Talk:List of Claymore characters

Galatea

IIRC, Galatea isn't dead. That comes from a misinterpretation of a line from the latest untranslated chapter. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if Galatea was dead, then why are Clarice and Miata hunting her down? -Vega

Plot summaries

Also, I think we don't need to list every last action they've ever taken in the Manga - we've got to leave SOME reason for people to buy it. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. IMO, Character descriptions only need to contain, well, character descriptions, as well as just the essential plot details that affect this character (For instance, Claire traveling with Teresa is "essential" because it shaped her character significantly. However, "Clare followed Teresa for days after she left the village without rest, food, or water. Teresa, at first, tried to violently send Clare away. Eventually, though, she let her travel with her, and the two became attached. The presence of a caring human in her life helped Teresa regain her lost happiness and humanity." - this is too much detail IMHO, too verbose.) On the other hand Clare perfecting "Windcutter" technique is probably not essential. There are also two policies that relate to this topic, fancruft and policy regarding plot summaries. Well, the first one is not a policy, but I still think it's important. Please discuss. --Darkbane 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list every character in the series, regardless of their significance? I'm thinking of all the characters in the Northen campain, where all we know of them is their names. 82.24.186.128 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters

If all we know about a character is their Claymore rank and that they were killed, there is NO POINT in including them in the list of characters. Minor characters who were only introduced to die to screen to show how badass a fight was are not important. If you are desperate to include minor characters - the priests, the bandit gang and the men in black are far more fruitful lines of enquiry as they have actually affected the plot. Also, we don't need to know every last detail of every action every character ever commited. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but could you please add your comments to the bottom of talk pages instead of the top? They're much easier to find that way and it's a common convention. --Darkbane ^talk 12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not Reader's Digest or some teaser marketing site. It is meant to provide the broad and solid references. Intentionlly leaveing out "minor" and "unimportant" characters is like omitting "minor" and "unimportant" Elements out of Periodic Table.

Do you really think we should list every no-name villager to ever appear on the series? Every Claymore who appeared in two panels and died off screen? We could use the priest and two guards from the Rabona arc maybe, but giving Zaki - who never actually appeared in the series (it was a Youma impersonating him) his own section is ridiculous. Everything we need about him can be put under Raki's entry. Too many entries will provide no useful information and do nothing except bury the important characters in a pile of junk entries. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 10:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This whole section of the talk page seems to have been ignored; the info culling and fancruft here is ridiculous. -Biokinetica 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Which info has been culled or "fancruft" (whatever the word means)? Realmserpent 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Darkbane already linked to the meaning of fancruft - most of this section is filled with characters that do not have a meaning impact on the story/plot, basically existing in name and sword-style only. Most of these girls don't further the plot in a meaningful way, as their presence could easily be done without and still continue. As for 'info culling', this whole article is the testament to it for the reasons above. It's just too expansive, covering unnecessary territory. -Biokinetica 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I don't agree ＾＾ I agree that some of the character descriptions need to be revised and they include too many details on every little action a character has taken. But I don't agree with the removal of "minor" characters. Claymore does have a large cast, but I don't think the article includes too many minor characters. (Who for example? Eva? Veronica? ... Flora? Undine? Nina? organization members?). It doesn't even list the guys from Rabona or all of the girls from the Northern Campaign, for example. And to my mind all the characters listed have had enough of a role in the plot, to be mentioned. (To make the whole article more concise it might be possible to merge some of them (for example Noel and Sophia)?) So I think what needs work here, rather than removing minor characters, is the content of most of the major character's discriptions. But that's only my opinion, so let's see what the others say. Minikui 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Minikui on this. If really necessary, some minor characters can be merge with others. For example, maybe Zaki can be placed under the entry for Raki. Or maybe "Organization Members" entry for all the little known members, basically all except Rubel. Compare this with the character lists of other animes (e.g. Naruto). I don't think the list is excessive, but some entries (e.g. Teresa) might be. Realmserpent 04:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• You guys are going to have to define what 'enough of a role' is. Rubel, Raki, Clair, and certain claymores (such as Ilena, Teresa, and Miria) are the only people who should be mentioned, and not some of these "characters" who literally only have two lines said for them. Using Naruto's over-grown archive shouldn't be a goal for this article, as it has a chance to be succinct and to the point. And Terasa's one of the few profiles that actually belongs here - why cut it?. -Biokinetica 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked who you'd think should be removed - but imho we cannot keep only the major characters either. The only ones I see that are listed that imho could be removed would be Eva and maybe Elena or Veronica. But those three don't make that much of a difference either.

And the point is not to cut Teresa's (or any other character's) profile, but to improve it, because many of them are way too detailed about every single action the character has ever taken (f.ex Clare's entry retells the complete story with Teresa, but doesn't even mention Raki). Minikui 12:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of things:

Disagree. Wikipedia is not Reader's Digest or some teaser marketing site. It is meant to provide the broad and solid references. Intentionlly leaveing out "minor" and "unimportant" characters is like omitting "minor" and "unimportant" Elements out of Periodic Table.

The dictionary of the universe and this manga are nowhere near the same thing.

That's why I asked who you'd think should be removed - but imho we cannot keep only the major characters either. The only ones I see that are listed that imho could be removed would be Eva and maybe Elena or Veronica. But those three don't make that much of a difference either.

And the point is not to cut Teresa's (or any other character's) profile, but to improve it, because many of them are way too detailed about every single action the character has ever taken (f.ex Clare's entry retells the complete story with Teresa, but doesn't even mention Raki). Minikui 12:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of who goes, but more, who stays. This should be based upon their importance to the story and it's progression. Examples include Teresa, Ilena, Miria, Alicia & Beth. The awakened should be considered for their own article, and if these name-only northern campaign people are really that interesting, put them in a "minor characters" article. Everything that's of importance in this one is being drowned out by nobodies who make little singular impact on the story and plot. -Biokinetica 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current line up is correct, with the probable exception of Renee, who was only mentioned in passing. A lot of the one panel charactrers, such as all the minor Claymores who appeared during the Northern campain only to die without any on screen lines, have been removed - a lot by me. I don't understand why people think Zaki needs to be included. I removed him and put the necessary details in Raki's entry. I don't think more cutting is necessary. I just don't want every minor character added. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way. The article doesn't really include all the minor characters, but only those who had a role in their particular arc (eventhough some people tried to add an entry for every girl from the northern campaign, that's why I listed them under "other claymores"). the only one I feel could be removed would be Eva, but I really disagree on splitting the article as well as on keeping only major characters (those can be added on the main Claymore page, while the character list-page should include minor characters or those that only appeared in one arc, but played a role in that one, as well). Of course, you can always move some more, like Teresa or Miria, to the "Main Characters" section at the top, this will set them apart from the more minor characters. Minikui 10:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Characters" like Nina, Cynthia, Eva, and some of these other northern campaign people don't have a "role", they're just there. They have no impact on the story or plot, and the understanding of the story/plot will not change if you don't know about them. This article isn't supposed to be the supreme repository of Claymore characters, just bring to light those who meaningfully further the story they participate in. -Biokinetica 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to be precise I agree with removing: Elena (used only to explain the Black Card system, supposed to be Clare's "best friend" but we don't see much of that, on the other hand her and Clare's story might be explained later on, when we see how the training in the organization works), Eva, Nina, Katia, Rosemary (for them not having any impact on the story as you said). Even Veronica since she wasn't really important, but that way we have all the "team captains". Or at least their entries can be made smaller and moved to the bottom in some section like "others" or "minor characters" (personally for them I don't feel that would be necessary though).

And as said before, Noel and Sophie can be joined, Audrey and Rachel as well, the other members of the organization as well. (they shouldn't be deleted completely though imho).

Cynthia should be included since she is part of Clare's team now and still alive (her role can still become bigger). But she and Yuma and Tabitha could be joined together as well imho.

So, that's my opinion. Please discuss, who you think should stay or who else should be removed and why. Minikui 10:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I initially thought that it was fine as it was. But going back to the article it seems a little bit odd to see some characters having one-sentenced information. So unless there is a chance of getting more background information for a character (future chapters) I have to agree with Minikui. But Minikui, what do you mean with "joining" certain characters together? Do you mean like, taking the story of two characters and change that into one story? And do you plan to remove their pictures? Twsl 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

oh just a small edit here, I also have to agree with Minikui with keeping all the characters on one page, rather than splitting the major and minor characters. I don't see the point in doing that. I really don't like those pages who are linking here and there and everywhere. I'd rather have one well-organized page with a well-ordered table of contents rather than having a page where you have to click something to go there and then go back and click something else to go somewhere else >.< heh, but that's just my opinion.Twsl 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kind of. I was thinking about, for example "Noel and Sophia" or "Audrey and Rachel", they have only appeared together and it should work out to make an entry "Noel & Sophia" putting the informations from both of their entries into one entry. They have rather short entries and these short entries even include partly the same information. I didn't think about removing their pictures, but maybe put one picture that shows both of them at the same time. It would save some space and would make the article a bit more conscise. Or at least that's my intention, not sure if it would work out :)

On the other hand, if we agree on making small entries for the minor characters mentioned before like Eva, Katia etc. then I think pictures should be removed. (Like Renée for the moment, who's entry is short, but doesn't really have the same feeling of giving too much attention to a (for now) minor character). But well, I actually feel most of them could be removed completely (Renée still seems to have a much more important position than most of them) Minikui 11:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I like that merging idea. Although you have to keep in mind that there could be a possibility that for example Rachel could become more important in the future. But it shouldn't be that much of a problem to give her her own section again when that time comes, right? Having one picture for both characters sounds nice as well. I would like to see how this idea will work out. Feedback from the others are still appreciated as well ^_^Twsl 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the list as it currently is (albiet largely because I've already cut out a large number of the one appearance characters). I don't like joining characters together in one section, even if they are usually seen together - it would be like have a "Clare and Raki" section - when they are both individuals and we'd have to change it when they were longer travelling together. My judgement on whether chracters are important enough to include is based on 1) How long have they appeared for? 2) Do they have speaking roles? 3) Do we know enough about them to justify an article? (Name and number are not sufficient.) 4) Do they extend our knowledge of the world? 5) Are they significant to the plot or likely to be so in the future? I also think that if there is some doubt about whether a character is important enough to include - leave them in. Elena, for instance, is dead, hasn't been mentioned again and isn't that significant to the plot. However, there was an entire chapter dedicated to her, and it gave a lot of insight into the Claymore organisation and Clare's personality - so I believe she deserves to be included. Eva only appeared for a few panels - but those started the largest plot arc in the entire series so far, so likewise. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, comparing "Clare and Raki" to "Sophia and Noel" is a bit exaggerated, their roles in the story are completely different :) We wouldn't join them together just because they're always seen together (I wouldn't join Miria, Deneve and Helen together just for that either), but that's just one reason. The main reason is that we have very limited information about them and their entries even have partly the same information. But well, I don't mind having them seperated either.

I agree on what you said about Elena, especially since she might re-appear again in some flashback scene with Clare as well. But I don't agree on what you said about Eva. She is in the introduction of a main arc, but many other characters had that kind of a role (like Rakel, the other one that has been added now), if that's the only thing they were used for I don't think it's enough for them to have their own entry. So I still feel Eva should be removed as well. She could still be mentioned in another entry (f.ex the main story article about the Northern Campaign). Just like Katia who can be mentioned in Jean's entry. But I don't even feel that would be necessary.

What about Rosemary? An entire chapter, but actually a filler or rather to show us more about Teresa and how strong she is, we don't really know anything else about her. Imho it would be enough to mention her in Teresa's entry. Maybe we should do a new section for voting which characters should be removed where we can discuss them each individually Minikui 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clare / Claire

We also don't need all of their names and their alternate translations. Lets just use the official ones, okay? And by the way, Clare is correct. Not Claire. Clare is the actual name used in France, Claire is an alternate version of that.

