Talk:Ryoga Hibiki

Overuse of the word 'latter'

It shows up in the article 21 times and makes for an annoying read. 76.2.28.13 10:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the problem is that we couldn't come up with an alternative. Help would be very appreciated. Dave 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall structure tidying?

Building on the above, would anyone like to have a go at tidying up the currently largely awful language and general structure without affecting the content? This would be very appreciated. For some reason I can't muster any interest myself, which would render any effort subpar. Thanks in advance for any help. Dave (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Absurd Math

"Ryoga moved, (to catch/stop Mikado Sanzenin) and far more impressively, then hurled two enormous buoying blocks of ice, with an approximate total weight of roughly 250 to 700 metric tons"

The sitation states that the math was got 'By comparing with the almost 2m tall 'tiny' Mikado, with an estimated total weight of between 1.5m*8m*25m*917kg/m^3=275*10^3kg and 2.5m*10m*30m*917kg/m^3=687*10^3kg.'

I'm not sure if the math itself is off, but the choice of source page was a grave error. This page is after Ryoga already threw the ice pieces he lifted, (page 63 of volume 4, I believe) and you can't tell which of the ice pieces shown are the ones Ryoga threw and which ones were hurled into the air by the resulting splash. In fact, it could very well be that the two ice pieces Ryoga hurled aren't even shown, and are instead submerged, and all the ice pieces shown on this page were hurled into the air from the impact. You can clearly see that the water splash reached the top of the page, and considering the pool they are in should be full of ice chunks, its unreasonable to think Ryoga managed to find the only area of open water to hurl those icebergs.

The math isn't off. I checked up the density number. You're correct in that we don't see wherever the other (?) boulder or additional pieces went, but I thought it best to moderate the statement by only going by the one we saw making an impact/splash according with his throwing arm movement, rather than speculating about that it may only have been a third of the weight or similar.

The page that should have been used for this calculation is page 58, which is a nice frame of just Ranma, Ryoga and the two ice chunks he lifts in the next few pages. Using my own mediocre math skills (and using Ranma-chan's torso as the measuring stick) I'd say they are more likely to be in the 10 to 20 ton range, maybe more than that since the entire ice blocks aren't shown. However, 250 to 700 metric tons is absolutely ludicrious. If Ryoga could lift that much, he'd be able to wield a bus like it were a baseball bat. And if Ryoga is that strong, then how strong would that make Lime? Ryoga himself considers Lime to have a strength that is beyond human limits. At the very least, that would require Lime to have 2 to 4 times the strength of Ryoga, which would be obscene even by anime standards.

Lime is shown as far stronger than Ryoga, being able to barely hold open a large closing chasm of stone, which would comprise many times Ryoga's shown (equal to) a few thousand ton display, keeping millions of tons from crushing him (only marginally withstanding a small part though). I read Ryoga's statement as a comment that Lime was beyond the limit of a human martial artist of his world to become, given that all the Ranma martial artist cast have some measure of far beyond real-world human strength. This is nowhere near ridiculous by anime, or comic-book standards. The Dragonball guys can literally blow up planets with their pinkies. Some of the Tenchi crew are 11+ dimensional entities capable of turning all of space time into macaroni without breathing hard. For western references, Superman used to be able to toss around planets, and Hulk once held together the continental plates of one to keep it from collapsing. (No, neither case makes any sense whatsoever, but that's never stopped anyone)

Superman and Hulk are hardly good examples. Both are superhereos who are imbued with powers from an outside source, it isn't a level of strength they achieved on their own through training. And while the Dragonball gang can indeed blow up planets, that's pure chi. Plus, the majority of the characters who exibit rediculous, planet moving strength in that series are not only not human, but only achieve that level of strength after multiple tranformations that cause exponential leapts in power. You aren't going to see Krillin pick up a mountain and chuck it at someone. So yes, there are animes that have characters with strength that obscene. However, the vast majority of them are either gods (like your tenchi example), practically gods (most of the DBZ characters), or are imbued with great power from some other source (Superman, Hulk). You don't see mere humans or near humans, like Ryoga and Lime, reaching levels of power that high. Hence why I said it was obscene, even by the standards of anime. -Ryo-Wolf May 11, 2007. 4:46 AM (PST)

Well, the Dragonball guys are physically far stronger as well. Achieving your powers through manipulating natural energy/chi (which is similar to certain ideas of magic) isn't really any dumber than gaining them from an atomic explosion, or the Sun rather than getting cancer. The only important aspect in gauging how ridiculous it all is, would be the extent of the feat. Also, the Dragonball guys receive their abilities exactly the same way, and have shown vastly superior physical powers as well. Vegeta completely smashed through machinery intended to gauge the strongest beings on the planet, through lightly tapping it with his pinkie, without going super-Saiyan for example. While we've never seen Krillin pick up a mountain (which should crumble anyway) he certainly seems more than powerful enough by comparing him with other characters. Let's say Freeza blasted Goku or Vegeta at the end of the series. They'd hardly notice, despite that it would be far more than enough to slice a planet to pieces. Yet they are affected by each other's physical blows. Even child Goku moved a many hundred ton boulder when training for Kame-Sennin.

Also, Mikado Sanzenin being nerly 2 meters tall? That can't be right. He'd be basketball material if he were that big, what's he doing ice skating? -Ryo-Wolf Wednesday, May 9th, 2007.

