Talk:Purah

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Purah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Non-prose stuff added. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

References

As of this revision.

Spotcheck

• [5] - This source appears to discuss her in Age of Calamity, but I don't see where it supports now wearing a long beige lab coat and a skirt that exposes her lower legs.

• Tightened the description based off the image, changed "lab coat" to just coat, removed the exposed legs bit and mentioned the black skirt instead. This one's a bit rough to get design commentary from outside of what one can see.

• [9][10] - I have no doubt that Some third party merchandise leaned heavily into Purah's sex appeal is true, but technically neither source actually supports that assertion, they're just describing products for sale.

• Changed this to "Some third party merchandise portrays Purah in a sexual manner."

• [13] - I think eliding "thirst posts" from the full quote is more confusing than beneficial, it left me wondering what the original full quote was, when it's just two words.

• Removed the quotation marks.

RS

• [2] - What is gamepedia.jp, and why is it reliable? I recognize it's only being cited for a voice acting credit, but is that information available nowhere else?

CV

• A bunch of hits on Earwig, but it looks like entirely false positives from attributed quotes and repeating the names of the three games under discussion.

OR

• Nothing uncited.

Broadness / focus

• Checks out.

NPOV

• Checks out.

Stable

• Checks out.

Images

• Infobox: License good, caption could maybe use a (left) (right) to better describe which is which, could use alt text.
• Figurine: I'm not convinced we're passing WP:NFC#UUI C16 or WP:NFCC C8 here. Have any sources provided commentary on specific pieces of merchandise?

• Sadly there is no secondary sourcing discussing such merchandise, tends to be uncommon except for certain cases. However this use of imagery has worked for articles such as Widowmaker (Overwatch), a GA.

Lead

• First paragraph
  • in The Legend of Zelda series reads like it's missing a second the, but looks awful if you add it, which is probably why the other Zelda articles use in Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda series
    • Fixed.
  • which takes place 100 years before -> which is set 100 years before for out-of-universe perspective
    • Fixed.
• Second paragraph
  • Tears of the Kingdom in particular - could probably drop in particular as redundant
    • Fixed.
  • with several media outlets voicing approval over her child-like appearance in Breath of the Wild - I don't think this says what you meant to say, assuming that you meant that they approved of the change from her previous appearance. Currently it can be parsed that they approved the previous appearance.
    • Fixed.
  • with search results on PornHub rising dramatically - I think the body paragraph indicates that the number of searches rose dramatically, not the number of search results. Also, I think we want to lead in to this phrase with something along the lines of Purah was often sexualized,.
    • Fixed.

Conception and design

• First paragraph
  • I don't think "Sheikah" needs to be quoted
    • Fixed.
• Second paragraph
  • After completing the character Robbie - Is it possible to add a few words about who Robbie is? He's referenced again later in the paragraph, and I don't think a reader would necessarily know the connection.
    • Attempted a fix.
  • I don't think "magical girl" needs to be quoted
    • Fixed.
• Third paragraph
  • Meanwhile in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - I'd drop Meanwhile
    • Fixed.
  • as a mature woman from her previous child-like appearance - Bit awkward, we talked about her not-child appearance in Hyrule Warriors just before this. Maybe just as a mature woman.
    • Fixed.
  • Her hair meanwhile now frames her face - I'd drop meanwhile
    • Fixed.

Appearances

• First paragraph
  • recently turned her body into that of a child after a scientific mishap de-aged her - Wait, are these two separate events? If not, recently de-aged her body into that of a child due to a scientific mishap.
    • Fixed.
  • Sheikah race - Are Sheikah a clan, as described in the previous section, or a race? Also, does She is one of only three Sheikah who... just work?
    • Fixed.
• Second paragraph
  • Purah later appears in the game's sequel - Hm, awkward again that we included Hyrule Warriors just before this, as TOTK is not a sequel to that game. Purah later appears in Tears of the Kingdom, a sequel to Breath of the Wild set some years later?
    • Fixed.

