Talk:Ranma ½/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minor characters

On a related note, why are minor characters covered in major character articles (e.g. Pink and Link in Shampoo's article and Hiroshi and Daisuke in Ranma's article)? Don't these characters belong on a list (or nowhere at all)?--Nohansen (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They do belong on the various character lists, I believe. It would make weeding out excessive FU images from the individual character articles much easier, anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They were originally on the minor character lists depending on where they appeared (anime and manga, anime-only, manga-only) and were migrated into character articles a few months ago, I'm not sure why. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I guess merging them back would be reasonable; I see no reason why they should be part of articles of characters they're connected to. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this: Is there any disagreement that minor character, regardless of connections, should be on the appropriate minor character page, and not in the specific character pages? Keep in mind that current policies on Wiki essentially say no pics for list pages which means all of them can pretty much say goodbye to their pics. I personally think that's a stupid policy, but I don't run the place. Also, as has been noted, our model example don't merge specific character with minor ones. Derekloffin (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting them back into the appropriate minor character lists is better, I think, even if they have to loose the corresponding images as a result. The grouping with a specific character who has their own article only makes sense for those who have been following the series somewhat, but may not be intuitive for people new to the series. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that, at the very least, Herb's and Saffron's sidekicks should stay, as should Ukyo's and Shampoo's fathers, Mrs. Tendo (for Soun's entry), Taro's mother, Ryoga's and Akari's pets, and possibly Hiroshi and Daisuke to Ranma. I don't find a list of pure text for visual creations very attractive at all, but I suppose that going beyond that may currently make the entire format cumbersome. Ideas for 'loopholes'/alternate solutions to keeping the lists 'blanked' would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update I've begun making panoramas of suitable statistics-showcase images for the various characters, but only have Ryoga, Mousse, and a (too) much lesser resolution one for Akane (which I wil re-do) finished as of yet. It's harder than it looks to puzzle them together in a somewhat useful/semi-orderly composition. Dave (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that user-created collages of fair use images are considered to comprise the # of images present, i.e. 4 panels put together as one is counted as 4 images, not a single one. This is why I stated that Sailor Venus has 6 images. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ranma abilities collage is 10 images. Isn't that a bit much? Also the manga pic of both forms seems extraeneous given that there's a manga equivalent in the infobox. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just 6 instances in total actually, which creates a coverage of durability, strength, coordination, speed, and hitting-power respectively, although the Kuno impact crater is mostly added because I had to fill the space with something. I thought this was an excellent agreement myself, and have spent quite some time in trying to make the panoramas as good as possible. When looking at it I really like this format, and in terms of taking up page space it's just 3 images for the article right now. Regardless, the two instances to the right can easily be cut out, making it 4 instances in total.

As for the mid-page manga colour image, I think keeping one for the anime and one for the manga (preferably with both forms) is likevise a good compromise to showcase the design of each medium, but I'm not exactly fond of this particular image. Preferably it should be one which says something typical about the character as well. It was just the best fit for the given requisites that I found on short notice. That said, I didn't know about the above information when creating the Ryoga one, in which I used a few multiple instances. I'd better cut down on that one I suppose, although it's easier said than done, and I do consider it a bs policy as such. Dave (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Circling back to an earlier point re. which minor characters should stay attached to other characters' articles - if the intent is to preserve their pics more than for organizational purposes - then they need to be migrated back to the appropriate list. I don't find pure text for visual medium appealing/helpful either, but that shouldn't trump keeping them where they more logically belong vs. attempting to circumvent the exclusion of individual character images in lists. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that the AFD is done, it would seem that it is time to get back to this. It seems to me the general consensus on this particular issue is to move the minor characters back. I know it's a pain to lose the pics, but reasonably speaking, down the road, they're not that hard to get back up should we one day be allowed. I know I still have all mine on my Hard drive. I'm going to start moving these back to the appropriate pages in the next couple days, so if there is any further comments on the issue, please make them as soon as possible.

