Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Ruff

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

List of roles she might get in dubs of certain anime if they were dubbed by a certain company

[edit]

This is a full list of such characters she would have voiced had certain companies dubbed certain anime.

Mana in Mermaid's Scar (if it were dubbed by Streamline in 1992)
Rei Hino - Sailor Mars in Sailor Moon (if it were dubbed in the United States by Geneon)
Maya Ibuki in Shinseiki Evangelion (if it were dubbed by Streamline in 1997)
Lum in Urusei Yatsura (if it were dubbed by Geneon)
Ranma Saotome (female) in Ranma 1/2 (if it were dubbed by Geneon)

Do you find this interesting? --Ryanasaurus0077 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to hijack this thread.... She voiced Sonoshee McLaren in 2009 in Redline (movie) if someone will add that. I am unfamiliar with wiki formatting so I would only mess it up. I looked at the edit process to be sure and yeah I'd screw something up. Also why does the talk page not allow you to add new topics? Signed: --The Phantom Pane-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.53.196.202 (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed her aliases

[edit]

I post regularly on an anime forum where several VA post and they have told us they do not appreciate having thier aliases "outed" That is why i removed Ms. Ruff's alias. If she wishes for it to be known i'm sure she can let us know that. Otherwise we should respect her privacy on this matter and the privacy of all VA who use aliases as thier jobs are at stake should they get outed. ThanksDyloniusFunk (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back in. Information is not censored simply because someone wouldn't want it known. Too bad. 66.211.73.233 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case (she could lose work) I suggest you pass on that WP:OTRS is the venue to deal with that. Encourage her/them to get in touch and someone will yea or nay the removal. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is, are there any reliable sources for these aliases? If they are no reliable sources, then they should be removed per the WP:BLP policy. If there are, then they must be sited. —Farix (t | c) 12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Kawasumi

[edit]

I removed this section from the main page.

Ruff had been cast for English voice of eight characters for voice actor Ayako Kawasumi:

I don't see how this is notable for her bio, as it's mainly a coincidence. Is there a news article that shows that she prefers Kawasumi's roles, or a review that critiques her work and strongly links the two actors? AngusWOOF (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skuffmarx

[edit]

I removed skuffmarx from the External links as that is a company she helps promote or is perhaps a spokeswoman for, but isn't the owner. It can be written into the article as sponsors or related organizations. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sources -- overreliance on primary sources

[edit]

I am tagging this article for BLP sources because there is not enough coverage by independent WP:SECONDARY sources. Today when I looked at it, the article had the following references:

  • 28 refs to Ruff's own resume
  • 13 refs to an interview with Ruff hosted by the Digimon Encyclopedia which is a user-generated site, not reliable.
  • 5 refs to residentevil.com.br, which is the Brazilian website of a gaming product she is connected with. The reference is an interview.
  • 5 refs to Anime Dream, which was an online news magazine. The reference is an interview between Ruff and a guy who uses the screen name Nukunuku.
  • 3 refs to an interview with Ruff in Anime Omnitude, which was a user-generated anime review site.
  • 2 refs to Ruffs own management agency.
  • 1 ref to Ruff's Myspace page.
  • 1 ref to Way Jeng writing one paragraph about how Ruff's characterization of Aoi was otherwise "solid" but unsatisfyingly "sweet and soft" when she should have been stern in Ai Yori Aoshi: Enishi. Nothing of this mixed opinion can be found in the Ruff biography, however. The reference is only used to support the fact that Ruff voiced Aoi.
  • 1 ref to Theron Martin's review where the casting of Ruff as Saber is said to be a poor choice. Nothing of this negative review can be found in the biography text.
  • 1 ref to an interview with Ruff about her experience playing Katherine.[1] The website is siliconera.com which is a group blog and discussion site about gaming.
  • 1 ref to an interview on Japanator, where Ruff talks about her role in the game Divina.
  • 1 ref that does not even mention Ruff.
  • 1 more ref that does not even mention Ruff.

So it's clear that there is a great reliance on Ruff's own primary sources, and on interviews with Ruff. The policy page Wikipedia:No original research says that interviews are considered primary sources: "Further examples of primary sources include... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews". In the cases of the above interviews, the facts put forward by Ruff are not moderated by the interviewer—they are not fact-checked as they would be in a career journalist's newspaper or magazine piece. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed gamefaqs references per WP:ANIME/RS. The interview references you are complaining about are as you said, to justify that she did participate in the production in a notable role, which is not something that she makes up in her head that would violate WP:PRIMARY. For instance, if she's being interviewed about her role in Divina, it's not a primary source that discredits her as a reference that she participated in Divina. If she says "oh, I also voiced X in Y" during the interview, that can be questioned. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like using interviews when I write a biography. As you can see at the biography about Bruce_Jackson_(audio_engineer), I relied a great deal on an interview between Jackson and Andy Stewart, to the tune of 29 named refs. The difference is that the Jackson biography also has a ton of secondary sources to support the biography. This biography about Ruff also needs secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute

[edit]

I notice that there is a content dispute between several editors on this page and wanted to give an opportunity to discuss relevant issues :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's because of the previous talk discussion where the existing sources were called into question that prompted me to separate out the sections in order for editors to find better sources. However, the IP does not want that explicit tag and undoes this attempt. I've reached 3RR on this so I am at a standstill. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is that the bolding of lead roles violates MOS:BOLD and has been discouraged and removed in previous filmographies. I'm merely carrying that process out on this article, but it is being reverted and added back. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding is unnecessary. The more notable roles could be expressed in prose and the remainder listed like any other role. Christopher Lee is one of the most prolific actors of all time, and there is no boldface or attention drawn to leading roles anywhere in his filmography. Similarly, Katharine Hepburn has a tidy and modestly presented filmography, again with no indication of leading or supporting roles. I'm reminded that we don't use words like protagonist or antagonist to describe TV and film characters because these concepts are open to personal interpretation. Similarly, "leading" role can be interpretive, or it could unnecessarily emphasize the importance of that role over any other role she's played, which might conflict with WP:NPOV. A leading role in a shitty film ain't nothing to be proud of, but a supporting role in a fantastic film is. So what are we learning about the subject from using "leading role"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add {{fact}} to the roles that need sources, remove the bold per MOS:BOLD, but otherwise, don't reorganize the list in to "sourced" and "unsourced" sections. If the lists need to be reorganized, it is to put them in order of their NA release dates. —Farix (t | c) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'll undo the stuff on the other articles. Agreed on eventually reorganizing them in chronological as that helps write the biographies and pick out important roles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD rule?

[edit]

Okay TheFarix, firstly this is not making any sense with the MOS:BOLD rule and having the notable roles removed from Bold structure on the actor infobox template. Keep in mind that some of the rticle pages for the actors of anime voice work have it that format.

Don't believe me see for yourself on a few examples:

I'm jumping in because this is a public discussion. For fun, let's entertain your question:
  • Diskin: Bold was apparently added by a Singaporean IP editor who may not be familiar with the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
  • Prince: The boldface appears to have been first added circa 2011 in this edit, but there is no explanation for why it was added. Might have been a mistake for all we know. The IP only had six edits.
  • Sheh: This version of the article on June 30, 2014 didn't have unnecessary boldface. In the very next edit, you added unnecessary boldface. The bold was removed by AngusWOOF per MOS:BOLD, but then you snuck it back in without any explanation. So it is absurd to use this as an example.
  • Ruff: The boldface in this article on Ruff appears to have been added in 2011 by an editor who never used edit summaries, never engaged in discussion with anybody, and who never responded when other editors inquired about some of his bizarre edits.
These are some of the reasons why precedent or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an insufficient argument. Consensus is determined through discussion, not through erroneous editing. MOS:BOLD was presumably a result of community discussions and is the standard we should adhere to. When we see content failing to adhere to the Manual of Style, we typically fix it instead of conforming other articles to the problematic content.
You still haven't responded to the discussion above in the Content Dispute section. You are not required to, but choosing not to participate in an active discussion and instead diverting attention to your own agenda isn't going to win you any points. Wikipedia relies on the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and "discuss" is a crucial aspect of that cycle. If you choose not to discuss, then you have no input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for point to other articles that need to be fixed. Because you have brought them to your attention, they have now been corrected to comply with MOS:BOLD. As Cyphoidbomb said, just because several other articles fail to comply with MOS:BOLD doesn't mean the MOS should be ignored everywhere. It means that those articles need to be fixed as well. —Farix (t | c) 10:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's jump into a "fun" little discussion called "Why Everyone still continues to accuse me for all the blame". Okay firstly, to you and to all of you negative users, that still continu to fight over my inane behavior over the MOS:BOLD. Now FYI, I didn't create the whole MOS:BOLD fiasco they were like this several years ago, and secondly I don't understand why both you and woof decide to change your minds over this?
Now I'm not here going to start another war here, because their is no reason for it and we moved on already here. But, their is got to be another way using something else regarding with the MOS:BOLD that I've been constantly repeating a few days back. Please give me another chance I've had a rough struggle on Wikipedia due to certain users and their beliefs, and I love to edit out certain stuff. I promise I won't cause another edit war again, please I'm sorry for the mess I have caused on all of you.--50.171.11.116 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durarara!!

[edit]

Hear me out, is it really necessary for her role in Durarara!! and x2 to be listed twice? I think it's redundant and that x2 is just a continuation of the first season. Hugosworld92 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian: Misunderstanding

[edit]

With all due respect all I did was change the web page for Michelle Ruff because of some url errors, I did not appreciated that you reverted all the cleaning I was working on!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Ruff. 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: 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) 11:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth?

[edit]

Is it verified anywhere? Behind The Voice actors and IMDb says she's born in 22 September 1967 and apparently they're not reliable sources. 80.1.96.61 (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Ruff&oldid=1237489448"