Talk:Belldandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Belldandy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Voice actor 2 Birthday 3 eye colour 4 User box expansion 5 Hair colour 6 Example needed 7 On the origin of the "Belldandy" romanization 8 Article picture 9 Second TV Voice Actor 10 Parody of running gags 11 Page protected 11.1 Discussion 11.2 Reception/Development resources 12 Cleanup and stuff 13 Peer review 14 What is significant 15 Footnotes 16 Pictures

[edit] Voice actor

Akemi Okamura issue sounds about right, belldandy does sound different on some episodes. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Must be that hyper-sensitive hearing you cats have. I don't hear any difference... -MegamanZero|Talk 18:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh listen to belldandy talking on episode 10 of the mini-goddess serries (Japaneese track of course :P). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

The date shown on the Profile says 196X/01/01 in Manga Vol. 1.However, in the chapter where Peorth got shrinked back to a kid after the Welsper event, Belldandy claimed that they have eternal life and have already saw a lot of lives and deaths. This became quite mysteries since she cannot lie but somehow she can fake the Profile.

Couldn't she be refering to her counsciousness for the eternal date, and that specific body/reincarnation for the 196X date? --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is unknown, but I just reread that part and the claim of eternal life came from Peorth instead of Belldandy. The Birthday date in vol. 1 might just be forgotten by the author like the octopus monster and the other demon that takes away luck.

Anyway, 1st of Jan should be the correct date, the year will always remain as a mystery. MythSearcher 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fujishima, back in his Taihou Shichauzo and early Aa! Megam-sama! days was not known for being able to write a continuous story. A lot of plot elements would get scrapped, without any explanation, after only a few chapters. This could very well be one of them: perhaps originally the Goddesses were like humans, but that did not fit his later vision. I would not put it past him to do this! Elric of Grans 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe he just did not remember that Goddesses cannot lie at that very moment. MythSearcher 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be her collegemates doing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Belldandy clearly does it herself, in person. It is unlikely he would ever have Belldandy lie --- Fujushima was never that bad. It is quite likely she was orignally meant to be 'born' then, but he later scrapped that idea and made all the Goddesses eternal. Elric of Grans 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe she drank too much cola... :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to confirm the use of a birthdate in the Manga, and thanks MythSearcher for adding the reference. However, I've got the Dark Horse version, (the non-flopped one), and the relevant panel it just says "January", which is why I was unsure. I gather that's what you've been talking about above - is this because in the original they used 196X/01/01, and they changed it in the translation? (I'm being horribly picky, for which I apologize, but for GA/FA I suspect that it is difficult to have too many references). - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime was more clear on that. -- Cat ^chi? 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been having fun re-watching the anime, as well as reading the manga for the first time. I'm enjoying it more every time I watch it, I think. :) The anime gave her a very clear birthdate, but when I went to reference the manga's version it wasn't so clear, until I realised that the discussion here is probably about either an earlier translation or the original, which would make a lot of sense. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I got both the original Japanese version and the Chinese version, and that panel showed the full date(In which, the Chinese version did not alter anything in that box and got the same font and look differently in other boxes like the one below stating her nationality/birth place). So I guess they cut that away in the English translation. MythSearcher^talk 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I may have to bother everyone here with the occasional stupid question, but I'm tackling referencing the same way I would with a paper, as I figure that would be minimum standards for GA, and I'll try not to ask too many questions when I get stuck. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This section references the U.S. voice actress, Eileen Stevens. I'm not really sure she's a viable source for character background. I think that's likely more her own impression of Bell-chan than anything official. Izuko (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] eye colour

Image:Belldandy (Oh My Goddess!).png hmm... This one is kinda fun... On the cover pic of the manga, Vol. 3, 7 got brown eyes(actually not very clear), most of the others are blue (or not using Belldandy's pic and one is all sepia coloured) But the pic Goddess with sunflowers in Vol. 10 got her eyes kinda brown. I believe it is just a printing problem and the official eye colour should be blue. MythSearcher 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In Colors, her eyes are purple in the first chapter, but blue in every other image. I think that says it all. Elric of Grans 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it is just one of those artist nature that uses altered colour to improve the pictures occasionally. The official colour should be blue, that purple is kinda blue, too. MythSearcher 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I like my Belldandy with blue eyes. Nuff said. ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actualy she does have brown eyes in the quiz game. --Cat out 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an enormous archive of AMG images and Belldandy's eyes commonly vary between brown and blue, with occasional appearances of shades like violet. However by the rule of which is the most common (preponderance), then Belldandy's eyes are indeed blue. --Peorthmegami 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