I think he was more than a head taller than male Ranma (Yup, he was. Vol.3, page 177), but we could call him 1.90 if you wish. The result is still similar. Dave 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-checked and Mikado appears to be a virtual giant. When holding female Ranma early on (Vol.3, page 141) he's around 1m taller. This is inconsistent with other images, but still, "almost 2m" seems fair enough. Dave 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumiko Takahashi is notoriously bad at portraying things consistantly between volumes or even pages. A good example is Monster Taro, who varies considerably in all his dimensions. One second, his fist is roughly the size of Ranma's head. The next, he can completley encase Ranma in one hand King Kong style. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iceberg issue is also caused by her bad tendency to dramatically change how big something is. I'm sure if she realized that the math behind her drawing would mean Ryoga could lift in the 200 to 750 metric ton range, she'd have made those icebergs smaller. Besides, isn't the biggest thing we see Ranma move at best around 60 tons? And he doesn't lift it or throw it, plus he's underwater at the time (which, if I'm not mistaken, would make it easier to move.) I know Ryoga is stronger than Ranma, but he isn't 3 to 12 times stronger than him. -Ryo-Wolf May 11, 2007. 4:46 AM (PST)

Ranma's (in terms of strength alone) weaker female form managed to support the pressure when Ryoga moved the slabs, and moving that 60-70 ton boulder virtually effortlessly while swimming underwater, which makes it somewhat lighter, but far harder to move. Given that a playful jab from Ryoga's pinkie was enough to almost knock her out, and a non-attack hug almost crushed male Ranma's ribs, I'd say 3-5 times stronger seems about right, while Lime has roughly the same relationship to Ryoga himself, as proved when supporting that chasm. Saying that Rumiko didn't intend for the ice-boulder to be that large seems very speculative, rather than going by the displayed actual size. In the panel where Ryoga is 'catching' Mikado only a very small part of them are seen, but even what's seen is very large. I technically agree that Rumiko can tend to be inconsistent from image to image. Likely because she lets assistants help out, but you can't argue that we should disinclude an explicitly shown feat simply by speculation that she may not have intended it, when no other image contradicts it. Their power is shown to vastly differ depending on focus and motivation, but I'd say an estimation that Ryoga could exert force equivalent to lifting 1000-3000 tons under _optimal_ circumstances, with a general level of a fifth of that (for example like effortlessly tossing a roughly 30-ton boulder, at least 100 and up to 200 meters, into the path of Herb's blast. Compared to how far a regular man can throw a 10 kilograms iron ball), seems about right, while you'd get Ranma's level by dividing by 3-5 or so. Or even just 2 if you'd prefer that image. Dave 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually scratch that. If Ryoga can throw a roughly 500 ton boulder 20 meters he should be able to exert pressure equal to lifting _at the very least_ 10,000-20,000 tons, which should be about the same as Taro's cursed form, then divide that by 4 or so to get a rough estimation for Ranma's level, by 2-3 to get Mousse's, or multiply it by 3 to get Lime's, but that's just my personal vague impression. Not remotely something to mention in the section itself. Dave 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit thing here, the referenced page for his height doesn't show him 1m taller. Ranma-chan is held at his shoulder height with her legs bent at approximately 90 degrees. If you take the shown legs out it reaches to Mikado's foot so he's only head+shoulder taller which isn't 1m (about 1 foot or .3 meters).

I'd say straightening out her legs wouldn't quite reach the top of his skis, without counting her own, while her head doesn't quite reach over his shoulders. 1m was probably very excessive, but 0.4-0.5 or so seems about right.

