Talk:Characters of the Soulcalibur series/Archive 1

The english voice actors for Heihachi and Spawn are stated as Victor Stone, but the page for this is a fictional character. Could someone verify these facts?

There should be articles about the unplayable characters. I'll create them.

Future
In Heihachi Mishima section it says that the Tekken series is in the future of the Soul Calibur series. Can somebody prove this? Otherwise I'm deleting it within the week. MrDrak

Tekken= 21st Century or beyond. Soul Calibur= 16th Century. That's the only way I can see that as true. Wingedregent 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heihachi's profile specifically mentions that he went back in time, so it is logical to say that it occurs in the future. BassxForte 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Could anyone explain why characters important to the Soul Calibur canon (Cervantes, Cassandra, and Astaroth) redirect to one page with limited profiles, yet characters that aren't (Strife, Abelia, Lynette, etc.) have their own pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsmith3813 (talk • contribs).
 * I have just started merging today, so it is going to be a little bit before it is finished. TTN 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, how do you justify merging characters into this page, when they have enough notability to have their own page? BassxForte 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These lack any real, non-trivial real world information, so they cannot be declared notable by this site's standards. TTN 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was better when they all had their own pages, since their bios (Cervantes, Astoroth, Voldo, Nightmare,etc.) span across 4-5 games, making their profiles larger as time goes on. The minor characters (Chronicles of the Sword Character, guest characters, and Bonus characters) should all get limited bios instead of the main ones.Wingedregent 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you still fail to understand that the contents of the article don't require real-world notability to be deserving of an article. BassxForte 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not even getting into this discussion with you. That is the general consensus of the site. If you don't like it, either get the way things work changed or just ignore fiction articles. TTN 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop merging the articles. Seriously, you're ruining them all. Don't give me that, "They're not notable," rubbish. They deserve to have their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Fine by me, I don't discuss with people who can't be reasoned with in the first place. BassxForte 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF is this? this merging is stupid, I much preferred when the characters that deserved profiles actually had them. If they're the main characters of a popular videogame, then why shouldn't they? --86.6.179.6 —The preceding  signed but undated.

General consensus? No, TTN, no it isn't. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this matter. Literally thousands of other fictional characters possess bios throughout Wikipedia. Each article here was relevant and contained a large amount of information, making your actions unnecessary. Merging the articles is pointless, if not idiotic to the extremes. You have absolutely no right or valid reason to continue doing this. In fact, I’m asking anyone who can recall the immense mass of data that was collected within the articles to restore them to their original splendor as soon as possible so that we can deliver them from this sickening state. Kageryushin 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Kageryushin has a point. Merging pages like that is completely unnecessary. There really is no point for you to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I agree, Kageryushin. "Sickening" is a good word for this because of the amount of information that is being destroyed. I come here trying to find a character's background and there's barely any information, when previously there was lots of information said about each characters backstory, characteristics, and activities in each game. All of this was well worth a page, and still not in the realm of excessive. Here, one can barely learn anything, which defeats the point of the article. Also, this format doesn't make it easy to add information about the characters as future installments in the series are released. These are characters in a long-running and major franchise; I think they're notable enough to have their own page. In my opinion, I think the impact of the Soul Calibur series makes this kind of information worthwhile enough to qualify for the standards of WP:FICT. Also, (and I know this isn't a reason to flat-out ignore wikipedia's policies but i think it's important anyway) lots of people find character-specific articles helpful and practical, and to organize character information like this only makes things more difficult and uninformative. What you're doing isn't worth the effort because it doesn't help wikipedia or its users. One more thing, WP:WAF shouldn't have anything to do with merging; the problems in that domain are corrected by changing the style, not moving and compressing information. AlmightyDoctor 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I came here looking for an entire page on Nightmare, what do I get? A paragraph! Honestly, whoever made this article, make the articles seperate pages again! -Mythmonster2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythmonster2 (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I did the same thing as the above poster! I wanted to read up on Nightmare and Zasalamel, but all I find is a paragraph of things I already knew. I wish the articles get returned to their original state, because this kinda sucks.Wingedregent 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps determining that pages about fictional characters and objects is not relevant enough for Wikipedia? It's the aspect I've most praised about Wikipedia since I joined, and I make every attempt to EXPAND these pages... Someone needs to stop being quite so self centered and cease thinking that only their types of articles are worthy...  And of course, I'll help rebuild this page when it inevitably gets reverted. I love these characters. ShadowHare 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I see such unreasonable decisions here on Wikipedia. These are notable characters which deserve their own articles that were very informative. Especially Nightmare, who is considered by many to be the icon of the game. Major decisions such as these are usually decided by a vote (which I'm sure would've been in favor of keeping the articles) and not decided by TTN, who isn't even an admin here and who's talk page is full of people complaining about unexplained merges and deletes. —TigerK 69 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging these articles was a very, very bad idea. 128.198.20.26 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an absolute Disgrace. Mergers are u serious!?!? Whoever is doing this shame on you. I will do my best to restore the information unjustly annhilated from the individual character pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.197.95 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a horrible mistake. Major characters in a major, ongoing video game series, let alone ones with mass amounts of backstory should have their own pages. There is no reason to TAKE AWAY information from the site just to merge all of the characters into one massive page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.198.70 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you do realize you just compared characters in multiple and heavily analyzed pieces of fiction to one that most casual players will recognize as "the guy with the pole", right? They could blow up the moon in the games for all anyone cares, it's the reaction and legacy of the characters that ends up making a subject notable. Kilik had at most two citable sites saying he was hot. Amy's sadly got perverts backing her up. Blame them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of you who think that merging shouldn't even be here. These characters are all good enough to have their own pages. Do you even know how many people come here to Wikipedia to see an article of a game they haven't played yet???! I did! I found tons of beautiful information, and now all the pages are getting merged, and less important characters get some. I think that they should all get their own pages. This is horrible. How can you restore pages? Please tell me. Swiftink (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Swiftink

Fair use rationale for Image:39458121 nin soul 203b.jpg
Image:39458121 nin soul 203b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Link (SC II).jpg
Image:Link (SC II).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What the!?
Does anyone know what's up with Darth Vader and Yoda being in here? I mean, this isn't serious, right?

Dante 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally serious, dude. SCIV will have freaking Yoda for X-Box and Vader for PS3. No word yet on bios or why their use of the force won't totally overpower them or why one hit from their lightsabers wouldn't kill an opponent. (or would it?) Sliferjam (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
What happened to all the pictures of the characters? They get deleted? If they did then wikipedia is being a real bitch. It's not like they run out of room. Hobocrow (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Internet's like that nowadays. Everything is copyrighted and watermarked and protected by ubiguous laws (which don't really apply since Internet is universal, and not tied to any country's legislation). In reality, I don't think the game companies mind people using the pictures (it's kinda like free advertising, really), unless people claim they made the art. SamSandy (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article
I modified the article today quite a lot, but as anybody can see, there's still much to be done to make this something beyond a mere list of characters. I put own slots for the bonus characters in this page as well, since not all of them have an article of their own. The individual articles could always be merged with this one, but it would make this page helluva long, so I wouldn't recommend it. SamSandy (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging Arthur with the minor characters article. In a way, he's official. He was technically in two games thus earning 'Main Character' status. Seong Han Myeong was only a guest in Soul Blade/Edge and he gets 'Main Character' status, Arthur should too. Therefore Arthur's individual profile should remain and moved to the 'Main Character' area. (Highwayman Myth (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Merging
I noticed that Greed and Miser, who are even more minor than Lynette, still has their own articles up but I don't think they need much emphasis since they don't even have a story of their own.--JCD (Talk) 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, they're just wrong links. However, I think Arthur must be merged in this article since he is only a replacement for Mitsurugi and nonetheless only a very minor in SCIII.--JCD (Talk) 07:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OMG, what happened to Arthur's article? At least a part of it should be included in Mitsurugi's imo... Though it was directly moved.


 * And I think Hualin and Valeria should be included here.--JCD (Talk) 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn, I wish the people who do these mergers would at least do them well. Now this article is a complete mess with several character's information missing. This is not a type of article I'd enjoy reading in Wikipedia... SamSandy (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please re-instate Rock to his own page, he's a main character, not a minor one. Li Long and Hwang have their own pages and have appeared in less games.


 * I agree, Rock is more of a major character than many with their own articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And a major character with no discussion. That's why he's here. Li Long and Hwang are going to end up following suit like we discussed on the Talk: Soul (series) page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well at this rate is might awell be all of them except like 3 or 4... Stabby Joe (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Won't be that bad...right now of the articles I've worked on a lot of them have enough notability. It's just a matter of finding people that talked about them and citing them. Right now Inferno's one that isn't looking all that good for that reason though...even Algol's got more talk than him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question actually, you mention that you're doing these merges on the basis of the content of their talk pages and not the article? I ask because theres many articles without a single comment passed yet they still stand because there plenty of info on them and the fact they meet the same guidelines as others articles of the same format. I'm not arguing, more like asking why. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I see it, people's reception about boss characters are rather not being brought to a greater height. Probably because, they're boss characters and imo, discussions about them are well.. fewer. For example, Inferno wasn't playable in II and III:AE, it's just an implication, lesser receptions would be made on how he could fight. Same as Abyss who was merged with Zasalamel's article and Algol, who's article was deleted.
 * However, I really don't have an idea on what to do about Inferno's article. Guess I'll just leave it to you on what to do with it.--JCD (Talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done with the merging for the time being...a few of the articles have me worried, but it should be possible to find the sources needed for them. Yun-seong and Setsuka were the last two merged: the first never seemed to get out from under Hwang's shadow and the second never got as big a fanbase as the other females :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

^Not true. 79.74.123.237 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have third party coverage to show people talked about her in a citable context for reception?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you delete all that when you merged her article? But that's not even the point - when was Wikipedia about popularity contests? Are there credible and citable sources that declare her to be thoroughly unpopular, or is it just your POV?

