Talk:Lili (Tekken)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lili and Sebastian.jpg

Image:Lili and Sebastian.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Emily"?

Is there an official source for the alphabet spelling "Emily"? Considering her origins, "Émilie" would seem more likely... Erigu (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does she have a page?

While Yoshimitsu doesn't. He's more relavent. 68.84.38.98 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Lili is a very unimportant character to the series. Characters like Kazuya and and Anna who have been here from the beginning don't have pages, but Lili does. She's barely a part of the series. Oh, and yoshi has a page, but only for his "soul calibur" counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.17.108 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree actually. As a Tekken player I can say for certain that her role is very small, if she has any. I can understand in they plain to do more to involve her in future games, but considering how new she is and what she's done up till now hasn't even been canon, I don't think she really warrants a page.--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say she should be redirected to the list, especially since the article itself is very poorly written (like a wikia article, maybe even malrgely lifted from Tekken wikia). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, this page is not lifted from Tekken Wikia at all. And how small her role is doesn't matter. It's the notability. Eddy Gordo also has his own and his role in the Tekken series is relatively small too. And as a correction, Kazuya actually does have his own page. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

its a popularity contest. Lili is by far the most popular female tekken character :p 88.88.102.73 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lili's real name

It should be Émilie de Rochefort. Although it's pretty hard to find a source considering there's not much on her (being that she's a minor character) and what is out there that would be considered 'credible' just calls her Lili, both the Tekken-pedia and the Tekken wiki have the 'de' in her name. Also while researching this I haven't been able to find a credible source that has her name listed as just Émilie Rochefort either, can someone provide a source for this?--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability

The bulk of the reception is a lot of gameplay discussions, with one comment about a panty shot and one actual bit of character reception. While gameplay should be brought up to some degree, it needs to take a backseat to talking about why the character is notable outside of the Tekken series, which it currently isn't. And yeah the panty shot doesn't really cover the character at all...just mentioning a character in such context isn't 'significant coverage'.

Regarding your question why it was touched now, it's because I haven't had a chance to look at the article in-depth till now. Otherwise I would've said something sooner.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, since when does characters need reception on them outside the series? Also, I did some info on her appearances outside the series. Why that and the reception I added, shouldn't be notable enough. But whatever the case, I find merging the article over something like this to be a bit silly. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the point is there's little reception on the character and just on the gameplay, which is just a small part of the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says gameplay can't make up good reception on the character? Nothing explicitly says that, now does it? And after researching, an article like this would indeed pass the basic notability. I really think this has gone too far here. I mean, it's seems that it would be common sense for these sites to mainly talk about Lili's gameplay rather her as a character. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well for my counterargument I default to the discussion on the video game project talk page...consensus is that you can't have a character article fall back on gameplay commentary. I actually went through and tried finding sources that did do character reception but there isn't any available: she's a popular character, but not a notable one for inclusion as a full article. And there's nothing covered here that can't be covered in a section on the list in a better summarized form.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, I've seen others there arguing that characters can have an article with gameplay reception against the two saying there shouldn't be. As someone else there mentioned, this notability thing should be taken with a grain of salt and that you're being too nitpicky about it. After all, this article does pass WP:GNG and WP:IAR could also be applied. After the work done on the article, there's no reason for it to be merged. And I have found some more non-gameplay reception for her, by the way. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You found very little, and commentary about panty shots, character endings and the action figure has no weight on the character. In fact there's still hardly any character reception here. Compare it to other character articles that are longstanding and considered "good" by wikipedia: there's a sharp contrast in the quality of reception.

A bunch of comments about her moveset doesn't make a character notable, especially when those comments are trivial mentions. I'm standing by my statement that this should get cleaned up and put into the character list until proper sources can be found for reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the reception a lot...some of it was from unreliable sources, but even then most was basically saying the same thing over and over again. Still, with that said there's at least a small start here...but you direly need character reception to show notability. Hasn't she appeared on any "top ten" lists at all on reliable sites?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure what sites were considered unreliable. I did find some more reception and added that. Also, I've found her on some sort of list, which I also added, although, I am also not sure if that site is reliable. I have seen the same site used as a source in other articles though. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

