Talk:List of Hunter × Hunter characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kalluto Zoldyck[edit]

In this section, someone mentioned that his mother refered to Kalluto as "she." Is this from the original japanese transcript or the translation? Since japanese don't really use pronoun so much, it is possible that the translator used "she" by mistake. Does anyone have the manga in question in japanese? Ssh83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure the original Japanese doesn't specify a gender for that character, in-story. The official guidebook (in Japanese) does say it's a boy though. Erigu (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Acording to the manga, the Zoldyeks have only sons. Kalluto & Alluka being referred to as girls are translation errors based on a lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. Killua calls Alluka his "妹 (imouto)," or little sister, in chapter 322, so it's not a translation error -- she is definitely a girl. Why Togashi has gone against his initial statement of all the offspring being sons, I'm not sure. Kalluto, for now, is still classified as male as per the guide book.XScar (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It's straightened out now; Alluka is a girl, it's just that Silva said that he didn't consider Alluka human or part of the family, so as far as he's concerned, he has only sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
And now there's another curve ball. Killua calls Alluka his "sister," while Milluki and Illumi call Alluka their "brother." I think we should probably put the gender issue on hold until it's officially addressed in the manga... and I'm sure it will be. For now, we might want to go back to saying he's a guy (?), since it's always been the "Five Zoldyck sons."XScar (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Alluka is a hermaphrodite. You can interchange "he" & "she" on the 3ed gender & be both right & wrong at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

About the Zoldick family[edit]

Should the Zoldick family all be put into a separate article from the minor characters? They seem significant enough. .::Arbitrary::. 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO the only really significant Zoaldyeck family member is Killua....who is already on the main character's page. I guess it won't hurt to give them their own page...but then there's the question of where to put Killua, on the Zoaldyeck family page or on the main characters page? He would clearly belong to both. Yaksha 12:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess Killua could be like Hisoka--there's a section for him on the Ryodan page, but it just directs to his main page....::Arbitrary::. 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
okay, finally got around to doing it. Most of the information is directly copy and pasted from this it still needs some fixing. Yaksha 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


i was just wondering where did you find his name --Greedisland14 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

His name is stated in one of the manga chapters. The chapter where it shows the ant queen giving birth to meruem (forgot whether or not this was a flashback), she names him.
Please sign comments you leave on talk pages with ~~~~. --`/aksha 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

double write[edit]

ops.. sorry, i listened better then ainime in streming and it looks that Razor (i read in subtitles) and Reiza (i listen) are the same person.. which is the correct write? -- 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are the same person. "Reiza", when pronounced as a japanese person would, sounds like the english word "Razor". So it's essentially the same name. One is a direct japanese romanization. The other is it's equivalent word in english. --`/aksha 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Acyara Estreda"[edit]

Removed this section from the "minor characters" article, since I don't remember there being any such character in the manga / anime, it looks like vandalism to me, especially considering the horrible quality of the section's writing. Whitetigah 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also removed "Samara", for the same reasons I listed above (it even had a <character not done> tag after the description...). Whitetigah 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, defintely vandalism. Thanks --`/aksha 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Would anyone object to me reorganizing the character list? I want to change to something like

Names in columns, merge "Minor Characters"/"Monsters"/"Hunter's Association" list into this article, then split them off into more intuitive groups, "Greed Island Players", "Chimera Ants", "Hunter Test Examiners/Participants", leaving the rest on the main page.

I'm not sure I like the use of the animanga character infoboxes either, most of them are nearly empty or simply contain the obvious information that they are a HxH character and were created by Togashi. Gender could also be indicated in the description. I like the Naruto list format from an organizational point of view. -Zyrxil (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up on Names?[edit]

Looking through the article, almost every name is different in Viz' release of Hunter x Hunter then that of what the scanlators came up with. Because of this, we have both names listed in the articles about the character. Right now, it looks a little messy on how we set that up. So can we go through the article and maybe do something like (using Novu/Knov as an example) "Novu, known as Knov in the Viz Media translation, DESCRIPTION" and so on for all the characters instead of having some in parenthesis, unbolded and such? XScar (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do exactly that format, double bold + description, if you want :D Add it into the "for reference" section I wrote at the top of the Talk:HxH page and we can treat that as a guideline for the future. -Zyrxil (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure as to why fan spellings should be mentioned at all... When it concerns characters or elements that haven't been introduced on the official English language release yet, sure, but apart from that... Erigu (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
They shouldn't, unless a significant number of reliable sources use them. Those are rare cases though. At most here it may be with Gon's last name as that was translated differently by multiple sources.Jinnai 05:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gon's Grandmother?[edit]

I was reading through volume 20 today, and Gon says something along the lines of "Only Aunt Mito and Noko." Going off that, could Gon's grandmother's name be Noko? Or could that possibly be someone else on the island? (Gon said that line talking about how to do a pinky swear) I've been trying to look it up and also looked at the credits for episode 1 of the anime, and I couldn't find anything. Just saying this since she is left out of all the wikipedia articles.XScar (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What page? I've never noticed it. -Zyrxil (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's on page 95, bottom-left panel.XScar (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess it could be Mito's grandmother (yes, it's Mito's grandmother, not Gon's grandmother), but it's completely ambiguous, and Gon doesn't use "-san" for Nouko like he does Mito, which he probably would if he was talking about someone that old. In any case, the character's probably too minor for it to matter. -Zyrxil (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


