Talk:List of Battle Angel Alita characters

Untitled

We really really need something on Zapan. 85.166.12.215 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a bio of him, it'll likely have its own page. And yes, he's not the only one missing. --BrokenSphere 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Per WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles); these individual character articles need to be condensed and merged into this list page. Their notability cannot be established by independant reliable sources to warrant giving them their own articles and the articles themselves, by and large, do not reference any sources. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alita has enough reception information. I suppose we can leave her as it is. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am doubtful because of WP:SIZE

27K Alita

43K List of Battle Angel Alita characters

13K Daisuke Ido

15K Hunter-warrior (Battle Angel Alita)

9K Vector (Battle Angel Alita)

17K List of Motorball-affiliated characters in Battle Angel Alita

10K Koyomi K.

16K Barjack

7K Figure Four (Battle Angel Alita)

-----------

157K Total

You can trim and eliminate redundancy but i really doubt that we can go below 60K

KrebMarkt —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC). updated see my current position below. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. A merge isn't a simply sum of all the article sizes. Usually with character merges, there's enough repetition of information on each page on pages that only a few paragraphs at the most need to be merged from each article. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific to the article content, the background information on these pages is basically an exhaustive plot summary. What he have here are a bunch of weak articles that don't pass WP:N and most of which don't have any references to speak of. Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries, all characters with individual articles need to have reliable third-party coverage in a real-world frame. As far as I can tell, all of these characters are described in an in-universe fashion. I'd also add that the Wikiproject Anime and Manga style guide strongly discourages individual character pages except in a few cases where there is enough real-world coverage of the character to justify an article (ie. Naruto Uzumaki). --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Even so i think it can't be done without doing too much delation, the main character article toss links to the split characters articles without redundancy snippets. There isn't much any excessive fat left for trimming so only option is rewriting. Any merging attempt would require a really skilled editor as it require rewrite of each individuals article before merging.

In addition 2 background/concept related articles : Panzer Kunst & Type-V mutant were tagged for merging with the main characters list ; a really logic move ; while two other characters articles : Jashugan 9K, Den 8K were not tagged that denotes some bits of hastiness.

Anyone can try merging them as long it doesn't end up as a back-handed way to practice deletion in guise of mergin.

KrebMarkt —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Alita is most likely the only character that can stand on her own with more 3rd party sources and analysis, which can be found but are hard to come by. The rest can be merged. I suggest setting up a minor characters list to prevent a single list from getting too long.

I actually put in a request with Wikia a few months back for a Battle Angel wiki to be set up in order to accomodate a lot of the in-universe info that would be lost in a merge. So far the following have been migrated there and are OK to merge as of now:

• Daisuke Ido
• Vector
• Koyomi K.
• List of Motorball-affiliated characters in Battle Angel Alita
• Barjack
• Figure Four

