Forum:Relocation of "non-canon" sections

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before or not but regardless, I think it's worth bringing up again.

I have more than a couple problems with how non-canon content is handled in the articles, but aside from the fact that they detract from the aesthetic value of each article, the biggest problem to me is listing non-canon content in chronological order, separating canon arcs from one another which ultimately makes it look messier than necessary, as well as the potential for canological contradictions.

I just don't see a reason why the articles need to be structured this way. Anyway, on point - What I propose is that we find an alternative way to display this information, possibly by moving all non-canon info to a new, separate section, or simply linking to said movies and filler arcs where non-canon storylines occur, both of which are what the Narutopedia does, which works fairly well. --Mandon (talk) 22:32, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I personally think it's better that it's really obvious a particular section isn't canon on a character page. Yes, I understand what you say about it looking messy, but the alternatives are to not have a warning, remove the content, or to move it to a place that is chronologically out of order.

16:34, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

If it's not canon I really don't see why it's necessary to even have it in the article to begin with, personally. And as far as being canologically in order, that's a double-edged sword. For example: Kuzan met the Straw Hats in Film Z but that's not canon and didn't actually happen, but it's still written between canon arcs as if it did, whether there's a warning or not. So when Kuzan actually does meet the SHs in the manga, we're going to have two separate meetings written in the story sections. Again, I know we have a warning but the thought of these canological contradictions kind of worries me. I don't think including the storylines of movies and filler arcs in the story sections is particularly necessary, when the information can be accessed in articles about said arcs/films. --Mandon (talk) 18:59, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Filler_History_Sections SeaTerror (talk) 19:38, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

I guess a consensus was previously reached. What's the policy of re-opening a closed discussion? I feel it's worth addressing this issue one more time. EDIT: Also just noticed my conversation with SHL at the end of it. I'd like to re-use the arguments I made there as I forgot about them previously. If Sakazuki and Borsalino's respective backgrounds are revealed, then there is something to be said about a potential flow of inconsistency that will result from this system when we have two contradicting stories clustered in together. --Mandon (talk) 00:07, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nova, and with the previous decision of the last forum.

There are no inconsistencies now, so this really isn't a problem. In the past, the rule regarding regarding re-opening discussion is that there needs to be something that changes or a new point for discussion, or also a minimum of three months. I don't really think anything has changed, so unless more people post that agree with you, Mandon, then I think we can call this closed pretty soon. 03:56, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather delete them all or make a new tab for them. I saw the way the Naruto wiki did it and that's good too. SeaTerror (talk) 19:00, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ST, delete them altogether. The current system is not even consistent: Out of the movies, only Strong World and Z are given special treatment. 01:35, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Kage, it's because people are too lazy to do that stuff :P 01:45, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I'm for deleting the filler history sections as well. 01:45, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I assume we have enough people to re-open the discussion then? --Mandon (talk) 15:38, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I support the deletion of filler/non-cannon history sections. 23:17, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

If we're not bothering to include non-canon sections on character histories from things like video games, anime filler arcs, or any movie that Oda didn't work on, we might as well also remove the non-canon sections for Strong World and Film Z. They shouldn't get special treatment just because Oda was involved in their production. MizuakiYume (talk) 03:41, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Remove those too. The only exception could possibly be Strong World since we don't know if it is canon or not. SeaTerror (talk) 03:55, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Shiki is canon, Strong World is not. if you observe the overall timeline of the events of the movie, there's no way it could have realistically occurred in the plot. Plus I believe Oda confirmed it. --Mandon (talk) 19:09, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about Shiki not being canon. SeaTerror (talk) 19:11, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

I know, I was just making a point. I think we can safely say that due to the canological contradictions of the timeline, we can safely say SW isn't canon. --Mandon (talk) 20:26, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my above statement, since I seem to have caused a spinoff discussion on whether Strong World is canon or not: I support removing all filler/non-canon sections. MizuakiYume (talk) 21:12, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

As do I. --Mandon (talk) 16:02, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, delete em all. 00:23, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's a clear majority now. Should we do it the way the Naruto wiki does though or just delete everything completely? SeaTerror (talk) 19:53, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems people support deleting them. How does Naruto wiki do it, though? 20:28, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

