Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters

the ref to the casts
On this edit, I think I ran out of space? So, when you access my hero at funimation it only shows the videos to the episodes, but doesn't bring up the casts. Like in Hakata Tonkotsu Ramens and it shows about 20 characters or 30. At "cast and crew." Then when I copied the link/ url to the web archive. It will sort of try to list who are the casts out of like 50 characters or more. But the loading speed is slow. Or the capture info is showing blank info at certain dates, one date was "February 25, 2018 at 23:03:37". But tomorrow I'll look at it more. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried to look through the web archive to the nearest date where it has "cast and crew." And the loading speed is just so slow. Then after a number of characters in the who's who, at the bottom it has displaying 1-10, etc, as you press the next number displaying the next set of characters. It won't let me and brings me to a loading screen for the longest time. (It will try to load for about an hour and then displays characters 11-20, etc.) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we start giving some of these characters their own pages?
Obviously not all of them, but My Hero Academia is definitely a triple A franchise at this point. It’s about as well-known as the likes of Dragon Ball and Naruto now. Should we start off with giving Deku and All Might pages? 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:39BD:EBB7:F703:DC89 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

•-•) I definitely think each character should have their own page ( well only a few main villains and heroes of course ) since it’d be easier for other people to find out more about each character Zapp kun (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ikr 2601:201:C100:4FB0:1441:5659:DC57:7BCC (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Character descriptions
I asked an admin, if removed too much by removing the subsections, and he answered yes. Without the character descriptions, this page is completely incomprehensible. And not, this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to WP:FANCRUFT, and is not original research, and thus is not subject to WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Xezbeth didn't exactly say that. If anyone is interested in what they really said, and my response, it's right here. Moreover, the IP is simply wrong--a list of characters doesn't necessarily need such crazy-long descriptions. At some point this list was over 100k, with most of the references from ANN and the others from Twitter: typical for fancruft. As for that, "this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to FANCRUFT" is a completely invalid argument: FANCRUFT is in no way limited to fanfiction. And the rest, well, this is an encyclopedia. The IP should consider signing up for Wikia, where they are less likely to also be edit warring with and . Drmies (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to mention that I did shorten most of the descriptions prior to edit warring with me. The info was not crazy long by the time they were removed the second time; in fact, it was fairly short ad to the point. Secondly, while poorly worded information is indeed unencyclopedic, absolutely no information is even less encyclopedic. I don't see how you can call a page encyclopedic after you completely remove any substance to it. Also, that is exactly what Xezbeth said: "Drmies removal of content was a justifiable edit, though I agree that too much was removed".72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So here is one of the things that the IP restored: "A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk Frog (蛙, Kaeru) gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as superior swimming, a tongue that can stretch 20 meters, sticking to and climbing vertical walls, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom. She is susceptible to cold and will go into hibernation if her body temperature falls too low. She has a reserved and informed personality, but is also insightful, intelligent, and ready to protect the innocent. She is also sharp, being the first one in the class to notice the similarity between Izuku and All Might's Quirk, which briefly panicked Izuku. On the other hand, she is honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be." What to the fans may look like mere "description" is much more. "Superior swimming"--superior to who? "20 meters"--did you measure this? "A reserved and informed personality"--how is "reserved" not an observation that interprets various facts and actions, or lack thereof? "Informed"--did the frog take a quiz, and score better than average? "The innocent"--innocent of what? And really "protects"? What if the frog only appears to protect? And so on. The writing is, as often in such articles, of a sophomoric level (note the dangling modification "which briefly panicked Izuku", itself likely OR). So no. This is fancruft, unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be" is something that the character directly describes herself as, and 20 meters is also directly stated. While yes, the content is poorly written in some instances, completely removing it is an even worse option. As for the twitter sources, many of them came directly from the producers of the anime, so in what way is that unreliable? 99.203.40.43 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the character calls herself "honest to a fault", why would you believe her? Doesn't Iago explain how he lacks the iniquity to do murder, before murdering Roderigo and his own wife? And who actually says 20 meters? Is there an official committee inside the program that takes measurements, that are verified by some independent agency? Why would you want to build an article on Twitter sources? We allow Twitter sources for certain things, like celebrity birthdays--is that what we have here? Or was there maybe a tweet that said "oh, that tongue, it's 20 meters long!"? In that case, you should ascribe it properly. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, prior to removing every piece of description, I did remove several excess descriptions, including going into specific details of these characters' abilities and unnecessarily describing their entire arc. Naming their abilities, quickly saying what they do, and a brief overview of the character should suffice, rather than completely blanking it. My problem isn't the removal of bad content, it's the removal of everything except the voice actors, which should not be the only thing relevant as this is describing both an anime and a manga, thus leaving manga readers in the dark with just naming a character who debuted after where the anime is. I can agree with you that the description for that specific character, as well as for a few others, was poorly written, but I still heavily disagree with removing entire sections instead of removing just the bloat and the poorly worded, such as "which briefly panicked Izuku", or changing poorly worded sentences. For example, instead completely removing the description because it specifically that the character's tongue stretches 20 feet, just say it's prehensile. And unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the twitter sources were usually confirmations of the characters' voice actors, rather than of the descriptions. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Because removed several characters at the end without explanation, I restored those characters being listed, with shorter descriptions, as per Drmies' point that several sections were poorly worded. I don’t have anything against removing the bloat and the poorly worded, but culling absolutely everything just makes this page incomprehensible. Like I mentioned earlier, because this is a manga, simply listing the voice actors won’t do, as several characters appear in the manga but have not appeared in the anime yet. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Using the same character as as an example, here's a a rewrite of one section:
 * A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as enhanced swimming abilities, a long, prehensile tongue, the ability to climb vertical surfaces, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom.
 * A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as enhanced swimming abilities, a long, prehensile tongue, the ability to climb vertical surfaces, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom.
 * A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as enhanced swimming abilities, a long, prehensile tongue, the ability to climb vertical surfaces, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom.

One that includes a source:


 * A Rookie Heroine whose Quirk allows her to grow significantly. She tends to make provocative poses to attract the media's attention. Mt. Lady was originally conceived by Kōhei Horikoshi to be the female lead, but was replaced by Ochaco due to not knowing how to utilize her quirk in the story.
 * A Rookie Heroine whose Quirk allows her to grow significantly. She tends to make provocative poses to attract the media's attention. Mt. Lady was originally conceived by Kōhei Horikoshi to be the female lead, but was replaced by Ochaco due to not knowing how to utilize her quirk in the story.
 * A Rookie Heroine whose Quirk allows her to grow significantly. She tends to make provocative poses to attract the media's attention. Mt. Lady was originally conceived by Kōhei Horikoshi to be the female lead, but was replaced by Ochaco due to not knowing how to utilize her quirk in the story.

And one that was completely trimmed down, cutting out all descriptions of their appearance, minimal descriptions of their personality, and one sentence for their abilities:
 * A boy whose Quirk allows him to physically connect anything he makes contact with.
 * A boy whose Quirk allows him to physically connect anything he makes contact with.
 * A boy whose Quirk allows him to physically connect anything he makes contact with.

