Talk:Asami Sato/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clearly the page has not been deleted

Clearly, the page has not been deleted, and I strongly suggest that given the suddenly-recognised importance of her character from both a story and LGBT standpoint, that it stay undeleted, and, more importantly, that the move-to-delete banner be removed from the head of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarbird (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Solarbird: the banner shouldn't be removed until the AfD has concluded. To remove it would actually be counter-productive to your goals: seeing it there will likely draw more people interested in keeping the article to the discussion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer:Yeah, that's on me - I didn't find the second call for deletion discussion page until after I made this comment here. I only found the first one, which had called for deletion and then hey look, page exists anyway! But I did find it eventually, so I'm over there commenting now. Solarbird (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed "mostly a plot summary" tag.

I've removed the "mostly a plot summary" tag, as the plot summary section has been reduced and other material added such that the plot summary is less than 50% of the article by word count (using wc). Solarbird (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Personality and characteristics" section and the "Plot overview" section are both in-universe plot summary, and they dominate the article. The tag remains justified.  Sandstein  13:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an article about the character. How can descriptions of the character (which I did not include in my wc comparison as "plot") meaningfully count as plot in this context? I checked the official commentary on plot, and it only talks about plot, and treats character description separately. Solarbird (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think the phrase "mostly about" does not imply "50% threshold" but implies a more overwhelming majority (2/3rds or more) which isn't true in either case. But that is a separate issue. Solarbird (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Personality and characteristics" section contains only in-universe content, a description of what Asami does as a person in the Avatar universe. That's plot summary, because it only regurgitates what is shown on screen rather than - as should be the focus of the article - describing her as a fictional character with certain design influences, a narrative purpose and an impact on the real world. To meet Wikipedia's quality requirements, in-universe material should be kept to a minimum.  Sandstein  18:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sokka's personality section is exactly the same way and has no such flag. So is Katara, Toph Beifong (although the better footnoted), Azula... I imagine Zuko would be the same way but his page doesn't even have a personality flag. Let's pick a couple of other characters from the fiction list at random... Gabrielle_(Xena:_Warrior_Princess) same way, John_Sheridan_(Babylon_5) same way... several without personality sections... okay so, so far, every character I've hit that has a personality section is pretty much the same way. And several of these are basically reiterations of their story without the "mostly a plot summary" tag, which tells me that the baseline being applied here is not the baseline applied in general, at least, within the skiffy set of characters I am more likely to pick from a "fictional characters" list. Either most of these characters need the flag, or it shouldn't be here. Solarbird (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

These articles suffer from some of the same problems. A better contrast is provided by some of our "good articles" about TV characters, at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama. Take for example the articles Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher, also about children's cartoon characters, and note how they contrast with this one: they're written clearly as descriptions of fictional works, rather than as a biography, with much insight about the process of their creation rather than about what cool stuff the characters did in their fictional world. The same applies to Homer Simpson, a featured article.
Thanks, by the way, for continuing to improve the article - I'm still not convinced there is enough material for a worthwhile article at all, but it keeps getting better.  Sandstein  21:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we change "Plot Summary" to "Appearances"?

The Korra article has "Appearances" instead of "Plot summary," and having edited the plot summary section into something not entirely unlike that - tho' I do leave out many appearances right now, for the sake of shortening - would it make sense to convert it out to "Plot Summary" and go with that format instead? Solarbird (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Solarbird: I think that would be sensible. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Solarbird: according to the WP:Fictional Characters style guide, it's supposed to be "Appearances", though since Asami has only appeared in LOK we can also acceptably use "Fictional History", which might make more sense in this particular instnace. Either one is fine by me. Good job on the catch! Luthien22 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fancruft tag

The "Fancruft" tag is the last one remaining that addresses article value. Do people think we've cleaned that up or are there still issues? I think we're okay, though wonder if the Personality section could use a little bit of bolstering. I'm leaving it there for the moment, but - opinions? Solarbird (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that the content in the "Personality and characteristics" section and the "Plot overview" section is still fancruft, and much of it is original research. For instance, to take a few examples at random, the assertion "Asami is an excellent automobile and moped/motorcycle driver in a technology period where that is unusual" is original research because we have no source to tell us about how common driving skills are in that period, area and social class; and such details as "is able to discern high-quality designs and products from subpar ones" are personal observations that add nothing to an encyclopedic description of the character as seen from a real-world perspective.  Sandstein  13:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The observation about her skills in that area is made a couple of times in-show; I'll have to rewatch Books 3 (I think Lin Beifong made a comment) and 4 (Korra, again, iirc which I may not) to find them. HEY ANYBODY ELSE REMEMBER THESE EPISODES? I think it's also mentioned on the official Avatar Wiki - in fact it's probably a hangover from the article re-creation in December and may've come straight from there. :-p
The unusual nature of being able to drive is demonstrated by her being the only major character who appears to know how to, until she teaches Korra, anyway, and is implied by the fact that Satomobiles (as the first practical autocar in that universe) are specifically a recent invention. Still, I did change that part to describe it as a recent skill, which reflects that better. Solarbird (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WAIT I REMEMBER NOW - at least one of them is in Long Live the Queen and it's actually plot-relevant. She recognises the airship's maker and knows how badly they're usually built and exploits that in their airship escape. It's an in-universe observation so I'll footnote it as such. Solarbird (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The review you just used as a reference says "Asami's knowledge of cheap Cabbage Corps. tech gave them the edge they needed to escape" and "allowed her to flaunt her engineering skills. Her and Korra worked well together too, with Asami as the brains (e.g. building a sand sailer) and ...", so that works excellent here, I think. ~Mable (chat) 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

