Talk:Ranma ½

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] A romance or romantic comedy genre addition?

I skimmed through the available interviews, and Takahashi describes the integral chapter-themes of the manga to be switching fighting and romance, so would it be appropriate to insert a "romance" or "romantic comedy" genre tag?[1][2] Dave 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Defenitly romantic comedy. There aren't that much romantic scenes. βriαn Go XXVIII (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking a replacement or inclusion? Regardless, keep in mind what the guideline says (read #4). We want the top two or three genres folks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm partial to calling Ranma a "Martial arts, Romantic comedy". It best describes the series and it's only two genres.--Nohansen (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What about action? And does this mean we're removing the Viz and Furinkan references? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Martial arts" is a sub-genre of "Action", so that would make "Action" redundant. Also, I don't see the need of sourcing the genres unless there are objections to "Martial arts, Romantic comedy" (like there were with "harem").--Nohansen (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You're correct, it is a sub-genre, heh, silly of me to not consider that. {+_+} Yes, the citations are somewhat pointless since most other articles don't source their genres/categories. However, Ranma ½ could very well be a landmark so would keeping them show significance? BTW, there is a similar discussion goin on here and I'd like to get some last second thoughts in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
While there is likely no disagreement over that, I found there was persistent random changing and editing to the genres when they weren't referenced. I'd prefer to keep them referenced if only to stop that. Also, while we might not disagree, you must consider that many pages out there, even on abundantly obvious stuff, still require some form of reference for it as it does surprisingly often end up getting those persist edits that go back and forth endlessly even though it seems obvious. There is also the matter that it's kinda hypocritical to require referencing for genres you disagree with while not when you agree with them.
That said, I don't think it should be too hard to set it as Romantic comedy at least as we can reference both of those, and martial arts you can probably get away with on some other product description (all it has to do is mention martial arts). We don't necessary have to stick with Viz's. Derekloffin (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The book description at Amazon (a description, I believe, that is supplied by the publisher) describes Ranma as "the greatest of the gender-bending kung fu comedy genre". Would that suffice?--Nohansen (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's good by me. Derekloffin (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
To reply to Derekloffin: while I understand that referencing genres help to keep away persistent editors, I find that <! -- commented out messages -- > is as well a tactical method. Get what I mean? For instance, see the one on this article. And yes, Nohansen, that could be a sufficient link, but I still want to know what will become of the current citations. Will they be taken off? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If they can be replaced with ones more suitable to genres we decide on, that would be best I think. If we decide to change the genres and just add a tag, I'm okay with that too although I haven't seen much effect on tags frankly in stopping random editing. Derekloffin (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand. Tags as in hidden comments or something else I'm missing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hidden comments is what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. I monitor quite a few pages, and despite many have MANY hidden comments to 'do not edit without such and such' people just happily ignore them like they aren't even there. I know the same in theory is true for references but for some reason, references seem to scare off random edits better although still not completely. Derekloffin (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from. This is why watching a page like List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball is a pain. I swear, they do it on purpose just to piss us good faith guys off. With refs, it is a little different, but like you said, not entirely. Sometimes editors want to add in data which isn't even in the citation in the first place. Yes, Wikipedia has its ups and downs, but you know, I'm one of those glass half full people. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw that the genres were changed. But what about the source Nohansen presented? Will it be used? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone demands a source for the genres, I'm happy without cluttering the infobox with references and citations. If anyone has doubts about Ranma being a "Martial arts romantic comedy", they can just read the interviews Dave found or the official description over at Amazon.--Nohansen (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Ranma an ecchi series?

I tend to think not; the nudity is highly incidental and more comedic in effect and is not intended to arouse. However it has been labeled as such and is also in List of ecchi anime. --BrokenSphereMsg me 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The classification of ecchi is overapplied. I'm certain that there is a segment of the misinformed Japanophile population that sincerely believes that all nudity in Japanese culture, however small, must count as ecchi. Axem Titanium 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't this it's ecchi, either. I think it's just this new user trying out some things. He also tagged FLCL, Kiddy Grade and Elfen Lied as ecchi.
