List of My Hero Academia characters was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 14, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On this , I think I ran out of space? So, when you access my hero at funimation it only shows the videos to the episodes, but doesn't bring up the casts. Like in Hakata Tonkotsu Ramens and it shows about 20 characters or 30. At "cast and crew." Then when I copied the link/ url to the web archive. It will sort of try to list who are the casts out of like 50 characters or more. But the loading speed is slow. Or the capture info is showing blank info at certain dates, one date was "February 25, 2018 at 23:03:37". But tomorrow I'll look at it more. Tainted-wingsz ( talk) 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not all of them, but My Hero Academia is definitely a triple A franchise at this point. It’s about as well-known as the likes of Dragon Ball and Naruto now. Should we start off with giving Deku and All Might pages? 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:39BD:EBB7:F703:DC89 ( talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
•-•) I definitely think each character should have their own page ( well only a few main villains and heroes of course ) since it’d be easier for other people to find out more about each character Zapp kun ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Ikr 2601:201:C100:4FB0:1441:5659:DC57:7BCC ( talk) 06:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I asked an admin Xezbeth, if Drmies removed too much by removing the subsections, and he answered yes. Without the character descriptions, this page is completely incomprehensible. And not, this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to WP:FANCRUFT, and is not original research, and thus is not subject to WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. 99.203.40.43 ( talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What to the fans may look like mere "description" is much more. "Superior swimming"--superior to who? "20 meters"--did you measure this? "A reserved and informed personality"--how is "reserved" not an observation that interprets various facts and actions, or lack thereof? "Informed"--did the frog take a quiz, and score better than average? "The innocent"--innocent of what? And really "protects"? What if the frog only appears to protect? And so on. The writing is, as often in such articles, of a sophomoric level (note the dangling modification "which briefly panicked Izuku", itself likely OR). So no. This is fancruft, unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Drmies ( talk) 23:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk Frog (蛙, Kaeru) gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as superior swimming, a tongue that can stretch 20 meters, sticking to and climbing vertical walls, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom. She is susceptible to cold and will go into hibernation if her body temperature falls too low. She has a reserved and informed personality, but is also insightful, intelligent, and ready to protect the innocent. She is also sharp, being the first one in the class to notice the similarity between Izuku and All Might's Quirk, which briefly panicked Izuku. On the other hand, she is honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be.
Because Serial Number 54129 removed several characters at the end without explanation, I restored those characters being listed, with shorter descriptions, as per Drmies' point that several sections were poorly worded. I don’t have anything against removing the bloat and the poorly worded, but culling absolutely everything just makes this page incomprehensible. Like I mentioned earlier, because this is a manga, simply listing the voice actors won’t do, as several characters appear in the manga but have not appeared in the anime yet. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 06:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Using the same character as as an example, here's a a rewrite of one section:
One that includes a source:
And one that was completely trimmed down, cutting out all descriptions of their appearance, minimal descriptions of their personality, and one sentence for their abilities:
I hope you seriously consider these shortened descriptions over no description at all. Thank you. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, directly to Serial Number 54129, you can't just completely remove the villains and miscellaneous characters, including their voice actors. That's vandalism. It says on WP:VANDAL that malicious removal of unencylcopedic content is vandalism, and by removing any mention of all of the villains, as well as the "other characters" section, you're completely ruining the article. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
72.203.118.154 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The biggest issues with this article was that half of the descriptions were original research and that it was almost entirely unsourced. Take a careful look, because I revised almost every section to be much shorter and remove long fancruft (such as 3 sentences describing quirks, or describing an entire character arc), and removed original research (such as going into detail about how Deku was probably panicked by Tsuyu mentioning All Might), as well as adding 8 sources for plot details (suh as the deaths of Nighteye and Best Jeanist), or beta elements (such as Mt. Lady and Uraraka’s original roles). 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
References
VAJan2016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).funi blog cast
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).funimation.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1. For the record, I am not against removing fancruft and original research; Drmies' example above was a perfect example of this page being guilty of it. However, I am against almost completely blanking the page.
2. The irony of this situation is that the admin who locked this page,
Ad Orientem, has recently
warned another user not to blank page content. To quote them; "If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation..."
3. While Serial Number 54129 did explain the removal of descriptions as fancruft, unsourced, and original research, my edit that got this page locked did in fact remove all of the fancruft and original research, and added Eight sources. For comparison, here's the version before the edit war started, which does include fancruft and original research.
