a good idea, I don't really think it's that great. Ranma 1/2 pages aren't getting a whole lot of attention. Also, looking at some of the ones that do exists, quality is all over the place. It's a lot of upkeep to make a wiki of your own and keep the quality up. Derekloffin (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't. It's all hosted there. You have to go through an approval process, but otherwise I think it could be done. My biggest concern at this point is attracting enough contributors to keep the project sustained once it's up and running. The only Ranma-related content on there at this point seems to be a whole lot of Ranma fanfiction (ehh...). If the level of interest per major Takahashi project (Ranma, UY, InuYasha, Maison Ikkoku) isn't enough, maybe a Takahashi Wikia might serve as an umbrella Wikia for those and her smaller works. --BrokenSphereMsg me 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a Takahashi one might be a better idea, as at least then you have one current one to attract some attention. Not sure how much editing Inuyasha is getting, but I'm sure it couldn't be any lower than Ranma is. Derekloffin (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it definitely appears to be higher. The interest level I presume would be higher as well since it's still ongoing. In order of most to least, it looks like InuYasha, Ranma, UY, and Maison Ikkoku. --BrokenSphereMsg me 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the three of us have done enough groundwork to maintain a reasonable starting standard, if all the articles are simply copied over as a security-back-up, given that a user is currently seemingly wantonly attempting to delete any fictional character pages he can find. It would be horrible if so much information was simply erased. Dave (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the Naruto info I know that was deemed to be unsuitable for here is being migrated to its Wikia. It's likely happening with other speecific fictional universe article info, but I wouldn't know others. BrokenSphereMsg me 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently writing a single polite addition to the debate. There seems to be many who respectfully disagree. Hopefully the previous standards, or preferably a co-existing combination, could be a viable solution. There is very far from consensus on the subject, hastened singular actions notwithstanding. If someobody has something of worth to add, please do. Dave (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I would immensely appreciate it if it were somehow possible for you to migrate all the articles, images, and so on, in fact the entire section to maintain quality, in time to prevent potential destruction. I don't have much to spare myself at the moment, and this has arguably turned into the most comprehensive and reliable Ranma reference available anywhere. :( Dave (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it has to go somewhere first. I'll shop the idea on the talk pages for the other series, but would like to get some more input for the Ranma series at least before doing so. I know you and Derek are regulars, but there are a few other folks who have it on their watchlists based on the edits to the main article. --BrokenSphereMsg me 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've changed my mind about making additions on the Talk page, since most of my points had already been brought up and it seems to require very in-depth paragraph-quoting, with multiple differing regulations, and Wikipedia aims apparently contradicting each other. We'll see.

In any case, according to what I understood from the page and the Talk, the recommended structure is to provide the regular/current main/overview page here, but linking to the moved expansion sections hosted at a Wikifarm or similar, to not restrict freedom of choice for the much greater part of visitors that enjoy the in-depth information. If it is possible to simply redirect the navigation-bar links, this might constitute an ideal solution.

Regardless, I'm getting rather stressed out, since these pages and images might promptly get deleted without granting us enough time/reprieve to prepare hosting it all elsewhere. Is it possible to 'lump-transport' all page-connected images? It took an awful time finding, uploading and writing rationales for all of them... Dave (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kinda getting tired of Wiki's rules myself as many are very counterproductive and seem to be made for the sake of having a rule rather than being a good idea. However, I'm not sure how inter-wiki linking is viewed. I know some of those wiki's are pretty awful so they generally don't get much linking to, but that may be because they are awful, rather than a general policy. Derekloffin (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Images have to be uploaded separately to Wikia. I think migrating content there has its pros and cons - the Wikipedia restrictions won't be present and we could put up images for every character say, but this also leaves the possibility of more cruftlike/fan speculation to creep in. Standards and limits would still need to be defined and set for writing about this particular universe in that forum. For example, how fanfics are referenced if at all for this Wikia at least should be kept out. We know it's out there and has been for a while, but is difficult if not impossible to cite accurately about. BrokenSphereMsg me 06:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm making another digression, but I can see his point that allowing non-outside references would frequently make the information unreliable, and that it is preferable that all real-life information should be quoted, without original research. On the other hand, taking such sweeping precautions will inevitably make all articles about immensely popular, but less dissertation- or magazine article-treated/'notable', fictional works completely hollow, meaningless, uninformative, and unvisited. It would also allow anyone publishing a book on a mostly unvisited subject to be the end-all, be-all, authority on subjective matters of opinion, rather than allow widespread input, which is a central point of Wikipedia. I'd rather keep the current policy of all contributors monitoring each other to even out any lies, distortions or inaccuracies, and simply publicly display whether or not an article has merited above B rating, as a gauge for the users, rather than sweeping deletions for good as well as bad.
