Jump to content

Talk:Purah

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~ A412 talk! 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Purah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 talk! 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

As of this revision.

Spotcheck

[edit]
  • [5] - This source appears to discuss her in Age of Calamity, but I don't see where it supports now wearing a long beige lab coat and a skirt that exposes her lower legs.
  • Tightened the description based off the image, changed "lab coat" to just coat, removed the exposed legs bit and mentioned the black skirt instead. This one's a bit rough to get design commentary from outside of what one can see.
  • [9][10] - I have no doubt that Some third party merchandise leaned heavily into Purah's sex appeal is true, but technically neither source actually supports that assertion, they're just describing products for sale.
  • Changed this to "Some third party merchandise portrays Purah in a sexual manner."
  • [13] - I think eliding "thirst posts" from the full quote is more confusing than beneficial, it left me wondering what the original full quote was, when it's just two words.
  • Removed the quotation marks.

RS

[edit]
  • [2] - What is gamepedia.jp, and why is it reliable? I recognize it's only being cited for a voice acting credit, but is that information available nowhere else?

CV

[edit]
  • A bunch of hits on Earwig, but it looks like entirely false positives from attributed quotes and repeating the names of the three games under discussion.

OR

[edit]
  • Nothing uncited.

Broadness / focus

[edit]
  • Checks out.

NPOV

[edit]
  • Checks out.

Stable

[edit]
  • Checks out.

Images

[edit]
  • Infobox: License good, caption could maybe use a (left) (right) to better describe which is which, could use alt text.
  • Figurine: I'm not convinced we're passing WP:NFC#UUI C16 or WP:NFCC C8 here. Have any sources provided commentary on specific pieces of merchandise?
  • Sadly there is no secondary sourcing discussing such merchandise, tends to be uncommon except for certain cases. However this use of imagery has worked for articles such as Widowmaker (Overwatch), a GA.

Lead

[edit]
  • First paragraph
    • in The Legend of Zelda series reads like it's missing a second the, but looks awful if you add it, which is probably why the other Zelda articles use in Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda series
      • Fixed.
    • which takes place 100 years before -> which is set 100 years before for out-of-universe perspective
      • Fixed.
  • Second paragraph
    • Tears of the Kingdom in particular - could probably drop in particular as redundant
      • Fixed.
    • with several media outlets voicing approval over her child-like appearance in Breath of the Wild - I don't think this says what you meant to say, assuming that you meant that they approved of the change from her previous appearance. Currently it can be parsed that they approved the previous appearance.
      • Fixed.
    • with search results on PornHub rising dramatically - I think the body paragraph indicates that the number of searches rose dramatically, not the number of search results. Also, I think we want to lead in to this phrase with something along the lines of Purah was often sexualized,.
      • Fixed.

Conception and design

[edit]
  • First paragraph
    • I don't think "Sheikah" needs to be quoted
      • Fixed.
  • Second paragraph
    • After completing the character Robbie - Is it possible to add a few words about who Robbie is? He's referenced again later in the paragraph, and I don't think a reader would necessarily know the connection.
      • Attempted a fix.
    • I don't think "magical girl" needs to be quoted
      • Fixed.
  • Third paragraph
    • Meanwhile in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - I'd drop Meanwhile
      • Fixed.
    • as a mature woman from her previous child-like appearance - Bit awkward, we talked about her not-child appearance in Hyrule Warriors just before this. Maybe just as a mature woman.
      • Fixed.
    • Her hair meanwhile now frames her face - I'd drop meanwhile
      • Fixed.

Appearances

[edit]
  • First paragraph
    • recently turned her body into that of a child after a scientific mishap de-aged her - Wait, are these two separate events? If not, recently de-aged her body into that of a child due to a scientific mishap.
      • Fixed.
    • Sheikah race - Are Sheikah a clan, as described in the previous section, or a race? Also, does She is one of only three Sheikah who... just work?
      • Fixed.
  • Second paragraph
    • Purah later appears in the game's sequel - Hm, awkward again that we included Hyrule Warriors just before this, as TOTK is not a sequel to that game. Purah later appears in Tears of the Kingdom, a sequel to Breath of the Wild set some years later?
      • Fixed.

Critical reception

[edit]
  • First paragraph
    • in the game - I'm assuming this is about TOTK, but this is the first time in the section we reference any of the games, so we should probably be specific.
      • Fixed.
    • 42257% - Group numbers of five or more digits, so 42,257%
      • Fixed.
    • thirst post - Ah I meant a slightly different fix earlier, not eliding in the big quote. Iain Harris of GamesRadar+ cited the presence of a large amount of thirst posts on social media websites such as Reddit and Twitter while researching the article, stating "I've seen more than enough thirst posts to get a telling-off from two of my bosses."
      • Fixed.
  • Second paragraph
    • There might be a bit of a due weight issue, considering we're giving a whole paragraph to this one review.
      • I've done similar with other GAs, the points raised in it are different than the others enough that it feels awkward if it's combined with any of the others.
  • Fourth paragraph
    • who otherwise consisted of interaction with the main protagonist - I think who should be whose roles, whose characterizations, or similar.
      • Rewrote this, should be fixed.
    • for this aspect - Unclear what they recognized, her expanded role or redesign?
      • Fixed.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • @A412 Addressed what I could. I do feel the secondary image helps illustrate the sexualization aspect of response to the character which is a huge part of their reception, and noted above I have used similar in another article without issue. Let me know if there's more to fix!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I missed the gamepedia comment. Give me a moment to try and find a better source. Unfortunately Behind the Voice Actors doesn't have a green check to confirm on their end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Fixed, replaced with tweet from voice actor's social media taking credit for the role.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Pornographic Information

