Talk:MÄR

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cartoon Network Start‑class Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Title

According to the consensus here, this article should be moved to Mär (uncapitalized). I'll go ahead and do that after a couple of days if no one objects to this reasoning... - Onmyounomichi (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I oppose. The title is an acronym, and according to the rules of English, acronyms are in caps. - The Norse (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is if it is short for "Märchen Awakens Romance" then shouldn't it just be MAR rather than MÄR? Why are there dots over the A? There aren't dots over the A in Awakens and that's what it's short for right? I think perhaps 'Marchen Awakens Romance' may just be a subtitle, and that the caps MÄR stylization is actually short for the "Mär" in Märchen primarily. The world they are on is called Mär-Heaven or MÄR-Heaven for example, which I'm pretty sure isn't short for 'Marchen Awakens Romance Heaven'. Ranze (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Characters

why keep two articles having only the main characters in this this article and the minor ones in a completely different article? shouldn't this page have a list of characters in general even after having a list of the MAIN characters in this one?

the main article doesn't even show who the main characters are, they only give out a vague explanation on what type of group they are. you will have to go on another article just to see the other characters.

other articles about anime and manga usually have a general list of characters (minor and major) in a separate article but easy to all the others. Who ever made this article and the list of character articles, they really didn't know how to put it.

merge all articles of characters in general together and list only the most important characters in the main articleHaseo445 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...there should be one character list, with all of the individual character articles merged into it because none have any demonstrable real-world notability, failing all relevant guidelines for existence including WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. None would survive an AfD. I've tagged them all for merging to the main list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO WAY! I don't know what everyone else thinks but I do know there are people out there who see them as more then cartoons on the TV. better to have seperate pages for characters, easier to navigate, fav pages AND it doesn't hurt your eyes with to many words! Why should you put them all together when anime such as Naruto or Bleach have different pages? That's like saying MAR has less importance because of a popularity vote! I say favoratists to that! Is that really fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.75.200 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are obviously a fan that doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. go and learn the rules before talking all high and mighty.QueenofHearts (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Why is it that the reception consists of just a single negative review from IGN? Shouldn't it have other reviews, like more positive ones? Often, I see that things usually get mostly positive reviews, but there are a few contrasting negative reviews (or vice versa). I believe that section should be improved on. Shadoman (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vol. 13 Review

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]