This is also consistent with times Azusa is next to him who is also head and shoulders below him. However, the male height measure is really weird. It's like Takahashi decided he was head and shoulders over everyone, regardless of their height as Ranma is also shown to be about head and shoulders to Akane who is equal to Azusa, but is head and shoulder below to Mikado in 176 and 177 shots even when the perspective changed. Page 178 seems to be the best between Ranma-kun and Mikado where Ranma-kun are in the same perspective and Ranma is up to Mikado's eyes which makes more sense with other characters relative heights, although even here they are slightly tilted over as they challenge each other. Obviously if she was using assistants for this stuff they messed up pretty bad between panels. Derekloffin 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked it up, and agree. That panel is a good gauge. Though I'd say that it showed Mikado as almost a head taller (15 or 20 centimeters?), if you straighten both of them up. So, has male Ranma's height been stated anywhere? Dave 10:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Only reference I have for height that is remotely reliable is from the anime which is a comparative height chart showing the Tendos, Genma, Ranma-kun, Ranma-chan, Tofu and Kuno. However, this not only anime, and you'd still have to make an assumption on someone's height and then compute the others, but in the anime Mikado is bit more consistent and is shown to be about Kuno's height. Really, to continue using a computation you'll have to assume someone is average height and use them as the measuring stick for everyone else. However, you should reference that his height is varying by about a foot in various panel by comparison to various characters and perhaps do a computation for a low and high estimate of his height. Derekloffin 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my rough original mental estimation I treated him as about 1.90 meters tall, so I don't think it would make much difference. He's clearly quite a bit above average height in any case, at least very much so for a Japanese. How tall is Kuno? Dave 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 1.9m vs 2m is 14% difference in volume since it effect all 3 dimensions (1.8m would be 27.1% difference) which is not insignificant. As I said though, you have to assume someone is average height and compute the others cause although chart compares them, it doesn't give you any height in RL measurements. Derekloffin 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that 1.9 was what I used in my head as "almost 2m". (Or at least as far as I remember) In any case I don't really see why it would be appropriate to shorten him down to 1.8, rather than one of his lower displayed heights (the one discussed above) when basing both him and the frame of reference on the manga itself. Using .15-.2m taller than male Ranma would be a conservative estimate in my mind, compared to one where he's .4-.5m taller than female Ranma. (Then again my estimation was that male Ranma was 1.7-1.75 or so. If your stats say otherwise, I consider this a good gauge, since the regular characters should have passed Takahashi) Not that I mind to change it as such, but I generally want a justification I can agree with/seems perfectly logical. Dave 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the image is displayed in full sight, so it's not like anyone can't verify it themselves. Just checking it, and mentally 'stretching out' Mikado with some extra safety marginal, it looks like about 30m (possibly more given higher than minimum underwater depth)*9m*2m+some extra boulders added to that, but that's me. Dave 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, been doing some math based on the chart I have, and did some estimates: Using Ranma-kun at 5'10", Tofu comes out to 6'7" tall which is a bit tall. Likewise for Ranma-kun at 5'8" Tofu is 6'5" and Ranma-kun at 5'6" Tofu is 6'3" (Tofu is the tallest character save Genma-panda on the chart). 6'7" for Tofu seems high, 5'6" for Ranma seems low, so using 5'8" figures, Ranma-chan is 4'8", Akane is 4'10.5", and Kuno is 6". I didn't realize Ranma-chan was quite that small. Derekloffin 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 0.3048*(5+8/12)=0.3048*(5+2/3)=1.7272 for male Ranma, and 0.3048*(4+8/12)=0.3048*(4+2/3)=1.4224! She's almost a dwarf by western standards. It seems Mikado wasn't so inconsistently portrayed after all. (1.72+.15=)1.87->(1.73+.2=)1.93 seems about right then. Still, I more or less expect others to do more precise estimates now that the picture in question is shown. Dave 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference sake, the measurements were (all in cm at the same magnification): 17.7 Tofu, 17.5 Soun, 16.6 Kuno, 16.1 Genma, 15.6 Ranma-kun, 15.5 Kasumi, 15.0 Nabiki, 13.5 Akane and 13 for Ranma-chan. I was assuming Ranma-kun's height and computing the others from that via ratio. Derekloffin 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Dave 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So despite suggesting that you are measuring ice chunks Ryoga doesn't even touch, you still haven't tried a different source page? The page you are currently using is unreliable. -Ryo-Wolf 18:25 19 June 2007 (PST)

Doesn't touch? How do you figure that? He hurled the giant ice chunk, which apparently fragmented into a few smaller ones beside the main bulk. All of them flying through the air. The page in question is the only one where the full size, rather than a small part, is shown. Do you mean that the picture isn't large enough for a reader to check? That's due to previous complaints from editors that we have to use small images to qualify for fair use, although if I'm mistaken I could always upload a bigger one. Still, you should have the manga to check yourself. Dave 09:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryoga picks up and hurls TWO ice chunks of comparable size, not one giant one. If the massive ice chunk that you measured is, in fact, one of the ones Ryoga threw, where did the other one go? -Ryowolf 15:40 14 September 2007 (PST)

Who says that he had to throw both just because he caught Mikado with them? In any case there were a few smaller ones along with the large chunk, or it could have been behind it or to the right of the screen. Regardless, Mikado was stuck to the edge of the large one, so along with the throwing angle and piercing impact in the water there is no debate that it was one of the ones in question. The only thing we can make a case for is that he threw another, non-seen, sizeable chunk in addition, which I avoided since it would be too speculative and irrelevant. Dave 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He must have thrown both, as the after math shows him with both arms in a throwing motion with no ice chunks in his hands or near him. He had a chunk in each hand, so if he didn't throw one, it simply disappeared. Also, since The only force Ryoga was exerting on Mikado came from clamping him between two chunks, Mikado would not have moved had he only thrown one, as throwing one but not the other would have released him, not dragged him. There's also the factor of the point of impact. The entire pool should be filled with pieces of ice, meaning that anything Ryoga throws is guaranteed to hit another floating piece of ice, and won't crash into empty water. In the image you use, we only see empty water with the tips of two ice pieces at the very center of the splash (potentially the ones Ryoga threw.) This means that several of the airborne pieces, if not all of them, are likely unrelated ice chunks that were hurled into the air from the impact. There's also the issue of the sound effect which covers a good portion of the panel and a major portion of the impact point itself, making it very difficult to discern several factors, such as where one piece ends and another starts, whether certain parts of the image are supposed to be water or ice pieces, and so on. To reiterate, we have 1: A missing projectile. 2: a massive sound effect obscuring a critical part of the page necessary for accurate measurements to be taken. 3: The inability to discern which ice pieces came from Ryoga or which ones were thrown into the air from the impact. These three factors make this an unreliable source image. -Ryo-Wolf 22:37 16 February 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.150.173 (talk)

Throwing both is possible, although only one arm is stretched out in throwing motion, and I would think that, say throwing the one held by his right arm would singularly hurl Mikado as well if he simply threw it in a semi-corresponding direction to the other boulder. Regardless, given the impact angle of the great chunk of ice Mikado remains close to, and the thwowing motion relating to this the image certainly does seem to extremely strongly (as in 99% accuracy, or: it would be completely pointless for the artist to draw it at all othervise) imply that this was the greater part of what Ryoga threw. A smaller chunk would not have this kind of effect on such a large one and none of the others match with either Mikado or the throwing angle. This is an extremely clear-cut case, and Ryoga in the 100,000 ton range does match up well with Lime shown as being in the approximate 200,000-400,000 ton range. What isn't clear-cut is whether Ryoga also threw anything to the right of the screen, and I am not including anything like this to the math. Seriously, let's end this half a year ago as it should have been. Returning every two months to see if I'm not around anymore so you can safely remove it on very loose pretenses isn't fair play. Not to mention, from an objective standpoint, Ryoga's raw power is the main thing speaking in Ranma's favour in that area, so you win out on it from that angle. Let's walk out of this, leave it alone, and stop this ok? Please? Dave (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never touched the article itself or the images in it, so I don't know what you are insinuating with your comment about returning every two months to see if you're not here. The reason I show up so sparsely is simply because I don't venture to wikipedia very often and often forget this article even exists. The only reason I posted the above was because someone quoted wikipedia at me while trying to argue that Ryoga could lift a house and throw it at someone. To put it simply, Wikipedia is used as a source for quite a few people. Even assuming that ice fragment is the one that Ryoga threw, I still don't understand how you could have accurately measured it with the sound effect obscuring half the page. The page source is unreliable for that reason alone, even without the other factors coming into play. I'm not going to edit the article and I probably won't respond to the discussion any further, but I hope your strength assessment is eventually replaced with one that is more reliable. -Ryo-Wolf 17:03 26 February 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.150.173 (talk)

All right. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I seem to have been tired the day I wrote that and skimmed through your post. In any case, I agree that it makes sense that Ryoga threw both boulders as he held one in each hand and that it makes sense that the smaller ones near the bottom of the image would be previously loosened ones pushed up from the impact, but going by the throwing path only one of them is seen on-screen, which is what we have to work with, and the ones near the top definitely seem to be fragmenting from the larger mass that Mikado is stuck to. The range (400-1000 tonnes) is kept very wide strictly because the gauge is inprecise, but maybe it should be adjusted back to 250-700 tonnes, or somesuch instead? Feel free to make your own higher-/lower-end approximations. The current panorama frame is of higher resolution, so anyone can check. Dave (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now fixed the likely too high gauge. Dave (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I do not think most of them were improvements. I'll be referencing this[[1]]

The first changed sentence is "Due to it being partially his fault that Ryoga became a piglet in the first place, and given that Ryouga has no lecherous intentions and makes Akane happy Ranma has kept secret about P-chan's identity, but sometimes "subtly" hints to Akane about it to provoke Ryouga."

This is speculation, since the series never shows Ranma thinking or stating his reasons for not revealing Ryouga's secret. Second, it's wrong in stating Ryoga has 'no lecherous intentions'. In the Hot Springs Race, Ryoga as a human tries to spy on akane while she's bathing. Third, it appears to be saying provoking Ryoga is the only reason Ranma is hinting. That's making an assumption about Ranma and deliberately not consdiering any other possible reasons. Finally, this is not NPOV, it's assuming the best of Ryoga, even when the manga shows he's very fallible in this area, and the worst of Ranma.

The second changed sentence is better - " Ryouga's anger quickly lessens with time, first into a fierce rivalry, then into a tense competition, then into uneasy allies and finally on friendly enough terms to risk his life to save Ranma, and being much more relaxed in general due to his girlfriend Akari, but the competition between the two will likely remain forever."

While relations between Ranma and Ryoga do improve over the series, they do not go as smoothly as this depicts, with both regressing at times. Ryoga goes so far as to ambush and betray Ranma in the Musk Dynasty story, potentially leaving Ranma trapped forever as a girl. Also, saying Akari has any part in improvement is speculation, and on shaky ground considering how much of the improvement in the relationship occured before her introduction.

I'll post more comments as I have time. Edward321 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I originally typed out a very long check-through to this, but then decided the work was better spent actually looking for lots of the explicit references for the actual page and restructuring the points I checked up and you were right about (i.e. the Akari/rivalry and behaviour lapse stuff and rewording Ranma's reasons for keeping the secret into possibilities).

Regarding his 'lecherousness'. In volume 7, chapter 8 Ryouga outright states/thinks that he sees his P-Chan identity as Akane's protector and that he's willing to lay down his life for her safety. P-chan then repeatedly tries to defend Akane. At the end of the chapter we're shown that 'sleeping' with Akane gives him no comfort whatsoever as she always moves extremely violently, and while he's very happy about the hugs even limited nudity or the least bit of romance/affection always makes him get heavily embarrassed. Even fantasising about going on an innocent date will send him into a heavily embarrassed state.

Ryouga wouldn't even allow Ranma to enter the girls' changing room even when he thought there was a Nannichuan in there and consistently gets completely flustered and embarrassed even at the thought of having a date or holding hands. He's shown as the very opposite of a 'pervert' in this area (he's probably the biggest prude in the series) and the Happosai intrusion chapter seemed to have been intentionally placed there to clear up this aspect, as well as alleviate Ranma's suspicions (much like that 'tunnel of lost love' seemed devised to puncture the popular Ryouga/Ukyou pairing). In 'I oni have eyes for you' (volume 29), Ryouga gets possessed by a demon and states that the most evil thing he could possibly conceive is to peek on Akane (and he gets incredibly depressed afterwards for having been forced to do so). He's explicitly shown as there strictly for the hugs/love and due to fierce loyalty.

As for the hot springs race, Mousse tried to goad him into peeking on the girls, but Ryouga objects. After a brief fantasy he shakes his mind and goes after Mousse to stop him.