Is name used in France considered official? It's open to debate. If I remember correctly, the original manga used Claire, and it changed the name to Clare recently.

The official name is what is in the English manga published by Viz. Everything else, including the names in the French or Italian adaptations, are irrelevant (they are relevant for the French/Italian Wikipedia, but not for the English one). It seems like the first couple of volumes of Viz used Claire but it got changed to Clare later on, so we should go with Clare. --Darkbane ^talk 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clare and Claire respectively are the English and French forms of "Clara", so in the English version Clare makes sense, eventhough Claire might be more widely used today. It's only weird for them to change it in the middle, maybe they got a request from the Japanese publisher to use the spelling Clare (happens sometimes). So anyway both spellings have existed for quite a long time and it's not like Clare being only a modern English spelling of the french name.

On the other hand, Noel is a completely French name and in this case should be spelled Noelle, since she is a woman and Noel is the male-only form of the name. Or is "Noel" used for girls as well in english-speaking countries? Minikui 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, what matters is what's written in the English manga, not what name is completely French. Manga have made up completely new names before, so similarity to another language is not always a good indicator.

I have no clue why they changed Claire to Clare in the middle, but it's reasonable to stick to their latest changes ^_^ --Darkbane ^talk 11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

When was Elena's rank ever mentioned? 213.83.99.5 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Elena's rank was never mentioned, and I removed that. I also posted the original line above. I did not mean in the French translation, rather, France in general. Clare is a french name, and Claire with an i is a deviant of that name. I meant to say that the actual name is Clare, i.e. that is how you correctly spell the name Claire.

Sorry, but that's not right. Clare does not really exist in France, except for maybe a few Frenchies that use the English spelling. "Clare" spelled as this would be pronounced differently in French, that's why in the French manga as well, they use "Claire". And Claire isn't derived from "Clare" either. "Claire" and "Clare" are both forms of "Clara", originally used in two different countries. (Just wanted to make clear that both spellings are "correct", we'll stick to what the english version uses anyway) Minikui 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

removing "Status: deceased" ?

It was mentioned before, but I think all these "Status deceased" etc. right after the names should be removed completely. I think it's too much info, especially in the first line right after the name of the character. It's not really the first thing to mention in a character description, even if those can include spoilers. Minikui 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While it's probably the least of the problems with this article (compared to lack of fiction tense and fancruftiness), it won't hurt to move that info to the last part of each entry instead of the first ^_^ --Darkbane ^talk 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed these parts now. To my mind it is enough if each entry has a line "She was killed by XXX", "She is believed to have died in XXX" etc. If anybody feels that we really need some "Status: xxx" please re-add it somewhere less "directly-in-your-face" ^^;; (I know this article is full of spoilers, but somebody just taking a brief look can avoid such major spoilers this way) Minikui 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal, too. --Darkbane ^talk 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Links on this page

None of the links on this page work, I would fix them if I knew how Hotaruofmibu 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Irene/Irena/Ilene/Ilena & Standardisation of Names

Could we please make up our minds as to what her name is? I don't think there's an "official" version of the name, but it looks very sloppy if in one line she is referred to as "Irene" and in the next as "Ilena". I don't care which one is chosen, as long as the article is edited to make it consistent. [arthal] 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we usually use the one used in the official English translation (which I don't have). And there is an "official version", considering the Katakana-spelling. It is "Irene", the Katakana cannot be read as Irena or Ilena and "Ilene" is prononced differently. It's only because Irene isn't a very well known name or rather the German pronounciation isn't that well known (and the Katakana use that one), and therefore other transcriptions have been used in scanlations (and official translations as well maybe), by translators that didn't know the name/pronounciation. So, anyway, somebody will have to check in the English mangas Minikui 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Irene" has my preference as well (I think it matches the katakana best), but consistency in the article is most important. And remember: English transcriptions of names in katakana are not always right (see Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle, the Fye/Fay issue). [arthal] 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I standardised all references to Irene. -Realmserpent, 07:04, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! [arthal] 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is the official names of Duph/Dauf and Sophia/Sofia? Realmserpent 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the ANN Forum I read that his name is indeed "Dauf", so I changed that Minikui 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a note on Rubel's name being changed in the English version, since - eventhough there are many possible romanizations of his name, RuBel is definitely not one of them. But this might seem unnecessary information to others...? o.o Minikui 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think transliteration of Japanese is fine (e.g. クレア Kurea), but let's use the official names for the entry name (e.g. Clare) and other references.

Can we just use the official names (when available) and not all those variant spellings from scanlations/fansubs? (The official name being the one used in the published English manga by Viz Media.) Anime News Network does not count as "official". The following are the official names....

• Vol 1. Clare, Raki, Zaki (Raki's brother), Rubel (man in black), Elena
• Vol 2. Father Vincent of Rabona, Rimuto (organization chief in Sutafu), Galk, Father Pario, Father Serene, Father Rodo, Bishop Kamuri
• Vol 3. Teresa, Rig (bandit who loses hand)
• Vol 4. Sophia, Noel, Ilena (her technique is officially called Quick-Sword), Elda, Priscilla
• Vol 5. Deneve, Helen, Miria
• Vol 6. Alicia, Beth, Galatea, Ophelia, Rafaela
• Vol 7. No new character names

I have only up to Vol 7 of Viz Media's official English versions. If anyone has later volumes, pls list the official names here... Thanks. Realmserpent 10:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No no, I wanted to say that on ANN Forums somebody stated that Dauf was his name in volume 8 of the English manga by Viz ＾＾ But so far only 8 volumes have been published, so for the later names we still have to go with what has been used in Fansubs and so on. Else there aren't really any variant spellings anymore I think. Or are you refering to the notes I added to some of the names? These were supposed to be "background" info. And since some names have been changed in the English version (mostly those not very well known in English speaking countries) I think that is worth noting as well. But that's only my opinion of course Minikui 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the spellings to the official ones, hope I didn't forget one. But I definitely think the note on "Ilena" is necessary, because that is not her name. The Katakana clearly spells a "ne" at the end, "Ilene" would have been possible, but it doesn't really match the pronunciation either. (Her name is pronounced as "ee-reh-nu" or "ee-leh-nu" and not "ie-reen" or "eileen"). And I really hope for Viz that there won't be another Claymore who is really called Ilena afterwards XD Minikui 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

character sections

What do you think about changing the sections of the character list a bit? For example, add something like "Humans", "Organization" maybe even "Main characters" (Raki, Clare, Teresa?) ? Somehow "non-claymores" seems a bit weird and starting the List with those apart from Raki so far more or less minor characters seems weird as well ＾＾; Minikui 22:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving "Non-Claymores" to the bottom of the page. Realmserpent 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Created new sections "Organization" and "Others" as well as "Main Characters", because moving Raki to the end of the list seemed wrong as well ＾＾ Minikui 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Class/Generation 78?

Where did this Class 78 come from? We know that Teresa is a generation before Clare; Audrey is a generation after. Rafaela is before Teresa (perhaps more than 1 generation?). Isley is 1st-generation; Riful is 2nd-generation. But 78? What is the source for this number? Realmserpent 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can find a reference to "78"? If so, I'm going to remove it from the Generations section.Realmserpent 06:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed. It may still need the modification. I figure there's no definite generation in the work force.

In Japanese the different "classes" or "generations" are referred to as 時代 Jidai, which means "age, era, period, time, epoch" and so on. I'm not sure where the "class" or "generation" came from. I'd use "era" or "epoch" (but I don't know which sounds most fitting in English.) Minikui 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, too, but volume 3 of the officail english version states Teresa as "A seventy-seventh generation Claymore...warrior number 182." So that's where the class comes from...as to class 76 and 78, that's pure speculation at this point, but a valid guess anyway... -Vega

So that's where the whole thing came from. But yes, it's pure speculation. Also because some of them live at the same time doesn't mean they are the same Class. f.ex Raphaela must be a class prior to Teresa, eventhough she is still alive in Clare's time. Minikui 11:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Raphaela must be atleast two classes prior to Teresa, because the Organization has already been rebuilt. As Luciela almost destroyed it, another class must have filled the hole, before Teresa came on scene. 70.51.8.220 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

too many pictures

I really feel that there are too many pictures in this article, especially in the "Awakened Ones" section. One for each character should be enough. Minikui 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the pictures, this is not a fanpage and considering the long list of characters it was really too much. I also think the pictures should all be made the same size. But please discuss, especially if you don't agree ^^ Minikui 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring removed pictures.

Are there guidelines that say one picture per character? Besides there was no consistency in the removal of them. Either the Awakened form pictures were removed or the human one was. I am restoring them. Adding multiple pictures for some characters does not make it a fanpage. It is providing additional visual information on some characters.

If the page is getting too long then maybe it'd be better to make separate articles for the longer sections.

I don't agree, I think this is too much visual information (and at the moment not enough well written information, but that's a different problem), plus the awakened forms are additional, in this case really unnecessary, spoilers. Not to mention that even more will be added as more and more will appear in the manga. Other wikipedias don't add character images at all, so seperating the character article in even more articles because of pictures is really exagerating. And the pictures really don't have to be that large either.

Most of these characters still have rather short entries (and some will most likely not become any longer as the characters are dead), and two pictures that are almost as big as the whole entry, that's why it looks like a fanpage.

I left only one awakened form pic, because it was the form we mostly see him in, but if you feel that we need to have pictures of the same forms for all (which would be human in that case), I'm fine with that as well.

Well, that's my opinion, let's wait for some others. Minikui 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out the Naruto,Inuyasha or Bleach articles? They separate the characte sections into smaller articles because having all of them in one page would be invariably long. In fact some characters in those animes have an entire page for themself complete with character images. Of course it's currently different with Claymore because the list and material is still comparatively small, though I can see your argument has merit. At the moment I am not suggesting splitting it yet because as you say, the written material for each character is still small. Anyways, I am disinclined to modify the big images uploaded by other people,though I did upload a few of the big ones you mentioned. Lets see what other people say first though. Killer3000ad 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly against splitting off character pages unless there are enough verifiable secondary sources (meaning, not the anime or manga) to justify this decision. In the absence of such material, those pages are doomed to just be fancruft. Having said that, as long as the entries here discuss both the character and their awakened form, it should be okay to have both pictures. As for spoilers, there is no reason not to include spoilers. Wikipedia contains spoilers. Also, the absence of pictures on other Wikipedia projects is mostly irrelevant because the fair use clauses only apply, as far as I know, to the English Wikipedia. So that should not be the basis for making a decision here. --Darkbane ^talk 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also not in favour of splitting it up at the moment nor do I approve the earlier removal of the pictures that I restored or the one image-per-character that was suggested. The article does not seem clustered or out of shape at the moment nor is it that long enough to warrant removing them. Also I don't think it's possible to make the bigger pictures of the Awakened forms any smaller than they are at the moment as it would be pointless to only have a headshot of the Awakened form and making the image smaller would also make it hard to see the detail in the Awakened form.Killer3000ad 08:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by secondary sources? oO

Well, spoilers are fine, but we don't need to spoil everything either XD Especially since the awakened forms are really all about visual impact in the manga. But ok, so far I'm the only one bothered by that, let's leave it as it is at the moment.

But I still feel some of them should be smaller, I really don't think the pictures should be as big or even bigger than the written text. I'll be precise: Those for Ligardes and Isley seem fine to me. Those for Riful way too big, like for all others we could simply use her human face and also if the awakened image is a bit smaller you can still see enough details, I changed it to "120px" and it looks fine. Same for Luciela, just her face as a human and make the awakened form a bit smaller. For Miata as well, there should be a simple image of her face in the new chapter. And in any case, if somebody really wants to see more he can simply click on the thumbnail.

