Talk:List of Oh My Goddess! characters

Merge character articles

further discussion occurred at the now closed Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy --Jack Merridew 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Following a discussion at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Too many articles for minor characters it has been suggested that the individual character articles be merged. I have stubbed-out this page so that there is a merge target. The individual character articles don't assert any real world notability and are written in a fanish style. I support merging. --Jack Merridew 12:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the minor characters, keep at least the main characters separate. MythSearcher^talk 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The main characters may be able to be brought up to snuff; at the moment all of the character articles fail to establish notability and are written in an in-universe style. The minor characters would appear to not have a snowball's chance of being appropriately improved. --Jack Merridew 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, character information can still be expanded within a list of characters. If a split is needed, then it would be best to do so at the time. KyuuA4 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The trend I've seen in some of the other anime articles is to incorporate the character descriptions into the article itself. It means that major character descriptions have to be pared down, but that minor characters would be in the article itself which, I think, would be more appropriate than separate articles. Having said that, merging all of the characters into an article/list like this one is a workable solution that would consolidate characters and make it possible for the "in universe" writing style issue to be addressed. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I had not considered merging to the main article but it seems reasonable and, apparently, precedented. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:FICT it should be the very first action to do in the very beginning when the article is created. However, in this case it is simply making the main article too long if all are dumped there. MythSearcher^talk 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That page is already 33 kilobytes long (20 kilobytes readable prose), so one should be careful about merging much more information into it. However, the proposed WP:FICT rewrite did state "Editors should note that a summary of this subject should remain in the main body."; and WP:MOS-ANIME also states "This describes the characters in modest detail, including voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}). There is no need to create a separate voice actor section". So in any case, the main article should be expanded with a bit more of the information (as I believe the current list is insufficient—per WP:SS more information should remain in the article). G.A.S 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

current list is a recent stub and needs expanding - I created it to be a merge target. --Jack Merridew 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant this list. It need not list every character, and can provide a bit more information on those that it does list. Refer to WP:MOS-ANIME#Series for detail. G.A.S 13:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) They were created some time ago and I have no idea what FICT said at the time. Most of the prose could easily be pared-down and some of the characters probably don't even need a mention at all. For example, Sigel (Oh My Goddess!) doesn't even have a voice actor and would seem to only be a bit of fan service in the closing credits. --Jack Merridew 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigel hasn't been introduced in the anime yet since its storyline hasn't advanced as far as in the manga. She appears fairly regularly in the manga after her introduction in volume 15. Lando242 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Better to merge now. Let the character information accumulate. Then when neccesary, split off the characters who "need" a separate article. For Characters of Negima, article sizes become ridiculously long such that it was necessary to use sub-groups(articles). Even then, the content still became large enough such that individual characters had to be split off. Yet, a general character page preceded any consideration for individual character articles. KyuuA4 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. After White Cat's astonishingly bad faith AfD, the merge that Jack has been suggesting should certainly be put forward. Wikipedia has policies about notability and recommended courses of action about what to do with non-notable fictional characters that are the longstanding product of consensus and not-negotiable in this forum. If you don't like those policies, take it up at the relevant policy page and good luck! Meanwhile, merge & redirect these to a character list and I would suggest further that the pages be protected as long as WP:POINT violations are happening. Eusebeus 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: (I have been doing some research regarding this issue) All of the comments of non-notability nonwithstanding, a list of the characters should be drawn up as an article of a subsection of Oh My Goddess!. Per WP:SS this list should cover all of the characters (at least in short), and the Character section of Oh My Goddess! should be at least twice the length of the lead paragraph of the list. Have a look at Metal Gear Solid#Characters and List of Metal Gear Solid characters for an ideal presentation of the content.
  This means that the information from all characters should be included here.
  If due to length concerns, the list becomes too long, it may be a better idea to make the split based on real world information, as is done with List of Metal Gear Solid characters and List of recurring Metal Gear characters.
  If this means that the information in the minor characters' articles are redundant due to the list, they can be redirected to the applicable list (Obviously, in making the list(s), the information would likely be copied from those articles, so in effect this is a merge).
  If some characters still require separate articles, the same rule regarding the content left in the list (being 2x that in the "daughter" article's lead) would apply, and the link should be made using {{main}}. Regards, G.A.S 08:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  It seems that the steps you describe — list in the main article, expand into a list of characters — have been skipped and individual character articles created right from the start. Guidelines may well have been different at the time, but we should work towards the current ones. It would appear likely that some will want to maximally-keep text from the current character articles. However, most of that text is written in an in-universe style and should be rewritten. I would encourage fans to take on a role in this process as they will be happier with the results than if others perform merges. If reasonable efforts are made I will endorse them. --Jack Merridew 13:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is about time to merge these. It has been about two months, and nothing has been added at this point. The first step should be to see if all of the characters actually need coverage or not. TTN (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How time flies when things get disrupted. I agree that this needs to move forward. I expect the Belledandy and the boy are the significant characters and the others should get a quick summary... somewhere; need to look at all the above talk again. See this tidbit I just got about the jp.wiki's coverage of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese page link is simply wierd, to a certain level of WP:OR. Belldandy's original counterpart in the Norse Mythology is Verdandi (in which is pronouced and spelled as Verthandi in the Japanese page) and thus there is no point in directing Belldandy (ベルダンディー) to Verthandi (ヴェルザンディ). MythSearcher^talk 08:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does Celestin and Morgan le Fey point to the movie and not here?Arlj11 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Voice actors