"Martial arts" and "Romantic comedy" do nicely, in my opinion. No need to add more genres.--Nohansen 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Ranma is not ecchi. Showers 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it, as they added Ranma to the list of ecchi anime. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Im removing the ecchi genre designation> Ecchi anime and manga seems to require that the style of artwork that is used be suggestive or sexual arousing in some way. Through symbology or clothes etc. similar to western pin-up art. It seems that we have a consensus that Ranma does not fit this criteria Showers 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its obv. it is an Ecchi! What allows an anime to called an Ecchi? Its an ecchi! Please tell me why its not an ecchi? --Hoshi no hate 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoshi: You're not User:Lolicon-r.us by any chance, are you?--Nohansen 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
...@_@Who??? No im not sr! I know this is a stupit question but...why?--Hoshi no hate 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Because you joined Wikipedia the day after he was banned; your editing pattern seems familiar (tagging series as "ecchi"); and you named yourself after a song from Saikano, which was the name of Lolicon-r.us' real identity: User:Saikano. If you are, that's cool by me; no problem here.--Nohansen 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
O_OTHANK YOU SR! THAT BLOCK WAS A CASE..acase of misstaken interpratation of me! Ive explained it already to my blocker so! the only reason I was banned was Lolicon! No vandal, no attacks NA! by the way I moved this to here because it was a talk page issue!--Hoshi no hate 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I SERIOUSLY disagree with the notion that Ranma 1/2 is not ecchi. The nudity is not always incidental or just for comedic effect, I can recall countless times that Genma and Soun's master fondled or gazed at Ranma's breasts, even took pictures while s/he was sleeping in provocative poses, etc. I'd say the nudity use is pretty casual, all in all. You can dismiss what I have to say, but hey, I have five seasons of Ranma and have been watching for ten years. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While it might have some ecchi elements, like most animes, they are very sparse moments and you can often go for long periods without any ecchi showing up. It's kinda like calling a horror movie a comedy because in one scene a guy makes a joke. There has to be a certain level of focus for this I'd say or you water down the meaning of the genera. Derekloffin (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The nudity that crops up is not the focus of the story. The characters are not presented in a sexualized way intended to arouse the viewer even if as you point out, characters like Happosai are. Besides, how could he not act like you've pointed out given his character? You may also noticed that Ranma is the primary target/subject for nudity since having been raised as a male he doesn't have the same sensibilities that the other female characters have towards their own bodies. BrokenSphereMsg me 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got all of Ranma, and have been watching it for 10 years as well, and I SERIOUSLY don't think it's ecchi at all --- this is exactly why these sort of comments don't get anybody anywhere on Wikipedia. That being said, I've yet to see an incident where the nudity was not incidental/comedic. The aforementioned incidents being "countless" in quantity is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Every single time Genma/Soun 'fondles' Ranma's breasts, it is in a comedic sense (accidental groping, etc.), the incident where Nabiki took photos of Ranma in provocative poses was all part of a comedic sub-plot during one single episode. And, yes, there are entire stretches (frequently many episodes in length) where no nudity appears at all. I think this is what primarily separates the series from the ecchi category: The intensity and duration of nudity just isn't there. If it were ecchi, there would be nudity in nearly every episode, it would be far less brief, and in a far less comedic light. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I defenitly agree. Anything in Ranma½ that could be called ecchi is something that almost has to happen if you look at the background, the characters' personality etc. (eg.Hapossai's personality makes a bit of <you know what> inevitable) Oh yeah, I forgot to sign. Sinebot is very fast... BrianGo28 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you people obviously havent been watching very carefully, then. There are plenty of superfluous shower scenes with no good reason for showing nudity, other than for the sake of showing nudity. They find plenty of excuses to show Shampoo naked, too, its not just Ranma and explainable by his loose sense of female decency. Must I go through each episode now and write down each and every instance of nudity before you recognize that the show regularly uses nudity when there is no good reason to, other than the sake of being naked? Is Shampoo busting in on Ranma's shower time, completely nude, for Akane to walk in for the 100 millionth time and get jealous--is this somehow a whimsical, honest portrayal of a comedic real life situation, instead of the poor excuse for nudity that it really is? Give me a break. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead, doesn't change the fact that it is a very limited aspect of the show. Like I said, making a joke in a horror film doesn't make it a comedy. Likewise, some other the top elements to Ranma doesn't make Ranma in general ecchi. It takes a considerable focus to be ecchi, not just some general sex appeal or sexually loaded jokes tossed in here and there. Derekloffin (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not watching it very carefully?" Are you kidding me?! It's Ranma 1/2 we are talking about - not Shindler's List! I put it on my VCR when I get home after work and there's nothing good on the Cartoon Network. The animation quality and plot are about as sophisticated as a Warner Brothers cartoon (yeah, I know, I'm generalizing... but it's not like you can spot Ranma's labia or something!) I hardly need a scene-by-scene analysis of such a program to understand the sexual humour in it! Sounds to me that you have seen too much of the show, and are reading WAY too many things into it. I mean, this is right up there with the supposed adult themes in Scooby Doo: They are there only if you WANT them to be, and there are plenty of people who insist that they are in the show as a result. Even if there WERE such scenes in the series, as you say, it's STILL just a comedy - Genma running, wearing a panda face-mask, and holding a sign in his hand is just too silly for any other classification. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images in character articles

I brought this up at WT:ANIME, but since this is the relevant series, I'll bring it up here:

There are way too many images on the articles for characters in this series. This site's non-Free media guidelines note that fair-use images should be used minimally in articles, and only for the illustration of a character. In general, most fictional characters have only a bare minimum of fair-use images (Sailor Mars, a Good Article, has three FU images while Master Chief (Halo), a Featured Article, has only four). But the characters for this series are ridiculous - why are 13 images needed to illustrate Shampoo? Why does Ranma Saotome have a picture showing all his rivals when there are already images for those characters on their articles or sections within a character list? There is no need to use a fair-use image to display each and every major plot point involving Akane Tendo or every technique belonging to Mousse. This many images on these articles is a violation of the site's Fair Use/non-Free media policy, so all but a bare minimum need to be removed from these article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, the 3rd party opinion is appreciated. The list of character articles went through a major trim a few months ago during the culling of images in lists uproar that ran through several anime series, but the character articles being standalone, escaped scrutiny. I'd say that the cursed characters can have at most 3 - their normal state, cursed form, and a technique illustration, with a mix of manga and anime versions used to illustrate these. The "normal" characters can have 2, again with a mix and match if they appear in both anime and manga, otherwise then just 1 if they only appeared in 1 medium. Supporting/minor characters who were merged in may or may not need an illustration, which could be discussed on a case by case basis. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. These are hazardous and subject to copyright violations. I suggest tagging these pages with {{Non-free}} in case anyone's unsure of which images to remove. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, while I agree that I may have gone overboard with trying to beautify the pages for reader accessibility, such as with Kuno, Mousse, Shampoo, or Taro, the images showcasing specific techniques or events should be kept, as should one (preferably colour) image of the character as it appears in the anime and manga respectively. Visibly showcasing events described right beside seems warranted as well in cases of long text sections, but isn't quite as important. The current widespread culling seems very excessive. I'll skim through the modifications, and see if the selection could be improved somewhat. Dave (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The technique illustrations can be limited to just 1, say of that particular character's most commonly shown/distinctive technique. Ukyo Kuonji for example really only needs the the pic showing her using her battle spatula. At the same time, this illustration can be either from the manga or anime showing how the character appears in that medium, keeping the total number of images for a character to 3. As for showcasing events, if the descriptions are well written enough then there's no need to provide an accompanying illustration; the non-free guidelines say to use fair use images only when the reader's understanding is negatively impacted without any and the text is insufficient to provide a description. We need to come up with a threshold for minor character image inclusion, similar to how we initially did for the character lists, although those now I believe are all empty. BrokenSphereMsg me 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say there is no real need for both manga and anime images. A character from either source is easily recognized in the other and it really doesn't add any understanding. If you want to mix and match, then say the normal image from one, and the technique image from the other, but I would go with the cleanest image in both cases regardless of source. Derekloffin (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Using Paint Shop Pro (or something better), one can combine a manga and anime image into one frame. However, this should only be considered if there is significant meaning. For example, not one showing the difference in colours, but demonstrating a BIG change per se. I agree that image usage should be limited to three, four at most. Does this make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Dave, why are you undoing all these removals of these images? Images showing how a character looks in the manga is unnecessary unless there's a drastic change in character design between the mediums, which doesn't seem to be the case for any of the characters. A character's fighting ability can be shown in one image of their most common technique, as BrokenSphere suggests; multiple images is just being decorative. And with amount of detail in the plot summary in each article, there is no need to illustrate those plot points with manga panels. All your re-additions are just more violations of the fair use policy. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not been undoing 'all' the removals, just the ones that seem unreasonable. For spending so extremely many hours attempting to make these entries as good as I possibly can, I think I've been incredibly compromising, and cut down to less than half the previous amount. I'm going the compromise path. There is no need to completely butcher the entries to near-unreadability, to bring the amount down to a reasonable standard. I do however stand very firm in that all noteable characters, including the Gambling King, should have a showcase image, and all main ones should get images showcasing the descriptions of their stats. I think this is solidly within the reasonable area. The drawing styles in the manga and anime, both very noteable and with mostly different audiences in the west, are also rather different, and each medium interpretation should preferably be showcased. If we go the complete sweeping hardline path, the entire section suffers immensely. 1 image at the top followed by 3-8 pages of text without anything to illustrate anything seems like nothing to strive for. Why the unwillingness to show flexibility in this particular matter, when it only causes harm? It would be very appreciated if you could relent. Dave (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay you two, this is enough edit warring over this. I want both of you to stop editing willy-nilly until we have some kinda of agreement about what is acceptable level of images and where the minor characters should be. Also, keep in mind we do have some model pages we can use for this on the anime/manga project, Sailor Mercury for example. Derekloffin (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Venus is a GA with 6 fair use images. If you want non-Sailor Moon examples of character GAs, there's Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, and Yamucha. --BrokenSphereMsg me 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if it became a mini-edit-war. It's just that if I don't undo it until we've finished talking the images will get auto-deleted in the meantime. In any case, if Sailor Venus has 6 images this seems like a reasonable upper limit for each of the ones here, possibly with reservation for separate characters connected to the page, but we can talk about which ones to remove. I noticed a lot that truly were redundant and correctly removed now for example, and while Shampoo walking through a wall to illustrate strength, or almost hitting Ranma to illustrate speed are proably good, the one with Kiima may be pointless and so on. Currently it just seems so sweeping and inconsiderate. Dave (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that your revert also brought back some minor characters that were moved (partly because of an effort to reduce fair-use images, and mainly because they didn't belong there) to the character lists. Also, the Sailor Venus article has only one image on the "Special powers" section, contrasting Ranma Saotome's "four" (two of them are collages from different manga panels). Furthermore, the other mentioned character articles make good use of captions, which justify the images.