And finally, how some of the images push the text into the middle looks really badly "formated", especially in the rather short texts like Jean's or Alicia's. I'd suggest at least putting the smaller image on the left or in other cases both of them on the right, but that doesn't work if the text is too small.

Mmh, I think that's it, maybe we can find a compromise ^^ Minikui 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source would be, for instance, a published magazine article discussing Riful or Isley. Having the pictures be a bit smaller is fine in my opinion, for the reason you state (thumbnails). Somehow I'm not really bothered by the "pushing text into the middle" thing. It'd be different if it was pushing the character name into the middle. But yeah why not move the smaller image left and bigger one right? There's no written law that all the small face shots need to be right-aligned. --Darkbane ^talk 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the large pictures of the human forms of the Abyssal Ones are not conforming with the other human form pictures, given that they show the whole body rather than the faceshots but since I didn't upload those ones, I am not really sure if it'd be my place to edit them. Also the reason why most of the faceshots in this article are right-aligned is because when I uploaded them, I was following the arrangement that was already in use for the faceshots that were uploaded by another user. Killer3000ad 11:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to edit a few of them now, but feel free to adjust them further. For now I haven't changed the sizes, but I'll try to find smaller pictures for the others Minikui 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it be an idea to have the same dimensions for each picture like for example with this "code" [Image:Awakened Jean.png|thumb|right|5opx|Awakened Jean.] or something? the way it looks now is imo a bit messy and giving all pictures the same dimensions would make it look a lot bit tidier i think.. what do you think?Twsl 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that suggestion. Minikui 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, so this is what I basically did. As suggested I changed the size of the thumbnails to 75. The faceshots turned out well, in my opinion, but the bodyshots may look too small. I don't know what to do about it, of course you could see the full resolution by clicking on them I guess. For the consistency I moved all the pics of the humanversion of the claymores (begin/midsection) from the right to the left. Furthermore I saw that at some pics there were a lot of space between the pic self and the text, so I removed them as well. I don't know if you guys think it looks better this way or not, but if not, feel free to revert it back or give advice how to make it better :) tnx, greetings Twsl 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The images for the awakened beings should be much larger. Having to click them just to see them (not just see the details) is unnecessary. -Biokinetica 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the smaller pics, but you're right, some of them are really hard to see now (Dauf or Riful f.ex. seem fine to me). Is it possible to make the thumbnail show only the head but link to the full body image? Else I'd propose using images only of the heads, f.ex. we have a beautiful coloured image for Ophelia Minikui 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I went ahead and tried to add some new (colored) images from the manga. I didn't delete the former ones and wanted to put a link to the full body image, but I don't know how and can't seem to find out. So feel free to add them. Minikui 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the new pics Minikui. Adding the links as we speak.. If I got some time left I will add head-only pics of the other awakened beings as well Twsl 21:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how it's done XD Will help you out then. Minikui 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you're going to bother with color, at least take them from the animé. With the animé now airing, there's no reason to use poorly-colored manga spreads and covers unless it absolutely must come from the print (i.e. the Claymore main article). And head-shots for the awakened being's fully-awakened forms are totally unnecessary. -Biokinetica 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying headshots of the awakened beings are "totally unnecessary" you could as well say _why_ you think that. As we discussed earlier, some picutures of the awakened beings were too small. That's why Minikui suggested those headshots. I don't like the idea to have pictures of all kind of sizes criss cross through the whole page so that's why I think this is a good sollution. If you think you've got a better idea, please do tell, but to revert back to those ugly big/small pictures is not an option for me, but if others agree with you, sure, go ahead. But for now as far as I can tell only me and Minikui are for the pictures as they are now, and you are the only one having a problem with it. It would help if the others gave their thoughtsTwsl 10:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think it looks much better now than before - of course, there might be an even better way of which we haven't thought yet, but for the moment I definitely prefer it as it is now. And I didn't took pictures from the anime on purpose since the Manga pics look much better (the manga is drawn much better imho), they aren't poorly colored or anything, but they have to be low resolution. I think it's fine to have those colored pictures which can be found in the manga and use black-white for the others - but I'd rather go back to completely black-white instead of using anime screenshots. The headshots of AB look good to me as well, better than those way too big images, which were bigger than the actual article of certain characters and after all there is still a link to the full body images. Other opinions would be appreciated Minikui 11:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean "ugly big/small pictures"? They're a mixture of manga panels and spreads, ones you and Minikui seem to insist be used. As for color, they should either be all-color, or all black & white. This article looks like a half-used children's coloring book. There won't be usable colored images for every character in the manga. Only in the animé is there a sense of certainty that every character will appear in a colored scene usable on wikipedia. And, they're all the same size. On the subject of linking to fully-awakeneds within thumbnail captions (Ligardes' links to an avatar-sized version), who's bright idea was that? You guys took one problem - varying image size - and 'fixed' it while creating a host of other problems. The manner in which the article operated was copped down for your preference of looks, and even now, it doeasn't look that great, but now the article operates on an asinine system of links and thumbnails. Compared to the Death Note, Bleach, and even Naruto articles, this place looks like a joke. -Biokinetica 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually getting tired debating with just one person who doesn't like the layout. Instead of proposing sollutions bashing seems the only the thing he can do, oh and comparing this page with other pages that are "oh, so great". But oh well, here we go again.

'What do you mean "ugly big/small pictures?' -take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&oldid=143525544 to see what i mean.

'Only in the animé is there a sense of certainty that every character will appear in a colored scene usable on wikipedia. And, they're all the same size.' -I don't know if you noticed it but fansubbers use different resolutions

'On the subject of linking to fully-awakeneds within thumbnail captions (Ligardes' links to an avatar-sized version), who's bright idea was that?' -You might try reading back.

'You guys took one problem - varying image size - and 'fixed' it while creating a host of other problems' -"And which problems may that be?

'The manner in which the article operated was copped down for your preference of looks' -We didn't change it for ourselves. We (or at least me, myself) did the changes for the people that read this page. Of course you can't satisfy 100% of all the people. But seeing as no one else is complaining, and you being the only one, I think we didn't do that bad.

'now the article operates on an asinine system of links and thumbnails' -As I told you before, it would help if you came with your own suggestions.

'this place looks like a joke' -Seriously, you aren't expecting me to reply on that, right? Twsl 22:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• My solution would be to revert back to before you edited all the images; i'm not going to take time sitting here listing everything this page used to be. The different sizes were not detrimental to the article in the first place. Now the article is unintiutive for the sake of even lines.

I don't know if you noticed it but fansubbers use different resolutions

I don't know if you've noticed, but each group uses the same dimensions throughout the series - every idiot knows that. You take the screens from subbers with the same resolution each time. The Death Note and Bleach articles figured it out, what's different here?

And which problems may that be?

They're all above. The size chosen for the images is too small for the image to even play a useful role in the article. There was no reason for the colored manga scans other than Minikui liked them. The links within the thumbnail captions are hodge-podge code unintuitive to your average reader.

We didn't change it for ourselves. We (or at least me, myself) did the changes for the people that read this page. Of course you can't satisfy 100% of all the people. But seeing as no one else is complaining, and you being the only one, I think we didn't do that bad.

Just because "no one else is complaining" doesn't mean that this is the proper format for an article. The glaring problems with this page may not be so obvious to you and the two other people bothering to post in this section of the talk page, but take into account readers of the page who don't post here. This article is supposed to be intuitive to more than the people on this talk page.

As I told you before, it would help if you came with your own suggestions.

And as i've said above, the suggestion is to go back to the old images.

Seriously, you aren't expecting me to reply on that, right?

Did I ever give any indication that I was? -Biokinetica 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious we will never agree with eachother so lets ask the opinion of some of the regular editors of the pages you mentioned that made this page look like a joke shall we Twsl 03:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you're sweeping the idea of screenshots from the animé that quick? -Biokinetica 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So I looked at the Death Note character page and it looks way messier than Claymore's, sure it has beautiful big pictures - that are too big and end up aligned next to the wrong characters. Bleach or Naruto on the other hand use way more links than this page here, so I don't see any problem with the few thumbnail links that are being used here now. But imho those series can't be compared (yet), as they have many more characters with long entries that make using different and bigger pictures useful. For the moment there are only a few characters in Claymore that have that long entries. And especially most of the Awakened Ones have really small ones and pictures that were as big or bigger than their entries. That will probably change as the series continues, but for the moment I think we should stick with smaller images that fit the amount of text.

For the coloured or not - let's wait for some other opinions. For sure even if we use anime screenshots there will be quite certainly a few characters that won't appear in the anime until some second season in 5 years maybe, so in any case some black-white images will stay. Personally, of course, I like it as it is now, but I don't insist on having my way. But I'd still propose using colored manga images when we can find them and use anime screens for the others.

Well, I really don't want to go back to the previous version, it looks better now than before. We used low resolution images on purpose and they have always been used here apart from those AB full body images (which are the only images that have been made significantly smaller), so even if we use anime screenshots they'd be low resolution and not as big as in the other articles mentioned above.

I still prefer Twsl's suggesting of having pictures the same size for everybody, we could make them a bit bigger (like 90px or something), but I really wouldn't like them to be as big as before. Minikui 10:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So I looked at the Death Note character page and it looks way messier than Claymore's, sure it has beautiful big pictures - that are too big and end up aligned next to the wrong characters.

If you had looked at the page I linked, you'd see different. I was talking about the main page, not the convoluted character page.

Well, I really don't want to go back to the previous version, it looks better now than before. We used low resolution images on purpose and they have always been used here apart from those AB full body images (which are the only images that have been made significantly smaller), so even if we use anime screenshots they'd be low resolution and not as big as in the other articles mentioned above.

So you're using these head-croppings because it's some kind of fad? The whole point of including the full-body images of the awakened is to see their details. If those images are going to be relegated to the same butchering as all the others, then there's no sense in having them here. With the way these right-aligned images of the awakened are being used right now (pointless thumbnailed mug-shots), i'd just axe all the awakened beings' youma forms, leave their human forms, and be done with it. For the article as a whole, either everything's color, or nothing is - you can't have both. -Biokinetica 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had looked at the page I linked, you'd see different

Lol! Did you even bothered to take a look at the links yourself? One links to the bleachening product and the other links idd to naruto but hasn't got any charpics oO How can you compare that..

With the way these right-aligned images of the awakened are being used right now (pointless thumbnailed mug-shots), i'd just axe all the awakened beings' youma forms, leave their human forms, and be done with it

still don't agree.

For the article as a whole, either everything's color, or nothing is - you can't have both.

Well, I wouldn't go that far as to say that you can't have both, but I think it would indeed look nicer if all the pictures were of the same kind. With that being said, I also took a look at the deathnote page and I have to admit, the characters-section with the anime-pictures looks indeed rather nice. But to say that that page makes this page look like a "joke".. well errrrrrrrrrr.. no, thats a bit exaggerated :p But you have a point with the anime-pics. Although Minikui has a point aswell. We can't change the mangapics to the animepics just yet, because not all the characters showed up in the anime, so that would lead to mixed anime/manga screenshots and if I may quote you: "you can't have both". Twsl 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AB images: I have proposed removing AB images, but we decided on keeping them and to make them smaller. Now, some were hard too see, so, for those for the moment we are using thumbnail links. And now the pictures fit the amount of text much better. I don't see any reason to remove them now.

Most likely later on it will make sense to put bigger images and one "anime shot" and one "manga shot" and one full "awakened form" shot and one "child form" or what not - but for the moment I clearly feel that's too much.

Actually there are a few characters that could have more than one image or bigger ones already, but unfortunately most of them aren't AB. I'd have no problem with Clare, Teresa, Irene or Miria to have one anime shot and one manga shot, for example. But I don't agree (for now) with Alicia, Dauf or Ligardes to have one human form and one full size awakened form image.