Which is already nearly all the mentioned articles above. Hunter-warrior is about halfway done. I prioritized the tagged articles first for migration, so Jashugan and Den have not yet been migrated. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for clarifying the situation --KrebMarkt 17:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh cool, that makes things easier. I think we should hold off on the one's that haven't migrated, but merge the one's that have. Does that sound good? --Kraftlos (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see H. Hooper, Kung Fu History expert —Preceding Gil Sandoval comment added by 71.104.159.167 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Against any Merge I'm against mass destroying valid information in order to trim things down, then copying over what's left into one article. The Wikipedia isn't running out of room, and you gain nothing by destroying content others might want to read. Merges are usually just delete and replace with a redirect anyway, so why not just send it to an AFD if you don't think it should exist? Dream Focus 23:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to argue user experience, I have to admit I think there's nothing as unreadable as a page written in a fancrufty level of detail. You see a billion paragraphs of pedantic, badly writing, boring shit and nobody reads it. You see one paragraph of essential details written in an efficient, clear fashion, and you come away having learned something. Longer and more detailed is usually not better written, particularly on Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge it Can you imagine other articles being expanded out this way? You'd have - for example - a page for each philosophical concept, and another page for every different interpretation of it by each philosophy. Wikipedia would have millions of pages, 95% of which would be regarded as rubbish by 95% of users. Plus; this is literature/entertainment we're talking about; entities and concepts within a body of literature get their own page if, and only if, they have a wider impact (which correlates to notability). E.g. the Cthulu mythology only gets a dozen pages between the whole set, even though it has appeared in hundreds of published works, and has deeply influenced the science and horror fiction genres for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.49.61 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is enough valid information to fill pages, then no reason not to have them. They have a list of the most popular search results for Wikipedia and the pages that get the most hits. Sex articles, celebrities making recent news, Batman, and various articles on fictional things, always end up high in the lists. So it wouldn't be considered rubbish by 95% of users, since the overwhelming majority of users visit fictional articles all the time, as well as other things some might consider rubbish. Wikipedia doesn't exist to impress anyone. And just because something you consider more important doesn't have as many articles as something you don't like, doesn't mean you should destroy the stuff you personally don't like. Dream Focus 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment for the moment, I have started merging the articles (they have been tagged for 19 months now, and non of the articles shows any proof of notability; 3 merge votes above, 1 against, 1 unknown, 1 conditional merge). This does not mean that some of the articles will not be split out again if real world information is added. I will revisit redirected content after preliminary merges. I have also noticed that the complete articles are still available on the Battle Angel wiki. G.A.S^talk 06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge does not mean delete and put a redirect there. Nor does it mean put a small token amount of information, and delete the other 99%. Dream Focus 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hence my saying that I will revisit redirects to add missing information once I have completed the first round of work. The problem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the details in the original redirects will have to be rewritten and cannot just be copied over to this article. G.A.S^talk 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no possible way to fit even half that information into one article, nor any reason to do so. Dream Focus 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there a need to fit all of that information into one article. Fact of the matter is that the articles are currently in a very sad state, and to a large extent, retells Battle Angel Alita's plot (Which should actually go into the chapter and other lists, not the character list); secondly, none of the character articles contains any real world information such as reception and/or development (Which is required if the articles are to remain stand alone); thirdly, most character articles do not have any sources (except maybe for primary sources—Alita did not even have primary sources); fourthly, even if the articles were to remain stand alone, they would need to be rewritten from scratch in order to deal with the issues at hand; fifthly, the articles are not being maintained or improved at the moment (i.e. no-one has been addressing points 1 to 4 for almost two years). G.A.S^talk 04:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because no one cares about any of these points. You do NOT need any real world information such as reception or development. That just some nonsense the deletionists keep spouting to have an excuse to mass delete a considerable number of articles on Wikipedia, that were around for years before they showed up. Do you think more people read articles once they are trimmed and comprised? I think the page counts will show otherwise. The only people who will read this are those interested in as much detail as possible. Those who don't care about it, won't even notice it at all. You aren't helping anyone, just wasting your time, and driving people away. Dream Focus 05:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, i did write not that good statement in the past. Guess i was a newbie too :( Ok currently a list for all characters save Alita is the best option. As for Alita remember that there are RS coverages both in English & French so there will be enough Third Party RS contents to support a spin-out article for her. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, like your name implies, you really aren't focusing on the general topic. no the characters do not have reception or development despite it being important. still that doesn't make the character articles notable. there is no room in here to argue whether we care about the articles or not. and yes Dream Focus you do need real world information to make an article to at least some degree.

we are helping, but not the way you think we are. this isn't a fansite where we keep stuff just because we like it or think it's useful. the source are all from first party and no third party sources to verify it. in fact it's merely listed on there without formatting the reference list. so we don't even knowing which references go where. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support merging of all listed articles, per usual practices not fan ideas that "merging" means you must keep the entire merged article in-tact. None of the characters have any demonstrable real world notability. Merging them to this list is the best and appropriate action for dealing with the topics, per numerous discussions and consensus at AfDs and the anime/manga project. It is a good first step to really cleaning up this list and getting it in better shape. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as these seem acceptable spinout articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge of Daisuke Ido, Den (Battle Angel Alita), Figure Four (Battle Angel Alita), Koyomi K., Caerula Sanguis, Vector (Battle Angel Alita), Zapan. None of these articles cite reliable sources, and the one that does is only a passing mention in a plot summary (extremely trivial). Jashugan will require a little more review of its two third-party sources. But at first glance, the coverage of the character by these sources seem to be trivial as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After a more detailed review of both sources, I would suggest merging of Jashugan as well, the Manga Life mention is extremely trivial (most of it is a plot summary) and is very briefly covered in the Kishiro interview. Neither of these source constitute the significant coverage by reliable third-party sources needed for a stand-alone article. —Farix (t | c) 15:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen months later, I still think these should be merged; no question. The reason no one has cleaned this up is because we have a huge backlog of work. I'm happy someone is freeing up some time to clean this up a bit; we can at least bring this up to C-Class. As always, the bar for spinnouts is having enough reliable third-party information to create an article. Having no inclusion standards gives us a horrible mess like this. It seems like a no-brainer to me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Edit break

I've been wondering about the concepts. is it possible to create a new article, such as Universe of Battle Angel Alita for those and remove the characters onto this section?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have actually considered merging the concepts into the main article. A "concepts" article will have a hard time getting past WP:N. G.A.S^talk 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i don't really consider it a concept, the word is far too vague to be used like that. all of these so-called "Concepts" is basically terminology or setting in the universe of Battle Angel Alita. I guess merging it with the main article wouldn't be such a bad idea, but we would have to trim it first.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I used "concepts" due to the lack of a better word^_^. G.A.S^talk 04:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this can be done at a later point after the movie is released, as I expect tie-in material to come out that will make 3rd party sources in English available. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything related to the movie will most likely be kept in it's section or if it has enough notability alter on, then we just add the movie's version of the setting/universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What happening about merging the articles? Blackash have a chat 12:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Delayed until someone finds time to do it... G.A.S^talk 12:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure i can help. But i'll try. not completely familiar with the series, so i can't remove much.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Been spending a lot of effort filling out the equivalent Wikia, but I can help with the merge as I have been poring over the series. Probably cut out the minor characters and have short (a few sentences) summaries for the major ones. Or really cut down the plot summary here for this article to be a standalone. The killer for this particular series is the lack of 3rd party sources. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you maybe identify the ones worth cutting out, I am not quite that familiar with the series to make that call. Esp. when it comes to the other articles containing multiple characters (e.g. List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters, List of Motorball-affiliated characters in Battle Angel Alita). G.A.S^talk 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done for this article - these entries were removed. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas what to do with the following articles: Zapan, Type-V mutant, List of Motorball-affiliated characters in Battle Angel Alita, List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters, Caerula Sanguis and Jashugan? I recon 'Type-V mutant' should be merged to the main article, 'Motorball-affiliated characters' and 'Last Order characters' should also be limited to major characters and then merged here. G.A.S^talk 04:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

These articles are so big, I'm not so sure they could all fit without needing a split. Anyways...I think we should merge Last Order character to the main article instead of here. Motorball affiliated is pretty difficult. Is there any name for them to give them by other than Motorball-affiliated? Type V-mutants....we could list them here. But i'm starting to think if some of these were really recurring.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be easier to decide if the minor characters are removed, but which ones are minor...? G.A.S^talk 06:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know...i guess it'll depend on which ones actually contributed the most within the main plot (depending if it was mainly following one storyline). THis seris has a lot of characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are to keep the Last Order characters on a separate list - there are a few key recurring characters from the first series, but most of the LO ones are new. Motorball and Zapan can be folded into this one, Type-V mutant can be folded into the LO list. Or if it's better instead to have one list to cover both series, cut down the summaries so that there may be a long list, but short key descriptions instead of what currently exists. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed the motorball and Last Order lists. List of Gunnm: Another Stories characters can be merged into Gunnm: Another Stories since all the characters introduced in the side stories are one shot type characters who don't reappear in the main storyline, with 1 exception, and this is still a minor character. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516063846/http://the.sunnyspot.org/manga/gunnm/kinterv.html to http://the.sunnyspot.org/manga/gunnm/kinterv.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)