--Nohansen (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, and I agree Sailor Venus seems to be a good example of an upper limit. We need to decide things like do we need images for both manga and anime, and what is the level of preference (obviously we want good pictures, but is a multi-form pic better than say the color pic, or vice versa). This may involve some extra work on our parts with paintshop or such to merge some pics (assuming we agree that's the better way to go). Derekloffin (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There must be images (not compositions of screenshots) that include the character and his cursed alter-ego. Just that would reduce Ryoga's three "Illustration of fictional character in the Ranma ½ manga" type of images from three to just one. Just a thought.--Nohansen (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging pictures of a character's fighting abilities would be fine, if all those pictures are necessary to display all those attributes. I'm also willing to let anime and manga images to contrast the art styles in both. However, I still object to using images to display plot points (as there was at Nabiki Tendo and Kasumi Tendo, for instance). There's already enough text describing each character's role in the plot; if a reader wants to see how the plot unfolded in the manga, they can buy the manga. Using images to illustrate plot points in the articles starts to make them alternatives to reading the manga or watching the anime, which is a copyright violation in itself. The minor characters should also be removed from the character articles; their inclusion in articles dedicated to individual characters really don't add much to the articles; additionally, our example articles for images (the Sailor Scouts, Sakura, Sasuke and Yamucha) don't have minor characters tacked on, and I fail to see why these articles are any different. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging the available images seems like an excellent suggestion to make everyone happy, although I may not have the time to do so immediately, and in certain cases there are already mergers of several examples (Read: Mostly Akane. It seemed warranted, since there is a nearly unilateral myth that she is far weaker than the other girls) so those may be a bit harder. Regardless, I'll give it a shot, and if 2 images is a worst-case-scenario this is not a catastrophe.
The lack of visible captions is my fault I'm afraid. There were serious troubles with scaling the images to the corresponding sections by keeping them visible (as opposed to highlighting the description by moving the mouse marker), and I was not aware that this was necessary for justification. If there are alternate visible caption commands where the scaling is more adjustable this would be ideal. Further complicating this is that I recently scaled down my previous occasion-referencing longer descriptions.
I don't quite agree about the occasion-illustrations to the plot-points being an alternative to reading the stories, or at least not in the current sparse format. As is they're simply very quick character moment snippets, and Nabiki resp. Kasumi are arguably the most polarised characters in the series, so I thought it would be good to showcase that somewhat in lack of battle statistics.
I agree that it would be ideal if the minor characters could keep to a list, or at least the ones not extremely closely connected, such as Ukyo's and Shampoo's fathers, Ryoga's dog Shirokuro, Akari's pet pig Katsunishiki, or Lime & Mint as inseparable sidekicks to Herb, or Kiima, Koruma, Masala and the chamberlain to Saffron. Moving the rest was a 'desperation-move' to not completely marginalise semi-important characters like Maomolin and the Gambling King, since there is an, if I may say so, nonsensical regulation about not showcasing any images whatsoever in character lists, which basically semi-destroys the point of mentioning a graphic creation at all. If anybody can come up with another 'loophole' this would be preferable however. ~
In any case, am I correct to assume that 1 manga or anime character illustration at the top, the corresponding genre at the middle of the page, and 1 statistics panorama shot (with the possible reservation for 2 if I can't make them fit well othervise) would be acceptable to everyone?
Would the possible addition of very significant 'characteristic' illustrations such as the demon-suit drawings of Nabiki, the one showing Ranma just before he left on the training-trip, or the most reliable illustration of Happosai in his youth, be acceptable as well, given the restraints of an absolute maximum of 6 images in total per main character? Possibly one for young Cologne as well I suppose. However, I will need help in formatting the captions format and image sizes to match the text segments. Dave (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a couple of things that seem to merit clarification:
  1. Merging the technique images is not an "excellent suggestion to make everyone happy". BrokenSphere said, "The technique illustrations can be limited to just one (of that particular character's most commonly distinctive technique)" and wondered if Ranma's abilities collage was a bit much. NeoChaosX though the collages would be fine "if all those pictures are necessary to display all those attributes". And I, myself, am against it.
  2. The "captions" I was talking about wasn't the comic strip dialogue, but image captions. Something like Two Kamuis. The recurring dream sequence represents the protagonist's struggle with himself and his destiny in X (manga) or In her first Senshi uniform, Sailor Venus attacks with Venus Love-Me Chain. This attack combines her powers over her three domains - love, metal (the use of a chain) and light is implied through the golden color in Sailor Venus.
  3. Again, no other major character article has minor characters included just because they characters are "extremely closely connected".
  4. NeoChaosX said he was "willing to let anime and manga images to contrast the art styles" but the truth is there isn't that much of a contrast. And without a suitable caption, the images become decorative, excessive or improper.