There was a very good Setsuka article with plenty of cited information, and since she is one of the main characters and not a bonus or background character I think she should have an individual article like all the others. I would say the same for Yun-Seong, as he has been a main character since Hwang's departure. It makes sense for Hwang, Rock etc to be in this article because they have been in and out of the main lineup of characters for the last couple of games, but not Setsuka and Yun-Seong, who have been part of the main cast since their debuts (and especially not if it's only based on an apparent lack of popularity, which is completely subjective). 79.74.123.237 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The most third party discussion regarding Yun-Seong not regarding his gameplay were comments about his role as a replacement for Hwang in SC2 reviews. Setsuka got mentions about her character's fighting style in SC3, but that was it beyond that: not even comparisons to other characters. The subjects need third party coverage in order to remain on wikipedia or this happens when someone goes and cleans up. I'm sorry it sucks but that's the deal, this can give you more information: WP:N. If you want to bring the article's back you'll need to present something showing there's a real world impact of some sort by the characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To add something, they've had merge tags on their pages for weeks now: there was plenty of time to oppose a merge, and nobody did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really failing to see how any of these have asserted independent notability. The development information should all be fine, but the reception is mainly junk or filler in most cases. Each article that uses a number of reviews has like two or three good sentences, but the rest is just either trivial in context or the source is just too trivial overall to be used to assert that something is notable. Notability does not stem from people commenting on a little gameplay pro or con a number of times. It also doesn't stem from the character being mentioned in such a limited list as a top ten list of the characters in series (10 out of like 35 main series characters and 10-15 guest characters). Noting that a character appears on any kind of artwork falls into the junk category (even if these do ever really assert notability, those mentions should be removed), and merchandise falls under filler (it's relevant, but not independent as it can be applied to the series a whole). It would really be a much better use of time to attempt to work this into a featured list with the good development and reception information. TTN (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to know that the articles are not in the hands of one person making all the choices. The only reason I found out the page was deleted was because I tried to get information on Setsuka. I wanted her name in Japanese as it was listed on the page, and now it's gone. Just put it back the way it was, it wasn't hurting anything. 67.169.115.189 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I remedied that a little: dug in the history for each page and pulled out the japanese text, working it back into each section. Unlike TTN's mad rush above which results in a royal screw up like those pokemon lists that are going to be stagnant forever it seems, I'm aiming to try and get all the character articles to Good Aritlce status or higher so a Featured Topic can be formed covering them all. Things that get merged here are just articles that don't have sufficient coverage to get to GA status; reception's pretty much the biggest one there, which breaks down to "is it being talked about in a significant manner about the character itself." So Setsuka being on this list doesn't mean she's a bad character or anything, just there isn't enough to discuss for at least a GA-status article :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

^Hey there, user with IP 67.169.115.189, you could still access Setsuka's page if you track the article's history. Here's a direct link hope it this helps at least. And also, Kung Fu Man, I guess it wouldn't hurt if Sets' and Yun-Seong's article would be returned the way it was since they are already both solid characters. Also, according to N, Notability only guides users on what kind of articles must be created "but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Which could mean Sets' article could still pass the verifiability. However, I guess Yun-seong's wouldn't qualify as such since a total of NO reference and citations are present within the article. However, these are just my opinions and doesn't want to argue with anyone...--JCD (Talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that you guys, it did help a lot, sorry if I came across as disgruntled or unappreciative. Being that Setsuka and Yun-Seong are (of course) my favorite characters, my bias got the best of me. I'm sure you'll do the right thing for the articles. 67.169.115.189 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is merging all of these articles into one really worth the cost and the backlash? 128.198.20.26 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would vehemently oppose merging Raphael's article into this one, mostly on sheer principle, but that's another argument altogether...

I've been wracking my brain, and failing, to remember where I first saw this but I distinctly remember reading at the release of Soulcalibur II that Namco had wanted to include a fencer in the lineup ever since the original Soul Edge. This would provide a nice place for some of his trivia in the Promotion section and if I could cite that article I would have made the change already.

Aside from that there is plenty of notability and reaction regarding his character, positive and negative, it just hasn't been thoroughly researched yet.