On the side matter of referencing. I see a distinct lack of model pages for minor character, or character lists of any kind, so how to best go about this is very open at the moment. I think I mentioned it already that at the minimum a 1st appearance reference would be nice for each character. For the anime characters at least, they also often are based on various legends, a few of which are already noted. Any other ideas? Derekloffin (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I consent to this, and think that I've moved them all back now, although the images haven't been refitted into the lists, and there may be a few misdirected links. I think it's good that you've saved/archived all the old images, and that there is some merit in creating separate pages for Lime & Mint; Kiima, Koruma & Masala; Maomolin, and the Gambling King. If someone is up for creating separate pages for these, this might be an idea. If Tsubasa can receive one, so can they. ^_- Dave (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

Article constantly switches between past and present tense. Would you people PLEASE PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We know that, but it's not that easy you know. BrianGo28 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga nominated for AFD.

Comments appreciated here. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article survives, we better decide what to do with it. Personally, I've always found having three articles (List of Ranma ½ minor characters, Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga, Minor characters of the Ranma ½ anime) for minor characters kinda silly. Since Ranma is originally a manga, I would have:

• A list of Ranma ½ characters for all the manga characters, regardless whether they appear in the anime or not; and
• A list of anime exclusive characters.

What do you think?--Nohansen (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There was originally a single, very long list with all the minor characters in it. I suggested the split several months ago along the lines that Fullmetal Alchemist has done with its minor characters (although that may need cleanup as well), which was agreed to at the time. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If pulling them all together would save it that's great. Othervise we could thoroughly segment as many as possible to the most closely related main character, in the same manner as I did recently. Dave (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to the discussion, but while I do agree that keeping all the manga or manga+anime characters together in one section might be an idea, the main problem as such seems to stem from not adding some chapter reference for each of them. If some of the rest of you have some time to semi-copy the reference format used elsewhere in this section, check up in which chapter(s) the characters appeared, and add 1-2 at the end of each entry that should go a long way. Since there have been so many contributors it seems like we've 'switched' tenses too much as well, so reformatting the sentences would also be of great help. Dave (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just manga/anime refs. 3rd party sources are also needed. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not about sourcing the article with manga chapters (like Nabiki Tendo), but establishing the characters relevance outside Ranma's fictional universe and writing the character bios not as real biography but as a fictional character profile. Which, by the way, are some of the things I pointed out when Ryoga's article was a GA-nominee.--Nohansen (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for the split was the original page was huge, way above the guideline for page size. As to what to do with it, a minimum referencing would be to reference first appearances in said medias. As to 3rd party BS, I'm not sure what qualifies here. For instance some are based on common Japanese myths and legends, does referencing those qualify? I'm so tired of these draconian policies that I seriously wonder why wiki bothers keeping itself open anymore. Derekloffin (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Books, interviews, websites, videos from a 3rd party source that discuss the series. That means not manga or anime. The connections to common myths and legends would have to be cited as well, otherwise it can be construed as OR.

While 3rd party referencing dissertations, research and acknowledged non-fiction works is great to keep up quality in scientific pages, there are obvious problems when trying to sledge-hammer them onto a fictional context, (and crush whatever is behind into a thousand pieces) as referencing writers of possential essays doesn't necessarily merit acknowledgement to being more informed than any other readers, and can quickly act as a pretext for utterly eradicating any page anyone just plain doesn't like. Some sections similar to this one have regulations that prohibit any use of information-books released by the publisher itself, but freely allow outside works and/or articles directly quoting said information. I found that to be a somewhat humorous illustration of the problem. More locally, in the Ranma Saotome page there is a reference to a work from an author who believed this manga to be a great feminist manifesto, countered in an interview with the author herself just following. Again, this isn't science, so the most reliable information comes from quoting the scenes as is with chapter references, backed up with anything additional that we can find.

The Nabiki Tendo page is literally very nearly as good as I could make it with the clay we have available, and it took a lot of time, and pretty much permanently 'burned me out'/made me compulsively unwilling to do something at that scale again. Adding a few references to which chapters the minor characters appeared and the text thus occurred in seems like a very good start. Anything beyond that is a bonus but not a requisite. Btw: I liked Derek's Nabiki list format better than the current one.