Mousse: Sh-Shampoo...? Ryouga: You mean... girls...? Mousse: I have to know! Ryouga: W-w-wait a minute...! Ryouga: No man will peep at naked girls... while Ryouga Hibiki is here!! Mousse: Akane might be there too. *Brief fantasy* Ryouga: So sorry! I thought I heard a bear! Akane: Oh, sure you did! Ryouga: Wh-what? What am I thinking?! Ryouga: ... Stop! I won't let you do it!

I'm still uncertain about P-chan, as I never read any of the occasional 'hints' I've noted down so far as anything but standard foot-in-mouth clumsiness on Ranma's part (like when he's trying to convince Taro that it's possible to live with a curse through support from Ryoga, without considering that Akane is nearby). I mean, he's usually trying to save Ryoga from transforming in front of Akane, and gets sad at the prospect of her getting to know the secret. That's really nice of him, but would make no sense if he simultaneously gleefully tried to reveal it. I think it's much safer to say that he's very honourable and considerable, but clumsy and occasionally teases Ryoga about it in their standard banter, as Ryoga does in turn aboutother matter. Regardless, I'm probably eventually going to insert a 'P-chan reference list' section, so people can judge for themselves. Dave 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates

Nice job updating this page. My only complaint is the insertion of volume and chapter locations in the article. It would be better if they were done as footnote-type references instead so as not to break up the continuity. Zwaksman 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I've fixed that now, but it takes lots of time, so I'd appreciate extensive help with both this and the other profiles. Dave 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle-prowess

Ryoga is one of the most proficient martial artists in the Ranmaverse, roughly but not quite comparable to Ranma, though he's defeated or fought Ranma to a draw on many occasions

Is it just me, or is he really comparable to Ranma? I mean, in the manga he was only beaten once by Ranma, and all the other times they were equal. So I remove the bold part. 212.162.178.238 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've went through their battles, and while Ryoga has won or reached draws plenty of times, Ranma usually keeps the climax battles. They're equal head on, but Ranma is more of a strategist/'cheater'. Ex: Shi-shi Hokodan arc: Ryoga easily beats Ranma several times in a row and is even more powerful in the final battle: Ranma distracts him/'cheats' to barely triumph but collapses himself right after, but generally Ryoga's edge seems to lie in his greater raw power and more dependable a powerful chi-blasts, while Ranma is a tad swifter, has the Hiryo Shoten Ha and is usually a better battle strategist.

He's somewhat inconsistent as he never seems to use all his advantages at the same time: I.e. 'schoolyard battle': Razor-sharp bandanas. 'Ice rink battle': Overwhelming strength and tenacity. 'Breaking point arc': Immense durability only. No bandanas or strength. 'Weakness moxibustion': Speed and skill. 'Shi-shi hokodan': Power-blasts. 'Koi rod': Speed, skill and bandanas. 'Lime': Speed and power-blast. 'Mushroom of ages': Seem completely evenly matched on every front, except Ryoga's edge in chi-projection.

He's the character who never uses his full resources. Imagine him simultaneously using his 400 ton boulder hurling strength, virtual invulnerability, near amaguriken-level speed, Ranma-level hand to hand skill, torrent of steel-chopping bandanas and ribbons, and chi generation on a level by far exceeding Herb & Cologne and possibly rivalling Happosai? Scary, but it's never done, since he might seem too overwhelming with so many advantages, which doesn't work when he's just the 3'rd-4'th main recurring character. Still, I'd say 'roughly comparable' in general, with specific mentions that he's not quite as swift or skilled (?) in raw hand to hand combat seems fair.Dave 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Volume 4: Chapter 13, Cologne ends up standing on water with Soun Tendo commenting that "For a true master of martial arts... it's possible to find a foothold even on a single twig floating on water!" Ice Rink battle: Ryoga stands on floating Ranma while holding up two boulders of ice, and Azusa clining to him. Just wanted to add that. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4500:32D0:2998:1BAC:7B53:54B7 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

B-class?