Colored images: If we are going to compare with other series' articles, at least we have to compare the same sections, else there is really no use to it. The Death Note article uses both, manga and anime pics as well as black and white and colored ones, but on the main page they only linked the anime ones, for whatever reason. It looks good, but I wouldn't say that it wouldn't look as good if they had linked the manga images. So that is something to be decided on the main Claymore article, once the character articles uses different images for one character, but concerning the main character article, Death Note actually shows that using anime and manga as well as black and white or colored pics works as well.

I don't see why an anime screenshot looks better than a colored manga illustration. (Don't compare them directly to the pictures from those other articles, since they have higher resolutions.)

As for why we use such low resolution over here. I'm not the one who started it, but as I understand it, this is part of the "fair use" agreement, if you use high resolution images you should give a reason. But as said, we can still make them a bit bigger.

Anyway, my proposition is using colored manga images and anime screens (and for the moment black-white manga pics for the characters that haven't yet appeared in any colored images either anime or manga). To me (while I prefer the manga images no matter if colored or not over anime screens) that looks like an acceptable compromise. And, keep in mind, that if somebody really insists on having all pictures as the same ("colored or not" or "anime or manga"), the only option is "black and white" and "manga". So I'd say, simply vote to get this matter settled, unless you have other propositions :) Minikui 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Did you even bothered to take a look at the links yourself? One links to the bleachening product and the other links idd to naruto but hasn't got any charpics oO How can you compare that..

Even so, you can't change what that response was about. It was about the Death Note article, not Bleach or Naruto's.

:As for why we use such low resolution over here. I'm not the one who started it, but as I understand it, this is part of the "fair use" agreement, if you use high resolution images you should give a reason. But as said, we can still make them a bit bigger.

I already gave the reason - quality. Pictures are just another form of conveying information. They should be entitled to the same quality as the wording of the article. Without that quality, having them here is pointless, because that was their only purpose.

:AB images: I have proposed removing AB images, but we decided on keeping them and to make them smaller. Now, some were hard too see, so, for those for the moment we are using thumbnail links. And now the pictures fit the amount of text much better. I don't see any reason to remove them now.

I'd be ok with this. The only problem I have is one decision or the other only being allowed half-potential. Right now, the awakened images are doing little-more than sitting on the server. -Biokinetica 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I have proposed a merge of List of Claymore voice actors into List of Claymore characters. The list of voice actors is redundant and the VAs are already present in the characters article. --Squilibob 05:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. These cast lists are usually integrated into the main body unless there are two separate media with different voice actors, like a movie and a series. Losing the "episode appeared" information won't be a big deal. --Darkbane ^talk 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for merging as well. Realmserpent 05:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean "delete" instead of merge? ＾＾ Since the List of Claymore voice actors article includes many really minor roles that aren't listed in the List of Claymore characters. Well, the episode appearance can simply be added after the volume appearance. But well, it'll be a bit hard for people searching the voice actors if they don't want to get spoiled ... Minikui 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the episode appearance, as well as rank and type at the beginning to make it a bit more conscise, but didn't remove the same infos from the text yet, in case you don't agree with putting that info at the top, so please discuss and feel free to make changes Minikui 11:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant idea and has my vote. John Kingston 213.83.99.5 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion too, since all the info is already in the article per Minikui's actions (minor roles are not notable I think). So I'll be bold and put the deletion tag on it. Ninja neko 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Character List Order

Currently, the characters are listed in order of appearance. Wouldn't it make more sense to list them by rank, or even alphabetically by name? Offkorn 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is to avoid spoilers. You will be able to see just the character up until the part you stopped. But, yeah, I think it would be better to list by their ranks. - 201.79.178.156 00:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think listing by rank is useful. They're already listed in the order of their ranks in the generation list at the top which links to each entry. The ranks aren't that important to base the whole article on them and then there are also some characters with the same rank or with ranks that have changed or with unknown ranks etc. Imho listing by appearance is fine, but alphabetically would be fine as well. Minikui 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Class

A claymore's class is only a guideline. The organisation likes it if Claymores don't live too long. However they don't kill them all every seven years and start again. The seven years, which IIRC, NEVER appears in the manga, seems to be more a guideline that the average life of a Claymore is seven years. Therefore exactly specifing the generation or whatever is meaningless. 213.83.99.5 09:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Known Classes (1,2 and 77) Should still be mentioned as additional info in the Generations Section under List of Claymores.

Done. Class 77 is only behind Teresa's name, since we don't know if all Claymores from her time are the same class. Some of them where there before her and some came later, f.ex Priscilla might be a different class already. Minikui 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla and the girl who got away unscratched

I was just reading the manga (http://www.daily-manga.net/Claymore/08-06/ (Scene 45), page 29) and im not sure whether its the official translation but Riful seems to be talking about a specific girl(I'm sure it's Clare), not young girls in general. if you could find any other sources that can contradict this please report as well, since this little tidbit might have plot ramifications on later chapters and have it corrected accordingly.

No, Riful talks about little girls in general. The japanese text definitely doesn't state anything like "one girl", "one particular girl" etc. The official English translation and Japanese Wikipedia say the same. Note that Ophelia survived as well, so it can't be Clare in any case. Minikui 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed names in the official English version

I wanted to ask what you think about the names that have been changed in the English version (Rubel and Ilena for now I think). I saw that other articles stick to the original names, f.ex Sailor Moon, Tsubasa or One Piece with a note about how the character was called in English. For the moment it's the other way around (a note saying how the character is called in Japanese) and personally I feel that should be changed.

To be clear, I am not talking about different romanizations of the same name in Katakana, which all in theory could be possible. For example, "Rifuru" could be "Riffle/Rifle", but "Riful" is a perfectly possible spelling as well. In these cases I mostly agree with using the official names or rather, the official "spelling" (as long as there isn't any solid proof about the origin of the name f.ex).

But how about names that have really been changed and aren't possible spellings of the Katakana and for which exists proof about what they really were supposed to be? In this case I definitely feel that we should use the original names with a note how they were called in English. In this particular case:

"Ilena" is

(1) not a possible spelling of the Katakana, which are イレーネ (Irene) and not イレーナ (Irena), Ilene would be possible.

(2) I think in English Ilena or Ilene are pronounced like "Eileen", since they're variants of that one.[1] Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case the pronunciation doesn't match the Katakana at all.

(3) Irene is a perfectly normal name and the Katakana match the German pronunciation [2]. Typing the Katakana into the Japanese wikipedia will give you german, greek, italian people called "Irene". Ilena or Ilene pronounced as "ee-leh-na" or "ee-leh-neh" don't even exist I think.

"Rubel" is

(1) not a possible spelling of the Katakana. They are ルヴル Ruvuru, with the character ヴ that is only used to transcribe the foreign "v" into Japanese. "Ruvel" could be possible if the "e" is silent, like in french f.ex. else Ruvul would be possible, but "Rubel" definitely not.

(2)The members of the Organization are named after museums or painters. As mentioned in the article other art-related names are used in Claymore and also in the author's other series. There hasn't been an official statement on this afaik, but every member's name corresponding to a museum etc would be a really big coincidence. (The Italian version which is translated by Rieko Fukada, spells his name as "Luvr". For a Japanese person the connection to "Louvre" seems to be quite obvious, while, if you don't happen to know how "Louvre" is spelt in Katakana, it is rather hard to understand.)

I'll maybe ask Viz directly why they changed the names, but they don't seem to have an official forum or anything. So, how do you feel about using the original name or the changed one?

PS: I'd even propose changing "Noel" to "Noelle", but that is simply because Noel is a male name >.< To me it looks like calling a girl "Daniel", but it doesn't seem to bother foreigners (including Japanese) that much.Minikui 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ilena has been changed to Irene with a note on her English name. If nobody disagrees I will also change Rubel to Luvre or Louvr or something along those lines (propositions?). Please discuss. Minikui 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point that most anime's character roster list the japanese version first with the english version after has reason. To a certain extent. Don't, forget, however that almost all of them have full-fledged japanese names like Sailor Moon's Usagi becoming Serena in the english version. There is a complete name change, not just phonetic translation. Claymore characters use western or western inspired names characterized into the phonetically appropriate katakana (you yourself went into detail as above), there is no definite basis of translation short of asking the author himself. The names Noel and Irene are prime examples. Therefore, the official english translation released by Viz must be considered CANON. To disregard it would be taking too many liberties in interpretation. We can deduce all we want but to change Rubel to Luvre or Louvr without factual third party proof is unnecessary. To change certain facts due to personal translation or comprehension would be counterproductive to the subjects and information that Wikipedia supposedly provides with impartiality.

I do agree with you, but I don't see the difference between a completely changed name (Usagi -> Serena) or a changed name that is a bit closer to the original one, it maybe makes the change less obvious, but it is a change nevertheless.

And like I said, I am not referring to the different possible transcriptions of the Katakana - while those aren't endless either. Changing IreNE to IleNA is what I call too many liberties in interpretation, it's exactly the same as changing Clare to Clara or Helen to Helena. Minikui 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The big difference is that Viz is copyrighted and as such official. Note: COPYRIGHTED, I can't seem to stress that concept enough. If, let's say, Encarta, Britannica or whatever sort of Encyclopediea is still in publication were to right down an article about the Claymore Manga in their volumes, they would have to write down those names in English and Japanese as is, without any extra name changes thrown in to exemplify which is the more accurate interpretation. It isn't a question of whose better at translation as it is about writing accurate information to the general public. Let Rubel be Rubel not Louvr(?!), to do otherwise would only add further to the confusion. This isn't a forum nor a personal site. Conjectures don't belong here. Just keep to the facts, keep it accurate and deliver it in a way that's enjoyable to read. Don't compicate matters by changing what doesn't need changing. If you are annoyed by the appalling translation, you're not alone but it's no reason to change it here.

Of course I understand that. But if other articles on wikipedia use original names rather than the official English ones if they have been noticeably changed, why shouldn't we? As long as we note how the character was called in English. We can consider other translations, for example the Italian one, which are just as official, though not as relevant as the English one for the English wikipedia, they are still an offical source for Viz's translation to be off.

If you feel that we should always use Viz's names no matter how much they have been changed, then I don't agree. If the other people here agree with you, though, of course I'm not going to insist. Minikui 12:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Minikui for the reasons he mentioned. Twsl 12:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

'Round and 'round and 'round we go, Heh. If you're referring to anime and/or manga names (which I hope you are staying within the context of, considering the subejct at hand) of course we should use the original names, that's a non-issue. Say, Usagi of Sailor Moon whose name has been changed to Serena. That's a noticeable change. Of course her Japanese name would take precedence, that's just natural. Now, if you change Ilena's name to Irene and Rubel to Louvr, you might as well change Beth's name to Bess too and Luciela to Ruciela and Isley to Easley. Give me separate instances where they have western named characters whos names have been changed in an english publication (like Ronald to Donald) and I would gladly say yes. So if you propose changes then change all that needs changing and not just specific characters. Like you said, other translations such as Italian aren't relevant, yes they are official they would just have to appear as tertiary names not primary nor secondary.

Mmh, I don't think that's the same. Bess or Beth are both names that exist and both are possible spellings that match the Japanese Katakana - so if the English version uses Bess I have no problem with that. Same goes for Luciela or Ruciela and Isley or Easley, they are both perfectly possible spellings of the Katakana, while Ilena und Rubel are not. (Nevertheless I'll try to find some other series that uses western names where some of them have been changed.) Minikui 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the anon here. Regardless of how poor the official translation is, it must be used. Any "more logical" transliteration/translation you can come up with would simply be WP:OR. Of course, it's perfectly fine (and even recommended) to include the original Japanese name in addition to the official name. Unofficial is a big no-no. As for which name to use first, take a look at WP:NC(CN) since I'm not familiar enough with the series to decide. Axem Titanium 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article

doesn't that include the Italian translation (as a "reliable source")? Or does that count only for things published in English (and does that mean that even Japanese publication doesn't count?). Minikui 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me a moment to just digest this piece by piece:

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article

My point exactly. PUBLISHED by a RELIABLE publication. The names Louvr and Irene among possible others don't have the necessary publication backing.

doesn't that include the Italian translation (as a "reliable source")? Or does that count only for things published in English (and does that mean that even Japanese publication doesn't count?)

