Origin section
Isn't the "Origin" section way too long? It's nearly an essay is size. ;P —Kaimi (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, origin sections are meant to be concise summaries- no more than a paragraph or two long. Feel free to condense or rewrite it. TheFifteenthMember 13:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I only watched the first The Lion King so I'm afraid that my tries to keep it short and to the point would be in terrible. I think I'll let someone more knowledgable do this.—Kaimi (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha... ^_^; I'm sorry, that's my bad. I'm detailed when I do my summaries. I tried not to make too long, but I ended making it long in spite of that. But I don't know how to condense it into smaller size without leaving out the important points in the plot. :P--NinjaSheik 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I only watched the first The Lion King so I'm afraid that my tries to keep it short and to the point would be in terrible. I think I'll let someone more knowledgable do this.—Kaimi (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to cut it down as best as I could. If someone can do better, by all means do so. Origin sections are not meant to detail the full movie- hence the Wikipedia links. A good origin section for a main character, movie wise, would be Hercules. Not sure if this is of any help, but I'll leave it here. Xion4ever 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Not Kiara
|
Considering the whole thing we had with Shark, I think it's perfectly reasonable to rename this "Simba's child". --Neumannz, The Dark Falcon 05:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. If it's not named in Kingdom Hearts as "Kiara", it's not okay to assume so or call it that here. - Eternal Nothingness XIII 14:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the origin section is still needed. However, the page needs to be rewritten under the examples on Shark and Maleficent's Raven. So, the opening line of the origin section would be something like: "Simba's child, known as Kiara ref, originates from the The Lion King and its sequel The Lion King II." Xion4ever 19:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Except, saying the child is known as Kiara is the same as accepting the "assumption" of having the article named Kiara. The same is true if we keep the origin, it's accepting that the child is Kiara, which we're supposedly rejecting on the basis that there's no proof in the games that it's actually Kiara. I don't think it's necessary to move it. After all, Kingdom Hearts builds on the Disney universe, it doesn't recreate it. There's nothing wrong with leaving it as Kiara because it's a safely-accepted fact. It might get more confusing and weird to deny that it's Kiara, even if there's nothing in the actual games that says it is. KeybladeSpyMaster 23:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)