Talk:Nabiki Tendo

Fanfiction
The fanfiction section lacks its sources... maybe because it is an original research??? 81.203.157.106 19:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the insistence on adding the Kuno factor into the loved by template? It's already explained in the trivia and it is not needed there. Let's be objective about this.

In the Trivia section it states that the word Nabiki means "to bend or yield to a power." This however is incorrect, as her name is written in Hiragana and not Kanji. Since Hiragana is purely pheontical a name written in Hiragana wouldn't have a meaning like it would if it was written in Kanji. --Chikiko 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DerekLoffin, go over to the main Wikipedia page for the indexing of articles in need of cleanup next time to see why the tags were put there, rather than just deleting them. And there is nothing specific to be mentioned other than the articles are written in TERRIBLE English, and have constant interjections of POV bias. I can't possibly make a list of every example without spending an hour doing so. This was addressed on the index page of articles needing cleanup. Same for Kasumi's page. President David Palmer 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a misuse of the that tag. That tag SPECIFICALLY says use the talk page to specify what needs clean up or replace it with more specific tag.  Clean up alone does tell us jack.  I have nothing against you tagging it, I have something against you placing a tag that has no meaning without further clarification. Derekloffin 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * However, since I now know what you were shooting for, I've hopefully put up more specific tags on both pages. If you still feel these don't cover it, go ahead and replace them but make sure any specific comments are also here, putting them on the list pages only is a good way to have them lost. Derekloffin 11:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These tags are fine. By the way, on the page for Kasumi, I edited the talk page to try to clarify my edits earlier, when I put the clean-up tags on.  However, it didn't show up.  Go ahead and hit the "edit" button on the Kasumi talk page, and you'll see that I did try to clarify the clean-up tags, and tried to talk to the editor, but for whatever reason it only shows up when you can read through the edit-able box, but once you hit "save page", it doesn't show up there. President David Palmer 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen that happen before, some weird database gliche that pops up from time to time. As long as it's on the edit page, it will show up eventually. Derekloffin 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did a bit of debugging and found the issue. There is a ref tag in Dave's comment just before yours.  It seems to be the cause of the gliche (and is not needed) so just edit it and delete it (I would do it myself, but then I end up with credit for your comment since it hasn't done the signature replacement yet). Derekloffin 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, these articles were far more unfounded and had no references listed whatsoever before I started working on them, Kudoshido simply happens to disagree with them, rather than the originals, and thus immediately informed PDP. As for the English, there's also no remarkable difference with other profiles, but help is likevise very appreciated. It's only my third language after all. Dave 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I've currently begun to insert all my references for the Nabiki page, but, there's a _lot_ of them, and a reciprocal amount of work. If anyone could help me thoroughly reference all the profile pages, I've set up characterisation reference pages in my sandbox section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A for all the neccessary 'chapter-by-chapter' notes. Thanks a lot. Dave 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't inform anyone of anything, David A. I didn't talk to President David Palmer, I didn't talk to Tohru Honda13, I didn't talk to Derekloffin. Please don't make assumptions like that. And furthermore, "simply happens to disagree" is not what is going on here. President David Palmer has actually pretty much brought up everything I had a problem with and all of those things come from the ideals of the Wikipedia policies. Being portrayed in an illustration/design art book collection is not really the same as being concretely stated and confirmed in canon or interview to be something. Seeing something happen in the drawing that isn't 100% explained does not mean that what you think is going on is the actual fact. If you have to state something by saying "perhaps this is why..." or "maybe because of this..." then it probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article in the first place. And so on and so forth. This is not some personal "I think you're wrong about this statement about this character because that's how I feel" deal. I stated this in Kasumi's talk page and when I can, I will further reply to that page about my stance until you understand. I can just as easily pick up my own personal copies of the manga in either Japanese or English if I have to (and both tend to have their own differences regarding dialogue, just like manga to anime, and Japanese track to English track), and sift through them to check and see if you're correct or incorrect. This is hardly a problem for me and hardly is the problem. I've seen the original article before the mountain of edits, as well. It could have used work, but the work that has been done so far also needs a lot of extensive work in itself. That said, in between having to explain myself to you here and elsewhere, and checking out every single thing in the articles that need to be fixed, I have not had the chance to help out to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. As soon as I have the free time to. --kudsy 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I apologise about that then. I've seen the 'let someone unrelated and relentless handle it' tactic used several times elsewhere, and thought the 'Ok, two people simultaneously start to push me, and one of them pops out of nowhere with no relation to the series' coincidence seemed suspicious. In any case, I'll try to make the references more easily overviewed so others (and myself) can help clean them up to what's most relevant (and I'm pretty sure that pasting 150 of them, to what eventually became an indecipherable jumble, must have transferred at least some of