# Talk:Talim (Soulcalibur)

This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

It doesn't say Samar anywhere on her character profile. Blueknightex (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

None of these things was ever named "Talim (Soul series)". --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Talim (Soul series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430085431/http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20011228/sc2.htm to http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20011228/sc2.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029010716/http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/scii/index2.html to http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/scii/index2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please can someone exchange Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners for Category:Fictional tonfajutsuka. Her melee weapons are tonfa. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.189.154.193 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources themselves as cited in the article state they aren't tonfa, just similar, so the category would likely not apply.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand. But she also uses a pair of weapons called "Tonfa". 177.189.154.193 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Kung Fu Man! 177.189.154.193 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton I went ahead and did it. He is correct that one of her weapons is named that directly, as shown in this player's guide for Soulcalibur II, despite the concept artist's claim that they aren't such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Talim (Soulcalibur)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 22:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Will take this on in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.


### Lead
-Looks good


### Conception and design
-Looks good (Though is the bust size really necessary info?)


### Appearances
-Looks good


### Promotion and reception
-Looks good (Though admittedly the fact this sexualization paragraph exists at all is concerning... I really hope that isn't still a thing.) 


### Overall
-Article is in good quality and covers all relevant points of the character's reception. My only real complaints are nitpicks, so I'm happy to pass it as it stands. Well done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)