I have been in a few situations elsewhere where it didn't matter how well I destroyed their every argument, and was backed up by ten times as many supportive references. They still wouldn't allow me to change their blatantly inaccurate wording, no matter the Talk, so it doesn't always work out, but this strikes even at painstakingly horticultured sections such as this one, which is very sad.
By extension of the "Only paragraphs with second-, or third-sourced references are allowed" rule any fiction article which cannot reach above B will get auto-deleted, which will narrow down Wikipedia tremendously, and make it far less enjoyable for visiting enthusiasts who wish/choose to go in-depth beyond the opening page. Of course, from what I understood of the discussion most of the most active editor's problem lies with this abundancy of to him hollow content, which makes it a wide gap of personal like/dislike, where little middle ground can be gained, and he explicitly stated that we should be categorically ignored as irrelevant for being of the diametrical opposite view. To my experience it seems Wikipedia is turning more and more "You can justify anything if you find the right clausule or craft one per 6-man committee" paragraph-heavy, and there is absolutely no way to get around aptly worded laws. Given that this one does in fact have a very well-crafted basis, I rationally can't see that this notion won't turn universally prevalent, either now, in a few months, or in a year. Better to find a way not to get all our work deleted now, and work within the framework in an acceptable manner.
In any case, babbling aside, have you read through some of it, and if so, do you have any suggestions for ways to preserve it all? If we can move it to Wikia, and set up much the same rules as here, with fan-references disallowed (and insignificant, given that the work itself is what matters, rather than frequently very weird interpretations) this would be ideal. Would either of you be up to monitoring it? I don't think I will have much time myself in the future. Dave (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as fanfiction referencing, I'm okay with it on a wikia so long as it is kept to it's own articles. You want canon cleanly separated from fanon. Basically, if you are talking about canon, you must stick to canon. If you talk about fanon, it's clearly labeled as such and doesn't pollute canon articles.
In some cases it can be useful to talk about fanon as there is a lot of interpretations out there which obviously aren't referencable outside of fanon. The problem is it opens a big can of worms, not to mention a lot of pointless arguments. I would say judging the fanon should be forbidden (ie, 'this is of course stupid, or irrational, etc, interpretation' comments) as it is just asking for flame wars. Derekloffin (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you went with this line, I think strictly factual comments along the line of the Ukyo-Ryoga pairing would be ok. If something is blatantly contradicted by canon this is relevant, but there is such a lot of it out there that I don't know how anyone could start making subjective claims strictly based on the parts they've read. Not to mention, as far as I'm aware pretty much every fanfiction story I've read seems enormously ooc for any of the characters with a mixture of good and bad traits, since authors seemingly always focus on one extreme, or make all of the characters very toned down, bland and dull. I'm not even sure if commenting on fanon would concern Takahashi's characters any more, rather than fan myths and original creations. Then again, if say Nabiki and Taro were truly handled in character and made prevalent it would be hard not to sway into horror, or South Park level dark humour territory, so it could just be an author convenience. Regardless, this kind of subjective impression based on an unavoidably narrow selection would make comments along the "'they' tend to do this/that" inserts from me or any visitor highly suspect since they would hardly be based on a large segment of the possibly tens of thousands of Ranma stories out there... Dammit, babbling again. Oh well, maybe a specific unified page dealing with fandom conventions (whatever the definition of those may be) which you can manage while all the current pages are kept strictly canon? They're generally more than large enough anyway.
In any case, much more importantly it would be great if anyone who reads this, or knows his/her way around Wiki legislations, structures and setups in general, and would like to help out, could check through the rule-page in question, and preferably skim the (very long) discussion as well, to see if I've grasped a semi-accurate impression of how we are allowed to approach this. First of all we have find a way to preserve it all in an acceptable manner. Informed input is very, very appreciated. I may have interpreted it all entirely wrong, so I really need other takes, and am still hearing the clock of doom ticking... Dave (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)