Talk:List of The Prince of Tennis characters

Yamabuki Vice-Captain conundrum

Earlier in the series it was stated to be Sengoku, but the Volume 40.5 databook (which is the most recent information) states it to be Higashitaka. Should both be mentioned as Vice-Captains? Kuwabaratheman (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the 40.5 book states that Higashitaka is the Vice-captain, then that should be the one that we should follow. As for Sengoku, we could just put "Former vice-captain" if he was stated to be one; since the latest character book states that Higashita is the VC, it would most likely imply that Sengoku is not anymore. By the way, I'm curious as to what manga chapter states that Sengoku was the VC, since I'm trying to look for it, but I can't find it. DarkAngel ^{█▀▀007▄▄█} 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm unsure now. He was at the meeting that seemed to be fore just Captains and Vice-Captains, but that's not really enough to say he was the Vice-Captain. I think it might have been said in 10.5 or 20.5, but I don't have access to those right now. So for now I guess we should just go with listing Higashitaka as the Vice-Captain. If I can find some evidence that Sengoku was mentioned as such before, it might be worth noting.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Momo and Kaidoh

Why were Kaidoh and Momo's articles merged with here? Jedi Striker 18:27, 21 October 2008(UTC)

Same reason all the other characters and schools were. Merges made without any discussion or consensus. It makes no sense, and they should have their own articles again. But I figure that any attempts made will be met with the same merges happening again.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters have to establish notability independent of the series. As of now, these only have primary character polls (which only need to be mentioned if secondary characters, like Hyotei, take the top spots). The best they'd likely ever get are trivial mentions that don't establish anything. TTN (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What part of that applies to merging articles without discussion? Regardless of if some of the articles deserved it (I'd certainly agree on several of them), there needs to be some sort of consensus established first.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And now they did it to Inui, Kikumaru, and Kawamura. What's going on here? If they do it to all the other characters, there's gonna be problems. Jedi Striker 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting them back to the way it should be. There's no reason why you should single them out for no reason. All the regulars deserve to have an article for themselves. 124.188.180.129 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, but now Kaidoh's article has gotten deleted again. Jedi Striker 10:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok seriously, whoever keeps merging Kaidoh's article to this article needs to take it up with someone. Each of the Seigaku players deserve their own articles. Jedi Striker 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore Momo's article! Jedi Striker 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Merges of individual character articles

All of the individual character articles have been tagged for merging to this list for failing the notability requirements for having their own list, consisting almost entirely of WP:PLOT and failing WP:WAF. Unless notability through significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and the availability of plenty of creation/conception information and reception information (beyond a handful of popularity polls) can be established, merging is necessary. I've created individual sections for each character below (including the already tagged one) for people's views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides Ryoma and Tezuka, I pretty much agree to merging the others. However, I'm certain there is creation information on nearly all the main characters, but unfortunately, I do not have access to the extra volumes, thus I do not know what's in them 0.o . I haven't thoroughly looked at all the reviews I found on the series yet so I'm unsure about how well reviewed the other characters are, but besides Ryoma, I don't exactly plan in rewriting the others anytime soon (or ever) anyway since I'm not on as much as before. Still, if people are willing to wait for other users to improve the other articles, I suggest just creating a "Conception and creation" and "Reception" sections on each and adding the expand template.

