Jump to content

Talk:List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
  • New Adventures now moved, as the character list was adding to the page weight of the original article.

Zodak is not african-american, he isn't american! I don't think, there is something like African-Eternian, so why not call him just black.

Need to distinguish different stories

[edit]

With several different versions of the MOTU story we need to separate out distinct features - e.g. Teela doesn't become Man-at-Arms' (adopted) daughter until the animated series and has a somewhat different relationship with the Sorceress in the earliest mini comics. Can anyone suggest a good format that allows distinctions to be noted without generating five entries that say the same thing for some characters? Timrollpickering 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panthor

[edit]

FYI, The link to the "Panthor" page now redirects to armour for some reason. I dont know if there is a panthor page out there. I haven't been able to find it.Caval valor 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much dead wood and no sourced material

[edit]

There are too many Masters of the Universe articles with little or no third person sources and lack of notability as per the wikipedia criteria. WP:NOTEDwanyewest (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • I know some inclusionists fanboys are gonna get pissy so I discussed it at wikipedia talk age Identifying reliable sources I asked if the sources were reliable and they said no see for yourselves [1] Dwanyewest (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that the characters nominated should be merged because they is insufficient third person sources to demostrate individual characters notability so it better to merge than delete them. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to organise lists of characters?

[edit]

The reason I ask this is because this article I believe needs reorganising because the characters are arranged according to year the toy was released without verification. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to organize lists of characters is probably to format them like featured character lists like List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. Do these examples help? Neelix (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main characters now nominated for merger

[edit]
  • Oppose mergeMekaneck, Evilseed, Two-Bad, Man-E-Faces, Mer-Man, and have been nominated for merger, with others sure to follow. These are all major characters, who had toys, comic book appearances, and were in multiple cartoon series. There is nothing gained by destroying that information, just to have a pointless token mention of them on this page. Fictional characters may not get the coverage that celebrities do, but that doesn't make them less notable.
  • Crita has nothing in it, just a redirect already, it apparently not an action figure. Screeech was just Skeletors falcon, not much to write about it. No objection towards merging these two, but all major characters should be left alone. Dream Focus 05:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are suppose to use common sense and form a consensus, not mindlessly follow the suggestions put on the guideline pages. Policies must be followed, not guidelines. The guidelines are just there to help people make a decision when forming consensus. Are these notable enough to have their own pages? They are main characters of a notable show, found in various media, as I have stated. You don't need a reporter somewhere telling you how to think, especially since this is one of the many things you aren't likely to have anyone in the media talk about. Dream Focus 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument in this and many other fiction cases seems to be it it exists so therefore it's inherently notable. Wikipedia's policy on verfication clearly states

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

Now there doesn't seem to be any reliable information which cover the respective articles extensively I nominated, now I know you believe that the guidelines and policies have been created by deletionist campers if you object so strongly to such guidelines then maybe you go to the respective talk pages to get them overturned. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The information is verifiable by the primary source, no one doubting any of it. Read the start and stop taking things out of context. WP:VERIFY
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. The primary source is a reliable source. Not everything need actually be attributed, if no one sincerely doubts the information is valid. Dream Focus 23:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I disagree a primary source shouldn't be relied on exclusively for a source its part of POLICY WP:PRIMARY.

It clearly states Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation Whilst I agree every minor detail does not need a source I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have a source which discuss the characters at reasonable length to assert notability. I have managed to do this with other Masters of the Universe characters such as Evil Horde, King Randor, She-Ra, He-Man, Battle Cat. Plus I think you will find Wikipedia policy atively discouraged using primary sources exclusively ala Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the part about Reliable sources.

The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

The original source is reliable. That's why we have summaries of books and television episodes for articles. Its not original research to summarize what you saw or read in the original source. Dream Focus 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all Dwanyewest's message to TenPoundHammer is clearly a friendly notice and does not constitute inappropriate canvassing. Long-standing practice has firmly established that primary sources are not sufficient to establish the notability of fictional characters, as recorded in the appropriate guidelines. As the only objector to the merge has not even claimed the existence of secondary sources for any of these characters, the merge should take place. Neelix (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page used to be a lot more informative and helpful when each character had its own page which discussed which episodes characters appeared in and much more. Sorry to see the change for the worse here.

