Talk:Kikuko Inoue

Is it worth wikilinking to the characters themselves (i.e. Belldandy) if they have pages of their own? Just a thought. --Yar Kramer 19:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they should be linked to justify notability, but just the first instance of it in a series. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about how the article looks right now. It will be all cleaned up and expanded in a couple days. (^_^) --nihon 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I made an edit but though you wouldnt mind. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the edit. Hope you don't mind. (^_^) --nihon 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actualy do mind. Delete crazed people will now target the image your edit orphaned. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted her being listed in Scrapped Princess as Raquel because Sayaka Ohara actually played that role. 11-13-2007 12:11 am CST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.254.27 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about adding her trademark? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. It's down with the external links. --日本穣 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed two of the fair use images because they are not acceptable use under the current fair use policy (which specifically disallows images of living people which could resonably be replaced with a free image). I then moved the Sakura Taisen image to the top as it is acceptable fair use because it is not repeatable (see fair use rationale on image page). It's likely the trademark fish image will be removed at some point as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the current picture is a good example of her style. MythSearcher^talk 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

She actually got a CD named as such, and the official webpage is filled with this title, so it is not just fans or colleages calling her that, she refer to herself as such, too. MythSearcher^talk 07:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not to criticize, but the ē sound is romanized "ii." You have inadvertently called her "Onii-chan" which means brother, instead of "Onee-chan" which means sister (which is her nickname.) "Nee" is pronounced like "neigh." Again, I don't mean to criticize but I hope people aren't confused by that. I'm changing the section title to "Onee-chan."

And thanks for pointing out that it's official. -moritheil^Talk 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

While this is not particularly taking the mickey on her, but it seems that she's the first one to refer her age as "17 years old + N days". (A section in the ja version explains that). Should we expand a section referring to this? (There's at least a source, but in other languages)--Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are now two references that explain this quirk. As for whether it's section-worthy, well, some formatting of that block of arbitrary facts would be nice. -moritheil^Talk 17:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article was vandalized by an IP by sneaking a false entry in the article. I then realized the poor status of the article right now. It got a very long lead, but no article body, and huge lengthy list of what she played but not much sources and is prone to vandalism like this particular one. I propose a reorganization of the article by creating an actual body(that will be easy, move the current lead down as a body and write a short intro as the lead) and figure out a way to shorten the list to only notable verifiable titles,(thanks for SpecB's correcting me) preferably with at least one secondary source and one primary source for each entry. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Define "notable title". My personal opinion is that - basically - every role of any actor, voice actor, etc. is notable. An objective listing contains even the most minor items. Otherwise, the idea is good, and I'll try to help however I can - for example, trying to look for references of the listed roles. SpecB (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you are right, it is reasonable to include all titles, I might have termed it wrong. I was thinking about if the title is correct, then it would be easy to find a primary source in her profile and a secondary source in the title's own cast list. (I can accept having only the latter) I guess I should use the word verifiable instead of notable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, "verifiable" sounds okay. :D SpecB (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to refer to the entries on her profile page, or is it enough if we read through it and match them with the corresponding titles/roles in this article? Same with the titles' own cast list. SpecB (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we consider any kind of major site that is referred to in an anime's Wiki article, but is not officially related to it (eg. Anime News Network) a legit source of verification? SpecB (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This page lists at least two magazines with info about her. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, those have article lists from the 1995/07 issue of Animage, Onee-chan's name appears in the title of an article about Osakana Pengin CD. SpecB (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just thought about something. There could a third, reliable source when it comes to verifying these roles, that being the ending sequence of the animes themselves. I mean, even if the anime role isn't listed on her profile page, nor there is a cast listing on the anime's website (if it even has one), the ending sequence will still contain her name - see the case of DearS as an example. I propose this as a reliable source of information. Any ideas? SpecB (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the ending sequence sounds reliable and could be reasonably used here. However, it might be a good idea to also list episode number to make sure it is easy to verify. (Avoiding possible vandalism faking a source by giving some really long anime that is hard to verify each episode's ED.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That can work. But where would the episode numbers be listed? It would look silly in the listing itself, especially if the anime is fairly long, and she only appears irregurarly. How about starting a table here on the talk page at least for the ones that can only be verified by the endings, listing one or two episode numbers where the sequence contains her name. SpecB (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mmmkay, I now have tried to verify all TV Anime, OVA and Movie roles. A handful of TV animes, approx. half of the listed OVAs and - this might change - three movies are without any kind of verification. I'll make a table for them here today or tomorrow. SpecB (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I do not have any copies in hand so I cannot do the verification. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following table could and should be used for noting which roles of Ms. Kikuko are verified - and if so, what sources does the verification come from - and which ones are not. Personally, I think it would be efficient to keep the verified roles in a hidden table, because... well, there are a lot of them. The unverified ones can be kept in a visible table, since they take less space. Feel free to modify the table if you think you have a good idea.

A little explanation:
- * marks entries that were verified from the list on Ms. Kikuko's profile page;
- ** marks entries that were verified from the website of the anime (or other) in question;
- *** marks entries that were verified by finding Ms. Kikuko's name in the ending sequence of the anime (or other) in question;
- **** marks entries that were verified using this site.
For ***, one or two episode numbers are provided, in case anyone wants to double-check. (In case of movies, though, this cell is just checked, for obvious reasons.) Keep in mind that any one of these four sources is enough, so I didn't check if there was a website for certain roles if they were listed on the aforementioned profile page, etc. - if you want to, feel free to add extra sources.

Listing and explanation above was edited on 12 March 2010 (UTC) by SpecB (talk)

Note: In the case of Kiki's Delivery Service, Miyazaki's website was used as a source, not the anime's, but I'd say it's equally reliable.

SpecB (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is very good, now we will copy this list to the article? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good question. I suppose we could mark not verified entries with something like an asterisk, or a reference number, and could explain - in these cases - on the bottom of the list or the article, respectively, that they are not verified and might be removed sooner or later (+ see details in the Talk page). And then remove the ones that hasn't been verified for, I donno, a week, or a month, or whatever sounds correct. I can do this marking, but I'd need assistance in verifying, since my resources are limited. There are several roles listed in the unverified list, which I checked, and while I'm quite sure I heard Onee-chan's voice, the video either did not have an ending sequence, or it had but that only contained the English staff. I'm sure some people could clear at least half of the unverified list. SpecB (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I referenced the Steel Angel Kurumi role. -- allen四names 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) I'm gonna mark unverified roles soon, I have a nice idea. SpecB (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I have added footnotes to the unverified entries, people can follow the link in the explanation if they are interested. I suggest we remove the marked entries 30 days from now - plenty of time for some verifications to pop up.
Also, I have two other types of footnotes in mind. With the current one, these three would be used as followed:

• "Kikuko Inoue's role in this entry is/are not verified and it/they will be removed soon. See the talk page for more information." - This would be used if there is either only one role listed at a certain anime/game/etc. and it is not verified, or there are more than one, but none of them are verified. Should be added at the end of the line, separated by a single space. Its "designation" is "unverif1".
  
• "Kikuko Inoue's role as this character is not verified and it will be removed soon. See the talk page for more information." - This would be used if there are more than one roles at a certain anime/game/etc., and some of them are verified, but one or more are not. Should be added after each unverified role, immediately after them. Its "designation" is "unverif2".
  
• "This entry/role was removed earlier due to it being unverified. Unless verification is given this time, it will be removed shortly. See the talk page for more information." - This would be used if someone adds an entry that has been deleted earlier. I suggest that the entry is deleted in one or two weeks in this case. Should be added according the first two ones, whichever is fitting. Its "designation" is "unverif3".

