Talk:Wolf's Rain

message: This is a short series with very few characters, so there is no real reason for a character list. They're acceptable splits for 50+ episode and 150+ chapter series and series with numerous important characters, but nothing of this sort. TTN (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does adding 2kb with my initial merge and most likely only up to 4kb at most with additional information make this anywhere close to being too long? TTN (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out most of the information from the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left out plot information, which belongs within the plot section, episode list, and chapter list. There's probably more that can be added, but I really doubt its going to be more than a few kilobytes. TTN (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not seeing any valid reason not to have a standalone list. Tokyo Mew Mew has a separate list as well, which this list could easily be updated to match, it just hasn't happened yet. Indeed, I'd rather see this article emulate TMM which has no character section in the main article at all, but instead just the plot, with a link off to the character list. Its more ideal for "shorter" series.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how this is comparable to a longer series with double the characters. It sort of fits my criteria for having a list, though that list itself could probably be cut down to at least 40kb quite easily, and a brief character section could be included in the main article just to sum them up. The main reason for having a list is that it is not possible to discuss the characters fully within the main article. From what I've seen of the series and what I've read in the list, it should be quite easy to do so. What exactly would make that impossible other than the personal preference for a list? TTN (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a personal preference.  This is the going consensus in the project.  You really shouldn't be making structural decisions about articles simply based on your own set of rules or criteria.  --Kraftlos (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed...and the only reason this article didn't pass GA is the reviewer disappeared and I didn't bother renominating it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm confused about the last part there. I never proposed merging the list of Dragon Ball characters to its main article, nor would I. TMM's character list is currently C, true, but its also being prepped for FL after having all of its individual character articles merged into the main list. It would be B but I haven't gotten back to finishing up Ichigo's section. When that's done, it will go up to B, then it will be peer review, creation/conception and reception section added, and it will go for FLC. And I'm sure you know TMM is listed as one of our planned featured topics. The Wolf's Rain character list is not in the best of shape, however unlike those individual DB character articles, there IS information there and I fully believe that with work it can be brought up to FL status. I just haven't had the time to get it going because I keep getting distracted by other stuff. As a whole, the characters have received plenty of third party coverage meeting WP:N easily. Could the individual characters support individual articles? No, that's why they don't have them. However, this was and remains an appropriate split from the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't propose merging DB characters to the main article, but into a list. That's relevant to my argumentation, because I did not argue about where to merge things rather than what deserves its own articles. - It is my opinion, that stuff like this comes into existence when articles on fictional topics are allowed to grow without providing for their own notability. - If you plan to work on the main article and on the list anyways and the sources indeed exist, then how is it asked too much to add a handful of them to establish basic notability, before pushing the main article to featured status? I think that would be a fair trade-off for not having to deal with a character section in the main article. - My support is not based on the assumption that the character list can't reach FL, but on the opinion (backed up by WP:N), that if a list, not establishing notability, can reasonably fit into its main article, it should be placed there. - Maybe I should mention, that I'd switch to opposing this merge, if the list's references section held at least two or three third party references, instead of nothing. - By the way, isn't it funny, that 4 deletionists can't agree on a merge? :) -- Goodraise (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes...this is rather funny (and maybe a little sad :P). Why must I work on the list first when the article is closer to where it needs to be? I rarely do a list first over the main article unless I don't plan to do the main article. I prefer getting the main article to GA/FA then working on bringing the lists up to the same quality. I don't think one should feel they have to do one or the other. The list has notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it's notable, and judging from my experience with you, that's probably true. But how are other editors supposed to know that? When I look at that list, I see a pile consisting purely of in-universe material. I'm not asking for the world here. There's no need for in-line citations. Two or (yet better) three third-party entries directly placed in the References section, nothing more than any good stub provides. And as far as I'm concerned the list is a part of the main article - falsely placed in its own page - until basic notability is provided. If a stub has to establish notability from the moment of its creation, then the same is true for spin-offs even more. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three third party RS have now been added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: Notability concerns resolved. More than I expected. Good job you two. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character list 

message: I'm not sure if this is specifically breaking any "rules" or anything, but I'm kind of objecting to this and didn't want to change it without some discussion first: "Other critics have complained that while the show had an original and innovative storyline with beautiful visuals and appealing characters, the episodes themselves were poorly paced, undeveloped, and plagued with plot holes.[19]" I'm not sure when this reference was added - it may have been valid at a point before episodes 27-30 came out, since that is when it was written - but I think it should just be taken out of the article now since all it contributes is false balance. But that's where I'm getting mixed up. The series being undeveloped and having plot holes could have been fixed by the newer episodes, but "poorly paced" I really just don't know. It's definitely not Dragon Ball Z, so I think that's invalid, but I don't think that's up for me to decide if that reference gets to stay in the article. What does everyone else think? 99.194.201.86 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 18 

message: Why are there two fan-comics, hosted on deviantART, linked before any of the official websites? Why are two fan-comics linked at all on Wikipedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.241.165 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links