Does my Wikia idea back in December start to sound more appealing? That's another discussion though (now archived, but it can be reraised). BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The appeal and the problems with said idea really haven't changed. I'm getting so tired of wiki of late that I'm really considering hanging up my hat as it just isn't worth the frustration. Derekloffin (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth I appreciate sensible, straightforward fellows like yourself, even if we may not always, but usually, agree. Although yes, Wikipedia seems to turn more and more into 5-man committée over 5 million readers, agenda-pushing, and finding the appropriate clausule as a basis among conflicting regulations, blunt damage, heavy-handed bureaucracy. Given that I'm pretty tired of acting as some kind of "contemptous complaints because I only had the energy to fix 50% of all problems here, please" sign, and I at least try to be realistic/see it as a statistical matter of time, perhaps only a few months, until someone decides to delete this entire section in the span of 5 minutes during a lunch break, I also still like the idea of back-up 'migrating' all the pages and images to a Wikia (Did anyone save the previously deleted items and locations pages?). Though it seems unnecessary to forego the deletion itself. We can let the section stay until it's done. I'm also not up for a binding committment to monitor the Wikia in the long run, and think the fandom stuff should be kept all in a separate page, and preferably with a few additional precaution sections, to redirect the inevitable zanier stuff. Dave (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I meant above was: A back-up Wikia as soon as possible would be great, but we shouldn't delete this section when we're done. Dave (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just posting the edit note here as more permanent source: Needs far more than citations, writing style constantly switches tenses and subpages on individual characters are messes too. Just removed a section that was horrid from Akane page. Derekloffin (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While the statements are written in a somewhat rude fashion, and it would be nice to actually get some help for once, instead of demands like we were paid for this, given the multitude of contributors tenses shifting is pretty widespread, so if various contributors have the energy to each sift through a few pages, and reformat the sentences for less word repetitions and tenses shifting, that would be very nice. I never really went into rewriting many of the sub-pages/minor characters though. I generally pretty much loose interest beyond miniscule changes at a time after the first sweeping rewrites, and already handle the image reformatting. As I have had it explained to me, the difference between 'in-universe' and 'out-of-universe' context is generally just an "is" to "is presented as" in all relevant sentences, but I don't seem to be any good at finding the right balance. Dave (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

VAs for minor characters

OK to be added or keep them out? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep (although I would like each to be properly ensured for correctness, as many of the recent additions have included some HIGHLY suspect edits as well). They are a piece of RW context which I think is valuable. Derekloffin (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(Relatively) Recent removal of information

The article used to have information of Movie 3 in the Infobox, but it's gone now. Anyone have any information on why it was removed? I don't see it in the edit history, although it's easy to get lost looking through there. Sailorleo (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

URGENT! Ranma Wiki

Given the overhanging threat of virtually all articles in this section being erased, I would like to bring up the topic of moving all the saved information to a Ranma wikia before this happens. This is an extremely urgent matter, as there is an increasing amount of "notability" tags serving this end, and other extremely popular franchises such as Urusei Yatsura have been cleansed quite quickly afterwards. Does anyone have expertise, time, or interest to handle the migration, and did anyone react quick enough to save copies of the previously erased texts (such as the items page) or images (particularly the complete wipeout of the minor characters, and fighting techniques pages)? Dave (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already an existing InuYasha Wiki on Wikia.com. My proposal to set one up for another of my manga interests, Battle Angel Alita, was accepted on the same day. I think a proposal for a Ranma one will be accepted, however I am focusing on the BAA one at the present, so if someone wants to they can go ahead and propose a Ranma Wiki, feel free to go ahead and do so. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with independent Wikias. Could you post a link to the relevant request board? Dave (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already did it. No idea who. I assumed it was someone here.

http://ranma.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Derekloffin (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. We'd better start copy-pasting the pages then. Did you save the items page text? Dave (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

It seems that the articles that are currently there were migrations from here, which will need some cleanup. It may be helpful to get in touch with the user there who has been working on the migrations. It also seems that whoever submits a proposal to Wikia for a Wiki gets admin rights; I have them for the BAA wiki. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that could potentially prove problematic for the reliability, in cases where the one who suggested it mostly enforces fancruft while editing out references to/basis in the original series. With "need some cleanup" do you intend formatting, inserting images and the like, or that there have been substantial changes in the text? Dave (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be all of those. What I actually had in mind at the time though was eliminating the redlinks - because these were straight copy and pastes from Wikipedia, articles say about concepts, etc. that would exist here that were wikilinked to don't exist in the Ranma Wiki and need to be delinked. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A romance or romantic comedy genre addition?

