Talk:Andromeda Shun

message: Oh yeah, I like this. I had written a little explanation as objective as possible about the popularity and the androgynous appearance of the character, and it has been purely and simply deleted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Should it be possible to have an explanation or is it too much to ask?
I have not seen deletion about the wrong and polemic assertions on the "most powerful gold saint" which appear quite often on the gold saints pages, but here, it seems that it is an annoyance. Well, well, well... I don't think I would continue to participate to wiki StS.
--Harsiesis (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unncecesary since one sentence of that is enough.Tintor2 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a better argument, there is an entire paragraph in "reception" on Pegasus Seiya page, and the article is higher rated... Harsiesis (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I dont need a better argument. The article of Seiya uses a reception section to pass WP: Notability. This article also need to expand the paragraphs but with reviews made by reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph I had written was based on the observation of comments on the internet web sites and fora, I don't think it's wrong. I perfectly agree it could be better with quotations of precise sources but in this case, I don't think it is difficult to find, so why not let this in order to be improved by others? I believed wiki was based on this kind of motivation... And I would really appreciate that wrong datas (such as Saga's height...) in wiki pages would be edited as fast as my little paragraph here, ah ah. Harsiesis (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources for a guide of sites that can be used for writing reception. Blogs and fansites from the series are not reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not thinking about blogs and fansites as reliable sources. Was it unclear? I REALLY think it is possible to check the informations I had given on what you indicated, I simply let other people do so, because now I am a little tired of this. Harsiesis (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it can be checked, it shouldn not be added since it would be original research.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Be bold. Remember to write it from a neutral point of view and if possible, provide sources.Tintor2 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit/Explanation

message: As I see, a template says that the article has multiple issues:

But, I don't see some of them in the article:
It says it is written from a fan's point of view. Actually, I think this article is not. I've seen a lot of other articles, that we can say that was written from a fan's point of view, as some examples, some of Charmed characters, and I'm not a fan of Charmed or even of the "Saint Seiya franchise". I think that, in this point of view, this article is indifferent.
It also says that contains an overly detailed plot summary. In fact, in this question, once this article is one that can "suffer" from fancruft, i think it was one of the best articles I've ever seen.
And last, but not least, it also says: "It may contain original research or unverifiable claims". I don't have any reason to remove it. I don't know what I can consider in this case, to be or not, an original research. So I'm keeping it until another person explain why it should be removed, just like I did in the other two.
Please, don't nitpick. With your help, wikipedia can be WAY much better. Thanks Cvhcsee (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I added some reliably sourced discussion of Andromeda Shun's contribution to yaoi per the writing about fiction guideline, I pared down the tags to the three you see here per WP:OVERTAGGING.  I felt those three fit the article best.  Before that, it had a great deal more.  If you can replace the banner tags with more specific tags, that would be better - or perhaps get a peer review or ask on the anime wikiproject to see if those tags still apply.  Either way, more eyes on the Saint Seiya articles is a good thing. Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues