Talk:Julia Chang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Julia's Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection Ending[edit]

Is the ending On Tekken 5 DR the same as the one on Tekken 5?
Yes. Her Tekken 5 ending and her Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection ending are the same. This also applies to everybody else that appeared in both Tekken 5 and Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection. KristiRenee 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia errors[edit]

I've noticed some possible errors in the trivia.

1. Does Julia actually try to stop King to take revenge on Marduk? If so; how, where and when? I have not seen this happening and I played through the entire game.

She sure does, in Kings storymode. At least in Dark Resurrection.
She does in Tekken 5 as well as DR. - The 4th Snake

2. Julia does understand other languages. Just look at her conversation with Jinpachi. She just doesn't understand Ganryu because he mumbles to himself and she can't hear what he says.

Julia does understand other languages because in her Tekken 5 story it said that she received a letter in a foreign language about the Tournament.So she must understand different languages because understood the letter and was in the Tournament.

The trivia section is wrong. I have corrected the Ganryu sentence for the same reason (I did it before I even read the same opinion on the discussion page). The King thing is also rubbish. She will only deal with King because they couldn't find anytbody else for King to have a story scene with.
I am also sick of hearing people say that the characters can all 'understand different languages'. This is not part of the story, they understand each other because it would be ridiculous if they didn't (and impossible to write stories due to including something so unnecessary). It says on the Hwoarang page that Hwoarang must have spent some time in the USA as he understands English - Ridiculous.--Mr.bonus 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody in Tekken 5/DR understands what everyone else is saying. Even if they don't know the language of the person they are speaking to just like Kuma and Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenzybar (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Style[edit]

I think this section has a lot of misguided information. "Most of her moves are used to knock the enemy down or into the air, allowing for short but powerful juggles." I think Julia has some of the longest juggles in the game. 121 CH is a pretty long juggle, and she heavily relies on her elbows, which I'd hardly call short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.173.79 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

Proposing merging this character based on notability. What is here has no actual reception or discusses her solely in the aspect of gameplay. There's nothing showing any weight of it as a fictional character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references in the Reception section to the contrary (such as "Fighting Games' Hottest Women - Julia Chang", which does not sound it's to "discuss her solely in the aspect of gameplay" - "Tekken 6 Guide & Walkthrough - PlayStation 3 (PS3) - IGN" does that, but it is corretly referencing the Gameplay section instead). There's other content than just plot. Pretty good for a new article. --Niemti (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. For crying out loud there's nothing being said here at all. I could care less if she places on a list of people getting aroused by seeing her, but if there's nothing being said as to her weight as a fictional character there's almost nothing here. WP:HOTTIE isn't good enough, and it should go back to being a list entry until it can be expanded upon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline."? Did you just throw it around thinking I'd not bother to check? --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I tossed it in to make a point. 'HOTTIE' is basically pointing out that yes, people are going to say things about something they find attractive, and people are going to feel that's good enough for an article. What's here for the most part is gameplay critique and unusable reception from character lists that doesn't actually say anything. How's she significant as a fictional character for Wikipedia?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather some really bad (Uncyclopedia class) attempt at humor that I'm not going to read, and certainly I'm not going to analyze. As I said, I don't think they have to be considered to "actually say anything" (according to you, because I'd this sample ref actually says two things: that in 2011 UGO decided that she's the eight best looking female character in fighting games, and also "without a doubt" their most favourite Native American character in this genre), the very fact of being recognised as a notable character by several reliable sources (not just by someone's blog or these "GameFAQs battles" of yours, I don't know anything about them) already satisfies my minimal criteria. --Niemti (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should stay a solo article it has enough of a reception discussing the characters notability to justify the article as a stand alone. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's take a step back and look at the sources in the article, tearing it apart one by one:

  • Ref 12: List, doesn't state why this particular character was selected. Clicking the link brings up their bio; no actual reception here.
  • Ref 13: List, doesn't give reception and instead covers Tekken female characters as a whole.
  • Ref 14: Hey, a tiny bit of reception. Extremely weak but there you go.
  • Ref 15: List, that again uses her bio.
  • Ref 16: Weak reception, and not really sure it can count as reception or taken as a humor article instead given what follows after that first sentence.
  • Ref 17: Does Dorkly count as a reliable source, or are the journalists at least reliable? Not to mention it's a list that doesn't say anything, just notes they exist in a messed up setting.
  • Ref 18: This is gameplay and has nothing to do with Julia as a character.
  • Ref 19: While worth noting, it's not an independent third party covering it. It should be said but isn't adding to notability.