Naturally the rest of the article requires significant cleanup, but I doubt anyone would bother to do so on the likelihood that it will simply be reverted minutes later.--Lord Knightcon (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well most of the reception is about how the character plays. There's not as much to really make it a stand alone character in terms of how people have received it in a real-world sense other than three talking about his appearance in different directions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I even bother asking what standards you use to judge notability? Now today the Xianghua article is removed and she had far more reception than Charade, Necrid, and even Nightmare or Siegfried on their own. Not to sound too negative but it seems like you pretty much ignore the advice or opinions of anyone who disagrees with you on this.--199.79.10.117 (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Necrid
Shouldn't Necrid be on this page? I'd add him myself, but I'm not very good with wiki editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.96.187 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually miss necrid as a character... SCII was the best overall version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.78.171 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity needed...
The qualifications of minor characters and characters deserving of their own pages is fast becoming blurred. Rock's been in Soul Blade, Calibur, Calibur III and Calibur IV and yet he's reduced to a minor character? I move to either strip all the characters of their individual pages and handle this matter similarly to the Samurai Shodown series or restore any character who is an official part of the narrative at any point in the series (not counting guest characters, of course). SuperSonicTH (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both ideas are bad. Some of the characters do have enough notability for their own articles so you can't kill them all off (the samsho thing was a blunder to be honest), and you can't bring them all back as some don't pass WP:N or even really WP:V. A split off list might be a better option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well not to play "that card" but Tekken's roster has full pages dedicated to each playable character. Maybe it is a waste of space to do it like that but it is uneven standards. SuperSonicTH (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tekken will get dealt with eventually, there are already a few people suggesting the idea of cleaning them up and merging lesser characters. As it stands I'd like to get the SC character articles to featured topic status. We've already got one going up for GA, and there's nothing to say an article can't be revived if discussion turns up to satisfy WP:N. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Background characters
I think this section needs to be trimmed back: a lot of characters can be covered in their respective articles or sections and don't need their own (for instance, Berserker is discussed, but then Durer is discussed later on when he's directly related to them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Took care of it myself to an extent. I left some bits there, but everything else really doesn't need to be covered in its own section, and I'm not sure that the SCL duo do either as it seems more like a retelling of that game's plot, or at least part of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Series characters
Ok, as far as it seems, all of them are well, "not so" discussed (outside wiki) characters. But I just want to know if Sophitia could be merged there too. Not much discussion about her have been made and she's been always appearing as a hidden or an unlockable character. What do you think?--JCD (Talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considered that. Cassandra at the least seems to have the advantage where she's discussed more in a few contexts, though I haven't dug deep enough yet on Sophitia. Worst case the best result might be to combine the sisters into one article, like I'm thinking would be necessary for Siegfried and Nightmare (since until SC3, they were the same character and a lot of the reception about Nightmare is from 2 or prior).
 * What do you think about possibly Maxi though? While I've been going with an angle of presenting the reception of Astaroth as a "big brute" stereotype, I've noticed there's not a lot talking about him as an actual character. Even the Elvis comparison is at best minor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when the supposed "popularity" of the character dictated it having or not its' page? ALL non-bonus (Franchise, CAS, etc.) PC's should have a their own page; else - none of them... As long as Sophitia and Cassandra are separate and playable characters (not to mention that there is NO Cassandra in half of Soul games: Soul Edge, SC1, Legend) they should have separate pages... You do not merge or MiNa with Kilik, even when the latter is a clone of the former? Yeah, and Sieg is very separate from Nightmare... They are the same char ONLY in SC2. Echad (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just looked that most of Soul characters' pages were deleted and/or merged here. I hate this PoV shit very much. The fact that some kid never played anything before SC2, OR does not like that particular character should NOT leave him/her without a page... Why the fuck all Tekken 3 or Street Fighter 2 characters actually do have their own page, regardless of your opinion? =\ Again me, Echad (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Remember - this is Wikipedia - you make it a very PoV based personal fan-site.
 * This has nothing to do with "PoV" shit. Half the reception for Nightmare applied to Siegfried just as much, to the point it was pointless having two articles saying the same thing. It had nothing to do with them being similar characters in fighting style. Almost all the remaining articles have some real-world relevance that can be cited in other publications, whether it be "I miss this character" comments to "I'd hit it" crap in EGM and whatnot. That's the way it goes. You ask why Tekken 3 characters are still around? Nobody's gone through and done spring cleaning yet. It'll happen sooner or later though. Why are all the SF2 characters still up? Like it or not SF's been around a lot longer as a franchise and SF2 left a massive impact to the point there's things to cite. Even a loser like T. Hawk has comments saying he at least was disliked for reception.
 * If you want to throw a hissy fit about it, I'd suggest taking it to the video game project's talk page. As it stands there's already one article poking at A-class and several others coming up there. And that's going to be the goal for whichever remain.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why fix what is not broken? The Sophitia page and the Cassandra page are fine just the way they are. I see no reason for merging, besides the fact that their story lines are intertwined. And the Nightmare (Soulcalibur) page is a perfect example of exactly why NOT to merge--the page is supposed to cover both Nightmare and Seigfried, yet it barely offers any details on either character. 24.15.53.225 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the original Sieg/Nightmare articles covered the characters' plots and random weapon lists that were bloated to hell. That wasn't good at all. How do you cover Nightmare's development without discussing Siegfried's? Same case with Cassandra. Sieg by himself as a stand-alone character didn't have enough reception to support an article. Same for Cassandra and Sophitia, especially since a lot of the commentary overlaps. So do you lose both articles or find a compromise to keep them away from a list?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, wha-what happened? first you guys' took out hwang, but why? his page was very well done and now characters like seong mi na, and zasalamel lose theirs? not a good step if u ask me. thoose were very good pages .they stated lots of very interesting facts, like type of weapon ,origin etc. ,which made them really interesting.And i really dont take hwang, mina and zasalamel as minor characters. if it was database space issue then its ok,other than that i really can't see why the merge was done. hams hussein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.135.4 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok ok, I think I see the point of what Kung Fu Man means. It is not about popularity, let's just say there are tons of different videogame forums that speaks about each and everyone of them, but, they would appear to be personal opinions/views so they are not notable references. An article's notability (or let's say for a Soul character to have his/her own article), what we need are references from published articles, meaning blog posts are out of the question. Game community sites like... let's say IGN(no bias here), their words are notable for being a basis of an article's notability since they could get information directly from the game developers themselves. To add to that, their reviews are what "mostly" published in different magazines. So meaning, popularity isn't the main basis here. It's up to these communities on who they will cite and describe.--JCD (Talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to the fact that most of them doesn't have references... And I guess these merging are only "temporary"? Am I right?--JCD (Talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Any of these that get references for separate notability found can easily be restored (though I'm kinda inclined to think Sieg is best merged into Nightmare, given the reception ties the two at the hip)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why does Amy have a separate page when she's almost a CaS character... If main characters like Seong Mi-na (which was in the series from the beginning) were merged here why does Amy get a page? EphemeralM (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citable third world relevance, even if barely. The media and whatnot didn't cling to Mina the same way, and it's that relevance that determines notability in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? It's the popularity that determines if a character gets a separate page or not? I think the characters more important to the plot (yes, there is some plot in the series) should get their pages too. And this shouldn't change with the new installments of the game. Esp. Cervantes should get a separate page since he was the main antagonist in Soul Edge/Blade. And Amy should be merged with this article. Because she's barely a character. Just another pretty face to attract older japanese men that like little girls in GL style, even her ending is a joke. Just because she's popular with the media doesn't mean she's relevant to the plot and the game. EphemeralM (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand how notability works. A character's weight in the storyline matters very little to determine if a character has an article or not. It's important to discuss a character, but a character could have a storyline that amounts solely to a cameo and have enough reception to get an article and a series hero have next to none. Basically popularity plays a huge part, but more so fuels discussion in third party verifiable material about the subject. Ivy's considered "hot"; to this end there's a great deal of discussion about her even though there's plenty about her role in the story and reaction to it. Cervy and Seong Mina had nothing for that beyond a few tidbits. So yeah, Amy deserves an article not because she's important to a storyline, but because the character has appeal that can be cited. That's how it works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "idea" that this entire site is formed on that basis is what makes wikipedia the laughingstock of "user-created encyclopedias". By your very definition, Legolas in Lord of the the Rings would be considered more notable than, say, Gandalf- simply due to the "reception" and "popularity" of Orlando Bloom, despite the fact that his part in the story is only of minor significance. That you could claim with a straight face that a character's weight in a story bears little relevance as to whether or not it merits its own separate article (especially given the volume of information), is a key reason why this "list" is s cluttered. Compare Kilik's information on this page, to that of Amy's article (Seriously- AMY gets her own article?!), and you'd be blind not to see that the bulk of Kilik's information is enough in volume ALONE to merit his own article- not to mention the fact that all you're doing is cluttering up the list by dividing "less-popular", more relevant characters from "more-popular", barely detailed ones.--68.111.251.45 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Gee. After looking over character bios for Mortal Kombat... GASP! Each character has their own article, with the exception of minor characters. Even Stryker, perhaps one of the more loathed characters in the series, has his own article. So again- what's this crap about "notability" and "popularity" dictating the circumstances in which an article is made? Then again, looking now, the list is becoming MORE cluttered with characters that USED to have their own articles continuing to merge into this one. Great job, people. I fully expect you to be filled with shock and rage that I have several good points and subsequently "ban" me out of shame.--68.111.251.45 (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Before this whole mess started there were in fact quite a few people who said it would wind up being one massive list and only three or four characters left with their own article. I'm left asking, "what's the point?"  Right now it's probably best to take the suggestion above of merge everyone into one big list, trim it down to a physical description and include an external link to Soul wikia or caliburforums.com to people who want actual information know where to find it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.10.117 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lizardman
Is there any proof that the Lizardman in SCIV is the same one as in the other games (Aeon Calcos)? - This name isn't mentioned any place in part IV - either Namco want to put an end to that stupid name or this Lizardman is/was a different person? Dan Lander (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only is his name mentioned in his Chain of Souls profile page, but his profile follows through with the story from Soulcalibur III. It is without a doubt still the same Lizardman.--199.79.10.117 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. The only one that isn't as a playable main character is the SC2 one. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging
Please stop merging characters! Seriously, a lot of these characters are so important and they're being put here on the list. Personally I think the list is for more minor characters. Siegfried hasn't got his own page! I would like to give the following characters their own pages: Amy, Raphael, Sophitia, Siegfried, Kilik, Maxi, Xianghua, Yun-seong, Seong Mi-na, Taki, Mitsurugi.

