Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear)

This article needs a major cleanup

I understand this is a "Mid-importance" article, and that's fine. But there's way too much Fancruft on this article. This article's length could be cut in half. Also, there doesn't need to be a "Misinformation" section. No other articles on characters have them. 174.87.116.236 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you need to read the section closer, and also familiarize yourself with character articles more.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Read it again, still stand by my opinion. It could be greatly shortened and just part of the reception section, or perhaps some other section. Also, I checked every single article under the category "Fictional transgender women", none of them had a "Misinformation" section. I've never seen a Wikipedia article for a character with a blatant "Misinformation" section like that.

And again, too much fancruft. The article could be cut in half. Most the information isn't relevant to the average reader. Entire sentences could be cut out in the Appearances and Concept and design sections. 174.87.116.236 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

While the appearances section can be trimmed down, the mininsformation section is covering a campaign related to such in the same vein as some characters have a controversy section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason why Bridget has a misinformation section and not others is because there wasn't misinformation to discuss. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Many characters have additional sections on topics that other characters don't and that's typically because there's a lot to talk about on a specific point alone. Articles can be iterated upon to delve deep into subjects and as result don't have to conform to the default structure of the standard character article. CaptainGalaxy 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, let me clarify my point on the "Misinformation" section. My point is not that there wasn't a controversy worth documenting in this article, nor that that bit should be removed. My only point is, there doesn't need to be a section of the article titled "Misinformation", which then proceeds to document that part. I think it would match better just be part of the reception section. Perhaps rename it to "Reception and Controversy". The reason I believe this is because I've never encountered any Wikipedia articles of characters with such a section. On the contrary, I've seen characters that went through controversies and what not, but do not have a "Misinformation" section. If you all still disagree with my reasoning though, fine, I'll rest my case. I do still stand that this article has way too much fancruft through out. Perhaps the opening paragraphs could also be shortened. 174.87.116.236 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)