them to another section than intended). As for explicit author references, beyond that the 2 images in question were drawn by the creator, if you have the Japanese edition you could actually be of great help here. In the author notes, during the beginning of chapter 29.9 in the local translation, Nabiki is explicitly stated to be 'completely heartless', but I have no idea what the original wording was? Also, there's another unrelated problem regarding Rouge for volume 32, given that different editions (and references) state that it was either Asura, or simply a statue portraying it, which was immersed in a Jusenkyo spring. Beyond that, I really should upload those two 'devil suit' images. Dave 06:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now made a serious effort to clean it up for easier overview, and corrctions. With so many references I'm bound to have pasted or misused/misunderstood at least some of them, and improved clarfications or clean-ups are always good. Given your familiarity with the Japanese edition you could be of great help to us. Dave 10:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that I meant about the illustrations is that regardless of Takahashi drawing them, the reason they were drawn is still an interpretation by a fan. They're in a book full of illustrations drawn by someone who makes her living as a creative artist. Their existence could be due to any number of reasons on her part whether she wanted to send a message or she just thought it would be fun/creative to draw or anything else you could think of. It's kind of hard to simply say "X was drawn this way because of ______" without some kind of concrete statement to back it up, whether it's an official caption from the book or a statement from the artist, etc. Someone could see Kasumi as an angel and Nabiki as a devil drawn on the same page and assume that it's like that for a reason (i.e. a comparison of personalities and statement of said personalities), but it's still inferring something they don't know for 100% sure and using it as a fact. Even if it's a super, super high possibility of it being true (and for the record, in my opinion, I do think it could be true, but...), without that confirmation, it can't be stated as fact. That's where a person gets into interpretations and other things that are frowned upon in articles. In general, to just state that she was portrayed that way is all right because you have the images there showing it, and it's true that she was drawn that way, but everything else about possible intentions of being dark and light gets into very iffy territory even with the references, because in the end, it is a theory. So that's why we all need to be careful with those kinds of things when we word the captions or refer to certain images and make sure we're not accidentally phrasing it in a way that could be taken wrong. It's about trying to make the statements as neutral and factual as possible, basically. Wording is definitely very important on Wikipedia... O.o
 * Well, I've already taken care of this aspect by inserting a large number of 'seems' and 'appears', along with the long lists of references to back them up. Dave 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: After skiimming it somewhat, it actually could do with a few more 'seems', 'appears', 'seemingly', 'apparently', 'ostensibly', 'outwardly', 'evidently' etc. Feel free to insert into already existing sentences when appropriate, and to as varied 'flow' as possible (two 'seems' in the same sentence is a no-no). Dave 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think those might be considered weasel words, so I'm not sure if it's good to use those, but we'll take it slow and check out other possible ways of phrasing. For the moment I'll check out words to avoid and check out what's what. --kudsy 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How does "There's 95-99% reliability of this conclusion, given that virtually every reference around supports it, and I've listed over 200 of them to put it into context, but _still_ moderate the absolute terms of the statement to be honourable about it." translate into 'weasel words'. That doesn't make any sense, if taken to absolutely generalised extent. I mean how should you reformulate it to say exactly the same thing with different terms anyway, and wouldn't that be a completely pointless effort? Dave 08:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's right there in the lead of both links as well as their See Alsos, I can't really explain it any better than the original sources as to "why and how". Only a few of those words really complicate things, not all of them. It's mentioned in the articles where there may be some exceptions. There are plenty of resources on Wikipedia in the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) that helps with prose in regards to general writing as well as fiction. It's not a completely pointless effort. It has been done for quite a few fictional characters on the site as it is, some of those even gaining GA status. Check WP:1SP's "Check Your Fiction" section, as well as the main "writing about fiction" page on the subject. If anything else, check WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT (it's the tutorial), and the example page --kudsy 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't had the energy to check them up yet, so that's still on the to-do list, but I rather take offence at being implied as a 'weasel' for taking the time to list references for every single statement, and then still explicitly mitigate the ones I noticed. I'm also very much fed up with constantly having to re-edit this article, until some criticist finally manages to justify/excuse reverting it to the former "Nabiki is great at looking out for number one, and is the by far smartest character in the series." etc, thin air version. (No, I'm not pointing at you. But I do have a generalised cumulative impression from different instances, including about other characters and outside Wikipedia) I mean, in all seriousness, it's ridiculous to think that no other profile remotely sparked this kind of heat, despite vastly less extensive check-ups, during the years they've been active, for no particular reason whatsoever. In my experience Nabiki has tended to be the most touchy subject in all of online American Ranma fandom (not so much amongst Europeans though), which is the reason I felt the need to take time to build a more explicitly referenced strong case with her before the others, or it would be severely vandalised/butchered/censored within a month of taking my leave.


