Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters

Suufi?
Just where in the Rozen Maiden manga is her artificial spirit's name mentioned? Which volume? Which page? I've read volumes 1-8 and I've read no text pertaining to an artificial spirit named 'Suufi.' Kirakishou's presence is small to begin with, even in volume eight, she simply traps Shinku and Suiseiseki and attempts to steal her sisters' mediums. I've seen no mention of her artificial spirit at all, so can someone please clarify on this before listing it? 75.167.213.68 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirakishou
I've edited Kirakishou's section about these things: Her hair color is clearly light pink in Volume six's cover art; strawberry blonde doesn't even come close. Peach-pit can't be expected to mix the exact same shade of pink every time Kirakishou is colored. Also, her rose eye in the anime and manga differ in that it has some sort of base in the anime while in the manga, the rose just fills in an empty eye-socket.

http://i4.tinypic.com/4lh1211.jpg Rose Eye| http://i16.tinypic.com/54bvbjd.jpg Vol.6 Cover| --Kiyohime 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ball-jointed shoulders
There's a note about her not having ball-jointed shoulders unlike the other dolls in the anime. yet you can only see her for a few seconds, and she's wearing dress. other dolls' shoulders also look that flat (e.g. those from souseiseki or shinku). She is most likely intended to be a ball-jointed doll like all the others, yet she simply only doesn't have shoulder pads like suigintou for example. This part of the section should be removed or rewritten. — mode.ry 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barasuishou image
The image was marked for speedy deletion, though there are no other images showing what Barasuishou look like...I think it would be a wasted to delete it. Please post why it should be deleted if I am wrong. Can some one please put the picture of Barasuishou back up. It was recently deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.44.250 (talk • contribs)
 * Most of the images that were on this page were deleted as per WP:NONFREE, probably for being poorly annotated (i.e. incomplete fair-use rationale). I can try and post up some properly annotated screenshots of the rest of the characters when I have some time. —dragfyre 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kanaria
I removed the "though its effectiveness is questionable" statement from Kanaria's entry. She took on several of her sisters at once with that violin and held up pretty good to be honest. All out offensive attacker it would seem. Granted the others were holding back to talk sense into her and were shocked from the sudden assault, but then Kanaria isn't malicious and didn't want to honestly "kill" them. The violin is a deadly weapon - Kanaria herself is the factor. Nargrakhan 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Questions
Alrighty, this is bound to become complicated. Firstly, is all of the current information on this page updated? It seems as though this was created before being linked to the main Rozen Maiden page, and I'm unsure if someone did actually port all of the character information with its recent changes from the main article. Basically, does this article have those last second edits before the character list was wiped from the main article?

Secondly, now we hafta deal with two articles on the same subject. List of Rozen Maiden Characters was apparently created not so long ago, and I'm assuming that it'll have to be either deleted or merged with this. Shall we proceed to deal with it? KojieroSaske 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the most up-to-date page. The other page is redundant and needs to be redirected, which I will do now. --EmperorBrandon 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shinku's artificial spirit
Is there any reason why the primary spelling is listed as "Holi"? "Hollier" is used in Tokyopop's translation, and "Holie" is used in the fansubs. "Holi" doesn't match either of these and doesn't even sound like the Japanese, which is pronounced "Ho-lee-eh." I'm changing it to "Hollier" since that's the only official name as far as I know, but if anybody has a reason why something else might be preferred, I'm all ears. Mal Bad 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suiseiseki's master
I can't find a reference for the fact that Shibasaki was ever Suiseiseki's master, and I kind of doubt it's true. Granted she lived with him for a time, but she did that in Traumend as well, and he obviously wasn't her master then, since she make a contract with Jun. I'm removing it from her section. Please explain where the fact is coming from if you decide to put it back. Mal Bad 06:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Details