Yes they do and I've already answered that:

other translations such as Italian aren't relevant, yes they are official they would just have to appear as tertiary names not primary nor secondary

Well, they maybe relevant but why would you use the Italian translation in an English site when the English version is readily available? And I know where that argument is going. If you can't use the Italian version then you can't use the Japanese version as well. Here's the not-so-minute detail you overlooked, it's a Japanese manga not Italian. If it was Italian then feel free to use the original Italian. If you have to, then change the names to Japanese. However, you would have to spell them as they're meant to be spelled in romaji, i.e Clare as Kurea, Rubel as Ruvuru and Irene as(yay) Irene. To spell Louvr instead of Ruvuru would come close to this:

Any "more logical" transliteration/translation you can come up with would simply be WP:OR

Edit the page just remember to follow this:

Unofficial is a big no-no. As for which name to use first, take a look at WP:NC(CN)

--Mickey

Well, they maybe relevant but why would you use the Italian translation in an English site when the English version is readily available?

Only when the English translation is off (else we stick to the English one). It is a fact that they changed the names. In that case another translation can be considered a reliable source as to what was the intended name instead of the changed one. So imho it isn't really original research. And this is not only based on the Italian version, but also on how people whose names are spelled exactly the same as Irene's in Japanese are really called - to me that is simply looking at facts? But maybe my understanding of original research is wrong ^^; That's why I asked, if you want to stick to the English names always, no matter how much they have been changed, or in case of a changed name consider other translations. (And of course, we will always add the name used in English as well.) Minikui 11:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just use the English version first. I don't like how Viz changed some names either but let's just follow the guidelines. --Mickey

I was asked by Mickey to come here and post my opinion on this issue. (Even though I'm on break... mostly.) To be honest, I think we need to stick to the official English names here. As for articles that stick to Japanese names in case of heavily changed names, it's a case-by-case issue, but unless those are official published English spellings (published in Japan is okay too), they need to go also.

Yes, we all know that the Claymore names are based on famous museums, and yes, Tokyopop's translation is sketchy at best and inconsistent at worst, but it's all we have to work with. Any interpretation of the original name is original research. It should be like this: Official English Name|Kanji or Kana|Romaji, in that order, using the nihongo template.

Yes, there are Italian translations, but those deal with completely different localization issues for the Italian market, and have little to do with the English Wikipedia. Since we have an official English source available, we pretty much have to stick to it (and what's worse, keep updating as they themselves keep changing the names. Let's hope Tokyopop employees will read this and catch on).

--Darkbane ^talk 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as you want :) I'll change the whole thing back. Minikui 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Official names update

Could some nice person who owns the VIZ version of the manga give us an update on the official names used in volume 8 and 9 (should be out soon)? To end this constant changing of some new characters that just appeared in the Fansubs. Thank you. =) Minikui 11:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The list so far thanks to Realmserpent:

   * Vol 1. Clare, Raki, Zaki (Raki's brother), Rubel (man in black), Elena
   * Vol 2. Father Vincent of Rabona, Rimuto (organization chief in Sutafu), Galk, Father Pario, Father Serene, Father Rodo, Bishop Kamuri
   * Vol 3. Teresa, Rig (bandit who loses hand)
   * Vol 4. Sophia, Noel, Ilena (her technique is officially called Quick-Sword), Elda, Priscilla
   * Vol 5. Deneve, Helen, Miria
   * Vol 6. Alicia, Beth, Galatea, Ophelia, Rafaela
   * Vol 7. No new character names

So far...

   * Vol 8. Jean, Riful, Dauf, Katea

   * Vol 9. Raquel, Isley, Flora (called "Windcutting Flora"), Undine, Veronica, Cynthia, Eliza,

   * Keeny (another misreading of Katakana), Zelda, Emelia, Wendy, Tabitha, Pamela, Claudia, Natalie, Carla, Uma (!), Matilda, 

   * Yuliana, Deana (huh?)

maybe forgot someone, a lot of names in this one. Will update the article. Minikui 13:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Changed titles of the Abyssals as per Viz english publication Vol 8. When in doubt, check your nearest bookstore.

Thanks. Do you mind completing the list just above this post? So we can match the other names and titles as well. Would be really helpful ^^ Minikui 12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. So far no big changes, so I'll just change the highly visible ones and then fine tune the rest when more info is supplied. :)

Great. It'll be good already to have the official spelling for characters as Jean/Jeane or Kathia/Katia/Katea, who get changed all the time ＾＾ Minikui 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed Kathia to Katea. Jean is confirmed spelled as Jean not Jeanne. Flash Sword changed to Quick Sword in english version (though i like Flash Sword better) I will try and change the names of places too should they be innaccurate.

Thanks again. How about Rakel? Was her name mentioned yet? Minikui 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not on this volume. Might be Vol. 9 which is coming out in August. More names are defnitely coming.

In fact Rakel's name is only mentioned at one point, when Clare frees Jean and Jean is like "Katia, Rakel ... I will avenge you" or something like that. That should still be in volume 8 Minikui 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters moved

Based on the discussion above, I have moved the minor characters to a new section. Since some people feel they are too minor and others feel they still should be mentioned this looked like the best solution to me. It really feels like some of them only were added because they're Claymores, the bandits from Teresa's arc or the priests and warriors from Rabona weren't added eventhough they actually had more of an influence on the story. But please discuss, if you feel that anyone of them does not belong there and should be treated as a major character. Minikui 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

The current image format does not work, as the awakened form images are orphaned fair-use images, and thus liable for deletion under WP:NONFREE. Including those images while deleting the headshots would be a preferable outcome. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rafaela's Fighting Stlye (Offensive/Defensive)

Could someone say why Rafaela's style is classed as offensive? Her special technique is being able to hide her yoki, which is clearly defensive. Also, her non-regeneration of her lost eye is through choice, not inability. PS4FA 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea whenever it was stated that rafaela is a defensive/offensive type of fighter. I remember that eye-part though. Be my guest to change it if you've got a proper source. I'm wondering if she's noted in the databook though Twsl 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Louvre says something like "even an offensive type should be able to regenerate this eye". But she should be in the next databook, then we can correct it if necessary. Minikui 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was Rubel who said that Rafaela is an offensive type warrior.Yueyouko (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

stats of the Claymores

Where did you get these informations? S A+... etc...? Plus, anyone here knows th name of the awakened being defeated by Ophelia? The one that almost ate Raki. Yueyouko (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yue Youko (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I signed. Hope it works.Yueyouko (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rigald's Rank

Was it stated in the manga or anime that he's number 2?Yueyouko (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it would be based on the databooks that it was revealed his number 2, similiar to how people got the stats for all the claymores from them evil_kenshin (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.186.254 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is stated by Isley as he sends Rigaldo to join the war in the north. (Nix)

I'm sorry but it's not stated in the manga nor in the anime that Rigald is Isley's number 2.Yueyouko (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Class: Rafaela

Was it also stated that Rafaela belonged to Class 76?Yueyouko (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Class 76 has never been stated and is just a rumor among fans. The only class ever mentioned was Class 77 for Teresa, that doesn't even mean that everybody alive at the same time as Teresa belongs to the same class. The classes have been removed already at the beginning of the article, but some parts seem to have been overlooked in the different character descriptions. Minikui (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Class 76 is still in Rafaela's description. Yueyouko (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

76 doesn't make sense, since half the organization was destroyed in that era... (Luciela destoryed it) and they're in better shape in Theresa's time than after the Northern Campaign, when 2/3s of Claymores were destroyed. (which is less than half the Organization, with the watchers and trainees included). 70.55.84.253 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Types: Priscilla, Riful, Isley, and Luciella

Was it stated that they're offensive types?Yueyouko (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the databooks Minikui (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Elda?

just wondering, someone has listed Elda as number 6 from Teresa's time, where abouts was this mentioned? (i can't recall number 6 being mentioned in the anime/manga at all)evil_kenshin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When Ilena told Noel and Sophia that she was demoted to number 3 and them (noel and Sophia) to numbers 5 and 4, apparently, the previous number 5 (Elda) will become six even though it's not stated.Yueyouko (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agatha's Time

When is Agatha'time ?? before Teresa? Since galatea knows about her, might she be between teresa and clare's time? Fotte

Still not mentioned. We should wait. Yueyouko (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

I wrote that Priscilla killed Teresa with a surprise attack (whoever watched it should know).

And User:Twsl deleted it, saying that "it's non-sense". The 2nd time User:Twsl tried calling me as a vandal, deleting information and said "reverting vandalism/Teresa worshipping". After I wrote "It's accurate and informative, needed sothat people won't mistake that Priscilla won by power/skill. Slaughtering Noel, Sophia is not related to Teresa, already mentioned in Priscilla's part", he changed to "these kind of articles are meant to give a quick overview of the characters. detailled descriptions of how/when/where/what time she got killed aren't necessary". So this article has space for stuffs like "She chopped off its head while it was eating her sibling's innards. This incident left her mentally traumatised and extremely unstable... yadda yadda yadda... Priscilla is a winged humanoid about 2m tall, with a single horn on her forehead... yadda yadda yadda... Her arms can unravel and extend into tentacles/ribbons that crush and tear her oppoenents, an ability she used to destroy half of Isley's torso in a split-second despite his bulk... yadda yadda yadda...", but no place for how Teresa died, even though it's only 3 words more? I suggest User:Twsl should stop. Thank you.

And User:King Zeal, first he thinks "surprise attack" is inappropriate for WP (?). Then he contitnue to revert, saying "it's not important". It's important to say: "a winged humanoid about 2m tall, with a single horn on her forehead... yadda yadda yadda... Her arms can unravel and extend into tentacles/ribbons that crush and tear her oppoenents" but not important to mention "how Teresa died"? And "Me think it's not important" is no reason for you to delete accurate information. Get over it. Shrine Maiden (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not important because it's a point-of-view whether or not Teresa won or lost by "skill". Teresa was killed by Priscilla. That's the bare fact. Whether or not it was a "surprise attack" is not relevant. That's why it's neither appropriate nor important for Wikipedia. King Zeal (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now User:King Zeal thinks "deleting accurate information is not vadalism". And that he can delete anything that he thinks "not important". The anime clearly showed that Teresa won over Priscilla twice effortlessly while Priscilla used all her power. And then Priscilla cried and begged, but turned the table with a surprise attack and killed Teresa. And User:King Zeal thinks Teresa just lost, that "it's a POV whether Teresa won or lost by "skill" (? Did this guy watch the thing or just trolling?) that it's "unimportant" and "irrelevant" to mention any other thing. You and your friend are just trying to delete information you don't like. You stop it or you will be dealing with an edit war. Shrine Maiden (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Accurate information does not mean relevant or notable information. Wikipedia does not add every little detail just because it's accurate. If you actually read through Wikipedia's policies, one of the things they stress it to just add what is important to grasp the basics around the subject. The details you're asking are not important because it's OBVIOUS that you're trying to make Teresa look good despite her loss. That's not what the article is for. And please, do not threaten me with the threat of an edit war. I will continue to make edits that I feel will improve the page. If you think I'm in the wrong, report this to an administrator. King Zeal (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether I am trying to make Teresa look good or not is non of your concern. It's a fact that in the anime, Teresa won twice effortlessly over Priscilla. And Priscilla attacked Teresa while crying and begging. Thus she won by a surprise attack. It's the author who tried to make Teresa look good, not me. I am just adding accurate and informative facts. You think saying "this is 2m tall and that has tentacles" is important and relavant, but the fact told clearly in the anime that Priscilla won unfairly, and killed Teresa with some cheapshots thus becoming metally unstable because of the trauma, is not important and relevant? Funny. Try watching it before saying anything. Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTELY my concern. Another of Wikipedia's policies is that of Neutral point of view. You have to remain completely neutral and unbiased when you edit the article. You can't make Teresa look good any more than you can make Priscilla, Agatha, Riful, Irene, or anyone else look good. Also, the anime never says that Priscilla won "unfair". That was your opinion based upon the circumstances. It's true that Teresa defeated Priscilla effortlessly in head-to-head battles, but that isn't the point. By your logic, the Claymores win all fights against Awakened Ones unfairly because they never win alone. Who decides what's fair and unfair? Not you. King Zeal (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You tried to overlook the fact that Priscilla was crying and begging "kill me sob sob", and Tereasa dropped her guard, and Priscilla picked up her sword and suddenly attacked? That, and saying "surprise attack" is not neutral? Which POV is in it? I do not say "Priscilla is stupid b*****" or anything. Why is it POV? I added a BIG fact that the author tried to say clearly in the anime. That't no POV or anything. You think I am trying to make Teresa look good. That's your POV. And why telling you to stop deleting accurate information to avoid an edit war becomes "threatening"? Funny. Try watching it before saying anything. Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

