Talk:Ryoko

Trivia Section to be deleted
Mentioning Ryoko Hakubi from Tenchi in a trivia section for Ryoko in Guild Wars is a bit far fetched to be even noted. Ryoko Hakubi from Tenchi does not look even similar nor does she even have any stats in common with Ryoko of Guild Wars.

Seeing Ryoko in GW is only called Ryoko one has to assume she could have been named after anything but even more likely just have been called Ryoko cause it is a name fitting the game's genre, era and setting.

Why not also assume Ryoko in GW was named after any of the following fictional Ryokos:
 * Ryoko of Saint Tail
 * Ryoko Anno of Battle Royale
 * Ryoko Balta of Tenchi Muyo! GXP
 * Ryoko Hata of Battle Royale II: Requiem
 * Kano Ryoko of Fighter's History
 * Ryoko Izumo of World Heroes
 * Ryoko Leingod of Star Ocean: Till the End of Time
 * Ryoko Mendou of Urusei Yatsura
 * Ryoko Mitsurugi of Samurai Girl: Real Bout High School
 * Ryoko Subaru of Martian Successor Nadesico

Thus I seriously believe the trivia section should be removed on this article.

Also,..isn't a trivia not suppose to be a question and answer of unimportant facts rather than assumtpions in the first place !!!

Definition of Trivia !!!!

That's quite an arguement... you do know that you can delete it yourself? &mdash; Rogue  08:32, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Well,..I just didn't want to be rude and be respectfull to the guild wiki community as not just anyone (even though they can) should delete information without getting an oppinion of the community ;) Gontronix


 * Heh I guess Fyren is the community then! (He just removed the trivia.) Anyway welcome to the GWiki, you probably don't need to do that much research for all your edits though ;) Oh and:  ~  will sign your comments :) --Xasxas256 08:48, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Everyone is part of the GuildWiki community. I've just gone on a mini-anti-anime trivia spree.  --Fyren 08:52, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with deleting it entirely. Gontronix is correct in that if there is an intended reference in the Ryoko name, it could be from a number of sources. However, given the nature of the intended audience (gamers), one could reasonably assume and indeed argue that the reference is to the character in Tenchi Muyo. Because so many people are familiar with that character, it is inevitable that people will attempt to make a Trivia Note for this article; deleting the trivia entirely invites people to do so. So, I think the trivia section should stay (because people are going to create it anyway), and that it should include a possible reference to the Anime series as well as other sources - because all are valid possibilities.--Ninjatek 08:57, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * No, that doesn't make sense. There is nothing but the name and there is nothing remarkable about that name; it's just a normal Japanese name.  The only connection there is your own guesswork.  --Fyren 09:05, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Added Trivia back in
I have added the trivia section back in but this time as an actual trivia not an assumption, as an assumption is not a trivia by any means of defining it. Hope this is acceptable now :) Gontronix 09:02, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * The existence of a character with that name doesn't mean there's a relation. As I said above, there's nothing remarkable about the name itself.  There is no other visible connection to the Tenchi character.  I'm sure you can find plenty of other NPCs that share a name with a character from a TV show or from another game.  --Fyren 09:07, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Who says there has to be a "visible connection?" As Gontronix showed, there are several possible sources for the name, so you're right about that.  But remember who the intended audience is here.  The idea of sneaking popular Anime characters' names into a video game isn't very far fetched.  And as I already stated, wiping the Trivia section entirely will only invite people to try to add it in again.  So before you break GW:1RV yet again, how about we get a community consensus on this?--Ninjatek 09:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Side Note - I was under the impression that Gontronix posted the list of other possible Ryokos, but now I cannot tell who posted it.--Ninjatek 09:20, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * If there's no visible connection, then it obviously should not be in the article as... there's no connection. It's also plausible someone at ANet knows a Japanese woman named Ryoko.  Even more plausible is they got someone to research Asian names and draw up a list from which they pulled out NPC names.  --Fyren 09:24, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm sorry i started all this, I should have just changed the statement in the trivia section into a factual statement. :(.


 * A Trivia by its definition is an unimportant fact to the subject. This means that a trivia section can mention what ever it wants to as long as it has at least the slightest relation to the article at hand and always is a fact.


 * Thus it is correct to add all anime or even real life characters that exist in the world named ryoko as long as the statement in the trivia section in itself is a factual one and not an assumption.
 * Although I would agree with Fyren that purely based on the name ryoko it is pointless to start a trivia on that bases for this article.


 * Also, the audience the trivia appeals to is irrelevant as an audience can not change the definition of the word Trivia.


 * Anyway I will part from this article now as I can see it was a mistake on my behalf to try and be respectfull in adding a discussion instead of just changing it.


 * Regards Gontronix 09:25, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I've got a couple points to make. First, the audience the trivia appeals to is certainly not irrelevant.  The way ANET makes money, and the way this game sells, is ALL about appealing to the intended audience.  So, the claim that appealing to the audience is irrelevant is clearly fallacious because that's what games DO - they appeal to the intended audience.
 * Seeing one can add to the Trivia section and unimportant fact about the origin of Armor Crafting (As this is what Ryoko is), which would not be of interest to most gamers or maybe it is one does not know, thus your statement is faulty and thus audience is irrelevant. A Trivia in its nature is a fact about a subject so unimportant it most of the time has not much of an audience to begin with.--Gontronix 09:44, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * You haven't proven my argument faulty. You base your argument on the presumption that gamers don't care about trivia and easter eggs.  You're going to have to be more convincing and less subjective if you want to argue that Audience is irrelevant.  I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that.--Ninjatek 10:02, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Secondly, if there's going to be this much debate over what constitutes valid Trivia (or unimportant facts), then we may need a policy that dictates the rules of such. You have your idea, Fyren has his, I have mine, and others have theirs.  So who's right?--Ninjatek 09:36, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * There is no debate, A Trivia is by its definition what it is, an unimportant fact relating to the subject. One could enter a trivia on origins or armor crafters another on the the origin of the name ryoko and another a trivia on other animated armor crafters named ryoko from other games,...they all have a relation to the article's subject but appeal to different audiences. Thus one does not have to debate policies as one can not change the meaning of the word trivia.
 * Stop linking us to the word Trivia. We know what it means.  Try to follow along: We're aren't debating the MEANING of the word trivia Gontronix, we're debating who's idea of trivia is more valid - i.e., whose trivia makes it onto the article and whose gets deleted.  According to you, one unimportant fact is just as unimportant as another unimportant fact.  By that logic, the Ryoko/Tenchi trivia note, and indeed any trivia note, is fair game to be placed on the page.  So again - what makes one more valid than the other?--Ninjatek 10:02, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * To quote "Try to follow along: We're aren't debating the MEANING of the word trivia Gontronix, we're debating who's idea of trivia is more valid - i.e., whose trivia makes it onto the article and whose gets deleted."


 * Well, I hate saying it but if you understand the meaning of the word trivia (which you appearently do) then you would not need to debate it as it is selfexplanetory. In english, if it is a fact (of unimportants) AND it is related to the subject of the article e.g.: origin of Armor crafting, origin of the name ryoko, etc... then it is a valid entry for a trivia as it meats the crietrium of the meaning and understanding of the word trivia,..regardless if you agree with the trivia entry or not.


 * So, you see (hopefully) there is no reason to argue (or debate) who's entry is valid. And you know what the funniest is ? The whole arguing and convincing each other of one understanding or another of the whole thing (which I started by trying to be polite in the first place and for this I'm so sorry..) is Trivial ;).


 * By writing text like "You haven't proven my argument faulty. You base your argument on the presumption that gamers don't care about trivia and easter eggs." you are just missing the point.


 * The truth is,..I'm not trying to prove you faulty,..only onself can do that as if one believes they are right they never can be proven wrong.
 * I NEVER presumed that the audience does not care, what I said was that its irrelevant if an audience likes a trivia entry or not, as a valid trivia entry will ALWAYS be a valid entry.
 * If one likes the unimportant fact listed in a trivia or not is irrelevant as long as the entry meats the rules and requirements of what the meaning of a trivia is !
 * Thus as I already said, one does not need to debate if a trivia entry is valid as it quite obvious if it is or not once one understands the meaning of the word trivia.


 * Anyway, thats me done, I'm moving on as its obvious that the whole discussion turned into a raving of Trivial arguments,..(including my comments ;))..Ironic isn't it.--Gontronix 14:28, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I said nothing about the audience. I provided two examples of "plausible" explanations for the name and I don't particularly see how you can argue that Tenchi is more plausible than researching Asian names.  More policy is usually not a good answer.  I'd rather a discussion like this take place than try to codify it.  --Fyren 09:56, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Definition of Trivia--Gontronix 09:44, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * The merest sliver of connection is not a reason to add something. There must be subjective decisions made by editors or else human could turn into a list of every person that ever lived.  Because something is fact is not sufficient to make it worth putting in an article.  --Fyren 09:56, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, yes - I'm familiar with the human argument, but that has little bearing on this particular case. There exist several articles on the guildwiki that contain multiple Trivia entries for possible reference cadidates.  Why can this article not contain something similar?  Additionally, what makes your argument against the Ryoko/Tenchi trivia more valid than mine? - I'm not yet convinced that it is.--Ninjatek 10:07, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Indentation (indent with just one more colon) and order shows what is in reply to what. This was not in reply to you, see above for what I said last.  --Fyren 10:15, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I (think) I see what you said last, and I did respond to it. I'm aware of how indentation and order works, though I may have screwed up at some point.--Ninjatek 10:19, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Resetting indent. Copied and pasted from above: 'I said nothing about the audience. I provided two examples of "plausible" explanations for the name and I don't particularly see how you can argue that Tenchi is more plausible than researching Asian names. More policy is usually not a good answer. I'd rather a discussion like this take place than try to codify it.' --Fyren 10:34, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * You're right. I overlooked this.  I don't necessarily think the Tenchi reference is more plausible, but I wouldn't say that it's less either.  Here's why:  (I've stated this already, but it may have been lost in the shuffle.)  I don't find the idea of inserting anime characters' names into a video game as easter eggs to be very far fetched at all.  Why? - because the populations of gamers and anime fans often overlap greatly.  If Ryoko the armor crafter were the ONLY instance in the game in which an Anime character's name might be used, then it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning because it probably wouldn't be derived from anime.  However, when we look at Guild Wars and see multiple occurrences of Anime character names used, we may be inclined to believe that they are intentional.  And in fact, we may point to those multiple occurrences and offer them up as evidence that anime characters' names are used in-game.  We could also say that if anime names were to be used in-game, it would be appropriate to use them in a Far Eastern setting, like Cantha.  Now don't get me wrong - I like things simple, and I like simple answers.  I would like to believe that all these NPCs with anime names are just coincidentally named with Japanese names.  However, the possibility that they are easter eggs, and put in the game to appeal to the audience of gamers and anime watchers is too great for me, personally, to dismiss as inference.  Therefore, a measly, simple trivia note (perhaps with a qualifying statement to the possible contrary) indicating such would satisfy people who think the same.--Ninjatek 10:58, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * If there's another explanation that is at least as plausible, then that shows the connection is weak. I've tried to say it a couple times before, but if you can't point out the connection, it doesn't belong in the article.  There's a character named Ryoko in the game and one in Tenchi, but the connection was made by you with no futher evidence.  As someone said over on Lain's talk, "Fred" wouldn't get trivia referring to Scooby Doo (or The Flintstones, or Freddy Krueger, or...) because there's nothing in the game to make the link.  