She is a goddess and so she has free control over her basic appearance; this includes eye colour. I've always preferred a rich blue-violet which is close to purple.63.161.86.254 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User box expansion

We need another image slot on the userbox to show the changes between AMG season 1 and 2. I tried to do it myself but it didn't seem to work. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Done. You need another? It might be better to merge the two images in ms paint... --Cat out 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not needed just yet. If they upgrade the engine again then it might be, but thats in the future.-Dynamo_ace Talk

Okay. I just feel it would be easier for the reader if images of the same series were presented as one image made out of combined other images. --Cat out 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair colour

From the first chapter, the few coloured panels from the original manga is a mix of brown and blue (more brown than blue). However, Keiichi asked her to change her clothes not hair colour in chapter 2 and she did what he said, chanded her clothes by reconstructing the particles. The picture showed during the change is a picture of her naked during the reconstruction. Proving that she did not change her hair colour but changed her clothes only. (if she changed both at the same time with the same method, she would have to be shown bald, too.) She did not provide extra explanation of any colour change of her hair and Keiichi did not ask or focus on it. I went through the later volumes(which should be after the change), and all the colour of the front pages which should be showing her with brown hair gives the same blueish brown for at least volume 2 and 3. This should be enough to prove that to be just a printing problem due to the colouring of the original script being so dated. In volume 4, the colour took a shape change and a lot of lighter colours were used instead. MythSearcher 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the manga, she originally had black hair which she changed to brown when she tried to make her appearance more acceptable for Earth. This fact was not reflected in any of the adaptations.

I have some superb scans of AMG Complete, which was a re-release of the manga with more color panels. In fact, the panel where Bell pops out of the mirror is a two-page spread that was beautifully colored with what appears to be watercolor (incidentally I spent hours piecing this spread together). Bell's hair is actually a melange of brown, blue, and gray shades. In the grayscale panels, Bell's hair is not black like Skuld's but rather a mix of black and white (unshaded) strands. Thus it is wrong to say that Belldandy's hair was originally black. In chapter two, Belldandy transforms her clothes and does in fact change the nature of her hair. Instead of the black and white strands, it is now colored with a uniform screentone pattern. This brings the question of what the new color is. In chapter 7 (the next chapter with ANY color pages aside from the first), Bell is shown shown with brown-gray hair in the cover, but in the succeeding color pages it's a silvery gray.

The bottomline is that there is a change in hair color that accompanied Belldandy's transformation. I can see why it was claimed to be brown, being the universal color of Belldandy's hair later. However, the remaining color panels clearly show more of silvery gray than brown so it can be argued that the initial transformation was: brown/blue/gray shades ---> silver-gray, then evolving to brown later on.

I feel that these kinds of details are best left to hardcore fans and is inappropriate for the general page on Belldandy. Consequently I have edited this bit of trivia out. --Peorthmegami 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example needed

In the article the Author makes this statement:

She is also rather self-reliant, in a sense. She will not tolerate people interfering in a situation she already believes that she has control over, although this often causes her to respond in a mild statement.

What scene in the manga or anime illustrates this statement?

Good point. I have no idea where the author got this from; after reading the entire manga (and scanlating a good part of it) plus watching all the animes, I'm still hard-pressed to recall any instances supporting this statement. I'll edit this out until the author defends this statement as I believe it is misleading (especially the "will not tolerate people interfering in a situation...") --Peorthmegami 06:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Following that statement is this one, presumably by the same author:

Most importantly of all, Belldandy is also extremely possessive of her own happiness. However, her innate character wouldn't allow her to be happy when anybody else is unhappy, so she does her very best to ensure everybody's happiness.

