Talk:Andromeda Shun

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 4 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thatguyej.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 October 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thatguyej.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/Explanation

Oh yeah, I like this. I had written a little explanation as objective as possible about the popularity and the androgynous appearance of the character, and it has been purely and simply deleted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Should it be possible to have an explanation or is it too much to ask? I have not seen deletion about the wrong and polemic assertions on the "most powerful gold saint" which appear quite often on the gold saints pages, but here, it seems that it is an annoyance. Well, well, well... I don't think I would continue to participate to wiki StS.

--Harsiesis (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is unncecesary since one sentence of that is enough.Tintor2 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a better argument, there is an entire paragraph in "reception" on Pegasus Seiya page, and the article is higher rated... Harsiesis (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dont need a better argument. The article of Seiya uses a reception section to pass WP: Notability. This article also need to expand the paragraphs but with reviews made by reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph I had written was based on the observation of comments on the internet web sites and fora, I don't think it's wrong. I perfectly agree it could be better with quotations of precise sources but in this case, I don't think it is difficult to find, so why not let this in order to be improved by others? I believed wiki was based on this kind of motivation... And I would really appreciate that wrong datas (such as Saga's height...) in wiki pages would be edited as fast as my little paragraph here, ah ah. Harsiesis (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources for a guide of sites that can be used for writing reception. Blogs and fansites from the series are not reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not thinking about blogs and fansites as reliable sources. Was it unclear? I REALLY think it is possible to check the informations I had given on what you indicated, I simply let other people do so, because now I am a little tired of this. Harsiesis (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until it can be checked, it shouldn not be added since it would be original research.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki Team! I noticed that the character of Andromeda Shun was missing a few bits of info during the earlier parts of the series. I wanted to fill that gap in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguyej (talk • contribs) 06:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatguyej: Be bold. Remember to write it from a neutral point of view and if possible, provide sources.Tintor2 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues

As I see, a template says that the article has multiple issues: {{Multiple issues|fansite=July 2009|original research=July 2009|plot=July 2009}}

But, I don't see some of them in the article:

It says it is written from a fan's point of view. Actually, I think this article is not. I've seen a lot of other articles, that we can say that was written from a fan's point of view, as some examples, some of Charmed characters, and I'm not a fan of Charmed or even of the "Saint Seiya franchise". I think that, in this point of view, this article is indifferent.

It also says that contains an overly detailed plot summary. In fact, in this question, once this article is one that can "suffer" from fancruft, i think it was one of the best articles I've ever seen.

And last, but not least, it also says: "It may contain original research or unverifiable claims". I don't have any reason to remove it. I don't know what I can consider in this case, to be or not, an original research. So I'm keeping it until another person explain why it should be removed, just like I did in the other two.

Please, don't nitpick. With your help, wikipedia can be WAY much better. Thanks Cvhcsee (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issues for that are the multilple sections focused on Shun's traits and role in the series. There is a section for every Cloth, Hades' possesion, all techniques, while "In Saint Seiya : Next Dimension" is overdetailed. The original research part is that there are various sentences that not even the writer is sure like "In one of the most unexpected plot twists of the series" or mostably the huge analysis:

"Shun is portrayed rather weak in the first 4 movies and in the anime-only 'Asgard' arc: In almost every fight scene, he is almost always defeated, and needs his brother Ikki to rescue him (except against Mizar Zeta Syd, the one time Shun defeated a foe in either of the first 4 movies or the 'Asgard' anime-only story). This has led to a misconception among certain fans that Shun is a weak character, but it is important to remember that these stories were not written by Masami Kurumada and therefore are not canonical, and are out of Kurumada's true continuity and plot."

Removing the tags does not help improve wiki as users will just think the article is fine. If you are looking for an example of good anime and manga characters article check GAs like Edward Elric, Himura Kenshin, Sasuke Uchiha, etc. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I added some reliably sourced discussion of Andromeda Shun's contribution to yaoi per the writing about fiction guideline, I pared down the tags to the three you see here per WP:OVERTAGGING. I felt those three fit the article best. Before that, it had a great deal more. If you can replace the banner tags with more specific tags, that would be better - or perhaps get a peer review or ask on the anime wikiproject to see if those tags still apply. Either way, more eyes on the Saint Seiya articles is a good thing. Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]