I'm stressing these points because (to me) there appeared to be some misunderstandings.--Nohansen (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the first 4 instances in that collage are necessary to cover the main areas. The techniques are covered elsewhere, and I made the captions visible again previously today. I never thought you referred to the image speech-bubble dialogue. But I agree that it seems sensible that the alternate image should preferably only be included if it simultaneously illustrates an intrinsic quality, or the design is very different. Ryoga lost in the wilderness, Nabiki drawn as a devil, Shampoo's two faces or similar. It does seem like you won't be satisfied with anything more than 1-2 images a page, which I strongly disagree with, as these are needed to not make the text completely unattractive. I am making a serious effort here, but there isn't much point if there will be a lynching no matter what I do. I.e. I spend time to fix the Ranma, Ryoga, Akane, Ukyo & Shampoo images, but these will be deleted no matter what, since a compromise was never in question. Dave (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If the images are being used to (and I'm paraphrasing here) "make the text attractive", then they're are not necessary. In an average Ranma article, these are the images that are needed:
  1. One to identify the character;
  2. One to identify the character's cursed alter ego (if one portrays both forms, even better);
  3. One (not a collage) to identify the character's distinctive technique;
  4. One for the character's appearance in other media. This would include live-action series (which Ranma doesn't have) or videogames (which it does).
  5. One (optional) to identify the character's popularity (merchandise, most likely) in a "Reception" section
That's at least five images, each with a distinctive purpose, that complement well the article.
The images that are not necessary are:
  1. Images of related secondary (or minor) characters, especially when said characters should be on a list by themselves
  2. Images that display plot points that just as easily could be described with words
  3. Images of how the character looks in the manga and the anime. The anime version is not really necessary since the characters don't change that much.
I appreciate your predicament, Dave, and I'm sorry you feel like you're being lynched, but remember I once suggested you join in on the discussion to created a guideline for character articles and just said you'd prefer to "keep all of them B-class" because having them "completely non-in-universe/adapted for non-entertainment articles or ones with a great social reference impact and lots of guidebooks" was equal to butchering them.
Now, about that Ranma/Rumiko Takahashi work group. What's up with that? Because it seems it is need now (more than ever).--Nohansen (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The ones you think' are needed. These are not facts dictated from above. These are seemingly completely unrelentingly inflexible contrary opinions. It's one thing to claim appreciating my predicament, but quite another to only expect the other party to give, and give, and give, and give, and not receive anything, period. With the exception of some superfluous minor characters, I think the current format is quite fine, and not excessive in the least. 1 image at the top, possibly another characteristic display further down, and a panorama of 2-4 images in the fighting section. I think you'd agree that this is a very great range away from overkill.
The thing with 'most intrinsic technique' is that there really isn't one. Ryoga is not 'just' strong. Ranma is not 'just' swift, and so on, and these are not techniques in the first place, it's main statistics, which most viewers tend to say are 'bullshit' unless they've seen an example visually, and sometimes even then. As long as the total amount of occasions do not transcend 6 it's all good, or it just turns into a long lump of text, which in turn would easily become a pretext to purge these pages from any interesting information in this respect as well. A few images are needed here and there to illustrate mentions in the text. This is a visual medium, and a few are necessary to both illustrate important aspects, and for sustaining reader interest, but with a very few exceptions I've only kept the ones illustrating a specific mention/attribute in the text, or ones showing the alternate medium depiction. Preferably a combination.
I agree that secondary characters should not be necessary, but we moved them because of some 5-man blunt bureaucratic, wholly destructive, and fanatically enforced, sweeping 'dictate' deleted all images depicting them. Even important ones like Like & Mint, Maomolin, and the Gambling King. That said, I've begun to move back the ones not intrinsically connected, i.e. Herb's and Saffron's henchmen, or close relatives.
As for the old Ryoga-improvement attempt, I wasn't aware of any interaction with you until you mentioned it here, as I'm terrible with brief acquaintance names, much less handles, but to clarify from what I remember, I don't see why I would mind being part of a work group dedicated to improving these pages (although I do tend to lose interest/energy after a while). If we can gather interest in fixing sentence-, structure-, spelling-, repetition-, etc errors, and adding chapter references to all mentions, that's great. My fear was, and remains, that a sledgehammer drive to push them all to 'A-level' would be unsuitable for a format where virtually any and all relevant information would be cut out, unless it was referenced in an outside work, and as mentioned elsewhere, there aren't really any to speak of, which turns this extremely problematic. Potentially turning 1-2 of the pages higher ranked on the paper, but gutting all content in practice. B-class is acceptable as far as I'm aware, but if others can come up with an approach to keep most, or even all, of the information, while increasing the overall quality and ranking, this would be even better.
I apologise if I've misunderstood, but I also find it rather offensive to claim that these pages "need a work group now more than ever", as it very heavily implies that the former, largely completely inaccurate, and fanfiction-myths-derived made-up format was preferable, and that none of the rather extensive work to improve them matters in the least. As is the information is almost entirely accurate. Dave (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Nohansen on pretty much everything. It's sad, I must agree, but unfortunately we must march by Wiki's tune. I'd rather not abondon wiki even with the policies being ones I disagree with. That means we need to err on the side of caution rather than push the limits. Pic's are just the most notable place that the wiki higher ups seem to being coming down on hard lately (to the point I wonder why they even let us upload them, but that's another discussion).