" * Masadoru Diego (Known as Ming Jol-ik in the Viz Media translation) - Former dictator of East Goruto "

Seriously? That's terrible. I can just see the thought process of the Viz translator now: "Hrm, well this character's a dictator...very minor character...I'm sure no one will mind if I ignore the original name and give him one that invokes Kim Jung-il" Prime example of why Viz names should be listed second. -Zyrxil (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can help you with that one...
The original name of the character was "マサドルデイーゴ" / "Masadorudeīgo" (I'm not sure how people got "Diego"). A popular theory regarding the origin of that name is that the author derived it from "Kim Jong-il".
In Chinese characters, the name "Kim Jong-il" is written "金 正日".
  • The first character, "金", means "gold", which is written as "ゴールド" / "gōrudo" in Japanese.
  • The second character, "正", can be pronounced as "マサ" / "masa" in Japanese.
  • The third character, "日", means "day", which is written as "デイ" / "dei" in Japanese.
"マサドルデイーゴ" / "Masadorudeīgo" is an anagram of "ゴールド" / "gōrudo", "マサ" / "masa" and "デイ" / "dei".
It would appear that the English translator knew about all this and decided to change the name around so it would be a "Kim Jong-il" anagram that's actually detectable by Japanese-illiterate readers. Erigu (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Noko was young girl on Whale Island where Gon was born. He mentioned in one chapter that she was the only child who was around his age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Character merge[edit]

I would have to support the merge of the characters into a list as none of the characters have received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. This is the basic inclusion criteria for most topics that do not have a subject specific inclusion guideline. —Farix (t | c) 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am holding off on the indivisual characters at the moment to give a chance to find real-world information as those were created before the DVD releases which can talk about the major protagonist(s) and major antagonist(s) more than just plot rehash. The lists though I highly doubt would. At best the Phantom Troupe might have some commentary in general, but removing that would probably jepordize this list as a whole.Jinnai 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The way you've gone about this is completely ass-backwards in all respects. You don't merge and then start a discussion with no announcement. You don't merge and then hope maybe someday to trim an article down from a size so large it makes browsers seize up. You don't merge and then gloss over the fact that the character pages are both subarticles of the main (fully notable) Hunter x Hunter article and contain other information that is appropriate to section off. -Zyrxil (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Your wrong. I did discuss it and the way this was split was half-assed.Jinnai 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't actually have to discuss merges before performing them, Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold. If you can make a convincing case why these articles shouldn't be merged, it can easily be reversed. You were kind of jumping the gun there by trying to file a complaint with ArbCom. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Best place to start would be to remove the one-off characters from the list. There is no need to list every character that ever appears, which seems to be what some fans were doing. I'm going to go ahead and reformat some of the characters, removing "powers" altogether, in order to trim down the descriptions. The descriptions should focus on the characters' roles in the story and not on their abilities. —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
After editing the first couple of parts, it's pretty clear that the list needs to be completely reorganized to follow an out-of-universe approach. Perhaps lining characters up as either "Primary", "Secondary", and "Minor reoccurring". —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Trimming is trimming. It is not merging things into a harder to trim format before looking for valid things to trim. It is not deleting all the article headers, and tagging all articles with 'original research' to somehow justify doing so (how do you Research a fiction? All the sources are primary and there is no speculation in any of the articles). It is certainly not some guy who only goes around deleting things doing all of the above with no warning and then declaring it discussed and then immediately filing a protection request to have the articles locked with the changes until those with less free time simply give up and walk away. Arbitration seemed perfectly reasonable given the signs that no discussion was being welcomed by Jinnai. -Zyrxil (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Original research is when someone add in their own interpretations or analyst into the article. I spotted some of it as I was trimming and reorganizing the article. However, there was no need to have multiple character lists in the first place. The merging may have been handled poorly, but it did need to be done. As for the ArbCom filing, it was absolutely ridicules and ArbCom is rightly dismissing it. You don't go to ArbCom over a content dispute. You go through dispute resolution process first starting with ask for a third opinion, which Jinnai did at WT:ANIME. —Farix (t | c) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Every single article was tagged with OR. Granted I don't have every word written memorized, but I've read all of the articles at one time or another and check through my watchlist if something ridiculous or speculative was added every week or so. The articles also had references for most things. Tagging everything under the sun means it wasn't careful consideration and nor with active knowledge that OR actually existed. If there OR to be removed, or reworded, it would've been done easier without the merge.
The separate character lists were perfectly logical due to how the series is organized (elaborated in replay to major/minor characters paragraph).
As for the arbitration, just because someone with more experience doesn't feel like playing nice, doesn't mean I have time to read a legal book's worth of policy. I did quick a search on guidelines for dispute resolution requests, and followed it as best as I could. No one's exact offering to give a course on everything WT:Anime does or the exact steps to deal with a guy who deletes regularly and can link vaguely relevant scripture off the top of his head. -Zyrxil (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Major/Minor/Recurring characters, welcome to 3 years ago. It's been done, and it didn't work. The classifications were completely arbitrary, and it was simply a terrible way to convey information. It would be like having an article on the members of the three branches of the US Government and then grouping the Cabinet/President/Congress/Staff based on how often they appeared on TV, instead of grouping them together by branch and including background information. -Zyrxil (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Major/Minor/Recurring isn't the only method, but the character should be organized in a way as to make their roles in the plot very clear. Are they a protagonist? Are they an antagonist? Are they a supporting character? Or are they simply a reoccurring character? —Farix (t | c) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, all arbitrary, since you could probably check All of the Above for 1/4 the cast. The separate pages work simply because each story arc tends to present a new major organization/group/idea to be the focus, and characters are all based around it. The background information in the header explains the organization and concept and the character entries indicate how important they are. The groups/characters/concepts are interlinked and support each other. -Zyrxil (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As was already mentioned, there are other ways to organize it from a real-world perspective. For example, List of Bleach characters (a B-Class list) uses Primary Characters/Other characters, sometimes we add a supporting characters category as well. It really isn't that arbitrary to organize it by how much attention the series gives a character; and it's better than listing characters by where they fall in some fictional social strata.
In-universe groupings really don't work, the goal here is to give a summary of the characters so the average reader can get a general idea of the series. It isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list, and many details which are important to fans, simply aren't necessary for the average reader. Someone unfamiliar with the series looking for a main character wont know what fictional group to check, whereas if they know its a primary character, it will be simple to find the entry. —Preceding comment added by Kraftlos (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There are series far more complex than this that can come up with an organization that suits their roles in narrative structure rather than their roles in the work's universe.
Granted, at the end of the day, their will be some borderline characters and their placement may need to be decided by group consensus. We did that over in List of Dragonball characters While at times I believe it was handled improperly as a vote count more than looking at the argument, at the end of the day you'll notice if you read the logs most people agreed on the deletion, keeping, merging and placement of a majority of the characters.Jinnai 05:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really don't buy the argument that a single list of characters will be too long. Nor do I believe that grouping characters based on their roles in the story is "arbitrary." Also, when I read through the list of characters, I have to question why many characters are even on the list. Why are their significances to the story? If all that can be said about a character is, "a crayfish squadron leader. He's an Emitter whose ability is that of firing energy blasts from his claws," then clearly the character isn't significances and their inclusion on the list doesn't add anything. A description like that makes the character look like a run of the mill monster-of-the-week (to coin a term used by Sailor Moon fans). Then there are the "redshirt" descriptions, such as, " expert sniper and examinee #80 during the Hunter Exam. During the fourth stage of the exam, she attempted to kill her target, Gittarackur, but was killed herself in retaliation." A description like this clearly shows that the character is unimportant and shouldn't be on the list. It's also descriptions like those that makes me wonder if someone was attempting to describe every character that ever appeared in the series, no matter how insignificant they are to the story. —Farix (t | c) 13:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply 1- It's not about series complexity, whatever you specifically mean by that, it's about how this particular series is organized narratively, and how it was simply most elegant to present the Story Arc, Organization, and Characters at the same time.
Reply 2- You're both confusing multiple issues: #1, whether some characters should be trimmed off the list (the examples cited could easily be more detailed, they're clearly stubs to me); #2, how the list should be organized. To me, the 2nd issue is clearly the more important one, and muddying the waters with the first isn't helping. Also, the arbitrary part of major/recurring/minor is deciding the importance of recurring characters. Is someone who appears a lot, does nothing personally, but incidentally influences other characters or the direction of the plot in an important way a minor or major? And how does it even help the understanding of the plot or characters to classify them that way? Obviously, I don't believe it's helpful, and that seems to be the only suggestion on the table, a suggestion that wasn't even present before the merge.
And that is exactly what's pissing me off about this. If the head of IT wanted to reorganized the company network, he wouldn't disconnect everything, push all the computers into one room, and tell everyone to live with it until maybe someday he figured it out. If he did that, he'd be out of a job at the end of the day. Just because a wiki article is pretty close to the farthest thing from life and death doesn't mean good procedure is null and void. There was no plan in mind here, and all of what's being discussed now should've been done before.
The steps seem clear to me: 1. Think of or provide an example for organizing the characters that is better than what there was before. 2. Propose then implement if no problems found. Maybe that's just a math guy's way of thinking, but it sure seems to make more sense than the Washington style of 1. Decide something is utterly unacceptable, according to particular interpretation of policies not literally written in stone. 2. Change it so it's not an eyesore to you personally. 3. Think about fixing it later. -Zyrxil (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