For movies they have a movie section for each character that simply gives a brief rundown of said character's role in the film and links to the movie's article for a full synopsis. An exception to this is the Last, which is canon and is given a full synopsis of said character's role in the movie as if it were an arc in the manga. For filler, they kind of do what we do here.... only rather than detailing events from the filler arcs, they simply link to said arcs. I'd be more inclined to simply have a filler/movie section a good distance away from the story synopsis that links to each filler arc and movie each character appears in, but if we need to compromise the Naruto Wikia's way of doing things isn't particularly bad either. --Mandon (talk) 22:04, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

I would only want a link to the page and leave it at that. I didn't know the movies had a brief summary. SeaTerror (talk) 07:51, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mandon (talk) 17:43, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so if we do this, how are we doing it?

Sections called "Movie History"?

And what about the Straw Hats? They have 2 history tabs, so which one should the section go in? Is it a new tab? I don't know the answers to these questions, but we'd better figure it out. 02:02, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

"Movies"

One Piece Film Z: > Link to article

> Luffy appears in this movie while he *blah blah blah blah brief summary of the movie plot*

And so on and so fourth. We don't need a history section for movies. Short summaries will do fine. --Mandon (talk) 05:14, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

No summaries at all. Just a link. SeaTerror (talk) 19:55, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

Same for filler arcs? --Mandon (talk) 17:38, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The point of this forum is to get rid of the template so if you have any summary then the template would still need to be used. SeaTerror (talk) 19:21, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's understandable. So do you think the filler links be kept near the movie links or placed in the history section in lieu of the non-canon sections? --Mandon (talk) 04:39, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to put links in history sections, then we still need to signify that the links are about non-canon material, which means we should leave the template. Take the links out of the history sections, and things are out of order. You're in a no-win scenario.

Also, I think that it's really shitty of us to want these gone because "they're ugly" or "only Z and SW get special treatment". Those are failures on us as editors, and that does not demean the source material. We would be removing information focused on characters in favor of a less detailed (and likely poorly written, or in the case of filler arcs, barely written) general summary. We shouldn't have to remove entire sections because a few people think a template is "ugly". We shouldn't remove perfectly good content because we're too lazy. We should actually work on it and adapt our content, not remove it. That is how we strengthen our wiki. 05:00, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

That's not why I want them gone. Having non-canon material placed in chronological order alongside canon arcs paves the way for contradictions. Especially after Film Z. --Mandon (talk) 16:51, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Of course it paves the way for contradictions. That's why we have a big warning that the material is non-canon, so that we can clearly make it known if contradictory information shows up. 13:54, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

It'll still look stupid having two totally different reunions for the Straw Hats and Aokiji in the same section[s] no matter how you look at it, warning or no. It's information that doesn't need to be [and shouldn't be] shown in history. --Mandon (talk) 00:19, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

We are dedicated to talk about all things One Piece, not just canon material. We would show a HUGE bias towards the manga if we removed these sections. For the Straw Hats, maybe it's easy to have the articles get by without these sections, or find another place for the information. But the template is not only used for the Straw Hats. It's used on the pages of the Admirals like Akainu to describe his past in such a way that information really only fits in the history section. It's also used on smaller, less important character pages such as Mikazuki for a description of his role in a filler episode after his canon appearance. To remove this template and/or the content inside it would be a great disservice to the wiki. 03:41, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Glad you brought up Akainu because that's another potential issue I have.

