Talk:Lum (Urusei Yatsura)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sectioning

I've created some new sections that attempt to divide the character of Lum into multiple sections. One for her back story, and one for her personality. I think this will enable readers to see a more complete Lum. Zwaksman 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lum → Lum Invader — Move to full name to make way for disambiguation page already at Lum (disambiguation) cab 07:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

• Support. While anime and manga fans have only one thing that "Lum" refers to, there are many other things it could refer to. I think this is a good move as long as all links are fixed to point to Lum Invader. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The other meanings are of at least comparable importance. Joeldl 05:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Lum to Lum Invader as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Verify Invader

I have been to numerous Urusei Yatsura websites and fansites over the years (in several different languages), and the very few that I've come across that refer to her as "Lum Invader" were english language sites. Unless someone can come up with a more reliable source that verifies "Lum Invader" as her full name, I suggest we move the article to Lum (Urusei Yatsura). Seigi Choujin 06:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Real world references

There is at least one real world reference in this article (the relation to Agnes Lum), and TTN is insisting on filling the article with them. Anyone have any more to statisfy his absurd requirements? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere more than once that Lum appears in a Mathew Sweet music video. Maybe a mention of that? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in there, down in the Cultural influences section. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You need quite a bit more if you want to actually establish independent notability. I just suggest merging this with the list article, and trying to get that up to FA status. You can use Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts as decent bases. I really don't see this even getting up to GA status. TTN (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:FICT is not an accepted guideline as its applicability is the subject of much dispute. The refs listed in the article are those which have been found with a minimal amount of searching. As such, there are bound to be many more as I know quite a number of people who were introduced to anime because of Lum. As she is an older character, the number of online sources are smaller, so we are having to look through available print resources. So, please keep your mitts off this article while we look for those. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only a few points in dispute, none of which have anything to do with the core guideline. I can just as easily cite WP:N for this. If you're actually actively searching, I really don't care about leaving it for a bit. But if you cannot find more than this eventually, please merge it instead of stalling. TTN (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if this can't get GA yet or ever as you so put it as long as it can stand on its own? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To warrant the character's separation from the list, you're going to need a few solid paragraphs of sourced development and reception information. That would be enough information for a GA, so I really cannot imagine this article needing to exist. Any information that you can find for this would be better used to establish the list's notability anyways, as it seems to need a lot of help. TTN (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you've shown a complete lack of interest in any fictional character articles, I don't think your opinion carries much weight here. You're going around doing these merges without any discussion or consensus. Since you obviously aren't doing any research before these non-consensus mass merges you are doing, you have no idea whether or not any information can be found. So, as I wrote earlier, keep your mitts off this article unless you want to help improve it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm very interested in setting an actual standard for good character articles. As it is up to those defending the articles to provide referneces, I'm not going to waste time when 99% of these are lost causes. If you can assert notability for this, great, but if you cannot, I ask that you refrain from being stubborn, and actually work on the much more relevant list article instead. TTN (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being stubborn. I'm asking that you stop mass merging articles without first giving people a chance to add references. There are much more productive things you could do with your time (like, say, add some reference yourself?). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you're being stubborn right now, but it seems like a very likely path. This is the time to add references, and I'm asking that if you cannot find any more than this, and you cannot provide likely sources, that you'll merge this instead of dragging it out. Also, as most characters cannot actually have references, there is no point in trying to wait. TTN (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't assert notability. It is pretty much one relevant creation point and a small list of trivia. You need some substance or the one point should be merged. TTN (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're really quite blind aren't you? Just because you have no interest in the character doesn't mean you can blatantly ignore the real world references which have been added. To make them more prominent, I added them to the intro so the references would be more obvious. Now, go away and do something actually useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything. Besides from the name point, there is the thing about public service announcements, which belongs to the overall series, rather than the character, a trivial mention of merchandise (now, if you can show that the thirty years is an amazing feat by citing a new article or something, then it will be relevant), some random newspaper (How exactly is that significant or even worth a mention?), and the Matthew Sweet point, which mostly seems to focus on the series, rather than the character (unless you can show that the series gets only a small bit of attention compared to the character). How do those define notability? TTN (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring everything and being anal about everything. I've seen the way you work and wipe out the work done by hundreds of editors just because you think you know what is best. You are not welcome here. The article shows notability beyond any shadow of a doubt, and your continued whining is accomplishing nothing.

To answer your questions: Pick any show from 30 years ago and then show me how many of them still have all kinds of merchandise being produced for them. What? Not too many? That's called notability. The Daily Sports is not just some random newspaper. It's a major regional sports newspaper, and having Lum appear daily on the cover for over a month is definitely notable (again, over 25 years after first appearing). The Sweet video focuses on Lum all throughout the video. Yes, it uses clips from Urusei Yatsura, but they are clips featuring Lum. Not surprising that the clips are from Urusei Yatsura since Lum is one of the main characters in the series. In addition, I've added several new "real world" bits and a plethora of references to a highly-regarded book on anime (which discusses Lum and her relationship with Ataru for 10 pages) and an academic paper (which discusses Lum in detail for three pages). Like I said, there's no doubt of notability here. Move along. Nothing for you here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joe. Notabilty has been established. Making merchandise featuring the character 30 years after it first appeared, appearing in advertisements nationally, and appearing in a music video by a notable artist is proof of real world influence to me. Frankly, Lum is Urusei Yatsura just as much as Batman makes the Batman TV series or Spider-Man makes the Spider-Man movies. Showers (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize that you find the character iconic among anime and manga characters, but you really need to find more than some second string sources to show it. Minor development information belongs in the list entry, and minor "reception" information belongs split between the main article and the list entry depending on its relevance. The information about the relationship with the other main character seems to be a main focus point of the series, so that would be better discussed in the main article. You need to get some solid development information (if you have a general idea of where it can be found, I don't mind waiting a while for it to be found and translated), and some real reception information (Matthew Sweet is fine, but the rest is pointless). TTN (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could better explain your reasoning. It seemed that your problem had to do with notability. Why exactly do you think the article should be split between the main article and the list? Showers (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the article achieves "pseudo-notability". The sources and the information are lackluster, and they only serve to get the page to a certain point (I'm obviously not opposed to good ones). This kind of notability is not good, as it completely ignores the ability to manage the information in different ways. The sources would be better suited to the main article and character list, which need them much more than this character needs an article. TTN (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how sources can stop the ability to manage information in different ways. As of right now I don't even see the need to organize the information differently. It adheres to MOS. Perhaps you can set up something in a sandbox or two to show what you have in mind? You can demonstrate how you think it should be managed. Showers (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the sources; it's the mindset that this needs an article, no matter what. The information here does not establish notability independent of the main topic or the character list. The sources regarding the specific character belong in its list entry. The sources regarding the relationship between the main characters belongs in the main article under themes. The sources regarding other appearances (Matthew Sweet, toys, public service announcements) belongs under a "legacy" or a proper "In popular culture" section for the main article, along with other specific mentions. It's essentially a WP:WEIGHT issue (yes, it applies; read the third paragraph). TTN (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you're arguing that the Lum article should be merged because it shouldn't be given more weight than the other characters of Urusei Yatsura, correct? Showers (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's essentially it. The information currently present in the article does not break the character off enough to warrant the article. Currently, only Nihonjoe's opinion that the character is iconic is really holding the article up. The main article and the character list should be made into two good articles (the character list being like Characters of Kingdom Hearts), and then if the information cannot possibly be managed, this should come back. Or totally unique and important information that has no place in either of those articles should be added to this one. TTN (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Lum is given more weight as she is the iconic character of Urusei Yatsura and has far more real world notability and references. The english tanslation were even renamed Lum and the Return of Lum. Showers (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If she is truly iconic to anime and manga as Superman is to comics, then sources separate from the series can be found. Otherwise, she is still just part of a popular series in which she is largely focused on. I'm not saying the character doesn't require any weight. If necessary, three or four paragraphs can be given to this character, while the rest only get one or two. It just doesn't require a separate article unless it can be better split from the main topic. TTN (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Several sources separate from the series have been found and are noted in the article. Several academic sources. Yet here we are with you still rehashing your old and tired arguments that still hold water as well as a sieve. Get over it already. This article is not going away no matter how much you want it to. It more than satisfies all the applicable guidelines and policies, so just move along and stop wasting everyone's time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean by "pseudo-notability". You have added enough sources to barely pass the guidelines, but the information is better covered elsewhere. Seeing as you're dead set in having this article in existence, it makes sense that you cannot see the organizational benefit of placing the information elsewhere. Can you answer the following question: What exactly can be covered here that could not be covered within the two other articles (three if you count a potential episode list)? TTN (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it might be able to be included in the main list article. The fact remains that there is enough information to make a separate article, and the article has enough sourcing to more than satisfy the requirements for an article (not just "barely pass" as you imply). To use your own argument, you're so dead set against having this article in existence that you can't see the organizational benefit of having all of this information in one article rather than scattered through several others. This topic is best covered in its own article as there is more than enough information to have a separate article, and there are many more than enough sources to support having a separate article. Again, please stop wasting our time and your time by beating this completely fossilized horse. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This is like a collection of trivia mixed in with stuff that belongs in the main article. For example, the "Relationship with Ataru" seems to be the main theme of the series according to the overview. That information is much more important to the main article, which needs information and sources much more than this one. With a proper "In popular culture" section, the article can easily handle any information in this reception section, including a description of Lum's popularity within the series. The character list can contain any creation information along with up to four paragraphs describing the character. It'd be better to have a group of three to five solid FAs and FLs instead of three to five solid FAs and FLs and one B-class article. TTN (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent) Who are you to say this article couldn't become a featured article? The sources that are there are only from finding sources quickly to prove notability. Given that two fo the sources were very academic sources, and that Lum is a very prominent anime character, it is very likely that other sources can and will be found. Your crusade to destroy this article is absurd. Now, please go away and quit trying to downplay the content of this article. Notability has bbeen proved, so none of your arguments hold any weight anymore. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If more sources are available, it shouldn't be too hard to at least be adding them occasionally, especially if you're this annoyed with me. You could also have asked some people to help you at this point. My goal to have two strong pages that support each other rather than a strong page and two weak pages is hardly absurd. Given the fact that you're mostly annoyed with me, your goal seems to make sure that this stays no matter what rather than organizing things in a way that makes sense. Again, for example, the relationship between Lum and Ataru and the relationships between Ataru and other women are the main focus points of the series, correct? Why is it that the relationship is covered in detail here rather than the main article? TTN (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You think the articles need to be stronger. There is really no need to repeat yourself as you have been doing. However, this no longer contributing to the greater development of this article or any other article. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This debating in circles with no new opinions or ideas is nonconstructive and bordering on incivility. I suggest we close this discussion until something new can be contributed. Regards Showers (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)