I skimmed through the available interviews, and Takahashi describes the integral chapter-themes of the manga to be switching fighting and romance, so would it be appropriate to insert a "romance" or "romantic comedy" genre tag?[1][2] Dave 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Defenitly romantic comedy. There aren't that much romantic scenes. βriαn Go XXVIII (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking a replacement or inclusion? Regardless, keep in mind what the guideline says (read #4). We want the top two or three genres folks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm partial to calling Ranma a "Martial arts, Romantic comedy". It best describes the series and it's only two genres.--Nohansen (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What about action? And does this mean we're removing the Viz and Furinkan references? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Martial arts" is a sub-genre of "Action", so that would make "Action" redundant. Also, I don't see the need of sourcing the genres unless there are objections to "Martial arts, Romantic comedy" (like there were with "harem").--Nohansen (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it is a sub-genre, heh, silly of me to not consider that. {+_+} Yes, the citations are somewhat pointless since most other articles don't source their genres/categories. However, Ranma ½ could very well be a landmark so would keeping them show significance? BTW, there is a similar discussion goin on here and I'd like to get some last second thoughts in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While there is likely no disagreement over that, I found there was persistent random changing and editing to the genres when they weren't referenced. I'd prefer to keep them referenced if only to stop that. Also, while we might not disagree, you must consider that many pages out there, even on abundantly obvious stuff, still require some form of reference for it as it does surprisingly often end up getting those persist edits that go back and forth endlessly even though it seems obvious. There is also the matter that it's kinda hypocritical to require referencing for genres you disagree with while not when you agree with them.

That said, I don't think it should be too hard to set it as Romantic comedy at least as we can reference both of those, and martial arts you can probably get away with on some other product description (all it has to do is mention martial arts). We don't necessary have to stick with Viz's. Derekloffin (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The book description at Amazon (a description, I believe, that is supplied by the publisher) describes Ranma as "the greatest of the gender-bending kung fu comedy genre". Would that suffice?--Nohansen (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's good by me. Derekloffin (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Derekloffin: while I understand that referencing genres help to keep away persistent editors, I find that <! -- commented out messages -- > is as well a tactical method. Get what I mean? For instance, see the one on this article. And yes, Nohansen, that could be a sufficient link, but I still want to know what will become of the current citations. Will they be taken off? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If they can be replaced with ones more suitable to genres we decide on, that would be best I think. If we decide to change the genres and just add a tag, I'm okay with that too although I haven't seen much effect on tags frankly in stopping random editing. Derekloffin (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. Tags as in hidden comments or something else I'm missing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comments is what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. I monitor quite a few pages, and despite many have MANY hidden comments to 'do not edit without such and such' people just happily ignore them like they aren't even there. I know the same in theory is true for references but for some reason, references seem to scare off random edits better although still not completely. Derekloffin (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. This is why watching a page like List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball is a pain. I swear, they do it on purpose just to piss us good faith guys off. With refs, it is a little different, but like you said, not entirely. Sometimes editors want to add in data which isn't even in the citation in the first place. Yes, Wikipedia has its ups and downs, but you know, I'm one of those glass half full people. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the genres were changed. But what about the source Nohansen presented? Will it be used? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone demands a source for the genres, I'm happy without cluttering the infobox with references and citations. If anyone has doubts about Ranma being a "Martial arts romantic comedy", they can just read the interviews Dave found or the official description over at Amazon.--Nohansen (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ranma 1/2 new episode

It has been anounced that in the It's a Rumic World event a new episode of Ranma 1/2 named Okumu! Shunminkou (Nightmare! Insense of Spring Sleep), which is based on a story from Ranma ½ volume 34 by the same name, will be shown.

Should it be added in the OVA section, episode section, or should it be give a new section for information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.61.76 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the news. (Although it would have been even nicer if it had been a more important arc, like the Herb one, or even better a new Takahashi story. ;) ) The OAV section should be fine for the moment. Dave (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll need a source for this too. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For a source of this: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-08-02/new-ranma-short-debuts-at-takahashi-tokyo-event Derekloffin (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am obsessed. Period.

I love Ranma 1/2! Even though I can't and don't have time to watch it on TV I still have the time to read Ranma 1/2 manga in my local bookstore. Ranma 1/2 is just a action, romance, and comedy packed manga/ anime show and I think it's very cool! Even though it's from the 80's and even though Rumiko Takashi created a new anime/ manga show, Inuyasha, which is WAY more popular than Ranma 1/2 I still love Ranma 1/2 and I always will. 74.233.207.187 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008

This discussion site is about constructing the page and dealing with edits, not opinions. (190.12.156.120 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Why don't they have ranmapedia?