 * Regardless, if you, as implied, truly have honest suggestions for alternate paths to use exactly the same type of mitigation (allowing for unlikely discrepancy, despite general evidence to the contrary), then sure help is obviously very welcome. However, when a 'professional' evaluator checked over the Ryoga article for GA rating (which is written much the same way as this one, if somewhat less blatantly 'over'-referenced) 'weasel words' wasn't one of her complaints (and I think we've fixed at least most of the rest by now), and you've made it sound like the policy is "This is a 'weasel' word, while that phrase which means the exact same thing isn't, and oh yeah, it's not really a good thing to mitigate terms", which doesn't fit with my sense of logic/consistency. There's also the point of "Can we really apply the same NPOV references for writing about quantum mechanics, as writing a fictional character profile?" Some interpretation is inescapable in the latter case, but aiming for as highly and accurately referenced as possible is another matter entirely. Then again you could also focus some of your energy on helping to improve/insert a lot of footnotes into other, less detailed articles. I also despise being caught up in neverending discussions, so feel free to supply concrete ideas in this case as well. Dave 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Update (I'm starting new here, due to space restraints): I've now made an attempt to clean up the NPOV, 'seems' and 'appears'. Although all the 'shown as' make the sentence structure rather lacking. Please check it over and suggest how to (or directly) modify the lacking aspects. Dave 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay so for the heartless Nabiki thing, given the article, basically, I have yet to see a version in which it says anything of her being just flatout "completely heartless." In the Japanese edition, it says　"天道なびき　１７歳　乙女心はない. " which would translate literally to "Tendou Nabiki, age 17, no maiden/young lady heart." That would be where the "has no maidenly feelings" that I've seen in scanlations and text translations online comes from. The keyword would be the 乙女, or the maiden, as the beginning note sets her up to be a prime maiden/maiden in her prime for the rest of the story. For the record, the Viz Media edition of that author note says "Nabiki Tendo. 17 years old. Blossoming but not naive." Overall, it makes sense taken within the context of the storyline.
 * Well, the local official Egmont translation (ISBN: 9789171342522) _did_ explicitly state her as 'completely heartless', which makes far more sense than simply 'not naive' in a storyline where she consistently behaves like an all-round thorough monster, heartlessly preying on anyone (including her family, someone in love with her, and a guy who's saved her life twice) to absolute degrees, but if the Japanese edition is closest to 'has no maidenly heart', I think we should go with that. Dave 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I did a quick clean-up to add the two references you mentioned (Viz and your own translation). Dave 12:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Rouge, I will go to the Locations talk page and type up what I have in the discussion, so you can check for it there and see if it helps. Other than that, if you need anything else looked up from the Japanese editions, let me know and I will see what I can do. As you can see, I'm very slow to reply at the moment (it's a curse of dealing with finals for college among other things) so I'll try my best to be quick with help and replies. --kudsy 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dave 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Viz Media tends to take liberties with lines (I actually think the article for it on Wiki even points out something to that effect). I have no idea where they get the naive part from translation wise, but to me it does make sense in that even though she is a young woman blossoming and in her prime, she doesn't let that get in the way of or interfere with what she really wants (not that it would anyway since she doesn't have those kinds of feelings to begin with). They do such things with a lot of lines here and there "for accessibility," but at the same time, Viz Media is still publishing what counts as an official and verifiable source (especially as a company owned by Shogakukan and Shueisha) so it would definitely be considered NPOV to completely ignore whatever they say when it doesn't sound right to someone, but as long as they're all in there and identified in the way that you made it, it should be just fine. --kudsy 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. Listing all of them in the reference seems fair. As you say, Viz seems the by far least reliable of the bunch, given that the others coincide, and the company has apparently endured much criticism for their lackluster efforts in this regard, but placing it after the rest emphasises this point sufficiently. 'Not naive' doesn't deviate from the context, but is by far a severe understatement. It's literally like calling a psychotic serial-killer 'slighly maladjusted'. Going after what you want is fine. Walking over corpses, or comparative, to get it, not so much. Dave 08:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they are flatout unreliable, for the record. I said they take liberties with some lines here and there, but they don't like...retcon stuff for the sake of it. The important points and qualities are still held up throughout the whole series as far as I read. --kudsy 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say they were completely unreliable either, just seemingly less so than the sum content of the others in this particular case. I checked up your reference, and it did make note of "severe liberties" and "localization", so given that all the other sources, including yourself, coincided in another direction, including a more prominent company with no listed critisism whatsoever, this seems like a warranted conclusion. Obviously not enough to be explicitly listed on the profile however. Dave 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Compact the references
I shouldn't be seeing 6 references back to back, it's really hurting the readability, just put the references together as one. Derekloffin 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I _agree_ with you. That's not the problem, but I have no idea how to do this properly. I feel confined to a trap. If I don't explicitly prove that I've taken nothing from thin air, without lots of instances, I get accused for POV (while a lot of people who have used no references whatsoever except fanfiction stories when creating various previous versions/alternate pages, go uncriticised). If I use them it almost turns unreadable, and if I lump them together I can't link to the same footnote for different instances. So again, help would be very appreciated. Perhaps each long chain could be shortened down to the 3 most noteworthy instances to keep everyone happy, simultaneously avoiding accusations of unfounded bias and ensuring readers comfort? Dave 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I think this is over-referencing. One or two for each statement should be enough. I thought the main concern was POV. A lot of it is, and how can you possibly reference POV statements? And about the referencing, I don't think you should cite what you can see form the manga; I would take information from a databook, from the creator herself, or some reliable place that proves that she's "sadistic, petty, manipulative" etc. Tohru Honda13  00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can check through the manga chapters, or read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Nabiki_Characterisation_Reference then contribute/improve/tighten down the footnotes on your own. Complete NPOV is inescapable on manga profiles, as can be seen in pretty much any page for any series. The closest you can get is through thoroughly referencing, and trying your utmost to strictly use what's explicitly shown repeated times, which I have done, but rather than this page, look at say Ranma's profile for comparison. There used to be an overflow of 'taken from thin air' statements, though I've tried to improve somewhat on that. During your (Tohru's) earlier edit you kept 'resourceful, intelligent' etc, while editing out any 'negative' traits, but that's just as 'POV' as the others, so your entire argument seems to fall apart on either lack of coherency or blatant deception. If you want to take it all away, then we get no profiles. Assessment is inescapable, but very well-founded assessment is far preferable to the alternatives.