WARNING NON-CANON

> Sakazuki joined the marines and was trained by Zephyr, he was already considered a "monster" blah blah blah

END OF CANON

> Sakazuki grew up in blah blah [theoretical canon flashback] joined the marines and [more theoretical canon flashback]

See how that presents a problem? When the non-canon sources are straying into "pseudo-canon" territory things become extremely tricky. It's fine when it's a filler arc that doesn't have anything to do with the canon.. but as soon as they start creating backstories for canon characters, or creating reunions for characters post-timeskip that haven't happened yet, THAT is where issues will arise. Yes, we would be biased to not have this information anywhere, but I still don't entirely agree with the way we present it. Non-canon material shouldn't be showcased in chronological order with canon material. --Mandon (talk) 05:57, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

If any inconsistencies like that example arise, we would likely mention them in another section. As of now, these inconsistencies do not exist. The Straw Hats meeting Kuzan again is likely the only one we'll get though, and that one is MUCH easier to fix. 12:25, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

You did not address Mikazuki, ether. 12:25, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

There's no if. Those inconsistencies will arise and we should prepare for them before they happen. What exactly do you find wrong with displaying non canon information away from the history section anyways? To me it seems like a no brainer. As long as we display the information in some form, then why should it matter where it's shown? We keep the info but we drop the contradictions in History. EDIT: On another note, moving select non-canon information to another section if it contradicts the manga will only add to the problem and make the articles messier than they already are. Do we really want that? --Mandon (talk) 15:54, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Well to me, the "no brainer" should be that history sections are chronological. So there's really no obvious choice. I think that non-canon histories would be better off linking to their separate articles (for example, link to Warship Island page in Luffy's history between Logue Town and Reverse Mountain with a Non-Canon warning), but it's so minor that the current style shouldn't be changed anyway. If it ain't broke... 18:59, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Except that it is broken. Very broken. Toei continuously improvises with the canon to create pseudo-canon story arcs, adding character backstories that didn't happen and in the case of Film Z, creating character reunions that also didn't happen. Detailing canon storylines and non-canon storylines in chronological order would work if they didn't contradict the canon, but they do - so it shouldn't be there. --Mandon (talk) 19:38, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain what makes sense to the rest of us, which is why this conversation is going no where. We put warnings before non-canon content. Readers who look through the history will know what is canon and what isn't. They could straight-up skip the non-canon if they wanted to. The sections are seperated, but alternate to be better organized in chronological order. You're going to have to discuss the warning if you want to change anyone's mind. And you kind of did earlier, but you said "See how that presents a problem?" and I don't. The "psuedo-canon" you speak of doesn't exist because the warning made the distinction between real and not real. 13:31, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

WARNING NON-CANON

> Sakazuki joined the marines and was trained by Zephyr, he was already considered a "monster" blah blah blah

END OF CANON

> Sakazuki grew up in blah blah [theoretical canon flashback] joined the marines and [more theoretical canon flashback]

^ That's a problem, warning or no. Putting a warning before a non-canon section doesn't change the fact that we're essentially sandwiching two essentially different histories together. Canological contradictions will still arise with or without the warning, and it will ultimately make the articles look way messier than they need to be.

But hey, I gave my reasons for why I feel they should be moved. Why don't you give your reasons why you feel they shouldn't? If the information is still conveyed and we end up with an ultimately cleaner article, what exactly is the problem with keeping non-canon information separate? --Mandon (talk) 15:24, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

So your argument for changing something to ask why it shouldn't be changed? Forgive me, I'm a bit lost here. How does that make any sense? The reason they are as they are is the result of a previous discussion. That was explained earlier on this page. The two options are either we delete all non-canon history - which makes no sense - or we have it on the character pages in one form or another. That is clear. What's wrong with having it in chronological order with a nice big warning like we have? People don't look through an article looking for inconsistencies between the canon and the non-canon.

15:44, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well now this will have to go to poll. Seems more people are still for removing it though. SeaTerror (talk) 18:16, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

@Supernova "What's wrong with having it in chronological order with a nice big warning like we have? People don't look through an article looking for inconsistencies between the canon and the non-canon." I already explained what's wrong with having it in chronological order. Many times. Canological contradictions are one thing.. but having two separate histories for a character, which will happen by the way - goes well beyond a simple contradiction. It will reduce the visual fidelity of the article and makes it look messy and convoluted. But yeah I agree with ST.. we should poll it. --Mandon (talk) 15:00, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Bump? 18:12, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

So, are we going to have to poll this? It doesn't seem to be a clear majority, sadly.