Why don't they have ranmapedia? I mean, if they have narutopedia why don't they have a ranmapedia? This totally suckz. No ranmapedia. I think you should post here and tell me if I'm correct. Thank you. 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)74.233.207.187 (talk)

I would direct your attention up a few topics to notice there is a Ranma specific wiki. Derekloffin (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to minor character's missing

Hey guys I noticed that the link to the minor character's is missing. It was a great article and should have not be changed or moved. Can anyone with an account see what has happened to it? 128.61.127.186 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per an AFD. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the last references to it here. I'm sure there is others on the character pages (although frankly, I don't see them surviving much longer either). Derekloffin (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing cleanup of Ranma articles, especially the character articles yes. As I stated in the AFD's every single Ranma character article is a complete mess, and the AFD's for the minor characters were the first step in getting to a sensible set of articles. Setting aside "draconian" policy as you state on your talk page, the current pages all read like fansites (amongst other issues), which is something Wikipedia is not. I'm not going to go into deeper detail on the page issues here (the details will be provided in a few days) but the current idea is to reduce the excessive amount of character articles and merge most of them into a proper character article. This is a quality issue (small, clearer text is better then longer, excessively detailed rambling fanservice), and the support and help of older editors to the articles is welcome and encouraged (although from what I gather from the AFD's, most stopped caring long ago). There won't be a blanket removal of all character articles, but a gradual process of merging characters with no clear notability outside of the series into a general character article as per policy and common sense. Wikipedia articles should be for everyone, not just dedicated Ranma fans. If people want the excessively detailed information, it's easily available on dedicated Ranma wikis and at Furinkan.com. I apologise if this is a long reply, but it's to show there is some rationale rather then people putting up every Ranma page for deletion (not the case, I just want the pages to be better). If people think they can provide sufficient reliable proof of notability outside of the actual manga and anime for the individual character articles, and can begin to do so, then there is more chance of them being left where they are and not being merged. Certainly the Ranma character page will be left where it is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment, if I may. Your intended efforts to improve the overall quality and notability of the section are obviously very appreciated (even more so if someone can emigrate the old expansive information to Wikia). However, during the conversion process there is a very important aspect to keep in mind. Rambling and unstructured fanservice as the pages may currently be, one thing we have at least made a severe effort to do is turn most of them around 95% 'accurate' in terms of what has actually been explicitly shown in the manga or anime. Before I came unto the scene the pages were littered with thin air 'fanon' myths and hearsay. Meaning, please make an effort not to change most of the content as such (well, I'm sure the particularly rambling, straying, and multi-user muddled Ranma Saotome profile contains at least a few contradictions, but speaking as a whole...), simply strive to shorten it down to the most relevant parts, and to improve the structure (and more cited references would obviously be nice as well). Thank you. Dave (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is where I would appreciate the assistance of people who know the source material better then I do. If someone like yourself could shorten the current articles to a more manageable level, it would not only make it easier to merge properly, but mean that the key points are still maintained. Referencing would also help, but there is no benefit in completely referencing an artcile that is going to be heavily cut down, so it's probably worth reducing the article size before referencing. I'll be merging Tofu_Ono and Jusenkyo Guide later this week to the new character list that is being created, these are "safe" merges as i seem them. The others will be detailed and discussed, and given chance to be improved and shortened. Examples of good character lists will be provided as a guide. I really would like to make this a group involvement to improve the article quality which is why i'm not simply bulk merging them all. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "continued heavy involvement" point is the one wherein we are regrettably long since almost completely worn out, and strictly interested in that the articles remain faithful to the source material. Don't get me wrong, I initially committed great time and energy to improving the articles in the reliability/accuracy respect, but my 'talent' lies in extensive semi-objective analysis/patterning, while my talent in structure and conciseness is somewhat limited (I'm Asperger, which explains the former, and ADD which explains the latter ;)), and I additionally currently usually have multiple duties in real life.