An impartial comment (I edited the article but I don't like her): She actually apepared outside of the franchise too (Queen's Gate and a nude cosplay photoshoot in Maxim, which is not just fighting game niche neither). Which is maybe not much, but Alisa Boskonovitch is not better, and also a new addition - where are the veterans characters such as Yoshimitsu, King, Anna, even Julia[1] and Michelle[2][3]? Also Nina's article needs to be completely rewritten, and Jin's and Heichachi's really cleaned. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a lot of reception for Alisa and she was bound to have a lot, since she's a new character in Tekken 6, so I started the article for her. Also, King has own article now too and so does Christie, as I've found a good amount of reception for them. I do believe Yoshimitsu could get his own article too. I'm not sure about Anna, Julia and Michelle though. Perhaps even Bob could get his own article, as I have found some decent reception for him. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of what you keep finding is either gameplay commentary, or commentary on other factors of a game that just happen to mention the character. The problem is you need to have significant coverage, and you haven't. I'm having a hard time finding it, and I've written plenty of these articles and gotten them to GA or higher. There's just nothing significant being said about Lili. I still strongly think she should be merged back into the list and developed more properly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And I think you should take a step back and relax, man. Not every article on Wikipedia has to be a featured article. Really. Now, I've got to say that while I disagreed with you when you were merging almost all articles in 2008, it later turned out you were actually right about it (someone had to do it), and I like how standarized these (and other) articles became since then (even as often promotion is oddly mistaken with merchandise, and actual cultural impact with just reception). Well, thanks. Except now we don't talk about the articles like the great most from the time of the Great Merging, because this article here would be one of the best in its class (!) according to the 2008 standards, and I helped to adjust it to the current standards too. I don't even care for Lili at all, I'm just saying it out of my new principle. I changed my mind, like, last month or something. Look, your Talim article was actually perfectly okay, even if no one else ever edited it. Unlike Augustus Sinclair and Isaac Clarke (character) and so on. Can you spot the difference? As I said, you should relax. Yourself and your artifictially high notability standards. I already did! And better go and take a look at John MacTavish and such. Also Kokoro's doing a great job here, I really like this guy. (Or girl.) There are also many articles like Clark Still that are crap and need to be rewritten and expanded, and several fine articles like Yuffie Kisaragi (yes, a shameless plug here) that have no illustrations. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My standards aren't "artificially high", they're common sense after having written enough of these. I have no problem with an article existing. I have a problem with grabbing any available mention of a character, slapping it up there and then moving on to the next subject, or focusing solely on one aspect of a character in one appearance (i.e. gameplay) and then shouting "it's notable". That tells a reader clueless to the subject nothing. And please don't use the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguement, there's a lot of junk on wikipedia that shouldn't have an article...the male video game character cat is a clustermuck.

As for merging Talim, that was my call because there was nothing more I could say there, or to find and cite. There was enough to make a really good list entry instead and that's what I went with because that list itself needs to be improved too. That said, that could change heavily if more sources discuss it. Same for Charade and a few others. Not everything has to have an article just because it has a fistful of entries, and I'm pretty sure Lili should, but I'm not finding much of anything. Maybe I'll dig deeper.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really common sense. Reception is reception, regardless of what is talked about. I think you are having standards higher after looking at those Featured Articles and stuff. This is not meant to be a Featured Article or anything, so of course it's not going to be as good as those.

But yeah, it's kind of weird that I haven't found Lili in any top 10 lists or anything yet. I would think she would be listed in some kind list of blondes in video games or something. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I think the FA standards are too damn high as they were. But regardless Kokoro, I'm trying to emphasize that if we're going to have an article about her, it needs to show why she's important outside of the games. Christie for example has enough people rambling about T&A factor and sexism to build something for character design commentary. If we can demonstrate that importance then nobody would have a problem with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, with the reception I have on her now, doesn't it already show how important she is outside the games? Also, I finally found her on some type of list. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh. So maybe again:

• Lili (Tekken) is OK (yes, it's just okay) - but you just won't leave it alone.
• Isaac Clarke (character) is awful (by any standards) - but you won't even touch it, not even after I told you about it.

So maybe you'll instead go and do something with all these clustermuck male characters? And then take a look at what I just wrote at Portal talk:Fictional characters. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Other crap is always going to exist. "Don't mess with this because that's worse" is a terrible stance. The sad thing is on a quick search sources do exist that would indicate some notability for the character. But regardless, I don't have interest in cleaning up that category at the time. That's not how things work here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I don't say any "Don't mess with this because that's worse" - but now I say DO MESS WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S WORSE, and I mean all the awful character articles, instead of just flatly refusing to "mess with it because it's worse", somehow! Also again, this article here is actually perfectly okay (yes I changed my mind about it 100%, but of course that's after I also helped to fix it to theokay state) and the only really apparent problem with is that you have a problem with it instead of letting it go.