In particular I agree than anime verses manga representation just don't warrant the seperate pics. Unlike Sailor moon, which while still recognizable, are clearly very different art style to the anime, the Ranma anime and manga follow very similar art styles. Now, there are a number of games out there for Ranma (several fighters, an RPG, etc) that use their own art, which I believe do warrant a pic of (I believe the 3D fighter would probably be the best to choose off hand for those that were in it). It's not exactly the best looking thing, but that's not the point. It's an important addition to estabilish that out of universe context that so many of the articles currently seriously lack. I know there is also some merchandising out there for Ranma (at the very least I've seen pics numerous scultures that are out there) which would also be great to get some info on.
As a minor side note, I'm breaking out the minor character discussion here a bit. It is rather confusing when editing the discussion. Derekloffin (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically I do think some characters are drawn quite differently between the manga and anime, not in clothing, but in mannerism/expression/essence/sense of being, and think this should be emphasized whenever possible (if we can find a 'bullseye'). In any case, if we're going with this I think Ranma, Shampoo, and Mousse preferably need better top images. The current ones are somewhat lacklustre, and I've vainly checked through what I have. If it's an image expressing a characteristic mentioned quality, especially ones nobody will believe unless they have seen it, this should stay as well. Ryoga has a very good image of being lost, Nabiki has a good one drawn as a devil by the author. Kodachi has a very good one, where she is drawn more in characteristic manner, but it's together with her brother, and I couldn't find another colourised manga-image. Principal Kuno's surfing-board cut if very typical, and he doesn't have any fighting-showcases, so 2 images for one important character doesn't seem like a problem, but the one at the top is good as well. I think we should judge the pages on an individual basis in this regard. Ranma's doesn't really add anything, while Kasumi's indicates that the anime occasionally turned her into more of a ditz, and Nabiki's that by all available clues whatsoever the entire point of the original was that she's absolute 'evil' as a polar opposite to her sister. If you can find 'out-of-universe' (technically games are still branching-out entertainment, but I digress) images, this would be a good addition. Dave (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be going off tangent somewhat, but it's relevant to the issue of having images pulled. I have had to yank numerous images that I've uploaded to other lists and speedy them because they were orphaned in order to bring those articles in line with this guideline. I can understand the trouble and effort that image uploaders go through looking for the "right" image through various media and preparing it for presentation here. While I did not initially agree with the renewed enforcement of the fair use image policy re. minimal/necessary use, it has become an accepted part of dealing with fictional subjects in particular here. It's also been pointed that this is one of the few Wikipedias that does allow fair use images to begin with. Like it or not those are the rules that we have to play if we choose to contribute in that fashion. I am not letting my experience with that trend re. reduction of fair use images stop me from wanting to continue to contribute here in a constructive fashion. BrokenSphereMsg me 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you may know I've consistently consented to have a vast multitude of images pulled, but I just plain disagree when it comes to no image at all for any list-characters, or a concisely relevant 2-4 image panorama for the stats. I also don't have the impression that 2-3 images for a page are overkill, nor that culling these to this extent seems to be mandated from above rather than within.
As for letting this particular image-pulling occasion in itself deter me, not really, although I do perceive the growing blunt, on-the-fly, and often very contradictory regulation quoting, bureaucracy as a major growing problem. I'm just a bit tired of it in general, have elsewhere had incredibly bad experiences with very systematic deliberate lying, fanatic trolls running rampant without being thoroughly tracked and sent legal notices (although there have been many very helpful people keeping him in check), as well as incredibly bad and/or pompous attitudes, and you can only do this for so long before you think you're wasting time which could be better spent in another manner. There are plenty of reasons which slowly turn me tired and uninterested, or divert my attention elsewhere. I'll try to muster some attention though. Dave (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to bed in 5 minutes, and don't have the time to read or reply to much of the text inserted since the last time, but I've scaled down Ranma's and Ryoga's images to 4 occasions each, both very matter-of-fact relevant to each separate main statistic, as they had suitable images available. Mousse had 3 particularly useful images/occasions for speed/skill, strength/striking power, and his duck form, Shampoo received 1 demonstration of strength, and one for skill/speed, but can be expanded. Ditto for Ukyo, who was less precise. Dave (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which. If someone has suggestions for which images I should/could use for Akane this would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor characters

On a related note, why are minor characters covered in major character articles (e.g. Pink and Link in Shampoo's article and Hiroshi and Daisuke in Ranma's article)? Don't these characters belong on a list (or nowhere at all)?--Nohansen (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They do belong on the various character lists, I believe. It would make weeding out excessive FU images from the individual character articles much easier, anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