However, although it can be seen as impolite to appeal to 'someone else do it' (especially considering how polite you have been so far), it is at the least not as bad as it may seem. I'm simply making a note that the information as is is mostly accurate (and if contradictory, please ask me or Derek about it. The manga was also inconsistent in several respects), so please do not replace it with the previous tendency of fandom myth or similar. I am however willing to make myself (sporadically, since I don't visit every day) accessible for discussing/referencing lists of from which storyline various claims/statements have been drawn (I probably have almost all of them memorised, even if I haven't had the energy to give them the Nabiki Tendo treatment... now that was a nightmare) or other problems, so that you can check them up. You are probably much better at distinguishing what's useful to a casual manga reader who simply wants concise and accurate briefings, or even a fanfiction writer who wants somewhat more extensive clarifications, while simultaneously sweeping away unjustifiable degrees of pov, and othervise gauging how to make the articles fulfill Wikipedia standards. Dave (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Character merges

As we now have List of Ranma ½ characters, I have created a discussion regarding merges on the talk page for that article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Character list

We now have a separate article for the characters, and the list here was far too long, with occasional characters being placed on the same level as the main ones. I have removed the character list from the article and added a link to the proper article instead. This is much more efficient, as many of the characters are mentioned in the plot, and already linked for further information. Additionally, this is a common way of handling characters on B/GA articles as character lists in the series article are really more appropriate when a separate list doesn't exist. This article doesn't have this problem, and most of the characters who were previously listed did not affect the plot as a whole, only appearing for a few chapters here and there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The section lead can be expanded into a summary of List of Ranma ½ characters and the rest of the content removed. I am willing to wait until any content merges that may be desired are complete, but after that either consensus will be against what I propose or I (or someone else) will make the edit. -- allen四names 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Article to be deleted

The article Anything Goes Martial Arts may be deleted in seven days. If you wish to save it please show notability before removing the 'prod' template. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the references

It look like http://www.wot-club.org.uk/RanmaFAQ/rt_mbiv.html and http://www.americananimeawards.com/news/pr_finalist.asp are effectively dead links. I hope someone can do something to fix them. -- allen四names 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Someone may want to clean up afterward. -- allen四names 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Has false information made its way into Ranma ½ articles?

I hope my suspicions are wrong but it looks like someone may be deliberately adding false information to to this article and may have created an article that in part was made to support the false information. -- allen四names 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How terribly vague. If you can't state what the actual problem is, how can we properly discuss it? If you are referring to the CBS issue, then you are exaggerating the problem. That article isn't notable anyway and should be tagged for speedy deletion or prodded or redirected. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why someone may have thought that CBS Theatrical Films had anything to do with Ranma ½. -- allen四names 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ranma 1/2 main article is fine as far as notability (the character pages are another matter). Derekloffin (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you meant the CBS article. Yeah, it looks pretty suspicious. Although, to the topic in general, I would say, actually, that there may be some suspicious info around. However, a lot of it went poof with the deletion of pages like the minor character page. Derekloffin (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Someone has rewritten the article I was thinking of prodding. -- allen四names 06:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to character description

I've changed the sentence "Martial arts is the 16-year-old hero/heroine's life." to "Martial arts is the 16-year-old hero's life." in Ranma's character description. Whether or not his body can change to female, he is treated and referred to as a male by all characters knowing of the curse in both forms, and as such should be referred to by his gender and not sex. ozkidzez91 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Manga chapter and/or volume list(s)

It has been noted in this edit of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga that a list of chapters and/or volumes for this manga do not exist. The {{Graphic novel list}} templates may not work for this unless a hatnote is used or the template is modified as the volume count differs between the Shogakukan releases and the Viz Media releases. Compare the first volumes below. (Sources: Worldcat, Webcat Plus, Amazon.com)

[commented out table]

Because the Viz release of the first volume has six more chapters this is not going to be a simple task. Any suggestions will be welcome. – Allen4names 17:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is troublesome. I modified your test output. What do you think? The lead should definitely explain the disparity in volume count and note that the volume summaries will be referring to the Japanese chapters. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is better than what I had in mind but I think more needs to be done. The summary for each volume should note what Japanese/English volume that they were published in. See the modified summary above. – Allen4names 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Doesn't the list of chapters explicitly state which chapters are contained in each volume (English and Japanese)? Also, if the lead explains that only the Japanese chapters will be covered in the summary, isn't that sufficient? As long as the correct chapter numbers are maintained, it should be clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The numbering of the chapters in the tankoban restart at 1 in each volume. For example in volume one of the Shonen Sunday Comics edition (in Japanese) the first chapter is labeled "PART.1 呪泉郷から来た悪魔". In the Viz adaptation each chapter is given its own number. Are you suggesting that we use the Viz numbering of the chapters? (Note: I will not reply until after the SOPA blackout.) – Allen4names 00:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think using Viz's numbering would be most clear to readers. Many featured lists of chapters also maintain continuous numbering across volumes. I modified the output above again as an example. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I have a page that may be of use. I may not be editing as much because Internet connection is a little iffy right now so if you want to get started on this please go ahead. – Allen4names 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a sandbox at User:Axem Titanium/List of Ranma ½ chapters. I'll be adding to it over the next few days. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done some work at User:Allen4names/Drafting page#List of Ranma ½ chapters but am not sure how this should be merged in. I used the chapter titles from the Viz volume 16 as the translated titles for Shogakukan volume 18 so these will need to be checked by someone fluent in Japanese. – Allen4names 06:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the lead section in my sandbox. Since it looks like you're handling the chapter names, perhaps I should work on chapter summaries? We should be able to move it into the mainspace as soon as the chapter list sans summaries is up, combining your list with my lead. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The chapter titles should be checked as I have found errors in the past and I have only five of the tankoban volumes and the first seventeen Viz volumes so I need to find more sources particularly for the Japanese titles. – Allen4names 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will crosscheck the titles when I get the chance. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Shogakukan website should be of use. I will edit the references I am using so that all you should need to do is add the <ref> tags. – Allen4names 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that I made the mistake of confusing the chapter numbering at the Rumic World web site for the Viz numbering and I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. – Allen4names 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hit a limit today. I commented out some templates to get the post-expand include size down. You can see the results below.

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 197903/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2042626/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 824622/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->

I will look into what can be substituted tomorrow. – Allen4names 02:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I don't understand what the problem is. You can't insert that much data into a template or something? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are limits set in the MediaWiki software. (See this revision and WP:TLIMIT) I am going to use HTML markup in place of the {{Nihongo}} templates to get the post-expand include size down. A split can be done later if desired. – Allen4names 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. We should avoid splitting if possible, but it might become necessary. We'll see. Also, I'm going to be out of town next week and unable to work on this project. I'll be back in early February, so good luck until then. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I should have everything ready to merge by the time you get back but I have lost my Internet connection at least twice tonight so I can make no guarantees. – Allen4names 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready for the merge. If you want to do it please leave a {{Please see}} on my talk page before you do. – Allen4names 17:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just got back. How do you want to do it? Also, why are you including the furigana in the later chapter titles? Just curious. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to move the two templates indicating the Japanese text and ruby are in use into the lead and replace the content of the "Volume list" section with the rest of the content I have between "/* Start merge content. */" and "/* End merge content. */". The ruby (furigana) is to verify the reading of the kanji in volume 18 and volumes 35–38 as I have those tankōban. If my internet connection is stable tomorrow I would like to perform the merge then. – Allen4names 05:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The merge is done. I will edit my drafting page later to show what the chapter lists for volumes 18 and 35–38 (corrected) would look like without the ruby annotation. – Allen4names 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I've started adding summaries. What do you think? How is the length? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay so far. I will be checking the post-expand include size from time to time and will let you know if it is getting too large. – Allen4names 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Should we be using direct translations of the Japanese chapter titles for the left column? For example, chapter 74 is "Wherefore Art Thou, Romeo?" but "Battle Royale Romeo" (バトルロイヤル・ロミオ Batoru roiyaru Romeo) in direct translation. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been testing different table layouts it my sandbox than what is provided by {{Graphic novel list}} so I am not sure how I should answer that question. Please let me know what you think. – Allen4names 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are some interesting approaches you've come up with. I don't know if I'd be able to help since wiki table syntax has always been a weak point of mine. I was actually asking whether the chapter names we list in the Japanese column should be direct translations of the Japanese chapter titles or just have the Viz translations accompany the Japanese. E.g. バトルロイヤル・ロミオ (Batoru roiyaru Romeo) does not actually translate to "Wherefore Art Thou, Romeo?" (the Viz translation). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have given it some thought and I think adding translated titles as you suggest would be of marginal value at best. If you want do do it fine but I would be of little help. – Allen4names 06:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I might do that if it starts bothering me. Anyway, please feel free to copyedit or trim any summaries you feel are too long. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current implementation you've come up with looks pretty good. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm done! Are we ready to go to the next step? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? The readings of the kanji need to be cleaned up and the external links I left for that purpose removed, and the page may need to be split particularly if the {{Nihongo}} template is to be used, or do you mean the move to main space? – Allen4names 06:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I am done with the chapter summaries. Are we ready to move into the main space? I think we should stick with one page instead of splitting so we don't have to worry about naming concerns (i.e. should we go by Japanese or English volume numbers?). As such, we can do without the Nihongo template since it causes transclusion difficulties. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you know of someone who can correct the readings the page should be moved so that others can correct the remaining problems. I would add a note about the external links (see above) on the talk page so that editors will understand why they are there or remove them (not the references of course) to the talk page before the move. – Allen4names 19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'm sure wiki magic will start happening once it enters mainspace. Are you still working on the formatting? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have done little with the templates and will not be changing thing anytime soon. I will probably work getting the sandbox version of {{Graphic novel list}} wikified tomorrow but for now I am going to finish my watchlist and then get some sleep. – Allen4names 06:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. The page is now live at List of Ranma ½ chapters. Did you want to change it over to the organization method you have at your drafting page? I think it looks rather nice and it certainly is more economical, size-wise. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at the moment as I have other things to do. I plan to ask for help with the reading at WP:JAPAN and/or WP:ANIME early next week. – Allen4names 22:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this "Transgender"?

