Talk:Ann Takamaki

not necessary
Ann isn't noteworthy enough to have her own Wikipedia. Joker, Makoto and Goro makes sense because they're the three most popular phantom thieves, but Ann? There's no need, especially when there's characters in Persona 5 who is more popular and noteworthy than Ann (such as Futaba Sakura, Morgana, who is in Super Monkey Ball Banana Mania, and Kasumi Yoshizawa). Plus there are other characters in other Persona games who are more noteworthy and deserve Wikipedia pages more than Ann (such as Aigis from Persona 3 and Rise from Persona 4)
 * Aight - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should redorect this page back to the list of Persona 5 characters Midnightlights (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * nah - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Midnightlights (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of your points have to do with notability. If you want an article about Futaba, you can (and should) make it. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "Reception" section
There is a lot of undue weight given to the different critics mentioned in the article, and in particular a lot of redundancy and unnecessary plot details in a paragraph which generally boils down to "some critics didn't like how she was sexualized in the story." However, I do not believe removing the content altogether is the solution here. The reception section instead ought to be rewritten for clarity, brevity, and balance. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within)  00:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, a lot of press has been devoted to this topic. I don't feel the coverage is WP:UNDUE if there is that much coverage of it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. From what I've seen, a lot of the sources are just relatively brief passages in larger reviews of Persona 5 as a whole, so I do somewhat question the degree to which it qualifies as significant. But I don't know, that wasn't what I was arguing. The previously existing text was certainly fairly redundant in how it excessively reiterated similar opinions held by multiple reviewers, and what remains can likely still do with some trimming. In any case, I'm not too fussed about it, I just was pointing out what I believed to be the actual remedy for the flaws I saw at hand, in response to the other reverted editor who had opted to remove the content entirely rather than attempt to improve it. If you think any detail I removed in my recent edits ought to be put back, by all means feel free to do so. I'm not gonna complain if I'm disagreed with. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within)  12:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK -- you've clearly done your homework on this. I'd agree to a diminution of the section to give it proper weight with regard to the rest of the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)