Talk:List of characters in Tenjho Tenge/Archive 1

Kengo

Is it a name or honorific? My personal opinion is that it's a honorific as stated in in Vol. 10, chapter 61, page 115. If it is a honorific, should Kengo keep with the person's name? If so, than it should be add to Souichiro Nagi. If not, it should be removed from Ichiyō Nagi. (Duane543 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

The more I think about it honorifics will confuse a casual reader, so I'm going to remove them. I'm not sure if Shindayuu is Title because I thought I read some were that it is a title given to Shinto Priests. Since I'm not sure, I'm going to leave it. (Duane543 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

organization

yeah there were like 3 feudal japan sections, and some sections had characters in either random order, or an order i wasn't following lol.

i set up the juuken club with founder, captain, vice captain, order. longest membership time order.

Enforcement group i left primarily as is (it was relatively ordered IMO), added titles to match juuken club style, moved emi up one.

i put sohaku under f along w/ noriko and moved tetsuhito up. so it's ordered by the old people (sohaku, noriko, tetsuhito), then pretty well random since we don't know shit about most of em. and i put ishyumi and madoka last as they aren't really loyal. Ishiyumi follows mitsuomi, and madoka was brainwashed and is now on the juuken club's side.

gave feudal japan one section, with some subsections to organize the different groups. i made up the names so feel free to change them if u think of something more appropriate.

overall page order goes: juuken club, executive council, f, fuedal japan, supporting characters, minor characters --Grimjaw 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ok so i reordered supporting characters by number of appearances and importance. Reiki is basically a constant prescence so its first, Dogen is a catalyst for the series so he's next, Makiko makes frequent apperances and is increasing in importance, Fu chien appears twice once in the flashback and then in the f arc, Mana on the other hand only appears in the flashback so she's next. the others have shown up sparingly at best the witch chick will probably be moved up at some point. --Grimjaw 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lately their has been changes to the article's organization and we need to discuss them here. This is what I think: First of all, the "Main Antagonists" header does not work with the overall scheme of the page, which is the main character are organized by club or groups. Secondly, I think Sōhaku Kago should be under F because he is the leader of F. Saying he is not is like saying the Prime Minister or President is not part of the government. I also believe that Noriko Shindayuu Inue should be placed in the same section as Sōhaku. We are going to have characters that are difficult to sort like Madoka Mawari , who was a member of F, helps Juuken and works with Mitsuomi of the Enforcement Group. Since she is in middle school, she can not join either of the later two. So I say leave her in the F section. Also I want to state that the names on this list where checked over a the Japanese wiki site which had a kana pronunciation guide. This is where both Jushi and Shinobu names came from. (Duane543 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

I think we must be practicals. Madoka and others are mainly F, even if she is an ally now, so she fits there (just some comments saying that she left the group on her summary is enough).

About Souhaku, the fac is he was never listed as a member of F, nor did Noriko. We can't just assume they are and put as if this is a fact. Let's use other manga as an exemple: Aizen is the leader of the Arrancar, but he is not an Arrancar. Or a more close exemple: the Takayanagi are the leader os the 12 feathers, but are not one of them.

And F is not even a group that oficially works under Souhaku, but under Mitsuomi (in theory). The F group has nothing to do, again, in theory, with Souhaku.

So the "Main Antagonists" thing is just to give Souhaku and Noriko a place. It was never said they are part of F (at least, maybe, "yet" for Noriko), so they can't be there. They are also not from Juuken club or Enforcement Group, and Souhaku is, for sure, more than a Supporting Character. So, I can just see the "Main Antagonists" as a place to both of them (or a "Members of the Phoenix Families" area). - Access Timeco 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i gotta go with duane on this one. sohaku is the true head of F which has been stated, it really is like saying the president isn't a member of the government. the concept may be that mitsuomi is supposed to be the head but the bottom line is he isn't...and thats not really a secret either. F is the new alliance of the 12 families, kago is one of the twelve therefore he is a part of F.

even if noriko isn't directly stated as a member of F it sure as hell is implied. more so as a servant of sohaku (the only other possibility) she is under the head of F, seems to outrank many F members, and serves their goals...she still doesn't fit anywhere BUT under F. She is not really a main protangonist, the only people who would fit under such a heading are sohaku and maybe mitsuomi.

and just out of curiosity why are hirohiko and mitsuiro above saga mask and ryuuzaki. i have no doubt they are stronger and will likely be more important but i was kinda going by a rank when known and a seniority thing (whos been there longest) in other cases with the juuken club, they are the newbies to the group even if they are strong. i don't care, i'm just wondering the reason.