So? What does everybody think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftink (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read this: WP:N. Wikipedia isn't a directory.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability? What do you mean? I'm quite sure all these characters are "notable" enough to be given their own pages. Swiftink (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * In their own setting, yes. But in a real world sense. It's a case of real-world coverage and real-world thoughts on a subject in citable, reliable third-party sources, like EGM and whatnot. Additionally it's a case if that coverage is really significant enough to warrant an article on the subject. Someone's weight and actions in their own setting doesn't have as much weight in terms of discussing a character in an encyclopedic sense. Development info and most importantly reception have to really be there too. Read the guideline. It's a bitch, I know. But it's policy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. However, shouldn't at least the main characters have their own pages (such as the ones that play a major role)? Otherwise, why aren't ALL the characters being merged into this list?Swiftink (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * Well as it stands, some of the characters do have notability. Ivy for example is pretty well recognized for her sex appeal, while Necrid had reception all around. Voldo...well, it's Voldo, there's plenty of discussion about his moves. A few of the other articles are up in the air at the moment over development info and reception, Amy being the biggest one due to a lack of any dev info other than that one comment. The mains just didn't have the same commentary: they were noted and so forth, but as for any discussion about them as a character it was pretty minimal. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Amy's article got merged. Oh well, perhaps she wasn't quite as popular as I thought. Also, thank you for explaining all this. By the way, don't you think Cassandra got quite a lot of public reception? Swiftink (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Swiftink