Again, I believe this is misleading. The statement at face value gives the wrong impression that Belldandy is selfish of her own happiness and maybe even hedonistic! The second line apparently tries to clarify (or even negate) the unsavory connotations of the first sentence, but frankly, fails in it's purpose of clarifying Belldandy's "selfishness." (not to mention the repeated use of "happy" and it's other forms is awkward). The other paragraphs regarding Bell's selfishness for K1 is sufficient to present the picture; there is no point in adding something that muddies the already clear water. Move to strike this out. --Peorthmegami 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the origin of the "Belldandy" romanization

The liner notes to the AnimEigo release of the OAV implies that the romanization "Belldandy" came from the original creators, not AnimEigo. See: http://www.animeigo.com/Liner/OMG.t Also, the written form "Belldandy" makes its first appearance on the business card she hands to Keiichi in the first chapter of the manga (Ah! My Goddess Complete, volume 1, page 7). I have changed the article to reflect this. Robaato 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romanization was worked out by Toren Smith. I'll see if I can round up the old issue where he explains it in a letter. I think it may be the second or third issue of the first US run of the manga. Granted, I haven't read that since 1995. The real question, of course, is how the hell would I post the information if I DO find it? Or, rather, where? Izuko (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did you have any luck on this? I'm really interested in where the Romanization came from. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The origianal manga got a lot of references in colour posters and such. I see no problem in the romanization, it is used by the creator. MythSearcher^talk 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with it either. And I have found a number of references on how it came about. :) I'm just curious - the letter would be a cool addition. - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is this one unconfirmed info on the Japanese wiki stating the Bell means beautiful in French and it is why the creator used it instead. MythSearcher^talk 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be worth checking up. Not sure that I would agree with the claim, but that shouldn't be a concern if it is supported in an RS. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the hint - I found a reprint of the Toren Smith article in the 2nd volume of the Dark Horse "unflipped" edition - it was fascinating reading. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sorry I've been a bit absent to refer to it. I found the issues and scanned them in if anyone wants to see them (not sure where I could put them up). I'd say, absent anything from Fujishima-sensei, himself, Smith is about as reliable as we can get. Izuko (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article picture

• Is there a DVD cover with Belldandy and Holy Bell? If so, it should be used for consistency. If not, forget I said anything ^_^ JuJube 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second TV Voice Actor

There might be a second english voice actor who voiced Belldandy, can anyone confirm this? I knew it was around episode 15-17 that i spotted this. -Dynamo_ace Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo ace (talk • contribs) 21:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parody of running gags

Some anime/manga (e.g. Ranma) feature a running gag wherein the main character is caught in a seemingly compromising position but is fully innocent. AMG mimics this situation (though less frequently), with the exception that when Belldandy is told by Keiichi that it is not what it looks like, she immediately believes him (though this will not necessarily prevent jealous). This seems to somewhat parody other anime/manga. Might be worth mentioning this in the context of being a parody, though the trust aspect is already mentioned.

[edit] Page protected

This page has been protected to stop the edit war going on here. Please discuss whatever issues you have, come to a consensus, and then let me know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has been unprotected as the discussion seems to have settled. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I really do hate double standards. I'm expected to discuss at every turn, yet someone else can just decide that they didn't like the outcome, so its now irrelevant. Anyways, the character has enough coverage on the list, and until real world information on this character is provided, it needs to stay that way. TTN (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, the discussion was ended at keep this page and keeishi's. per the one who started the merger proposal, you did not post any further comment at the time, and most of the people who joined the discussion have obviously not opposed the proposal of keeping these two pages. What you have done is suddenly come back a month later after the discussion, without trying to discuss at ALL, then keep asking others to discuss about it. You are obviously ignoring the consensus made in that discussion and YOU are the one that didn't want to discuss at all. Talking about double standards, you are the one who got it, since you ignored my edit summaries and the discussion at the merged page. MythSearcher^talk 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, who besides you wanted to keep them? Jack said that they may be able to become sourced in the first place in the first place, though it wasn't a comment towards keeping them, and his second comment was responding to my comment regarding which characters needed coverage on the list. The other few that commented said merge than split when necessary, and they did not single out those two characters. TTN (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many people wanted to keep them but that's not the point here. Remember, we are in a community where all people have the rights to raise their voice and defend their actions as long as they are proved to be relevant and judicious. Even 1 person supporting "keep" versus a group of 10 advocating "delete", the result as "keep" won't be changed, in condition that 1 certain person outreasons the others. Wikipedia is not the place for mob rule exercise. Galadree-el 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, you had been reverted by how many users? Did you actually think that I am the only one who wanted to keep them? And did you ignore the discussion result totally and came to merge the page before trying to engage in that merger proposal page? Before you accuse others of not trying to talk things out, look at yourself, you have blindly reverted the page 4 times and is in no real position to do so because you did not even try to comment it before you do so, and ignore the actual discussion at all when you say merge per discussion. If there is no consensus, then the discussion does not support your action. And the discussion seems to be pointing at merge minor characters, keep major ones if possible What you can do after the second revert is at least place a short comment in the talk page stating that the article is not up to par after a month, thus you wanted to merge them. You did not do so, so you have no grounds in accusing others of not trying to discuss. MythSearcher^talk 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I was telling those people that were reverting to discuss and show their opinion. Show me where the people stated to merge minor characters and keep the major ones in that discussion. The rest of the people commenting in that discussion did not single out any characters that should be kept. You were the only one there that noted them. TTN (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Begging others for opinion while you yourself fail to do so is an action that can be described in one word: hypocrisy. BTW, a main character won't never become a minor character just because TTN deems it to be so. Galadree-el 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am being mis-quoted out-of-context by Mythsearcher. The character is well covered in the list of chars and I support TTN's redirect to the merged content at the list. Full prior discussion at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!. --Jack Merridew 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about misquoting your point, I have misunderstood your point in the discussion then. If you wanted to merge this page as well, then I oppose what you have suggested. I still stand my point at major characters should have their own pages. Also, the list currently is not better then seperate pages, it is all still very much in-universe, unsourced and missing a lot of information from the original pages.