A Wikipedia article is not a narrative; it is a place that gives general overviews on a range of topics. A character list specifically should not be the place to explain or introduce "arcs" or give detailed descriptions of various factions. It is a place to give an overview or description of the characters in a set series.
Your initial compliant about the merge was that it created a list that was far too long.[1] That can and has largely been dealt with by other editors. Yet you still complain about the merged list. Not only have you not done anything to clean up the list, you criticize anyone else who does. With that type of attitude, it seems that you are trying to assert some sort of ownership over the list, especially with that ridicules ArbCom request to enforce your preferred version of the list.
Mergers don't have to go through lengthy discussions, especially when a merger is an obvious course of action. When Jinnai merged the faction lists into the main list, he placed them where the factions were already listed on the main list. If that was poor organization, then that poor organization existed long before Jinnai merged the faction lists into the main list. Should Jinnai have trimmed the faction lists before merging them? Perhaps, but you didn't give anyone a chance to clean things up and called the whole idea of a merge "ridiculous" and told Jinnai to affectively f* off unless he starts a "month long discussion" about the merge with 10 other editors.[2] You can't force people through hoops that they're not obligated to jump through. —Farix (t | c) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Clean things up? Nothing was done by anyone after the initial merge, and nothing's been done after the re-merge, except some improving of the name list with the Japanese names. If I were somehow trying to own the article as you claim, then I would've made some effort. Accusing me of using ArbCom for some kind of enforcement is laughable- I'm not the one who requested a edit protection to lock in a specific version of the list, and I'm not the one who made the last revert. This is not exactly a super active article, what with the series' author's year-long hiatuses. In my mind any big change deserves a discussion beforehand, and the people who actually add to HxH pages don't visit often enough to notice some kind of quickie discussion with 2 voices held over a single weekend. But whatever, I wasn't aware of the policy, but let Boldness reign.
My complaint still hasn't changed. There was no plan to the merging, as the separate pages also explained concepts, races, and loose organizations, all of which are poor fits for a general character list. The only proposed plan, not by the merge-r mind you, just shuffles the names around in what I consider an arbitrary and unhelpful manner. If I need to make my concerns even more clear, I will- I'm waiting for Jinnai to delete all of the organization header paragraphs (like he did before the first time he merged) declare it all OR or too wordy or something, references and all, just for the purpose of a clean and compact list. That's where it feels like things are going to me, deleting for the purpose of removing Tags, even if nothing is left at the end. -Zyrxil (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That info violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. That isn't what character pages are about. Yes, they do contain some plot summary, but only so a person unfamiliar with the work can get a basic grasp on who the character is what there relevance to the narrative is. Unless a particular ability is central to the understanding of their role or has been commented on by other reliable sources, it doesn't belong here.
List of Naruto characters or List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters are the best examples in the WikiProject of what kind of content is wanted (and by extension what isn't). Both of those have many one-time and background characters and they develop powers and such but they don't have every character nor go into great detail for most of their abilities and such.Jinnai 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Nothing was "done" because you didn't give it time nor did you go and clean things up yourself or ask for help. But your claim that there hasn't been any cleanup since the merge is entirely ridicules. Do you even know what cleanup is? As for your repeated complaint about "a plan", we already know where we like to take the article. That is all "the plan" we really need. Perhaps you should [[|WP:DISENGAGE|step away]] from the list for a while as you are starting to make bad faith assumptions on other editors. —Farix (t | c) 13:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
First, the 'cleanup' that's been done is copyeditting that could've been done at any time and is entirely irrelevant to the merge. I stayed out of the way precisely because everyone knows what I'd like to do, and I avoided it, despite accusations of trying to claim ownership.
Second, faith is not involved when the things I'm talking about are in the process of happening. The 'reorganization' being done is in the manner of simply deleting large amounts of text, despite the rule the character lists cannot be too large being quoted as rationale for merging everything.
How exactly was everything removed more In-Universe than what is written in the Tokyo Mew Mew list that was referred to? The varied pages of WP policy, all referred to without quoted excerpts as if they were universally memorized, state mostly that things shouldn't be written from a character's point of view, which nothing was. What is removed makes no sense to me. As far as I can tell, the people doing it have no interest in preserving what was written by rephrasing whatever irks their personal standards of stuff being In-Universe, but simply see the entire page as fankruft and will trim until it's pretty.