I hope you seriously consider these shortened descriptions over no description at all. Thank you. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, directly to, you can't just completely remove the villains and miscellaneous characters, including their voice actors. That's vandalism. It says on WP:VANDAL that malicious removal of unencylcopedic content is vandalism, and by removing any mention of all of the villains, as well as the "other characters" section, you're completely ruining the article. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll have a hard time justifying your aspersion ("vandal") when you have been repeatedly reverted by three experienced editors. Please strike your unfounded assertions. ——  SN  54129  12:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you don't want to be called a vandal, please do not remove sourced content (the list of villains, Kota, and Eri had the voice actors fully sourced, yet you removed every single mention of them). My assertions that you are vandalizing this article are anything but unfounded.
 * Secondly, I was revising the article by actually adding in sources and removing original research (as you can see by when the other IP re-added the villains in their unencyclopedic original form, then I stepped in to rewrite them in an attempt to make them be more encyclopedic), and you still undid my edit.
 * Thirdly, you broke WP:3RR before I did, so you clearly are bent on keeping this article empty.
 * Fourthly, this article doesn't become more encyclopedic with all of the information removed; it just becomes unreadable.
 * Fifthly, like I mentioned earlier, Xezbeth said that "while Drmies' actions were justifiable, I agree that too much was removed." You're removing much more than Drmies did.


 * Also, I highly suggest you look at the example revisions of the poorly worded sections I have above on this talk page.

72.203.118.154 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, my edits were not malicious, a view that is supported by other editors. So you will strike your aspersions.
 * Secondly, your sourcing has been regularly poor where it exists at all.
 * Thirdly, no-one has broken 3RR except you; please read the policies before citing.
 * Fourthly, you have been referred to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also see WP:V, which are both policies.
 * Fifthly, I know. And other editors are entitled to disagree with me; that's their prerogative. —— SN  54129  13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If your edits were not malicious, explain why you removed several relevant characters, then locked your talk page when I asked for an explanation.
 * Check my most recent edit, because I added eight sources. The ones that were previously there were not mine.
 * No, you have broken 3RR. I have read the policy, and while I don't know who IP 2600:100E:B132:7855:68CA:7E80:4F2A:216 is, they are not me. You reverted 3 edits, disagreeing with you, and thus, you actually broke 3RR before I did. If you seriously don't think you broke 3RR, you are in denial.
 * While you are correct that what the article was before was indiscriminate, I completely reworked it in an attempt to make it not break the policy. Blanking it isn't listed in any policy as far as I know, but there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about removing everything.
 * Xezbeth is an administrator. While Drmies also removed a gigantic chunk of information, his problem was that it was poorly worded and unsourced, which I fixed. Even then, he didn’t remove all of the info on the page. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I removed extraneous trivia per policy. And my talk is not the place for this discussion. Here is.
 * Please desist from adding blogs, etc., as sources; please see WP:UGC.
 * You have not read the policy, because you think my original mass-removal of cruft counts as a revert. It does not, sorry. Please desist from further aspersions, such as claiming I am a wet Egyptian.
 * Then you should read WP:REMOVAL, and yes there is when supported by policy. As you have been told many times.
 * The possession of advanced tools is irrelevant in a content dispute. is also an admin, but as far as you are concerned it is his (extensive) experience as an editor that is relevant here.  ——  SN  54129  13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is why I rewrote it. I’m not saying the page wasn’t flawed before; far from it. I’m saying that it’s wrong to remove every piece of content.
 * While I’ll admit comicbook.com might not be the ideal source, this sort of page mostly consists of quick summaries for each character. The voice actors are all sourced, but you removed a quarter of them for no explained reason. I also sourced every plot twist I could find a source for in my most recent edit.
 * Unsourced? Fixed. Original research? Already removed. Irrelevant? Nah. Vandalism? Nope. I attempted to fix the biggest offenders as to why the content would be removed. Removing the content now would just be out of spite rather than out of logic.
 * My edits were being marked as possible vandalism despite my good faith. It’s not considered edit warring if it’s vandalism, correct, but even if my edits were technically marked as vandalism, they clearly aren't when compared to edits such as "X character is dating Y character".
 * In order to become an admin in the first place, one must be a trusted user, which is why I mentioned that Xezbeth (who believed too much content was being removed) and Drmies (who, while he did remove content, knew not to remove everything) are admins.
 * Thanks for reading. Have a nice day. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The biggest issues with this article was that half of the descriptions were original research and that it was almost entirely unsourced. Take a careful look, because I revised almost every section to be much shorter and remove long fancruft (such as 3 sentences describing quirks, or describing an entire character arc), and removed original research (such as going into detail about how Deku was probably panicked by Tsuyu mentioning All Might), as well as adding 8 sources for plot details (suh as the deaths of Nighteye and Best Jeanist), or beta elements (such as Mt. Lady and Uraraka’s original roles). 72.203.118.154 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SN#, you know you got my vote if you ever go up at RfA. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If we're going by the standard of WP:BRD, which is what I am familiar with, then we have to start with the first bold edit of Drmies removing said content. They then reverted another user attempting to reinsert said content, rather than going the discussion route. There is no second revert in WP:BRD, but it happened anyways, and both sides continue to happen to edit war, two administrators, even. IMHO, there should be no requirement to source for intimate details about characters in a fictional work. Indeed, I feel this is an inconsistency in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, given that No original research policies says the only way to prove an edit isn't original research is to provide a reliable source for it. There is no possible way to source every significant detail, especially for minor characters in a show, but they are characters nonetheless. Lists_of_characters_in_a_fictional_work links a lot of these character lists and only some of them are even sourced to the guidelines. I've alerted the "WikiProject Anime and manga" and "Wikiproject Lists" on their talk page, here and here, given I believe this is a significant issue that could benefit from further editor consensus, and not at all isolated to this specific character page. Tutelary (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. While I very heavily disagree with the mass removal of content that leaves this page almost blank, there was a point to be made that this page was poorly written. Prior to this page being protected then unprotected, this edit attempted to remove all of the original research and fancruft, as well as adding sources for major spoilers in the series. I would also suggest looking at the section below this one, as I do list out several reasons to revert this page to that version 72.203.118.154 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision instead of removal
1. For the record, I am not against removing fancruft and original research; Drmies' example above was a perfect example of this page being guilty of it. However, I am against almost completely blanking the page.

2. The irony of this situation is that the admin who locked this page,, has recently warned another user not to blank page content. To quote them; "If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation..."
 * While talking with Ad Orientem confirmed that the warning was because Luke Starling removed the content solely because it did not interest him, my point still stands that it would be preferable to rewrite this article instead of blanking it.

3. While did explain the removal of descriptions as fancruft, unsourced, and original research, my edit that got this page locked did in fact remove all of the fancruft and original research, and added Eight sources. For comparison, here's the version before the edit war started, which does include fancruft and original research.