Also, I haven't really been paying attention recently, but seeing the talk above I noticed that someone merged the characters before, but then they were restored, so I found a version with the merged characters that was extremely well done by User TTN. If or when they're merged, I'd suggest switching back to that, with the exception of the lack of voice actors of course. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation/conception along isn't enough, though, without reception. See List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. We had some creation/conception, but not anything from third parties, so they still were merged. Also see the new WP:FICT being finalized, which notes that without the third party coverage, primary conception isn't enough for their own articles. If the TTN merges were good, then if the ones below are accepted, I'd agree. I didn't check them as most of his merges of late haven't been merges at all, just redirecting and ignoring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If we merge everyone, we should to be sure to mention their voice and musical actors. Jedi Striker 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the anime voice actors should be included (they should already be there, really, no idea why they aren't). The musical are less critical, but if sourcable can be included.--- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so cuz all the actors that have played the roles all have an individual section about playing the roles. Jedi Striker 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They have them because the articles are all very badly done with excessive plot summary and a lot of fancruft, not because they need them nor are notable. For most character lists we provide the original voice actors for the anime and any English sub info. The rest is generally trivial. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this back up. After some time it looks like only Kunimitsu Tezuka has had any major emphasis to show independent notability and verifiability. The others give only token examples easily merged. I suggest Kunimitsu Tezuka be closed as keep, Ryoma Echizen I think may require broader requests and there appears to be no consensus. The others be merged.じんない 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with closing Tezuka as keep, since the issue given by the remaining merge vote has already been taken care of by the addition of multiple reviews. Also, I'll try expanding the reception section for Ryoma with reviews. As for the others, I agree with them being merged unless someone else cares to expand their reception. As a side note, I'm thinking of removing the movie and musical actors from this list since Tenimyu and The Prince of Tennis (film) already have complete cast lists. The anime voice actors are probably enough. ⇒DarkAngel⁰⁰⁷ 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryoma Echizen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Closed as keep by consensus. All outstanding issues brought up were resolved.

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Possible Merge, per nom Keep. As he is the main protagonist, there might be something on him and I would be more inclined to assume good faith until someone does a thorough check for sources on creation or real-world impact.じんない 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good faith is assumed for editors, not articles. At this point, existence of real-world information is pure speculation on your part. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • DarkAngel1007 claims to have found some creation iformation. I think that warrants giving him enough time to check it over and compile it. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere so in this case where a claim is made, I think we can give a reasonable amount of time and merge the ones with better consensus.じんない 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This isn't AfD. The edit history isn't in danger. Therefore time is no issue anyways. Besides, creation information -- which doesn't even help towards notablity -- can just as good be added to a character list's creation and conception section. Once enough information is gathered, a character can be split out again in a few clicks, while getting a character merged is a long and painful process. This very discussion is evidence of that. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Creation information can help for notability if the character was modeled after or on something notable.じんない 04:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Really? Says who? The still proposed WP:FICT? -- Seriously, if I make a snowman in the image of George W. Bush (or any other highly notable person or character), does that make my snowman more notable than if I had made it in the image of my very non-notable neighbor? I think not. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Using obviously absurd augments to illustrate a point does no one any good for complex issues of notability of fictional works - each one has to be taken on their own because their is no real way to define notability within a work that does not have serious scholarly review with a blanket statement without either saying it's all or nothing.じんない 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not a complex issue. It's simple issue: No reliable, independent sources -> no notability. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- For this character, I actually have found creation information and have been planning to rewrite the article in a similar format to Tezuka's (I even put it in my Sandbox), but have just not found the time. I can probably do so sometime this month (or the next), so for now, I'll need you to hold off on this. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If kept, both should be modeled after GA or higher character articles, not each other. Some anime character GAs include Rock Lee, Sakura Haruno, and Himura Kenshin. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ·contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That should go without saying.じんない 04:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, by format, I meant structure, with Tezuka's abiding by WP:MOS-ANIME (besides that matches section, but that can easily be removed if it's too excessive).

Also, I should've been more precise before, but I should also mention that I have more than a substantial amount of reviews for Ryoma, so even if the creation information isn't up to par, I'm sure the amount of reviews will balance out the notability. My bad, I thought I implied that in my previous reply in this main section's lead. Take note that I'm typing this at 4AM, so I'm a little sluggish. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- Jedi Striker 14:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The article now has enough non-trivial reception to be kept and general consensus seems to agree.陣内_Jinnai 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shusuke Fuji

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Closed as merge per consensus 18 October 2009 by Jinnai