They were originally on the minor character lists depending on where they appeared (anime and manga, anime-only, manga-only) and were migrated into character articles a few months ago, I'm not sure why. BrokenSphereMsg me 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I guess merging them back would be reasonable; I see no reason why they should be part of articles of characters they're connected to. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this: Is there any disagreement that minor character, regardless of connections, should be on the appropriate minor character page, and not in the specific character pages? Keep in mind that current policies on Wiki essentially say no pics for list pages which means all of them can pretty much say goodbye to their pics. I personally think that's a stupid policy, but I don't run the place. Also, as has been noted, our model example don't merge specific character with minor ones. Derekloffin (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting them back into the appropriate minor character lists is better, I think, even if they have to loose the corresponding images as a result. The grouping with a specific character who has their own article only makes sense for those who have been following the series somewhat, but may not be intuitive for people new to the series. BrokenSphereMsg me 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that, at the very least, Herb's and Saffron's sidekicks should stay, as should Ukyo's and Shampoo's fathers, Mrs. Tendo (for Soun's entry), Taro's mother, Ryoga's and Akari's pets, and possibly Hiroshi and Daisuke to Ranma. I don't find a list of pure text for visual creations very attractive at all, but I suppose that going beyond that may currently make the entire format cumbersome. Ideas for 'loopholes'/alternate solutions to keeping the lists 'blanked' would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As an update I've begun making panoramas of suitable statistics-showcase images for the various characters, but only have Ryoga, Mousse, and a (too) much lesser resolution one for Akane (which I wil re-do) finished as of yet. It's harder than it looks to puzzle them together in a somewhat useful/semi-orderly composition. Dave (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I should note that user-created collages of fair use images are considered to comprise the # of images present, i.e. 4 panels put together as one is counted as 4 images, not a single one. This is why I stated that Sailor Venus has 6 images. BrokenSphereMsg me 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Ranma abilities collage is 10 images. Isn't that a bit much? Also the manga pic of both forms seems extraeneous given that there's a manga equivalent in the infobox. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just 6 instances in total actually, which creates a coverage of durability, strength, coordination, speed, and hitting-power respectively, although the Kuno impact crater is mostly added because I had to fill the space with something. I thought this was an excellent agreement myself, and have spent quite some time in trying to make the panoramas as good as possible. When looking at it I really like this format, and in terms of taking up page space it's just 3 images for the article right now. Regardless, the two instances to the right can easily be cut out, making it 4 instances in total.
As for the mid-page manga colour image, I think keeping one for the anime and one for the manga (preferably with both forms) is likevise a good compromise to showcase the design of each medium, but I'm not exactly fond of this particular image. Preferably it should be one which says something typical about the character as well. It was just the best fit for the given requisites that I found on short notice. That said, I didn't know about the above information when creating the Ryoga one, in which I used a few multiple instances. I'd better cut down on that one I suppose, although it's easier said than done, and I do consider it a bs policy as such. Dave (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Circling back to an earlier point re. which minor characters should stay attached to other characters' articles - if the intent is to preserve their pics more than for organizational purposes - then they need to be migrated back to the appropriate list. I don't find pure text for visual medium appealing/helpful either, but that shouldn't trump keeping them where they more logically belong vs. attempting to circumvent the exclusion of individual character images in lists. BrokenSphereMsg me 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that the AFD is done, it would seem that it is time to get back to this. It seems to me the general consensus on this particular issue is to move the minor characters back. I know it's a pain to lose the pics, but reasonably speaking, down the road, they're not that hard to get back up should we one day be allowed. I know I still have all mine on my Hard drive. I'm going to start moving these back to the appropriate pages in the next couple days, so if there is any further comments on the issue, please make them as soon as possible.

On the side matter of referencing. I see a distinct lack of model pages for minor character, or character lists of any kind, so how to best go about this is very open at the moment. I think I mentioned it already that at the minimum a 1st appearance reference would be nice for each character. For the anime characters at least, they also often are based on various legends, a few of which are already noted. Any other ideas? Derekloffin (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I consent to this, and think that I've moved them all back now, although the images haven't been refitted into the lists, and there may be a few misdirected links. I think it's good that you've saved/archived all the old images, and that there is some merit in creating separate pages for Lime & Mint; Kiima, Koruma & Masala; Maomolin, and the Gambling King. If someone is up for creating separate pages for these, this might be an idea. If Tsubasa can receive one, so can they. ^_- Dave (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

Article constantly switches between past and present tense. Would you people PLEASE PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We know that, but it's not that easy you know. BrianGo28 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga nominated for AFD.

Comments appreciated here. --BrokenSphereMsg me 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article survives, we better decide what to do with it. Personally, I've always found having three articles (List of Ranma ½ minor characters, Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga, Minor characters of the Ranma ½ anime) for minor characters kinda silly. Since Ranma is originally a manga, I would have:
  • A list of Ranma ½ characters for all the manga characters, regardless whether they appear in the anime or not; and
  • A list of anime exclusive characters.