4. In addition to removing descriptions, several major characters were removed, particularly the main villains. I have yet to see an explanation from as to why several characters were removed along with the descriptions. Either it was a mistake and you should be mote careful, or it was malicious and it was vandalism. A list of characters fails when it omits several major characters.

5. Despite the mass removal of content, two characters do have short descriptions remaining: Wash, who has only appeared in the manga thus far, meaning he does not have a voice actor yet, and Gran Torino, who has a source. Said source is Comicbook.com, which was the site I used for 7 of the 8 sources I added.

7. Because this is both a manga and an anime, simply listing the voice actors is a horrible idea. As I mentioned earlier, several major characters may appear in one but not the other, and thus may not have voice actors.

8. Every single list of characters on Wikipedia gives some sort of context to the characters. Why should this one give absolutely no context at all? Not only is it inconsistent, but it is also unencyclopedic to have a list of characters with no context, and even less encyclopedic to completely omit several major characters.

Please seriously consider rewriting this page instead of blanking it. Thank you for your time. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , since this page is unprotected now, I would like to add that since you removed several characters from the list, you also removed Seven valid sources of voice actors confirming their roles. Additionally, rather than blanking the entire page, "Dramatic changes to an article should be discussed on the talk page first". While yes, the article was poorly sourced, the best thing to do would be to find sources (as I did before you reported me) instead of reverting my initial reversion by uncivilly saying "no thanks" in response. There is no way to build an encyclopedia if you shoot me down for finding sources. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to my points 3 and 4, when another user reinserted the missing characters in their unencyclopedic form, I revised those to have as little fancruft as possible. Your next edit removed all of the characters along with their descriptions. You explained why you removed any sort of context for the characters (which, per point 8, is inconsistent with literally every other page of this caliber, and would be more comprehensive and encyclopedic if the descriptions were rewritten and sourced like this edit that rewrote some descriptions to be one sentence and this one that also restored several characters who were removed without explanation instead of completely gone), but not the removal of the characters. I expected an explanation for the removal of those characters, but you have constantly been dodging every time I have asked why you removed valid information. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on blanking of content
Earlier today you protected List of My Hero Academia characters because me and were involved in an edit war because he was blanking material on the page, some of which was sourced directly from voice actors of the series, and others that could simply remove original research instead of being blanked. Later, he reported the article to be protected, despite the fact that I almost completely rewrote the article instead of undoing his edits. Because of what you said to about blanking articles without explanation above, I'm genuinely curious on what the policy on unexplained blanking and page rewrites are.

By the way, if this breaks WP:FORUMSHOP, I'll stop. I don’t want to bring discussion about that specific page to your talk, but I do want to know what the policies on blanking and rewriting whole articles are for future reference. If it is preferable to blank an article rather than rewrite it, I will try not to repeat that mistake. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take another look at the article shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I am very grateful that you will take another look. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. After looking at this again it appears that there has been some heavy editing going on that started around the 16th instant. A lot of what follows is somewhat confusing but the general rule of thumb is that when edits are challenged the next stop is the talk page. This is covered in WP:BRD. In this instance, given the very substantial nature of the edits a discussion was probably going to be inevitable. The difference between this situation and the one on my talk page to which you alluded, is that the editor in that case was blanking large sections of well sourced material from a long stable article/list, apparently for the sole reason that it did not interest him. This after I had twice reached out to them. So yeah, their behavior was manifestly disruptive and I found it necessary to issue a strongly worded warning. In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here. That said the operative guideline is BRD. That means that a discussion needs to happen and WP:CONSENSUS sought before the challenged edits are restored, in whole or part. With this now clarified I am going to go ahead and lift the page protection. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for addressing my concerns. Words can not express my relief. Best regards... 72.203.118.154 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Separate question, but, who was the other party of this debate, has not contributed to this discussion since the page was protected, despite being online several times. What would the outcome be if he does not contribute anymore? My edit was revising the page to a similar version of how it was for Six years, but his edit is how the page currently is. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked at the edit history. While I do not believe the character descriptions should be blanked, character description pages (especially for series as popular as My Hero Academia) tend to be subject to WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAN. I would approve of character details if they were properly sourced by secondary sources (NOT episodes/chapters of the series as this is subject to trivia). With that said, I would not list plot details of what happens to the characters -- that's what the episode and chapter summary pages are for. lullabying (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest looking at this edit, which did in fact remove most of the original research before the page was blanked again. I also added secondary sources from Comicbook.com, if that's reliable. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a small example, would this version break WP:FAN? The previous version before the blanking included long winded sentences describing their appearances, and another two on their abilities, including specific strengths and weaknesses. This version is just one sentence on their abilities' general purposes. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A separate page for Izuku?
So a short time back, I wrote a draft article on Izuku, which got rejected over a month ago, mostly since it's intent was to be a spin off the main character page. It's taken me a while to get around to creating this discussion, so now I would like to hear, (well, not really hear, this is text), from you guys on whether or not if Izuku is worthy enough to get his own separate article. Personally, I think it would be a good idea, since (like one of the other discussions mentioned) MHA has practically reached mainstream status and that Deku is a pretty well known character at this point, like Spike Spiegel or Ash Ketchum, so it would be fitting to see also see an article on him. I also feel that there is a decent amount of information on him that could be mentioned in a separate article, although it would have to be found first.

Concluding, I would like to see from you guys whether or not a separate page for Izuku would be a good idea or a bad idea, (I also wouldn't mind looking at your opinions on my draft, and maybe see what could be improved), and if you think it is a bad idea, i'd like to see your opposing argument on why. In the meantime, i'll try and edit the draft article a bit more when I got some spare time. PeteStacman24 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , wow sorry for not realizing there was a draft for Izuku to have a separate page. I was too busy fighting to retain basic descriptions on this page that I didn't even realize your draft existed. I think your draft is well-written and well-sourced, and the subject is notable enough. I’d say splitting a separate page for Izuku is good, especially with how well-written the draft currently is. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129's repeated mass removals of content
I thought we’d be done with this edit war by now, but here we are. Every time I think we’re done with this garbage, there’s another mass removal of content month later, and I want this to be the last time we ever have this discussion.

They have constantly been removing content from this page, claiming to be removing fancruft, original research, and unsourced content, but in reality removing almost every single description below every characters voice actors. The content removed in each edit, while it does include fancruft and some unsourced content, rarely includes original research, and also still removes some sourced content. Now, I have no issue with removing fancruft (I myself have done so several times), but I do have a major problem with removing almost every single character description, and even more of a problem that their supposed reason for their actions does not match up with their actual actions. Another thing is that rather than removing all of the content altogether, I see no reason to not find sources instead of removing 30 kilobytes all the time. I know I'm not alone on thinking that this mass removal of content, while in good faith, removes far too much. Not including my previous IP's, several other edits by other users have reverted the mass removals. I'd also like to bring up a point I learned from another previous IP address on a content dispute from a few years ago. Two quotes stood out to me the most:


 * "Having this info here acts like a mini-history section. If we just got rid of it, then we're just left with a table of fighters without any real context." and "All of the sentences mentioned (except for the Subspace one) are informative and useful to someone with no video game or Smash experience, and are a good summary."

In short, having little bits of information on these types of articles is important, and removing the info also takes away most of the context behind the list; otherwise, it would just be a list without any substance, and thus wouldn't warrant a page. However, the last thing I want for this page is for it to be deleted over an edit war, as lists of characters for popular tend to have their own pages, especially for a series with as many characters as this one. Another thing is that most lists of characters tend to have descriptions, even if very short, and to have this one be specifically targeted for repeated mass removals with explanations that don't match the actions, as well as refusal to source the content instead of removing it, is frankly frustrating. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you are the same Californian crufter as the IP who tried to complain at ANI about me, but was instead forced to apologise for wasting my time? Yes, yes you are. Please stop adding unsourced original research, cruft and bloat. I'd be happy, personally, to go through the reverts with a tooth-comb, but I've already done that a couple of times, so the only tool left is the blunt hammer of mass-removal. Unfortunately, you cannot be trusted to allow any removal of material stand, so I suspect we shall have to suspend anymous editing from this page—possibly for a lengthy duration. Cheers, ——  Serial  12:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated multiple times, I have zero issue with removing bloat and unsourced content. In fact, I believe I have linked multiple edits showing myself removing large amounts of cruft, just not 29 kilobytes of it. I do, however, have a major issue with removing mass amounts of content leaving the page with essentially nothing. Original research stating a characters' personality is definitely what I'd consider cruft, but not entireties of character descriptions. As I stated multiple times. I am getting extremely tired of your refusal to choose a rewrite of the page instead of a mass removal, your complaining to multiple admins about false vandalism, and even more tired of you labeling me as a crufter when I have shown myself to be against it. Cheers, 72.219.72.215 (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that you removed the header "Heroes" under "U.A. High School", two entirely separate categories of characters in the series, as well as the character on the top, with no explanation. Serial Number 54129, you did a similar thing in January, where in addition to removing descriptions claiming them to be fancruft, you also removed several characters with no explanation, and stayed silent when you asked about this specific question. I would like to hear an explanation, instead of you ghosting me again while you get away with indefinitely protecting this page so you can get your way. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The content that should be reinserted

 * The header "Heroes" under "U.A. High School", and the character Endeavor: both of these were removed without explanation, and I don't think I need to explain why these should be reinserted. The adult heroes unaffiliated with the main school are a major subcategory of characters that deserve to be separated, and Endeavor is one of the main characters. Excluding a main character from a list of characters doesn't make sense.


 * Short descriptions under each characters' names and voice actors: Again, I don't think I should have to explain this, but apparently I have to. A good example of a well-written list of characters is List of Star Wars characters. It has the characters' name, an actor if they have any, and a short description about who the character is. While I admit that some of the content was cruft, such as listing every characters' superpowers, complete removal of content is inconsistent with almost every single list of characters I could find. Not having short descriptions under each character ultimately hurts the readability of the page, no matter how crufty the content originally was. Additionally, said descriptions were being removed as "original research", which is not true, as most of the content that used to be on this page is directly stated within both the manga and the anime. I can understand if they are seen as fancruft, but no, they are not original research, and even then, removing all the character descriptions goes beyond just fancruft, and completely destroys the readability of the page.


 * Sources for some plot points: A good example of a sourced plot summary for characters would be either the few that were not removed, or the one under Eijiro Kirishima, which was removed without explanation. While better sources could be found besides comicbook.com, again, not every single plot point from what I've seen on most pages is sourced. Given the contentious nature of this page, some extra sources would have to be found to keep it from getting mass-removal again. Would directly linking a chapter from the manga work?

72.219.72.215 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly the removal of the "Other Hero schools" category and most characters under the "Class 1-B" category: Simply put, besides maybe three characters, most of these characters are minor, and probably not neccessary to list if this page is to be rewritten. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for plot
It should be noted that plot summaries in articles about works of fiction are generally considered to be implicitly sourced to the work itself, and as long as no analysis o0r synthesis  is done, but only elements of the plot that any reader/listener/viewer can understand are reported, secondary sourcing (while possibly useful) is not required.

MOS:PLOT says:

Thus removal of plot elements as unsourced is probably not appropriate. That does not justify excessive length of undue weight for plot summery, however. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Question: the original page listed each characters' superpowers as the only part/majority of their description, as in some cases, that is their only notable attribute. Does that count as undue weight if it is their only notable attribute? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no general answer to that, . That is a judgement call to be made on each such article. But in general a one or two sentence description of a character which almost any reader/viewer would accept as accurate would be appropriate for an entry in a list of characters, in my view, and most such lists include such descriptions. Judgement calls such as "most important figure in the story" would require a cited secondary source, as a rule. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * the thing is, that was exactly the type of content that was on the page before removed most of the descriptions. Even objective facts directly stated by the manga and/or the anime were removed as "original research", despite being directly stated. In that case, would I have permission to add the descriptions back in once I get autoconfirmed, so long as they don't include things like the characters' personality, unconfirmed specifics on the characters' abilities, or ambiguous plot points? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't put it in terms of what you have "permission" to do. Any editor in good standing may add to any article content that the editor thinks in good faith improves the articles, if it complies with our policy an guidelines, unless consensus to the contrary exists in a particular case. The article talk page is the place to form such a consensus one way or the other. One editor's view, however experienced, is not a consensus. If one editor makes an edit, and another editor disagrees, the 2nd editor may revert the first. If the first editor does not accept that, the bold, revert, discuss cycle should be followed, with discussion moving to the talk page, not a sequence of back-and-forth reverts. If two editors cannot agree, wider views must be sought. Third Opinion is good for one-vs-one differences, and it need not wait until you are autoconfirmed. Also, page protection should not normally be used to solve content disputes between good-faith editors.
 * It is correct that once you are autoconfirmed (account at least 4 days old, with at least 10 edits) the semi-protection will not prevent you from editing this article. But please do consider the reasons given fro removing content previously. I tis often the case that fans of a work include far more detail in an article than properly belongs there, aka "cruft". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note also that protection was applied by, (not by ) who I know somewhat and who has an excellent reputation. It may well be that she had reasons I am not fully aware of, but it also may be that she did not fully consider the degree to which the original work is an implicit source for some plot descriptions. Perhaps GorillaWarfare will care to comment here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I talked to her from before I made an account, and from what she told me, it's because the content was being warred back and forth by multiple users, rather than saying because she had any opinion on the article. If there was something I missed, as well as why 's version was the one restored despite going against MOS:PLOT, then yeah an explanation would help. To be fair, this page was also frequently vandalized, so the protection was probably coming anyways. I give my thanks to both of you. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct, I applied the protection to try to put an end to the edit warring and encourage those involved to discuss their preferred version before applying the changes to the page. Thank you, Unnammed anon, for the willingness to discuss and collaborate that you've shown so far. I have no real opinion on which content should be restored or not; I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm not particularly familiar with the show and so I doubt I could adequately assess what is relevant to plot/character details without that context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also do not know this particular work, and have only quite limited knowledge of anime in general. My comments above are based on general practices here in writing about works of fiction, which I have done a fair amount of, but mostly about written fiction. Local consensus has considerable room for judgement in how much or how little to include before reaching the limits of guidelines. But one editor's edits do not automatically set consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , when you say that one editor's edits do not automatically make a consensus, are you talking about repeatedly removing content from the page and refusing to contribute to the discussion despite being pinged, or as a warning to me to not add the content back in until more input is given? Unnamed anon (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a general remark, but both applications have some merit. The edits that Serial Number 54129 without discussion her do not establish a consensus that such content does not belong in the article, and if you were to re-insert some of it, that would not establish a consensus for inclusion. Above all, I do not want to restart an edit war. If you choose to re-insert content, please be sure that it is clearly appropriate. If there is any question about it being supported directly by the work itself, then please find and cite a proper reliable source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that the info has been reverted,, please discuss the info instead of repeatedly making bold edits. Per and, the material is a source itself. You keep calling the info original research, but I don’t think you fully understand what it means. Original research is info that is not directly stated by the material. Everything you are removing is. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this edit you removed a great deal of content. In the subsequent edit summery you described the removed content as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Given that this was a reversion, it seems all too likely to restart the edit war that was stopped before by semi-protection. I could wish that you had discussed first, but here we are. Would you please provide a bit more detail on why you think this content does not belong in the article?
 * you described this content as being sourced, implicitly, to the actual work, as we had discussed. Since Serial Number 54129 disagrees and objects to this, can you explain in a bit more detail just where in the work these details can be found. If there are too many to do at once, please start with a few. While the work can be a source, on challenge an editor still needs to specify whore the info comes from. And if there are any useful secondary sources (the work itself is a primary source) please identify them if possible.
 * To be clear, i have no view on the merit of these content changes. I have not watched this series. I am merely attempting to avoid a further edit war, and uphold Wikipedia policy and guidelines. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With how many episodes and chapters this series has, and how spread out the info is across the material, I can not give it all. However, most of what remains on this page is simply the characters’ superpowers (as in some cases, it is their only real character trait, or if not, definitely one of their main ones), which are all directly stated, and I can give a few examples right now. The superpowers for the characters Katsuki Bakugo, Ochako Uraraka, Tenya Iida, Shoto Todoroki, Mezo Shoji, and Yuga Aoyama are all directly stated in season 1 episodes 5 and 6. The superpowers of Tsuyu Asui, Minoru Mineta, Kyoka Jiro, Momo Yaoyorozu, and Denki Kaminari are directly stated in season 1 episodes 10 and 11. For Eijiro Kirishima, Tetsutetsu Tetsutetsu, and Fumikage Tokoyami, it is directly stated in Season 2 episode 3. For Fatgum, Suneater, and Ryukyu, their superpowers are directly stated in Season 4 episode 5. I don’t remember every single episode where their superpowers were mentioned, and some characters have not appeared in the anime yet, but were these examples specific enough, or do I need to do something else? Thank you, . I don’t appreciate your aspersion that I’m bulshitting the admins. Please assume good faith. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is at least a start. Let's see what Serial Number 54129 has to say, if anything. In some cases a ref to a TV show can be as specific as so many minutes and seconds into the broadcast. I could wish we had some additional views here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some items:
 * Ochaco Uraraka Where does this come from?
 * Tenya Iida Where does this come from? In particulart is it directly stated that he is "inspired by his older brother"?
 * Shōto Todoroki Where is this stated?
 * Momo Yaoyorozu
 * All the above statements are in addition to the listed superpowers and are on your list of characters above. Are these satatemetns sourced to the same episodes? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about details I missed. The statement regarding Ochako calling Izuku that name out of affection is stated in the same episode I believe, but the others are all different episodes. For Tenya Iida, that statement is a reference to season 2 episode 17 I believe (I haven’t seen the whole series, so I might be an episode or two off, but I can link to a video of the scene referenced by the statement). The statement regarding Shoto and Momo being recommended students is in Season 1 episode 8 while Shoto being the son of Endeavor (a main character being persistently removed by SN without explanation) is first stated in Season 2 Episode 2. The fact about Momo being rich is first stated in season 2 episode 21, and her being elected as vice president was season 1 episode 9. As for your wish for additional views, I made a section for this particular edit war on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, if that helps. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not believe that the content restored in this diff is fan cruft or anything of the sort. This anime appears to have lots of minor characters and interactions between those characters, like mini arcs. I admittedly have not seen the show, but giving an even somewhat description of who the character is, their powers, and maybe slightly more background should not be an issue. I also note that Serial Number has not commented on this page at all to explain themselves. They should not revert, given that their edit was the bold edit in the otherwise stable version. There's no second R in WP:BRD, and they should have came to the talk to hopefully gather a more complete consensus, rather than continuing to revert. The claim that it is WP:SYNTH or original research is not supported under Wikipedia policy, only claims that are ambiguous need to be sourced for fictional material, per MOS:PLOT. Tutelary (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving this discussion the extra input it needs, and for confirming my suspicions that the claims that the content removed was fancruft or original research were not supported by the Wikipedia policies. Question: is is possible to place a partial block (i.e., prevent them from editing this specific page, but allowing them to edit any other page due to them otherwise being a decent contributor) on  for the persistence of their reversions? They have been reverting to the same version every month since May, and have done this dame mass removal since January under the exact same claims that it is “fancruft” or “original research@ each time without any discussion since January. Even despite the discussion done by other users on the talk page that the content is not original research and that the material is a primary source, they have still persistently removed content for unsupported reasons. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that this dispute has been going on for quite a long time--at least May of 2020, it would benefit from a 3rd party mediator to discuss the issues at hand. I may or may not involve myself in the dispute resolution linked but either way, I believe it would be beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, and , now that the DRN thread has been closed after me and SN went on an uncivil back-and-forth, now what? I know Serial Number will be back to mass removal with more refusal to discuss in a few weeks, and will likely request this page be fully protected after I revert it again. What should be done? I don’t want to have to keep reverting their reversions. They threatened me to not ping them again after disengaging from the DRN thread, they clearly have no interest in contributing to this talk page, and they asked for me to be blocked when I mistakenly made an Arbcom thread. They have casted aspersions of me “bulshitting innocent admins”, and claim that they are absolutely in the right in their “policy-based approach”and that I have no idea what I’m doing. Does a warning need to be sent to Serial Number for uncivil behavior, refusal to discuss, and breaking BRD? I’m very scared of this user. I’m worried that I’ll be wrongfully blocked or this page will be wrongfully fully protected because one party refused to refute claims that their edits break Wikipedia standards. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but The info was also mass removed by Drmies, who also claimed that the info was unverifiable. What the hell do I do now? I discussed it on the talk page, the other party refuses to, and another admin has done the same mass removal despite the fact that other users are working towards a consensus. They also keep mentioning “cruft” and don’t seem to realize that efforts were made to actually remove cruft. I can verify the statement that Drmies said was unverifiable in his edit summary, as it was explicitly mentioned in season 2 episode 13. That statement wasn’t vague, it was explicitly mentioned. Unnamed anon (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a proper RfC, and I advise you to remove the RfC template and restore the section header. An RfC starts with a neutral description of an issue, and follows with one or more questions about the issue. Editors respond to this, and with luck a consensus on the nanswer or answers emerges. see WP:EFC for details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies has a point here. The descriptions of powers may be simple facts, sourcable to the underlying work itself. Statements like do seem interpretive. I doubt that the series contains a direct statement on that point.