haha nice job in trying to make other people look bad mister shrine :). okay let's take a look at the history shall we? your first editmessage: "Cheap shots. Really. I don't read the manga, but in the anime, she attacked while pretending to be begging" your second editmessage: "cheap shot. I hate this monster". with this you added "cheap shots" everywhere to make teresa look like a goddess or something. wikipedia isn't meant for your "opinion". whether those were "cheap shots" or not is "your" opinion, so don't state it like a "fact". understood? now, after other users reverted this, i saw that they missed a spot, and reverted that as well, calling it nonsense (read the last sentences for the reason). you obviously got angry because your post got reverted and took it personal, so in your next editmessage you say: "reverting Twsl's vandalism". so, basically, because you don't agree with other users, you call it vandalism? wow man. after this, i got annoyed and reverted your post, which i called vandalism as well, which was a bad thing for me to do. this is the whole story, you can easily check this by reading the edithistory. so don't go and make other people look bad understood? the only thing you achieve with this kind of behaviour is that other wikipedians will lose the need to participate. Twsl (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsl is blatantly lying. Here he said: "when i spoke about vandalism it was ANOTHER post where you whined about "cheap shots"." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=186832045&oldid=186830261 But here, he wrote "reverting vandalism" while there's nothing such as "cheap shots" in what he reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=186583826&oldid=186583281 Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrine Maiden, I want to point something out. You mention on your Talk page that you want people to "Assume Good Faith" when talking with you, but you aren't doing that with me here. Don't accuse me of not watching the show or of "overlooking" anything.

In any case, what I said was that the circumstances of Priscilla's win is not important. This site does not exist to give a detailed plot summary of Claymore or its characters. As I've said over and over, you do not add details just because they're facts. They have to be relevant. And in this case, it's not because you have an agenda, which you have admitted yourself. You want people to know that Teresa was stronger than Priscilla. That right there is the reason it can't be included--because it intentionally makes Teresa look good. Which, as I've said before, does NOT keep the article neutral. King Zeal (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to deleted facts while trying to dub it as "unimportant and irrelevant". How can I assume good faith with you? Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

so i never reverted those "cheap shots"? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=184366214&oldid=184318706 okay then. Twsl (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But you lied. I gave proofs. You said "when i spoke about vandalism it was ANOTHER post where you whined about "cheap shots"." But here, you wrote "reverting vandalism" while there's nothing such as "cheap shots" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=186583826&oldid=186583281 So you lied. And "Cheap shots" is inappropriate words? Then "Surprise attack" is appropriate words.

I became confused with two different posts. which of course changes my point dramatically and instantly makes me a liar. Twsl (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When you said wrong things it's natural for anyone to assume that you are lying . Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of ASSUMING good faith is to ASSUME. You immediately guessed that I was "vandalizing" the page. That's the opposite of what I'm talking about.

Yeah, and who called what I wrote "nonsense" first? Deleting correct information is the same of vandalsim.

There's an easy way to shut me up, though. Tell me the EXACT place in the story where any character says that Priscilla only won because of a "cheap shot" or "surprise attack". Who said this? On what episode? If no character said it, and you're instead using facts from the show to support that conclusion, then you are using original research. You can't do that. You can only add what the show DIRECTLY says. You can't piece together clues or use hints to support a conclusion. King Zeal (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you put it like that (that facts in the show are original research and not relevant), I will delete ALL the other facts in this article which have no source. For example, where is it said that this character is 2m tall, which character said that Irene gave her limb to Clare. I think you should delete most pf this article.

You are just trying to delete the fact. The thing is so clear in the anime: Teresa is most powerful Claymore in history. She defeated Priscilla easily twice. Priscilla crying and begging, then suddenly picked up a sword and attacked the unawared Teresa. And you asked for "which character say..." So which character said "her current half-awakened form,she has blades for hands and her leg resembles a horse like leg which is metallic silver looking." Delete that, it should also be "Original research" in your opinion. Tell me the EXACT place in the story where any character says > enter the whole article here <, or you should delete them all. Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough said:

• Am I trying to make Teresa look good? No, it's just your POV. I am adding facts to improve this article, to give readers more info. It's the author, Norihiro Yagi who tried to make Teresa look good.
• Is "surprise attack" an accurate fact? Yes, it is. Priscilla crying and begging, causing Teresa to drop guard, then suddenly picked up a sword and attacked the unaware Teresa.
• Is that fact relevant/important? Yes, it is. Teresa is most powerful Claymore in history. She defeated Priscilla easily twice. She even spared Priscilla's life. "Surprise attack" is the only way the inexperienced Priscilla would win. For killing a powerful person (who spared her life) unfairly, Priscilla is shown haunted afterward, and scared of Clare, whom she saw as Teresa.
• Can you delete facts just because in your POV you think it's not important? No.
• Is it original research? No, it's so clear in the show, the same as all the rest of this article, which do not cite any other sources but the show/manga itself. Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, you are. Or, at the very least, you are trying to make her look better than Priscilla. You admited to hating Priscilla, after all. 2) I'm not arguing whether or not it's a fact. I'm arguing its relevance. 3) Where are you getting that information from? Did Yagi-san say this? Did any character in the story say that Priscilla won unfairly? Answer yes or no. If the answer is "no", then that is Original Research. 4) You're not citing anything. You're describing them given your own words. There's a difference. King Zeal (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. You can think what you want. You think that I'm trying to make Teresa look good? OK. So what? I think that you are trying to make Priscilla look good, or, at the very least, you are trying to make her look better than Tereasa. Sounds fun?
2. It's a fact, it's relevant, and it's important. And you are trying to delete it.
3. Where did I get that information from? Your arguements sound like you never watched/read Claymore. Like I said, try to watch the thing before you get involved. You need someone to say that "attacking the person who spared your life while pretending to be kneeling, crying, begging is unfair"?
4. I am not citing anything? The same as the rest of this article. This article does not cite anything, it's just describing the show/manga in Wikipedians' own words. You go cite something, or delete everything. Which character said Katea was part of Jean's team in a hunt for an Awakened Being in the Zakol Mountains? Delete it. Where's the proof that After being captured by Riful and Dauf, she was tortured until she awakened. After concluding that she was too weak, Riful ordered Dauf to kill her? Delete it. Which character said In her awakened form,she resembles a thinner, female version of Dauf, with a white glowing body and blades at her back?. Delete it.

First, you said it's "not relevant, nonsense". Then changed to "not important", then changed to "NPOV", then even tried "Original research". You are just using the those terms as excuses to justify the fact that you deleted accurate/informative informations. Why do you have to go through such hassles? You just have to win, right? This conversation is over. I won't said anything anymore. If you feel like you must end this conversation with the upper hand, go ahead. Shrine Maiden (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. You admitted to hating Priscilla. Do not try to deny that.
2. That's your opinion. I disagree, and so does Tsal. You do not get to decide what is important and relevant. Wikipedia is a site that decides by consensus.
3. Yes. Because the word "unfair" is opinion. Again: The Claymores team up to fight Awakened Beings. Is that fair?
4. Miria called Kateas name during the Northern Campaign. Riful directly stated that she was torturing her until she awakened and then told Dauf to kill her. The last example you showed is, in fact, correct. That is speculation, and I will delete it. Now, this changes nothing. Show me where they said that Priscilla won unfairly.

Now, I don't care if you continue the conversation or not. I don't care about being right. I go through these hassles because it's what Wikipedia requires. Instead of complaining, maybe you should take a look at the links I provided like neutral point of view, no original research and Notability then, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. And again: Stop making accusations. Assume good faith. King Zeal (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop using neutral point of view, no original research as excuses to delete facts you do not like. Like what you said, then: Jean's attack based on storing energy by twisting her arm and releasing it in one burst is original research. She is serious and strictly honorable is original research and POV. Clare partially awakened during her fight in the holy city of Rabona is original research. Flora is soft-spoken and always uses polite language is orginal research and POV. Gark's weapon is a longsword, which he uses very effectively is original research and POV. Rigardo is far smaller in stature than the average Awakened being is also original research. And much much more. Show me where those things are said. You just deliberately chose ones that you don't like and deleted them.

Actually I like your words. You are the only one talking, so I'll quote you: "That's your opinion. I disagree. You do not get to decide what is important and relevant." Same to you. Shrine Maiden (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you see something that is Original Research, and POV, then delete it. Don't use it as an excuse to argue with me. That's just petty. King Zeal (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being petty. But it's because you cherry-picked. Shrine Maiden (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Just because I don't notice everything doesn't mean that I'm being picky. If you see something that should be changed, mention it and someone can change it. If you want to be technical, this page needs a LOT of work, and I've added the appropriate tags to deal with it. I'll check back every now and again to make changes, but it'll be easier if you try to compromise instead of deciding that what you add is right and everyone who doesn't agree is a vandal. King Zeal (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll also be easier if you try to compromise instead of deciding that you are always right and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. For what I know, I compromised and did not add "surprise attack" anymore (eventhough it's so obvious). But you are still acting almighty.

Why is "10% power" POV? o_O?

Claymore (character)#Abilities Read: "If a Claymore releases 10% of their power, their eyes will gleam gold and become cat-like. If they release 30%, their face will contort and become monstrous. If they release 50%, their body will deform. Tapping too great an amount (over 80% of the body's total Yoki), causes a Claymore to "surpass their limit" and find themselves unable to turn back into a human."

Why Teresa always won with only 10% power released? Ask the author!! "only 10%" is POV?? Then should I say... "the whole lot 10%"? Shrine Maiden (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you, then: What is the difference in saying that Teresa won with 10% release and saying that she won with ONLY 10% release? Why is the "only" so important to include? King Zeal (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And why is it not?