What do you think?--Nohansen (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There was originally a single, very long list with all the minor characters in it. I suggested the split several months ago along the lines that Fullmetal Alchemist has done with its minor characters (although that may need cleanup as well), which was agreed to at the time. BrokenSphereMsg me 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If pulling them all together would save it that's great. Othervise we could thoroughly segment as many as possible to the most closely related main character, in the same manner as I did recently. Dave (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I added my 2 cents to the discussion, but while I do agree that keeping all the manga or manga+anime characters together in one section might be an idea, the main problem as such seems to stem from not adding some chapter reference for each of them. If some of the rest of you have some time to semi-copy the reference format used elsewhere in this section, check up in which chapter(s) the characters appeared, and add 1-2 at the end of each entry that should go a long way. Since there have been so many contributors it seems like we've 'switched' tenses too much as well, so reformatting the sentences would also be of great help. Dave (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just manga/anime refs. 3rd party sources are also needed. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Exactly. It's not about sourcing the article with manga chapters (like Nabiki Tendo), but establishing the characters relevance outside Ranma's fictional universe and writing the character bios not as real biography but as a fictional character profile. Which, by the way, are some of the things I pointed out when Ryoga's article was a GA-nominee.--Nohansen (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The main reason for the split was the original page was huge, way above the guideline for page size. As to what to do with it, a minimum referencing would be to reference first appearances in said medias. As to 3rd party BS, I'm not sure what qualifies here. For instance some are based on common Japanese myths and legends, does referencing those qualify? I'm so tired of these draconian policies that I seriously wonder why wiki bothers keeping itself open anymore. Derekloffin (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Books, interviews, websites, videos from a 3rd party source that discuss the series. That means not manga or anime. The connections to common myths and legends would have to be cited as well, otherwise it can be construed as OR.
While 3rd party referencing dissertations, research and acknowledged non-fiction works is great to keep up quality in scientific pages, there are obvious problems when trying to sledge-hammer them onto a fictional context, (and crush whatever is behind into a thousand pieces) as referencing writers of possential essays doesn't necessarily merit acknowledgement to being more informed than any other readers, and can quickly act as a pretext for utterly eradicating any page anyone just plain doesn't like. Some sections similar to this one have regulations that prohibit any use of information-books released by the publisher itself, but freely allow outside works and/or articles directly quoting said information. I found that to be a somewhat humorous illustration of the problem. More locally, in the Ranma Saotome page there is a reference to a work from an author who believed this manga to be a great feminist manifesto, countered in an interview with the author herself just following. Again, this isn't science, so the most reliable information comes from quoting the scenes as is with chapter references, backed up with anything additional that we can find.
The Nabiki Tendo page is literally very nearly as good as I could make it with the clay we have available, and it took a lot of time, and pretty much permanently 'burned me out'/made me compulsively unwilling to do something at that scale again. Adding a few references to which chapters the minor characters appeared and the text thus occurred in seems like a very good start. Anything beyond that is a bonus but not a requisite. Btw: I liked Derek's Nabiki list format better than the current one.
Does my Wikia idea back in December start to sound more appealing? That's another discussion though (now archived, but it can be reraised). BrokenSphereMsg me 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The appeal and the problems with said idea really haven't changed. I'm getting so tired of wiki of late that I'm really considering hanging up my hat as it just isn't worth the frustration. Derekloffin (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth I appreciate sensible, straightforward fellows like yourself, even if we may not always, but usually, agree. Although yes, Wikipedia seems to turn more and more into 5-man committée over 5 million readers, agenda-pushing, and finding the appropriate clausule as a basis among conflicting regulations, blunt damage, heavy-handed bureaucracy. Given that I'm pretty tired of acting as some kind of "contemptous complaints because I only had the energy to fix 50% of all problems here, please" sign, and I at least try to be realistic/see it as a statistical matter of time, perhaps only a few months, until someone decides to delete this entire section in the span of 5 minutes during a lunch break, I also still like the idea of back-up 'migrating' all the pages and images to a Wikia (Did anyone save the previously deleted items and locations pages?). Though it seems unnecessary to forego the deletion itself. We can let the section stay until it's done. I'm also not up for a binding committment to monitor the Wikia in the long run, and think the fandom stuff should be kept all in a separate page, and preferably with a few additional precaution sections, to redirect the inevitable zanier stuff. Dave (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, what I meant above was: A back-up Wikia as soon as possible would be great, but we shouldn't delete this section when we're done. Dave (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Just posting the edit note here as more permanent source: Needs far more than citations, writing style constantly switches tenses and subpages on individual characters are messes too. Just removed a section that was horrid from Akane page. Derekloffin (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While the statements are written in a somewhat rude fashion, and it would be nice to actually get some help for once, instead of demands like we were paid for this, given the multitude of contributors tenses shifting is pretty widespread, so if various contributors have the energy to each sift through a few pages, and reformat the sentences for less word repetitions and tenses shifting, that would be very nice. I never really went into rewriting many of the sub-pages/minor characters though. I generally pretty much loose interest beyond miniscule changes at a time after the first sweeping rewrites, and already handle the image reformatting. As I have had it explained to me, the difference between 'in-universe' and 'out-of-universe' context is generally just an "is" to "is presented as" in all relevant sentences, but I don't seem to be any good at finding the right balance. Dave (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VAs for minor characters

OK to be added or keep them out? BrokenSphereMsg me 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep (although I would like each to be properly ensured for correctness, as many of the recent additions have included some HIGHLY suspect edits as well). They are a piece of RW context which I think is valuable. Derekloffin (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)