About the source of this particular page, here it is, and should be added in after the block.

The Pretty Character Chronicles, the history of animation heroins 1958-1999 by B Media Books 竹書房, ISBN4-8124-0543. At P.160 "She is god-like (of course, she is a goddess) and has a perfect proportion. The cake she baked in episode 3 also showed her charm in family skills." At P.238 "Belldandy(Ah! My Goddess)/The perfect woman in average male mind." In this source, she was also chosen as the back cover character from about 1000 female characters and 270 heroins from 270 anime due to her popularity. (second only to the cover character Ayanami Rei from Evangelion.)

With this source, it pretty much consolidates the notability of this page, it is from a third party publication, with enough fact checking methods and thus is reliable and verifiable. MythSearcher^talk 07:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said covered well-enough in the list, and yes, it could use more work. I note that this didn't get merged. The block you refer to would be the page protection, I assume. --Jack Merridew 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Pretty Character Chronicles is in only available in Japanese so I'm wondering where you're getting the quotes in English. --Jack Merridew 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have the Japanese quote, I can give it to you anytime. I never think my translation is perfect anyway.(Just too lazy to type Japanese, that's all.) "見よこの神の手によるが如き(神様たってば)完壁なプロポーシュン。また、3卷冒頭のケーキ作りのような家庭的な面も魅力的。", "男性が一般的に思い描く至高の女性像", and yes, I mean the protection.　MythSearcher^talk 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not looked at your user page where I see now that you speak/write Japanese. I was a bit concerned that the quotes were from some review of the book or the like. I get mostly question marks from the above, but thanks. --Jack Merridew 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is because you did not have certain asian fonts installed. It should be fine on unicode(UTF-8) settings. All in the name of improving wiki, you are welcome. Sorry for misunderstanding your words again. MythSearcher^talk 09:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless that book can provide more than a few sentences of information, it cannot hold up a page. Quality is the important part, not just having one or two sources. Now, if you can find like five others that provide meaningful information, we can talk. TTN (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Err... You are saying the second most well known character is not notable enough to have its own article. Whatever. Do you want me to cite primary or secondary sources? BTW, can you also quote the official wiki policy of needing 6 sources before a notable page could be set up? MythSearcher^talk 13:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that a subjective view backed by only two sentences is not good enough to hold an article. Significant coverage is required to hold an article. This means that the topic is its own topic, and could not fit into the character list or main article without it being awkward. You need to cite both primary sources giving concept, creation, and development information and more secondary sources giving an expanded view of what the above book states. TTN (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason of having a list of characters is because usually they are not notable by themselves, if that is not the case, then we should treat the subject on its own, like any other notable subjects. Yes, 2 sentences usually is not good enough, that depends on what those 2 sentences said. In this case, it is obviously that being able to get on the back cover of a book listing 1000 female characters showed the subject's notability by itself as an iconic character in anime history, not to mention the backing quotation of "The perfect woman in average male mind". There is a primary source I could quote from, but it is pretty much just plot summary, which could be pretty much quoted from secondary online sources, and the full description of the character creation notes, which are pretty much just praising her as "goddess of goddesses".(Ah! My goddess Colours) Some minor magazine called her the first of such characters (perfect woman in men's mind), (zh:明報兒童周刊 issue published in 1995). These pretty much covers the current 1, 3, 4 sections of the article, and the newest PVC figure got amazon stating it as 誰もが望んだ女神服のベルダンディが遂にPVC化！ (The Belldandy in goddess suit which was longed for by everybody now got PVC modeled!, similar comment was made by 1999.co.jp as well, "誰もが望んだ女神服のベルダンディーが、遂にPVC完成品にて登場です！"), not to mention the official link from the article EL section. How can anyone claim that there is not enough primary source? MythSearcher^talk 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being notable enough to have an article per WP:N and not being notable in regards to popularity are two different things. Anyways, for this character to require an article, you should be able to get at least a paragraph of each of creation and reception information. The above sources don't really seem to help with that. TTN (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an independent guideline called Wikipedia:TTN's criteria for notability? What do you mean by "Not being notable enough per..."? Can you show me the basis of your blind "per"? WP:JUSTAPOLICY demagogism. Can you cite any guideline or policy that states "for this character to require an article [..] get at least a paragraph of each of creation and reception information." Do you ever notice that 50% articles on Wikipedia exist in the state of Wikipedia:Stubs? Every single article has its begin with just some sketches about the subject. The decisive factor is the notability of the topic and the potential of expansion. Galadree-el 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:N, notability should be "Presumed", and it got "Significant coverage", sources quoted for the suject is directly pointing to its notability, the sources are "Reliable", secondary, and "Independent of the subject". The source I quoted didn't even try to talk about the series in general, they talk about the character as if she is independent from the series, only using the series name as an identifier of where did the character was taken out from. Also, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. A notable article could have only one sentence, as long as multiple sources support that sentence and if all the above points are met. Obviously the above sources quoted for the reception you asked for, and the creation can only be quoted from primary sources, and is not really necessary. MythSearcher^talk 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The mention in the book and magazine, while valid, are trivial at this point. They need to be part of a larger section detailing how the character is popular. Otherwise, they'll fit in the list just fine. Creation information is very necessary, though I think you are confusing primary sources just for the series itself. Primary can also mean interviews with the creators (you can call it 1.5 if you want). TTN (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why they are trivial? And I have to clarify this: "Primary can also mean interviews with the creators" is a severe misconception thus leading to a severe misinterpretation of policy. Make sure that you have fully understand the policy before showing off your distorted apprehension everywhere. Galadree-el 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you think the coverage is trivial does not mean the coverage is trivial. The other things you're insisting on, are either your personal preference (like number of sources) or things needed to make an article better, not requirements for an article to exist. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And just because you think that the coverage isn't trivial does not mean that the coverage is significant. That kind of argument is pointless. If you want to see what signifcant means, take a look at any featured character article and pare the sections down to what you think a B-class would need. It's certainly more than a few sentences. TTN (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And just because you think that the coverage is trivial doesn't mean that the coverage loses its significance. TTN, you are desperately going around the bush and intentionally ignore the point brought here. Point of view pushing and unsubstantiated claim like what you are ranting is not welcomed. As repeatedly stated by other respected users above, I still have to repeat again, this character has been significantly mentioned in different third party reliable sources. It is also the second most important character in a popular manga. Mythsearcher gave a lot of reliable sources, however, many of them are in Japanese, a languague that most of us here don't understand. Potentially many other sources can be added with further research. That's more than enough to verify the notability of the character in question. More, stop the childish and half-witted comments like "Not being notable enough to have an article per WP:N and not being notable in regards to popularity are two different things." All you can say is: This one is not notable enough per that policy, that one is not notable enough per this guideline etc. But in conclusion you are still too incompetent to counter-argue why they are not notable, why the coverage is trivial. Arguments are the basis discussion, not some cheap unvindicated claims. Galadree-el 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception/Development resources