Meanwhile, for example, I've redirected Barney Calhoun, an extremely long-standing article which was not okay by any stretch (it was tagged as unreferenced since 2008, and actually unreferenced since its creation in 2004) - and so this "other crap might not always going to exist", hopefully. But now as some dude just reverted it ("rv v"), so why won't you do some good for a change take a good care of Barney and his zero references and no reception whatsoever having an article like that for over 7 YEARS already (with no one improving it, of course), then of the many other articles such as this one, instead of obsessing about how the fine articles should disappear? Because what you're want to do is to merge the fine articles AND to conciously leave the articles that arbitrarily should be merged (or maybe even deleted), at the same time. That's not constructive, simply. All the various Barneys are apparently set to exist forever because they're male (??) and for the males there are other standards: no standards at all - everything goes, or maybe you just don't care. After I informed you about a cringe-worthy article of Isaac Clarke (character), you just dismissed it on the basis of "a quick search sources do exist" (instead of how the article looks like, and it looks like shit) and called my concern a "terrible stance". And so there's seriously something very wrong about your priorities and that's the real "sad thing here".

Oh and once again: take a look at what I just wrote at Portal talk:Fictional characters (and comment or discuss or whatever there). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't *want* to actively mess with the male character articles because it was enough grief fixing up the female characters: it used to be a lot messier. I'll agree that yes, there's a lot of crap. And I've merged a good chunk of those before only to have them return (Agent 47 among them). Lili's a lot better than it was and I'm fine with it, and Elena's been improved too.

Plus female characters are a lot more fun to write about, for the record. As far as the comment on the portal...I think that's a great idea as a reception archive. So, yeah, I'm all for it. If we can show that some characters really are notable and toss out the crap that isn't then all the better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lili (Tekken)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Judging against the good article criteria, some forthcoming thoughts... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

After looking through the article, I've judged that it currently does not meet GA criteria on a number of fronts.

Criteria 1

• The prose could use a good copyedit. There are issues like run-on sentences spliced together (e.g., In GameZone's review of Dark Resurrection, however, Lili was stated to have stiff moves compared to other Tekken females and that she just feels like a rehash, but is still a decent character., combined with overuse of passive voice, one or two sentence quasi-paragraphs, and redundant, improper wording ("to make matters worse", etc.)
• The character history should be presented in present tense per WP:WAF.

Criteria 2

• I think some of the references are going to need justification as reliable sources, based on my quick examinations: Neko Magic, Estatic Arts, Hij.com, Tomopop.

Criteria 3

• The "broadness" of the coverage is I think undermined by the fact that the "character design" section is mostly just a recitation of the character's outfit, as opposed to actual commentary about how the creators envisioned her, initial designs, et al.

Criteria 6

• File:Lili Tekken Render.png needs a fleshed-out fair use rationale; "to illustrate the article" doesn't meet WP:NFCC requirements.

I suggest looking for more sources, giving the article a copyedit, and beefing up the rationales before submitting again. If you have any further questions, leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Official name

Her official name is Lili Rochefort, not Lili de Rochefort. Sources: http://us.tekken.com/#!/en/characters/lili http://eu.tekken.com/#!/es/characters/lili — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.4.204 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lili (Tekken). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://guides.ign.com/guides/748466/page_36.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maxim.co.uk/girls/new-girls/5321/tekken_girls.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://palgn.com.au/sony-psp/5200/tekken-dark-resurrection-review/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://features.teamxbox.com/xbox/2374/Hotties-in-the-Xbox-Universe/p1/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amog.com/babes/156918-10-sexiest-female-video-game-characters-time/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ps3.gamezone.com/reviews/item/tekken_dark_resurrection_psp_review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Kokoro20 is looking to get this article to GA status, so I've attempted (the key word being "attempted") to tidy it up a little by way of copyediting and removing excess details of Lili's storyline, costumes, etc., relocating some content to appropriate sections, plus removing dead and non-notable links (a gaming site describing a female character as "attractive" is not viable reception). I swear, for Tekken currently being one of the biggest game franchises, there's not much third-party anything out there on individual characters themselves in regards to design or reception, which proved rather frustrating. There was a nice interview with the series director that I couldn't even use because it was on a Wikipedia-blacklisted site, so a press release had to be cited instead. Quibbling aside, hopefully it's now up to snuff to warrant another GAN review. Cheers. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lili (Tekken). 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/20170618094822/http://www.tekken6-official.eu/pages/en/49/character.html to http://www.tekken6-official.eu/pages/en/49/character.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)