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- Fuji's personality and background are very interesting and worth keeping. Jedi Striker 13:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "very interesting and worth keeping" - We have a word for that: "notability". And notability isn't established by editors saying so, but by adding of reliable independent sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We can keep information about his "very interesting" personality even after a merge.じんない 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep -- Fuji is an important character, the "third star", if you will. His games are very important and should not be merged into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.228.100 (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• As there has been no real attempts to show the notability of this character since January with only a stub reception section, i suggest he be merged finally.陣内_Jinnai 21:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge -- No one seems to be working on this and I know I'm not going to anytime soon. If anyone wants to recreate the article (with enough reviews, other third-party sources and maybe creation info of course), then they can do so in the future. ⇒DarkAngel⁰⁰⁷ 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sadaharu Inui

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Completed 5 February 2009 by Jinnai

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kaoru Kaido

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Completed 5 February 2009 by Jinnai

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keigo Atobe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Completed 5 February 2009 by Jinnai

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eiji Kikumaru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Closed as merge by consensus. All outstanding issues brought up were resolved.

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- Eiji's story of how he matures as a player is a story that I think is worth keeping. I can say the same for Oishi's. Jedi Striker 13:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That story, if it helps contribute to the understanding of the work, can be kept with a merger.じんない 04:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

陣内_Jinnai 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shuichiro Oishi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Closed as merge by consensus. All outstanding issues brought up were resolved.

• Merge, per nom. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. -- じんない 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- Same reasons as Eiji. Jedi Striker 13:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • See Eiji.じんない 04:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

陣内_Jinnai 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kunimitsu Tezuka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Closed as keep 20 June 2009 by consensus. All outstanding issues brought up were resolved.

• Merge, per nom. Though this article has a decently sized "Reception and influence" section, its content consists only of non-independent polls, a listing of merchandise, and a comment by the author, but nothing to establish notability. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

*Neutral. -- This article has the best real-world impact, even if you ignore the polls. The fact some CDs were made exclusively for him could be justified as notable, but very weak notability.じんない 04:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- I've added several reviews for him, enough to establish real-world notability. I also added a request for creation info in the article's todo since I have no access to those, but I know they exist. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- Reviews were added.if more reviews could be added.Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like there is now enough to say the article can be kept.じんない 16:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Getting this page up to par

Well, it's obvious that there are quite a few issues with this page at present. I've tried to address some of them by expanding the lead and going through the article quickly, but it's going to need a lot more work done to really improve it. Obviously Inui, Kaidoh and Atobe's sections are way too long and not written in the right style, given that they were just dropped in here after being merged. Beyond that, the page could really go with more reception info, and especially some creation info. I gave my volumes of the manga a once over recently and couldn't find too much, unfortunately. Having translated versions of the X0.5 volumes would probably be a big help here, but I'm unaware of much outside of parts of the interview from 40.5 (which has already been sourced for just about all the relevant information we have from it). I think we can certainly make this list a lot better, but if anyone knows of additional sources we could get, that would probably go a long way to improving it.kuwabaratheman (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Miyuki Chitose

Someone listed this on Miyuki#Fictional characters as the sister of Senri Chitose who I found on this page. The name Miyuki is not on this page though. Could someone confirm if this is his sister? If so, please redirect the above name (and Chitose Miyuki) to his section with a short mention of the name of his sister. Since she's listed as minor she may not warrant her own section, but family members mentioned by name of existing characters do warrant mentioning. Tyciol (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Miyuki Chitose is the sister of Senrsi Chitose. --Yami♦Yui (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Spectrum Nexus' review

I've removed the Spectrum Nexus' review because Spectrum Nexus' website is in violation of Wikipepedia's policy on external links by containing materials in violation of copyright law. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Order

I think that the names on this page should be switched to Western Name order to coincide with this being an english language page 76.22.36.95 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Prince of Tennis characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418072037/http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/manga/manga.php?manga_view=254 to http://www.animeondvd.com/reviews2/manga/manga.php?manga_view=254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)