Talk:List of Kamen Rider Blade characters

Merger

I don't think a merge is appropriate. There's an awful lot of information in the Undead article that would clutter up the normal character listing. I appreciate having this list of all the Undead, in part because sometimes, you just want to know what episode an Undead was in without rifling through the entire series to find it. We may not NEED this article, but it's still nice to have. Howa0082 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make them notable and a full list is not necessary. Remember, this is not a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. We provide an overview. In truth, none of the Kamen Rider Blade characters should have their own articles as they all fail WP:FICT, but the Undead is the worse violator. Recent AfDs have shown that a species article like this is unlikely to survive an AfD. At best, the Undead need nothing more than the summary already seen in the main article, not an episode by episode list (which is what the episode list should be for). AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to counter that by pointing out that the Toku project heartily endorses such articles, but as usual, the schmuck in charge of that project has absolutely no guidelines for ANYTHING. Howa0082 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the Toku project, unfortunately, is advocating violating the guidelines of its parent project, the Television project, and several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. :( If the desire is for the Kamen Rider articles to actually be of high quality and one day reach featured status, I'd suggest ignoring the project's endorsements and looking to the Television guidelines and relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE (for episodes), WP:PLOT, and, of course WP:RS and WP:V. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

well, I second the keeping. However, if there's some things to fix, then we just do that. Fractyl (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles of the Kamen Riders

What happened to the articles that were of Blade, Garren, Chalice, Leangle, Glaive, Lance and L'arc? Were they deleted or something? And if they were deleted, what was the reason? --BrydoF1989 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They were all up on the chopping block so I redirected all of the articles to here (or to Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace) rather than ending up with a bunch of deleted pages as we've done on Kamen Rider Decade and Kamen Rider Ryuki.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But why get rid of those individual articles? -76.106.165.155 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to their importance, why not restore the "titular" Kamen Rider character articles, along with Knight and Chalice? The rest can be covered in the character pages.Fractyl (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection due to edit warring

@James J. Lambden: @OuendanL: you're revert-warring across multiple articles here, both getting close to WP:3RR, with nary a peep on a talk page. Please do. I've locked this one for 24 hours per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes to calm the edit-warring and motivate the discussion. I don't want to have to lock the others. Please start discussing. Cheers - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this, David. The reason I have been fixing a lot of these pages lately are because the "previously portrayed" bits that have been added to them. These bits are trivia, and should be avoided per WP:TRIVIA. It is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN to post them on there because it has nothing to do with the pages. In addition, they do not have any sources and can just be found on the particular actors' pages. There's no reason for the actors' past roles to be listed on a page for characters of a particular series. OuendanL (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am neutral on the particular issues (I just want a good page like we all do), but I always find citing and quoting the basic content policies and expanding upon my edit summary on a talk page goes a long way, particularly on articles about art such as this :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)