So that the sentence may sound natural? Shrine Maiden (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How does omission of the word "only" make it unnatural? King Zeal (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Teresa section

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• It's a fact that in the anime, Teresa won twice effortlessly over Priscilla. And Priscilla attacked Teresa while crying and begging. Thus she won by a surprise attack. It's the author who tried to make Teresa look good, not me. I am just adding accurate and informative facts. You think saying "this is 2m tall and that has tentacles" is important and relavant, but the fact told clearly in the anime that Priscilla won unfairly, and killed Teresa with some cheapshots thus becoming metally unstable because of the trauma, is not important and relevant? Shrine Maiden (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's not important because it's a point-of-view whether or not Teresa won or lost by "skill". Teresa was killed by Priscilla. That's the bare fact. Whether or not it was a "surprise attack" is not relevant.King Zeal (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• okay let's take a look at the history shall we? your first editmessage: "Cheap shots. Really. I don't read the manga, but in the anime, she attacked while pretending to be begging" your second editmessage: "cheap shot. I hate this monster". with this you added "cheap shots" everywhere to make teresa look like a goddess or something. wikipedia isn't meant for your "opinion". whether those were "cheap shots" or not is "your" opinion, so don't state it like a "fact". Twsl (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Whether or not the act in question was a calculated act (surprise attack) by Priscilla or simply a last-minute resort of transforming into a homicidal monster is not definite. You can watch a clip of the event here: [[3]] between the 1:31 and 2:05 margins. The more underlying question, however, is why this requires more explanation than other battles in the series. For example, it is often in the series that the protagonists battle against the antagonists as a team; often tackling them in groups of four or greater. If it's necessary to specify that Teresa was defeated by Priscilla because of a "surprise attack"/"cheap shot", then it's just as necessary to explain that most antagonists lose due to being "ganged up" on. King Zeal (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try to make me look bad, User:King Zeal. You cherry-picked one or two comments back from 4 days ago to make me look silly, huh? The conversation is above, don't pick some of them and put it here.

For anyone who do not bother to read the main conversation above (the Unneccessary section), I will tell you: Don't be fooled. I compromised and stopped writing the word "surprise attack" long ago (since 26th Jan). This is no longer about the "surprise attack or cheap shot" (eventhough it's an obvious fact). Now what User:King Zeal doing is deleting the word "only", and trying to revert anything that I write.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=187408820&oldid=187391136 Look at that. I compromised and did not add the word "surprise attack", which User:King Zeal somehow thinks that it's POV and original research (but "Jean is upright person and this that character uses sword very well" and he does not care).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Claymore_characters&diff=187461975&oldid=187458891 this is another. Most of this article is written in past tense. Teresa's story was also written in past tense, and what User:King Zeal did is to change part of it into present tense just to delete the word "only". It's in one act, why the first part is past tense, and you changed the rest to present?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Claymore_characters&diff=187481773&oldid=187462088 User:King Zeal created this section, pretending that I am still adding "surprise attack" into the article or something... And he reported this arguement to admins, making me look like a crazed vandal or something like that... =(

There's this sentence right in Teresa's section: "Teresa is a cold-blooded killer who cares for no one, only helping villages because she is ordered to, and taking pleasure in scaring humans". But User:King Zeal does not care about that. Instead, User:King Zeal thinks the world "only" in "releasing only 10% power" is POV, and keep reverting. I guess it's just because I wrote that?

Here I say it again: since 26 JAN 2008, to resolve the dispute peacefully, I did not add the fact "surprise attack" anymore. But User:King Zeal keeps reverting (and delete what he does not like too), saying that "it should be present tense". So I compromised (again), and changed the whole part to present tense like what he wants (eventhough Teresa's story is a flashback). Now I think that there's no reason to talk anymore. Shrine Maiden (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article still needs a complete rewrite. I will edit out most of the original research in the article whenever I find the time to do so. The reason your edits get the most attention right now is because I can change them quickly. I made this RfC because I'm trying to resolve this as peacefully and correctly as I can, so I don't appreciate the continued personal attacks. When the time comes, I'll look at all of the examples you provided and edit out what's not appropriate. Until then, as I said, you do not help your case by mentioning other examples of inappropriate material.

Also, the reason I reported it to the admins is because I'm tired of you making accusations towards me. "You haven't watched the anime" or "You and your friend are just trying to delete information you don't like" or "Deleting correct information is the same of vandalsim" or "You just have to win, right?" I have done my best not to show you the same disrespect you've shown me (although at times my temper has run hot), but you continue to attack me. King Zeal (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just stop the justifying, please. I'm also tired of you using excuses to delete facts from this article. You even used my joke in my talkpage to attack me. What did admins say? Shrine Maiden (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the links to Wikipedia's guidelines that I provided, it would be clear that that they're neither justifications nor excuses. Your perception of what "facts" are is not parallel to what Wikipedia claims them to be. That's all. King Zeal (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To you, facts are things you like and agree with. Things you don't like and don't agree with are original research and POV, right? This article is about an anime/manga. It's not an academic subject. Things shown in the anime/manga are facts. "Surprise attack" is POV? "only" is POV? And "Teresa is a cold-blooded killer who cares for no one, only helping villages because she is ordered to, and taking pleasure in scaring humans" is not POV in your book. Funny.

I compromised and removed the word "surprise attack" 3 days ago, but you keep reverting me again and again. I'm amazed how you are so lenient to the rest of this article, and just target me? Shrine Maiden (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"And "Teresa is a cold-blooded killer who cares for no one, only helping villages because she is ordered to, and taking pleasure in scaring humans" is not POV in your book. Funny."

I said that it is. I said that the entire article is written poorly. I'll delete/change stuff when I have a chance. Why haven't YOU deleted it? Or, at the very least placed a tag by it? And I won't even bother commenting on the rest of it, because that's the entire point for the Request for Comment.

As for what I want? I want you to read WP:WAF all the way through and understand why the edits you've been trying to place are wrong. I want for you to stop insulting and attacking other people for changing your edits. If you can't deal with being edited, then this is the wrong site for you. King Zeal (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why haven't YOU deleted it? Or, at the very least placed a tag by it?" Same to you.

"If you can't deal with being edited, then this is the wrong site for you." Same to you. Shrine Maiden (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have time to search for examples of improper content, Shrine Maiden, why don't you just delete it? I've never done that. King Zeal (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have time to argue with me, King Zeal, why don't you search for improper content instead? Shrine Maiden (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is this? Since 26th JAN 2008, I compromised and removed the word "surprise attack" that you don't like. 28th JAN 2008, you tried reporting admins, talking bad about me. What did the admins say? "The incivility issues seem extremely minor and a bi-product of a content dispute. For that reason, I recommend filing a request for comment". And so you started a request for comment about "surprise attack". What for? I compromised and removed that word since 3 days ago. Now what's the meaning of this thing?

Yes, I am a female otaku. When I'm in geek mode, my tongue is cynical. Sorry.

Now what do you need to do? Stop taking it personally. Stop hating me. Drop this pointless talk. Go somewhere and leave this article alone for a while. Cool down, then come back, edit to improve it. I'll give you an internet hug. Shrine Maiden (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Drop this pointless talk. Go somewhere and leave this article alone for a while. Cool down, then come back, edit to improve it. I'll give you an internet hug.

Same to you. King Zeal (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So shall we drop it altogether? Shrine Maiden (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert revert revert

So let's take a look at User:King Zeal's revert: history here

• My edits: However, Priscilla pursued and attacked her in blind rage. But Teresa defeated her again while releasing only 10% power. In her anger, Priscilla accidentally released too much Yoma power and begged Teresa to kill her before she fully Awakened. But as soon as Teresa dropped her guard, Priscilla cut off her hands with a surprise attack and decapitated her. -> It's exactly what happened in the anime.
• King Zeal's edits: However, Priscilla pursued and attacked her in blind rage. In her anger, Priscilla accidentally released too much Yoma power and Awakened, slaughtering Teresa, Noel, and Sophia and severely wounding Ilena. -> First, it's chronologically wrong: Priscilla awakened after killing Teresa. Second, it's completely inaccurate: Priscialla did not release power and slaughter Teresa. Priscilla released over 80% power and still lost the second time (the first time Teresa spared her life), eventhough Teresa fights with just 10%.

And User:King Zeal's comments: "reverted; so we've given up on saying "cheap shots" and have changed to "surprise attacks" now, eh?". And when I call mr. KING "acting almighty", he thinks it's uncivil? What do you expect me to do after deleting facts and commenting like that? Want me to give you a hug? User:King Zeal does not like the word "cheap shot", so I compromised and removed it. User:King Zeal does not like the word "surprise attack" either, so I compromised again and removed it (2 days before User:King Zeal created this "Request for Comment" BTW). Then User:King Zeal keeps reverting with the reason "present tense", so I compromised yet again and changed the whole section into present tense. Now what do you want next? Shrine Maiden (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrine Maiden you should really learn not to be personally offended when someone reverts your posts. it's so wrong to immediatly assume that king zeal reverts your posts just because he holds a grudge against you or whatever. you added an image of priscilla (begging teresa to let her live). i reverted this because it isn't needed. the main reason of the pictures in this article is to illustrate the appearance of the characters. there is already one picture of priscilla in her normal form and one in her awakened form. why is a third picture of her needed? when i take a look at the fair use rationale of your picture it says: "To illustrate the appearance of the subject". that is a purpose which is already fulfilled by the previous picture. so yet again, because someone reverted your post you are *yet again* personally offended and keep reverting it back. possibly because it's *your contribution* and people should leave it alone. please stop this behaviour. thank you. Twsl (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Same to you. And moreoever, you need to learn not to delete a BIG part of talkpage like you did here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Claymore_characters&diff=187683111&oldid=187681406, and should learn how to use CAPs too.

And to answer about the image, Priscilla claymore, Priscilla human, Priscilla nearly-awakened, and Priscilla Awakened have different appearances. Shrine Maiden (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Priscilla(hair in ponytail) and Priscilla(with glasses on) both have different appearances as well. Should they be added too? Twsl (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A character changing her hairstyle or clothes or accessories does not count. But changing appearance completely is another story. If you want to add pic about Priscilla(hair in ponytail) and Priscilla(with glasses on), go ahead, I don't have any problems with it. I'm sure no one has any problem with it too. You people are making a mess out of this page.123.19.60.26 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I really wonder why "shrine maiden" stops posting and suddenly all these "unknown ip's" comes to post, all supporting shrine maiden. while none of these ip's have a history. oh well, must be coincidence. anyway, like you said, mister 123.19.60.26 you said; "changing appearance completely is another story". that is true, i completely agree. the thing is, that this didn't change her appearance "completely", she was still changing into that awakened form. it's hard to describe the appearance of her awakened form, in such a way that the reader doesn't need a picture. but a picture of her, evolving/changing into an awakened being is just a mixture of the two pictures that are already there. lets not forget that pictures being used here at wikipedia, that aren't free, should be kept at a minimum. as of now we have three pictures of one character. not even claire (the main character) has that. choices will have to be made. Twsl (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Irene or Ilena

This article is using both "Irene" and "Ilena". List_of_Claymore_characters#Irene It needs consistency. "She gained her the title Flash Sword Irene", then "They don't call you Flash Sword Ilena for nothing"

-_- Shrine Maiden (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by User:Twsl

Nice try, User:Twsl. You just deleted a whole part of this talk page. Obvious vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Claymore_characters&diff=187683111&oldid=187681406

Shrine Maiden (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I always browse through the history to see what users posted and corrected. when i was posting my message i was obviously still in the "history". my bad. it's funny you immediatly assume the baddest thing, by starting with your "vandalism"-stuff again. Twsl (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

if you take a look at my history, these kinds of messups happens quite often to me :) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=next&oldid=180254639 Twsl (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So User talk:Twsl, you say you vandalised like this many times before? =) Shrine Maiden (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The article needs a lot of work, and I've begun my part by adding citation tags and making a few minor adjustments. Unfortunately, I lack the time to search through the entire article for unsourced statements and then to check the anime/manga in order to add the appropriate references. Some help in this department would be appreciated. King Zeal (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly help you. ^_^ Yueyouko (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

HUGE PROPOSAL

Everyone, I propose that let's edit the page like that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_GetBackers.

