Talk:Naga the Serpent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Article about Naga[edit]

A friend of mine showed me a pretty good article on Naga here. I suggest the text be copied over. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Never Confirmed[edit]

I'm taking out all the stuff claiming Naga was born as Gracia and all the stuff that confirms she is related to Amelia because it was never proven or confirmed. Lorilei Mackenzie 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Was worse than I thought. I've removed the entire Biography because we do not have any confirmation of Naga's history. Lorilei Mackenzie 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It was confirmed in the fan magazine "Blaster" in an interview with Hajime Kanzaka. The following in the Biography section is quoted by the creator himself word for word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


I have removed all references to "nama" from Evolution-R. At no point is it confirmed that they are the same person, and the two people who would recognise who she is (Lina and Amelia), don't think they might be the same person. This is Original research, and so is not verifiable, reliable information. Please do not re-add any discussion of "nama" unless it is backed up by reliable, verifiable sources - this does not mean fan sites!. The article also needs general referencing, and could possibly be deleted or merged under WP:V Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Lina specifically says she recognizes Nama's voice (especially the laugh- that's why she blows up at Nama in episode 1), Amelia just says "a lot of people sound the same" (it IS strange that she doesn't recognize the laugh- she made mention of her sister's laugh in Slayers Try). The flashback scenes in episode 1 show that 'Nama' had long hair styled like Naga's and was wearing similar clothing (the hand gauntlet is the same). Unfortunately, here's no good view of her bust. It's pretty obvious to a viewer that the similarities are intentional by the creators (ALL of my group watching it saw the connection); however, Nama may have been one of the Naga clones. CFLeon (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, it's hinted, and is clearly a form of fanservice. But that doesn't mean they are the same (or even one of the clones). But without an explicit declaration that they are the same that we can use as a citation , it's Original Research. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not 'Original Research' to see Leonard Nimoy in Vulcan make-up in publicity for the new Star Trek Movie and assume he's portraying Spock, even without the name being used. The creators of Slayers Evo-R obviously meant Naga to come to the viewers' mind, and at least one character mentions the connection. It's no more speculation than the cameo in the first season, which you let stand, and a lot less than all of the 'pairing-up' specualtion, again that you let stand. This REEKS of a double standard. I would agree with you if the connection was no more than Lina's reaction to the laugh, but when you actually SEE Nama wearing the same clothing, it's MORE than just fan speculation: it is INTENDED by the creators, unlike all of the 'love pairs', which some how is 'ok'. If you going to remove some speculation, then remove ALL speculation. If it was to be confirmed, would you be the first to post it here? CFLeon (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You're actually just proving my point. As for your suggestion of a double standard, please assume good faith. I was able to justify the removal of the Nama stuff as I had just watched the series before removing it, therefore I could be certain that it was hnted at but never confirmed. It's a lot harder with other speculation as it's been a long long time since I saw a lot of the previous series and the ovas and movies. However you do make a correct point about other speculation, and it will be dealt with over time. However Slayers articles are low down on my list of things to do on wiki, aside from the main article which I am sorting out as I find sources. You are welcome to deal with the existing speculation, just don't add to it, there's enough of a lack of sources as it is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

The information must be presented with references, "just see the anime" is not good enough frankly. It is a wikipedia requirement that claims and statements must be supported with references on the page, if these are not provided, removing the claims or statements is not only suggested, it's expected. Additionally , the "cameo" section is based on fan interpretation of events, this is synthesis of material and fails No Original research. The removal of this content is again in accordance with Wikipedia's policys and guidelines. fact tags are there to show what information needs sourcing, frankly all of it does but highlighting the statements that need sourcing the most is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Currently the article is in a shocking state, trying to keep the unverfied claims of fans is only hurting it.

nama=naga is fan interpretation. At no point does the anime state this, and so claiming it is true based on hints is synthesis of material/original research.

The video game reference is incrediably difficult to accurately verify with reliable sources, so thats original research

The first season "cameo" isn't a cameo at all, it doesn't even claim that it is Naga herself, just someone with a similar build and outfit

the other "cameo"s are just references to her, and still require fan interpretation.