Where on the page is characters voice actors mentioned?Arlj11 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that information seems to be missing... AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me expand on my note "Where on the page is all characters voice actors mentioned?" not just Japanese ones.--Arlj11 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be covered at Oh My Goddess!#Cast and staff --Jack Merridew 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it looks like nowhere, here. It needs to be added to the respective character sections using the voice template. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I add more character voice in this article because it is not enough.--Pierce (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Marller

Just noticed from the OMG anime (season 2, episode 18, 21:24) that Marller's name was spelled as Mahler. Has any of the spellings of her name been confirmed (Mara, Marller or Mahler)?88.112.225.129 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Undo merger of main character articles

The redirection of Keiichi, Urd and Skuld since major characters may have their own articles. Please discuss since these characters were merged with the minor characters since the merging wikipedian did not realize his error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain Urd gets a mention in Susan J. Napier's book, (something about how she provides a lot of the crazyness which Belldandy cannot, but without falling for K1) which would be useful for sourcing for her - however I can't lay my hands on it any more. -Malkinann (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Most likely. I believe the gist of the problem that is occuring is whether or not there was a consensus to redirect the main characters. All of the discussion was about minor characters not the main ones that I had unredirected more than two weeks ago. Do you see that there was a consensus to merge main characters Malkinann? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not, absent finding significant coverage of these characters in multiple reliable sources. Also, it is merely a point of view that TTN made any error here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure - I've only been following the Belldandy article because she is the MAIN main character, and I was aware of some scholarship surrounding her. I think that the consensus can change, and that it probably should be revisited and rediscussed, given that this is the kind of merging behaviour that led to the recent injunction. I think that there should also be an effort to find some out of universe stuff (development, reception, merchandising) about the characters.-Malkinann (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted as being the following as of the discussion you have repeatedly referred to: "The template {{Oh My Goddess}} currently lists Keiichi Morisato, Belldandy, Urd (Oh My Goddess!) and Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) as "main characters" so it would seem reasonable to keep those as stand alone articles with brief summaries in the list." The fact that the discussion was focused solely on minor characters and you are using it to claim that TTN had some sort of magic consensus to redirect major characters is what the problem is here. There was no discussion to redirect the main characters as was required by the episodes and characters arbitration case which subsequently ruled that TTN's redirects without discussion were misguided and placed an injunction upon him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I recall the arbcom case; these redirects occurred prior to any of that. If you want to bring any of these back, provide sources for their notability and cease sniping at other editors and in general engaging in pointy disruption. Jack Merridew 12:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this kind of redirecting behaviour led to the arbcom case, and as such, is not desirable.-Malkinann (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on ANI, I admit that that was a bad move. Let's not get derailed by Jack's attempt to poison this discussion further by use of character assassination. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sniping at anyone. I'm pointing out that you mistakes were made, corrections occured and now you're all pissy cause your original claims of consensus to merge these articles are blatantly and obviously false. TTN claimed to have merged these by a nonexistant discussion. End of story. Any discussion of the three articles under discussion here was to "keep" them while adding a small summary to the list page, not to redirect the articles. (And ironically enough, by you.) I have admitted that my redirection of Lando Calrissian and Lady Macbeth was pointy and have started discussion there, if you wish to continue to harass me over my mistakes, that is fine, but trying to poison the discussion here is rather disruptive and unwelcome. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Find solid sources. It's as simple as that. Jack Merridew 12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we all agree that most of wikipedia requires better sourcing. Perfection is not a requirement however and discussion now is whether or not these were properly handled originally and if the mistake which was made should be corrected. I'd be happy to work on these articles but at this time, lets focus on correcting the initial problem and not wander down bunny trails. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the question now is whether there should be articles on these characters. That hinges on their notability and coverage by multiple reliable third party sources in significant detail. The prior attempts at 'articles' did not meet these requirements and if you want articles on these characters, you must meet these requirements. This has nothing to do with TTN, myself, or the arbcom case. See WP:DEADLINE which says there is no hurry to create articles; find sources first. Jack Merridew 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But it also states: "Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable." There is no immediate need to make these articles perfect before we restore them. Furthermore, the proper place to improve these articles is in the articles themselves, not in the list of characters. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That whole View two appeared recently (trashing a formerly fine essay). Find solid sources, post them here, and establish a consensus to resurrect whatever article. Summarily resurrecting articles without addressing the concerns expressed in the prior discussion is disruptive and will simply be undone. Please note that if you do find — and I'll bold an important bit — solid sources, you'll have no further attention from me. Jack Merridew 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just reread the discussions. I guess somewhere between October and December your view on these articles changed dramatically. Regardless, I'd like to see a consensus reached and if your viewpoint wins I'll be ok with it. Disappointed but I'll deal. I just do not see the main characters as having been seriously discussed to a point where a consensus for redirection to the point of deletion was reached. Minor characters yes, but there does not seem to have been a consensus on major ones. Hopefully there will be more discussion than simply the three of us however.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I may not have explicitly stated so re these fictional characters, I've always believed that any such characters need to have their notability established in order to justify having articles on them. This is project-wide consensus for all articles. There is no reasonable reason to believe that said solid sources exist for these characters, so, absent their presentation by editors wishing said articles, the presumption is that they do not exist. On a character like Lady MacBeth the presumption is reversed for obvious reasons.