^_^Yueyouko (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. What do you propose we do first? King Zeal (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

can't seem to get those pictures to work :( Twsl (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we separate Raki and Clare as main characters (though I'm not sure about Raki). I also think it's cool if we have main articles for Clare, Raki, Teresa, Priscilla, Miria, Helen, Deneve, and Galatea since they're present in the series most of the time. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I don't agree with separate pages. There's nothing that could be said in a separate page for any of those characters that couldn't be said here. All it would be is a detailed plot summary, and we shouldn't make an article based on that alone. However, I DO think that Teresa deserves to be in the "main character" section, since she has sidestories which focus on her alone. King Zeal (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a character needs to be alive in order to be a main character? In my opinion she was just a character from the past to give claire some backstory. A main character should be someone who doesn't only has a huge role in the story, but also shows his/her face once in a while.. It's true that teresa is the one that made claire who she is today, but i dont know if that really makes her a main character. Just my opinion Twsl (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

uhm... yeah that's right. i'm running out of ideas. i think if we will make a separate page for Teresa, then Clare should have one too. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a character doesn't need to be alive in present continuity. The events that transpire in a story always take place in the "present", so that includes both the flashbacks with Teresa and the Extra Scenes, in which Teresa is the protagonist. King Zeal (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Generations

The Generations list was for some reason removed today, but I felt that this method of indexing had been extremely helpful, especially when you wanted to compare quickly several Claymores from the same time. The list may need to be revamped a bit (better organization perhaps?), but I felt like it is worth keeping for now. Anybody have any ideas of how to better incorporate it? I'm just leaving it as it is for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roku sky (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. I was the one who deleted it. I got your point. You're right. We need to organize it a little. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Turned it into a table for organization. King Zeal (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

King Zeal, I changed the following:

• Dead to Deceased
• Northern Campaign Survivor to Alive / Deserted
• Presumed Dead to Unknown
• Then Killed to Deceased
• Organization Member (some) to Deceased
• Alicia and Beth's status to Inactive Organization Member
• Added Katea's Status
• Changed Agatha's Status to Awakened

Aren't Alicia and Beth active members? King Zeal (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

how would i put it... uhm... the two are unstable. it's in Volume 13.Yueyouko (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope it's ok. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice, it looks alot better. I just put some columns in, though I can't seem to be able to get the "Other Claymores" section to the 2nd column without it overlapping the TOC.--Roku sky (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

table of contents

hi, i just saw that the table of contents was put back to the left. i moved it to the right, just to see if it would look better. by doing that a huge part of unnecessary white space was removed. so actually i think it's better when it's placed at the rightside. what was the reason for the revert? Twsl (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But, it basically made parts of the page overlap. However, I've taken the cumbersome columns out and replaced them with tables, which are much tidier. I'll re-align the TOC to see if it works. King Zeal (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks. good job on the tables btw. Twsl (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Biography

Alright, now it's time to clean it up. It's too messy.

The Character biographies will look neat if we have standard size for the picture. Summary info on the right side of the picture such as Rank, Status, Aliases, Seiyuu, etc. is also important.

• Creation and Conception if available
• Character Outline (Background, Personality, and Abilities)
• Plot Overview (When it comes to this one, we do not need to give the exact details. A good sample would be the Agatha Scene. Instead of giving details such as some of her body parts were cut, galatea was stabbed, etc... Posting that they are currently engaging in a battle would be enough.)
• Difference in Anime.

What we should do or put first? What do you think guys?Yueyouko (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i strongly agree with the plot-thingy! there is just too much extra information given at some points. it will take a lot of time to fix this though. anyway, i can start with those pictures, standard size and preferably anime-shots if available? also, i wonder, is it really necessary to have pictures of each character? even the minor ones? i will wait for your guys' opinion before i start. Twsl (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the details part. With the exception of times when it's important to the plot (such as Clare's battle with Ophelia). Also, I think character biographies should include special attacks and techniques. Where this will get difficult is with characters whose special abilities don't have names (ex: Clare and Teresa's ability to sense Yoki; Miria's phantom steps). But still, I think we can think of something. =) King Zeal (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I say that we simply make the "less important" Claymores have significantly smaller pics than the more important ones.

• Largest pics: Clare, Priscilla, Teresa
• Large pics: Raki, Clarice, Riful, N. Campaign survivors, Isley
• Normal pics: "Semi-important" characters (Ilena, Luciela, Miata, Organization members)
• Small pics: Unimportant/seldom-seen characters (Alicia, Beth, Rikel, etc.) King Zeal (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

yes. this is a good start. ^_^ twsl, i think the Awakened Beings should have one thumbnail but with two pictures in it; the awakened form and the human form. i think uploading pictures for minor characters is unnecessary but if we could make it look neat, then why not? ^_^

king zeal, yeah, we should come up with something like Accurate Yoki Sensing. ^_^ it's all up to you. ^_^

is it possible to put a mini-table character information for main characters like Clare, Teresa, etc? I think that would be neat.Yueyouko (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You want the main character profile tables to be different than lesser characters'? Okay, what specifically would be the differences. I can start making them if we know. King Zeal (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

perhaps we could give the nicknames (rippling ophelia etc.) a special place too. i think 4 different sizes for the pictures won't look as tidy as having 2 or 1 different sizes by the way. but we don't have to agree on that right now, we can always play around with those pixel-settings to see which one looks best. also, what kind of pictures shall i take? normal(alicia) or "widescreen"(clare)? Twsl (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think widescreen looks better and will make tabling easier. King Zeal (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

King Zeal, yep. maybe (like you posted), bigger pictures (left corner) for main characters with information in the right corner. i don't know how to do it, so... ^_^

Twsl, yeah, i think widescreen would be much better. i think main characters and other major characters should have a close-up bigger pics. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i've got no idea how to combine two pictues with each other, outside of the infobox of course. can someone show me how to do it? :( those jean pictures needs to be combined for example :) Twsl (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i think you should edit the pics first in your pc then try to upload it again. ^_^ i think that should work.Yueyouko (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job cleaning up the page, although I feel like a bit too much information was removed in some parts. However I don't think it is necessary to add pictures for every minor character from the Northern Campaign and every minor awakened being. Same for the "status" thing, I think it's enough to have it one time in those beautiful character's descprition boxes you added rather than the generation table. Also it looks really weird to me to have the table of content on the right side ^^;; Minikui (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Those pictures were already added a long time ago, i'm just replacing them with pictures with the same width/height as the other pictures. Twsl (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I wanted to say is, I think it's fine to simply remove them completely, isn't it? Minikui (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it necessarily hurt the page to keep them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Template

So how does this work for you guys?

Clare
Claymore character
200px Clare
Created by	Norihiro Yagi
In-universe information
Nickname	None

King Zeal (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, that rocks! that's the best. I am currently working on Clare's character outline. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll add it to the article. 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs)

Something happened with the (Generations) table again, btw. I don't know how to fix it. ^_^ I already changed Clare's character outline but if there are citations still needed, I'll be happy to provide them. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed Clare's section back for the time being (sorry about that) because there were far too many overly-specific plot details. The way it works right now is much better, but it actually needs to be REDUCED rather than expanded.

And, also, I fixed the problem with the tables King Zeal (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited Clare's character outline. I reduced previous version to a more organized information.Yueyouko (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i think Ophelia should be in the Awakened category. Just a suggestion. After all, she already awakened. We could still consider her as a major character though.Yueyouko (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clare's outline is still a bit much. For one thing, we don't need the opening sentence. Saying "So-and-so is a fictional character in blah-blah series" is only necessary when that person is the subject of their own article. Otherwise, it's understood since the opening of this article should state that all of the characters are fictional. Also, I'm wondering why it was necessary to rewrite every sentence, because some of the new ones don't quite work. For example: "Clare was tortured and toyed by a yoma The yoma was killed by Teresa." The original was better, in my opinion. And lastly, the separate subsections of Clare's bio aren't needed (except for the Anime section). Like I said, the more simple and concise it is, the better. King Zeal (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i paraphrased some sentences because of grammatical errors not because i just wanted to. well, i won't try to edit it again that's for sure. you could've told me about the subsections when i told you i was fixing clare's bio. someone needs to clean Clare's charcter info. definitely not me.

btw, i still think, ophelia should be in the awakened category, but i won't move it.Yueyouko (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything; I was just pointing out that paraphrasing was a bit odd. As I said before, the section needs fixing, but only minor trimming--not a complete overhaul. I didn't mean to come off as a jerk.

And about Ophelia: She's a Claymore for the majority of her role in the story. In my opinion, this contrasts Priscilla, who's only introduced as a Claymore shortly before she Awakens. Even in the Extra Scene, Ophelia's role is as a Claymore. King Zeal (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

well, you didn't accuse me of anything. what i'm trying to say was you could've advised me or gave me hints when i told you i was editing Clare's bio OR you could've edited the character info i posted knowing the article itself needs improvement. you could've removed the "blah-blah" parts like you said and the other "unnecessary" stuff.

and if you look at it one more time, it's not an overhaul. i paraphrased some sentences to make it short and if it's all about minor trimming, then you could've done that to my version.

in other words, you could've helped me. we're all trying to make this article a lot better so helping each other won't really hurt. ^_^ ayt? forget about it.Yueyouko (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What could I have done when I didn't even know what changes you were gonna make beforehand? In the end, once you edited the section, it was far easier to revert than it was to pick and choose what parts should stay and which should go. The only thing that I knew was that you said you were "currently working on Clare's character outline". If you want help, that's fine, but I would have to know what you're planning before I can offer any. King Zeal (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This info box seems to be missing Claymore Type (Defensive/Offensive). Otherwise I think its pretty nice. --Roku sky (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add it, but upon doing so, I automatically pushed out the "Status" section. I think there's a limit to how many auxiliary fields I can make. King Zeal (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Status (alive/deceased/awakened) is already listed in detail in the Generations section for every ranked Claymore, I personally think Claymore type should have priority in the infobox. Besides, it isn't information that most people remember that well, so would be more useful in the infobox. --Roku sky (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd do it the other way round (as I wrote above). Remove "Generation" from the infobox, since there's already the complete table with it, but keep "Status" and then add "Type" Minikui (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Elda

It says Elda is dead, where is that mentioned in the anime or manga? 70.51.8.220 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

changed to unknown. thanks for noticing. ^_^Yueyouko (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Power

Is this right? :

First order

• Priscilla, Eisley, Riafull, Luciela, Teresa, Rafaela, Beth, Alicia

abyssals, and non-awakened equivs

or perhaps Priscilla and Teresa are a higher order

Second order

• Rosemary, Galatea, Ophelia, Dauph, Ricardo, Sophia, Noel, Miata, Agatha

possible no.1s who are not exceedingly powerful

Third order

• Miria, Hilda, Flora, Eva, Jean, Undine, Veronica

single digits (or close to it) - also Richardo's assessment saying that the 5 captains are the only powerful ones.

Fourth order

• Cynthia

close to singles

Fifth order

• teen & twenties

awakened hunters - average in power according to Galatea

Sixth order

• thirties

cannon fodder

Seventh order

• forties

weaklings, do not go on awakened hunts

Eighth order

• Clarice & failures

super-weak

Ninth order

• powerful yoma

Tenth order

• yoma

It's all speculation. The only power rankings we know for certain are as follows:

• Priscilla is, thus far, the most powerful character ever.
• The Abyssal Ones are the next-strongest, edged out only by Priscilla.
• The Claymores are all ranked by number, although these ranks can change.

After that, there's really nothing to rank each individual character. King Zeal (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really.

Teresa is the strongest ever #1, Priscilla surpasses all the abyssal ones, the abyssal ones surpass all the awakened ones. Alicia and Beth are the Organization's abyssal ones. Rafaela and Luciela were the previous attempt.

Riful, Rigardo, Miria, Galatea rank various warriors on orders of power. Rigardo says that the five captains are the strong ones, since Veronica and Cynthia are one number different, there's a dividing line in power right there. Thirty somethings are mentioned as useless in awakened hunts. Clarice is mentioned as a failure and weak. Clare mentions that Claymores are stronger than yoma. Claymores also say that humans are too weak to fight yoma. Claymores say single digits are quite strong. Miria says that 1-5 are much stronger. Ilena says that Theresa is much stronger than single digits except Priscilla, so this all links together...

How does that change anything that I said? King Zeal (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)