first cited turn towards a romantic relationship

This got removed for space: "This, combined with Asami's statement that she would do "anything" Korra needs, is cited as the first indication that their relationship will become romantic in nature." Since it's out of context now, that's referring to Asami's offer to do "anything" Korra needs and to go to the south pole with her. I think that's important to keep in as a character milestone. Now, I've heard arguments for earlier, but Bryke went on about how it really turned towards romantic relationship at the start of Book 4, and this is pretty much the earliest chronological point in Book 4, and it's where everybody really went HOLY HELL ARE YOU SHITTING ME?! so I don't think it's a controversial point to pick. (I'd certainly accept "is generally cited" instead of "is cited," as I have seen people claim earlier, but I'm going by Bryke's intent as expressed in commentary.) Thoughts? Solarbird (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be a bit hard to explain that scene without giving too much context. This article also doesn't exist to "prove" that the two characters are romantically interested. If you have a citation for it, it might be worth noting that "the first episode of season four is cited, where Korra and Asami are writing eachother, is cited as the first strong indicator of a romantic relationship between the two characters." Hell, that might actually be the only thing this article needs to say about the fact that Korra and Asami are writing eachother, as it describes what is important about that topic, right?

We certainly don't need to prove it, we have that. ^_^ But from a literary standpoint, following themes is important, and showing progression of character is important - as are turning points. And we know this is when they were bringing a romantic connection further to the foreground. That said, I think I like your rewording at first glance. I'll look at it again later when I'm not quite so sleepy. (It's 2:30am in Cascadia and I should be in bed. XD ) Solarbird (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In-Universe Style tag

Does anyone object to the "This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. (December 2014)" tag being removed? I think that's been sorted. Solarbird (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see above. Both the "Personality and characteristics" section and the "Plot overview" section, which make up the majority of the text, are written in an in-universe style.  Sandstein  13:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've hacked a bunch on the plot summary section to adopt present tense and use a lot of phrases like "in book foo" and "we are shown that" in accordance with the suggestions in the wikipedia page section on writing about fiction. Solarbird (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

More hacking today on the Personality and Characteristic section; I think it's getting close. It's certainly closer, I don't think I'd lose any fights over that. One thing about Book X vs. season x is that sometimes Book X is being used as a title, and I think it could be retained in those cases, and wonder whether it should be retained in those cases. Thoughts, anyone? Solarbird (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've actually removed it before, seeing as the article really doesn't have much in-universe style problems anymore. The Charcter appearances section is still too beefy, but that's what the plot summary tag is for. About the books/seasons, I think it is perfect now. It doesn't use the word "book" in any other sense than when saying a season's name, and it seems clear enough ~Mable (chat) 09:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, hopefully other people will comment and maybe we can rip this tag off this article soon. SO MANY TAGS. (Also I said it before but I'll say it again: I hate the "mostly plot" phrasing of the plot tag. Nnngngh. MOSTLY DOESN'T MEAN 50%+1 word! But.) Solarbird (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and get rid of this one at least. I'm still not fond of the long plot summary section, but at least nothing is written in in-universe style right now ~Mable (chat) 09:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If things settle down on the removing-LGBT-content front (as I think they have again for the moment, touch wood it continues), I'll also want to work on the Personality and Characteristics section. It's not in-universe anymore, really, but it still has a bit of that air to it. I'll see if I can improve that. Solarbird (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given that a bit of a go - it's shorter and I think it's at least better grouped. But I have a hard time getting a handle on "encyclopaedic style". Hopefully this is better. Solarbird (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Asami Sato chinese characters

Here's the wanted poster with her name on it, can anybody read her name? It's left column, bottom. (Based on finding Bolin and Korra names there on theirs, verified against other sources and Google Translate phonetics): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JNf3ucZfjlY/VBNI8hkcCkI/AAAAAAAABjc/pQ_nc83chts/s1600/wanted.jpg Solarbird (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)