Given the 46-53 explicit references I've put into it, shouldn't this page be A-class by now? Dave 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to have the article reassessed and go through a peer review it looks like; personally I haven't taken something beyond B, so I'm not sure if you nominate it for GA or A status or delete the B rating so it gets kicked again into the unassessed category. --BrokenSphere 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm giving it a try. Dave 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this; sorry I wasn't clear. So for an A ranking it has to pass a peer review, while for GA it has to be nominated. I'm restoring the banner and B assessment for now. --BrokenSphere 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I never saw it before. Thanks for the link. I've nominated it for 'GA' for now. If that works out we could try for an 'A', and know that this is a decent model for the other profiles. Dave 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To help this article along with its GA nomination and attempt to avoid (or in the event of) a hold, I suggest that the editors go over it with a fine tooth comb and clean it up following some of the guidelines that are addressed in some of the other GA nominees that were put on hold. --BrokenSphere 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed in what would need to be changed for this, but I would appreciate help from anyone experienced at this sort of thing. Dave 10:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Hi, I saw that this article's up for GAC, and I've put it on hold. For a model for a GA-class character page, you might like to look at Ami Mizuno and Talk:Ami Mizuno. The prose could use a copyedit, especially as regards in-universe prose and grammar. There are some places where it gets too detailed as well - "He is not lecherous, however - being hugged against Akane's cleavage when she is in a state of undress will cause the shy Ryoga to nosebleed and faint." could be changed to "He is not lecherous, however - being hugged by Akane can cause the shy Ryoga to nosebleed and faint." The lead desperately needs expanding, because each section of the article should be represented in a sentence or paragraph in the lead. This: "1.5 m*8 m*25 m*917 kg/m^3=275*10^3 kg" needs cleanup as well. Each citation needs an ISBN - this can help the reader find the original book, as well as tell them whether you've used the English translation or the original, etc. you may wish to investigate {{cite book}}, filling in as much as you can. Each image needs a detailed fair use rationale, and the lead image could use shrinking. If you disagree with my decision to put the article on hold, please feel free to take it to good article review. I've also run a MOS bot through the page to give you some ideas of where it falls down in the MOS. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of undefined, use undefined undefined, which when you are editing the page, should look like: undefined undefined.^[?]
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), travelled (B) (American: traveled), mold (A) (British: mould).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 11:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your effort. I've made a quite thorough grammar check-through, along with modifying the phrases you directly suggested (unless I've misunderstood the intent), and also complied with deleting the trivia section, but am not sure what to do about the more intricate parts. Given that the volumes I own aren't in English, I'd also appreciate if someone could take the time to look up the ISBN numbers. Dave 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You could use the ISBNs for the existing GNs that you have, even if it's another translation, because those were the basis for the notes and references that you used. In this regard, I don't see one version holding more precedence over another, unless it's say, a Viz translation vs. a scanlation. --BrokenSphere 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that I've used both Swedish pocket-mangas and English fan-translations when referencing. The second is that I feel too worn out/'lazy' from the vast amounts of recent editing work for all these profiles, to go through them inserting ISBN numbers as well. The third is that I've blocked all my Internet access beyond E-mail, school pages, lexicons etc, so I can't look it up that way either. Still there must be someone beyond the two of us willing to _some_ work, at least. :\ Dave 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use {{cite web}} to reference the fan-translations, as long as you comment in the ref tags on how reliable it is. -Malkinann 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the Swedish versions you used official, licensed copies? I think they would still work in this case. Ask the reviewing admin if you're not sure.

They're licensed, but check my answer below. (It's turning kind of confusing to answer two ends at once ;) ) Dave 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you contacted Derekloffin re. the GA nomination? Another editor I can think of is Xer but he doesn't seem to ba active on here lately. There is someone else (Know it all guy) also currently editing the chara pages, but I've had to modify some of his edits. Worst case scenario, the article fails GA this time around and it's nominated at a later date if more time is needed to clean it up. --BrokenSphere 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It's no disaster. At least we now know that there isn't too much work left to make it qualify. Though I'm not sure I understand all of the bot script recommendations, or if we've managed to handle the 'in-universe style' part yet? Dave 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood the in universe stuff, even after reading the page dedicated to it. The most I've been able to discern from it is that you should avoid stats and statistics of characters (which I suppose is because it is a fictional universe, the stats and statistics have little meaning). Beyond that I'm very confused on what exactly it means. Obviously you shouldn't refer to the character as real, or the events as real, but it seems to be more than that which is wanted. Derekloffin 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think it's statistics. That wouldn't make any sense. The way I've handled it is actually very informative. I think it's more about using reference phrases which someone who never read the manga (or worse, tons of fanfiction stories) cannot understand. Dave 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They do mention stats though as in-universe: "performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices". Now how far that goes (as that was just given as an example), I can't say, but that together with the other examples certainly gives me the feel they don't want stats (or at least heavy stats). Derekloffin 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, these aren't heavy stats, as 'facts', just explicitly referenced estimations, which I think most readers will find enjoyable. Taking them away would diminish the profile rather than helping it, as it goes under the same banner/pattern as special techniques. Malkinann didn't seem to mind them, beyond the crude numerical format. (Are there any commands which can improve this?) Dave 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"In-universe" is treating the character as though he's real. Rather than saying "Ryoga first met Ranma in junior high" (which is what is in the article), say "Ryoga was introduced in chapter x as having first met Ranma in junior high". Ami Mizuno, which is a Good Article about a manga/anime character, has a few examples of how to do "out of universe" writing, which is preferred. Estimated things like height are always iffy - the reasons why they've been allowed to survive on the pages for the Sailor Senshi are that they're cited, and that if they're removed, they are promptly re-added by anons.-Malkinann 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why is it deemed neccessary to take away the trivia section? While cutting away all the fighting techniques and shown abilities would be far more damaging to overall quality in this particular case (It only listed that he looked like Koga and who his Spanish voice actors were, though I suppose the latter part could be moved to another section), I quite enjoy the concept as such. If it means we have to chop away all the 'meat' of the articles I'm not sure if it's worth it turning any of them to GA/A class. :\ Dave 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it more a matter of if it was valuable information, it should be somewhere else. Most often trivia sections end up, well, trivial, or a catch-alls for poor writing. Anything that is worth while to say probably should be in the main body of the text. Other stuff is kinda pointless and doesn't add anything. Although the restriction is news to me, I do kinda agree with it. Derekloffin 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections tend to attract WP:CRUFT - if the trivia is truly awesome, it can find a home in the main body of an article, not stuck at the end.-Malkinann 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't help with ISBN's for the manga. My version is a scanlation and doesn't have ISBNs (which is why I mostly avoid doing manga stuff, beyond my general preference for the anime). Anything Anime related though I can help you with as I have fully legit copies of it. Derekloffin 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is an English/international profile page, so it seems a bit silly to recommend 'foreign' readers to pick up Swedish editions. There's also the whole 'I'm really really sick of writing down all these footnotes' angle.

On a somewhat unrelated note, hopefully editors (beyond the 3 of us) will eventually begin to use those reference pages I wrote up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A ), as help to handle the latter part without me (though they're only about 90% finished and beyond the battle records I'll probably leave them for others to finish & polish up). Speaking of which, that section at least should be possible/somewhat useful to set up right? Dave 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also put a list to prose request on Ryoga's techniques. All of your images still need a detailed fair use rationale. This is an essential copyright-compliance thing on Wikipedia, and it needs taking care of. As a whole, I'd suggest that in a week, if this still fails the GA criteria, that you should wait until you feel refreshed and put it up for Wikipedia:Peer review to get some further ideas on how to improve it. -Malkinann 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The original uploaders of the 2 speedy delete image candidates are not currently active; in the case of the infobox uploader, they haven't contributed since 2005. Given the image's size and the need to resize it, it may be better to put a screenshot of Ryoga on there and let the current image get deleted. If it's felt that the current P-chan image should be kept, the fair use rationale that I put in for my manga pic can be used as a model. Otherwise, a new one can be uploaded and the current one left to be deleted. --BrokenSphere 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So have we fixed all the necessary adjustments now? Dave 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers

Here are the ISBN numbers for the Swedish pocket-manga volumes used as references, if anyone would be willing to help me out pasting them into the appropriate footnotes:

1: ISBN 9789172694002 2: ISBN 9789172694019 3: ISBN 9789172694026 4: ISBN 9789172694507 5: ISBN 9789172694514 6: ISBN 9789172694521 7: ISBN 9789172694538 8: ISBN 9789172694545 9: ISBN 9789172695122 10: ISBN 9789172695139 11: ISBN 9789172695146 12: ISBN 9789172695153 13: ISBN 9789172695160 14: ISBN 9789172695177 15: ISBN 9789171340719 16: ISBN 9789171340726 17: ISBN 9789171340733 18: ISBN 9789171340740 19: ISBN 9789171340757 20: ISBN 9789171340764 21: ISBN 9789171340771 22: ISBN 9789171341563 23: ISBN 9789171341570 24: ISBN 9789171341587 25: ISBN 9789171341594 26: ISBN 9789171341600 27: ISBN 9789171342508 28: ISBN 9789171342515 29: ISBN 9789171342522 30: ISBN 9789171342539 31: ISBN 9789171342546 32: ISBN 9789171342553 33: ISBN 9789171343239 34: ISBN 9789171343246 35: ISBN 9789171343253 36: ISBN 9789171343260 37: ISBN 9789171343277 38: ISBN 9789171343284

I'm still not certain if it's a good idea to refer non-fluent visitors to order them though, and am likevise not sure how the 'I also checked with a mostly identical/apparently reliable fan-translation I downloaded from a bittorrent archive' bit should be referred. Oh well. Dave 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now (hopefully) pasted the appropriate ISBN numbers to all cited references. Dave 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Header image

I modified this to a much smaller (150x228 pixels) size as requested to make it qualify as fair use, but don't know how to tighten the actual display on this page. Help would be appreciated, given that it currently looks too indistinct to properly make out. Dave 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To make it fully comply with fair use, you need to write a detailed fair use rationale. -Malkinann 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Added rationales and fair use in language for this one and the P-chan one. --BrokenSphere 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable?

Have we managed to improve the noted problems to an acceptable level by now? Dave 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to say that this article is far better then it used to be, but don't take my word for it, also could someone possibly add an image of him performing one of his techniques? - Xer

I've fixed it. Dave 13:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article, they way it is now, could become WP:GA. It is mostly a plot summary...

Could you explain a bit more thoroughly about which parts you think should be changed here? Could we keep the personality traits, love life or displayed feats for example? Is this something that is generally demanded of manga character pages? It wasn't mentioned by the evaluator above after all.

I'd recommend finding info on the character creation,

It's not available as far as I know, but if anyone can do so, that would be great.

A section of his portrayal on the anime, not just jumbled with the rest of the text

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm the best guy for that, as I'm not well-versed about it.

Better sources, not only the manga but interviews, reviews, anything else.

I'm afraid the only Takahashi interview mentioning Ryoga, has already been included. As for reviews, I don't know about any, but as above, if anyone else does that would be helpful.

Some wording must be fixed. Lines like "When we first meet him", "Ryoga is one of the most proficient martial artists in his world" and "Ryoga is possibly the most miserable character in the entire series" need to be changed to a WP:NPOV.

Ok. No problem. I've fixed them. Please mention any others.

There's a thing as too detailed. I believe if reading a Wikipedia article on "X" work serves as an alternative to actually reading or watching "X", then the article must be trimmed, badly.--Nohansen 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about the 'too detailed' bit in this particular case, given that it'd feel far too much like butchering the article. I don't want it to be an alternative to reading the stories, but couldn't we instead simply aim for a better structure in this endavour, so anyone is allowed to select which sections they want to read, with spoiler warnings when appropriate? So the article can be very useful as a reference both for those who haven't and have read/watched the series? Perhaps structured along patterns of 'introduction' and 'in-depth' parts or somesuch? I've put in a lot of work to do what I can to improve it as much as possible, but it would be great if someone considerably better talented at structuring might be interested. As a basis I've segmented it a little more along with inserting spoiler tags when appropriate.