I've encountered you somewhere before and I don't believe it was contentious. Please give this all a rest for a bit and allow any other interested editors to comment and possibly offer sources. Jack Merridew 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for un-redirecting the articles in question, then tagging them with the appropriate cleanup tags. Jtrainor (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've altered one article back to a re-direct. As a compromise, how about someone creates an article in their userspace (say, Skuld), with the notability concerns and sourcing problems fixed, and makes a note of that here; then if there is consensus that the article is fine, move it into a new article? Otherwise we are yet again going to have a continuous cycle of reverting. Black Kite 11:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is unnecessary. Based on the discussion here, the AN noticeboard post regarding Jack Merridew and the evidence that TTN's redirect never was based on consensus, the consensus appears to be shifting back to having the articles. Please also see my note on your talk page, a random wikipedian restores the article and labelling such as disruption was low. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus" of a few involved editors doesn't change the fact that the article as it stands doesn't assert notability, has no third-party sources and consists mainly of a lump of plot summary. The consensus of the community as a whole suggests that such articles be merged into "List of ... characters" articles. If the Pokemon community can manage it, so can everyone else. Black Kite 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice of example. Pokemon has lists for the beasts, but the main characters have their own articles. This is the same status we'd like to have for these articles. Comparing apples to apples shows that main characters get articles, minor characters get lists. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the ones with their own articles are the ones that have third-party sourcing and notability concerns addressed ... that's the difference. If that can be achieved for such as Skuld, then fine - we have a viable article. But we can't just go around resurrecting redirected articles unless the concerns that led to them being redirected in the first place can be fixed. Black Kite 11:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read the articles for the main characters from Pokemon. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the lists of Pokemon themselves, such as the stand-alone article Bulbasaur vs the list articles such as List of Pokémon (1-20). I'd agree with you on some of the other articles; sourcing and notability is poor on some of those. Black Kite 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And you continue to compare apples to oranges. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. Notability and sourcing policy remains the same regardless of the actual subject. Black Kite 11:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly every article MUST be a featured/former featured article before it is posted. Someone start playing that "No stubs" song. I like that tune. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) In the case of a new stub, the point may have some merit, but this is a strawman argument; the Skuld article, for example, had existed for nearly six months without any sourcing or notability concerns being addressed. Black Kite 12:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, six whole months! Criminal! Burn em at the stake! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your resorting to sarcasm when faced with a point you can't answer is quite telling. Black Kite 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE.Geni 14:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Black Kite 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I linked that above, however it now has a View two that swings the other way. A neutered essay. Jack Merridew 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider it's arguments when applied to something that already exists we are talking about reversing destruction rather than article creation. There is no reason to destroy because we have been waiting six months.Geni 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't follow it today; much better, now. nb: after looking it over the other day, I posted this which seems to have had a positive effect. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(above replying to this)

When it applies to extant articles, it really highlights their inappropriateness. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't really read the above discussion yet, but to just throw in my own two cents in here, I really won't worry about merging Keiichi, Urd, or Skuld. There's been like, what, at least three different shows using these main characters? This might be a bit of a shock, coming from me, but these aren't as clear the other, more minor, character articles we've been dealing with. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Jack Merridew has been perma-blocked as a sockpuppet, I think we can safely overrule his objections in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will unredirect the articles, but I still believe that there is work to be done to make them up to snuff. However, I also believe that there is no deadline nor a rush. Perfection can be a slow process and will never truly be achieved. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for words regarding Jack's block, but whatever his motives were, we should still consider some of what he said. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we all agree that these articles certainly are not the best they could be and still require work.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I would say that it is safe to re-split those other main characters. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been done for about 24 hours now. Eusebeus came by and chastised me for not discussing my changes in a drive by redirect on Urd, but... I needed a laugh so its all good. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Minor Character Entries

The Almighty One - currently his entry states "Many people affirm The Almighty be the father of the three Norns, but He has never been identified as such in either the manga or the anime." Actually in DarkHorse Comics release for Mystery Child (vol.16) the first chapter has Belldandy answering the phone from him, with Urd picking it up 2 pages later and squealing "Oh, Goodness! Daddy?! It's been ages!" i just don't know how to condense that into something fitting the rest of the entry...
Peorth - do we want to mention her role as Urd's examiner for a Goddess First-class license? it's mentioned in Urd's char page but not here Throwaawy (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lind - is this the correct spelling of the valkyrie's name or another case of transliteration such as "Belldandy"? Rindr (or Rinda & Rind) seems more accurate. Jirka Staffan Aubert (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hijiri (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)