None of these claims highlighted above are anything except original research. As WP:OR (an official wikipedia policy) states "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research"

If you believe the information belongs in the article, provide a reliable source for it. Otherwise the information should not be restored. Do not restore it without a source. Sourcing the anime should involve the use of Template:Cite episode, and include the episode number and time the event occurs. However this must be for explicitly stated events, and not things like "they look/sound familiar" that don't specifically state which character they mean - because that involves interpretation. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Specify me the one thing you EXACTLY have a problem with, I'll prove you wrong, and you will go away. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll go away when the article is in a fit state to be left alone, which won't be any time soon. You don't need to prove just to me, you need to prove to anyone who reads the page, the onus is on you to prove the things you claim are true, without resorting to interpretation. This is a long standing wikipedia policy. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The first season "cameo" isn't a cameo at all, it doesn't even claim that it is Naga herself, just someone with a similar build and outfit" - taht's kinda true.
  • "the other "cameo"s are just references to her, and still require fan interpretation." - dude, like she shows up in Premium, or in the video games (party member, named "Naga" and everything, but never with Amelia)?

--Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to prove this, especially with games which aren't discussed by reliable sources (as they are incredibly niche to say the least). All your arguements are avoiding the simple truth that all claims need sourcing by reliable sources. This is how wikipedia works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, so prove me wrong otherwise. For example, show me Naga and Amelia on the same screenshot (like this or this) or a video (and I don't mean this intro where Naga is alone, I mean together). Can you? No, of course you can't. Guess why. Because Naga is avoiding her ever since she run away. Becuase, she's, you know, a runaway. By definition! Geez. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If the statement is disputed, the onus is on you to provide a reliable, third-party source for the information, per WP:Verifiability policy. Looking at the removed sections, I think that you might like to read WP:Writing about fiction, also. Marasmusine (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A good example of this is that the article is tagged for lack of notability. Now, I know Naga is a notable character, with lots of reliable sources discussing her, but it's up to me (or someone else), to provide those sources in a Reception section to prove it. Simply claiming she is notable without proving it achieves nothing. The two images you supply don't prove anything that you suggest. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What can prove "anything I suggest"? What third-party, when this [citation needed] stuff ("extrmaly modest girl") is in *link removed* first party, for example? I guess it may be done, but this is idiotic. I only tried to clean-up this article (actually deleted only the stupid stuff about how cosplaying Naga is banned), then cleaned-up more and asked what exactly I'd have to prove, got reverted my improvements and a warning and you guys ganged-up on me, so now go and play but without me. Bye. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact tag is for the whole paragraph. Theres nothing to stop referencing the work itself (I've already shown how you can do it), you are misunderstanding how wikipedia works (third party coverage is needed to prove notability, but first party coverage can be used for referencing events). If you don't want to take advice and learn how to better use wikipedia, thats your perogative, but taking issue over having it explained to you is a bit of an overreaction. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You can cite novel, manga, ova, anime for character description. It would be weird to not be able to cite the work to prove its very own content. As Dandy Sephy said outside view what we call third party coverages are required to prove that a character is notable. --KrebMarkt 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ganging up on me with threats is a textbook definition of team work. And what exactly can prove that "a character is notable" because I just have no idea what you're talking about? An example would be awesome. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What threats? Multiple experienced editors are giving you advice based on their experience, there are no threats here. Gaara is a good example of what a character article should be. The reception section has comments made by reviewers from reliable sites, and all claims are properly sourced. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, a character is notable if they have been discussed at length in a reliable publication. If there is no-such in-depth coverage, then this article is really just reiterating story and plot information - which belongs in concise section in the anime's article. Marasmusine (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And what's a "reliable publication" in the case of such nerdy stuff like manga/anime? --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Any books or magazines, and this is a pretty good list. if you use them, make sure you use citation templates such as cite web and Template:cite book.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of "reliable sources" (well, on a second thought not so). And what is supposed to be there? --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a large stack of "Manga Mania" magazines which have various features on different animes, written by various industry figures as Lee Brimmicombe-Wood, Jonathan Clements, Trish Ledoux, etc. That kind of thing is ideal source material. Marasmusine (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what, whatever. You know what AND how to do, and I'm good at only cleaning up and fact checking, as far as anime stuff goes. (Here it's actually primarily novels, followed by manga, anime, games, radios shows and what not.) I'm much better at history or vg articles. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese article[edit] --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naga the Serpent. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)