98.213.114.196 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much loss of information

[edit]

I suppose I can understand some of the lesser characters being merged into this article, but it has resulted in such a loss of useful information. Also, as seems to have been the case for many years, some user seems to give preference to the 1983 cartoon series, giving sometimes quite trivial notes to the animated versions of characters, yet completely wiping information on various versions of the original figure (which came before the cartoon). A real shame. Jay Firestorm (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mindless destruction of information is common these days. I just checked and there is a wiki for this series at http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/He-Man_Wiki Its active, and has hundreds of articles there already. Dream Focus 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good wiki, but only one that fans "in the know" are likely to visit. Some of the original Wikipedia character pages for "bigger" characters in the line were terrific, giving rundowns on different figure versions and suchlike (to which I myself contributed), but all we have now is some pretty bog-standard and rather "scatter gun" information. As mentioned above, I'm pretty peeved that a lot of original figure information and pre-Filmation character origins have been totally wiped, yet truly trivial cartoon notes such as colour variations in different episodes (!) bares mention. I feel this was someone's own POV ideas on a character profile, and surprised it wasn't undone long ago. Sulk over. Jay Firestorm (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting characters

[edit]

I am considering splitting Moss Man and Ram Man as I believe there may now after so many years be just about enough third person sources to justify a solo articles any opinions are welcomed. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanna alter my Stinkor article in order to improve it is welcome. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I also believe King Hiss, Rio Blast, Scare Glow,Snake Face, Roboto (Masters of the Universe) would benefit from being solo articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing my attention to these characters again, West! I am not confident that splits should be undertaken here. I would only recommend splitting character articles off if there is too much secondarily-sourced information about that character to fit into a reasonably sized section about that character on this list. If you have enough sources to add this volume of information, it would be good to add it to the relevant section on this list first in order to demonstrate that the section has become too big with such information to be a section only. Still, instead of trying to get new character articles split from this list, you may consider working on the list itself. I think it would be a more profitable venture (and of more benefit to the project) if you were to get this list up to featured list status. I would be glad to review the list if you are able to get it to meet the criteria. List of Uncharted characters is a good example of a featured list with a similar subject. Neelix (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One should be cautious about splitting off character articles. Here are some good reasons:
  1. The split-off articles don't get read as much. Many people are looking for very basic information, such as, "was Webstor a good or evil character?" and will not click on the link once they have read enough.
  2. The characters only need to be split off if there is way too much to say about them, not if they have a lot of sources.
  3. Context is more important than standing alone. Being in the list allows them to be sorted into classes such as "Heroic Warriors" subclass "Original characters"
  4. Sources saying that the action figures are the "most lame" aren't really sufficiently scholarly to justify an article the way the equally lame LotR character Tom Bombadil has such sources. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will those articles be expanded in size? Right now, not a lot of information to justify splitting off to a new article. Why not just keep adding to them any relevant information you think belongs, and when any get big enough, then toss it to a side article. Dream Focus 23:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principal reason I have opposed splitting off character articles is that otherwise the material on them has been known to gradually vanish, finally reducing the content to a name on a list; the list is sometimes then nominated for deletion as having no substantial comment. This sort of attempts to reduce our coverage of fiction has occurred in the past not just for characters in cartoon franchises, but for the most famous works of classic European and Chinese literature. It is apparently based on a judgment, which was characteristic of the 18th and 19th century, that widely read novel were not serious objects of study but low-class entertainments of dubious repute; most 19th century public libraries limited borrowers to one at a time, and only had the books at all in the hope that the readers they attracted might be induced to turn to something more beneficial. I was truly astonished to find it here, where the attitude of some of the fiction minimalists--almost all of whom admitted knowing and liking many of the works they were trying to remove, seemed sometimes to be that anything they used for recreation was therefore not worth including in an encyclopedia.
Myself, I do not know this series, and if I were forced to encounter it I expect I would greatly dislike it, but I don't want to make an encyclopedia after my own preferences. It is of great importance fora contemporary encyclopedia to document fully all the aspects of popular culture. Fortunately, the fiction minimalists are most of them not currently active in that sphere, and the danger from merged articles is much lessened. I find I agree with the others above that in general the discussions of most characters are more useful to the reader if merged, provided they merge retains the content (tho I do wonder if the increased use of small devices will lead us to a greater preference for small articles).
In earlier discussions I proposed that for any really major (=famous) work of fiction (I use "work" to include franchises like this), there should be articles on all the fully individualized characters essential to the plot, a section for any named character with a role (in drama and film, a speaking role), and a list of every identifiable distinct character. For lesser works, the coverage would decrease proportionately,. I do not intend to judge whether a work I do not actually know is sufficiently major. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting by FAMASFREENODE