It's all edits such as removing 4 characters in the Mafia section because they 'only appeared once', while the remaining character entry is for a guy who appeared 3 times, albeit for 10 seconds each time, with 1/5 the speaking lines, and much less actually shown of his personality. Of course I would expect the logical response to what I've said is to eliminate that character entry as well, reducing the entire section to 1 paragraph, removing all background info because it's not relevant on a character list, and then eliminating it altogether because there's too little to speak of.
I mean, if you don't want the info here, where should it go? Tell me, because the last time me and the old contributors tried to create a section on the main HxH article for fictional setting background information, it was deleted by a mod because there was no entry for it in the general anime series MOS. And the edit suggestion that deleted character entries should go into episode/volume summaries is bizarre since those are the ones that are actually not supposed to be too detailed.
The entire situation feels like I need some kind of Wikipedia lawyer to talk for me, entirely in the language of wiki-policy. If I edit, I'm owning, if I don't I'm in the way, if I argue I'm too heated and should step back. There's no method or debate, just pointing at WP pages. -Zyrxil (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
While size doesn't matter, that is no excuse to add trivial content. As for the Mafia section, Owl is more important to the storyline as his abilities affect the narrative. However, if you feel he is ultimatly just as pointless I will not object to you merging him with the rest of the Shadow Beasts.
If you want to keep the info, you can always migrate stuff to a Wikia. I can even get you the links to before the info had started to be edited.Jinnai 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to point out that there is no solid justification for treating Owl as more important, when the others actually show up for an entire episode and a half, and what they do during their fight also affects the story. If what they they did meets whatever standard is for Trivial content, then the whole Mafia organization and the role in the story arc would meet the same standard, which is absurd.
As for a Wikia, first, it's not an either or thing, as if having the information somewhere on the internet means you don't care what's being done on Wikipedia. Second, I dislike the idea of wikias, as to me the an important to have Wikipedia has some kind of central hub for general information, not a bunch of splinter sites. Third, what with the multiyear hiatuses eroding popularity and only recent English anime licensing, I don't think such a wikia would be sustainable. -Zyrxil (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you are failing to understand trivial content and to some extend I admit that there is a grey area. However one of the key differences can be seen in what I left. I noted what 2 of the 4 who attacked Uvogin did. This is because it had affects on the plot advancement; it weakened Uvogin to the point that he was captured and allowed the Phantom Troupe to get a lead on Kurapika. The other two had no impact on anything beyond the episode they appear in. You could have effectively swapped those 2 for any other Shadow Beast and lost nothing in terms of the narrative. Owl becomes more important because he is central to the problems that lead to the fight with Uvogin and Lucifer's battle later on. Whether that is important enough for him to have his own subsection I admit is debatable. However you cannot swap him for another person so easily without changing the plot in other areas. That is one thing that can seperate a one-time character from being trivial or not.Jinnai 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if it seems like Wikilawyering to you. When I was first starting my work with character lists, it would irritate me to no end that people would throw links at me and assume I'd see the same thing that they were. The problem with INUNIVERSE details is not writing from a chacter's perspective. It's that the article is written from the point of view that the fictional universe is real and the real-world details about the work are simply put on the back burner. Character articles and character list entries should be about a "real-world context and sourced analysis". In the past some of these lists have gotten so plot heavy that they border on copyright violation (but that's not really the issue here). The difference here is in goals: fans want as much information as possible, to make this a "central hub" for detailed information about the intricacies of the series; when the consensus of Wikipedia is that we're covering these topics in a general sense to explain them to the average reader.
Speaking of Wikia; moving the content there doesn't mean that we're suggesting that someone create an entirely new wiki (though it appears there already is one: [3]) there are also more general Anime wikias that have been good places to put more fan-oriented content. Anyway, if someone starts throwing links at you and you don't see what they're getting at, go ahead and ask them to slow down and explain their reasoning. Sometimes these dialogs move a bit too fast  :-/ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Wikilawyering is an actual WP policy page. I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising, consider how much policy pages there are.
(Replies to both new messages) You'll have to explain your interpretations of Trivial Content and In-Universe writing. First, for In-Universe, what is there in the other character lists used as examples is not , but more. All the same story details are there, but there's simply separate lines of information that could be classified as real world info, used almost to 'jolt' the tone back to some acceptable standard every so often.