So out of all of this we have refs 14 and 16 that actually say anything. The rest either repeat her bio, discuss gameplay, or note she exists. I get that it's an attractive character but if we have nothing of worth, keep her on the character list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Polish GameStar "does state why this particular character was selected": "każda z dziewczyn stanowi prawdziwą esencję kobiecości, piękna i namiętności. Wszystkie mają także niezwykłą, barwną osobowość" (which you might think is or is not true, but that is "stated"). --Niemti (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Each of the girls is the true essence of femininity, beauty and passion. All are also unusual, colorful personality". You could spin it, but it's weak because it's basically a description of the list itself. It's like how you can say a girl appear on a list is considered "hottest" by a site simply because it's called "The 50 Hottest Women".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"hottest" is just one word. --Niemti (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change my point at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does change your point totally, as they actually stated they have selected her embodying "true essence of femininity, beauty and passion" and having "an unusual, colorful personality". --Niemti (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No unfortunately it's still the same thing. Both that sentence and simply saying "hottest" are in fact saying just as much, under that guideline a list that consists of just a series of pictures and begins with a two sentence description should be fine, even though nothing is being said about that specific character. Which is what reception for notability should revolve around. In fact it's no better than the reception solely covering the tekken girls: blankets them all, but is anything specific even being said?
If you're so certain that is sufficient enough for reception, why don't you bring the matter up at the discussion we have going on regarding character notability? I've already posted this over there, let's let Masem and the others weigh in on this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're discussing here, and not in several places at once. --Niemti (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Actually, lists do add some to notability, albeit not much. Every ref except for #20 have some notability value within them, and when added together, the question is: is that enough? WPVG judges articles very harshly and other projects like the the muppets characters have character articles that are often stubs with no reception at all. Not saying thats good... (and don't bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's unhelpful) but here 7 reception refs and yet a merger has been proposed. Are 7 enough to form adequate reception? I weakly think so. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Otherstuffexists is valid. Just because there's poorly written material on wikipedia doesn't mean we should propagate more. The bar's being set by whether or not references are saying something about the character and significant sources with those coverage. Even if there were a significant number of list entries all saying something of value I'd be satisfied but there aren't, and surely not 7.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This "Otherstuffexists" is just an essay wrote by one Wikipedia user or several of them. If I wrote an essay too, would you also follow it so unqestionably? --Niemti (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Niemti said; also, the due to Otherstuffexists, the "bar" is currently set by you with your intepretation of the GNG. Quote: Surely not 7...this is where we differ, while you believe that it falls short of WP:N, I think it meets it - but barely. Thanks Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - At this point, all the reception is, is just an endless list of being on Top X lists. If something more useful could be extracted, maybe I'd change my mind, but as is, right now the article is just a ton of in-universe plot summary with a section listing off every list she's made. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly "every". --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - References 14 and 16 have weak reception. Other than that, the reception section is mostly an endless list of being on Top X lists. At this point, there is no significant coverage from reliable, third party sources for the reception section. We need to ask why Julia Chang is so popular. Just because she is on a "Top X Somethingest People" list, doesn't mean it can guarantee the meaning of the general notability guideline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for everything that I said, geez. Julia's article, despite being new, is already written better than most of character articles on Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC
  • Oppose - The reception might not be the best, but it's still sufficient enough to pass notability. Just because you find the reception weak, doesn't mean it should be merged. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Kokoro20 Dwanyewest (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Chang. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Chang. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julia Chang. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

hi ma,am can you help me 212.104.231.162 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me... 212.104.231.162 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Chang&oldid=1218455435"