• Belldandy was voted the second most popular female character in a Newtype Japan poll. [1] -Malkinann (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• In this article, it is said that this book, Samurai from Outer Space, (which I don't have access to) reckons that Belldandy is miko-like. The book may go into more depth. -Malkinann (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• In Susan Napier's Anime from Akira to Howl's Moving Castle, she describes Belldandy as "almost a perfect dream of feminine nuturance" and that she has a "soothing and escapist function". (p. 208) -Malkinann (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for these - especially Susan Napier's book. I hadn't read it before, but I picked up a copy today and the discussion of Belldandy was excellent. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and stuff

I found a few references - one of which I loved reading - so I have restructured the article a bit. The problem was that the new material couldn't fit, as the article was a tad too much from an in-universe perspective for it to fit in the old structure. I stole the basic structure from Orochimaru (Naruto), as it is an FA, which I figured suggested that the structure they used worked. Anyway, I've added some more references, and I'll go through the rest to see how I can expand on the other sections as I work my way down the article. (btw, I loved the description of Belldandy from Perper). - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I think I've done as much as I can. I've got more information, but it isn't clear as to whether or not it relates to Belldandy or the series as a whole, so I'm holding it back for a bit while I think about what to do with it. I'd like to get this up to GA status, so I've put in a request for peer review as part of the process. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall I think you've done a great job on researching and improving the article. My biggest comment is I feel that the "Reception and critique" section needs a little work. In the last paragraph you go from talking about Giles Poitras. but almost immediately after that the article states, "Newitz goes further and states..." I may be splitting hairs here; however, I feel it is important to make sure there are clear indications of which critic says what. Maybe by having "Newitz expands on Poitras' thoughts and states..." Other than that, I feel this is a great section as it really brings some importance and depth to the character beyond the Ah! My Goddess series. Also, I think that is could be rewritten slightly to allow it to flow better.

In the "Depictions" section, I wonder if it would be appropriate to indicate the evolution of Belldandy's physical appearance. Due to the long duration of the series, Fujishima's art style has also evolved. While I don't think this is a needed addition, it would indicate how Belldandy's character has adapted to the times. Her clothes in the manga/anime have adopted the fashions of the time the volume was created is one example.

One last note would be that her personality is also related to her role as a goddess. She is portrayed as the goddess governing the present (while Urd and Skuld are past and future respectively). This was touched on in the "Norse origins" subsection. I could have sworn I read an article on mythology's influence on popular media that pointed this out. Again, this is more of an added bonus instead of a necessity. Great job overall! --JadeFox (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Newitz expands on Poitras' thoughts" implies that Newitz has read Poitras' work, which isn't necessarily the case. "Newitz goes further" can imply that Newitz can mean that she had the same idea as Poitras independently, but carried it further. Have there been any reliable sources documenting the evolution of Belldandy's style? There is some discussion of style in the Oh My Goddess (manga) article, but I believe it is unsourced. :( -Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really like the idea of showing the art style. Is it safe to presume that the changing art style can be depicted so long as no conclusions are drawn? For example, a "list of how Belldandy is drawn" sort of thing, a bit like at Oh My Goddess! (manga)#Evolving Art Style, but without the paragraph of (currently) unsupported description? I've checked my sources, and they don't seem to discuss how she is drawn except in a very general sense, as the focus is on the character, so I figure nothing can be said about why the art has changed. - Bilby (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some screenshots from the different anime based on JadeFox's suggestion - I rather like it. :) I'll add the anime when I can get hold of the images. I also found a reference by Toren Smith to the past/present/future thing, which has been added, and a brief mention of the same in one of the episodes. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is significant

OK I have access to both anime and manga. So what elements do you think I should add to the article? -- Cat ^chi? 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put a couple of fact tags in the article - could you please chase them up? -Malkinann (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to do some of them - I grabbed the first Manga today, and I'll add everything from there. And then I'll see how I go at getting a few more. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some refs. -- Cat ^chi? 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

It doesn't quite seem to be the norm with anime articles, but is there any hassle with combining the references with footnotes? Normally (in offline publications) I use harvard inline references to handle page numbers, as in "Bob said that it was ok" (Alice, 1999, p25), but they seem rare on Wikipedia, and do tend to clutter up the article for people who aren't used to them. Alternatively we might have separate footnotes and references, as I've been doing at Turing test - but that was the format already being employed there, and it seems very different to the other anime articles.