In the Nori Sakurada portion, there was a statement, "Their strange relationship may be affecting her strangely as nearing the end of the first season, she has a dream that can be interpreted as erotic, reflecting her perhaps subconscious thoughts about what Jun's inconsiderate behaviour coupled with her gentle submissiveness to it might culminate in." The only evidence for this incredibly speculative argument is in a very short scene in episode 10, in which jun merely mumbles in her sleep, and it is in my opinion simple comic relief and worthy of neither scrutiny nor mention. It might be something one would put in an essay, as an example, but I don't think it belongs on wikipedia, so I have gone ahead and removed it. When I looked in the archives, I noticed it was at least several months old, which is why I mention it here. Tsochar 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Funkelnder Schneetropfenkristall
Or rough English for sparkling Snowdrops Crystal, is the accurate German translation for Kirakishou - I acquired the translation for the Kanji from a credible source. I hereby undo the edition of Die Siebte Puppe (the Seventh doll) to this earlier version.Profet 666 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't give a German translation unless it is official, like how all of the other dolls' names were used in episode titles. The kanji translation isn't official, either. -Atashi 13:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (It's pretty accurate in case you doubt its credibility, but I shall comply with you) And speaking of German translation, in fact while I checked on the Japanese Rozen Maiden characters article, I found juxtaposed with the Japanese kanji/katakana (my new PC hates Japanese and would display monotonous squares instead of Japanese syllabaries) for Kirakishou was a German Die Siebte Puppe. Was that from the Rozen manga ? Can anyone testify to that ? The Seventh puppet is no translation for Kirakishou, but supposing Die Siebte Puppe is her German moniker no less officially than, say, Reiner Rubin is Shinku's, are you going to add it ? Profet 666 15:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd wait for some official confirmation of the name, such as a currently non-existent third season of the anime or another OVA. Also, in my opinion, the kanji for 'Kirakishou' means 'Snow Gorgeous Beautiful Crystal'. -Atashi 19:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For a last note, I think if we go by the reading my language system use for Chinese characters (our language borrows half its vocabulary, and along with that a coherent reading & translation from Chinese), we will have 'Gorgeous Snow 綺 Crystal'. And about 華 it is indeed 'gorgeous', I mistook it for the homonym 'flower'. Profet 666 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jade Stein?
That'd be jade rock, right? I think Suiseiseki's German name was Jade Stern - jade star. Lysis rationale (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the translation for "Jade Stern" is "Jade Star" (as used in the fansubs), why does the article use the name "Jade Stone" as the English translation? Is this part of the Tokyopop translation? —dragfyre 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"This article needs moar DESU"?
Should that be reported as vandalism? -Unsigned
 * If you'd like, although it's probably not worth it unless it's ongoing. It's a common meme. Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that it is worth mentioning the meme in the article? If you say it is common, it should probably be there.88.108.149.227 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bright red

 * "when Megu shows Suigintou a bouquet of bright red roses, Suigintou destroys the bouquet, indicating that she either hates roses as a whole, or that she particularly dislikes bright red roses, since Shinku uses bright red rose petals."

I am curious, is this getting a bit too imaginative? I think it's an easy enough assumption that she hates all roses (associating them with shinku). Maybe she doesn't hate white ones... but red ones definately. I wonder why 'bright' is here. Shinku's attacks are not always 'bright' and I don't see her going "oh, well these roses are more of a dull red, so I like them. Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
I notice there are pictures of all the dolls but none of the regular characters. Characters like Jun are more important to the anime than even some of the dolls so it might be valuable to show that. Tyciol (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit late I know for a reply but if you can find a free image of Jun do so as that would be great =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Character's in the manga and anime
it appears some of these characters are not necessary, like yuna. She is hardly a real character. There is also names that are used in the japanese one than the english one. Like Leplace's no ma...In the manga it has been translated as LePLace's demon, so why not mention he is mentioned as such in the manga? I believe we cann find more information on Jun or Tomoe, it does feel like the article only holds convinence to those wanting to read about the dolls more thn any other character>Bread Ninja (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should edit all the information here. it makes -people believe that the anime was the original and the manga was the adaptation when it clearly is the other way around. SO i'll edit it so it would sound like the anime was the adaptation.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quecksilber?