That's the problem with doing a project like this with no discussion : the blatant double-standards used to judge what is notability and what is not.

Necrid has notability for all the negative remarks about him, but Yun-seong, repeatedly described as the worst character in SC2 does not count as notable because it describes gameplay. Voldo is notable because of the discussion regarding his gameplay and his odd animations, yet Raphael is not notable because all his reception is about his gameplay and has no "real-world" relations (see above).

Again... I cite WP:What's the point?, ask that you merge everything into one list, trim it down, and put in external links to places where people who want the actual information can find it.--199.79.10.117 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is responsible for this mess, please reconsider. Just because the merge tags went unnoticed for a few weeks doesn't make the merging a good idea. The sheer number of negative responses on this page should be an indication that it was not. Apparently, it was just the decision of a few "bold" users. WP policies weren't violated, but what is the gain? I see no good reason why playable characters can't all have separate pages, as long as the information is not redundant. I'm not sure what "reception" has to do with it either, and more importantly, how you measure it. This is the kind of highly debatable notion that could justify the deletion of most fiction articles (comics, tv shows et al.) Imagine the uproar if you tried that. But there are good reasons against the merging, aside from the loss of possibly trivial information (the kind I was looking for when I realized SC articles had been butchered): the condensed text and length of this so-called list make it unreadable. Actually, most articles this long, about such easily dissociable subjects, and bound to grow even longer, would have been split at this point. Lists are for summaries, not compilation of articles. Laurent paris (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the people on the list have more in-game information than the people who have their own pages. :( This is going to have to take a lot of work...Is it decided whether we merge it or not? Swiftink (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * Amy's is being worked on on a separate page atm to revive hers, though I have an issue where the bit of info to really flesh out her dev section isn't citable (the idiots emailed the answers to the questions). Cassandra didn't have as much; the sources pretty much got taxed for her.
 * Keep in mind that anything that gets "unmerged" will probably end up just coming back here, as there isn't hardly anyone *working* on these articles, just pretty much myself and you tweaking a few things here and there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. As Laurent paris mentioned, perhaps the length of the list makes it unreadable. Should we separate it into two articles, one list for more minor characters and one for major ones....? It probably won't work though. :( Swiftink (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink

Siegfried
I just noticed that on the bottom bar where it lists the articles of the Soul characters, Siegfried is one of them but it just redirects to this page instead of an article about him. Is someone working on a page for him? Swiftink (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * Never mind. It's gone. Swiftink (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * OK...this is getting really weird. It appeared and disappeared again. What's going on? Swiftink (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * I think I found the problem. You see Siegfried on the bottom bar only when you access Astaroth's, Talim's,  Tira's, Necrid's, and Yoshimitsu's pages. Can someone please fix that? Swiftink (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Swiftink
 * It's a cache issue. Purged all the character pages to fix it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please give Siegfried his own page! In fact, just go ahead and give everyone separate pages plz kthxbai. 59.167.107.90 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Soul Calibur IV Characters?
Aside from the fact that this whole list is a mess, it's also missing several characters from the new installment, despite the fact that it claims to be a COMPREHENSIVE list in the intro. There are links on other pages for Ashlotte and Kamikirimusi that link to nonexistent sections of this page. Is it really the case that no one has thought to add them, or were they victims of the deletion nazis? Is it not enough that the individual character pages have been decimated - now certain characters aren't even "notable" enough to be included in the "comprehensive" list? I do not have the game yet, so I don't have any info on them, but I just wanted to call people's attention to the fact that they do need to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.32.60 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the problem. They are listed under the Bonus Characters section, but the links from the main Soul Series page link as if they had their own individual sections. Someone needs to change those. Nevertheless, the main page still has links for Setsuka and Strife, which don't appear anywhere on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.32.60 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent character article creations
Recently, Devilsaur2 (talk) has recreated articles for some characters in the Soul series, such as Seong Mi-na. These articles are in violation of Manual of Style (writing about fiction) as the content is almost exclusively in-universe and does not discuss important real-world components such as creation/concept, reception, or impact on other media. They are also very poorly sourced, listing an official website, a video game, and a forum (which is not a reliable source) in a reference section with no citations. This total lack of secondary sources does not demonstrate the notability required to write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and as such I oppose the creation of these articles unless such sources can be provided. Further, I believe the proper approach to these articles should be to develop the sections of this list. Once a section becomes large enough, and has accumulated the necessary sources, it can be split out into a separate article.  Pagra shtak  05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the problem comes about because he's misunderstanding that Wikipedia's "notability" is not the same as "in-game notability". The articles were merged here because there weren't enough real-world third party sources for an article, which even the current WP:FICT standard says is a necessity. The remaining articles had enough to make it there. I'm going through and undoing his edits at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys are making a big mistake. Instead of looking for ways to improve the article by adding real world perspectives such as concept and reception, you are deleting the articles and erasing the information that many found extremely useful. Those articles I included werent just my articles; wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit and improve an article. Simply deleting and making no attempts to help me make the article notable and reliable shows that as administrators with all the powers you have you have lost your community spirit, willingness to help and contribute, and your sense of what is in the best interests of people wanting to look up information on these characters. Please do not just delete these articles, tell the community what is wrong with them on the talk page and work can be done to better the articles to "meet wikipedia's quality standards", which can easily be taken out of context or applied too heavy-handedly anyway.