[edit]

Why does this article include so much talk about porn made of this character? This seems entirely irrelevant and vulgar considering she's no more sexualized in the game than any other woman, and Wikipedia does not include this kind of information for other female video game characters. Benjaminaventi (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjaminaventi: Because a large part of the discussion about the character, and thus the notability, are people reacting to the character in a sexual manner. And it does include "this kind of information" for several other characters, to the point there's articles like Overwatch and pornography, even though the game itself is not pornographic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly constitutes "a large part of the discussion about the character"? If I search "Purah" signed out of google, there's nothing related to her pornographic material. If I then filter by news articles, nothing except some about her being redesigned (no mention of porn). I fail to see how this information stands up to Wikipedia's standards. Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was actively discussed in multiple third party reliable sources as cited here. It's the same manner as what we saw with Lady Dimitrescu. And despite your claims, the reception is not "heavily talking about porn" but people's reactions to the character in regards to perceived sex appeal. There's even discussion on how the Zelda series is being looked at by adults through the scope of reactions to Purah. So yes, there is encyclopedic merit to discussing this in the grand scheme of a series running this long.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should completely cut all discussion of sexual appeal, I think that the amount of discussion is far too in depth, to the point it overtakes the majority of the article. Most of the sources cited in the Critical Reception secrion discuss her sex appeal and repeat the same sentiments over and over. I think that section and its corresponding paragraph in the introduction should be condensed. Please review the "Reception" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "repeating the same sentiments", they're making distinct points and discussing different aspects. It's also the most notable aspect of the character in terms of reception. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that, and given how you led off this discussion I feel that's skewing your view on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's just creepy that you're this invested in sexualizing a character from a nintendo game. It's inappropriate since CHILDREN will read the article. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of making distinct points, the notion that the pornography of the character is their most notable point in terms of reception is entirely unfounded. Even if it was, it would not constitute an important enough aspect to take up more than half the article. There is also entirely no reason to link to articles about pornhub or include images of third party NSFW merchandise. 178.119.2.44 (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content included in the article is only included if it is covered in reliable, secondary sources. You have yet to propose an argument for removing content re: Pornhub that uses any guidelines or policies. What you're asking for is for us to censor the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not calling for censorship. Its calling for decency in regards to not mention sexual content of a nintendo character. A character that children are prone to look up on here. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're calling to censor. Ease up with the "Think of the children" nonsense and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies. If this is that troubling for you, don't look at Gardevoir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just described censorship. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E: Inherently sexual content is allowed on Wikipedia and is especially perfectly fine when it's sourced properly, which it is in this case. Calling for the removal of content that does not break the guidelines because in your opinion it isn't "decency" is censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Also, lay off the personal attacks. Content added from a neutral perspective does not reflect the opinions of the contributors. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about Purah is inherently sexual. Rule34 applies, there is porn of literally any character or concept you can imagine on the internet. Should every Wikipedia article include these porn references? I can rule 34 George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter, does that mean it get included in his Wiki? 2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD: I am not doubting that nearly every major video game character has had pornography derived from them all. Mentioning an instance of that would only be applicable if there was significant coverage from one or more independent, reliable sources regarding that specific character and its relevance to pornography, which is exactly the case for Purah. So yes, explicit content depicting "George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter" can be mentioned on the article for George Washington Carver Wikipedia if it is sufficiently documented by credible third-party sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia definitely includes this kind of information for other video game characters:
I don't know what to tell you except that you're just outright wrong and Kung Fu Man is completely correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are characters from mature and teen rated games. 148.137.224.157 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not censor based on a perceived target audience. Your argument makes no sense in the context of longstanding, fundamental Wikipedia policy. Clearly a wide variety of outlets have quite substantially covered the overt sexualization of this character in pop culture (warranting its inclusion), and the mildly sexual image is relevant to that. Please read WP:DISC. If you find other articles about this character from reliable, independent sources covering her in substantial detail that don't revolve around this sexualization, then you can write about those in the 'Critical reception' section as well to provide WP:DUE weight to those aspects of her reception. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting WP:CENSOR aside, I would hardly call this a "mildly" sexual image. Given that it's copyrighted, I don't think it meets any valid non-free use criterion and have nominated it at WP:FFD. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping back in to say I think the article is in a better state now. Looks much cleaner, thanks. Benjaminaventi (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Purah&oldid=1262553938"