Feel free to edit these three items above if you think it has some grammatical mistakes, or such, but comment about it as well. SpecB (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recommend using this page to verify as many as you can. It's considered a reliable source, too. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn't know this site was considered as a reliable source. Okay, will take a look at it soon! SpecB (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, soon I will add a new column to the Verified Roles table for the verifications using this website. And I'll move the recently verified roles as well. SpecB (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fabula and the narrator are the same character in Final Fantasy Unlimited, and Crux has been verified in the ending credits of episode 2 (first appearance). The Calidad Yamato role in Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny has been verified in the ending credits, as has the role of Seira from Saint Tail. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Roles verified using Hitoshi Doi's Seiyuu Database: Queen in Miyuki-chan in Wonderland, Seira in Saint Tail, Hatsune Yamashita in Hime-chan n Ribbon, Meia no Faama in all releases of Vandread, Birman in Weiß Kreuz, Reika Ayanokōji in Battle Skipper, Ranko Takara in Cosplay Complex, Sapphire in Dangaizer 3, Misako Narusawa in Dōkyūsei 2, Arisa in Fake, Hikute in The Hakkenden, Corvette in Idol Project, Stashia in Megami Paradise, Brooke in Moldiver, Ruko Tatase in Ogenki Clinic, Claudia McCunnen in Phantom, Blue Morris in Princess Minerva, Queen in Violinist of Hameln, Haruna in Tenchi Muyo! in Love 2: Haruka Naru Omoi, Shiori in Voogie's Angel, Uranus in Tōshinden. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, moved some entries and such, see the history for a more detailed list. Also, would someone please remove those extra linebreaks from above the verified roles table? I have no idea how they got there. SpecB (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Removed unverified entries from the article. There are three things I would like to note. One is that I have hidden the Notes section because it is empty now, but in case someone adds any kind of note, it can be unhidden of course. If anyone has better ideas, don't keep it to yourselves. The second is that please do NOT remove entries from the unverified list on this talk page, since they can be of use when someone adds any of them again to the article, or if someone finds reliable references to them. Thirdly, here's the code that's needed if someone adds an unverified entry:
<ref group="note" name="unverif1">Kikuko Inoue's role in this entry is/are not verified and it/they will be removed soon. See the [[Talk:Kikuko_Inoue|talk page]] for more information.</ref>
And the code for the others if there are more than one new entry.
<ref group="note" name="unverif1"/>
SpecB (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would consider removing the Notes section or at least adding a note within the HTML comment tags that refers to this section. There are different styles of citation. An example is provided below.

While I don't think leaving it as is would confuse anyone I see no reason not to make some change. – allen四names 12:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I'm not against any changes that would improve the article. The thing is that I can't really code more complex stuff here, that's why I usually stick with less impressive, but simple (and hopefully effective) methods, such as hiding the Notes section until it is needed again. But if you can do it and you want to do it, go on, maybe I'll even learn from it. :D SpecB (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done - If you need it again you can simply copy and paste what I left below.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group="note"}}

Happy editing. – allen四names 19:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I thought you would be doing that other thing you mentioned, the one I didn't understand clearly. But hey, this works too. :D SpecB (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As an update to this, I've went ahead and sprinkled the Hitoshi Doi's website references on each of the entries. Her website and related media are self-published sources, but can be used as an initial reference to look up the reliable sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yup, "Onē-chan" is indeed a good solution, but is that Hepburn romanization, or what? Just curious. Also, something else that puzzles me: "Looking at the Onegai Teacher link, I think One should be closer transliteration than Onee." What correlation did you find between "Onē-chan" and the Onegai Teacher link? SpecB (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that is probably my fault then, when I made a mistake but forgot to come back and correct it. I forgot the Japanese term does have the E in it and mistakenly thought it as the same as Onegai at the time, thus the edit comment. However, the later edit from One to Onē is a Hepburn romanization and should be correct even with the mistake I made.(and that is pretty much why Onegai does not have the ē but only a e) Sorry for not clarifying this earlier. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The most common romanization is "Oneechan" (or "Onee-chan"). In fact, WP:MOS-JA indicates that's the correct romanization. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about using <references /> instead of {{Reflist}}, in order to be able to separate footnotes from references, as explained here? It would be needed for my idea of marking non-verified roles - the explanation would look out-of-place among references. SpecB (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since there were no objections (well, so far), I made the proposed changes. SpecB (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can use {{reflist}} to do that, too. For example, {{reflist|group="groupname"}}. See the template documentation if you have any questions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, I see. I was looking for something like that, I guess I must have missed it or something. SpecB (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about it until I looked to see if something like it was available when I suggested it here. We all learn something new every day. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kikuko Inoue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629103407/http://manbow.ponycanyon.co.jp/profile/index.html to http://manbow.ponycanyon.co.jp/profile/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply