Talk:Characters of the Tekken series

Notability

Due to appearances in other non-Tekken media, I would propose that Paul, Marshall Law, Anna, and Yoshimitsu should all at least be considered as candidates for having a page of their own. - 69.204.31.45 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, reception (and sources for them) indicates notability for video game characters, not their number of appearances. For example, just recently I split Ling Xiaoyu into her own article because she already had a good amount of reception here and then I added even more. Paul, Law, Yoshimitsu and Anna all had their own article at one point, but they were merged into here, since those articles had little to no reception. I have actually been thinking about looking for more reception for Yoshimitsu and restoring his article though. I haven't looked too much yet though. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I serve as staff on a few Wikia wikis, so I know not to argue against set in stone policy, but it just seems asinine to me to have it so that a character with little importance in relation to the series itself (looking at you, Christie Montiero and Lili) get pages based more or less on the fact that they get reception or popularity due to the fact they're "hot gaming chicks", rather than characters like Paul and Yoshimitsu, who have had a far greater impact within the games themselves. I suppose I just find it odd that notability is defined by how a character is perceived in the media rather than actually how notable the character is within the context of their game. - 69.204.31.45 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they just need to have enough coverage outside the Tekken series from various sources and reception is the easiest way for that. This is regardless of how much impact a character has within the games themselves. But if that can be done for Paul and Yoshimitsu, then they can get their own articles too. Personally though, I don't agree with these notability rules either and think all characters should just get their own articles, rather than being cluttered into a big character list article. But that's the way things are, unfortunately. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to make a list of which characters were in which game(s)

I was thinking of adding a list before all the Character bios, that has each game as the column headings and each character as the row headings, with checkmarks in each box to whether they were in that column's game or not. If you go to the Smash Bros Series Playable Characters page, you can see what I'm talking about: [1] Gheta 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Some reception for Jack

At Portal talk: Fictional characters. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack (Tekken) and Julia Chang restored, too

But I only really worked on Julia, in Jack's case even the reception is to be writen (there are sources, it's up to you to write it now). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why to split the characters (and why I actually do it for a long time)

Obviously - to make them more articles and make this article less of a mess it is. During the recent months, me, Kokoro and some others already split a plenty of articles from the fighting characters lists, such as List of Mortal Kombat characters, List of Street Fighter characters, List of Soul characters, etc.

And that's including even this article (split articles since last year: Alisa Bosconovitch, Anna Williams (Tekken), Christie Monteiro, Lars Alexandersson, Lili (Tekken), Ling Xiaoyu, Yoshimitsu (Namco) - most of them were either initiated (Anna) or sustantionally helped (especially Lili and Yoshi) by me, as you can see in the edit history), and nobody opposed it (again: it's going on for many months), so I just don't understand why would it be suddenly any sort of an issue now.

Or more precisily: I don't understand why all of sudden are people now keen to destroy my edits, and why do I have to "discuss" them with anyone when there has been no discussion about it! Which is just ridiculous, and if you don't know why see WP:BOLD.

Btw, recently I did a LOT of general work on this article (List of Tekken characters) by just cleaning it up (practically a rewrite, really). I see some suddenly people assuming ownership of it nobody appreciates it or me at all, nevertheless. How sad.

Bottom line: Most of the video game characters were merged due to the mass merges during 2008-2009 (with no individual discussions for each of them, it was a huge sweeping action) because they had no reception sections (in effect failing WP:N by not proving it) and no references/reliable sources (thus failing WP:V and WP:RS). And rightly so. But that's exactly what I'm fixing now. Oh, and I'm actually redirecting the articles that still do fail Wikipedia stadards. For example, just yesterday I redirected Bob (Tekken). but only to one of you come after me this (!!!) - didn't I say what you guys now do is "just ridiculous"? Now you can see it most clearly in a possibly best (worst) example.

So please start being constructive and show good faith (like you're supposed to do), and participate, instead of obstructing me on every step for no good reason (because when I create good articles AND when I revert the bad articles, no matter what I do, everything and all is wrong according to you, and that is, once again, just ridiculous). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and there was also an earlier discussion right here, recently, #Notability (that I didn't even taken part in). "Undiscussed" - what? And what you can do constructive, instead of obstructing me for no reason: go and find sources to verify all the tags that I posted through this article, as well as more sources in general. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any consensus for the de-merging process of these pages. As such, I am initiating a discussion at WT:VG to see if others can get involved. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Wrong, the Wikipedia users reached the consenus for splitting this list in the section #Notability above, but only those characters who will have the reception section per notability issues (and that's why Mokujin was reverted by Kokoro, and Bob was reverted by me). So why didn't you say a word to oppose it back then, or even since then (which was several months ago)? In fact, you didn't even initiate another discussion (I did), nor did you or anyone else comment on my announcement of the new splits above. There was no new discussion of any kind until I myself started this one right here, but only after the last one ended on December 15, 2011. And that's the facts. So hold your reverts until the new consensus is reached, and in the meantime adhere to the last one. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Regardless of the past, there's clearly opposition to/no consensus to demerge now, and that what matters. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to follow everything the IP is saying, because every other sentence seems to veer off about what an injustice or how ridiculous something or other is, but I don't support de-merging. The unmerged articles are in terrible shape and have minimal sources/reception. They ought to be expanded/worked on in the "List of" article, or in a sandbox or something before standing on their own. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Try reading again.

And as for this list, it is a mess, even after my cleanups (very few sources, for one). To paraphrase you, all of this lists' characters are "in terrible shape and have minimal sources/reception" (and even this very little reception was provided by me) - for many years (now just somewhat less than before, thanks to me - even the citation tags were placed by me, previously it was just 100 kB of crap[2] with only 13 sources as compared 12 sources in my still very incomplete Julia article of just 8 kB[3]) - are you still sure about the superior quality of a list article? What I'm doing here is a vast improvement, so please join up and contribute constructive edits as well as ideas. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you constantly make comments instructing others to "be constructive". You do realize that just because we don't see eye to eye about making separate articles, doesn't make our edits unconstructive. "Contribute constructive edits" is something more appropriate to say some a vandal, not someone who is discussing changes on a talk page or a Wiki-project, FYI... Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer: No, you got it wrong. There's no consensus to merge. When I de-merged , there was a consensus for de-merging.

Also, as I said, I and Kokoro did it with a number of other articles over the last several months, why was there no opposition to it all the time? Why did everyone here suddenly wake up now, selectively applying the retroactive supposed "lack of consensus" only to Julia and Jack, and before I or eanyone else even had any chance to develop these articles like we did with the others (including: Lili (Tekken), Anna Williams (Tekken), Yoshimitsu (Namco), Ling Xiaoyu)?

And yes, it makes your edits unconstructive. Because you destroyed all my work, including on reception and citations (13 of them for Julia alone, as compared to only 17 for the entire huge list right now), instead of at least merging it to the list. So how could these edits be called "constructive"? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing things that don't ultimately matter; it doesn't matter why people didn't speak up before, it's matters that they're speaking up now. consensus can change, you need to worry about your current argument. Feel free to contact the editors who participated in this past discussion though if you want. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So wait until it changes, show me your arguments to convince me, and in the mantime revert your undiscussed reverts that comnpletely removed quite a lot of well sourced content. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)