 * That said, the creator did portray Nabiki as a devil, twice, while even ruthless killers didn't get the same treatment in the same image (pg.45 'The Art of Ranma½' ...I really should learn how to upload images, but it didn't work the time I tried), so there's your blatant creator statement if you want it. The same conclusion is almost inescapable by simply sifting through all the given examples. Nabiki truly does show explicit sarcastic and condescending traits in a very large percentage of her appearances. So often, in fact, that even if half of them are misinterpreted it'd still qualify. The same goes for several other qualities. That said, I suppose the footnotes could be filled out with quotations of actual phrases, or more specified instances, but there are limits to just how much work I can put down. Why can't other readers simply open their mangas, or even check the 'characterisation reference' chapter by chapter action list and help out? Why can't _you_ help out to actually _improve_ it for that matter? You are a reader of the manga I take it? I've at least made a serious attempt to improve the profile reliability as far as possible, and I've always intended to set up individual 'check it yourself' pages for every character, as a link on top of their 'personality' section. (Demo versions seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A Help to shorten them down to the most relevant aspects would be very appreciated. Summaries are not my forté) Dave 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking (as far as I've read), 1 reference is enough. Unless someone disputes the claim, then 1 will do (in fact, in many instances even that 1 isn't required unless it is disputed). If you wish to keep track of some of the other references, transplant them here in a topic of their own for further emphasis (don't use the reference tag though, it messes up the page logic, just list them out). The other option is to use some of the other reference methods for a wider topic but in this instance that probably won't help as most everything is an offline resource referenced. Derekloffin 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll try to compact them down in the way you suggested (As a more easily overviewed start for others to check through. Sorry about misunderstanding the first time). Dave 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now made a serious effort to improve the overall quality, but help with clarifications, corrections and clean-ups would naturally always be very appreciated. :) Dave 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad we worked it out. I can help copyedit, no prob (but sporadically). Tohru Honda13  03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you help reference the other pages as well? As mentioned above, I've even written up 90% finished, character reference pages to help other users in this endeavour (which can then be re-checked in the manga by anyone who reads it, but the whole overview listing access bit should speed it up remarkably), and am really emptied of energy about this myself. Dave 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
Long form:

Sorry to bring this up again (perhaps the comments on POV should be copied out to their own section; this does seem to be a major issue, but this comments page is lacking headings a lot, making things hard to find), but I'm personally uncomfortable with the article as written. Given the amount of POV/NPOV discussion on here, including at least one admission that this is a "touchy subject," an article which then only portrays one side of the argument is by definition in violation of the NPOV rules. Whether or not the article is right is beside the point. Moreover, the fact that the principle defender of the article as written has referred to it as "build[ing] a [. . .] case" suggests that it's attempting to argue one side of an issue and that it's original research. Can we find a source for (or at least refer to) alternate readings of the character? We're required to include significant minority viewpoints, no matter how much we disagree with them or how wrong they are.

Short form:


 * 1) Article does not protray the controversy.
 * 2) Talk page acknowledges controversy, article does not.
 * 3) Controversy must be acknowledged.
 * 4) Article contains POV.
 * 5) The article presents a "case" for one side.
 * 6) All significant viewpoints must be included.
 * 7) Article may be original research.
 * 8) A major author of the article acknowledges building a case with the article.
 * 9) Original research is not allowed; article must cite independent research.