Can someone tell me where the name appears? I don't remember seeing it and the german version is suposed to be a translation of the original. The original is 'Mercury Lamp' and Quecksilber only means 'mercury'. If someone can confirm that Quecksilber is oficial.. Lumi-chan (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hina and Suiseseki?
Why doesn't this article talk about the relationship between Hina-Ichigo and Suiseiseki? It should be mentioned that Suiseiseki frequently picks on Hina, and Hina dislikes Suiseiseki because of it. (Additional info: Hina once drew a picture of Suiseiseki with x's for eyes. To prevent negetive comments I will leave where I found it. Rozen Maiden Traumend, episode 5 The Letter, to the far right of her picture in the begining of the episode right after the Kanaria scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.225.106 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Order discrepancy.
In the Rozen Maiden and RM: Traumend series, the order in which each Rozen Maiden was created was listed throughout several episodes. I got the impression that Hina Ichigo was the second Rozen created, with Kanaria being the first. In a particular episode, I believe it was stated that Suigintou was the sixth. If someone would like to cite the sources in which they got the present order, then that would clear up any confusion this is causing myself, and likely, many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.75.25 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

major trimming
it seems the large amount of information removal seemed to be reverted due to gramatical errors and other. I had quite a headache when editing this particular article. So how would the one who reverted fix this problem?Bread Ninja (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although i really don't see the problem...it could've been fixed with some copy-editing and re-adding some information that was necessary...i doubt my last revision did more harm than good to completely be reverted..>Bread Ninja (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps doing it section by section is much easier to track than removing it all at once. It's hard to tell the good ones from the bad if it is done in bulk, I believe. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  05:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article
This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
 * Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
 * If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Verifiability.


 * The use on the face of it looks reasonable to me (even if anime characters all look the same to me). Per WP:NFLISTS we should only show the most important characters; and with only six characters selected for images here, that appears to have been fulfilled.  If I've understood the storyline correctly, the Rozen maidens each appear in a different episode or set of episodes, so there is unlikely to be a group shot that can be screengrabbed showing them all together.  In those circumstances the current use of images on this page seems appropriate.  So, Delta, I don't see why you particularly see a problem here.  Jheald (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't. There's no attempt at a screenshot that captures many of the characters at once. Looking at this there appears to be quite a number of alternatives to choose from. The use we currently have is a per character depiction. Not surprisingly, the purpose of use on each rationale of each image are exactly the same, and show a purpose of use only being depiction/visual identification. We can do that with a cast photo. The point of using non-free content in a list like this is to provide a visual reference to the style of the series, not to provide a visual identification piece for certain characters. One such cast image will be quite sufficient to convey that meaning. These images must go, and a cast photo can be put in their place. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly a list, where there is a better replacement possible showing the style - the subject is 'List of Rozen Maiden characters' - so one image showing the style of the characters is defendable, all others are not. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also legitimate to show what the key characters look like, for identification. The key question here is whether an "official" group shot exists, as suggested by Hammersoft.  That is what I would like to have more information about, from the editors on this page who know about the franchise. Jheald (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we've established that pictures identifying characters are necessary for the article. (I agree myself.) AS for group picture, collages are treated as multiple images in copyright laws. As for pictures in which all of them appear, if they all do not appear in a single photo in one episode or in the original authorized merchandise, creating derivative works of copyrighted material (or publishing such works thereof) is probably more legally-questionable than the current situation. Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there does not need to be an 'official' group (and Hammersoft did not suggest that it should be official either), see WP:NFLISTS: An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed." - that does not say anything about official, any screenshot showing a couple of characters mentioned in the list will do. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point as I understand it was not to show the general style of the animation, the point was to show identifying images of the key characters where no group image was available, as for example images of selected particular characters might be shown in a list of characters in a live-action TV series.
 * NFLISTS requires that a group shot has to be an "official" one, not a fan-made collage or fan-made derivative work. Jheald (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jheald, that the image is not available is not a reason, it can be made - take an appropriate screen shot. That makes the individual images replaceable.  I would use the same reasoning for lists of characters in TV series.