13:43, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Concerns with Removal of the Sections
Alright, so this forum is in a bit of a weird spot right now:

There's kind of a majority (AKA not clear) in favor of removing the Non-Canon template and sections from history sections.

However, I do not feel as though the people in that majority have a complete picture of what this entails, and I know pretty damn well that they are not following this forum.

So here is my list of concerns:


 * People cite a "special treatment" that Z and Strong World get in terms of having these sections. This is a failure of our community as editors to add these sections for other non-canon arcs.
 * * The ugliness of the template can also be changed if people care about it.


 * People are focused on the Straw Hat articles, and do not address the loss it would be to other articles, such as Mikazuki who is a canon character with a filler episode appearance.


 * Worries about potential contradictions in the history section don't make sense, because the template exists to say that the events are non-canon and might contradict other sections. There is only a problem if the template/section are removed.


 * If we move the information, where does it go? If it goes to a filler history section, where does that go on the SH articles, since they have their pre/post tabs for their history?


 * If instead of information in these sections, links to other articles/summaries are insufficient. We lose information based around specific characters and their parts in the arc in favor of likely poorly written general summaries.
 * * Linking also means the template and section headings will have to stay.

Ultimately, I do not think that people considered what to do instead of theses sections and just jumped the gun on wanting them removed.

I firmly believe that if we are to remain a wiki dedicated to detail in all facets of One Piece, these sections need to remain. If nothing else, they serve the great purpose of spreading awareness that parts of OP actually are non-canon.

We need to discuss this further, so let's proceed with a more focused and helpful discussion. 01:48, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'd be fine with Filler History sections. What bothers me most about the current way of doing things is the fact that non-canon information is inserted in the middle of canon information, or vice-versa. For the Straw Hats, we can just make new subpages for Filler history (if we're supposed to cover all the movies etc. then there's more than enough for separate pages). 00:09, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

What bothers me much more than that is when people don't know a certain event in a character's history is non-canon. How are they supposed to know to look in a non-canon history section or tab when they don't even know what filler/non-canon even means? 16:00, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

The templates for the most part seem fine as they are. I don't have a problem with their appearance, they're not that big, and they link to the Non-Canon and Canon pages to help readers understand. How is anyone going to get confused by two conflicting accounts if one account is clearly labeled as non-canon? I oppose putting filler history into a different section because it would make it exceedingly difficult to know when in the timeline it takes place (which is actually kinda important)

How about, instead of moving non-canon history, we make a little modification to the non-canon template that states where the information came from, and the knowledge of where it came from (whether it's a movie, filler arc, etc.) will help people instantly know why it is not canon. I'll use the summary of Kuzan's actions in Film Z as an example:

Since Film Z is not canon, people will be able to reach the logical conclusion and understand how they got to that conclusion. 17:58, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sakazuki joined the marines alongside Borsalino blah blah blah Zephyr blah blah blah

NON CANON HISTORY ENDS HERE

Sakazuki joined the marines and [insert actual canon history here]

I'm sorry but does nobody see how this poses a huge problem once characters that are given backstory in non-canon sources get actual backstories in the manga? I get the issues that will arise from removing the sections entirely but we need to think of the effect these sections have/will have on the articles for major characters first and foremost. I'd rather remove the possibility for canological contradictions at the expense of articles like Mikazuki than keep his filler history intact at the expense of more important articles. It's a small price to pay, in my eyes. --Mandon (talk) 18:13, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

So how many characters have had backstories in filler that are later completely contradicted by canon? Because off the top of my head I can't think of many.

18:27, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

More people are still against having the sections entirely. If the template has to stay then the word "considered" needs to go. It isn't considered non-canon because it's a fact it is non-canon. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Sakazuki and Borsalino are the only ones right now. They haven't been "contradicted by the manga" as of right now, but they probably will. What I'm saying is we should pre-emptively prepare for it. But you're right, there is a possibility that Akainu will never get a backstory in the manga, as unlikely as I think that is - so let's talk about something definitive. Aokiji. He met the Straw Hats in Film Z and that encounter is detailed in chronological order in the article as if it were canon, warning or no. They'll definitely meet him in the manga so that's a contradiction waiting to happen. --Mandon (talk) 19:49, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Toei also had him meet the Straw Hats wrong and changed how Tonjit was originally saved. SeaTerror (talk) 20:03, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

If only we had some kind of section where we could put small non-canon details that contradict canon things.... hmmm....