As for trivial content, it is vague, and there's no 'mental consensus' here about what's being deleted at all. I for one see it perfectly appropriate to include all characters whose existence and/or actions had an obvious effect/purpose in the story. I mean, the stuff being deleted isn't "Charlie: Bartender who served the main characters drinks in chapter 175. He had an easy going personality and recommended the Hennessy VSOP. He was killed in chapter 176 by a bomb intended for the protagonists". E.g.- The latest deletion I see is Bodoro, who had quite a lot of 'screen time' and lines. He was given an amicable 'mentor' type personality and was on friendly terms with the protagonists during the Hunter Exam story arc, which served to accentuate the shock of Killua killing him with no warning simply to flunk the exam. None of it was speculative, and there was no excessive level of detail.
My point is that if there is vagueness and nothing in the policy that says these are definitely unimportant, then why lean so easily toward just getting rid of it? It's not as if no one who contributed to the character list before ever thought about whether a character meant enough to write about.
And speaking of vagueness and abundance of rules, it is incredibly frustrating to be fighting over these paragraphs, when you can look up full page articles on comic book characters by the hundreds, most of which are "supervillain of the month" style ones from the 70s. Wikipolicy is like real law, but without a constitutional foundation, or a system of common law to set precedents for vague policy, or Supreme Court to strike down laws written badly. -Zyrxil (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Stuff that isn't in-universe is stuff like character creation, reception, merchandise, impact on the industry or society, etc.
As to trivial, a one-time character is always going to be trivial unless the work is like a short story, the character has substantial impact on the narrative that the lack of their presence would impare the average persons understanding of the narrative, and even then it might be added into a subsection of (an)other character(s) without real-world info. As you mentioned reoccuring background characters also qualify as trivial, but background characters can be people who look important, like the various ants who have nen powers. Just because they have cool moves doesn't make them important to the narrative. On the low-end would be someone like Cheetu who doesn't really do much and has a couple battles. How much of an impact he has on the narrative is unclear and I'd say he is a possible candidate for merging without some real-world info on him. However, someone like Pitou clearly isn't a trivial character.Jinnai 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You skipped over my more important points. I'm mainly trying to do two things here:
1 Argue against the idea that the words "one time" and "trivial" are synonymous. Several examples: A 'one time' appearance in one episode of the anime may mean appearance in 5 chapters of the manga. Also, a 'one time' 30 second appearance is not the same as a 'one time' continuous appearance for the duration of an episode. Last example in my mind, 'one time' appearance standing around for 30 minutes onscreen is not the same as 'one time' appearance killing off a major character, being revealed as a secret major antagonist behind major events in the story and then disappearing to a faraway fortress (offscreen) to command from afar. One time is a bad and vague standard. I've already noted I find "whether they impacted the story with their presence" as a better way to judge characters.
2 Get you two to actually agree to some more specific standard for what is being regarded as too trivial to appear in this list. Whether it's the 'story impact' suggestion or not, the most important parts are 'written down' and 'specific'. Recurring characters have been deleted, characters with long screen time have been deleted, expository characters have been deleted. Without discussion, it's all being judged in your head, and even then not all consciously. I honestly don't see any point in anyone contributing anything other than some copyeditting to the list as long as what you two are finding unnecessary is so inconsistent, since no one even knows enough to argue whatever links are offered every time, or even if they are being used consistently. And yes, since you're the only guys editting that ever had enough familiarity to be able to slung around Wiki-policy around to 'enforce' their opinions, your actions have made you the de facto owners, as none of the other historical major contributors seem to even watch these pages anymore. -Zyrxil (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
One time =/= one indivisual item, but refers to a scene. A scene can last multiple chapters (indeed many fights scenes in manga do), but it is still considered one scene. That's why in different works the scene can vary in length (like some episodes of DBZ).
As to getting a more concrete critiera, you cannot pin one because Wikipedia doesn't have it except for the most extreme cases. However just because something isn't an extremely trivial piece, doesn't mean its not trivial.
If you have a problem with a specific character being removed, post it and your arguments against it. But don't try to claim everyone on those lists wasn't trivial because that violates what WP:UNDUE is for. You are saying someone like Eliza, an attendant for the Nostrade family who has only impact on the storyline worth mentioning, is close to being as important as someone Pitou.Jinnai 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I understand there's no concrete criteria in place, but isn't it reasonable to try to set one in place, as a consensus for this list at a least, so that edits/additions can be compared to some solid understandable standard agreed upon and written down, instead of 40 pages of policy which have to be additionally interpreted? I'm saying I don't even know what to use to argue with right now, and I don't see how anyone else without deep familiarity with all the WP policy pages cited could argue against you two either.

Also, when did I say Eliza is close to being as important as Pitou? Just because Pitou is very important doesn't mean all lesser levels of importance aren't worth mentioning. More important characters just have more description , more details to be mentioned, and maybe their own separate article. -Zyrxil (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the basic idea, and this was why Farix proposed it, would be to use a protagonist/antagonist/other or main characters/supporting/other or some other crieria. When you have a division like that it becomes a bit easier to figure out who is important and who isn't. When you divide characters like that you can more clearly see how their character works in relation to the narrative. You begin to see who is central. Now, just because someone is placed outside of the main character or main protagonist/antagonist sections doesn't mean there automatically dismissed, but that means that their role needs to show something. Characters like the President of the Hunters Association might be listed as a support or ally, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned, but generally the further you go down a list in categorization (except protagonist/antagonist division), the lesser importance the characters become.Jinnai 06:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The basic questions are, would events later on in the story be affected if the character's appearance had been skipped? If the answer to this is no, then the character probably doesn't need to on the list. This is the difference between Zebro and the other Zoldyck servants. Zebro helps the protagonists train in order to pass though the Testing Gate, which later plays out for Gon at Heaven's Arena. The other services had not affect on the plot. Same goes for many of the Hunter examinees.
The other question is, how much did the character contribute to advancing the story? Characters that make significant contributions will be characters that should be included in the list. Characters that make little contribution should not or be summarized in a paragraph describing a group of similar characters. Again I will point back to the Zoldyck servants. While Zebro does help advance the story, his contributions are still very minor. This makes him a borderline character at best. So to justify his inclusion, he was added into the paragraph that also mentions the other Zoldyck servants. But overall, even if the Zoldyck servants are not mentioned in the list, it is doubtful that it will negatively impact the reader's understanding.
Even if the character is a reoccurring character doesn't mean that the character should be listed. If you look at List of Naruto characters, you will notice that several reoccurring characters, such as Ebisu, are not included. The cabbage salesman from Avatar: The Last Airbender is also not listed on List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters.
There is no magic formula or set of rules to determine which characters are listed. We have to evaluate each character on-by-one and see how they fit in the overall narrative. Trying to establish a "concrete criteria" is useless and just asking for trouble as it will be entirely arbitrary as it will be based on "time on screen" or "number of pages". Both of which are poor measures of a character's importance and contributions to the story. —Farix (t | c) 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Your writing out those two points you've been using is exactly what I meant concrete criteria- not absolutely exact, but just more specific than 'trivial'. As it was, there was nothing even to argue for/against, as what was being deleted/included revolved entirely around the interpretation of 'trivial' in your mind. Having it clearly stated serves the purposes of providing a basis for discussion about whether that is what the standard for inclusion should be, and provides a clear reference for others to use when editing.
Second, I would disagree with your second criteria because contribution to the story would imply moving the narrative forward and/or having impact on character development. Going by that, all characters that repeatedly appear only for the purpose of long fights would be eliminated. It's been a few years since I've read Naruto, but that would be true for maybe half the characters on that Naruto character list. Hell, even the grandson of the old leader is listed, and he's there as a joke character who's the only person in the series to be more immature than Naruto.
Lastly, what's the rationale for removing 'power' descriptions from the characters? I don't see why anything except too-detailed information about their actions during the story would need to be removed from characters keeping their place in the list (and that includes the very large amount of line breaks suddenly missing).-Zyrxil (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The exception to the 2nd criteria is if there has been some reliable source that does some non-trivial commentary about them. I don't know if that's true about those specific Naruto characters, but if you feel they aren't deserving, take it up there.
For powers, unless they actually have a purpose in the narrative or are commented beyond a passing mention by reliable sources aren't really important for what Wikipedia wants. FE, Kurapika's chain ability is central to the Spider arc and so mentioning it has a reason otherwise you'd not understand why he cannot use it on anyone that isn't a spider in the narrative.Jinnai 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to agree to a certain exent with Zyrxil here. The previous entry was better. I find the current version especially where the usage of nenabilities is concerned, largely lacking in areas that the previous entry covered adequately enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccarine (talkcontribs) 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As Jinnai said, if their abilities are related to the story, it should be briefly described. The problem with the previous descriptions of the nen abilities were that they were overly detailed. Only a brief discretion is necessary describing what the ability is. For example, Neon's precognition ability should be mentioned along with the fact that Chrollo Lucifer stole it. But how the ability works should be left to a fansite or when someone reads the work for themselves. In most cases, it is even necessary to give the name, unless it is a plot point (ex. Kurapika's Judgment Chain). Also, details such as Gon's abilities being based on jan-ken-pon, which he mastered before the series began, are important plot points and should probably be included in the character's descriptions. —Farix (t | c) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that such a rule was applied to the powers removed, e.g. Shaiapouf and Pitou's abilities are how the Chimera ants accomplished all of their plans. I guess I'll be adding a whole lot back when I have the time.
Also, "But how the ability works should be left to a fansite or when someone reads the work for themselves. In most cases, it is even necessary to give the name, unless it is a plot point (ex. Kurapika's Judgment Chain)." seems to be a beyond ridiculous level of granularity to me. That makes as much sense as omitting a character's last name just because it never factors into anything important. If it's important enough to be mentioned or explained, it's important enough to be mentioned or explained in whole. We're not dealing with complex scientific concepts here, where the detail would take up a few thousand extra words, but an extra line or two. -Zyrxil (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Somebody has screwed something up when trying to change Chrollo to Kuroro. There isn't even a section for him anymore. The article now continually switches back and forth between the two (and also is evident on the main page). Need to switch it all back to Chrollo Lucilfer and make a section for him XScar (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