 * Sorry, we misunderstood on the word 'official' here (I read 'official group', you meant 'official shot'), indeed, it needs to be a group-shot, not a collage or derivative work. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But there may not be such a screenshot possible, if they did not appear together. Again, this is a point where we need help from the people who actually know this franchise. Jheald (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the point, Jheald. Not all of them have to be in the screenshot, even 3 are enough.  That shows the style of the characters.  Obviously, the characters are not notable enough for an article of themselves, so there clearly is a threshold for including them, there is hence also a threshold for putting images for all of them.  And another point is: an image with all of them may exist, or may be created by the creators in the future.  The threshold is not that the image is not available NOW, the threshold is that the image may be created.  That is 'the image is replaceable', and hence, it unquestionably fails WP:NFCC.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why number is so important to all of you guys. Number is a misleading thing. It does not matter whether you extract five image of five characters from a show or an image of five characters; in doing so, you are using equal amount of creative material. (Also, in countries that respect sweat of the brow doctrine, one can assert that equal amount of time is is spent on both cases.) It confuses me: How can you guys consider using a collage of five pictures equal to five pictures but consider use of five pictures extracted from a group picture a more serious case than using that picture alone? Am I missing something? And as for not including some characters, I think they are all equally unique and equally important. The only exception is the twin sisters (one of the can be excluded) and the fake seventh doll. Fleet Command (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that you "extract five pictures from a group picture". What is being suggested is that you should simply use the single group picture.  Is that possible?  Is there a picture that shows all or most of the characters that you want to depict all together?  Jheald (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is suggesting" is not the subject of talk, dear Jheald. Overemphasis on the number is. That was just an example. But do you deny it? Or do you believe that five pictures extracted from a larger one should be treated as having the weight of one picture? Fleet Command (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See zh:薔薇少女角色列表. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @FleetCommand - no, the point is to show the whole single image with a set of people on it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No means what? You agree or disagree? Please put it clearly, Dirk: Do you agree that five pictures extract from a single group picture have a copyright worth equal to source picture or do you disagree and think these extractions are a more serious issue since 5 > 1? Fleet Command (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @FleetCommand, I was not suggesting a collage ... you are right that collages do not make a difference, I was suggesting a image showing a number of representative characters, see the link that Hammersoft gave, some are obviously collages, others are obviously group images. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... thanks for clarification but actually, I was replying to Hammersoft (when I tried to post, three edit conflicts happened -- you and Jheald). And since I couldn't tell whether Hammersoft means collage or collective shot, I covered both ends... Sorry for confusion. Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a specific image to propose? To be useful it would have to show most or all of the major characters clearly (if it didn't, it would not be a suitable replacement for individual images of these characters).  The image and its caption identifying them all could then go near the top of the article.  I don't know Rozen Maiden so well, but this Peanuts image image:Peanuts gang.png is a perfect model - in fact, Charles M. Schulz seems to be deliberately illustrating all of the major characters at the time as a group there.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, see this image, also mentioned earlier above. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'Unwound-Jun'
Certain editor seems to have different opinions bout putting his introduction. Which should it be? -- Doracake (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Un-wound and wound Jun are technically the same person. There is no reason to have two separate character info for the same character "Jun Sakurada" to confuse readers. You should put yourself in the shoes of other readers who are new to Rozen Maiden. 219.74.128.96 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be judged by what the story gives. I put them apart basically due to that both the Japanese wiki and the adaption anime "Zurückspulen" website put the two apart. And in my opinion, the "Un-wound Jun" story is only a transitional chapter of the Rozen Maiden story, and in the whole the two Juns would communicate wiith each other in different needs. It would cause even other difficulties for new readers to understand if making the together, and I don't think it's what the authors think. If you don't have further opinions and usable references, your edit would be reverted, or we should call for a third person opinion if needs. -- Doracake (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese wiki still groups it under the same Jun Sakurada, only dividing it into 2 sub-headings for the wind and un-wind version, that is also possible. Even so, the wiki is quite clear on when the young or adult Jun appears depending