Talk:Isane Kotetsu

"Too Short"?[edit]

too short an article for more than one image

What kind of logic is that? If the information is available and pertains to the general subject, it goes here. Since when is 'i think it's short' a reason to take images out? -Biokinetica 04:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is short, so I think it would be better if the picture was a little smaller. Something about the picture going longer than the article bothers me. Other than that, I think it's fine. Jezebel Parks 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need two images for an article that's a stub. Long articles may require more than one. Simple text describes the single use just fine in a stub. Also see edit summary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of images isn't the point here. It's about showing Itegumo, because the image is available. Looking cool doesn't matter. Wiki isn't about looking cool. And this article isn't labeled as a stub. -Biokinetica 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub regardless, and who said anything about it looking cool? By your reasoning, we should show pictures for basically every action, "because they're available". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because wiki is about information, not limiting images. My problem with you is that you have no reasoning for taking the image out, other than the fact that there's already an image of the character. That's no reasoning at all. -Biokinetica 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the link I posted in the summary? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has licensing been a problem in any of these articles? This ideal of "wholistically free" is not, nor ever will be possible concerning articles about a licensed subject. There's no reason to simply limit images because they aren't free - that's what the licensing tags are for. What on earth is taking that image out going to do? -Biokinetica 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just decorative, justifying it becomes all the more difficult, especially in such a short article. Regardless, I've switched the image so both illustrate at once. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cosmetic, it serves this purpose from that link you posted

Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

It was the same thing; the reason for both images is to have it stay consistant with all the other articles that have seperate images to detail zanpakutou abilities. There's one image that best describes the character's looks and face, then another for their sword/ability if available. For the character's facial image, the original described her best. It focused less on one profile, and didn't mislead by implying that she fights often.

And here I was trying to compromise. Marechiyo Ōmaeda doesn't fight, either, but there's a multi-purpose image in his box. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, unless it actually does something other than grow, there's not much need to have a picutre of it, especially when it can be described in a short sentence. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There arguably is a point, since the operation and appearance of the 3 pronged split dagger is hardly intuitive from its description and we have no image of it in the linked article. --tjstrf talk 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel stupid for missing this, but D'k tahg would adequately describe the shape. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But referencing the D'k tahg would be sort of silly, since it is just a fictionalized version of a type of split dagger used in France which I can't for the life of me find a description of on-wiki. (The katar description is incorrect since it's not a punching dagger, she holds it like a normal sword.) I'll look it up in a book later, see if I can find the correct name of the real thing. --tjstrf talk 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! It's Jamadhar, which redirects to katar... damn. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]