Critical reception

• First paragraph
  • in the game - I'm assuming this is about TOTK, but this is the first time in the section we reference any of the games, so we should probably be specific.
    • Fixed.
  • 42257% - Group numbers of five or more digits, so 42,257%
    • Fixed.
  • thirst post - Ah I meant a slightly different fix earlier, not eliding in the big quote. Iain Harris of GamesRadar+ cited the presence of a large amount of thirst posts on social media websites such as Reddit and Twitter while researching the article, stating "I've seen more than enough thirst posts to get a telling-off from two of my bosses."
    • Fixed.
• Second paragraph
  • There might be a bit of a due weight issue, considering we're giving a whole paragraph to this one review.
    • I've done similar with other GAs, the points raised in it are different than the others enough that it feels awkward if it's combined with any of the others.
• Fourth paragraph
  • who otherwise consisted of interaction with the main protagonist - I think who should be whose roles, whose characterizations, or similar.
    • Rewrote this, should be fixed.
  • for this aspect - Unclear what they recognized, her expanded role or redesign?
    • Fixed.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• @A412 Addressed what I could. I do feel the secondary image helps illustrate the sexualization aspect of response to the character which is a huge part of their reception, and noted above I have used similar in another article without issue. Let me know if there's more to fix!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• My bad, I missed the gamepedia comment. Give me a moment to try and find a better source. Unfortunately Behind the Voice Actors doesn't have a green check to confirm on their end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Fixed, replaced with tweet from voice actor's social media taking credit for the role.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• • @Kung Fu Man: done now. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • @A412: Hopefully addressed everything. Lemme know if there's more!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
      • I'll defer to your judgement on precedent re: images. LGTM. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pornographic Information

Why does this article include so much talk about porn made of this character? This seems entirely irrelevant and vulgar considering she's no more sexualized in the game than any other woman, and Wikipedia does not include this kind of information for other female video game characters. Benjaminaventi (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Benjaminaventi: Because a large part of the discussion about the character, and thus the notability, are people reacting to the character in a sexual manner. And it does include "this kind of information" for several other characters, to the point there's articles like Overwatch and pornography, even though the game itself is not pornographic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes "a large part of the discussion about the character"? If I search "Purah" signed out of google, there's nothing related to her pornographic material. If I then filter by news articles, nothing except some about her being redesigned (no mention of porn). I fail to see how this information stands up to Wikipedia's standards. Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it was actively discussed in multiple third party reliable sources as cited here. It's the same manner as what we saw with Lady Dimitrescu. And despite your claims, the reception is not "heavily talking about porn" but people's reactions to the character in regards to perceived sex appeal. There's even discussion on how the Zelda series is being looked at by adults through the scope of reactions to Purah. So yes, there is encyclopedic merit to discussing this in the grand scheme of a series running this long.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article should completely cut all discussion of sexual appeal, I think that the amount of discussion is far too in depth, to the point it overtakes the majority of the article. Most of the sources cited in the Critical Reception secrion discuss her sex appeal and repeat the same sentiments over and over. I think that section and its corresponding paragraph in the introduction should be condensed. Please review the "Reception" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not "repeating the same sentiments", they're making distinct points and discussing different aspects. It's also the most notable aspect of the character in terms of reception. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that, and given how you led off this discussion I feel that's skewing your view on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Dude, it's just creepy that you're this invested in sexualizing a character from a nintendo game. It's inappropriate since CHILDREN will read the article. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of making distinct points, the notion that the pornography of the character is their most notable point in terms of reception is entirely unfounded. Even if it was, it would not constitute an important enough aspect to take up more than half the article. There is also entirely no reason to link to articles about pornhub or include images of third party NSFW merchandise. 178.119.2.44 (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Content included in the article is only included if it is covered in reliable, secondary sources. You have yet to propose an argument for removing content re: Pornhub that uses any guidelines or policies. What you're asking for is for us to censor the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not calling for censorship. Its calling for decency in regards to not mention sexual content of a nintendo character. A character that children are prone to look up on here. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're calling to censor. Ease up with the "Think of the children" nonsense and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies. If this is that troubling for you, don't look at Gardevoir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You just described censorship. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E: Inherently sexual content is allowed on Wikipedia and is especially perfectly fine when it's sourced properly, which it is in this case. Calling for the removal of content that does not break the guidelines because in your opinion it isn't "decency" is censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Also, lay off the personal attacks. Content added from a neutral perspective does not reflect the opinions of the contributors. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about Purah is inherently sexual. Rule34 applies, there is porn of literally any character or concept you can imagine on the internet. Should every Wikipedia article include these porn references? I can rule 34 George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter, does that mean it get included in his Wiki? 2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD: I am not doubting that nearly every major video game character has had pornography derived from them all. Mentioning an instance of that would only be applicable if there was significant coverage from one or more independent, reliable sources regarding that specific character and its relevance to pornography, which is exactly the case for Purah. So yes, explicit content depicting "George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter" can be mentioned on the article for George Washington Carver Wikipedia if it is sufficiently documented by credible third-party sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia definitely includes this kind of information for other video game characters:

• Gardevoir § As a sex symbol
• Lady Dimitrescu § Promotion and reception
• Lara Croft § Sex symbol
• Link (The Legend of Zelda) § Critical reception
• Tifa Lockhart § As a sex symbol
• Bayonetta (character) § Critical reception
• Leon S. Kennedy § Reception
• Quiet (Metal Gear) § Merchandise and reception
• Kitana § Reception
• Yuna (Final Fantasy) § Reception
• Lulu (Final Fantasy) § Promotion and reception
• Kasumi (Dead or Alive) § Critical reception
• Miranda Lawson § Reception
• Aya Brea § Sex symbol
• Chloe Frazer § Reception
• Widowmaker (Overwatch) § Promotion and reception
• Tali'Zorah § Reception
• Cammy § Sex appeal
• Overwatch and pornography
• Pokémon and pornography

I don't know what to tell you except that you're just outright wrong and Kung Fu Man is completely correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of those are characters from mature and teen rated games. 148.137.224.157 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor based on a perceived target audience. Your argument makes no sense in the context of longstanding, fundamental Wikipedia policy. Clearly a wide variety of outlets have quite substantially covered the overt sexualization of this character in pop culture (warranting its inclusion), and the mildly sexual image is relevant to that. Please read WP:DISC. If you find other articles about this character from reliable, independent sources covering her in substantial detail that don't revolve around this sexualization, then you can write about those in the 'Critical reception' section as well to provide WP:DUE weight to those aspects of her reception. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Putting WP:CENSOR aside, I would hardly call this a "mildly" sexual image. Given that it's copyrighted, I don't think it meets any valid non-free use criterion and have nominated it at WP:FFD. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just popping back in to say I think the article is in a better state now. Looks much cleaner, thanks. Benjaminaventi (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I notice that all of the other ones that are listed as "similar" by User:TheTechnician27 are not explicitly "people started looking her up way more on PornHub", except for the ones that are specifically about pornography, nor are any of them contained in the initial biography.

This is not important information about the character. This is not even tangentially relevant information about the character. "Character in popular media who was previously depicted as a child has more people interested in pornography of them now that they are an adult" is not important information to the, and that is essentially what User:TheTechnician27 and User:Kung Fu Man are arguing with their insistence that this is relevant. Splitpunched (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure any of the discussion regarding pornography is regarding their Tears of the Kingdom design, and talks about them in that context...maybe you should relax a good bit before mischaracterizing discussions because there is a lot to unpack there...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Relevant vs. non-relevant is a question answered only through the use of reliable sources, which have been provided. I also don't really get why you're bringing up her BotW role. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not a mischaracterization of what's being argued.

"People looked up more porn of a character when they had an adult form rather than merely a child form" isn't that notable to me, but explicitly stating "Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release" is not important enough to be in the opening part of the article.

Reading over it again - the stuff in critical reception makes me roll my eyes, but whatever. I have no problem with it being buried in the article. I think it being put that explicitly in the opening part of the article is super duper weird and unnecessary - characters who are *way* more notable in terms of pornography aren't just listed with a "HEY, PEOPLE LOVE LOOKING AT PORN OF THEM" right up front. Splitpunched (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The fan reaction to her as an adult was the crux of the discussion around her, which did include the pornography aspect. I'm not sure what your problem is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand this correctly:

You think "Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release." is important enough information about the character that it needs to be in the opening section of her article, despite this not being true of any other character who is known for being prominently sexualized.

Yes or no? Splitpunched (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's very telling that this was never responded to. It's very bizarre behavior to be reverting edits removing that line literal minutes after they're made, and being the main contributor to like 20 articles of scantily clad anime women (and Gardevior), many of which are cited when saying "well it's also mentioned on these pages". I think that Kung Fu Man has too much unilateral authority over this article. I'm not even a prude, I'm not calling for censorship in the article as a whole, but it doesn't feel relevant enough to put in the summary. Wearealexandra (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a significant part of her reception, and the lead summarizes the article. If you want to raise a fuss about it, may I suggest WT:VG?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Also it didn't get a response because it's an absurd statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What's absurd about it?

It's important enough for you to go out of your way to find articles talking about the fact that a character is attractive, but 'absurd' for you to actually state in writing that yes, you think it's important that people immediately find out that people *really* started looking for her on PornHub after an adult version of her came out? Splitpunched (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It's absurd because the discussion around people finding her sexually attractive was the brunt of her discussion, prominently enough that it was most of the discussion around the character and people's reaction to that information. Why wouldn't it be included in the lead, which summarizes the article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if it was the brunt of the discussion, why is it relevant to the header to put your trivia about PornHub? PornHub isn't even mentioned in the reception section until halfway through the second paragraph, there's no way to justify this specific fact being so relevant that it needs to be the first thing someone knows about the character. Wearealexandra (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Because it's not trivia, it's pertinent to how she was received in that regard, which covers two paragraphs of information. Why does it bother you so much?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think most people would describe 'people started looking for porn of a video game character way more when she wasn't in the body of a literal child' as trivia, and extremely weird trivia at that.

I also think that the "reception" section of female/(feminine? I'm undecided what word best describes Gardevoir in this context) characters largely being about their sexual attractiveness, even when it's irrelevant to the character as a whole and has no lasting cultural influence, doesn't really inform users of anything. Splitpunched (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately a white variety of discussion including cultural analysis on how female characters are regarded or handled in video games would disagree with your assessment on such reactions having no cultural relevance. Again too, wikipedia doesn't WP:CENSOR. Just because you decide to get uppity that a Nintendo character is being discussed in this context doesn't change that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You have provided no such evidence, and you know perfectly well that the objection is more that it's irrelevant than trivia. Additionally, the fact that multiple people have brought up that you are being _extremely_ defensive of this article means that maybe it's time to bring this to dispute resolution. Splitpunched (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Because I don't see a point in removing something because another editor doesn't like it. A simple trip to Google Scholar can show several published papers that discussion sexualization of female character and player perception. Now if you had some policy you could cite you'd have an argument, but again it boils down to "I don't like it" on your end. This isn't social media, you can't just shout "this is weird!" really loud.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA, if you'd prefer a proper citation. This is not relevant information. It's trivia. Nothing is added by going "PEOPLE LOOOVE JERKING OFF TO A HOT FEMALE CHARACTER"; just because you've immersed yourself in articles about it does not mean it has any real bearing. Almost all of these articles are just "PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA SAID STUFF I AGREE WITH", or "PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA SAID STUFF". Splitpunched (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CHURNALISM is what you're after. However, the people observing the reaction were cited for their commentary as journalists while offering their own insights, so that doesn't apply either. On a separate note, when I said this isn't social media and shouting really loud wouldn't change anything, you didn't have to test that theory.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Also while we're here, please avoid personal attacks. Again, this is a wikipedia talk page, not social media.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I was patrolling the task force project and noticed this so I thought I should weigh in. To summarise, Purah has been identified for discussion about fans' depiction of her in a sexual way and has been the subject of 4 different sources over 3 reliable and reputable outlets as a result, which would already meet the threshold for WP:GNG and WP:THREE. They weren't merely chosen because KFM wanted to include them, but because it is a broader discussion of subject, which is what the reception section is for. That information is not TRIVIA as this is a direct discussion of the character's impact amongst people outside of the game, and it is also a mischaracterisation to just immediately label the information irrelevant and that there is no point adding it. It being in the lead of the article too is fair to do as that is meant to summarise the article, with the NSFW discussion a key highlight of Purah's discussion. These points have already had other editors outside of KFM point this out over nearly a year ago in this very discussion, and similar discussions involving characters like Ankha where it is a repetitive loop of editors not listening to policy just because they don't like the mere mention of the content. CaptainGalaxy 18:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