on which series the reader is watching. But what you are doing now, is to assume there are two different Jun, which is misleading because both of them are the same person. It also doesn't help to threaten to revert edits - 219.74.128.96 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please notice that it's a managa story. Even though they're "one person", the two Juns are "two characters" and have different roles in this story, since one is the major protagonist and the other is a supporting character. I don't mind to make it like the Ja wiki way if you agree, or as I said there should be a third opinion if both of us have equal different view. Anyone who violate the three-revert rule without discussion, the page should be protected and the editor should be prohibited. Please beware of it and complete the discussion in any article. -- Doracake (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we shall follow the Japan wiki --- 219.74.128.96 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do they share the same soul, or have different souls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.139.172 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect December 2013
No notability established, a collection of plot summaries or fancruft. Essentials have already been merged to the parent article. It can be recreated in the future if someone wants to pick it up and bring it up to decent standards but for now, should be redirected. I have also requested the Anime and Manga project to participate in this discussion. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The AfD just ended for keep though. Wait it out. Plus, I'm one of those who is interested in bringing it back up. On another note, a list article isn't deemed notable the same way articles are. You also have to consider when lists are content forks. Lucia Black (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * AFD left room for discussion about merge, which the closing admin also noted. It's been over three years and the article is in the same state. Yes, I already know about the lists notability. That's why Tales of Graces won't have a character list. As for "not enough info", the characters are practically the same in both media. The major difference, being Souseiseki's master, was already noted. We don't need to repeat the plot summaries which are covered in the other media already. If you want this article, start it from your user page. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also all the characters that appeared in the manga only and the ones that appeared in the anime. Especially since the sequel has even more characters.Lucia Black (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to dissect those characters.


 * Enju, already added
 * Shirosaki. Didn't feel he was notable enough but I can merge to Laplace
 * Shibasakis. Having only appeared in 2 episodes is not enough to justify them a mention.
 * Yamamoto-kun background characther
 * Sarah Non-canon and appears in Overture. Should be mentioned in episode summary only.
 * Yuna Kuwata mentioned by name only and in flashbacks
 * Kazuha Yuibishi added already. Only significant to his doll
 * Futaba Yuibishi, does not need to be mentioned by name. Too insignificant
 * Corinne Fosset, flashback character, not significant.
 * Odille Fosset, mentioned once. Not significant and not a doll master.
 * Kaito Toriumi mentioned already.

DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sequel characters
 * Store manager, nameless boss who bullies protagonist. Not significant
 * Saito, love interest, not enough to justify addition
 * Saito's nameless brother. Same.
 * Saito's school friends, Same.

There's significant difference from being mentioned and established charadter in the list. I see you've taken shortcuts by combining such characters into one entry rather than individually.Lucia Black (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're talking about the Rozen Maiden grouping which is an improvement, making it more neater and accessible to a general reader. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted for a third opinion. The project was informed and no reply came from them. The third opinion will be acting as consensus. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * i dont have time for it actually, so i change my vote to delete, and save the information in a special page until i have time to fix it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there you go. If the page is just being turned into a redirect there's no need to save it on a userpage or anything; all the current content will remain in the page's history. So it seems like that's a consensus for a redirect. Wieno (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well i'll save it so i can have more room to add information until its substancial. either way, i'll see what i can do when i have free time.Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm redirecting it then. If a character page comes to fruition, even though I believe it'd just consist mostly of plot points and fancruft, I will have to remove the character section on the main article to comply with how I format articles I work on. Thank you for the thorough 3O, Wieno. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this bold move of DragonZero's. The list of characters is cluttering up the main article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was fine there. Do I need to start another merge discussion a month after the last one was closed? DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like Ryulong is cleaning up the list page. Reading the merge discussion, it seems like the page was merged only because no one had time to clean it up, and that there wasn't a consensus to permanently merge it.  The AFD also established that the list page should exist and be cleaned up.  Ryulong's unmerging it and cleaning it up seems to me to comply with both the AFD and merge discussion outcomes.  If you think the page should be permanently merged, then that would probably require another discussion, as I don't think any previous discussion has established that outcome. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't clean anything, and just took what I wrote from the main article without the nihongo foot and placed them here. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect March 2014