There are hundreds of NPCs with Asian themed names, so why are these references?  Keiichi, Shion, and Rena together provide further evidence.  Lina "Isrevni" provides evidence.  "Ryoko" is a name standing by itself.  --Fyren 11:21, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * See? You're solidifying my point.  The connection is NOT weak, Fyren - Clearly, anime character names are used in game (I know that this isn't the point of contention).  Some of them may be obvious, and reveal themselves with clever dialogs or backwards names - others may not.  Especially in the case of Ryoko, a name so incredibly popular and well known by anime fans that it doesn't have to be hinted at it; it only needs to be mentioned.  The idea of trivia is to point out what the programming team may have had in mind.  With so many other anime references, it's not far fetched to assume that they had the Tenchi character in mind when they named Ryoko.  The connection isn't weak and it's not unreasonable.  The game uses Anime character names.  Ryoko is a very well known anime character.  Therefore, we make a trivia note indicating the possibility that it was intentional.  If there's another possible connection, we add another note.  If the game didn't use anime names, then we wouldn't make the note.--Ninjatek 11:34, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * So when there's four references, it makes it more likely? Hundreds of non-references don't make it less likely?  Ryoko is a name normal and common.  The other NPCs provided information that allowed us to make the link to something outside the game.  Fred Flintstone is certainly better known to Guild Wars players than Ryoko, so do you argue the hypothetical Fred article is more deserving of a yabba dabbo doo note than this is of a Tenchi note?  What's the difference?  --Fyren 11:59, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * (I don't have the ability to contribute to this discussion for much longer.) Here is the difference, Fyren:  It's an established fact that, time and again, Guild Wars programmers intentionally play on Anime character names.  Other than Flint Touchstone (which I personally doubt is a Flintstones reference), no such definite and recurring examples exist for The Flintstones.  Therefore, when we see "Ryoko," it's okay to connect her with Tenchi.  And when we see "Fred," it's probably not okay to try to connect that with The Flintstones.  Like Anime, there are other motifs in the game to which many things are referred - such as Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.   There's no way to "prove" any trivia, and I don't necessarily think that any consensus needs to be reached on trivia - because it is often subjective.  However, I don't think trivia should be wildly far fetched, I don't think the trivia section should be guarded like a Military outpost.  I think it's stupid that this debate has gone to this length and and duration.  So long as the note isn't too wild, people should be free to add a note to the trivia section - especially if many people agree that it should be.  Add the Tenchi note, dude.  And if you want to contest the note, do it by adding another note with another possible candidate - not by deleting the entire thing.--Ninjatek 12:40, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Since this is a subjective matter, I don't think it can be resolved with discussion and appeal to reason, so y'all gonna have to make do with majority voice or consensus or whatever. So, here's my vote: Unless the name is something like Ingeloakastimizilian, I'm going to need at least one more connection before I feel comfy with a trivia piece in an article. While I do appreciate learning about new things such as anime titles I haven't heard of before, I also would like to go through less cruft while I am seeking information. --Ishmaeel .ping ; .peek; 11:07, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * "See? You're solidifying my point. The connection is NOT weak" <-- There is NO connection, as there are any number of Ryokos' it could refer to, hence keeping that trivia is pointless, as it's really no longer trivia. Saying that it is 'solidified' or 'not weak' is absurd. Unless there is some clear cut evidence that distinctly connects the NPC to the actual trivia, it shouldn't be added. Trivia should be FACT, and have a degree of RELEVANCE that should be higher than 'slightly related'. As it is, it's extremely far-fetched. Things like the Luxons and their references to Firefly are quite obvious due to description and personality. But this NPC to a character whom it is likely not based on? Not a chance. If there was a Ryoko based around outfitting someone up, I'd agree with leaving that trivia point in the article. But not with Tenchi as the only relation to either of them is the fact that the NPC model is female. --Kale Ironfist 23:12, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, we can either link to Wikipedia's Ryoko disambig page or omit the trivia section unless there's some obvious connection to a specific Ryoko. -- Gordon Ecker 23:03, 1 July 2007 (CDT)