"Purah has been identified for discussion about fans' depiction of her in a sexual way" is a very roundabout way to say "there are articles about people being horny for her". These 'articles' mostly seem to be compilations of tweets along with commentary going "yep, people sure are making horny tweets about this video game character", which somehow I don't think 'articles' that boil down to a summary of tweets would fly as 'notable' to most other people.

In fact, let's look at these articles:

https://www.vg247.com/tears-of-the-kingdom-players-are-insatiably-thirsty-for-purah is just reporting that yes, people have made horny tweets about this video game character (and a horny tiktok). "Five people made posts about this and someone made a news post about it" is not something that most people would qualify as a source for anything. In fact, most of those aren't explicitly horny! There's maybe one that is explicitly horny!

https://www.themarysue.com/this-tears-of-the-kingdom-character-had-the-best-glow-up-from-breath-of-the-wild/ reports on a single tweet, and the author agrees with it. Last time I checked, "someone tweeted, and someone agreed with it" is not a credible source!

https://www.vg247.com/tears-of-the-kingdom-nsfw-zelda-search-spike doesn't actually provide a source for the Pornhub stats, which sure does make it suspect that they're listed so prominently in the Wikipedia article! I also think that most people would say that 'yes, it is not surprising or notable that people looked up more pornography of a character when they were not a literal child'; even if the statistic is true, it's trivial.

https://www.gamesradar.com/zelda-fans-are-down-bad-for-tears-of-the-kingdoms-purah-a-mommy-researcher-who-is-over-100-years-old/ actually uses half of the same content that the first article does!

So, let's be clear about what we're actually defending here: multiple longtime Wikipedia editors are arguing that two TikToks, five tweets, three articles compiling those seven social media posts, and an article with no source for its statistics regarding pornography constitutes a non-trivial amount of critical reception, to the point where said unsourced statistic needs to be in the opening of the article - a statistic that is effectively 'people looked up more porn of an adult character than a child'. Is that what the Video Game Task Force Project is for? Splitpunched (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Multiple established editors are arguing that the sources are reliable, secondary publications that fact check, both discussing the matter and giving their opinion. You are WP:SHOUTING to try and get your way because again, you don't like it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a very evasive answer to the question.

Based on those sources, does two TikToks, five tweets, three articles compiling those seven social media posts, and an article with no source for its statistics regarding pornography constitutes a non-trivial amount of critical reception?

This is a yes or no question, KFM. Splitpunched (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the opinions of the writers and their editorial. Their commentary, devoting several full articles to this subject, constitutes WP:SIGCOV. I'm not going to answer "yes or no" to you, because you're asking in bad faith: nobody is basing the observation on people's reactions to "a few tiktoks and twitter posts", nor is that what's being cited here as commentary. The writers' own opinions are. As Galaxy pointed out, this is just a repeat of the mess we saw with Ankha, and I would really suggest you desist, as it's bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING if it isn't already there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)