In any case, I think I'd rather keep most of the content along with the B rating, than turn it into a heavily slimmed-down, minimalistic, very low information piece. Perhaps it was a bad idea for me to submit it in the first place, if that's would be necessary to pay for it. Do you have some suggestions about how to keep as much concise "meat" as possible? Dave 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations

Two general points:

• A character "biography" musn't be written as a real biography. The article begins with Ryoga is presented as having first met Ranma in junior high but, as far as I know from watching the anime, the first time we see Royga is when he comes to challenge Ranma after being cursed. The article should read Ryoga is introduced in chapter "X" followed by a description of his first appearance.
  • Ok. I wrote the "presented as" bit due to a suggestion from another reviewer.
• Being a rather long manga and anime series, Ryoga appears lots of times. But a blow-by-blow of his appearances is not needed. If you were to read Sailor Mercury's article, you'd see the character's profile is given in four paragraphs and is more than enough. It is then followed by notes on her portrayal on other media, something this article could use.
  • So it's mainly the intro that's a problem then? (That's actually the one section I haven't worked much on) It's ok to have separate 'spoiler' sections, like the "Good and bad moments" or special techniques? I'd really like to keep the special techniques. It took a whole lot of work to compile, and the former is good as an in-depth compilation for afficionados as well. I've pretty much given up on the GA thing, since it may require too much 'meat butchering', and I've spent almost all energy I had for this by now, but general structure and reading access improvements would be great.

On some sections:

• I see you started a section on P-chan, that's good. In there, I'd add the details of how he was cursed, the name of the spring (Eiton'nichuan) and why it's Ranma's fault Ryoga's cursed. Also on how P-chan, to a point, is a different character from Ryoga. (The same way Ranma-chan is different from Ranma-kun)
  • Well, it was more like a cut-and-paste from an inappropriate section, but I've filled it out with another relevant part and added a minor detail about changes in behaviour, and genearl nature. I haven't noticed that much difference in personality between them, but if someone else could share/write in some insights that would be welcome.
• The "Special techniques" has too many images. It details some of the fights in the series.
  • Really? I added them a few days ago due to a complaint that there weren't any. Isn't it ok if the scans are so very small and just snippets from fights? Which ones should be kept?
• Also, the section passes judgement on Ryoga's comparable martial arts prowess with lines like may be considerably more developed than that of Shampoo, Mousse, Ranma, or even Cologne. That it's not necessary.
  • Ok, I'll change it to simply giving the example, without comment.

Info that could be added (if found):

• Character creation. Rumiko Takahashi's inspirations for the character.
  • I'm not of any help there. Her only comments along these lines that I remember would be that she enjoyed drawing charcters who were very emotional/blatantly expressive, like himself.
• How popular is the character with readers and viewers. Polls where Ryoga appears, sales of Ryoga merchandise, anything.
  • I'm not of any help there either, I'm afraid.
• The differences, if any, between the way the voice actors portray Ryoga. :D
  • I'm afraid I'm not at all well-versed about the anime either. I've strictly improved the areas I do know about.

That's off the top of my head. If I think of anything better, I'll let you know.

Ok. Thanks for the help

I've read rumors of a "Ranma" or "Rumiko Takahashi" taskforce to work en masse in these articles. I wonder, what happened with that?--Nohansen 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was Brokensphere's idea, due to his work with creating useful reference pages, and my own with compiling massive 'characterisation reference lists', kept under my user page, so anyone who wants to write or modify the profiles has a handy check-through reference, for footnotes and the like. Feel absolutely free to use/incorporate/improve them into the project at will. It's lacking much of the first and last few volumes, and I didn't have the energy to finish them myself, but it's comparatively limited work for anyone who wishes to continue. I've also compiled a rough 'battle records' reference, which I'd like to put as an official sub-section page, much like the one for Musabetsu Kakuto Ryu special techniques. (We're thinking about moving over all 'self-contained' special techniques to a separate page as well, btw) Dave 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some basic changes, based on the above, but checking Sailor Mercury's profile, it seems like they first describe her, and then take the spoiler-zone history section. Would it be a good idea to restructure it in that manner? I.e. the Profile section first and then the background? Or would that create a dichotomy with other sections?Dave 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I checked up the spoiler description and given the text "Unacceptable alternatives: Deleting relevant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia "because it's a spoiler" instead of properly applying spoiler templates." it seems like this is the path we should follow, instead of cutting out verifiable information.

In any case, I find the currect format somewhat clunky by nature, since it doesn't use an automatic hide/display function, rather than simple warnings. The former mode was briefly shown here, which is how I noticed it, but later deactivated when I tried to display each topic head but hide the text. Given that I couldn't find a description at the above 'spoiler-page', does anyone know how to modify them to work in this manner, without the centered text display shown in Shampoo's profile when this function was activated. Or do I simply have browser trouble? Dave 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On hold time limit?

When an article is placed "On Hold", notes should be left on the talk page and there should be a consensus reached. Over three weeks have passed since this article was placed on hold. Be bold and either fail or pass it. The article can always be renominated at a later date. Keep up the good work. Zuracech lordum

Well, my vote goes for recommending it later, but still trying to greatly improve the structure/readability, and possilbly section it into spoiler-free introduction/in-depth afficionado sections, in the meantime. Dave 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and fail the article as it seems it won't be ready extremely soon. Please renominate when the article meets the GA criteria. Chubbles 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not failing this article myself, as every time I tried, my browser froze. Some recommendations that I can make for future development are that the lead be improved per WP:LEAD, the citations should be more complete per WP:CITE#Full citations, and that it should go through a copyedit. After this, it may be helpful to put it up for Peer review before renominating it. If any regular editors of this article want to object to the failing of this article, please feel free to take it to WP:GA/R.-Malkinann 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldredirectful

If you revert my conversion to redirect please commit to making this an acceptable article. -- allen四names 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)