[edit]

@FAMASFREENODE: I honestly don't think diluting this article down into pages such as Heroic Warriors (Masters of The Universe) is a good idea - the information here was good enough -- samtar talk or stalk 15:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: this user refers to WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. any article hitting 40 KiB is hitting the risk limit. the character page prior to split was 112 KiB, a murder for uncapped dialup users and capped users of all speed tier.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAMASFREENODE: Very true, apologies - spot on -- samtar talk or stalk 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Masters of the Universe characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Masters of the Universe characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Masters of the Universe characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Masters of the Universe characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of characters

[edit]

There's no getting around it: a lot of MOTU characters who have articles have some questionable notability. Someone should take a look at them. 38.75.235.237 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To either delete or merge character articles (Battle Cat, King Grayskull, Man-E-Faces, Moss Man, Orko (character), Ram-Man, Roboto (character), Snout Spout, Sorceress of Castle Grayskull, Teela, Hordak, Beast Man, Clawful, Evil-Lyn, King Hiss, Kobra Khan, Stinkor, and Power Sword) into this list article, for lack of independent notability and context. Since the discussion was started, most have been boldly merged so it seems reasonable to contine with the rest; merge preferred over delete as each is a plausible search term; normal editing processes can follow any merged.

As I mentioned above, many characters don't seem to be notable. To start, I propose merging King Randor into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. All the article's sources are trivial mentions. 2605:B40:1303:900:E4A6:330D:3E2E:CA88 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, here are the other articles I feel have unclear notability: Battle Cat, King Grayskull, Man-E-Faces, Moss Man, Orko (character), Ram-Man, Roboto (character), Snout Spout, Sorceress of Castle Grayskull, Teela, Hordak, Beast Man, Clawful, Evil-Lyn, King Hiss, Kobra Khan, Stinkor, and Power Sword. Most of these sources are about the franchise in general, and some are from listicle farms. 2605:B40:1303:900:C155:37D0:779C:35D1 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I am not opposed to improving them if better sources can be found. 2605:B40:1303:900:C155:37D0:779C:35D1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Long Live the King. As well as long live the other pages mentioned. Randor, by the way, doesn't seem to be a minor character but a big part of the topic. Coming in to wipe out an entire series of articles which mostly seem to be well entwined in the topic fits an "I don't like it" attitude concerning the series. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at the sources for these though. Like I said, a lot of them are from listicles that only talk briefly about the topic. These could very well be briefly mentioned in their sections in the list. Also, I never said Randor is a minor character; it's just that he hasn't really had any genuine analysis as far as I can tell. 2605:B40:1303:900:BC30:17EA:19C8:EE75 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all full articles, most from 2005, worked on by many Wikipedians over the years. Sources seem fine for their intention to fully present the character. Merging all of these pages while keeping the major material, which is what you seem to be suggesting, would end up being too large to navigate (an agreed-upon merge is not just a summary, it is the merging of information, and if there is more information than is capable of being merged then a stand-alone article seems warranted). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing my point; most of these sources are about Masters of the Universe in general, not the specific characters. Redirects would also be completely fine. 2605:B40:1303:900:65DD:960:F627:944F (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn Well, this has been dormant for a bit, but I think my argument still stands, with the exception of the Power Sword (though that still need work). 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
King Randor is a major character, I don't think a talk page "merge" discussion would be enough to delete this page (a merge is a deletion by another name), and now there is talk below of deleting all of the pages that you've listed, which can't be done here. Even a large merge attempt like this is, at least to me, questionable. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that instead of redirecting these character names, which apparently make up a bulk of the notable topic, you'd delete the lot and forget about them (so when a fan searches for the noble King Randor, they find nothing?). That seems to be putting too much into, and going too far within and beyond the memory-hole. 01:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_He-Man_and_the_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters&oldid=1251364638"