Lists List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anime and manga List‑class Low‑importance

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On this edit, I think I ran out of space? So, when you access my hero at funimation it only shows the videos to the episodes, but doesn't bring up the casts. Like in Hakata Tonkotsu Ramens and it shows about 20 characters or 30. At "cast and crew." Then when I copied the link/ url to the web archive. It will sort of try to list who are the casts out of like 50 characters or more. But the loading speed is slow. Or the capture info is showing blank info at certain dates, one date was "February 25, 2018 at 23:03:37". But tomorrow I'll look at it more. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look through the web archive to the nearest date where it has "cast and crew." And the loading speed is just so slow. Then after a number of characters in the who's who, at the bottom it has displaying 1-10, etc, as you press the next number displaying the next set of characters. It won't let me and brings me to a loading screen for the longest time. (It will try to load for about an hour and then displays characters 11-20, etc.) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not all of them, but My Hero Academia is definitely a triple A franchise at this point. It’s about as well-known as the likes of Dragon Ball and Naruto now. Should we start off with giving Deku and All Might pages? 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:39BD:EBB7:F703:DC89 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an admin Xezbeth, if Drmies removed too much by removing the subsections, and he answered yes. Without the character descriptions, this page is completely incomprehensible. And not, this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to WP:FANCRUFT, and is not original research, and thus is not subject to WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem. Xezbeth didn't exactly say that. If anyone is interested in what they really said, and my response, it's right here. Moreover, the IP is simply wrong--a list of characters doesn't necessarily need such crazy-long descriptions. At some point this list was over 100k, with most of the references from ANN and the others from Twitter: typical for fancruft. As for that, "this series is not a fanfiction, and thus is not subject to FANCRUFT" is a completely invalid argument: FANCRUFT is in no way limited to fanfiction. And the rest, well, this is an encyclopedia. The IP should consider signing up for Wikia, where they are less likely to also be edit warring with Serial Number 54129 and Bonadea. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to mention that I did shorten most of the descriptions prior to Serial Number 54129 edit warring with me. The info was not crazy long by the time they were removed the second time; in fact, it was fairly short ad to the point. Secondly, while poorly worded information is indeed unencyclopedic, absolutely no information is even less encyclopedic. I don't see how you can call a page encyclopedic after you completely remove any substance to it. Also, that is exactly what Xezbeth said: "Drmies removal of content was a justifiable edit, though I agree that too much was removed".72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So here is one of the things that the IP restored:

  A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk Frog (蛙, Kaeru) gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as superior swimming, a tongue that can stretch 20 meters, sticking to and climbing vertical walls, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom. She is susceptible to cold and will go into hibernation if her body temperature falls too low. She has a reserved and informed personality, but is also insightful, intelligent, and ready to protect the innocent. She is also sharp, being the first one in the class to notice the similarity between Izuku and All Might's Quirk, which briefly panicked Izuku. On the other hand, she is honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be.

  What to the fans may look like mere "description" is much more. "Superior swimming"--superior to who? "20 meters"--did you measure this? "A reserved and informed personality"--how is "reserved" not an observation that interprets various facts and actions, or lack thereof? "Informed"--did the frog take a quiz, and score better than average? "The innocent"--innocent of what? And really "protects"? What if the frog only appears to protect? And so on. The writing is, as often in such articles, of a sophomoric level (note the dangling modification "which briefly panicked Izuku", itself likely OR). So no. This is fancruft, unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"honest to a fault, outright admitting that she always speaks her mind, no matter how hurtful it may be" is something that the character directly describes herself as, and 20 meters is also directly stated. While yes, the content is poorly written in some instances, completely removing it is an even worse option. As for the twitter sources, many of them came directly from the producers of the anime, so in what way is that unreliable? 99.203.40.43 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the character calls herself "honest to a fault", why would you believe her? Doesn't Iago explain how he lacks the iniquity to do murder, before murdering Roderigo and his own wife? And who actually says 20 meters? Is there an official committee inside the program that takes measurements, that are verified by some independent agency? Why would you want to build an article on Twitter sources? We allow Twitter sources for certain things, like celebrity birthdays--is that what we have here? Or was there maybe a tweet that said "oh, that tongue, it's 20 meters long!"? In that case, you should ascribe it properly. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, prior to Serial Number 54129 removing every piece of description, I did remove several excess descriptions, including going into specific details of these characters' abilities and unnecessarily describing their entire arc. Naming their abilities, quickly saying what they do, and a brief overview of the character should suffice, rather than completely blanking it. My problem isn't the removal of bad content, it's the removal of everything except the voice actors, which should not be the only thing relevant as this is describing both an anime and a manga, thus leaving manga readers in the dark with just naming a character who debuted after where the anime is. I can agree with you that the description for that specific character, as well as for a few others, was poorly written, but I still heavily disagree with removing entire sections instead of removing just the bloat and the poorly worded, such as "which briefly panicked Izuku", or changing poorly worded sentences. For example, instead completely removing the description because it specifically that the character's tongue stretches 20 feet, just say it's prehensile. And unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the twitter sources were usually confirmations of the characters' voice actors, rather than of the descriptions. 99.203.40.43 (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Serial Number 54129 removed several characters at the end without explanation, I restored those characters being listed, with shorter descriptions, as per Drmies' point that several sections were poorly worded. I don’t have anything against removing the bloat and the poorly worded, but culling absolutely everything just makes this page incomprehensible. Like I mentioned earlier, because this is a manga, simply listing the voice actors won’t do, as several characters appear in the manga but have not appeared in the anime yet. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same character as as an example, here's a a rewrite of one section:

Tsuyu Asui (蛙吹 梅雨, Asui Tsuyu) / Froppy (梅雨入りヒーロー フロッピー, Tsuyuiri Hīrō Furoppi, Rainy Season Hero "Froppy")

Voiced by: Aoi Yūki^[1] (Japanese); Monica Rial^[2] (English)

A girl in Class 1-A. Her Quirk Frog (蛙, Kaeru) gives her a frog-like appearance and abilities such as enhanced swimming abilities, a long, prehensile tongue, the ability to climb vertical surfaces, superhuman leaping, natural camouflage, and numbing venom.

One that includes a source:

Yū Takeyama (岳山 優, Takeyama Yū) / Mt. Lady (Mt.レディ, Maunto Redi)

Voiced by: Kaori Nazuka^[3] (Japanese); Jamie Marchi (English)

A Rookie Heroine whose Quirk Gigantification (巨大化, Kyodaika) allows her to grow significantly. She tends to make provocative poses to attract the media's attention. Mt. Lady was originally conceived by Kōhei Horikoshi to be the female lead, but was replaced by Ochaco due to not knowing how to utilize her quirk in the story.^[4]

And one that was completely trimmed down, cutting out all descriptions of their appearance, minimal descriptions of their personality, and one sentence for their abilities:

Yosetsu Awase (泡瀬 洋雪, Awase Yōsetsu) / Welder (ウェルダー, Werudā)

Voiced by: Yoshitsugu Matsuoka (Japanese); Orion Pitts (English)

A boy whose Quirk Weld (溶接, Yōsetsu) allows him to physically connect anything he makes contact with.

I hope you seriously consider these shortened descriptions over no description at all. Thank you. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, directly to Serial Number 54129, you can't just completely remove the villains and miscellaneous characters, including their voice actors. That's vandalism. It says on WP:VANDAL that malicious removal of unencylcopedic content is vandalism, and by removing any mention of all of the villains, as well as the "other characters" section, you're completely ruining the article. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have a hard time justifying your aspersion ("vandal") when you have been repeatedly reverted by three experienced editors. Please strike your unfounded assertions. ——SN54129 12:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, if you don't want to be called a vandal, please do not remove sourced content (the list of villains, Kota, and Eri had the voice actors fully sourced, yet you removed every single mention of them). My assertions that you are vandalizing this article are anything but unfounded.
• Secondly, I was revising the article by actually adding in sources and removing original research (as you can see by when the other IP re-added the villains in their unencyclopedic original form, then I stepped in to rewrite them in an attempt to make them be more encyclopedic), and you still undid my edit.
• Thirdly, you broke WP:3RR before I did, so you clearly are bent on keeping this article empty.
• Fourthly, this article doesn't become more encyclopedic with all of the information removed; it just becomes unreadable.
• Fifthly, like I mentioned earlier, Xezbeth said that "while Drmies' actions were justifiable, I agree that too much was removed." You're removing much more than Drmies did.

Also, I highly suggest you look at the example revisions of the poorly worded sections I have above on this talk page.