The Biography sections of the articles were almost written based on information directly out of the Soulcalibur games. I dont see how there could be any more reliable source than direcly out of the game the character features in. This certainly does not classify as original research so I am stumped on why you guys are unhappy with it. Too long? Sure, I can shorten it, no problem. I wholeheartedly disagree that these articles dont qualify as notable. They had real world perspectives and the lack of concept/creation and reception sections does not justify deletion as these could be added with sources in the future. I cannot produce a perfect article in one edit, no one can. Personally, I find this stringent "notability" policy dumbfounding. If being major characters in a long running video game series is not grounds for notability then what is. Please consider all I have wrote. If you would like to help me improve the articles I have them saved word documents.Devilsaur2 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your prompt reply is appreciated, thank you.
 * That's where you have it backwards. Real-world notability should be the first thing established in the articles, then fictional content. If you bothered to check through the article you'd have seen an attempt was made, but there weren't enough sources, just scarce mentions here and there. Saying "oh leave it up so sources can be found later" does not fix the problem that they don't have any reception to even cite.
 * You can find the policy "dumfounding" all you want, but it's what prevents an influx of a bunch of articles that do nothing but cater to those already knee deep in the canon and 'fanon' around a series. There are wikias for those.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, yes. Wikipedia isn't and that's why we have WP:IMPERFECT. However, Devilsaur2 didn't seem like he was willing himself to show the articles had real-world notability and that it would just take a reasonable amount of time to add the info, so merging them is for the best. This is just to clarify things so others don't get the wrong idea; that articles should immediately be deleted/merged if they don't have real-world info as often such articles are made by fans who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies. じん    ない   02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said all I can say and if you guys arent budging an inch now, I doubt you'll ever. I must admire your stalwartness though, you guys treat that notability policy like a bible +D. In future when I create Soulcalibur character pages ill be sure to add sufficiant real world perspectives and citations to make the article notable, and largely model them on the existing Soul Calibur charcacter pages. Im looking at Amy in particular, she almost seems to have enough information there to warrent her own article, just need to add a concept and creation section and its there. In the mean time i'll resign myself to making improvements to this list. Thanks for your discussion.Devilsaur2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Major improvements
Hi. Ive made some major improvements to this article adding character infoboxes for the main charatcers (for now,will probably do for the minor characters as well some times later) to improve the readability, organisation, and usefulness of this article. Ive also sourced previously unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsaur2 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sighs*
 * First off, there's no need to add a character's summary if any entry here has an article.
 * Secondly, there's a limit for fair use images, they should be used in moderation, not to the extreme amount seen here.
 * And third, infoboxes aren't what's needed to improve this article. It needs citations and that sort of info first.
 * Overall you...kinda just made a big mess? :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kung-Fu Man, but the changes I made were an improvement to the article. This article does need infoboxes as they provide extra noteworthy information and improve the quality of the article. I do not accept your assessment of a "big mess". These changes are for the better. I have reverted the changes. Please remind yourself that wikipedia is a site where anyone can make improvements to an article and you should not revert every change made in pages you seem to feel are soley your juristiction.Devilsaur2 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's way too early in the morning for this...anyway, look at any featured list of characters and you'll see they look noting like your "improvements".I should add too copying and pasting a biography from another source is copyright violation, which is also frowned upon.
 * Look at the sections for Algol and Cassandra. That's the form these should take. Less emphasis on in universe content and more on the real world aspect. Don't revert it again, there's a rule against that I'll point out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, extra real world perspectives can certainly be added, but many of the other biographies I didnt even touch (at least 15) such as Kilik and Zasalamel had no real world perspectives anyway. Your arguement is no justification for deletion as the article as I had it was a great foundation for future real world perspectives which the article was lacking before I even made any changes...

