Talk:The Rowdyruff Boys

First Dispute

The older version is the latest entry under The Rowdyruff Boys page by me. I don't understand the person's objection to the content that I submitted. I stated in the document that there were many fans that wanted these characters to return. Note, I said many, not most. It's not my POV; it's a statement about the desires of the public as a whole. It would be like saying "many people like the flavor of Pepsi," even though Coca-Cola sells more product tham Pepsi. He also demanded proof of there being "many" fans. I provided him with a link to an online petition with over 450 signatures from people who wanted the characters' episode to re-air on Canadian television. I also have many, many fan emails that I have accumulated over the past four years that support the statement that these characters have "many fans." These observations aren't hearsay. They have been experienced by me first hand. I have tried to accomodate whatever possible issues this person may have with the entry, but to no avail. --King Moonraiser 19:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, didn't the E-mails stop when the Rowdyruff Boys were put back on? Also, about the E-mails you have accumulated, I doubt that the count ever reached 1,000. If there is a fanclub for any particular show available, of course there will be what you think are "many", but not compared to the world as a whole. Marcus2 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls Characters

There's no reason to delete it. A lot of information has been made here, and I think it's stupid to trash a good piece of work done by many people! WiiDS (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was redirected as much of the content was unencyclopaedic along with a few other articles for the same reasons. Even if you or others were to do a large rewrite to remove the opinion and non-notable information from the article it wouldn't qualify for it's own article even then, it's predominantly fancruft. The redirect will stay unless you can provide a better reason for it staying than it's a "good piece of work by many people". --treelo _talk 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So you really put most of the information from this page on the page of the list of characters on the powerpuff girls? Really? When I look at it, it reminds me of a summary. Here's what's there:

• The Rowdyruff Boys: Evil male counterparts of the Powerpuff Girls created by Mojo Jojo from snips, snails and a puppy dog tail (based on the Nursery rhyme entitled "What are Little Boys Made of?") in a prison toilet. They are violent bullies. Although the girls destroyed them in their first appearance (the episode "Rowdyruff Boys"), the boys were later resurrected by Him in the episode "The Boys Are Back in Town" (the title being a possible reference to the Thin Lizzy song). Each boy can be seen as an evil variation on their female counterpart:
  • Brick, Blossom's equivalent, is the abrasive, bullying leader who possesses little of Blossom's tactical logic.
  • Boomer, Bubbles's equivalent, is a loud-mouthed dimwit, as opposed to Bubbles' naive sweetness.
  • Butch, Buttercup's equivalent, is a hyper-aggressive borderline psychotic, exceeding Buttercup in both bloodlust and rage.

Compare that to the this page, and see how much of a difference there is. I think it is very redundant to delete the page, because Wikipedia is a "GROWING" Encyclopedia, and there's no need to reduce. You can keep the information of the boys and other characters on your list of characters in the Powerpuff Girls page. But if someone wants to know more about a character, they click on the name of the character on top of the brief description, and get transfered to the page dedicated to the character. That sure helps Wikipedia! I hope you understand! WiiDS (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The content of this article is mainly trivia, nonsense and wouldn't justify an article in a properly edited state, that which is content could be copied into the RRB section and the rest could be deleted. This isn't about reduction and whilst Wikipedia is growing it doesn't mean anything and everything can be given an article because someone thinks it should have one. I'm sticking to the policies regarding notability and given consensus about character articles. --treelo _talk 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Sure, there's some trivia and nonsense. But we can kock that all out though. Just make it as clean as possible. On top of that, I don't think other characters in the show will have much of a problem of vandalism as much as the RRB, but I think that a popular show (Or ex-popular, if anything) deserves a page for each major character. And I'll try my best to keep this page as clean as possible. Hey, maybe we can get Wikipedia honours or something like that? Anyway, I just think that alot of work has been done to the page, and I think with a few modifications, things will work out. WiiDS (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some? Most of it is trivia and nonsense and if you cut that out you've still got nothing to justify an article. Popularity or otherwise to me doesn't immediately mean all their mains need articles and yes, I know a lot of other shows do have main character articles but they're sourced fairly well and we've tried in the past to get good sources for a lot of PPG subjects and found little. I get the feeling that the RRB are your favourite characters and want due respect given in the form of an article, I won't give them that because if you do everyone will want an article even if they can't actually fill it with encyclopaedic information and that'll easily make vandalism worse. It's part vandalism issue, part cruft tracking and part notability issue as to why the RRB and various other characters got redirected, being more centralised allow for better control.

Each character at one point did have an article and most of them was deleted because of vandalism, concerns of notability and sourcing along with generous amounts of random lists and original research to pad them out. I'm not having a repeat of that as it's occurred before with other shows I patrol so want to maintain a reasonable quality even if it means they only get a couple of paragraphs on a character list. You keep the RRB section clean if that's your area and that'll be fine, just don't make it bigger than necessary. treelo _talk 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'll do my best. I won't let you down! If I ever do (which won't happen), then by all means, delete it. Thank you! :) WiiDS (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, you just did! Really, I didn't say specifically "recreate the article" and never implied it either. What I did say though was "Don't recreate the article as it's not worth it, get what you think is useful and put it in the section on the character list". I'm not out to crush your ambition as others have reckoned before but it truly is an issue of content, not of personality so it's not you which is the problem.

I'll be clear on this, what is noteworthy in that article is that they existed and came back, nothing else in truth. The rest is stretching for additional info when it's not required and that's what gets me about it, no rewrite you or anyone else could give this could make it any better than what exists right now in the main character list because the info and I do mean real, sourced, out of universe info isn't there. It wasn't there for anyone else and it isn't there for RRB either. The chunk about RRB in the char list is actually badly written but can be fixed as it's only supposed to be a summary, not a long list of things about them no matter how minor. Bottom line here is they're not notable out of universe and what you can write on them without going off into fanboi masturbation territory as nearly every line of that is now is minimal. No article. --treelo _talk 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Even though I tried to fix it up before I saw this message, I understand. I thought that things like the episode count and stuff like that would be importiant. If you want to check the new page do so, but I know it's redundant now. By the way, you said "without going off into fanboi masturbation territory". Ya... well I'm not like that at all, and I'm not a fanboy. Sure, they are my favorite characters in the PPG, but they are in no way my life. No way. I'm a Nintendo fan, that company has a bigger impact on my life than this show. And I do have a life. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! :) WiiDS (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw you fixing it, thing is is that it's beyond a quick spruce up. Nothing I have said to you has been a personal insult or intended to be so, that article is fanboi masturbation, no two ways about it! --treelo _talk 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)