So lately all HxH sources (newest chapters, new anime website, etc.) keep calling Netero's secretary "Beans (ビーンズ)," when previously we have all known him as "Maamen (マーメン)." So I did some browsing to try and figure out what was up, and on this niconico-pedia they have this listed: "ビーンズ(旧アニメではマーメン)" "Beans (Maamen in the old anime)."

So I'm guessing the original anime just stuck a name to the character, similar to how they created a design for Gon's house or a hair color for Hisoka which both would be shown to be wrong by Togashi later.

Does anyone else know anything about this? XScar (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just as you say. Beans is his real name--Maamen was the name given to him in the first anime. I changed it. -Mr. Toto (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
According to Shūeisha's recent Hunter x Hunter Sōshūhen, the character's full name is "マーメン=ビーンズ" ("Maamen Beans" (sp?)). Erigu (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess[edit]

The title speaks for itself. I think that we need to evaluate which characters are important in the context of the article, and which ones are negligible. -Mr. Toto (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the hard thing with Hunter x Hunter is that there aren't too many throw away characters.
Looking at the Nostrade Family, the only one that is mildly more important is Melody -- the rest could just be lumped together, a la "The Examiners."
For the Zoldycks, Illumi is the only majorly prominent one (outside of Killua). Zeno and Zeno have had two sorta important appearances and Kalluto with the Spiders, but the rest, not as much.
For the Ants, we could probably do away with Zazan, Hina, and Rammot.
We have a fairly large section (though it's mostly just a summary of his fight with Hisoka) for Kastro, but he isn't big at all. Could probably scrap him.
I think we might want to look at the One Piece character page and talk page. They basically went character by character and decided on what to do with him/her. Not that HxH has nearly as many characters yet, and we might not need to go to that extreme of analysis, but I think it'll give us something to go by. XScar (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, for the most part--the characters need to be condensed. Most of the Phantom Troupe don't need their own subsection, and neither do most of the ants. But I think that the organization might need to be altered as well. For example, we grouped the Chimera Ants under "antagonists," but most of them are protagonists at this point. In the next few days, I'll come up with a list of things that need to be expanded, condensed, or removed. Mr. Toto (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this?
Hisoka--Move to protagonists. At this point, I'm not sure that I would consider him an antagonist at all. He doesn't antagonize any of the main characters, save his initial contact with them. In fact, more often than not, Hisoka ends up helping them. The Japanese page lists Hisoka under protagonists as well, so I think I'm going to go ahead and do that now.
Change "Antagonists" to "Other Characters." Move the Hunters Association in front of the Phantom Troupe. Hanzo, Pokkle, and Ponzu don't need their own bios. Scrap a majority of the Phantom Troupe profiles, and just create a big listing for the. The only ones really needed are Chrollo and Pakunoda; maybe Uvogin. For the Chimera Ants, only keep Meryem, Pitou, Pouf, Youpi, Ikalgo, Welfin, and Meleoron. They have the biggest roles. Gyro isn't important enough to have his own section. I'm iffy on Colt. The Zoldyck family can be done in one large listing; no one really needs their own bio. Scrap the Nostrade family, and just write about them in Kurapika's bio. The Greed Island Players and Chimera Ant Exterminators can be merged into the Hunters' Association. Mito can be mentioned in Gon and Ging's bios, Kite can have his own (or do the same thing as Mito), get rid of Kastro, and put Komugi in Meryem's bios. Less plot details; it gives away too much of the series. -Mr. Toto (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any other input? If not, then I'm going to go ahead and make the changes sometime soon. -Mr. Toto (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)B
I agree with all of the suggestions, except; I am strongly against getting rid of any of the Phantom Troupe members. Xfansd (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Netero uses the kung fu. Is this information official?[edit]

Did not the translator know kenpo? Kenpō is different from kung fu. (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hisoka & Illumi are perverts?[edit]

This is from the Japanese characters page:

this was from Hisoka's: 嘘つき・気まぐれな性格で頭の回転は極めて早く、人間性には掴み所がない。天才的な格闘Hisokaを持ち Chrolloと闘う為だけに団員を殺し幻影旅団に入団し、GonやKilluaの成長に性的興奮を覚える など、常軌を逸した戦闘狂である。己が最強であり何にも属す必要がないと考えているため、旅団入団も単なる 手段に過ぎず実際には偽装入団であった。 また、人間を理由なく残酷に殺す快楽殺人癖もある。第286期ハンター試験では、気に入らない試験官を半殺 しにして失格になった。Hunterになりたい理由の1つとして「人を殺しても免責になる場合が多いから」 と述べている。但し、GonやKilluaのような気に入った人間に対しては、たとえ自身が不利益をこうむ っても守ろうとする面も持ち合わせている。偏に上記の性的興奮に因るものである。

& this was from Illumi's: 父と共にKilluaを一流の暗殺者に教育した人物。その教育方針は、どのような状況下でもKilluaが 絶対に死ぬことがないようにすること。Killuaを歪ませた張本人であるが、これらの仕打ちは、Killuaに対する歪んだ愛情からくるものである。

What sources back them up? Just because something is listed on the Japanese page doesn't mean its the case.Jinnai 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps we need to put the complete list of Zodiac's members? Can't we copy about the Zodiacs from Hunterpedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book knight (talkcontribs) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of them are still heavily unimportant. The most important two (Ging and Pariston) are already listed. I think Cheadle might need to be added as the arc progesses, but for now, I don't see a reason to add the rest. The only think we can say about most is them is their name and their zodiac sign anyway.XScar (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Improved the page[edit]

I have improved the page the best as i could. Dear Xscar i hope you will not deleted my improvement. We can work together to improve this page the best as we could. But if you find some errors. Maybe you can fix it. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book knight (talkcontribs) 11:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

      Just wondering if the part about Killua killing an opponent in the Hunter Exam "due to his elder brother's nen skills (manipulation)" is correct. I remember Netero saying there was no clear signs of manipulation but I didn't want to make an edit without confirmation. Comment added by Rinon 16:30, 28 May 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)  

Kon the foxbear[edit]

I added a paragraph for Kon (aka Konta), Gon's foxbear friend on Whale Island. Editor Xfansd undid the revision with the comment that Kon is not a notable character. While the 2011 anime reduces his role below that of the manga, the 1999 anime actually increases his role. I added Kon because

  1. he illustrates Gon's love of living things, and how he gets along with beasts
  2. he plays a central role in Gon's bond with Kite
  3. from age 9 to 12 Kon was one of Gon's dearest friends, if not his best
  4. he has a presence in at least 2 arcs, and it is clear that Gon had told Killua about him
  5. while not able to speak, he is portrayed as intelligent

I don't consider this an issue of great import, but I was surprised to see that his section had been removed. I suggest it be reinstated. – 2*6 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)