I would suggest proceeding one character at a time, with source citations to the specific episodes where particular powers or characteristics are described, and minute/second citing, using Cite AV media for any detailed characteristics, or else finding and citing secondary sources that interpret the character.

Personally, I dislike the term "cruft". It is intentionally disparaging, and what is cruft to one person is an essential detail to another. There is no good way to draw a line between encyclopedic detail and "cruft", however the best possible line would be the mention of a given detail in reliable secondary sources, this helps establish its real-world significance.

Or you could start a proper RfC on the question. The current imitation is of no value, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be replying to you (note: to you) tomorrow, UTC, on this matter. ——  Serial  17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , is the new rfc template better? Also, about the interpretive statement, while I agree that it could be worded better, it was explicitly stated in the material itself, and statements like that are very few on this page. I’ll make sure to cite episodes/chapters for some of the more detailed statements when I add the info back in. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: I’d like to reiterate that I have no issue with removal of either fancruft or original research, and if Serial or Drmies points me to any specific piece that was not explicitly mentioned by either the manga or the anime, I will gladly remove it. I do, however, have an issue with calling the info unverifiable when the statements are explicitly stated in the material. There may be unencyclopedic content that I missed, and that’s fine, but there should still be some substance to this page to be consistent with other character lists. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't put an RFV template at the head of an existing discussion. You start a new section with an RFC template, followed by a neutral description of the issue, a formulation of the question or questions you want to ask (also as neutral as possible) and then allow editors to express their views. You can express yours, and try to be as persuasive as possible in the discussion section, but the heading should be neutral. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Serial Number 54129 you can address me at any time you please. If here, please ping me. If you chose to post on my user talk page, no need to ping of course. I am not pinging you because you have indicated that you are annoyed by excessive pings on this matter recently and it is clear that you are alert to this page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the below RFC neutral enough? Apologies for screwing up the first two times. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on whether basic character descriptions are allowed and if they require secondary sources

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

There has been persistent disruptive editing that includes mass deletion and reinsertion of short character descriptions. One party claims that the character descriptions break WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, while the other party claims that all the descriptions currently on the page can be directly sourced to the anime/manga itself (thus not breaking any of the policies linked) and is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Are basic character descriptions such as the ones in the current version of the article acceptable? Unnamed anon (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

