Talk:Belldandy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Analysis

One of Belldandy's most notable personality traits is her unwavering belief in goodness and the good in others. This gives her a certain degree of naivete and also makes her, mentally, the weakest in dealing with evil. While good and evil are said to exist in all beings, evil does not seem to have a place in Belldandy's heart. Because of this, she is deeply hurt when two people who were close to her (her former mentor Celestin and her Doublet System demon counterpart Velsper) perform unspeakable acts of evil, leaving her in deep shock. Twice the Almighty wiped her memories so that the mental pain would not remain within her. The Almighty even wiped the public records concerning these two people, as though they never existed. This shows how far the Almighty would go to preserve Belldandy's "perfection". But personally I believe that this is a crime, in that it denies Belldandy a chance to be her on person. The fact that others accept this mindwipe disappointed me. Are they willing to preserve Belldandy's goodness to the point that they deny her the ability to make her own choices? The answer, "It's for her own good!", is not an answer. I suppose that Belldandy has become something like a beacon of light in her world. If that light were extinguished, where can people look to? I wonder... - Chameleon

unrelated note: it might be considered rude or biased to call the japanese phonetic ystem limited.

• Fixed as "difference in the". If someone has a better idea, go for it. Melodia Chaconne 19:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Every phonetic system is limited. I made a little change to the Holy/Blesséd sentence; for the better, I hope. Shinobu 05:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

I am trying to tidy this section up a little, but there are a couple of points I cannot quite find the words for:

Later Berudandī evolved into Belldandy to make it sound more European and easier to be pronounced among the Japanese fans. Berudandī is how the Japanese fans would pronounce it: would Belldandy not be easier for the western fans?

About the only person Belldandy does not give the benefit of the doubt to is her sister Urd, whom she knows is a meddlesome busybody. This is too informally worded, but I cannot think of a good way to express the same idea. It also expresses an idea slightly different from the truth.

Belldandy is also a trifle naive, being unused to certain Earth customs and often does not recognize a con-job until it's a bit too late. Is it often? Aoshima pulled one over her, and Sayako has thought she pulled one over Belldandy on occation too, but Belldandy's nature normally turns things good. Am I forgetting a lot of other situations, or is this line misleading? It is also too informal for an encyclopedia. Elric of Grans 04:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Norse is Veridandi, which is a killer for an average Japanese speaker and hence was made Berudandi - which is just a killer for Europeans. Belldandy is a hybrid of 'Veridandi' and 'Berudandi'. Also, Belldandy sounds more European as its... umm... more English. Lots of cultural influences are present. :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Voice actor

Akemi Okamura issue sounds about right, belldandy does sound different on some episodes. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Must be that hyper-sensitive hearing you cats have. I don't hear any difference... -MegamanZero|Talk 18:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh listen to belldandy talking on episode 10 of the mini-goddess serries (Japaneese track of course :P). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

The date shown on the Profile says 196X/01/01 in Manga Vol. 1.However, in the chapter where Peorth got shrinked back to a kid after the Welsper event, Belldandy claimed that they have eternal life and have already saw a lot of lives and deaths. This became quite mysteries since she cannot lie but somehow she can fake the Profile.

Couldn't she be refering to her counsciousness for the eternal date, and that specific body/reincarnation for the 196X date? --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is unknown, but I just reread that part and the claim of eternal life came from Peorth instead of Belldandy. The Birthday date in vol. 1 might just be forgotten by the author like the octopus monster and the other demon that takes away luck.

Anyway, 1st of Jan should be the correct date, the year will always remain as a mystery. MythSearcher 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fujishima, back in his Taihou Shichauzo and early Aa! Megam-sama! days was not known for being able to write a continuous story. A lot of plot elements would get scrapped, without any explanation, after only a few chapters. This could very well be one of them: perhaps originally the Goddesses were like humans, but that did not fit his later vision. I would not put it past him to do this! Elric of Grans 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe he just did not remember that Goddesses cannot lie at that very moment. MythSearcher 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be her collegemates doing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Belldandy clearly does it herself, in person. It is unlikely he would ever have Belldandy lie --- Fujushima was never that bad. It is quite likely she was orignally meant to be 'born' then, but he later scrapped that idea and made all the Goddesses eternal. Elric of Grans 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe she drank too much cola... :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to confirm the use of a birthdate in the Manga, and thanks MythSearcher for adding the reference. However, I've got the Dark Horse version, (the non-flopped one), and the relevant panel it just says "January", which is why I was unsure. I gather that's what you've been talking about above - is this because in the original they used 196X/01/01, and they changed it in the translation? (I'm being horribly picky, for which I apologize, but for GA/FA I suspect that it is difficult to have too many references). - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime was more clear on that. -- Cat ^chi? 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been having fun re-watching the anime, as well as reading the manga for the first time. I'm enjoying it more every time I watch it, I think. :) The anime gave her a very clear birthdate, but when I went to reference the manga's version it wasn't so clear, until I realised that the discussion here is probably about either an earlier translation or the original, which would make a lot of sense. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I got both the original Japanese version and the Chinese version, and that panel showed the full date(In which, the Chinese version did not alter anything in that box and got the same font and look differently in other boxes like the one below stating her nationality/birth place). So I guess they cut that away in the English translation. MythSearcher^talk 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I may have to bother everyone here with the occasional stupid question, but I'm tackling referencing the same way I would with a paper, as I figure that would be minimum standards for GA, and I'll try not to ask too many questions when I get stuck. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This section references the U.S. voice actress, Eileen Stevens. I'm not really sure she's a viable source for character background. I think that's likely more her own impression of Bell-chan than anything official. Izuko (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

eye colour

Image:Belldandy (Oh My Goddess!).png hmm... This one is kinda fun... On the cover pic of the manga, Vol. 3, 7 got brown eyes(actually not very clear), most of the others are blue (or not using Belldandy's pic and one is all sepia coloured) But the pic Goddess with sunflowers in Vol. 10 got her eyes kinda brown. I believe it is just a printing problem and the official eye colour should be blue. MythSearcher 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In Colors, her eyes are purple in the first chapter, but blue in every other image. I think that says it all. Elric of Grans 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it is just one of those artist nature that uses altered colour to improve the pictures occasionally. The official colour should be blue, that purple is kinda blue, too. MythSearcher 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I like my Belldandy with blue eyes. Nuff said. ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actualy she does have brown eyes in the quiz game. --Cat out 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an enormous archive of AMG images and Belldandy's eyes commonly vary between brown and blue, with occasional appearances of shades like violet. However by the rule of which is the most common (preponderance), then Belldandy's eyes are indeed blue. --Peorthmegami 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

She is a goddess and so she has free control over her basic appearance; this includes eye colour. I've always preferred a rich blue-violet which is close to purple.63.161.86.254 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User box expansion

We need another image slot on the userbox to show the changes between AMG season 1 and 2. I tried to do it myself but it didn't seem to work. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Done. You need another? It might be better to merge the two images in ms paint... --Cat out 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not needed just yet. If they upgrade the engine again then it might be, but thats in the future.-Dynamo_ace Talk

Okay. I just feel it would be easier for the reader if images of the same series were presented as one image made out of combined other images. --Cat out 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hair colour

From the first chapter, the few coloured panels from the original manga is a mix of brown and blue (more brown than blue). However, Keiichi asked her to change her clothes not hair colour in chapter 2 and she did what he said, chanded her clothes by reconstructing the particles. The picture showed during the change is a picture of her naked during the reconstruction. Proving that she did not change her hair colour but changed her clothes only. (if she changed both at the same time with the same method, she would have to be shown bald, too.) She did not provide extra explanation of any colour change of her hair and Keiichi did not ask or focus on it. I went through the later volumes(which should be after the change), and all the colour of the front pages which should be showing her with brown hair gives the same blueish brown for at least volume 2 and 3. This should be enough to prove that to be just a printing problem due to the colouring of the original script being so dated. In volume 4, the colour took a shape change and a lot of lighter colours were used instead. MythSearcher 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the manga, she originally had black hair which she changed to brown when she tried to make her appearance more acceptable for Earth. This fact was not reflected in any of the adaptations.

I have some superb scans of AMG Complete, which was a re-release of the manga with more color panels. In fact, the panel where Bell pops out of the mirror is a two-page spread that was beautifully colored with what appears to be watercolor (incidentally I spent hours piecing this spread together). Bell's hair is actually a melange of brown, blue, and gray shades. In the grayscale panels, Bell's hair is not black like Skuld's but rather a mix of black and white (unshaded) strands. Thus it is wrong to say that Belldandy's hair was originally black. In chapter two, Belldandy transforms her clothes and does in fact change the nature of her hair. Instead of the black and white strands, it is now colored with a uniform screentone pattern. This brings the question of what the new color is. In chapter 7 (the next chapter with ANY color pages aside from the first), Bell is shown shown with brown-gray hair in the cover, but in the succeeding color pages it's a silvery gray.

The bottomline is that there is a change in hair color that accompanied Belldandy's transformation. I can see why it was claimed to be brown, being the universal color of Belldandy's hair later. However, the remaining color panels clearly show more of silvery gray than brown so it can be argued that the initial transformation was: brown/blue/gray shades ---> silver-gray, then evolving to brown later on.

I feel that these kinds of details are best left to hardcore fans and is inappropriate for the general page on Belldandy. Consequently I have edited this bit of trivia out. --Peorthmegami 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Example needed

In the article the Author makes this statement:

She is also rather self-reliant, in a sense. She will not tolerate people interfering in a situation she already believes that she has control over, although this often causes her to respond in a mild statement.

What scene in the manga or anime illustrates this statement?

Good point. I have no idea where the author got this from; after reading the entire manga (and scanlating a good part of it) plus watching all the animes, I'm still hard-pressed to recall any instances supporting this statement. I'll edit this out until the author defends this statement as I believe it is misleading (especially the "will not tolerate people interfering in a situation...") --Peorthmegami 06:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Following that statement is this one, presumably by the same author:

Most importantly of all, Belldandy is also extremely possessive of her own happiness. However, her innate character wouldn't allow her to be happy when anybody else is unhappy, so she does her very best to ensure everybody's happiness.

Again, I believe this is misleading. The statement at face value gives the wrong impression that Belldandy is selfish of her own happiness and maybe even hedonistic! The second line apparently tries to clarify (or even negate) the unsavory connotations of the first sentence, but frankly, fails in it's purpose of clarifying Belldandy's "selfishness." (not to mention the repeated use of "happy" and it's other forms is awkward). The other paragraphs regarding Bell's selfishness for K1 is sufficient to present the picture; there is no point in adding something that muddies the already clear water. Move to strike this out. --Peorthmegami 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On the origin of the "Belldandy" romanization

The liner notes to the AnimEigo release of the OAV implies that the romanization "Belldandy" came from the original creators, not AnimEigo. See: http://www.animeigo.com/Liner/OMG.t Also, the written form "Belldandy" makes its first appearance on the business card she hands to Keiichi in the first chapter of the manga (Ah! My Goddess Complete, volume 1, page 7). I have changed the article to reflect this. Robaato 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romanization was worked out by Toren Smith. I'll see if I can round up the old issue where he explains it in a letter. I think it may be the second or third issue of the first US run of the manga. Granted, I haven't read that since 1995. The real question, of course, is how the hell would I post the information if I DO find it? Or, rather, where? Izuko (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did you have any luck on this? I'm really interested in where the Romanization came from. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The origianal manga got a lot of references in colour posters and such. I see no problem in the romanization, it is used by the creator. MythSearcher^talk 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with it either. And I have found a number of references on how it came about. :) I'm just curious - the letter would be a cool addition. - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is this one unconfirmed info on the Japanese wiki stating the Bell means beautiful in French and it is why the creator used it instead. MythSearcher^talk 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be worth checking up. Not sure that I would agree with the claim, but that shouldn't be a concern if it is supported in an RS. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the hint - I found a reprint of the Toren Smith article in the 2nd volume of the Dark Horse "unflipped" edition - it was fascinating reading. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sorry I've been a bit absent to refer to it. I found the issues and scanned them in if anyone wants to see them (not sure where I could put them up). I'd say, absent anything from Fujishima-sensei, himself, Smith is about as reliable as we can get. Izuko (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article picture

• Is there a DVD cover with Belldandy and Holy Bell? If so, it should be used for consistency. If not, forget I said anything ^_^ JuJube 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Second TV Voice Actor

There might be a second english voice actor who voiced Belldandy, can anyone confirm this? I knew it was around episode 15-17 that i spotted this. -Dynamo_ace Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs) 21:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Parody of running gags

Some anime/manga (e.g. Ranma) feature a running gag wherein the main character is caught in a seemingly compromising position but is fully innocent. AMG mimics this situation (though less frequently), with the exception that when Belldandy is told by Keiichi that it is not what it looks like, she immediately believes him (though this will not necessarily prevent jealous). This seems to somewhat parody other anime/manga. Might be worth mentioning this in the context of being a parody, though the trust aspect is already mentioned.

Page protected

This page has been protected to stop the edit war going on here. Please discuss whatever issues you have, come to a consensus, and then let me know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has been unprotected as the discussion seems to have settled. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I really do hate double standards. I'm expected to discuss at every turn, yet someone else can just decide that they didn't like the outcome, so its now irrelevant. Anyways, the character has enough coverage on the list, and until real world information on this character is provided, it needs to stay that way. TTN (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, the discussion was ended at keep this page and keeishi's. per the one who started the merger proposal, you did not post any further comment at the time, and most of the people who joined the discussion have obviously not opposed the proposal of keeping these two pages. What you have done is suddenly come back a month later after the discussion, without trying to discuss at ALL, then keep asking others to discuss about it. You are obviously ignoring the consensus made in that discussion and YOU are the one that didn't want to discuss at all. Talking about double standards, you are the one who got it, since you ignored my edit summaries and the discussion at the merged page. MythSearcher^talk 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, who besides you wanted to keep them? Jack said that they may be able to become sourced in the first place in the first place, though it wasn't a comment towards keeping them, and his second comment was responding to my comment regarding which characters needed coverage on the list. The other few that commented said merge than split when necessary, and they did not single out those two characters. TTN (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many people wanted to keep them but that's not the point here. Remember, we are in a community where all people have the rights to raise their voice and defend their actions as long as they are proved to be relevant and judicious. Even 1 person supporting "keep" versus a group of 10 advocating "delete", the result as "keep" won't be changed, in condition that 1 certain person outreasons the others. Wikipedia is not the place for mob rule exercise. Galadree-el 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, you had been reverted by how many users? Did you actually think that I am the only one who wanted to keep them? And did you ignore the discussion result totally and came to merge the page before trying to engage in that merger proposal page? Before you accuse others of not trying to talk things out, look at yourself, you have blindly reverted the page 4 times and is in no real position to do so because you did not even try to comment it before you do so, and ignore the actual discussion at all when you say merge per discussion. If there is no consensus, then the discussion does not support your action. And the discussion seems to be pointing at merge minor characters, keep major ones if possible What you can do after the second revert is at least place a short comment in the talk page stating that the article is not up to par after a month, thus you wanted to merge them. You did not do so, so you have no grounds in accusing others of not trying to discuss. MythSearcher^talk 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I was telling those people that were reverting to discuss and show their opinion. Show me where the people stated to merge minor characters and keep the major ones in that discussion. The rest of the people commenting in that discussion did not single out any characters that should be kept. You were the only one there that noted them. TTN (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Begging others for opinion while you yourself fail to do so is an action that can be described in one word: hypocrisy. BTW, a main character won't never become a minor character just because TTN deems it to be so. Galadree-el 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am being mis-quoted out-of-context by Mythsearcher. The character is well covered in the list of chars and I support TTN's redirect to the merged content at the list. Full prior discussion at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!. --Jack Merridew 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about misquoting your point, I have misunderstood your point in the discussion then. If you wanted to merge this page as well, then I oppose what you have suggested. I still stand my point at major characters should have their own pages. Also, the list currently is not better then seperate pages, it is all still very much in-universe, unsourced and missing a lot of information from the original pages.

About the source of this particular page, here it is, and should be added in after the block.

The Pretty Character Chronicles, the history of animation heroins 1958-1999 by B Media Books 竹書房, ISBN4-8124-0543. At P.160 "She is god-like (of course, she is a goddess) and has a perfect proportion. The cake she baked in episode 3 also showed her charm in family skills." At P.238 "Belldandy(Ah! My Goddess)/The perfect woman in average male mind." In this source, she was also chosen as the back cover character from about 1000 female characters and 270 heroins from 270 anime due to her popularity. (second only to the cover character Ayanami Rei from Evangelion.)

With this source, it pretty much consolidates the notability of this page, it is from a third party publication, with enough fact checking methods and thus is reliable and verifiable. MythSearcher^talk 07:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said covered well-enough in the list, and yes, it could use more work. I note that this didn't get merged. The block you refer to would be the page protection, I assume. --Jack Merridew 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Pretty Character Chronicles is in only available in Japanese so I'm wondering where you're getting the quotes in English. --Jack Merridew 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have the Japanese quote, I can give it to you anytime. I never think my translation is perfect anyway.(Just too lazy to type Japanese, that's all.) "見よこの神の手によるが如き(神様たってば)完壁なプロポーシュン。また、3卷冒頭のケーキ作りのような家庭的な面も魅力的。", "男性が一般的に思い描く至高の女性像", and yes, I mean the protection.　MythSearcher^talk 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not looked at your user page where I see now that you speak/write Japanese. I was a bit concerned that the quotes were from some review of the book or the like. I get mostly question marks from the above, but thanks. --Jack Merridew 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is because you did not have certain asian fonts installed. It should be fine on unicode(UTF-8) settings. All in the name of improving wiki, you are welcome. Sorry for misunderstanding your words again. MythSearcher^talk 09:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless that book can provide more than a few sentences of information, it cannot hold up a page. Quality is the important part, not just having one or two sources. Now, if you can find like five others that provide meaningful information, we can talk. TTN (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Err... You are saying the second most well known character is not notable enough to have its own article. Whatever. Do you want me to cite primary or secondary sources? BTW, can you also quote the official wiki policy of needing 6 sources before a notable page could be set up? MythSearcher^talk 13:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that a subjective view backed by only two sentences is not good enough to hold an article. Significant coverage is required to hold an article. This means that the topic is its own topic, and could not fit into the character list or main article without it being awkward. You need to cite both primary sources giving concept, creation, and development information and more secondary sources giving an expanded view of what the above book states. TTN (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason of having a list of characters is because usually they are not notable by themselves, if that is not the case, then we should treat the subject on its own, like any other notable subjects. Yes, 2 sentences usually is not good enough, that depends on what those 2 sentences said. In this case, it is obviously that being able to get on the back cover of a book listing 1000 female characters showed the subject's notability by itself as an iconic character in anime history, not to mention the backing quotation of "The perfect woman in average male mind". There is a primary source I could quote from, but it is pretty much just plot summary, which could be pretty much quoted from secondary online sources, and the full description of the character creation notes, which are pretty much just praising her as "goddess of goddesses".(Ah! My goddess Colours) Some minor magazine called her the first of such characters (perfect woman in men's mind), (zh:明報兒童周刊 issue published in 1995). These pretty much covers the current 1, 3, 4 sections of the article, and the newest PVC figure got amazon stating it as 誰もが望んだ女神服のベルダンディが遂にPVC化！ (The Belldandy in goddess suit which was longed for by everybody now got PVC modeled!, similar comment was made by 1999.co.jp as well, "誰もが望んだ女神服のベルダンディーが、遂にPVC完成品にて登場です！"), not to mention the official link from the article EL section. How can anyone claim that there is not enough primary source? MythSearcher^talk 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being notable enough to have an article per WP:N and not being notable in regards to popularity are two different things. Anyways, for this character to require an article, you should be able to get at least a paragraph of each of creation and reception information. The above sources don't really seem to help with that. TTN (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an independent guideline called Wikipedia:TTN's criteria for notability? What do you mean by "Not being notable enough per..."? Can you show me the basis of your blind "per"? WP:JUSTAPOLICY demagogism. Can you cite any guideline or policy that states "for this character to require an article [..] get at least a paragraph of each of creation and reception information." Do you ever notice that 50% articles on Wikipedia exist in the state of Wikipedia:Stubs? Every single article has its begin with just some sketches about the subject. The decisive factor is the notability of the topic and the potential of expansion. Galadree-el 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:N, notability should be "Presumed", and it got "Significant coverage", sources quoted for the suject is directly pointing to its notability, the sources are "Reliable", secondary, and "Independent of the subject". The source I quoted didn't even try to talk about the series in general, they talk about the character as if she is independent from the series, only using the series name as an identifier of where did the character was taken out from. Also, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. A notable article could have only one sentence, as long as multiple sources support that sentence and if all the above points are met. Obviously the above sources quoted for the reception you asked for, and the creation can only be quoted from primary sources, and is not really necessary. MythSearcher^talk 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The mention in the book and magazine, while valid, are trivial at this point. They need to be part of a larger section detailing how the character is popular. Otherwise, they'll fit in the list just fine. Creation information is very necessary, though I think you are confusing primary sources just for the series itself. Primary can also mean interviews with the creators (you can call it 1.5 if you want). TTN (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why they are trivial? And I have to clarify this: "Primary can also mean interviews with the creators" is a severe misconception thus leading to a severe misinterpretation of policy. Make sure that you have fully understand the policy before showing off your distorted apprehension everywhere. Galadree-el 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you think the coverage is trivial does not mean the coverage is trivial. The other things you're insisting on, are either your personal preference (like number of sources) or things needed to make an article better, not requirements for an article to exist. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And just because you think that the coverage isn't trivial does not mean that the coverage is significant. That kind of argument is pointless. If you want to see what signifcant means, take a look at any featured character article and pare the sections down to what you think a B-class would need. It's certainly more than a few sentences. TTN (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And just because you think that the coverage is trivial doesn't mean that the coverage loses its significance. TTN, you are desperately going around the bush and intentionally ignore the point brought here. Point of view pushing and unsubstantiated claim like what you are ranting is not welcomed. As repeatedly stated by other respected users above, I still have to repeat again, this character has been significantly mentioned in different third party reliable sources. It is also the second most important character in a popular manga. Mythsearcher gave a lot of reliable sources, however, many of them are in Japanese, a languague that most of us here don't understand. Potentially many other sources can be added with further research. That's more than enough to verify the notability of the character in question. More, stop the childish and half-witted comments like "Not being notable enough to have an article per WP:N and not being notable in regards to popularity are two different things." All you can say is: This one is not notable enough per that policy, that one is not notable enough per this guideline etc. But in conclusion you are still too incompetent to counter-argue why they are not notable, why the coverage is trivial. Arguments are the basis discussion, not some cheap unvindicated claims. Galadree-el 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception/Development resources

• Belldandy was voted the second most popular female character in a Newtype Japan poll. [1] -Malkinann (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• In this article, it is said that this book, Samurai from Outer Space, (which I don't have access to) reckons that Belldandy is miko-like. The book may go into more depth. -Malkinann (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• In Susan Napier's Anime from Akira to Howl's Moving Castle, she describes Belldandy as "almost a perfect dream of feminine nuturance" and that she has a "soothing and escapist function". (p. 208) -Malkinann (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for these - especially Susan Napier's book. I hadn't read it before, but I picked up a copy today and the discussion of Belldandy was excellent. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and stuff

I found a few references - one of which I loved reading - so I have restructured the article a bit. The problem was that the new material couldn't fit, as the article was a tad too much from an in-universe perspective for it to fit in the old structure. I stole the basic structure from Orochimaru (Naruto), as it is an FA, which I figured suggested that the structure they used worked. Anyway, I've added some more references, and I'll go through the rest to see how I can expand on the other sections as I work my way down the article. (btw, I loved the description of Belldandy from Perper). - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I think I've done as much as I can. I've got more information, but it isn't clear as to whether or not it relates to Belldandy or the series as a whole, so I'm holding it back for a bit while I think about what to do with it. I'd like to get this up to GA status, so I've put in a request for peer review as part of the process. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall I think you've done a great job on researching and improving the article. My biggest comment is I feel that the "Reception and critique" section needs a little work. In the last paragraph you go from talking about Giles Poitras. but almost immediately after that the article states, "Newitz goes further and states..." I may be splitting hairs here; however, I feel it is important to make sure there are clear indications of which critic says what. Maybe by having "Newitz expands on Poitras' thoughts and states..." Other than that, I feel this is a great section as it really brings some importance and depth to the character beyond the Ah! My Goddess series. Also, I think that is could be rewritten slightly to allow it to flow better.

In the "Depictions" section, I wonder if it would be appropriate to indicate the evolution of Belldandy's physical appearance. Due to the long duration of the series, Fujishima's art style has also evolved. While I don't think this is a needed addition, it would indicate how Belldandy's character has adapted to the times. Her clothes in the manga/anime have adopted the fashions of the time the volume was created is one example.

One last note would be that her personality is also related to her role as a goddess. She is portrayed as the goddess governing the present (while Urd and Skuld are past and future respectively). This was touched on in the "Norse origins" subsection. I could have sworn I read an article on mythology's influence on popular media that pointed this out. Again, this is more of an added bonus instead of a necessity. Great job overall! --JadeFox (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Newitz expands on Poitras' thoughts" implies that Newitz has read Poitras' work, which isn't necessarily the case. "Newitz goes further" can imply that Newitz can mean that she had the same idea as Poitras independently, but carried it further. Have there been any reliable sources documenting the evolution of Belldandy's style? There is some discussion of style in the Oh My Goddess (manga) article, but I believe it is unsourced. :( -Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really like the idea of showing the art style. Is it safe to presume that the changing art style can be depicted so long as no conclusions are drawn? For example, a "list of how Belldandy is drawn" sort of thing, a bit like at Oh My Goddess! (manga)#Evolving Art Style, but without the paragraph of (currently) unsupported description? I've checked my sources, and they don't seem to discuss how she is drawn except in a very general sense, as the focus is on the character, so I figure nothing can be said about why the art has changed. - Bilby (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some screenshots from the different anime based on JadeFox's suggestion - I rather like it. :) I'll add the anime when I can get hold of the images. I also found a reference by Toren Smith to the past/present/future thing, which has been added, and a brief mention of the same in one of the episodes. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is significant

OK I have access to both anime and manga. So what elements do you think I should add to the article? -- Cat ^chi? 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put a couple of fact tags in the article - could you please chase them up? -Malkinann (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to do some of them - I grabbed the first Manga today, and I'll add everything from there. And then I'll see how I go at getting a few more. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some refs. -- Cat ^chi? 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

It doesn't quite seem to be the norm with anime articles, but is there any hassle with combining the references with footnotes? Normally (in offline publications) I use harvard inline references to handle page numbers, as in "Bob said that it was ok" (Alice, 1999, p25), but they seem rare on Wikipedia, and do tend to clutter up the article for people who aren't used to them. Alternatively we might have separate footnotes and references, as I've been doing at Turing test - but that was the format already being employed there, and it seems very different to the other anime articles.

It all seems a tad odd to me: I'm so used to inline references (in my discipline you won't be published using anything else) that alternative approaches are a tad alien. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once a format is employed in the article, that is the one that should be kept per the general Wikipedia MoS and guidelines regarding referencing. For most anime articles, and really most articles in general, footnotes are the most commonly used. Harvard Inline I usually only see in the more scientific, medical, etc type articles where most of the editors are ones who are used to using it in their professional lives, such as the one you noted above. It also does not tend to work well for most anime articles as many of our sources are online, which is better presented using nice, neat footnotes using the {{cite web}} template. I believe mixing styles is generally discouraged and will usually have to be fixed if an article is going to be taken to FA level AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even at GA level mixing styles is forbidden. (Case in point being Punk ekk's GA reassessment.) I'm wondering how, if you're using a book multiple times, with different page numbers, you would do that best using the WP:REF format? I mean, should it be like in Great Barrier Reef, where the book's full title is copied out labouriously each time using a cite book template? -Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would use cite book each time if you are using footnote styles, though I have also seen people use cite book for the first, then for subsequent using a shortened for of author last name, pub year, and page number. That is shown in the WP:REF section on footnotes. I personally prefer to just use cite book each time, since I don't like making people hunt for the first use to find the full information. It realyly isn't that laborious, cause Copy/Paste is your friend ;). For example, see List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (a list I'm currently working on). Its only 7 volumes + a 2 volume sequel, so as you can imagine, each volume is used multiple times for different page numbers. While working on that, I actually have a text file with the refs for all of the books. All I have to do it put in the page numbers. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That might not work well. Each chapter of the manga can be referanced with three different ISBN numbers. See List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters. Should all three be referenced? -- Cat ^chi? 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of mixing formats, so much as working out a standard for this article that would allow page numbers. I guess based on AnmaFinotera's suggestion footnotes are the best approach. I'll cite the same ref a few times if needed to distinguish between page numbers, but share the footnote if there is no change. This also permits comments to be added where warranted without damaging the flow, which would be nice. In IS we don't use footnotes at all, but in philosophy we did, and I kind-of miss them. :) The three different ISBN numbers sounds problematic, though. :( - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They are used in history and religious studies as well. Took awhile to get used to it when I was used to good old APA for most of my educational career, but I grew quite fond of them once I got used to it. Keeps the text so much more free flowing. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason it won't. Pick one version and use it. It isn't the first to be reprinted. Fruits Basket's chapters, for example, could be referenced with either the individual volumes for Tokyopop's new "Ultimate Collection" versions in which 3 vols are combined into one. Most people use the individual. Basically, use the version you have on hand, being sure to include the release date (and maybe edition number if they have them) differentiation which one is being used. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Are we really sure we need that many pictures in the "Depictions" section? I'm a bit concerned that it breaks WP:NFCC, especially as some of the intermediate stages aren't even mentioned in the text of the article. I think we could get rid of Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v1 p42.png, Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v3 p5.png, and Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v29 p77.png, unless we can find other articles on her depiction. -Malkinann (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I added them all, as it seemed like a good idea at the time, but I keep thinking that five is too many. :) Three is much better. Something from the first book makes sense, so either the first or second image should be kept. First if you think that the first chapter is wise, second if it makes more sense to show her as she is normally depicted (rather than in full Goddess mode) - both fit the reference. The last one, from Beautiful Name, I added because it is the most recent depiction released by Dark Horse, but given that this is a moving target it might make sense to kill it, as you suggest. That drops it back to three - initial design, something intermediate, and something that is almost the final style, (The Goddesses' Greatest Danger), which has the advantage of being referenced. I'd toss in something from Childhood's End, as that is referenced as the "established style", but I don't have a copy, and would only be ok if you think four makes sense. (I'd rather not kill Turkey with all the Trimmings, as that is so plainly an intermediate stage that I think it serves a purpose, but will happily if you disagree on that). - Bilby (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It occured to me that the last image wasn;t needed - we both thought it was worth deleting, so I killed it now. :) I'm not sure which out of the first two should be killed, so I left both in for now, but I lean towards the first. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much "worth deleting" as "we don't talk about it, so it doesn't have a strong case for fair use". I'd be inclined to keep the first picture rather than the one from the second chapter, as it has her headscarf (useful for comparisons with the YUA character and the other pictures) and it is the first picture of Belldandy. -Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The second picture makes for a better comparison with the third and fourth, but an image from the first chapter trumps that. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN

After the comments from the peer review and other suggestions and fixes, I figured it was about time to nominate for GA. Hopefully it wasn't premature. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "Belldandy"

I've removed: "Oddly enough, when the translation took place, the outcome reflects the character herself, as Belle means beautiful and Dandy means fair in old english. Fair being a means to describe large amounts of beauty." from the page for now. The only source I have found so far that reflects it is on a forum. It is a good line, I think, but it does read a bit like OR. Given that teh only claim being made is that the parts of the name can be interpreted in this way, is it reasonable to source the "Belle means beautiful" and "Dandy means fair" parts in order to justify returning it? If it made a stronger claim, such as "Belldandy's name comes from 'Belle' ..." then I'd say no, of course, but the weaker claim is just a tad harder to determine. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OR or simply hoax. The translation was found on the Original Japanese version on Chapter one, on Belldandy's business card, thus if the above is true, it must have a source directly from the author himself but it is never mentioned in any official sources, not in the manga, AMG Colours or even any Japanese fan sites that always contains more trivia than you want to read. MythSearcher^talk 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems, then. :) I think it was intended more as a personal observation, and it is interesting how the transliteration process came up with that name, but without a reliable source for the statement as a whole it is probably going to stay OR. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, according to the liner notes from the original Animego LD, Belldandy is a corruption of the original Norn goddess' name Verðandi which is romanized to Verdandi or Verthande depending on the source. Due to the infamous issues with Asiatic language mispronunciations of Western words (flied lice instead of fried rice), the closest Japanese pronounced equivalent is Belldandy. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated Dead links on external links?!!!!

Why the heck there are links in the "External Links" sections that are not related and even give an access error? for god sake!!! I tried to submit a link to a full featured Belldandy website and it was quickly removed...

How stupid can this page be in particular and wikipedia in general?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.92.176 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, external links, as in this case, are outside of Wikipedia's control, and until someone spots that one has changed it there's nothing that can be done. In this case it seems that the external site is having database problems. Thanks for pointing it out, though, and the link has now been removed. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Per WP:LEAD, an article this size should have at least three full paragraphs in the lead. I'd suggest adding information such as her original conception, abilities, and her different depictions.

• Done. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png and Image:Original Goddess.jpg both need to be low resolution (less than 100,000 pixels).

• Done. Both images were reduced by 50%. - Bilby (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• "August, 1988" --> "August 1998" - don't put a comma between months and years

• Got it. I checked, and couldn't see any other dates in the text, so hopefully I found them all. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to add the name "Holy Bell's appearances" as a title for the table (instead of a header) and float it to the right under the heading "Holy Bell". This will cause the text to text-wrap around it and reduce all the ugly white-space.

• Done. I think it is a good idea - I might work on where to position the table within the text, but having it on the right certainly improves the layout. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Episode titles should be in quotation marks.

• I think I got all of those - let me know if I stuffed up anywhere, and I'll take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Now I feel stupid - I completely missed the episodes in the table. :) Particularly dumb considering the time I spent playing with the table and hunting down a method for making it sit to the right. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also some comma issues, but I don't mind fixing those myself. I'll allow seven days for improvements. Nikki311 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll get on to those immediately. :) - Bilby (talk)
• I've made a pass to fix the commas - I'm aware of that being a problem in my writing, but I've never been able to get out of the habit. :) Any help with this would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully I've managed to tackle all of the above, but if there are any more changes you find that it needs, or if I stuffed up somewhere, just let me know and I'll be really happy to take care of it. And thanks heaps for reviewing the article! - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Great work. I did a bit of copyediting and have passed the article. Nikki311 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AH vs. Oh

According to the liner notes from the Animeigo 1990s lasedisc versions of AMG, the Oh My Goddess name was a strictly English convention. The OMG naming came about in translation sessions with the creator, Kosuke Fujishima, when a Animego staff member pointed out the similarity between the AMG name and the English expression "Oh My God". Fujisama liked the transliteration to Oh My Goddess and allowed or asked the company to use that title in the American versions of AMG. Just an observation on my part. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article already got this in it. MythSearcher^talk 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is in need of an edit

"Her good will is so complete that she is willing to trust everyone completely, save her sister Urd, whom she realizes can often be duplicitous. "

That line is totally off, in fact as we've seen she is very trusting of Urd, who she considers to have good intentions, tis the other characters who don't trust Urd at times.

"Another line of criticism of Belldandy relates to the sexual nature of the character. The Village Voice in September, 1996, described Belldandy as a "soft porn goddess".[79] While influential, this depiction has been queried by other commentators."

This isn't even accurate, how can it be influential? Belldandy is probably the least pornographic of the goddesses in the series, even the fanservice shots of her are far fewer than characters like Urd and Peorth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Below discussion has been moved from User talk:AnmaFinotera as it pertains purely this article and the IP above's attempts to changed the sourced statements he is complaining about.

Don't know how familiar you are with the serie, but saying that Belldandy doesn't trust Urd is stupid, in fact she's often the only one who does

Saying that calling her a soft porn goddess is influential is moronic, have you even seen the series, how is it influential? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. You asked about both statements on the talk page. They are sourced. Now, you wait for someone to check the references or otherwise find sources that disagree with you. I think you're right on Urd, but you must allow discussion to continue. WP:V requires verification, not just "I know." Whether you agree on some statements being influential is really irrelevant. If other sources said they, then they are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong there is no citation next to it, the citation is preceding it

Show me, i'm not introducing false information

Where is it spourced that calling her a soft porn goddess is influential?

again not false information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both ARE referenced, very clearly (that's what those things between <ref></ref> tags are. You have been asked to stop and discuss. At this point, you continue changing sourced content to something that is NOT what the source says. This can only be considered vandalism as you are now well aware it is wrong. If you continue, you will end up blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, there are no citation next to either comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 21:02, November 20, 2008

You're not answering why i'm wrong, there is no citation next to the word influential, so it is not sourced, nor is the part about her not trusting Urd not sourced, there is no citation next to it, and I don't care about signatures, my ip address is there, so that's enough.

Either prove me wrong or accept my changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither [phrase has a citation, the word influential is not cited anywhere, nor is the part about her not trusting Urd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both have references for their statements, clear as day in the text. Citations do not have to go right by the word, they go at the end of the sentence/sentences they source. This is a GA level article, meaning its referencing HAS been checked. You are vandalizing by continuing the change sourced content based solely on your personal beliefs rather than actual, verified, additional, and conflicting sources. You need to stop changing sourced content, or risk being blocked (and stop making new sections on my talk page, will ya...just edit the existing one). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me where eiother is cited, there is no citation next to either phrase, while influential is not cited, only the quote before it is, saying that something is cited means there is a citation, just because something is quoted doesn't make the quote influential.

Amd there is no citation next to the comment about her not trusting Urd, nothing, the nearest citation is like two lines away. So c'mon tell me how i'm introducing false facts or vandalizing, c'mon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 21:10, November 20, 2008

Again, both are cited. If you can't see those huge citations, that isn't something I can help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

They aren't cited, look at them there is no citation on those sentences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Look again, they ARE cited. I've already explained this to you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No they are not

"She rarely holds a grudge and is always willing to forgive anyone who does injury to her. Her good will is so complete that she is willing to trust everyone completely, save her sister Urd, whom she realizes can often be duplicitous."

No Citation there

"While influential, this depiction has been queried by other commentators."

No citation again

You said citations go at the end of a sentence, but no citations here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 21:18, November 20, 2008

Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, quit being an impatient ass. This is not instant messaging. I'm sorry I'm trying to eat my dinner while dealing with someone who apparently can't read or even sign their posts despite getting notes explaining how. And wrong, I said sentence or sentences! This entire section "he rarely holds a grudge and is always willing to forgive anyone who does injury to her. Her good will is so complete that she is willing to trust everyone completely, save her sister Urd, whom she realizes can often be duplicitous. Even though Belldandy tries her best to be as kind as possible, it is revealed that at times she can become very insecure and sad, especially when she is confronted with an implication that involves Keiichi in one way or another." is sourced to the Drazen book. This statement "While influential, this depiction has been queried by other commentators. Belldandy might be sexual," is sourced with reference the Perper work. It is followed up with "but writers such as Gilles Poitras note that the series — far from being soft porn — is in fact a very tender and romantic comedy: the characters do no more than simply kiss (and that infrequently) over the course of the series." This is sourced to the Poitras book. Those TWO works speak to the influentialness of the Village Voice piece which is, notice again, something mentioned in the Poitras book. So, again, both are sourced to reliable sources.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me those passages from those books, show me where it says that she thinks Urd is duplicioutous, show me the citations, because I can source actual Manga pages where she says otherwise, where she trusts Urd while others dont, and Manga is canon, so I can counter-cite actual manga pages.

show me how it is influential, influential means it has an effect, merely saying that other people in books talk about the quote is not influential, I want to see where it is influential, because it has not affected the series, or even the fanbase of the series, show me where someone says it is an influential comment, I want citations. And I don't care if you're eating, if you argue with me and are wrong then I will demand an answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go get the books from the library. They are available there. I have both books and the citations are correct, irregardless of your personal beliefs. Poitras says the remarks were influential. He is a reliable source. You are not. You are the one arguing with reliable sources. You must proof you are right, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Devil in Miss Urd arc" Urd asks Belldandy to do something nice for Skuld after a fight, Keiichi remarks that she is being irresponsible, Belldandy however says that that is Urd's way of taking care of others, seems to me that is trusting of Urd even when others do not, that is an actual manga scene, are you telling me that you are more trustworthy than Fujishima?

Poitras is a reliable source to say that calling Belldandy a soft porn goddess is influential? Yeah so ignore scenes from the manga where she states she is not ready to fulfill all of Keiichi's desires during the fourth goddess arc? You are trying to tell me that Fujishima is not as influential as this poitras/village voice guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying reliable sources are more reliable than anything you have to say. You disagree, go find another reliable source that disagrees with Drazen's view. And Poitras said that the Village Voice piece saying she was a soft porn goddess was influential, and yes, HE is more reliable than you. Fujishima has nothing to do with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fujishima is a more relible source, when in the manga Belldandy says that she is not ready to have sex with im, then yes it contradictes those who call her sexual or a soft porn goddess, when she disagrees with those who do not trust urd, by saying that she does, that contradicts your statement, Fujishima has everything to do with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with how people interpret his work. He has no say in it. So no, it doesn't contradict anything and he, again, has no say in it. You can write or draw whatever you want, you can't MAKE people see it the way you may or may not have intended. I am not going to continue arguing this with you. If you continue trying to changed sourced content, you will be reported and blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It does make what others say false and innacurate! If they want to disregard what Fujishima is saying then they are wrong, and therefore your article is wrong. This isn't interpretation, this is clear facts, you can't interpret clear language, you are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. If you want to be accurate then note that these are only opinions of Belldandy, and don't try and pass them off as influential or aspects of her personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong. They are not false and inaccurate. They are experts in their field. You are just a fan who obviously loved Belldandy. Too bad, so sad, but not everyone views her the same as you. Live with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, the only source with any bearing in this discussion is Fujishima, as he is a the creator and final judge of canon, these writiers can be as respected as you seem to think they are, but if what they say is wrong then they are wrong, and no amount of respect will change it, if Belldandy in the series says she's a goddess then no matter who is writing a book, she is a goddess, if she says she is not ready for sex, then no matter who is writing, that remains the fact, if she says she trusts Urd, then yet again that is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong. Fujishima created the series, he again does not control what other people think about his characters, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong thought is still wrong, you don't seem to understand that you cannot make up facts, even if all these writers wrote that Belldandy was a three headed strugledurf, from the land of whozits, it wouldn't change that the fact is she's a goddess, you say that you can't control what people think no you can't but what people think doesn't the change facts. This isn't about thoughts, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is about facts, not what some guy thinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"RECEPTION" = WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you choose to post the innacurate stuff and call it influential, when in fact it is innacurate, you are misleading readers, also the part about her not trusting Urd is under personality, not reception, duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing inaccurate about other people's views, nor is it inaccurate to say those views were influential when they were. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong. If someone says something that is innacurate then it is innacurate, I could think that Jews killed themselves in the Holocaust, that would be my thought but also innacurate, duh. And innacurate thought is not influential, having people disagree with it and say that person is wrong does not make something influentil, just disputed. I could think that Bush is Osama bin Laden, but that wouldn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 22:43, November 20, 2008

Big huge difference between reality and fiction. Anyway, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore because its obviously a waste of time. You are wrong, you refuse to admit this, and I don't really care. If you vandalize the article again, you will be penalized. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Facts are still facts, whetehr one is discussing a fictional topic or a topic in real life. I could say Frodo was the villian of Lord of the Rings, and I would still be wrong. The only person who is wrong is yourself, i've presented actual facts of the series to back me up, and you've presented some no name authors who did not have any say in the creation of the series and the characters. You just realize that you are unable to prove me wrong, or even argue the issue so you give up an leave. I don't vanadlize articles, and after this I don't need to make any changes, i've already proven your article wrong, and flawed, nothing else is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 22:51, November 20, 2008

You haven't proven a damn thing except that you can read the manga, but are incapable of reading this article for actual context. And that you somehow think two noted experts in the field of anime/manga are "no name authors" does nothing but show your actual ignorance of the entire topic and that you are not speaking from any real intelligent position but as a Belldandy fan who somehow thinks she's been insulted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing context, i'm arguing accuracy see this is an encyclopedia, not a thesis paper, i'm in it for accuracy, not to discuss whether anyone is insulted or who some authors are or how people interpret things, no I'm in it to discuss the accuracy of an encyclopedia entry, that other stuff is fine for a thesis, but not an encyclopedia, this is an entry with false information, innacurate, you just refuse to accpet that you are wrong, and make the necessary changes to make the entry accurate, facts are facts, and i'm afraid the facts don't agree with your or your beloved author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it false information, if in the reception section, they list opinions that were published in reliable sources? Wikipedia is not a plot summary, it must has sourced information that is grounded in a real-world perspective. --Kraftlos (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well first off the section on Urd was not in the Reception section, it was in the personality section, secondly calling something influential is only valid if it has some wide ranging effect, the village voice has not, it has been disputed but that doesn't make it influential, just something that many disagree with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice article had a fair bit of impact, and was mentioned quite a bit in the literature - however, it may be possible to work on the wording. I'd like to do some work on that whole section, anyway - it is late on this side of the planet, but tomorrow I'll see if I can do some work on the section. (I have all teh refs here, but I might need to dig up a couple that have been buried under history books). That aside, I agree very much with AnmaFinotera and Kraftlos - one of the first principles of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth". It seems an odd concept, but it seems to me essential to make this thing work. So while we're welcome to disagree with reliable sources, when it comes to writing we need a counter source, and even then we need a pretty good reason for excluding the first. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether something is cited, because if your going by citations then the only source that matters is the manga, the issue is whether it is accurate, which the comment about Urd is not, and the part about it being influential is not, its disputed, yes, but that isn't influential, that just means that many people disagreed with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(moved from Talk:Nihonjoe) When something is innacurate, it doesn't matter if it can be sourced by some third party, if its wrong its wrong, if the original source material disagrees with some third party then the third party is wrong, even if it can be sourced, why not source the original material instead of some third party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what is reported elsewhere, regardless of whether it agrees with the original creator of a work. We can also report what the original creator said, too, but if someone else interprets something differently than intended by the original creator, then that's just a valid to be reported here as the opinion of the original creator. Wikipedia reports verifiable information, not "the truth". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't report it, i'm saying don't call it influential when its not, don't try and pass it off as an actual part of her personality when its not, saying in the personality section that she conadiers Urd to be duplicitous and trusts everyone but her is no accurate, its one thing to say that such and such person says that, hower its more accurate to then add in how that is contradicted by actual instances in the source material. Saying that someone calling a character a soft porn goddess, as influential is false, when not only is it contradicted by the source material, its also contradticted by the other quoted authors in the section, its not influential at that point its just disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Source check

And I am surprised that no one even tried to do a simple source check in all these discussion? source 79 is link dead when I click on it, with 51 being a shared source from above, which made it hard to check which part of the source it is talking about. The above part in personality that I left a fact tag is also not quite easily found in the cited source in the back. MythSearcher^talk 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

79 was apparently alive and well in June, however I've added the archive link for it. I don't understand your comment about 51? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete it since I used the google cache and know what it is talking about. 51 is a source shared and is a whole book, thus I do not have the means to check that(meaning someone else need to check it) MythSearcher^talk 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a paper, rather than a book. I've got it here. btw, I was thinking of changing over to a reference section and footnote section, rather than the combined refs/footnotes that we have now, as per National War Memorial (South Australia), so that the references are clearer and we can easily add quotes if something is a tad contentious but not readily available. Is this something someone would object to (in which case I'll happily continue with how things are now). (We did have an erialier discussion on this, but I don't recall that it came to a decision about format). - Bilby (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only been a day, so those with problems with this idea probably haven't had a chance to comment. But as it is likely this is something only I care about, (I'm fond of referencing formats), I'll change it over so I can start adding quotes, which should help with issues raised above. If there is a problem, just say so here, and I'll change it back myself. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I rather hate that particular form of referencing, finding it fair high useless as a reader; and as I can really see no actual valid need nor reason to use it here, I object. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I also find it annoying to use when I'm reading - its annoyingness can be somewhat mitigated by the use of {{Harvard citation}}, as in Charles Darwin. If I was using it myself, I'd be somewhat afraid that the reference list may be deleted or partially deleted somehow, or in good faith merged with a further reading section. --Malkinann (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - it is why I raised it here and wanted to see other opinions :) Personally, I prefer it, but then it depends on what you are after. I like to have a list of individual refs to check of about 20 or so, rather than a huge list of 80 with those 20 spread through them, where I need to dig out the individual ones. But then I use harvard in-line style when writing outside Wikipedia, and the footnotes model is as close as we get. But it does make it harder to check an individual ref in line, as you need to look in two places for each one. (As an aside, it was theCharles Darwin that model I had in mind, but I'm happy to defer to other opinions). - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's partially what you're used to. Reason why I mentioned the Harvard citation template was because I find it mitigates the annoyingness when it's used and the article on the National War Memorial doesn't use them, so I thought you might be unaware of the template. --Malkinann (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)