And the Biographies werent copied and pasted, they were taken from games and reworded to avoid any such copyright violation. Please, your actions are unconstructive and the rejection of any edits to the articles you made is not in the spirit of wikipedia. I am reverting then going to bed. If I wake up in the morning and it has been deleted, you can be sure of what I will do. Goodnight.Devilsaur2 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is rejecting any edits, they're being undone because they're counterproductive. Seriously, look at ANY featured list. If you haven't noticed there's an effort to trim the in-universe bios to the bare minimum and then assert real world content. You want articles to revive, that's the only way it'll end up happening.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Devilsaur2, we both know you want to improve these articles. The problem is that you're not familiar with how Wikipedia operates yet, so you end up breaking rules. We know you have good intentions, but Wikipedia is designed for certain types of content, and is designed to exclude other types. Part of the content we exclude is excessive copyrighted material and excessive in-universe details. Start small, get to know Wikipedia, and then you'll be better able to gauge what is desired and what is not. Adding a non-free image to every character is a violation of our Non-free content criteria.  Pagra shtak  15:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rewording" biographies is still a copyright violation, and is a type of plagarism, even if it wouldn't seem that way. If you wanted to use some in-game text, you have to use in-line citations for every sentence. Secondly, uploading a gajillion images is not fair use because they are way more than are needed to "educate" the reader on the subject and are better fit for a gaming Wikia, rather than Wikipedia. If you really feel the need to "improve" the article by adding unencyclopedic information, why don't you focus your energies on editing the Soul Calibur Wiki instead..?--ZXCVBNM [ TALK] 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought my edits would be acceptable as per Be_bold and Ignore_all_rules as I really did feel they were genuine imrovements, and I actually still do. On a side note, the real world perspectives on amy and casssandra have been removed for some reason. Any reason for this?Devilsaur2 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Planned on just combining reception into one comprehensive section at the end of the article, a la List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated in WP:WIARM, "Ignore all rules" does not mean "You can always ignore all rules". It just means that you are free to break the rules if you know that it's for a good reason, and adding fancruft isn't one. If you can't prove its notability, there is too much in-universe information, etc, add it to the external wiki. Also, consider Fair use for the images, or they'll be deleted.--ZXCVBNM [ TALK] 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article for Mitsurugi
I think that Mitsurugi is significant enough to have his own article... --172.165.32.113 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your merging is heavily biased
I'm not interested in contributing, only pointing out some more than obvious. Wikipedia is meant to be non-biased citation of information, correct? If so, the fact that you've allowed some characters to have their own articles while others only have summaries on this page inherently shows bias for the ones that have their own entries. This isn't something understandable like lumping minor characters together. You have Talim, Necrid, Tira, Nightmare, etc with their own articles. In contrast, characters like Taki, Siegfried, Setsuka, and many, many others are reduced to entries on this page. Kilik doesn't even have any text under his entry here. If you want to remove the clear and present bias collectively put into the Soul characters, the important ones must all either be cut down to this list, or given their own separate articles. 99.23.133.140 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that someone's favorite characters are allowed pages and the rest are to be merged. There are no characters with more importance to the series; every one of them has their own story.Tathunen (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. For example, Necrid, who wasn't very popular and only appeared in one game, has his own article, while Mitsurugi, who is one of the staple characters in the series and one of the best-known, doesn't. I myself reverted edits to give Mitsurugi his own article again, hopefully other users will recognize this bias and revert other individual character pages as well.--Eh! Steve (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "bias"? Mitsurugi could be important as hell, but he needs more reception and development information. Without that it fails the notability which is why it was merged here. If anything Taki's probably more likely to be restored before him. If you can find more sources however that's another story.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, how is that Taki has no article, but (for example) Talim has?
Taki is easily one of the most well-known and popular characters in the series (from I guess some obvious reasons).

Let's see:
 * Taki was in all Soul Calibur games (including of the few in Legends) AND in Namco x Capcom (chosen to represent SC along with Mitsurugi - and he has no article too!).
 * Talim was NOT in Soul Edge, Soul Calibur, Legends (and of course not NxC).
 * Taki is important for the storyline (won the Soul Edge/defeated Cervantes, for example).
 * Talim is not quite.
 * Taki is one of the most recognisable SC characters.
 * Talim is not really, also a semi recent addition (only since the third game).

Popularity test:
 * taki soul calibur 4,970,000 hits
 * talim soul calibur 56,800 hits (almost 100 TIMES less)

Of course Taki had at least as much reception, and actually much more (and from the obvious reasons, too).

This is simply ridicalous. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the posts above me because Taki has been in every game since the Soul (series) since Soul Edge including the spin off game Soul Calibur Legends. Taliam debuted in Soul Calibur II and made an appearance in the series following that excluding Soul Calibur Legends which was a spinoff of the series.65.4.91.41 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was saying as well. I was quite surprised to see that Siegfried did not have an article as well. And he's like, the main character of the whole series. What should we do? We could create the articles, but I highly doubt that they would stay long before they got deleted. Mokoniki | talk 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)