4. In addition to removing descriptions, several major characters were removed, particularly the main villains. I have yet to see an explanation from Serial Number 54129 as to why several characters were removed along with the descriptions. Either it was a mistake and you should be mote careful, or it was malicious and it was vandalism. A list of characters fails when it omits several major characters.
5. Despite the mass removal of content, two characters do have short descriptions remaining: Wash, who has only appeared in the manga thus far, meaning he does not have a voice actor yet, and Gran Torino, who has a source. Said source is Comicbook.com, which was the site I used for 7 of the 8 sources I added.
7. Because this is both a manga and an anime, simply listing the voice actors is a horrible idea. As I mentioned earlier, several major characters may appear in one but not the other, and thus may not have voice actors.
8. Every single list of characters on Wikipedia gives some sort of context to the characters. Why should this one give absolutely no context at all? Not only is it inconsistent, but it is also unencyclopedic to have a list of characters with no context, and even less encyclopedic to completely omit several major characters.
Please seriously consider rewriting this page instead of blanking it. Thank you for your time. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Earlier today you protected List of My Hero Academia characters because me and Serial Number 54129 were involved in an edit war because he was blanking material on the page, some of which was sourced directly from voice actors of the series, and others that could simply remove original research instead of being blanked. Later, he reported the article to be protected, despite the fact that I almost completely rewrote the article instead of undoing his edits. Because of what you said to Luke Starling about blanking articles without explanation above, I'm genuinely curious on what the policy on unexplained blanking and page rewrites are.
By the way, if this breaks WP:FORUMSHOP, I'll stop. I don’t want to bring discussion about that specific page to your talk, but I do want to know what the policies on blanking and rewriting whole articles are for future reference. If it is preferable to blank an article rather than rewrite it, I will try not to repeat that mistake. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Separate question, but Serial Number 54129, who was the other party of this debate, has not contributed to this discussion since the page was protected, despite being online several times. What would the outcome be if he does not contribute anymore? My edit was revising the page to a similar version of how it was for Six years, but his edit is how the page currently is. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 09:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
So a short time back, I wrote a draft article on Izuku, which got rejected over a month ago, mostly since it's intent was to be a spin off the main character page. It's taken me a while to get around to creating this discussion, so now I would like to hear, (well, not really hear, this is text), from you guys on whether or not if Izuku is worthy enough to get his own separate article. Personally, I think it would be a good idea, since (like one of the other discussions mentioned) MHA has practically reached mainstream status and that Deku is a pretty well known character at this point, like Spike Spiegel or Ash Ketchum, so it would be fitting to see also see an article on him. I also feel that there is a decent amount of information on him that could be mentioned in a separate article, although it would have to be found first.
Concluding, I would like to see from you guys whether or not a separate page for Izuku would be a good idea or a bad idea, (I also wouldn't mind looking at your opinions on my draft, and maybe see what could be improved), and if you think it is a bad idea, i'd like to see your opposing argument on why. In the meantime, i'll try and edit the draft article a bit more when I got some spare time. PeteStacman24 ( talk) 03:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought we’d be done with this edit war by now, but here we are. Every time I think we’re done with this garbage, there’s another mass removal of content month later, and I want this to be the last time we ever have this discussion.
They have constantly been removing content from this page, claiming to be removing fancruft, original research, and unsourced content, but in reality removing almost every single description below every characters voice actors. The content removed in each edit, while it does include fancruft and some unsourced content, rarely includes original research, and also still removes some sourced content. Now, I have no issue with removing fancruft ( I myself have done so several times), but I do have a major problem with removing almost every single character description, and even more of a problem that their supposed reason for their actions does not match up with their actual actions. Another thing is that rather than removing all of the content altogether, I see no reason to not find sources instead of removing 30 kilobytes all the time. I know I'm not alone on thinking that this mass removal of content, while in good faith, removes far too much. Not including my previous IP's, several other edits by other users have reverted the mass removals. I'd also like to bring up a point I learned from another previous IP address on a content dispute from a few years ago. Two quotes stood out to me the most:
In short, having little bits of information on these types of articles is important, and removing the info also takes away most of the context behind the list; otherwise, it would just be a list without any substance, and thus wouldn't warrant a page. However, the last thing I want for this page is for it to be deleted over an edit war, as lists of characters for popular tend to have their own pages, especially for a series with as many characters as this one. Another thing is that most lists of characters tend to have descriptions, even if very short, and to have this one be specifically targeted for repeated mass removals with explanations that don't match the actions, as well as refusal to source the content instead of removing it, is frankly frustrating. 72.219.72.215 ( talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
72.219.72.215 ( talk) 23:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that plot summaries in articles about works of fiction are generally considered to be implicitly sourced to the work itself, and as long as no analysis o0r synthesis is done, but only elements of the plot that any reader/listener/viewer can understand are reported, secondary sourcing (while possibly useful) is not required.