I intend on restoring the redirect. This was what the merged content looked like before the character page was stripped. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't think there is a consensus to redirect the list right now. I think you should start a new discussion to try to establish a consensus before redirecting. Calathan (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took what you wrote as a statement that you would redirect it, and not as asking whether or not it should be redirected. I think a separate character page should exist, but it should be better sourced than the current page.  I'm uncertain of whether it would make sense to redirect the page until it can be sourced better. Calathan (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This will be a repeat of what I said in the previous discussion. The current article is giving a lot of trivia information (and original research) to insignificant characters. The merged version was a concise summary of important characters and was perfectly sourced. While character pages have the right to exist, they should be merged if done correctly (A Town Where You Live whose minor characters have more appearances/trivia-info than the ones here); we don't want to include every little little fact about the characters. Look at Nori Sakurada, we don't need to know she is a lacross player, comedy gag about her reading books, examples to back up her personality, etc. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to redirect the article. I don't see why Ryulong can overthrow a past consensus, just cause he wants to get rid of nihongo foot. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've unmerged the list. Whether or not there should be a character page has nothing to do with the nihongo foot template.  Anyway, I'm going to ask again if anyone else has an opinion on whether this should be merged.  I also disagree with you that character pages "should be merged if done correctly", and instead think they should be separate if done correctly. Calathan (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to merge this list into the main Rozen Maiden page. It clutters that article up completely. It needs to be separate for this reason. There was no consensus to make the edit you made in the first place, DragonZero, and with mine and Calathan's opposition to your intent now, you have no consensus now either. If you feel that there is too much coverage of minor characters, clean that up then instead of shoehorning all of this into the main article in a poorly formated version.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There is too much plot differences involving characters to not have a character liist. Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, placing two separate stories into one article when it comes to the characters is not the best way to go. I understand the WP:OR problem but trying to tell what happens in what story arc should be understandable to the reader. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge February 2015
Almost a year has passed and the article remains mostly untouched and in a poor state. Once again, I am proposing a redirect, since all the notable information is on the front page. I am knowledgeable about the series, and have dealt with enough fictional articles to know what information should be kept or not.

Aside from that, Ryulong previously overthrew the Third Opinion consensus, so the discussion should've been about why this article should exist per his bold edit to restore the page to begin with. On a side note. This is silly; I've been doing redirects without discussions freely for years and this is the most difficult article by far, and no one gives a damn about it. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose You are trying to take a manga series and 3 (not two anymore) anime adaptations and cram all of the character information into one page? I think you are better off splitting off a separate article titled Rozen Maiden (Anime). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable information was merged to the article long ago. One adaptation. It's the same reason we don't list filler information for the Naruto character list. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DragonZero, I think you are misinterpreting the earlier consensus to try to make it match your opinion. The consensus seemed to me that the character list should be separate, but that it should be redirected until someone had time to clean it up.  The page was initially redirected per the consensus, and then Ryulong undid the redirect and cleaned up the page a good bit, which was also following the consensus.  Your opinion seems to be that the page should stay permanently as a redirect, but there was never a consensus for that as far as I can tell.  Also, your suggestion that we don't list characters on the Naruto filler list because they aren't from the main work (I think that's what you are saying) seems totally wrong to me.  If they aren't being listed there that is because they aren't significant characters.  There certainly isn't any Wikipedia policy suggesting that a character list should focus on one adaptation or on the original work.  Instead, it would be expected that the list would include all important characters, regardless of which version of the work they are from.  