--CrazyDreamer 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is more NPOV than any other related to the Ranma manga/anime, given its' vast amount of references for _every single statement_. This part is undisputable, and the previous version was infinitely more thin air based than the current, but didn't gain any complaints. The POVs have been mostly erased/self-censored by myself previously (to comply to warranted requests) when re-skimming through it, but you're free to list other overlooked blatant examples and they will be modified.


 * The 'touchiest subject' means that this is the character who, according to my knowledge, _by far_ goes most opposite to her explicitly shown manga portrayal in general references. Controversy isn't available as far as I know, just blatant manufacturing of non-existing tendencies, and fanon speculation references aren't allowed as far as I know, but you're completely free to create a section, in case I'm mistaken, and I'm informed that her anime self is quite different, so you could always create an extensive separate section for that, as an alternative.


 * 'Building a case', means that I've ransacked the manga from start to finish chapter by chapter to gain as well-referenced basis as possible before starting to modify the profiles, and have made these available for public inspection and modification as a link at the main Ranma½ page. I may later create a direct link for every character page, in case this is allowed, but I'm not sure that it is. I simply anticipated that this would be heavily disputed by anyone uninterested in the manga but heavily engrossed in fan-fiction, and I seem to have been proven right.


 * Basically you're free to _improve_ it as long as you're using at least as good and well-referenced basis as previously, and are free to read through and immediately check up (errors in?) the listing I used myself, making it far easier for yourself than it was for me. Otherwise it's simply POV censorship/vandalism. I see that you haven't made an effort to improve any pages previously, so feel free to help us out.


 * 'Original research' is a blatant 'grasping at straws' option to butcher it intended to refer to scientific articles (i.e. discovering new facts from nothing) rather than fictional references (where the source material provides all the facts), and the only option left given that direct quotations from other sites are banned, no such research has been made to my knowledge. If implemented it would ban all attempts to improve any articles whatsoever, as the very nature of any fictional character profiles make them comprised almost strictly of original research. Certainly the ones available here. It is also far superior to anything previously available (strictly chapter summaries), save the Akane reference page. Given that it's directly referenced from the manga (which is original straight from the source research) it could much easier be interpreted as facts straight from the author. Dave 09:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but I've been having a rather busy time. To reply to your points:


 * I don't think that you are quite understanding that citation does not equal NPOV. Factual accuracy does not equal NPOV.  Being right does not equal NPOV.  You have written a factually accurate article that is quite possibly correct, and I thank you for your hard work in doing so, but having achieved factual accuracy it is now necessary to represent opposing points of view.
 * Well, neutral point of view means being factually correct and removing yourself from the equation as much as possible. Strictly quoting the available points word by word, rather than stating several made-up theories. I'm not infallible in this respect, but this particular article certainly is very well-grounded in this regard, particularly after modifying it based on warranted points from Kudoshido and others.


 * On the other hand, I withdraw the bit about original research. You're right that there's a problem when there is no body of literature regarding a work.
 * Yes. Prohibiting 'original research' would destroy virtually all articles based on fiction out there.


 * I would like to note that, while I feel that the opinion of an author regarding their own work should be given a priviledged position, it is by no means infallible; at least since the Death of the Author, it has generally been understood that to some extent, whatever readers decide about a work is true, at least for those readers. The concept of an objectively true interpretation of a literary work does not exist; any interpretation is inherently POV.  For this reason, alternative opinions have even more of a right to appear in articles about fiction than in articles about science.
 * Takahashi isn't dead. The author _always_ has final conclusive say unless the property is completely sold out well after their time. Made-up fanon stuff is irrelevant and not even allowed as far as I'm aware (Derek is better versed about this stuff than I am).
 * I don't believe that was what was meant. Death of the Author doesn't literally refer to the author being dead, but rather do you consider what the author's intends, or do you look at the work and judge based on that.  To give an analogy, if an author based a character on someone they know in real life, and then say the character is suffering from A.D.D. in an interview, does that really mean the character is actually suffering from A.D.D.?  Actually, it very well might not as the author may have a poor understanding of A.D.D. and thus be misdiagnosing it even on their fictional character.  An author, like any human being, is fallible and can without knowing it describe one thing, but think to themselves that it means something quite different.  Authors intents are certainly a way of analyzing something, but they don't always come out on top. Derekloffin 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * _Always_ no. A literary work should stand on its own merits rather than simply head-picking the author (that's what reading their essays is for), but all interpretations should at least be firmly rooted in what's explicitly shown, regardless how you perceive the actions in question. Whether people find the listed very explicit traits/actions likeable or excusable, that's not something I can do anything about, but I can make an effort not to have them wantonly ignore it. Not to mention, in my experience it's the people who have the most warped interpretations who tend to give you the most outrageous conspiracy-theories. In this case about Takahashi 'the man-hating lesbian commando member', who "got the characters 'wrong' after their introduction chapter" (No, sadly I'm not exaggerating), so they apparently second-guess the author quite a bit more.


 * I.e, regardless how many long-time afficionados J.K. Rowling may have incited with her Harry Potter series, she still has final say on their shown motivations and which actions they would be prepared to perform, regardless if several readers would sympathise with and try to justify (themselves) Drako Malfoy & co or want more slash-orgies. I may interprete various works as other than intended due to differing ideologies, but I at least strictly use what's already there when building a pattern. The same thing goes for Masaki Kajishima. I much prefer my previous Tenchi Muyo image, but it's his baby, not mine. He knows better what he had in mind for the background. I liked the 'tragic, loyal free-spirit' Ryoko better than the 'sadistic, genocidal, brat' one, but never mind. I can only complain about the ways he's gone about to show his intent, or possibly emigrate to Tenchi Universe instead. Othervise you end up with personal 'original' fan-creations, which should really be renamed as something else.


 * Speaking of which, personally I definitely think Mihoshi would be classified as high-level ADD, and that Ryoga shows severe signs of autism and inherent medical bipolar mood-imbalance, but very much doubt their creators thought that far, beyond making them generally amusing. I think mentions in that manner should be acceptable as long as there's a very strong strong sound basis for them. I used this mindset when composing that 'Jusenkyo-magic' list. Strictly composing a list of the shown traits, for those who wish to play in the sandbox, but not having any illusions that the author couldn't just change her mind on the fly if she felt like it.


 * Btw: Do you have some input about Dreamer's suggested 'fandom section' aspect? Dave 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally: I don't read fanfiction.  Never have, never will.
 * Generally a wise choice, although there are a few enjoyable ones out there. Relentless and Daigakusei No Ranma for example.


 * My opinion of Nabiki is different than yours, but not hugely so; this is probably because I have seen all of the Ranma anime (including OVA and movies) but have not read the manga.
 * But this is a very important point: The anime. _That_ is very warranted, and fully allowed, to create a separate section about, and may be the original source of the seemingly blatantly oddball interpretations.
 * I would also suggest that the tone of your comment here seems to be that of giving me permission to edit your article, which is something that I have anyway because you don't own the article any more than I do.
 * Uh, yes, as I noted, you do have the right everyone has to _improve_ it, not censor/butcher it. Sourced, relevant and factual references are not supposed to be wantonly removed, while thin air unsourced ones are.
 * I presume that this is not what you intended, but I'd hate to see you accidentally offend someone on here by doing the same thing to them. I'm talking with you here because I'd rather reach an agreement than annoy a hardworking Wikipedian or start an edit war.
 * The logical conclusion would be that you're free to find your own sources to back up other statements, to check up those you think seem odd (through direct chapter references) and modify them if proved false, and particularly, to write a separate anime section.


 * Things that I think that this article needs:


 * Any descriptions of her motives for her negative actions ("she does X for reason Y") should be kept properly sourced ("she says that she does X for reason Y"). When there is no source, let the action speak for itself.  General trends such as greed need no source, of course, but noting a trend has to be kept carefully separate from assuming that it is the cause for all specific instances.
 * Motives and character traits are strictly sourced to blatant actions. Again, the references are there for anyone to inspect, but complaints won't do it, and I've already improved it to a state I find satisfactory in this regard, so it would be up to actual research fwork from yourself.
 * There does seem to be a ton of description of what she does in the manga; is it perhaps entering the realm of beating a dead horse and POV through overemphasis? A few examples for each major personality trait should be enough.
 * Beating a dead horse isn't the case, rather than making it as well-referenced as possible. Several instances that back something up are reliable. 1 odd listed occasion, when several are available, not so much. However, it _does_ need restructuring, so all related segments are put into the same columns, rather than mixing them into a general jumble.
 * Without going through line by line, I'm not sure how much, if any, this needs to be corrected; possibly this is an unfounded worry.
 * That's up to anyones who go through it line by line. I already have, but can't catch everything.
 * A "differences between the anime and manga" section should be added and the current history/profile sections noted as being based on the manga. It's generally my impression that her greedy/selfinterested appearance is sometimes undercut by small details that may not be present in the manga.  On the other hand, these may sometimes be interpreted as her acting; there's no way to tell.  Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a copy of the anime, so I can't recall or cite specific examples.  We might make a section, add a brief sentence indicating that the anime sometimes mitigates her negative actions, making her a more likeable character, and then add a section stub tag and hope someone exands on that.
 * Agreed. You could ask Derek if he wants to collaborate with you in creating a separate anime personality section after the manga one. I'm of little help there.
 * I'm all for an anime section, but this article is already long and needs trimming first. Derekloffin 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A "fan reactions" section should be added, wherein it could be noted that many fans prefer to view her as a highly likeable character and apologize for or ignore her negative actions.
 * That's still fanon references, and I think those are explicitly disallowed. Again, ask Derek.
 * Yes they are, mostly because they are near impossible to reference in any meaningful way, and there is as many fanons as there are fans, making it impossible to handle. However, that's true of any interpretation, so one must be careful about this.  What can be done is to ensure any interpretations or conclusion made is appropriately balanced, or just downright removed.  If the evidence is presented, the conclusion can be left up to the reader.  Derekloffin 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do those ideas sound? --CrazyDreamer 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like you're a whole lot more reasonable than the rabid lunatics I'm used to, given that you scratched the 'original research' bit, considered the separate anime section a good idea (but I'm no good help with that), and (I think) that it should only be modified based on actual in-depth check-ups. I'd also like to add that restructuring the sentences for better flow is very much needed, but not something I have energy to tear into. Dave 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article getting long
This article is currently sitting at 41k, and that's getting awfully long for a single character article. I would seriously consider a review to see what is necessary as this is starting to suffer from bloat. In this particular article's case, the extreme heavy use of references on undisputed claims is probably in need of trimming. Refer to Article size. Derekloffin 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But should the reference list itself, or the links, be included in this? I mean, if you simply copy the text itself as displayed in the article it's fully acceptable. Also, they're only undisputed as long as the markers are there. Othervise someone will generally say they're unfounded within a few months and then delete them. Or that's the way other Wikipedia articles I've seen have worked in similar cases. At the very least it sets everything up for wanton rather than well-founded deletion. Dave 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, yes. Page length is all contents of the page, including references (basically, it's anything within the edit box used when you press 'edit this page' which is where the k size is found if it is getting big). Whether someone attempts to delete them is another matter and then that's when you revert them and reference it as it is then disputed (assuming it's not just an outright vandalism attempt in which case referencing isn't required).


 * Hold on, I just checked Article size like you said to, and it explicitly excludes references from any size count (except for the old 32k tech issue, no longer in force). At 40k readable prose (which does not include references) the article "may eventually need to be divided" (emphasis added).  Admittedly, higher up it says that the reader fatigue level is generally around 30k to 50k, but again, that's readable prose.  We're probably fine as-is, going by a size count alone.  --CrazyDreamer 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But by following that logic in the long run the profiles would constantly be worsened to a level where it's easy to make inane disputations and then eventually improve parts of them, rather than make them good from the start. Unlike yourself I also wn't stay around here forever, so they oinly result in the long run following that praxis would be to have it revert to crap again.


 * I have to agree with Dave here. The correct interpretation of this character is a matter of some debate (see above topics), and Dave gets a fair amount of disagreement on this article as-is.  The reason for the current length is that Dave has described most of what the character in question does for the entire run of a not-so-short manga, but if he left that out then there would be far more challenges to the NPOV-ness of the article from people trying to push their POV.  (Whether his lengthy description constitutes POV in and of itself is a separate topic, and it's already being worked on.)  The footnotes are adjuncts to the description itself, and I suspect that taking out the notes is simply going to result in lots of little challenges to this or that point, forcing him to dig up each reference again one-by-one.  Is there any way to compact the reference section without lessening the amount of the article that is footnoted?  (I.e., make more of footnote markers point to the same footnote.)  --CrazyDreamer 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the current references is that one, they are just overly used, in many cases not on issues of dispute (this is minor but does contribute), two, many restate what they are referencing, and three in a few cases are used to hide text (82 for instance which is a lengthy divergence onto other characters). For an example of redundancy, 113: Reference is 'When successfully affected by a love-inducing umbrella, Nabiki still wanted payment to become Kuno's girlfriend: Volume 31: Chapter 6', but the sentence it is used in as a reference is 'Takahashi may have spoofed this notion in the 'It's Raining Love!' story, when Nabiki demanded 1000 Yen in payment to become his girlfriend, even when they were successfully influenced by a magic love-inducing umbrella, but was immediately outraged that she'd "cut KUNO a deal like that" afterwards.'  There reference should simply be the Volume and chapter, not the rest as it is redundant.  The references right now are littered with many pieces of redundant or hidden text, when they should be just references.  On occasion the reference may need an explicit page, or a minor description, but it should never restate what it's referencing, and certainly should never make an argument itself.  That's what the body is there for.
 * As the length thing, yeah it seem Wiki's policy didn't bother fixing their own size detection tool. Either way though, this article is getting long and does need a look at.  I'm not saying it needs serious splitting or something, but when you get this long on one character, you have to start being cautious as it is becoming bloated. Derekloffin 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But you see, whether thay are issues of dispute or not is not up to us to interpret. By my experiences _anything_ can become an issue of dispute no matter how crystal clear a situation/evidence seems presented and thoroughly evaluated (just consider the 'greenhouse effect'), so the references should stay, or I'd have _even_ more disputes about the article (which I'm really getting sick of btw), and 'suspiciously' still virtually none about the rest considerably worse ones. The same goes for the descriptive texts in the references themselves. It was specifically inserted to make it easier for Kudoshido and other interested people to quickly scroll and check them up one by one, rather than repeatedly go up and down to click them, without mentioned context, which would induce nausea in no time. As you remember I originally used the format of simple chapter footnotes. That said, as you've mentioned, there are a few cases where the sentence itself marks the story quoted, so it's more debatable whether those should be modified or not, but it would still make it harder for verifyers/'researchers'. Perhaps I should add a link at the end to my wikifarm reference list to this end?