i'm gonna re-arrange the page real quick (cuz its easier than explaining the concept) and see if that makes it everyone happy. --Grimjaw 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, Arrancar from the manga Bleach is a classification (An original Hollow that can use Shinigami powers) not an organization. If Aizen got hollow powers, he would be classified as a Vizard (An original Shinigami that can use hollow powers). So you shouldn't compare it to this discussion. Secondly, F was created eight years ago from the main timeline (Chap. 71 Page 21), which is 4 years before Mitsuomi's becomes their puppet ruler. Sohuku has always been F's leader. I do admit that Takayanagi example is correct, which sort of makes things more difficult. In theory, if their was a 12 founding family section (which I think their should not be), would you not put the Takayanagi family there instead of making a separate section. Like I stated before, not all characters are going to fit perfectly in groups, but seem illogical to make special sections for such characters. Basically like I stated before, the naming of the sections should have the same scheme. (Duane543 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

To me, Grimjaw's change (18:42, 23 April 2007) made things more confusing for the casual reader. Especially since Jushi Mataza Tsumuji looks like he is no longer loyal to Sohuku, but to his father. Also one could make a good argument that Fu Chi'en could belong in the "Members Loyal to Sohaku" section. I looking for simple, straightforward, character sections for the casual readers, not complex, detailed, subsections. (Duane543 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

yeah i'd actually think the old scheme is best. i'd prefer that over various subsections but i'm trying to find some kind of comprimise so i'm not imposing shit on people. i really think we are just better off with the old scheme and let people read character articles to figure it all out, i mean thats kinda the point of the character articles and all. --Grimjaw 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ok next attempt. i put it basically back to what it was but expanded the paragraph discussing F to try and better suit what access is looking for. let me know if u guys like it that way. i was also just thinking, should we put nokimi under F too? she works for sohaku afterall, and is a member of one of the branch families (Which could arguably be part of the new alliance of families). the only thing there is she is also apparently important to mitsuomi too...hopefully it will be cleared up in the scanslation of 104 since hirohiko approaches her. edits are cheap so should we put her under there and move her if she switches to mitsuomi's side? --Grimjaw 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I too like the old scheme better. As for Nokimi, I recommend that we wait and see before move the character around. (Duane543 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

ryugan

ok unless i've lost my mind (always a possiblity), or someone changed it and i didn't notice; i went with dragon eyes on all the character pages. for consistancy lets keep that here too, or this is just gonna get confusing as hell. --Grimjaw 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted

In future please provide fair use rationales, as is required. Please see also Wikipedia:Non-free content: I don't think this many fair use images are actually needed, at any rate. Moreschi ^Talk 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

with the main characters i'd agree with this, however with some characters (particularly minor and feudal japan characters) many people have no idea who is who. the images help them figure it out...my roommate reads tenjho tenge too, he has no idea who ichiyo or tokuan are the only way he would know who was who would be images. in the future i'd appreciate it if u ask for a fair use rationale before u delete shit assuming there isn't one. --Grimjaw 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place to be complaining about this Grimjaw. It was a hit and run by the Moreschi, who is wiki administrator. Even the BetacommandBot does a better job dealing with the fair use image files. At least it gives a notice to the unloader of the image and leaves another notice on the talk page. This gives editors sometime to make corrections before they are deleted. (Duane543 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I had to read the manga 3 times, I got lose at some points of the plot, some points that I dint get were cleared on the plot article especially on some character backgrounds. Feel sorry for ya Grimjaw, I know you are the one that seems to know the manga in every detail, you may have to work creating new profile articles on each of the rest of the characters in order for other people to know who they are, also feel sorry for the Main Plot deletion it was good in my opinion. Don’t give up man. Same goes for the rest of wikipedians, improve Tenjou Tenge for the rest of the world ;P.

P.S.

Ill do my part once I gather the correct Information.

--SGTEdwards~~ 1:30 pm, Monday, July 23, 2007 GMT-8 ~~

i put images back on the characters i think need them for people to recognize who is being talked about and don't have their own article. the only others i can think of that might need an image are enma enmi, shidzuru and yorihira...the others u can figure out, like the taxi driver for example. --Grimjaw 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The second time

I'm reverting the delete images because the use of fair-use images are still under discussion and their is no clear wording on official wiki policies about characters in _____ article. I under stand that non-free images can't be used in lists. These character articles were not originally named "List of characters of ______", they where changed per WP:MOS-AM#Page layout. If you go to the WP:LIST the example look nothing like the targeted article. The article is not of list of only character names where the policy would apply, it is more a collection stub character articles on one page. I only ask to have a clear official policy if they are to be taken down, not some editor's interpretation of the policy. (Duane543 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

• I understand your position. However, it's in error. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_images_in_.22list_of_characters_in....22_or_.22Characters_of....22_articles. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• If you can find a montage picture created by the copyright holder for most/all of the characters, that would be great. The policy for this particular point is outlined at WP:NFCC #3a. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand my position. I want a clear wording in the wiki policy that these images are not allowed. All I get from you is the same line from WP:NFCC. "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." You are missing some key words. Mainly the words "as possible" and "if". So the policy not definite. What bugs be the most is how you came out of nowhere and try to do what you want. No warning what you are planing to do and no discussion. Then you back up your arguments by citing yourself. To top it all, you are using a sock puppet while doing all this. When you got caught doing this, you cleared the user page and talk page to that puppet. So you should not talk about policy!!! I will try to find that image that contains most of the character that you what, but it might take some time considering the cast of main character and to make sure the character images are proper (I can think of one, but all the characters are nude. That is Oh!Great for you). I already posted it on the main articles to do. Until then, please don't remove the images. (Duane543 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

• As noted in edit summaries from my talk page, it is entirely acceptable for me to clear my talk page if I so desire. It was getting longer than I would have preferred it. Anything else you construe from that action is your business, and shows a distinct lack of assumption of good faith on your part. Second, as was noted on my talk page before I cleared it, there is nothing wrong with my edits. This account, by definitions expressed at WP:SOCK, is not a sock puppet. That's another false accusation you have made against me. How many false accusations would you like to make against me? Further, what is the point in attacking the messenger? This does not serve your purpose. Instead, it serves to antagonize those who are attempting to work with you. Surely you can understand that intentionally antagonizing other editors is a negative behavior?
• As for the images; what I am doing is upheld not just by policy, but multiple debates ranging across a broad range of forums. As for the policy and guidelines themselves, I noted one already. Here's more. Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images in the very first sentence notes that "The use of non-free media in lists...usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8)" (of WP:NFCC). Further, Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images notes that for "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." There is no critical commentary of these images. They are being used for illustration purposes only. There might be critical commentary of the series, but that is insufficient. There must be critical commentary of the images. That does not exist here. Further, WP:NFCC item #3a notes "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article" Currently, after your last revert, there are 51 fair use images on this article. You can not make any reasonable argument to conclude that 51 images is somehow "minimal". It isn't minimal.
• I have quoted you policy and guidelines to support my position. You complain of me citing myself, yet what I cited cites policy. Violations of policy are not acceptable. Period. If you had a fair use image on your userpage, it would not be acceptable to retain the image until such time as you found a free license image to replace it. Similarly, a violation here with 51 fair use images is completely unacceptable and must be undone to comply with policy. There is no point in tolerating the policy violation until you can find a single image to replace the many here.
• I'll give you a bit of time to see if you can find policy to back yourself up. Though, if I might save you some energy, you can't. If you can't, I'll remove them again. I'm open to discussion. But, I encourage to refrain from attacking me in so doing. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The user account Hammersoft might have started as an alternate account, but it became a sock puppet the minute you started to use it to avoid scrutiny. If you proud of what you are doing then do it with your primary account. That is half the problem though, no courtesy for the editors that actually work on the articles. If an editor placed a warning about the violation and actually give the contributing editors some time try to fix it, they would be less bitter if the images happen to be removed a couple days later. Editors like you, like take the blunt approach, making your edits without warning, then battle it out in a edit war with a resentful editor(s). That is just disrespectful to the editors that took the time to upload those images and trying to make an article about fiction more interesting and easy to understand. Sometimes people don't have a problem of what you are doing, but instead have a problem with the way you are doing it. (Duane543 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

• I note you have not cited any policy to support your position. I presume from this that you acknowledge that the fair use images on this article were used improperly? You seem to tacitly acknowledge this with "Sometimes people don't have a problem of what you are doing" and your lack of reverting User:Rettetast's reversion of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of reverting, because you are one of your buddies will revert it back or I will get blocked by Rettetast, who is an wiki administrator. I can see your point, but it does not mean I agree with it. You make it seem that WP:NFCC is all black and white. I see a lot of gray. Like I stated before, their are words like "as possible" and "if". Look guideline tag which states: "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page". I would have liked the last line followed, before action was taken. As I stated before, I only want clear wording on official wiki policy. However it might not matter anyway, right. Sooner or later an editor(s) will probably put the all character articles up for AFD to try to have them deleted or striped down to only the technical details. Why, because an article has not enough secondary sources or not enough real word context. For any sub-articles, the fiction's main article being the exception, the standards set for fiction are really hard to meet for an average editor. Most editors know that not all articles should be judged as if they have a GA, A, or FA rating, but their is always a few that think that they should. Then again, it is always easier to remove items from articles when an editor as no invested interest in them. I guess that is partly why their are very few long time wikipedians that still work on fiction articles and why their are so many wikias now. It is ironic, that the most consistently popular wiki articles are sex related and articles about fiction (see here), but some editors want to radically change how these fictional articles are edited. (Duane543 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

• I am not a buddy of Rettetast's. Sorry. Anyways, do you really think that having 51 fair use images on this article is somehow acceptable? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a hypothetical. Would your edits have been the same if the fair use images were not on the same page. Such as this page was split up so each group (each of this articles subsection) would have had it's own page. I would be willing to bet that those hypothetical articles would not have even gotten your attention. Would you have probably chosen some other article to be made example of.

You keep on trying to get me to say if I think it is acceptable. My answer is "I DON'T KNOW". This is a issue that has ramifications for many articles. Wiki is a community of editors. As such, editors should made aware (like through WikiProjects) of any attempted changes or clarification of a policy. Individual opinions on both sides are heard, maybe take an opinion poll. Although wiki is not a democracy, it would be better then a few pushing their ideals or interpretations on to articles they never worked on or probably never visited before. As I advocated in the first message, I only wanted clear wording in the policy, not interpretation of a policy, before these actions were taken. On a side note, why are you still using your alternated account to post messages here. What is wrong with your primary account? (Duane543 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

this would be why wiki sucks...the point of the rules you're spewing is to prevent pointless image spamming in articles, not to prevent the legitimate use of images in an article. the bottom line is if wiki went to the extreme and deleted every article that broke one of their rules they'd have no articles at all. its damn near impossible to write a useful article and follow all the rules, your rendering this entire article borderline useless to anyone. the rules say don't use many when one will suffice, well in my opinion and likely in duane's as well is that one simply does not suffice.

oh no, don't have images of characters most people don't know by name! that would make the article useful...wouldn't want that. i know a lot of people who follow this series and have no clue who many characters are just by name. if i asked my room mate who mouki enmi is i'd get a blank stare, yet show him a pic of mouki and he's like "oh that kid". hell half the people i know who follow this series don't know what masataka's first name is and he's a MAJOR character. the concept of getting one pic to show ALL these characters is ridiculous. an image with that many characters would be worthless...yeah he's the one on the upper left, next to the guy with the thing, and above that one dude. we used multiple images cuz thats the only way to display that many characters in a coherant fashion. there are some images with certain groups in them i.e. the feudal japan main characters crew in one image, but that would still take multiple images to cover each group. on top of that many characters NEVER appeared in a group image. i don't supposed you wiki-nazi's would let me use individual images when no group is available and several group images where applicable would you? hell i still don't get why the images from the character articles were taken out, they are already uploaded theres no reason not to take advantage of that and use them here as a visual aid. cuz seriously if i hadn't written all the articles i wouldn't know the names of 95% the characters in this series, beforehand i knew them from appearance alone like most of the people i know who follow it.--Grimjaw (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're forgetting a very basic premise of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. You can never make an argument that copyrighted works constitute free content. If a character is so minor that it doesn't warrant it's own article, it certainly doesn't need a non-free image on a page with dozens of other characters with non-free images as well. You do not need an image of every single character in Tenjho Tenge to understand the artistic environment, plot elements, etc. You just don't. The ONLY reason you "need" it is to depict minor characters, which is a very weak excuse for violating the basic tenant of Wikipedia being a free content encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

of course only free content thats why i can upload non-free content in the first place. if it was like ur talking about there would be no non-free content period, not a recommendation of LIMITED non-free content. the purpose is to limit LIABILITY for copyright infringement, and such images potentially being used to create counterfeit goods. an entire page of manga cropped down to a 100X100 view of a single characters face is fucking worthless for counterfeit goods, and i doubt oh great and what not would sue over that any more than they would the images used in the character articles which are actually larger and entire pages in some cases. the premise of wiki is to make information available to everyone, i'm trying to make the article actually useful to someone. just because the character doesn't have its own article does not mean they are unimportant, hell ichiyo nagi is important as hell to this series now...no article, cuz he died 400 years ago; not due to unimportance. hell i was tempted to write articles for ichiyo and tokuan shojo just for the purpose of helping those unfamiliar with the series or who were confused by the feudal japan arc (which is a SHITLOAD of people) understand the story better. if they were truly unimportant they wouldn't be in the article at all, like that teacher with a cross scar on his head and so forth.

ur horribly misinterpreting the rule, like i said it says LIMIT use not eliminate. and honestly the number of images could be cut back but the concept of using one in this article is quite frankly, fucking retarded. trying to point out which character is which in an image, in the article would be impossible; and doing it with a caption would have the caption longer than the fucking article itself. bottom line is if someone was reading this article its cuz they don't know or don't remember who a character is, what their name is, or who did what in the story...images of characters can make figuring that shit out a hell of a lot easier. if i'm wondering hey whats that kids name, i can look at the images, recognize him and then see his name. if i'm wondering who did what an image is a good place to start rather than reading the descriptons of every character in the whole series to find the one i'm looking for and so forth. the use of images increases both the informative value of this article as well as its ease of use. ur living in a dream world where wiki's rules say no non-free content regardless of how fucking useful it may be, and thats not what it says. get a clue, and quit trying to make a very broad and general rule specific. limit use, not eliminated it...this article needed to have use limited not erradicated. --Grimjaw (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The removal of individual images for depiction purposes will continue. If you do not like this, please take it up with the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

and removal of images will just be reverted or redone...yeah acting like a sockpuppet really gets us some where. i like how u had no counter argument for me tho, i just shows ur wrong and won't admit it. refresh me as to what makes u the authority on it? --Grimjaw (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed them again. No rational argument can be made that having such a huge number of fair use images on the page constitutes agreement with our policies. This is serious overuse of fair use. You've been advised of what to do to correct the situation and who to contact if you disagree with the policies here. I strongly suggest you take it up with the foundation and stop insisting on forcing 30 fair use images onto this article which has little more than a few sentences for each character. If there is enough material and notability for a character to have their own article, they can have an image there. Not here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

all but one image is already in the character articles no reason not to put them to use. i have yet to hear a reason not to use them again even tho i specifically asked for one. the last image aded was a group image. use is LIMITED just like the rule says. just cuz u can't read doesn't mean i'm wrong...i can revert as much as you can. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Grimjaw, your arguments seem to be:

• Since you can upload non-free content, non-free content is globally acceptable. (This is wrong)
• The purpose of our policies is to limit copyright liability. (This is only partially true. Far more important is our m:mission)
• The premise of wiki is to make information available to everyone. (Not accurate. See m:mission).
• Some of the characters here are important (Doesn't matter; this creates an arbitrary, subjective line no one can follow)
• Alternatively, all of the characters are important (else they wouldn't be on the list) (So you can write two sentences about a character and they count as important?)
• Limiting use means re-adding 30 images to this article. (Wrong. Limiting use means tightly limiting the exceptions under which free content can exist at all. See [1] point 3 "narrow limits")
• Using a single group image is impossible. (Not so. I've seen several examples of images modified to tag each character. Easy to do).

The remainder of your objections seem to be interspersed with various expletives that I refuse to either recognize or respond to. If you can not conduct yourself in a civil manner, please do not bother to post until you can. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• You have reverted again and stated your intent to continue to revert war to have your way. In this latest revert, you state that since these images are used elsewhere this does not create more additional material being used. From your vantage point, this might seem accurate; only one image is being used afterall. The problem is that the end product is what is being affected. Not only does each character article have a non-free image on it, but now the character list does as well. This makes it increasingly difficult for this project to be used as a free-content resource, which is our m:mission. Further, the use of the images is redundant and wholly unnecessary. The use here is purely decorative. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the one who first decided to revert regardless of reason was you..as can be seen in this very conversation. this does not violate the mission at all, the mission says to provide information thats what i'm doing, its still free. there is no violation of the mission, show me where i put a "u must pay to see this artcle" in there. their use in both mine and duane's opinion is neccissary, and since we actually follow the series we're in a much better position to make that decision than you. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Providing images that are not free does not constitute "still free". The mission says "to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license" No, you don't have to pay to see unfree content. But, the failing you're making is a common one in that free as in beer is not the same as in free as in libre. Free use is not the same as free content. Wikipedia is not a free use encyclopedia. It's a free content encyclopedia. This is a pivotal difference, and may be the underpinning of why it's not being understood why this usage is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

and again if that was true they wouldn't let u upload it in the first place. wiki's own policy to limit use would violate the mission by ur logic. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• We allow unfree content under strictly limited conditions. This does not mean we can use unfree content as much as we like. I think you will find reading free content to be quite educational and help you understand why what you are saying is inaccurate. Just because we do not have to pay to use something does not make it free as in the way Wikipedia wants to be free. Wikipedia insists on free content, except in very limited circumstances. See clause 3 of [2]. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

hallelujah...exactly LIMITED USE. was it limited before? no it really wasn't all that limited. none the less its pretty damn limited now. u have no concept of the sheer quantity of characters in this series...why it seems like a lot of images to you, in comparisson the sheer number of characters it is very limited. in fact the list it self is limited, to only the small portion of characters with repeat appearances, and a decent amount of significance to the story. limiting images for a limited list of characters IS limited in my opinion. and the bottom line is that what is limited is a matter of opinion...and while my opinion may not be right by default neither is yours. however since i actually follow the series i'm more qualified than you to make the decision. as is duane, cojin, reige (i think thats his name) and several other editors. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Simply because you are familiar with a series does not make you the arbiter of what can and can not appear on an article. Please read and understand WP:OWN. Further, the images are already in use (for the most part) in character articles on each of the characters. The use here is redundant and unnecessary for the purposes of the project to produce a free content encyclopedia. Have you read free content? Do you understand that simply because you do not have to pay for something doesn't make it free as in the way Wikipedia wants it? Also, it is common practice around the project (and has been for the better part of a year now) to conduct these removals. I understand and appreciate that you have not been exposed to the basic concepts underlying this move, though I hope you are now. Nevertheless, exposed or no, it does not give you leave to violate core principles of the project and undermine work that is being done all across the project on this front. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i never claimed to own the article or the images or anything else here for that matter. i also never said i was the final decision maker...i said i was more qualified than you, thats a big difference. i not only understand what free content is i know what a free content license is and how that works. the use of images IS ALLOWED, even when they are considered non-free...there is no argument against that. the rules merely say to limit it and i'm attempting to do that and still make the article useful. the mission ur so proud of says "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content LICENSE or in the public domain, and to disseminate it EFFECTIVELY and globally." i'm using content under a LICENSE, to make the article more EFFECTIVE and useful. u see to upload these images i have to select a free content license under which they are used...the content itself may be non-free but it is licensed, i.e. it has a legal and legitamate use. how do u think wiki is allowed to use it in the first place, or for that matter why they allow it? --Grimjaw (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just above, you did claim that you are more qualified to make decisions on this article than I am, and thus implied that my decisions had no merit on this article. This violates WP:OWN. You state there is no argument against the use of non-free images. I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss as to how you are not understanding the resolution? It specifically state NARROW LIMITS. I fail to understand how this is not being understood. Regardless, it's policy. Even if you do not understand it, even if you disagree with it, even if you hate it with every fiber of your body, it is policy. You can't overturn it. I specifically recommended to you that you take this up with the Foundation since you so adamantly disagree with their resolution. I'll make it easier for you. See Foundation:Contact us. It's got the phone numbers. Please call them and ask them to overturn their resolution, or at least explain to you why this resolution is fundamental to the project. Obviously every attempt I've made to educate you on this matter has failed. You claim you understand what free content means yet above you say "show me where i put a 'u must pay to see this artcle' in there". This clearly shows you do not understand the difference between free to see and free content, free of legal restrictions. I've tried to educate you on this as well, but you claim to have full knowledge of it. You're using content under a non-free license. Just because you use it under a license doesn't make it free content. Free content means anyone can use it, for any purpose they want, without legal restrictions.
• Let me give you a case example, to hopefully highlight the difference to you. Let's say I decide to make a million t-shirts to sell. I decide to decorate them with a piece of art that is licensed under a free content license. I would be perfectly within the bounds of law to do so. Nobody could sue me for doing so, and the original author could not demand that I pay them any portion of the profits from the t-shirt sales. That's free as in free content. If instead I decided to use Image:Maya natsume.jpg on the t-shirt, Oh! great could sue me in court and would most likely win for copyright infringement and demand payment of profits from the sale of the t-shirts. That's free as in gratis. Simply because the use of something is legal and free does not mean it is available under a free content license. That's precisely why Image:Maya natsume.jpg has a tag on it that has a red "C", meaning it's copyrighted. It's NOT free content. You might find reading Gratis versus Libre to be illuminating. If none of this is able to get you to a point of understanding this difference, then I don't think my efforts will further assist you.
• Nevertheless, your lack of understanding of the difference does not constitute a reason to suspend policy, resolution, and mission of this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

non free content is allowed by the sheer fact wiki has a way for me to upload it and use it legitamately was the point...and u totally missed it. the rules say u can have it, period and there is no argument against. the rule says to LIMIT USE NOT ELIMINATE IT, by that definition it IS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED. and thats what ur whole argument boils down to...whether or not its limited. i never said ur opinon doesn't count i said i'm more qualified than you. i.e. if i had a phd in a subject and u didn't, i'm obviously more qualified to talk about it...that DOES NOT render ur opinion void, and i never said it did. what is limited is a matter of opinion, i don't need to ask the foundation to change the policy cuz in my eyes, and judging from duanes discussion with u, in his it doesn't violate said policy. the policy like it or not is highly subjective. and two people who are more qualified on the subject than you have an opinion in opposition to your own. this is not a democracy...however if two people with a phd in biology disagreed with u on a biology related subject your opinion while not void is likely incorrect.

the sheer fact that u are not an admin on wiki makes ur interpretation of the policy as void as my own (which u seem so ready to throw out). u seem to think ur opinion is the absolute one, and it isn't the foundation never appointed u to a position where that would be the case. --Grimjaw (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you disagree. Your arguments are repeating themselves, and I find myself repeating myself in order to show you how you are in error. I've repeatedly cited policy, resolution, mission, etc. to no effective end. You want the images because you like them, and firmly believe policy supports you. Yet, the removal of images from lists all over the project has been happening for quite some time now. I'm sorry you disagree with bare facts, and I'm sorry I am not up to the task of showing you the error of your lines of thinking. I'm not interested in repeating myself again. It is highly likely the images will remain off of the article. If you wish to change this, I strongly suggest (for the third time now) that you take this issue up with the Foundation at the previously mentioned contact points. Your quarrel is with them, not with me. They wrote the resolution supporting free content (which you seem to think means anything we can legally use, which is also quite wrong). Good day sir, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

u've repeatedly cited a vauge policy that doesn't support ur claim, and a mission that also doesn't support it. congradulations u accomplished nothing...vauge shit does nothing to elminate the fact that it comes down to opinion. oh so they do it all over wiki huh, last i hear wiki wasn't a democracy so the majority isn't necissarily in the right...if it was u'd of already lost this argument.

hell i took this from nfcc itself:

from rationale: To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose.

from policy itself: 3. (a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary 8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

us as much media as needed, with minimal use of non-free content not zero use. it even says to use it if it would be detrimental not to have it...in this case it would be very detrimental to the article. again this policy is very vague, and general...none the less it doesn't say what u claim it says by any means. --Grimjaw (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you disagree. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Their contact page is here. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

and yet again there is no need for me to talk to the foundation...this isn't violating the policy. why the hell are u right by default? it comes down to what counts as limited...which is a matter of opinion. you automatically assume ur opinion is right and that i'm some sort of idiot who can't read. the policy DOES NOT say what u claim it says. see my above direct quotes from it...its allowed, use is minimized, it would be detrimental not to have the images therefore its allowed. it doesn't violate any policy. u may be all nfcc-nazi if u want but its still a matter of opinion, there is no need for a policy change since in my eyes and in some other's eyes it doesn't violate the policy. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

View from outside

Hi. Hammersoft brought this issue up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎, which is a reasonable forum for discussing the matter. As someone who has been active on that page for about seven months and generally supports the use of non-free images, it's clear to me that the way the images are used on this page is not currently allowed. We have a consensus that image use of this sort violates our rules against use of images in lists (the preamble of the list of examples at WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable images), and also per WP:NFCC#3 (Minimal usage). Someone might read those sections and come to a different conclusion, and in a different universe we might have decided otherwise, but as things are this is the conclusion that has consensus and has been consistently enforced across Wikipedia. It's not my decision and I'm not planning to take part in any dispute over this page, I'm just telling you that's the way things are so please don't be surprised or upset if there is pressure to remove images from this page - if you followed the formal dispute resolution mechanisms I think that would be the inevitable conclusion. But you know, as far as I can tell each of these characters has an excellent stand-alone article where the images are used, so it's not as if any content is going to be lost. If there are some sections about more minor characters that don't have their own separate article, I would go ahead and create a stub article for each, even if it is only a couple paragraphs and put the image there - as long as you can follow the usual rules about notability. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

are u actually suggesting the cure is to create well over 30 stub articles just to put up an image? now i don't view my 100X100 images as doing much damage but uploading damn near full page images, or screen shots of each character THATS non-free abuse IMO. to me this article serves a purpose not only to prevent resorting to that kind of a scale, and making worthless articles and a navigation nightmare, but also as an index to find who ur looking for. since hammersoft insists the characters with articles having images is redundant why do we have them on the list at all?...all it does is give a shortened article summary... cuz this is basically a find shit index. when i was writing the articles i used this list to remind me who did what, and whos named what...it would have taken me 300 years to write the articles without this page. this article is nearly soley responsible for me knowing each characters name...if they aren't on here i don't know their name, and i'm not exaggerating. it really is incredibly effective and useful, hence why i don't want to change it.

good example, i have a friend who i just talked into reading this series a few weeks ago, he didn't follow the feudal japan arc and so he reads wiki (having no idea i initially wrote most things related to this series). he still doesn't get it so i explain it to him...but he doesn't know who i'm talking about so he pulls up this exact page...scrolls down looks at the images and NOW he knows who i'm talking about, cuz he recognizes their appearance. (except tokuan cuz u never really see his face in story). he then comments on how useful it was, and i was like hell i wrote half of it lol. and lets face it that kind of stuff is the exact reason for the existance of this article...under any other context this article is useless IMO. and when u follow this series u realize there were literally well over 70 named characters by the end of just the 4th volume, (and they are still introducing new ones now at the end of volume 18!) u understand actually remembering all those names is next to impossible. hell at one point duane was explaining the feudal japan arc to me (cuz even i didn't follow it at first) and he mentions tokuan shojo and i literally had no clue who he was talking about. thats VERY common in this series; so in an article that references a repeat character such as shitake-sensei (i totally had to look that name up to reference it LOL) 99% of hardcore tenjho tenge followers would be sitting there thinking "who the hell is that?" but u put up a pic of the teacher with a cross scar on his head they're like "oh that guy!". THATS why the images are important...like i mentioned before the list itself is limited, and the use of images on the list is limited, its really limited twice over. when u know the series u realize that with the current list, 70% of the characters aren't even on it and of the total characters in the series maybe 10-15% have images. this one image shit is crazy...there are like 50 characters listed here and while there are images of huge groups, half of them are images where over 30% of the characters on them aren't mentioned on this list. if i used nothing but group images to picture JUST the characters that currently have images it would STILL take multiple images to show them all and half the characters would be imaged 5-6 times (including several not mentioned on the list at all, and some still would never be shown. this is the most effective way to do it and still limit use. and being effective is part of wiki's mission. --Grimjaw (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wiki's mission isn't to be a guide. What you're suggesting is that we be a guide, and thus have complete indexes of all characters with images to match to ensure it functions well as a guide. I've had great difficult in conveying to you the difference between free as in gratis and free as in libre. Another topic which is subtle compared to the gratis-libre difference is guide vs. encyclopedia. If you would like more information about that, I'd be happy to attempt to explain it to you. The net outcome of that subtle topic though is that what Wikipedia frequently finds itself the victim of is attempts by people to turn articles and sets of articles into comprehensive compendiums of all information related to a topic. That isn't what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all bits of information found anywhere. You would be extremely shocked to know that to some people, the very existence of this article is highly questionable. In fact, if this were put before those people it's highly likely it would be deleted outright, whether images were on it or not. All of the references on this page are from in-universe resources. There's nothing showing any of these characters are notable enough beyond their universe to have gained any particular attention from any other secondary source. This makes this article fatally flawed unless it can be rectified. But, I'm not suggesting it should be deleted. There will be others that will eventually, some day, propose to do just that unless the sourcing problems are fixed. Do you want to argue against that too? Where would you like this to stop? When do we enforce policy and when do we not? When you say you're more experienced with a series and therefore get to decide what policies apply to this page and what do not? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i never said wiki should be a guide, i said thats pretty much what this article functions as. as for the articles significance in the larger scheme, see the main page of Tenjho Tenge to see its reception both in anime form and manga. as for the questionable nature of this article i'd say ur wrong...they deleted the plot article that we used to have for that reason i highly doubt they over looked an article so heavily interlinked with it in their clean up efforts. and again u seem to be confused, i never said i get to decide...please point out where i ever said that. saying i'm more qualified is totally different, i think the one unable to distinquish between two things is you. as i said before, my opinion is just as void as urs. in the grand scheme neither of us can really have the final say on a matter of opinion. i never said i was right, i said you were making general rules specific. the only person saying their opinion is correct and therefore some sort of law is you. --Grimjaw (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have the time or energy to get into the rationale behind the rules and I don't always agree with it myself, I'm just trying to give you some perspective about what the rules are and the opposition you'll face if you want to keep a bunch of copyrighted character images in a single article about a manga series. Sorry if I'm a little slow, but I thought most of the disputed images are characters with full articles. You're right that it would be a lot of trouble to create 30 stub articles if they don't exist already. I hear you that it's a pain and that it might end up making the article less useful. But it could be better than the alternative of deleting the images. Characters that are so minor they don't deserve their own article may just suffer. Perhaps there are some other kinds of organization that will help people keep track, e.g. sorting or making tables not just by name but by sex, affiliations, where they appear, identifying traits or powers, etc. Cheers. Wikidemo (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you disagree Grimjaw. I really am. I've made huge efforts to educate you on these matters, and Wikidemo has been so kind as to offer an outside view that confirms what I've been saying. Nevertheless, you remain intransigent on these matters. I do not know what more to say to you, except that if you continue your position via forcing images against policy back onto this or any other similar article you will be quite disappointed at the results. I don't think further debate with you will be fruitful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i've tried to talk it out, i've vastly limited image use etc. yet u still say its non-free abuse and claim the rules say shit that they don't say. i don't need to be educated cuz i've read nfcc, and complied with it. your just against having any images in this article regardless, the one remaining intransigent would be you. u refuse to acknowledge that the policy merely says to limit use, you have no understanding of the subject matter and have made no effort to educate urself on it, and have chosen resist any attempt to put any image of any kind on this article based on a horrible misinterpretation of a rule. i've directly quoted the policy for you and it doesn't say what ur claiming it says. end of story. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry I speak English and not what ever gibberish short hand you use. Non-free content is not allowed in this type of page. β^_command 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah go read nfcc...3a and 8...for that matter read the rationale which says use as much media as necissary but only whats necissary. --Grimjaw (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I don't want to be bullied into following someone interpretation of a policy or guideline. I want clear wording in the policy or guideline itself, but as stated in the nfc talk page that editors could not come to a agreement. Thus it is still disagreement on how these pages should be handled. Even with this disagreement at nfc, Betacommand is still trying to force his/her's interpretation with others through edit warring. That is not right!!!! (Duane543 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

actually there has been an agreement on the wording, and previous consensus is now policy. β^_command 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does say no images for "characters of (whatever)" articles. (Duane543 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

• The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images was specifically added to address this very issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)