 * I added the closest two categories to the RfC.  --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 23:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC) (Fixed template at 23:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC))
 * please take the issue to this talk page instead of reverting the edits, so that we may reach a consensus that the content belongs on this page. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Include list To be clear, I am talking about the content contained in this diff. A list of characters should -not- be a page of simple character names and who played each part. The very basic, simple description of each character's name, their power, and perhaps some of their bio is appropriate is relevant and quite encyclopedic. It is not considered fancruft. We are not writing paragraphs upon paragraphs of text speculating on whether or not they have X personality. We giving the base, succinct description of the character in this anime which has many, many characters. No other list is subjected to this type of treatment, see Lists_of_fictional_characters_by_work. All of them pretty much have varying levels of description, some more detailed than others for their character bio's. The same should be for this page. I acknowledge that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it truly seems as this standard is only applied to this specific page. Per MOS:PLOT Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. | I do not have WP:V or original research concerns because the media -is- the source for the basic character details. The key word is basic, and I truly consider the content contained in the diff for each character to be basic. And if someone thinks that the information is not basic? We can discuss that here. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would like to request that users new to this discussion also look at this diff as well, as the diff linked did in fact contain a little bit of cruft (which is precisely why Drmies mass removed the content according to his edit summary), though still not enough to remove 24 more kilobytes of basic description and hold this page to a different standard than other lists of characters. Thank you very much Tutelary for your comments. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot) There is actually a bundle of questions within the RFC and discussion. The thing to sort out is if policy requires exclusion. There I don't see "primary source" as the main question. It looks like the strongest question / concern is that the material leans too far towards being interpretive / creative / commentary by the Wikipedia editor. I don't know enough to answer that question but I put a lot of stock in Drmie's opinion on that. But if it turns out that it's OK from a policy perspective, then the question becomes opinion on whether it's a good thing to have in the article. IMO the answer on that third question is yes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you look at the most recent diff? I acknowledge that there were in fact several interpretive statements in this article, and those interpretive statements have been removed. Thank you for your comment on this matter. The main thing now is whether character descriptions in general are allowed on this page, as those have been persistently removed. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that a particular diff is a good example of the question involved, great, please provide it. Also, I don't see it in the history nor the RFC wording that the question is simply whether or not short descriptions are allowed. I don't see any removals where the basis was that character description are not allowed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your requests. The question about the most recent diff was a question on if the current version was acceptable in removing interpretive statements but keeping character descriptions and cruft intact. The diff I believe to be a good example of what the page should be is the current version right now, but in case it is changed in any way removed again, This diff is the one that I believe to be a good example of an acceptable page, as previous diffs done by me removed interpretive statements and cruft while keeping character descriptions intact.
 * In the RFC header, the first question is RFC on whether basic, short, character descriptions require secondary sources, is what was intended as the question if basic character descriptions are allowed. If it turns out that was not the question that I was conveying, I’m sorry, I tend to not explain things properly by mistake, and I added that question to the header. About your question about the question being present in the editing history, it is |in this edit summary by.
 * Also, while no edit summaries have been claiming that basic character descriptions are not allowed, they were removed due to being claimed as fancruft, original research, and unverifiable, but also removed entireties of character descriptions without further elaboration in this edit, and was persistently reverted to the same edit here, here, here, here, and here. While not directly stated that character diffs are not allowed, the latter 6 diffs show that the other party does not want them. IMO, the content did include a lot of fancruft, but the mass removal of character descriptions was both unexplained and unjustified, and I believe that the claims of original research were false (hence the second, or now third, question in the header, thank you for giving your answer for that) which is why multiple edits by me removed what I considered cruft/original research while keeping the character descriptions intact. Thank you for your input on this discussion, it really helps to have another neutral party. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, and , this diff to a separate page is probably a good example of my intentions for this page in one diff rather than linking 20 smaller diffs from this page: removal of all fancruft and original research, but keeping short, basic descriptions of each character intact. Also, read ’s comment above about MOS:PLOT. To Serial Number 54129 and Drmies, character descriptions should remain intact in some way to be consistent with other lists of characters, as well as per MOS:PLOT, they are considered implicitly sourced to the work of fiction, or at least remove only the parts that are crufty/interpretive rather than entire swaths of succinct descriptions with no elaboration, and please do not assume bad faith of the other side. To Exukvera, the character descriptions should not be bloated with paragraphs of interpretations of a character’s personality or relationships, and should also not include information that is overall irrelevant to the series, and please do not label the other side’s edits as vandalism. Thank you, and I hope that we can reach a consensus soon to keep this disruptive editing from happening each month. I am done with making this about our actions, and it will now only be about the content, and in my opinion, as well as what I understand of the Wikipedia policies, character descriptions are allowed, but they must be basic and succinct. It should be a balance of the versions that it has been warred back and forth from, not either the almost blank one or the overly crufty one. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you are going to have a hard time getting others to participate here because it seems to be about many different things and for many it will be a TLDR trying to figure out exactly what they are. But, to zero in on the beginning of your last response, my opinion is that short, factual descriptions such as seen in a quick overview of the version of the article at this moment has are fine. And IMHO, for this type of thing primary sourcing is OK for this. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you North8000 for your suggestion that the header was too long for new participants to understand; it has now been shortened. Last thing I’ll add here before another editor gives their input (This part is not a reply to North8000, but an important part of the my argument I forgot), is to refute ’s claim that this content does not follow WP:V. That is definitely a legitimate worry, but I can prove that it does not break that core policy. "What counts as a reliable source: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book), The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". As an anime/manga, all of the content on this page fits under the work itself, or in a few cases includes sources from confirmations by the creator of the material (which were notably some of the few descriptions not removed during the mass removals); as mentioned by several users, the work itself works fine as a primary source (if there does need to be citations of specific chapters or episodes, then perhaps someone who has remembers what happens when in this series can add those); and as mentioned several times before, all text cited to be interpretive, as well as more content that I considered to be not notable, have now been removed ever since restored the content. Serial Number, please, drop the stick, avoid repeated arguments, and stop mass removing content from this page without discussion. Even an IP who doesn’t edit disagrees with your mass removal without proper explanation. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with having a short description of a character, as it is very much like a plot. But there would need to be consensus on that description.  Perhaps there is policy that says otherwise, but I am not familiar with it.  Are there examples and/or counter-examples of this? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the content was being removed because according to Serial Number 54129, basic descriptions of characters break WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V. As a counterexample, according to me and Exukvera, all of the descriptions currently on the page can be directly sourced to the anime/manga itself, and thus we believe they do not break any of the policies Serial Number has been linking, and like you mentioned, is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Neither me nor Serial are willing to listen to each other, so thanks for giving your input. Are those what you mean by examples/counterexamples? Unnamed anon (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad it is helpful. Are those what you mean by examples/counterexamples? No.  I mean something other than this page, say Sesame Street and its characters, or any one of numerous other programs that have fictitious (or real) characters. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked List of Sesame Street muppets, and yeah that has the characters name and performer (which were left intact by Serial Number) and descriptions (which were persistently being removed each month). Same with List of Star Wars characters, List of The Simpsons characters, List of Family Guy characters, and more pages that would be too long for me to list. The ones I could find that don’t have descriptions are either of irl people, such as List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants, or because the characterizations of them vary in each of their appearances, such as List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Another common similarity with the descriptionless character lists is that most of them link to standalone pages for individual characters, which is not the case for this page. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and , are the secondary sources for plot I added in here acceptable? For example, sourcing a plot detail with a review of an episode or chapter of some sort? 03:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I think the article right now is in a good state. Tutelary (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A published work is the most reliable source for its own content, so a secondary source is not needed for basic character description (which, yes, is a normal feature to include). Like anything else, consensus may conclude a particular description is or is not accurate.  The main pitfall in material like this (also applies to plot summaries, etc.) is injection of WP:OR in the form of an editor's own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis.  Anything of that nature needs to come from a reliable secondary source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . Really late to the punch, but I think the RFC should be refactored into something more concrete, as what was the "current version" on August 26 has more likely than not already been changed multiple times and I can't be bothered to go through the article's history to see all the revisions done to it since that time. I would suggest proposing the elements that each character should contain at most. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for both clarifications. Thanks for clarifying to me for a third time that the published work is a source itself (which disproves the reason of the initial removals that the content was unsourced), and for clarifying a second time that secondary sources are a normal thing for these articles, which is why I added them in. I always understood that a common problem with these articles is insertion of original research, and I won't deny that this article has has some history of that, but the problem was that almost all character descriptions were completely removed despite being directly stated in the published work, and despite the addition of 5 secondary sources between that reversion and that currently-inactive user's previous edits to this page. As almost 20 secondary sources have been added in since their August reversions, I am hoping that this will no longer be a problem if they decide to return.
 * you're suggestion is already being done. As Tutelary says, The very basic, simple description of each character's name, their power, and perhaps some of their bio is appropriate is relevant and quite encyclopedic. Still, thanks for the suggestion. The only major changes between August 26 and now have been the insertion of secondary sources and removal of actual original research (and not Serial Number's extremely broad definition of it). Unnamed anon (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Side comment: It may be constructive to look at featured articles and featured lists on works of fiction (in any genre/medium) to see how they are handling this. Some will provide very concise basic char. summaries (either in a list of them or as part of entries in a cast list; or integrated into the plot summary), and these usually will not depend on secondary sources.  But some will have very rich character description/analysis, which will cite secondary sources (literary journals, in-depth reviews, author interviews, etc.), because that's WP:AEIS material that exceeds what the work itself states directly and unequivocally about the characters.  It's probably easiest to get at these articles via WP:Featured content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Meta-discussion about visibility and/or venue
You might consider taking this to a noticeboard. If you do, ping everyone who responded here, especially if the removals are still going on. If you do I would politely ask the person removing the descriptions to stop until a ruling is made. You might try WP:AN/I. What do you think? I am asking you because you and I seem to agree this little RfC doesn't have visibility to give the feedback we need. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually did try taking this to both the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and Arbcom before doing this RFC. Arbcom obviously was a bad idea, since there was no case to follow. On DRN, it degenerated into a back-and-forth uncivil exchange of me and Serial Number 54129 assuming bad faith from each other, as well as the fact that there wasn’t enough recent discussion at the time. In fact, it was under the suggestion of Robert McClennon to do an RFC when he closed he DRN thread. I am already planning to do ANI if Serial Number 54129 mass removes the descriptions again; I even have a draft of my report in my notes app. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you followed 's advice. The problem is this RfC is not well advertised.  Unfortunately, the notification service (WP:FRS) handled by  has probably not notified enough editors, so you are not getting much feedback. [I believe the only people who responded to the FRS were me, North8000, and .] It might be worth asking the person who wrote the bot,, how you might go about notifying more uninvolved editors who want to know about an RfC like this.  If you haven't, you should advertise it at appropriate Wiki groups related to media, including film.   Given how long this has already run, and how little feedback you have gotten so far, it might be better to restart it at a more centralized place per North8000--possibly at one of those projects, or the talk page of the policy regarding plot.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Added subsection title, "Meta-discussion about visibility and/or venue" above, and if there is no objection to it, I will rewind the top comment to no indentation, and adjust subsequent comments accordingly. Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , another thing you might consider: withdrawing this Rfc, and starting another. Advantages: you get a clean start, with a simple Rfc statement, you can ping everyone back here and link to this discussion on the same page, and the bot will see the new Rfc and (hopefully) send messages about it. Also, it's better to have the discussion here, and just link to it from a messageboard (and WikiProjects, and WT:WAF) if you need wider visibility. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , regarding your latest edit to the Rfc header, that's not actually what I meant, I meant to remove the rfc header from this section, start a new section below, and add a brand new Rfc header there. I'm not sure what effect your edit will have: it looks like you might end up having two Rfc headers sharing the same content, probably not what you want. I'm not sure how to advise you at this point, either pull the headers and start a new section, or if you wish, go to WT:RFC, post a message there linking back here, and ask for assistance from folks who deal with this stuff everyday. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Adjusted indent flush-left. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Commented out Rfc header. Current situation is too confusing. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I imagine you have a RL and are off busy with it, so much the better; but this is going to be too confusing to leave like this, so I've commented out the Rfc header in this edit, until you decide how you want to proceed. This is tantamount to withdrawing the Rfc, which I shouldn't really be doing since I didn't start it, but the current situation is too confusing. Feel free to undo revision 978119729‎ if you wish to proceed with the double Rfc header, but I don't recommend it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the original rfc header (the one that RedRose64 and I dream of horses edited to add the media tag), but kept the one I added yesterday, so that there would not be 2 rfc headers. I do understand what you mean by withdrawing this rfc and starting a new one now, but I personally feel as if creating a new section will just consist of copied text, as well as making new participants unable to see Tutelary, North8000, and David Tornheim’s comments on the matter, making this become even more confusing than it already is, as it would imply that the original one had a full consensus. Thank you for your suggestion though. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Understood; thanks for the explanation. Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Status quo. Nothing actionable is needed here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(._. I really need to update tomura’s skills for my other phone
(•-• please allow me to edit his skills and abilities Zapp kun (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can make an edit request here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu what edit requiest 185.242.190.185 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu what edit requiest 185.242.190.185 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Arigathankyou tenryuu-kun •~•)/ Zapp kun (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Zapp kun heeeeeeeeeeeee 185.242.190.185 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request over here