72.203.118.154 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, my edits were not malicious, a view that is supported by other editors. So you will strike your aspersions.
• Secondly, your sourcing has been regularly poor where it exists at all.
• Thirdly, no-one has broken 3RR except you; please read the policies before citing.
• Fourthly, you have been referred to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also see WP:V, which are both policies.
• Fifthly, I know. And other editors are entitled to disagree with me; that's their prerogative.
  ——SN54129 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If your edits were not malicious, explain why you removed several relevant characters, then locked your talk page when I asked for an explanation.
• Check my most recent edit, because I added eight sources. The ones that were previously there were not mine.
• No, you have broken 3RR. I have read the policy, and while I don't know who IP 2600:100E:B132:7855:68CA:7E80:4F2A:216 is, they are not me. You reverted 3 edits, disagreeing with you, and thus, you actually broke 3RR before I did. If you seriously don't think you broke 3RR, you are in denial.
• While you are correct that what the article was before was indiscriminate, I completely reworked it in an attempt to make it not break the policy. Blanking it isn't listed in any policy as far as I know, but there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about removing everything.
• Xezbeth is an administrator. While Drmies also removed a gigantic chunk of information, his problem was that it was poorly worded and unsourced, which I fixed. Even then, he didn’t remove all of the info on the page. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I removed extraneous trivia per policy. And my talk is not the place for this discussion. Here is.
• Please desist from adding blogs, etc., as sources; please see WP:UGC.
• You have not read the policy, because you think my original mass-removal of cruft counts as a revert. It does not, sorry. Please desist from further aspersions, such as claiming I am a wet Egyptian.
• Then you should read WP:REMOVAL, and yes there is when supported by policy. As you have been told many times.
• The possession of advanced tools is irrelevant in a content dispute. Drmies is also an admin, but as far as you are concerned it is his (extensive) experience as an editor that is relevant here.
  ——SN54129 13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is why I rewrote it. I’m not saying the page wasn’t flawed before; far from it. I’m saying that it’s wrong to remove every piece of content.

• While I’ll admit comicbook.com might not be the ideal source, this sort of page mostly consists of quick summaries for each character. The voice actors are all sourced, but you removed a quarter of them for no explained reason. I also sourced every plot twist I could find a source for in my most recent edit.

• Unsourced? Fixed. Original research? Already removed. Irrelevant? Nah. Vandalism? Nope. I attempted to fix the biggest offenders as to why the content would be removed. Removing the content now would just be out of spite rather than out of logic.
• My edits were being marked as possible vandalism despite my good faith. It’s not considered edit warring if it’s vandalism, correct, but even if my edits were technically marked as vandalism, they clearly aren't when compared to edits such as "X character is dating Y character".
• In order to become an admin in the first place, one must be a trusted user, which is why I mentioned that Xezbeth (who believed too much content was being removed) and Drmies (who, while he did remove content, knew not to remove everything) are admins.

Thanks for reading. Have a nice day. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issues with this article was that half of the descriptions were original research and that it was almost entirely unsourced. Take a careful look, because I revised almost every section to be much shorter and remove long fancruft (such as 3 sentences describing quirks, or describing an entire character arc), and removed original research (such as going into detail about how Deku was probably panicked by Tsuyu mentioning All Might), as well as adding 8 sources for plot details (suh as the deaths of Nighteye and Best Jeanist), or beta elements (such as Mt. Lady and Uraraka’s original roles). 72.203.118.154 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SN#, you know you got my vote if you ever go up at RfA. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we're going by the standard of WP:BRD, which is what I am familiar with, then we have to start with the first bold edit of Drmies removing said content. They then reverted another user attempting to reinsert said content, rather than going the discussion route. There is no second revert in WP:BRD, but it happened anyways, and both sides continue to happen to edit war, two administrators, even. IMHO, there should be no requirement to source for intimate details about characters in a fictional work. Indeed, I feel this is an inconsistency in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, given that No original research policies says the only way to prove an edit isn't original research is to provide a reliable source for it. There is no possible way to source every significant detail, especially for minor characters in a show, but they are characters nonetheless. Lists_of_characters_in_a_fictional_work links a lot of these character lists and only some of them are even sourced to the guidelines. I've alerted the "WikiProject Anime and manga" and "Wikiproject Lists" on their talk page, here and here, given I believe this is a significant issue that could benefit from further editor consensus, and not at all isolated to this specific character page. Tutelary (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. While I very heavily disagree with the mass removal of content that leaves this page almost blank, there was a point to be made that this page was poorly written. Prior to this page being protected then unprotected, this edit attempted to remove all of the original research and fancruft, as well as adding sources for major spoilers in the series. I would also suggest looking at the section below this one, as I do list out several reasons to revert this page to that version 72.203.118.154 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. For the record, I am not against removing fancruft and original research; Drmies' example above was a perfect example of this page being guilty of it. However, I am against almost completely blanking the page.

2. The irony of this situation is that the admin who locked this page, Ad Orientem, has recently warned another user not to blank page content. To quote them; "If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation..."

• While talking with Ad Orientem confirmed that the warning was because Luke Starling removed the content solely because it did not interest him, my point still stands that it would be preferable to rewrite this article instead of blanking it.

3. While Serial Number 54129 did explain the removal of descriptions as fancruft, unsourced, and original research, my edit that got this page locked did in fact remove all of the fancruft and original research, and added Eight sources. For comparison, here's the version before the edit war started, which does include fancruft and original research.

4. In addition to removing descriptions, several major characters were removed, particularly the main villains. I have yet to see an explanation from Serial Number 54129 as to why several characters were removed along with the descriptions. Either it was a mistake and you should be mote careful, or it was malicious and it was vandalism. A list of characters fails when it omits several major characters.

5. Despite the mass removal of content, two characters do have short descriptions remaining: Wash, who has only appeared in the manga thus far, meaning he does not have a voice actor yet, and Gran Torino, who has a source. Said source is Comicbook.com, which was the site I used for 7 of the 8 sources I added.

7. Because this is both a manga and an anime, simply listing the voice actors is a horrible idea. As I mentioned earlier, several major characters may appear in one but not the other, and thus may not have voice actors.

8. Every single list of characters on Wikipedia gives some sort of context to the characters. Why should this one give absolutely no context at all? Not only is it inconsistent, but it is also unencyclopedic to have a list of characters with no context, and even less encyclopedic to completely omit several major characters.

Please seriously consider rewriting this page instead of blanking it. Thank you for your time. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, since this page is unprotected now, I would like to add that since you removed several characters from the list, you also removed Seven valid sources of voice actors confirming their roles. Additionally, rather than blanking the entire page, "Dramatic changes to an article should be discussed on the talk page first". While yes, the article was poorly sourced, the best thing to do would be to find sources (as I did before you reported me) instead of reverting my initial reversion by uncivilly saying "no thanks" in response. There is no way to build an encyclopedia if you shoot me down for finding sources. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my points 3 and 4, when another user reinserted the missing characters in their unencyclopedic form, I revised those to have as little fancruft as possible. Your next edit removed all of the characters along with their descriptions. You explained why you removed any sort of context for the characters (which, per point 8, is inconsistent with literally every other page of this caliber, and would be more comprehensive and encyclopedic if the descriptions were rewritten and sourced like this edit that rewrote some descriptions to be one sentence and this one that also restored several characters who were removed without explanation instead of completely gone), but not the removal of the characters. I expected an explanation for the removal of those characters, but you have constantly been dodging every time I have asked why you removed valid information. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Ad Orientem

Earlier today you protected List of My Hero Academia characters because me and Serial Number 54129 were involved in an edit war because he was blanking material on the page, some of which was sourced directly from voice actors of the series, and others that could simply remove original research instead of being blanked. Later, he reported the article to be protected, despite the fact that I almost completely rewrote the article instead of undoing his edits. Because of what you said to Luke Starling about blanking articles without explanation above, I'm genuinely curious on what the policy on unexplained blanking and page rewrites are.

By the way, if this breaks WP:FORUMSHOP, I'll stop. I don’t want to bring discussion about that specific page to your talk, but I do want to know what the policies on blanking and rewriting whole articles are for future reference. If it is preferable to blank an article rather than rewrite it, I will try not to repeat that mistake. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take another look at the article shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I am very grateful that you will take another look. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. After looking at this again it appears that there has been some heavy editing going on that started around the 16th instant. A lot of what follows is somewhat confusing but the general rule of thumb is that when edits are challenged the next stop is the talk page. This is covered in WP:BRD. In this instance, given the very substantial nature of the edits a discussion was probably going to be inevitable. The difference between this situation and the one on my talk page to which you alluded, is that the editor in that case was blanking large sections of well sourced material from a long stable article/list, apparently for the sole reason that it did not interest him. This after I had twice reached out to them. So yeah, their behavior was manifestly disruptive and I found it necessary to issue a strongly worded warning. In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here. That said the operative guideline is BRD. That means that a discussion needs to happen and WP:CONSENSUS sought before the challenged edits are restored, in whole or part. With this now clarified I am going to go ahead and lift the page protection. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for addressing my concerns. Words can not express my relief. Best regards... 72.203.118.154 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate question, but Serial Number 54129, who was the other party of this debate, has not contributed to this discussion since the page was protected, despite being online several times. What would the outcome be if he does not contribute anymore? My edit was revising the page to a similar version of how it was for Six years, but his edit is how the page currently is. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history. While I do not believe the character descriptions should be blanked, character description pages (especially for series as popular as My Hero Academia) tend to be subject to WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAN. I would approve of character details if they were properly sourced by secondary sources (NOT episodes/chapters of the series as this is subject to trivia). With that said, I would not list plot details of what happens to the characters -- that's what the episode and chapter summary pages are for. lullabying (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest looking at this edit, which did in fact remove most of the original research before the page was blanked again. I also added secondary sources from Comicbook.com, if that's reliable. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a small example, would this version break WP:FAN? The previous version before the blanking included long winded sentences describing their appearances, and another two on their abilities, including specific strengths and weaknesses. This version is just one sentence on their abilities' general purposes. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So a short time back, I wrote a draft article on Izuku, which got rejected over a month ago, mostly since it's intent was to be a spin off the main character page. It's taken me a while to get around to creating this discussion, so now I would like to hear, (well, not really hear, this is text), from you guys on whether or not if Izuku is worthy enough to get his own separate article. Personally, I think it would be a good idea, since (like one of the other discussions mentioned) MHA has practically reached mainstream status and that Deku is a pretty well known character at this point, like Spike Spiegel or Ash Ketchum, so it would be fitting to see also see an article on him. I also feel that there is a decent amount of information on him that could be mentioned in a separate article, although it would have to be found first.

Concluding, I would like to see from you guys whether or not a separate page for Izuku would be a good idea or a bad idea, (I also wouldn't mind looking at your opinions on my draft, and maybe see what could be improved), and if you think it is a bad idea, i'd like to see your opposing argument on why. In the meantime, i'll try and edit the draft article a bit more when I got some spare time. PeteStacman24 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we’d be done with this edit war by now, but here we are. Every time I think we’re done with this garbage, there’s another mass removal of content month later, and I want this to be the last time we ever have this discussion.

They have constantly been removing content from this page, claiming to be removing fancruft, original research, and unsourced content, but in reality removing almost every single description below every characters voice actors. The content removed in each edit, while it does include fancruft and some unsourced content, rarely includes original research, and also still removes some sourced content. Now, I have no issue with removing fancruft (I myself have done so several times), but I do have a major problem with removing almost every single character description, and even more of a problem that their supposed reason for their actions does not match up with their actual actions. Another thing is that rather than removing all of the content altogether, I see no reason to not find sources instead of removing 30 kilobytes all the time. I know I'm not alone on thinking that this mass removal of content, while in good faith, removes far too much. Not including my previous IP's, several other edits by other users have reverted the mass removals. I'd also like to bring up a point I learned from another previous IP address on a content dispute from a few years ago. Two quotes stood out to me the most:

"Having this info here acts like a mini-history section. If we just got rid of it, then we're just left with a table of fighters without any real context." and "All of the sentences mentioned (except for the Subspace one) are informative and useful to someone with no video game or Smash experience, and are a good summary."

In short, having little bits of information on these types of articles is important, and removing the info also takes away most of the context behind the list; otherwise, it would just be a list without any substance, and thus wouldn't warrant a page. However, the last thing I want for this page is for it to be deleted over an edit war, as lists of characters for popular tend to have their own pages, especially for a series with as many characters as this one. Another thing is that most lists of characters tend to have descriptions, even if very short, and to have this one be specifically targeted for repeated mass removals with explanations that don't match the actions, as well as refusal to source the content instead of removing it, is frankly frustrating. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the same Californian crufter as the IP who tried to complain at ANI about me, but was instead forced to apologise for wasting my time? Yes, yes you are. Please stop adding unsourced original research, cruft and bloat. I'd be happy, personally, to go through the reverts with a tooth-comb, but I've already done that a couple of times, so the only tool left is the blunt hammer of mass-removal. Unfortunately, you cannot be trusted to allow any removal of material stand, so I suspect we shall have to suspend anymous editing from this page—possibly for a lengthy duration. Cheers, ——Serial 12:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]