MOS:PLOT says: Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. References should be provided if a plot point is ambiguous (e.g. Gaston's fate in Beauty and the Beast). References also may be required in non-linear works such as video games and interactive films, where key elements of the plot may not be seen by the viewer due to how they interact with the work.
Thus removal of plot elements as unsourced is probably not appropriate. That does not justify excessive length of undue weight for plot summery, however. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 19:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Now that the info has been reverted, Serial Number 54129, please discuss the info instead of repeatedly making bold edits. Per DESiegel and GorrillaWarfare, the material is a source itself. You keep calling the info original research, but I don’t think you fully understand what it means. Original research is info that is not directly stated by the material. Everything you are removing is. Unnamed anon ( talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
However, unlike the former, she calls him by his nickname out of affection, becoming one of his closest friends.Where does this come from?
He was inspired by his older brother, Tensei, who was the first bearer of the name Ingenium. He takes on the name Ingenium after his brother is severely injured by Stain.Where does this come from? In particulart is it directly stated that he is "inspired by his older brother"?
He is the youngest child of Endeavor and he got through U.A via recommendations.Where is this stated?
A girl from a wealthy family and vice president of Class 1-A, ... She is one of the two students in Class 1-A to attend via recommendations.
This is not a proper RfC Unnamed anon, and I advise you to remove the RfC template and restore the section header. An RfC starts with a neutral description of an issue, and follows with one or more questions about the issue. Editors respond to this, and with luck a consensus on the nanswer or answers emerges. see WP:EFC for details. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Drmies has a point here. The descriptions of powers may be simple facts, sourcable to the underlying work itself. Statements like "Izuku is inspired by Ochaco's assumption that it was based on the word to be able to/to be capable of to embrace the moniker
do seem interpretive. I doubt that the series contains a direct statement on that point.
I would suggest proceeding one character at a time, with source citations to the specific episodes where particular powers or characteristics are described, and minute/second citing, using {{ Cite AV media}} for any detailed characteristics, or else finding and citing secondary sources that interpret the character.
Personally, I dislike the term "cruft". It is intentionally disparaging, and what is cruft to one person is an essential detail to another. There is no good way to draw a line between encyclopedic detail and "cruft", however the best possible line would be the mention of a given detail in reliable secondary sources, this helps establish its real-world significance.
Or you could start a proper RfC on the question. The current imitation is of no value, in my view. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
What is being proposed was already present by the time it was proposed, and has been like that since then. However, this RFC started because prior to it, the content was being persistently edited out once a month since May, and the goal of this RFC is to keep it as status quo and to point at whatever outcome is here to prevent the content from being edited out again. Unnamed anon ( talk) 03:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
There has been persistent disruptive editing that includes mass deletion and reinsertion of short character descriptions. One party claims that the character descriptions break WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, while the other party claims that all the descriptions currently on the page can be directly sourced to the anime/manga itself (thus not breaking any of the policies linked) and is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Are basic character descriptions such as the ones in the current version of the article acceptable? Unnamed anon ( talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.| I do not have WP:V or original research concerns because the media -is- the source for the basic character details. The key word is basic, and I truly consider the content contained in the diff for each character to be basic. And if someone thinks that the information is not basic? We can discuss that here. Tutelary ( talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(Invited by the bot) There is actually a bundle of questions within the RFC and discussion. The thing to sort out is if policy requires exclusion. There I don't see "primary source" as the main question. It looks like the strongest question / concern is that the material leans too far towards being interpretive / creative / commentary by the Wikipedia editor. I don't know enough to answer that question but I put a lot of stock in Drmie's opinion on that. But if it turns out that it's OK from a policy perspective, then the question becomes opinion on whether it's a good thing to have in the article. IMO the answer on that third question is yes. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
RFC on whether basic, short, character descriptions require secondary sources, is what was intended as the question if basic character descriptions are allowed. If it turns out that was not the question that I was conveying, I’m sorry, I tend to not explain things properly by mistake, and I added that question to the header. About your question about the question being present in the editing history, it is this edit summary by Exukvera.
"What counts as a reliable source: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book), The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". As an anime/manga, all of the content on this page fits under the work itself, or in a few cases includes sources from confirmations by the creator of the material (which were notably some of the few descriptions not removed during the mass removals); as mentioned by several users, the work itself works fine as a primary source (if there does need to be citations of specific chapters or episodes, then perhaps someone who has remembers what happens when in this series can add those); and as mentioned several times before, all text cited to be interpretive, as well as more content that I considered to be not notable, have now been removed ever since Exukvera restored the content. Serial Number, please, drop the stick, avoid repeated arguments, and stop mass removing content from this page without discussion. Even an IP who doesn’t edit disagrees with your mass removal without proper explanation. Unnamed anon ( talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Are those what you mean by examples/counterexamples?No. I mean something other than this page, say Sesame Street and its characters, or any one of numerous other programs that have fictitious (or real) characters. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The very basic, simple description of each character's name, their power, and perhaps some of their bio is appropriate is relevant and quite encyclopedic.Still, thanks for the suggestion. The only major changes between August 26 and now have been the insertion of secondary sources and removal of actual original research (and not Serial Number's extremely broad definition of it). Unnamed anon ( talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Unnamed anon You might consider taking this to a noticeboard. If you do, ping everyone who responded here, especially if the removals are still going on. If you do I would politely ask the person removing the descriptions to stop until a ruling is made. You might try WP:AN/I. North8000 What do you think? I am asking you because you and I seem to agree this little RfC doesn't have visibility to give the feedback we need. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Status quo. Nothing actionable is needed here. ( non-admin closure) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(•-• please allow me to edit his skills and abilities Zapp kun ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Arigathankyou tenryuu-kun •~•)/ Zapp kun ( talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
•~•) honestly .I think each character really should have their own page so when people search for them it’ll be easier and more convenient @Tenryuu Zapp kun ( talk) 21:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
._.) I see...yet there are those who rely on Wikipedia because they do not have data so I speak as one of them and therefore I still suggest such Zapp kun ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Oof ~ I see anon ...tis unfortunate.I wish ‘twas never like this.welp anon .may Y’all at least just summarize shigaraki’s skills Zapp kun ( talk) 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
-- I noticed that kanji of Todoroki Touya's name was wrong — instead of 轟燈矢, it says 轟焦凍, which is Todoroki Shouto's name. I hope someone will edit it soon.
Yanfreak (
talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the touya todoroki theory really be considered on this wiki page ¿ Zapp kun ( talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I asked before but since it hasn't gotten much attention, I might as well ask again (since I was told to do this by the rejection letter I got). Would a separate article for Izuku Midoriya be a good idea or not? I have an imperfect draft article that is largely ready to go and another guy already wrote his own version. If we spin-off Deku so that he gets his own article, then we can talk more about than on the characters page, plus Izuku and MHA in general is very much well known at this point, so him having his own page wouldn't be alien. I don't care if it's my draft or the other guy's draft you prefer, I just want to know what you guys think on Deku (or any other MHA character) having his own official article, especially as season 5 and a third movie are just around the corner.
Thank you for your time, PeteStacman24 ( talk) 03:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pitch in my support for Izuku getting his own article. My Hero Academia has gotten extremely popular over the last few years and I'm honestly surprised he doesn't have one already. Link20XX ( talk) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we give sentient Quirks their own section? Such as Dark Shadow (Tokoyami's Quirk) and Pino (from My Hero Academia: World Heroes' Mission)? They're the only two Quirks that I'm currently aware of that have their own voice actors, but voice actors still deserve recognition. And even though there's only two at the moment, there's a possibility for more - not to mention some of the sections only having a few characters (Seiai Academy and Faculty of Ketsubutsu Academy currently only have one character each). If not giving them their own section, should we include a small note that indicates the voice actor of said Quirk, if applicable? An(xiet)di ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
List of My Hero Academia characters was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 14, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On this , I think I ran out of space? So, when you access my hero at funimation it only shows the videos to the episodes, but doesn't bring up the casts. Like in Hakata Tonkotsu Ramens and it shows about 20 characters or 30. At "cast and crew." Then when I copied the link/ url to the web archive. It will sort of try to list who are the casts out of like 50 characters or more. But the loading speed is slow. Or the capture info is showing blank info at certain dates, one date was "February 25, 2018 at 23:03:37". But tomorrow I'll look at it more. Tainted-wingsz ( talk) 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not all of them, but My Hero Academia is definitely a triple A franchise at this point. It’s about as well-known as the likes of Dragon Ball and Naruto now. Should we start off with giving Deku and All Might pages? 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:39BD:EBB7:F703:DC89 ( talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
•-•) I definitely think each character should have their own page ( well only a few main villains and heroes of course ) since it’d be easier for other people to find out more about each character Zapp kun ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Ikr 2601:201:C100:4FB0:1441:5659:DC57:7BCC ( talk) 06:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I asked an admin Xezbeth, if Drmies removed too much by removing the subsections, and he answered yes. Without the character descriptions, this page is completely incomprehensible. And not, this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to WP:FANCRUFT, and is not original research, and thus is not subject to WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. 99.203.40.43 ( talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What to the fans may look like mere "description" is much more. "Superior swimming"--superior to who? "20 meters"--did you measure this? "A reserved and informed personality"--how is "reserved" not an observation that interprets various facts and actions, or lack thereof? "Informed"--did the frog take a quiz, and score better than average? "The innocent"--innocent of what? And really "protects"? What if the frog only appears to protect? And so on. The writing is, as often in such articles, of a sophomoric level (note the dangling modification "which briefly panicked Izuku", itself likely OR). So no. This is fancruft, unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Drmies ( talk) 23:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk Frog (蛙, Kaeru) gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as superior swimming, a tongue that can stretch 20 meters, sticking to and climbing vertical walls, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom. She is susceptible to cold and will go into hibernation if her body temperature falls too low. She has a reserved and informed personality, but is also insightful, intelligent, and ready to protect the innocent. She is also sharp, being the first one in the class to notice the similarity between Izuku and All Might's Quirk, which briefly panicked Izuku. On the other hand, she is honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be.
Because Serial Number 54129 removed several characters at the end without explanation, I restored those characters being listed, with shorter descriptions, as per Drmies' point that several sections were poorly worded. I don’t have anything against removing the bloat and the poorly worded, but culling absolutely everything just makes this page incomprehensible. Like I mentioned earlier, because this is a manga, simply listing the voice actors won’t do, as several characters appear in the manga but have not appeared in the anime yet. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 06:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Using the same character as as an example, here's a a rewrite of one section:
One that includes a source:
And one that was completely trimmed down, cutting out all descriptions of their appearance, minimal descriptions of their personality, and one sentence for their abilities:
I hope you seriously consider these shortened descriptions over no description at all. Thank you. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, directly to Serial Number 54129, you can't just completely remove the villains and miscellaneous characters, including their voice actors. That's vandalism. It says on WP:VANDAL that malicious removal of unencylcopedic content is vandalism, and by removing any mention of all of the villains, as well as the "other characters" section, you're completely ruining the article. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
72.203.118.154 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The biggest issues with this article was that half of the descriptions were original research and that it was almost entirely unsourced. Take a careful look, because I revised almost every section to be much shorter and remove long fancruft (such as 3 sentences describing quirks, or describing an entire character arc), and removed original research (such as going into detail about how Deku was probably panicked by Tsuyu mentioning All Might), as well as adding 8 sources for plot details (suh as the deaths of Nighteye and Best Jeanist), or beta elements (such as Mt. Lady and Uraraka’s original roles). 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
References
VAJan2016
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).funi blog cast
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).funimation.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1. For the record, I am not against removing fancruft and original research; Drmies' example above was a perfect example of this page being guilty of it. However, I am against almost completely blanking the page.
2. The irony of this situation is that the admin who locked this page,
Ad Orientem, has recently
warned another user not to blank page content. To quote them; "If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation..."
3. While Serial Number 54129 did explain the removal of descriptions as fancruft, unsourced, and original research, my edit that got this page locked did in fact remove all of the fancruft and original research, and added Eight sources. For comparison, here's the version before the edit war started, which does include fancruft and original research.
4. In addition to removing descriptions, several major characters were removed, particularly the main villains. I have yet to see an explanation from Serial Number 54129 as to why several characters were removed along with the descriptions. Either it was a mistake and you should be mote careful, or it was malicious and it was vandalism. A list of characters fails when it omits several major characters.
5. Despite the mass removal of content, two characters do have short descriptions remaining: Wash, who has only appeared in the manga thus far, meaning he does not have a voice actor yet, and Gran Torino, who has a source. Said source is Comicbook.com, which was the site I used for 7 of the 8 sources I added.
7. Because this is both a manga and an anime, simply listing the voice actors is a horrible idea. As I mentioned earlier, several major characters may appear in one but not the other, and thus may not have voice actors.
8. Every single list of characters on Wikipedia gives some sort of context to the characters. Why should this one give absolutely no context at all? Not only is it inconsistent, but it is also unencyclopedic to have a list of characters with no context, and even less encyclopedic to completely omit several major characters.
Please seriously consider rewriting this page instead of blanking it. Thank you for your time. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Earlier today you protected List of My Hero Academia characters because me and Serial Number 54129 were involved in an edit war because he was blanking material on the page, some of which was sourced directly from voice actors of the series, and others that could simply remove original research instead of being blanked. Later, he reported the article to be protected, despite the fact that I almost completely rewrote the article instead of undoing his edits. Because of what you said to Luke Starling about blanking articles without explanation above, I'm genuinely curious on what the policy on unexplained blanking and page rewrites are.
By the way, if this breaks WP:FORUMSHOP, I'll stop. I don’t want to bring discussion about that specific page to your talk, but I do want to know what the policies on blanking and rewriting whole articles are for future reference. If it is preferable to blank an article rather than rewrite it, I will try not to repeat that mistake. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Separate question, but Serial Number 54129, who was the other party of this debate, has not contributed to this discussion since the page was protected, despite being online several times. What would the outcome be if he does not contribute anymore? My edit was revising the page to a similar version of how it was for Six years, but his edit is how the page currently is. 72.203.118.154 ( talk) 09:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
So a short time back, I wrote a draft article on Izuku, which got rejected over a month ago, mostly since it's intent was to be a spin off the main character page. It's taken me a while to get around to creating this discussion, so now I would like to hear, (well, not really hear, this is text), from you guys on whether or not if Izuku is worthy enough to get his own separate article. Personally, I think it would be a good idea, since (like one of the other discussions mentioned) MHA has practically reached mainstream status and that Deku is a pretty well known character at this point, like Spike Spiegel or Ash Ketchum, so it would be fitting to see also see an article on him. I also feel that there is a decent amount of information on him that could be mentioned in a separate article, although it would have to be found first.
Concluding, I would like to see from you guys whether or not a separate page for Izuku would be a good idea or a bad idea, (I also wouldn't mind looking at your opinions on my draft, and maybe see what could be improved), and if you think it is a bad idea, i'd like to see your opposing argument on why. In the meantime, i'll try and edit the draft article a bit more when I got some spare time. PeteStacman24 ( talk) 03:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought we’d be done with this edit war by now, but here we are. Every time I think we’re done with this garbage, there’s another mass removal of content month later, and I want this to be the last time we ever have this discussion.
They have constantly been removing content from this page, claiming to be removing fancruft, original research, and unsourced content, but in reality removing almost every single description below every characters voice actors. The content removed in each edit, while it does include fancruft and some unsourced content, rarely includes original research, and also still removes some sourced content. Now, I have no issue with removing fancruft ( I myself have done so several times), but I do have a major problem with removing almost every single character description, and even more of a problem that their supposed reason for their actions does not match up with their actual actions. Another thing is that rather than removing all of the content altogether, I see no reason to not find sources instead of removing 30 kilobytes all the time. I know I'm not alone on thinking that this mass removal of content, while in good faith, removes far too much. Not including my previous IP's, several other edits by other users have reverted the mass removals. I'd also like to bring up a point I learned from another previous IP address on a content dispute from a few years ago. Two quotes stood out to me the most:
In short, having little bits of information on these types of articles is important, and removing the info also takes away most of the context behind the list; otherwise, it would just be a list without any substance, and thus wouldn't warrant a page. However, the last thing I want for this page is for it to be deleted over an edit war, as lists of characters for popular tend to have their own pages, especially for a series with as many characters as this one. Another thing is that most lists of characters tend to have descriptions, even if very short, and to have this one be specifically targeted for repeated mass removals with explanations that don't match the actions, as well as refusal to source the content instead of removing it, is frankly frustrating. 72.219.72.215 ( talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
72.219.72.215 ( talk) 23:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that plot summaries in articles about works of fiction are generally considered to be implicitly sourced to the work itself, and as long as no analysis o0r synthesis is done, but only elements of the plot that any reader/listener/viewer can understand are reported, secondary sourcing (while possibly useful) is not required.
MOS:PLOT says: Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. References should be provided if a plot point is ambiguous (e.g. Gaston's fate in Beauty and the Beast). References also may be required in non-linear works such as video games and interactive films, where key elements of the plot may not be seen by the viewer due to how they interact with the work.
Thus removal of plot elements as unsourced is probably not appropriate. That does not justify excessive length of undue weight for plot summery, however. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 19:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Now that the info has been reverted, Serial Number 54129, please discuss the info instead of repeatedly making bold edits. Per DESiegel and GorrillaWarfare, the material is a source itself. You keep calling the info original research, but I don’t think you fully understand what it means. Original research is info that is not directly stated by the material. Everything you are removing is. Unnamed anon ( talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
However, unlike the former, she calls him by his nickname out of affection, becoming one of his closest friends.Where does this come from?
He was inspired by his older brother, Tensei, who was the first bearer of the name Ingenium. He takes on the name Ingenium after his brother is severely injured by Stain.Where does this come from? In particulart is it directly stated that he is "inspired by his older brother"?
He is the youngest child of Endeavor and he got through U.A via recommendations.Where is this stated?
A girl from a wealthy family and vice president of Class 1-A, ... She is one of the two students in Class 1-A to attend via recommendations.
This is not a proper RfC Unnamed anon, and I advise you to remove the RfC template and restore the section header. An RfC starts with a neutral description of an issue, and follows with one or more questions about the issue. Editors respond to this, and with luck a consensus on the nanswer or answers emerges. see WP:EFC for details. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Drmies has a point here. The descriptions of powers may be simple facts, sourcable to the underlying work itself. Statements like "Izuku is inspired by Ochaco's assumption that it was based on the word to be able to/to be capable of to embrace the moniker
do seem interpretive. I doubt that the series contains a direct statement on that point.
I would suggest proceeding one character at a time, with source citations to the specific episodes where particular powers or characteristics are described, and minute/second citing, using {{ Cite AV media}} for any detailed characteristics, or else finding and citing secondary sources that interpret the character.
Personally, I dislike the term "cruft". It is intentionally disparaging, and what is cruft to one person is an essential detail to another. There is no good way to draw a line between encyclopedic detail and "cruft", however the best possible line would be the mention of a given detail in reliable secondary sources, this helps establish its real-world significance.
Or you could start a proper RfC on the question. The current imitation is of no value, in my view. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
What is being proposed was already present by the time it was proposed, and has been like that since then. However, this RFC started because prior to it, the content was being persistently edited out once a month since May, and the goal of this RFC is to keep it as status quo and to point at whatever outcome is here to prevent the content from being edited out again. Unnamed anon ( talk) 03:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
There has been persistent disruptive editing that includes mass deletion and reinsertion of short character descriptions. One party claims that the character descriptions break WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, while the other party claims that all the descriptions currently on the page can be directly sourced to the anime/manga itself (thus not breaking any of the policies linked) and is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Are basic character descriptions such as the ones in the current version of the article acceptable? Unnamed anon ( talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.| I do not have WP:V or original research concerns because the media -is- the source for the basic character details. The key word is basic, and I truly consider the content contained in the diff for each character to be basic. And if someone thinks that the information is not basic? We can discuss that here. Tutelary ( talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(Invited by the bot) There is actually a bundle of questions within the RFC and discussion. The thing to sort out is if policy requires exclusion. There I don't see "primary source" as the main question. It looks like the strongest question / concern is that the material leans too far towards being interpretive / creative / commentary by the Wikipedia editor. I don't know enough to answer that question but I put a lot of stock in Drmie's opinion on that. But if it turns out that it's OK from a policy perspective, then the question becomes opinion on whether it's a good thing to have in the article. IMO the answer on that third question is yes. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
RFC on whether basic, short, character descriptions require secondary sources, is what was intended as the question if basic character descriptions are allowed. If it turns out that was not the question that I was conveying, I’m sorry, I tend to not explain things properly by mistake, and I added that question to the header. About your question about the question being present in the editing history, it is this edit summary by Exukvera.