In Naruto, most of the anime filler characters only make brief appearances, rather than being around for many episodes.  Other series like Bleach have filler characters who stay around for a long time or are important for long story arcs, so they do get included in the character list.  If Rozen Maiden has anime only filler characters that actually play a major role in the story, then they should be listed, and the fact that Naruto didn't have any filler characters worth listing is irrelevant. Calathan (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't clean it up, he just took my parts and pasted it here after doing a revert for his nihongo foot campaign. And he wouldn't have done it either if I didn't bug him about it. I'm the only one who works on the Rozen Maiden articles. Like I said, all notable information has already been kept on the good version of the main article. You seem to be under the impression I'm removing all side materials, but I've only removed non-notable fancruft. Guess the low quality prose stays. It's off my watchlist. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DragonZero, in no way have I suggested that you are "removing all side materials", nor do I think that (and I don't understand how you got that impression from what I wrote). Anyway, even if we were to go with your shorter list as it currently exists in the main article, it still seems too long for that article.  Why do you prefer it there, rather than having it here?  To me, having such a long section on characters in that article makes it harder to read the article, and we should instead have the characters separated out here.  That way, people who want to know more about the characters can get that here, and people who don't can just stick to the main article.  Also, I prefer the formatting here with the character's names in bold, since it makes it easier to pick out the individual characters from the list.  I also think that your list is too short, and that some of the additional characters listed here are important.  It isn't "fancruft" to list characters like Nori Sakurada and Tomoe Kashiwaba, since they were important characters in the anime (just mentioning them in other character's entries doesn't seem sufficient given the extent of their roles). Calathan (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Straw Vote Redirect Dec 2016
Following the AFD (link) and the DRV (link) which has basically said I'm free to do what I want, I'm going to settle this with a straw vote. I've reached out to multiple editors from the AFD, as they have probably viewed the article in the past. Keep in mind it will be a simple straw vote signed via signatures without discussion as plenty has been held at the AFD. I'll ask an admin to archive this in a week or so. A merged version of the character list could be found in the history of the main article. Feel free to notify other editors if you wish. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect
 * 1)   Sandstein   08:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) When a discussion is closed as "no consensus" because opinions are split between 'delete' and 'redirect', it would be perverse to default to keep.  Reyk  YO!  10:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Joyous! | Talk 15:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) --Adam in MO Talk 23:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Opencooper (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) — S Marshall  T/C 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Calathan (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (see my comments below)
 * 9) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * 1) When something is closed as "no consensus", it means there is no consensus to change the article and thus is generally defaulted to keep.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Satellizer. No consensus means no consensus. Keep, delete or redirect; there's no consensus to perform any of them, hence the article is kept. Absolutely no reason to redirect it now. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Satellizer and Sk8erPrince; when an AFD closes with "no consensus", then it is typically kept. I believe this is true according to WP:NOCONSENSUS, at least my understanding of it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep, for reasons I already stated in the AFD. To contact only certain people from the AFD, and not others, is rigging the vote basically.  Everyone should've been contacted about this.   D r e a m Focus  15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, obviously. The potential but disputed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with other 'list of X characters' articles' longstanding reaffirmation of existence is the truly perverse outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1) I don't have a strong opinion on whether this gets redirected or kept. However, I am strongly opposed to Reyk's attempts to redirect the article while this vote is ongoing and after voting himself.  This vote should be allowed to remain open for a suitable amount of time and then be closed by an uninvolved editor. I know that the deletion review gave DragonZero permission to redirect it if he chose to, but instead he chose to hold this vote, and I think that was a good decision.  Only a few people suggested redirecting in the AFD, with more people voting for either keeping or deleting the article.  While several people were in favor of redirecting at the deletion review, since that wasn't the consensus of the AFD, that isn't really something deletion review should be deciding.  This is the appropriate place for the decision on redirecting the article to be made. Calathan (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this more, I think I'm weakly in favor of redirecting. I know DragonZero said no more discussion was needed, but I didn't participate in the recent AFD or DRV, so I want to state my opinion. I think the main-article list is kind of jumbled, in that it covers several important characters as kind of side-notes to other characters (i.e., most of the human characters other than Jun are just noted in that way).  