I noticed that this anime/manga is tagged as transsexual/transgender-related. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Ranma is not in the least bit transgender; an accident led to him being cursed so cold water turns him physiologically female and hot water turns him back. He was born a guy, still considers himself to be a guy, and spends the majority of the story desperately trying to find a way to end his curse and return to being male in all situations. He has never considered himself female, except in one short episode following a concussion. The simple fact that the guy sometimes ends up in a girl's body doesn't seem to warrant this categorization. No offense, but wouldn't that also mean that this is connected to the "furry lifestyle"? There are a number of anime/manga that have nothing to do with transgender-transsexual topics that are categorized there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.49.192 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the above statement. It was never intentionally written as an lgbt series, although if some of those folks want to read those qualities into it, and it makes them feel better, then they should feel feel to. Still, listing it as one makes it seem like this is an actual thematic, which it isn't. David A (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a weakness to the category and tag system here at wiki that they don't really need justification. You can tag and categorize things with the slightest reasoning. It is basically up to those communities to monitor their own tags and decide what fits and what doesn't. Really, I feel to warrant a tag at least, the topic must included some sourced discussion of that matter, whether intentional or not. Derekloffin (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if author intention matters in this case. If the transgender community has rallied around the work in a verifiable way, then go ahead and keep the category (e.g. Lady Gaga). If not, then nix the tag. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what qualifies a series for this category, and don't care if Ranma ½ is removed from it or not. But I just want to point out that Ranma is not the only character in this series that can be "associated" with transsexualism/transgenderism. Konatsu is a male ninja who was raised as a female kunoichi, "generally wears female battle attire" and "speaks and acts like a humble and subservient Japanese woman". Tsubasa Kurenai "constantly dresses up like a girl and has a feminine personality to match". And that if this series is removed from the category, should it also be removed from the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies? Xfansd (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Viz Media's license expired?

There is some speculation swirling on certain websites stating that Viz Media's license to Ranma ½ expired in July 2012. I do not know more about this, but if anyone knows more about this, feel free to keep discussing so we can determine if this should be mentioned in the article.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Chris

I think it's just a rumor. I haven't read any news on that. 五代 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Shogakukan owns part of Viz Media so I doubt it expired unless somehow Shogakukan sold Ranma to another company in Japan but it could be out of print but the license would still be active

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ranma ½. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.furinkan.com/ranma/misc/inspirations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216190226/http://www.mania.com/ranma-12-tv-season-1-collection_article_78225.html to http://www.mania.com/ranma-12-tv-season-1-collection_article_78225.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402131530/http://www.mania.com/ranma-movie-8211-big-trouble-nekonron-china_article_77596.html to http://www.mania.com/ranma-movie-8211-big-trouble-nekonron-china_article_77596.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402154013/http://www.mania.com/ranma-movie-2-nihao-my-concubine_article_77976.html to http://www.mania.com/ranma-movie-2-nihao-my-concubine_article_77976.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.furinkan.com/ranma/manga/about.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)