"What counts as a reliable source: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book), The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". As an anime/manga, all of the content on this page fits under the work itself, or in a few cases includes sources from confirmations by the creator of the material (which were notably some of the few descriptions not removed during the mass removals); as mentioned by several users, the work itself works fine as a primary source (if there does need to be citations of specific chapters or episodes, then perhaps someone who has remembers what happens when in this series can add those); and as mentioned several times before, all text cited to be interpretive, as well as more content that I considered to be not notable, have now been removed ever since Exukvera restored the content. Serial Number, please, drop the stick, avoid repeated arguments, and stop mass removing content from this page without discussion. Even an IP who doesn’t edit disagrees with your mass removal without proper explanation. Unnamed anon ( talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Are those what you mean by examples/counterexamples?No. I mean something other than this page, say Sesame Street and its characters, or any one of numerous other programs that have fictitious (or real) characters. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The very basic, simple description of each character's name, their power, and perhaps some of their bio is appropriate is relevant and quite encyclopedic.Still, thanks for the suggestion. The only major changes between August 26 and now have been the insertion of secondary sources and removal of actual original research (and not Serial Number's extremely broad definition of it). Unnamed anon ( talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Unnamed anon You might consider taking this to a noticeboard. If you do, ping everyone who responded here, especially if the removals are still going on. If you do I would politely ask the person removing the descriptions to stop until a ruling is made. You might try WP:AN/I. North8000 What do you think? I am asking you because you and I seem to agree this little RfC doesn't have visibility to give the feedback we need. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Status quo. Nothing actionable is needed here. ( non-admin closure) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(•-• please allow me to edit his skills and abilities Zapp kun ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Arigathankyou tenryuu-kun •~•)/ Zapp kun ( talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
•~•) honestly .I think each character really should have their own page so when people search for them it’ll be easier and more convenient @Tenryuu Zapp kun ( talk) 21:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
._.) I see...yet there are those who rely on Wikipedia because they do not have data so I speak as one of them and therefore I still suggest such Zapp kun ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Oof ~ I see anon ...tis unfortunate.I wish ‘twas never like this.welp anon .may Y’all at least just summarize shigaraki’s skills Zapp kun ( talk) 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
-- I noticed that kanji of Todoroki Touya's name was wrong — instead of 轟燈矢, it says 轟焦凍, which is Todoroki Shouto's name. I hope someone will edit it soon.
Yanfreak (
talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the touya todoroki theory really be considered on this wiki page ¿ Zapp kun ( talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I asked before but since it hasn't gotten much attention, I might as well ask again (since I was told to do this by the rejection letter I got). Would a separate article for Izuku Midoriya be a good idea or not? I have an imperfect draft article that is largely ready to go and another guy already wrote his own version. If we spin-off Deku so that he gets his own article, then we can talk more about than on the characters page, plus Izuku and MHA in general is very much well known at this point, so him having his own page wouldn't be alien. I don't care if it's my draft or the other guy's draft you prefer, I just want to know what you guys think on Deku (or any other MHA character) having his own official article, especially as season 5 and a third movie are just around the corner.
Thank you for your time, PeteStacman24 ( talk) 03:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pitch in my support for Izuku getting his own article. My Hero Academia has gotten extremely popular over the last few years and I'm honestly surprised he doesn't have one already. Link20XX ( talk) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we give sentient Quirks their own section? Such as Dark Shadow (Tokoyami's Quirk) and Pino (from My Hero Academia: World Heroes' Mission)? They're the only two Quirks that I'm currently aware of that have their own voice actors, but voice actors still deserve recognition. And even though there's only two at the moment, there's a possibility for more - not to mention some of the sections only having a few characters (Seiai Academy and Faculty of Ketsubutsu Academy currently only have one character each). If not giving them their own section, should we include a small note that indicates the voice actor of said Quirk, if applicable? An(xiet)di ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)