However, the stand-alone list definitely has too many minor characters and is poorly sourced.  So overall, I think the list in the main article is the better of the two alternatives even though I think it could use some work to cover the characters better. Calathan (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I put proper merge discussions at this article and the other. That should've been done instead of just merging over a chunk of this article there.  Those in the main article will discuss where they want a large character section there, or a brief one with a link to far more information in a side article, as is normally done.   D r e a m Focus  20:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to reiterate the reasons I gave at the AfD for redirecting, third comment from the bottom. Three last votes after the relisting were for redirect or delete. The AfD should have been kept going on for longer. I missed out on the deletion review. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is redirected, it should go to the section of Rozen Maiden that is a list of Rozen Maiden characers, i.e. Rozen Maiden. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect
There have been enough discussions now. I've boldly redirected this; let's get on with something more productive.— S Marshall T/C 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the no consensus ruling of the AFD, and the fact that only a small number of people had time to comment, and apparently some were contacted while others from the AFD were not. Ignoring the discussion and just boldly making a decision after one day, is ridiculous.  I have reverted you.   D r e a m Focus  15:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really possible to "ignore the discussion" when the discussion was inconclusive. I'm just trying to get to a positive outcome, Dream Focus.  I think it would be good if we got there before the heat death of the universe.  Wikipedians tend to think of "no consensus" as a "keep" by the back door, and that does make sense if there's a significant body of people who actually want to retain the article.  In this case it does not make sense.  Opinions are split between "delete", "redirect" and "smerge".  Admittedly a few of our friends on the extremely inclusionist fringe do want to keep the article but it makes no sense for this tiny minority to win because the majority can't agree on which flavour of content removal is the most appropriate.— S Marshall  T/C 17:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5 people said keep in the AFD. 5 said delete, one said delete or redirect, and two said redirect.  Thus no consensus.  There is no reason to have that large of a section in the main article, when standard practice has always been to simply put it in a side article.   D r e a m Focus  19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay so you are advocating keeping original research? Other than the main character, Laplace's Demon, and the eight Rozen Maidens (one is fake) there aren't that many characters that play a major role. The closest ones I can think of are Jun's sister Nori, and Tomoe who play a supporting roles. Detective Kun Kun might warrant a mention though. The key things to think of are; "what is essential to the plot?", and "what moves the plot along the most?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at what is in the main article right now, and thinking that much for characters seems rather long. It should be briefer with a link to a side article.  You can reduce what is listed for less important characters in this article to make it shorter.  History shows the main article was 72,306 bytes when (+11,375) was added for the character section only.  Doesn't that seem rather long?   D r e a m Focus  00:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest then that this be renamed to List of Rozen Maiden supporting characters? It makes no sense to have the same info for the main characters in both places. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we should just keep the article as is. It seems like nobody is taking notice of the fact that I've copied the trimmed chara list from the main article to this subarticle. The issues of this article have already been addressed. It's done. It's over. We should just drop the stick and move on, and accept the fact that "no consensus" is the ultimate outcome, and that there is no need to continuing advocating to redirect. If you can't delete/redirect an article after 2 AFDs and 1 DRV, that's a clear sign that you won't be able to continue advancing your goals. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I think most of you seem to be forgetting what WP:NOCONSENSUS is. An AFD that has ended as "no consensus" defaults to keep, as stated in the first guideline: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." It sounds like that Dragon is desperately trying to get rid of the article (to me, redirect and delete are pretty much the same thing), like how I was trying to delete certain articles (I now know better, though) in a hurry. Besides, having trimmed the article myself by copying the edited ver from the main article and merging the data into the subarticle, I don't see why there is a need to continue fussing over this. There has been two AFDs, 1 DRV and now this? Seems like Dragon is way too hellbent in removing the article. It should be pretty obvious that he's trying whatever method he could use to get his way, without actually violating any guidelines. However, I could tell that he's trying to rig the outcome by canvassing, as pointed out by Dream Focus. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)