It all seems a tad odd to me: I'm so used to inline references (in my discipline you won't be published using anything else) that alternative approaches are a tad alien. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once a format is employed in the article, that is the one that should be kept per the general Wikipedia MoS and guidelines regarding referencing. For most anime articles, and really most articles in general, footnotes are the most commonly used. Harvard Inline I usually only see in the more scientific, medical, etc type articles where most of the editors are ones who are used to using it in their professional lives, such as the one you noted above. It also does not tend to work well for most anime articles as many of our sources are online, which is better presented using nice, neat footnotes using the {{cite web}} template. I believe mixing styles is generally discouraged and will usually have to be fixed if an article is going to be taken to FA level Collectonian (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even at GA level mixing styles is forbidden. (Case in point being Punk ekk's GA reassessment.) I'm wondering how, if you're using a book multiple times, with different page numbers, you would do that best using the WP:REF format? I mean, should it be like in Great Barrier Reef, where the book's full title is copied out labouriously each time using a cite book template? -Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would use cite book each time if you are using footnote styles, though I have also seen people use cite book for the first, then for subsequent using a shortened for of author last name, pub year, and page number. That is shown in the WP:REF section on footnotes. I personally prefer to just use cite book each time, since I don't like making people hunt for the first use to find the full information. It realyly isn't that laborious, cause Copy/Paste is your friend ;). For example, see List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (a list I'm currently working on). Its only 7 volumes + a 2 volume sequel, so as you can imagine, each volume is used multiple times for different page numbers. While working on that, I actually have a text file with the refs for all of the books. All I have to do it put in the page numbers. :) Collectonian (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That might not work well. Each chapter of the manga can be referanced with three different ISBN numbers. See List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters. Should all three be referenced? -- Cat ^chi? 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of mixing formats, so much as working out a standard for this article that would allow page numbers. I guess based on Collectonian's suggestion footnotes are the best approach. I'll cite the same ref a few times if needed to distinguish between page numbers, but share the footnote if there is no change. This also permits comments to be added where warranted without damaging the flow, which would be nice. In IS we don't use footnotes at all, but in philosophy we did, and I kind-of miss them. :) The three different ISBN numbers sounds problematic, though. :( - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They are used in history and religious studies as well. Took awhile to get used to it when I was used to good old APA for most of my educational career, but I grew quite fond of them once I got used to it. Keeps the text so much more free flowing. :) Collectonian (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason it won't. Pick one version and use it. It isn't the first to be reprinted. Fruits Basket's chapters, for example, could be referenced with either the individual volumes for Tokyopop's new "Ultimate Collection" versions in which 3 vols are combined into one. Most people use the individual. Basically, use the version you have on hand, being sure to include the release date (and maybe edition number if they have them) differentiation which one is being used. Collectonian (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Are we really sure we need that many pictures in the "Depictions" section? I'm a bit concerned that it breaks WP:NFCC, especially as some of the intermediate stages aren't even mentioned in the text of the article. I think we could get rid of Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v1 p42.png, Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v3 p5.png, and Image:Belldandy (Manga) cropped - v29 p77.png, unless we can find other articles on her depiction. -Malkinann (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I added them all, as it seemed like a good idea at the time, but I keep thinking that five is too many. :) Three is much better. Something from the first book makes sense, so either the first or second image should be kept. First if you think that the first chapter is wise, second if it makes more sense to show her as she is normally depicted (rather than in full Goddess mode) - both fit the reference. The last one, from Beautiful Name, I added because it is the most recent depiction released by Dark Horse, but given that this is a moving target it might make sense to kill it, as you suggest. That drops it back to three - initial design, something intermediate, and something that is almost the final style, (The Goddesses' Greatest Danger), which has the advantage of being referenced. I'd toss in something from Childhood's End, as that is referenced as the "established style", but I don't have a copy, and would only be ok if you think four makes sense. (I'd rather not kill Turkey with all the Trimmings, as that is so plainly an intermediate stage that I think it serves a purpose, but will happily if you disagree on that). - Bilby (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It occured to me that the last image wasn;t needed - we both thought it was worth deleting, so I killed it now. :) I'm not sure which out of the first two should be killed, so I left both in for now, but I lean towards the first. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much "worth deleting" as "we don't talk about it, so it doesn't have a strong case for fair use". I'd be inclined to keep the first picture rather than the one from the second chapter, as it has her headscarf (useful for comparisons with the YUA character and the other pictures) and it is the first picture of Belldandy. -Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The second picture makes for a better comparison with the third and fourth, but an image from the first chapter trumps that. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)