Talk:Viewtiful Joe (character)

Problems with the lead and other issues
I'm started this section based on a conversation at New Age Retro Hippie's talk page. I'm going to give a third opinion on the topic, but I need some clarification. Can someone describe to me - in brief, concise text - what the issues are here?

Or alternatively, here's my brief assessment. There's a question of whether to use the japanactor parameter for voice actors for the Japanese version, or to put them all into the voiceactor parameter. There's also an issue of lead length, if it should be only one paragraph or multiple. And there's disagreement on whether or not the character's potential inclusion in Super Smash Bros. should be included. Did I get everything? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the infobox really depends on how it needs to be used, and what looks nicer. As for the lead, maybe trimming what it currently is to 2 large paragraphs would be a better idea. I somewhat agree that his development information doesn't really need to be up there, and listing all of his appearances may not be best. The lead is quite large for an article so small. It is so developed, you could use it for Viewtiful Joe's section in the list of characters, and it would cover everything. Thats not really best. As for the Smash Bros reception, I say keep it. I don't see why it isn't seen as reception. They think hes cool enough to be in the game. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The three arguments Hello Anyong listed are among those disputed, as well as whether or not all the voice actors need to be listed in the intro or Concept and Creation when they're already in the infobox, as well as the way Joe's appearances in Red Hot Rumble and Double Trouble are described. The lead's the big argument point, though, especially since a lot of the information is copied almost verbatim from later sections. See here for the differences between my proposed changes and the current draft. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then modify it. Your argument has been an excellent argument for modification. But you're using it for the outright deletion of content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not outright deletion, though, because that same information shows up elsewhere in the article, aside from the Smash Bros. thing. The content would still be there, just not in the introduction.-- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can start with the lead here. The lead is supposed to accurately reflect the length and content of the article, so in an article with three sections, a two-sentence-long lead seems rather short. On the flip side, three paragraphs seems a bit much. I think the lead should mention the main Viewtiful Joe games and maybe just have one remark about other appearances (e.g. "Joe has also appeared in fighting games and anime.") Having lines about reception of a character is strange enough, but having it in the lead seems even weirder. Voice actors is fine; origin of the name is maybe a bit much for the lead. Either way, I think there's some level of compromise to be made here. Should I come up with a trimmed down version of the lead that we can all look at/agree on, or does someone else want to do it? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything strange about reception for a character. There's been reception for characters since fiction existed. And sure, you can give it a shot, Mr. Bluth. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still against having all the actors in the lead since he's been played by five different actors in the last seven years, making the list kind of unwieldy, but if you want to suggest a lead, I've got no objections. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hows this? I trimmed the last parts that were less important, and merged the reception into it. Also, I think that the reception and the voice actors are things that should be in the lead. They generally go in other articles I have seen. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, you got to it before I did - but I think you did a great job. That's basically what I had in mind. Thoughts, everyone else? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I've since made a few revisions, adding some more content and adjusting the lede to try and fit in all the vital information while not making it too extensive. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You turned the lead from needing a bit of trimming, to needing a bit of expansion. The voice actors should stay. Like was said on NARH's talkpage, Master Chief, a FA, has the voice actor listed in the lead. With alot of your edits I see you are not just moving things, but completely changing info.(Such as your source saying the developer is who NARH is saying is the illustrator.) As I haven't played the games, I have no idea what is right, or where to get the information about such things, but I think you need to get your information straight. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think your edits went too far. I'm going to restore Bws2cool's version of the lead. Also, the infobox is not meant to be a replacement for text, it's meant to supplement it. So not having the voice actors in the body of the text isn't really informative, and it should be replaced. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should clarify what I mean. Cyberlink, you removed the creator of the character from the main text, preferring to show it in the infobox. The creator is crucial information and should not be relegated to just the infobox; it belongs in the content itself - particularly in the Concept and creation section. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just putting this out there, many characters have reception in the lead. It is part of the article. Some articles such as the pre-mentioned Master Chief, have a whole third pharagraph of the lead just about reception and legacy. While this article is somewhat short, this one-liner will do. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my thing, though; I'm fine with having a line about the character's reception, but I still think listing all the voices is too much, which is why I'd rather have them listed within the individual sections for the games, anime, etc, plus the infobox, instead of the lead. I mean, with Master Chief, that's only one voice to worry about, whereas with Joe...


 * Dee Bradley Baker voiced Joe in the English versions of both numbered games, RHR, and DT; his English dialogue was used in the Japanese versions as well, save for RHR.
 * Tomokazu Seki provided Joe's voice for the Japanese dub of the anime and the Japanese version of Red Hot Rumble.
 * Jason Palmer/Jeff Nimoy did the voice for the English dub of the anime.
 * Shinji Kawada played Joe in both iterations of TvC.
 * And now we've got someone entirely new playing him in MvC3, as both Baker and Nimoy have confirmed that it's not them.
 * That's WAY too many for one intro. Characters like Sonic, Link, and Ryu likewise omit listing all the actors in the intro in favor of using the infobox and spreading them throughout the article accordingly. Even Mario, who's had just as many portrayals, only lists one actor in the intro, and that's the current one (whose name we don't know yet for Joe, since Capcom's obviously replaced Baker as of MvC3). That's why I think Baker should be mentioned in the appearances section when discussing the main games, Seki and Nimoy in the anime, and Kawada and the new guy for the stuff on the fighters; maybe in the lead as well once they inevitably start showing up in more spinoff material. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)