 * -;) I ( Zapp_kun) request to hereby edit tomura shigaraki’s info. To help fellow rp’er’s be aware of all his skills ,abilities and attitudes Zapp kun (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED yet. Please also acquaint yourself with the earlier discussions about what should go in a character's entry. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

•~•) honestly .I think each character really should have their own page so when people search for them it’ll be easier and more convenient @Tenryuu  Zapp kun (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless they're notable under Wikipedia's guidelines, that won't be happening. You may be looking for something more along the lines of the BNHA Fandom wiki. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

._.) I see...yet there are those who rely on Wikipedia because they do not have data so I speak as one of them and therefore I still suggest such Zapp kun (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * unfortunately going into too much detail about a character's abilities and attitudes will inevitably lead to all of the character descriptions being mass removed for the ninth time, and short descriptions do their job much more effectively than long ones in my opinion even without the risk of the descriptions being nuked. About each character having their own page, the answer is also unfortunately no. The only character with sufficient notability for a separate article is Deku, and that draft is still a work in progress that you may work on if you'd like to. If you do add in the info about Shigaraki on this page that you wish to add, I may have to revert you if you do not give a secondary source in your edit, not because the info isn't true, but because I don't want to risk all of the descriptions being removed for the ninth time this year. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oof ~ I see anon ...tis unfortunate.I wish ‘twas never like this.welp anon .may Y’all at least just summarize shigaraki’s skills Zapp kun (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Shigaraki's "skills" are already summarized sufficiently, as the article states that he murdered his family with his original quirk and received all for one eventually. If what you plan to add to this article is anything like this, this is something Wikipedia calls WP:FANCRUFT, and unfortunately is not allowed due to bloating the article with content that somebody not immersed in the series would call uninteresting. Like I said; even without the risk of the character descriptions being mass deleted for being fancruft, sometimes going into less detail makes the article more effective. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

-- I noticed that kanji of Todoroki Touya's name was wrong — instead of 轟燈矢, it says 轟焦凍, which is Todoroki Shouto's name. I hope someone will edit it soon. Yanfreak (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu donnnnnn eeee 185.242.190.185 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Touya todoroki theory
Should the touya todoroki theory really be considered on this wiki page ¿ Zapp kun (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a theory anymore, so yes. That's why there is a secondary source confirming that it is in fact real. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

asking again for Izuku Midoriya spinoff article?
I asked before but since it hasn't gotten much attention, I might as well ask again (since I was told to do this by the rejection letter I got). Would a separate article for Izuku Midoriya be a good idea or not? I have an imperfect draft article that is largely ready to go and another guy already wrote his own version. If we spin-off Deku so that he gets his own article, then we can talk more about than on the characters page, plus Izuku and MHA in general is very much well known at this point, so him having his own page wouldn't be alien. I don't care if it's my draft or the other guy's draft you prefer, I just want to know what you guys think on Deku (or any other MHA character) having his own official article, especially as season 5 and a third movie are just around the corner.

Thank you for your time, PeteStacman24 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's possible. Draft:Izuku Midoriya might want to get a section added on his reception outside of the medium. You might want to take a look at Subaru Natsuki or Alphonse Elric as an example of how it's structured. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , your draft is relatively free of cruft and has a decent amount of secondary sources. The only thing missing is, as Tenryuu said, a reception section. I'd say your draft is good to resubmit once you add one in. The other draft is filled with information only someone who is already familiar with the series would understand, but yours is good. The previous rejection was due to no discussion to spin off the article, so I approve of spinning it off, considering Midoriya is the protagonist of a popular manga/anime series, which makes him notable for a separate article. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to pitch in my support for Izuku getting his own article. My Hero Academia has gotten extremely popular over the last few years and I'm honestly surprised he doesn't have one already. Link20XX (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @Link20XX i v8yvohcigc8tc7tg6rc6rc 185.242.190.185 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

New Section For Sentient Quirks?
Should we give sentient Quirks their own section? Such as Dark Shadow (Tokoyami's Quirk) and Pino (from My Hero Academia: World Heroes' Mission)? They're the only two Quirks that I'm currently aware of that have their own voice actors, but voice actors still deserve recognition. And even though there's only two at the moment, there's a possibility for more - not to mention some of the sections only having a few characters (Seiai Academy and Faculty of Ketsubutsu Academy currently only have one character each). If not giving them their own section, should we include a small note that indicates the voice actor of said Quirk, if applicable? An(xiet)di (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)