 * As for Dreamer's comment about whether it's pov or not, naturally we'll never escape that as long as human processing ability is involved, but I've at least attempted to remove myself from the equation nearly as far as I'm able, and simply state things 'as is', and others are obviously free to browse, verify, and modify the list when they think I've misunderstood something. I also agree with you that if reader attention span cuts off at 30k-50k, they should certainly manage 16k-18k of article text, but it still needs to be somewhat restructured into more eloquent and 'on-topic'/coherent columns. They digress into each other too much, rather than 'mixing around' the sentences into order. Dave 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, referencing it doesn't stop people from deleting stuff. I would say look over at any of the Sailor moon character pages for good models of good reference, but not overboard.  Right now Nabiki stands at about 2X the references to any of them, and they're some of the most referenced characters in anime on Wiki.


 * Of course not, but it stops most of them from deleting without cross-referencing that they have a good reason for it, which is the entire intended point of constant improvements. As for Sailor Moon being less well sourced, so what? The more well-founded/NPOV/Factual the better. The text is also shorter and less controversial among the community. Should we only back up 1 in 2 statements instead? That wouldn't really make any sense.


 * However, it doesn't have to be the references themselves that receives clean up, but in any case they are a prime reason for the current length. Derekloffin 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it only turns detracting for any readers in case it's the text itself that's oversized, and in this case it's well within the lines, at most 16k-18k or so, so it's not a rule that really makes any sense applied in this situation. The readers only even look at them in case of confusion. I agree that the Ranma profile is bloated from extraneous babble, but almost every single statement here is condensed and relevant, with the text not even filling half the size. I only think we should do anything about it when it turns _above_ 45k, i.e. by necessity for an ill-considered generalised praxis, rather than explicit intent. It doesn't have to be anything that's cut out, unless it's repeats of previous mentions. Can't we just let this article continue to uphold this very high standard? That I constantly in all seriousness have to defend that it's 'too good' (or some alternate loophole to quiet it down), with a straight face, should in itself give further basis for my evaluation that it truly needs to be well-sourced. As is it feels like leaving the barn-door open for the wolves as soon as I loose interest. Dave 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox is too wide
Would somebody please compact the infobox so it doesn't cover two thirds of the page? It's seriously screwing with the formatting, and driving me buggy! I'd do it myself, except I'm not really sure how, since my previous attempt didn't work.

Until next time...

Anon e Mouse Jr. 69.141.234.101 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Name Question
The kanji of her first name apparently breaks down to Na "reputation, vegetables or exorcism" and Bi "beauty". So far, sort of good. I suppose "reputation" and "beauty" make sense, but the last character... Ku "chest, chronicle, deed, lean on, period, plan, pure, season, spirit, table, tree, yellow, and is the tenth sign of the Chinese calendar." Is there any way to distinguish which alternatives that would be more 'correct'? Thanks. Dave 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nabiki's name was not written in kanji. It is written in Hiragana, which is purely phonetical and therefore meaningless outside of what it spells. You can of course find kanji that can make the word Nabiki, but from all offcial source i've ever seen, Nabiki (and all the tendo sisters for that matter) have always had their names written in Hiragana.--Chikiko (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks you for the reply. I've strictly gone with various thought reliable translation engines. Another question. "Tendo"/天道 was translated as "Way of Heaven". Would it be reasonable to interpret this as that Nabiki Tendo would stand for "Flexible Way of Heaven"; Akane Tendo as "Angry Path of Heaven"/"Wrath of Heaven"; Kasumi as "Misty/Gentle Path of Heaven"? It would fit all of their characters. Soun would be more of a problem "Fast/Swift Cloud" might imply his battle-aura, or his quick emotional ('thunderstorm') surges or both. "Swiftly Thunderous Path of Heaven"? Hmnah. Are there any cultural implications you could infer along these lines? Thank you for the help. Dave (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldredirectful
This article has too many problems and too few editors both willing and able to correct them. If you revert my conversion to redirect please commit to bringing this article to acceptable status. -- allen四names 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)