Oh yeah, we do. 21:27, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Of course non-canon history is going to conflict with the actual history sometimes. But no one is going to get confused on which version is real, or consider the history section confusing when there's a big box with bright red text before and after every non-canon event. I really do not understand your complaint. 20:29, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

I support Just's idea. Get rid of the filler history sections and throw them in anime and manga differences. Template is gone and everybody wins. SeaTerror (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT what I'm saying at all. 17:52, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ST's misrepresentation of JSD's point. What's actually ironic about that is that we do that exact same thing for Smoker and that little flashback Toei did for him in Loguetown. For what purpose do we showcase that flashback in the anime/manga differences section and not the history section I wonder? Oh yeah... because it contradicts the canon. --Mandon (talk) 22:29, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying we shouldn't have anything that isn't canon? I suggest you check the front page of the wiki. This site isn't just for the manga.

22:43, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Not in the history sections - added chronologically along canon material, no. And I've explained why numerous times.. I don't really feel I need to specify why this system paves the way for serious canological contradictions, but I digress. As I said before, there's a reason Smoker's flashback isn't in the history section of his article. I could say that it's inconsistent and a double standard that Smoker's filler isn't a part of his history section like everyone else's, but honestly it's good that it isn't. That's what we should be aiming for for all articles - not just Smoker. --Mandon (talk) 23:01, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Filler scenes and anything contradictory should go in the difference section, as they are a difference from the canon material. However, things like the movies or filler arcs are not a difference, they are something absent from the canon material. To put them into the differences section would be a grave error, and lengthen an important section of many articles to the point that nobody would want to read it. 02:29, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

If it's not canon it's not important. Just have a movie/filler section separate from history. Boom, problem solved, and we don't have to pick and choose what non-canon material goes or stays, like we do with Smoker. --Mandon (talk) 19:22, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

"What bothers me much more than that is when people don't know a certain event in a character's history is non-canon. How are they supposed to know to look in a non-canon history section or tab when they don't even know what filler/non-canon even means?"

The same goes for these Anime/Manga Differences. How is an anime-only follower supposed to know Smoker's flashback was anime-only, and that it's in the differences section? Obviously we can't account for everyone, but I think most people are smart enough to find the information even if they're not familiar with "filler","canon" etc. (and I'd say most people are). Filler History section is the way to go. 19:38, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

So really we're discussing two things here: is everything not in the manga definitively filler, and how do we mark it as filler?

20:12, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Is that really even up for debate? Of course it's filler. Anything that didn't happen in the manga didn't happen in the story. As for how we should mark it.. we should have a separate section for non-canon story material. --Mandon (talk) 22:27, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I just can't compromise with you people, can I? You say that certain kinds of facts would be ok in a different section, I propose making that a thing, and you still oppose everything? What's an admin looking to make things easy supposed to do?

Anyways, to respond to what Kage said, I wanted to move smaller contradictions into the section. (Your example of Smoker doesn't hold to what I said, as I believe there is nothing contradictory about his non-canon childhood, as we have nothing for his canon childhood.) I said "anything contradictory" should be moved before when it sounded like compromising might be a thing, but if you guys are gonna backtrack on progress, so am I! Only small contradictions!

And I would define "small" as anything with at least a couple facts to it, or something I estimate to be about a scene or so. Something like Smoker's flashback is a perfect example of something I would want in the regular history section (marked with the template of course), and then use the A/M Differences to explain the significance of the difference.

As far as the argument about whether the readers can find the content, I believe leaving things in order with the template is a far better and more comprehensive and educational system.

My larger concerns from the beginning of this section have gone largely unanswered as well:


 * The primary one I still worry about from this is what about pages like Mikazuki if the template is deleted?


 * Next is how do we do the filler sections for the Straw Hats?


 * New concern: The template is the main thing which explains that things are non-canon. How would this be done in filler history sections? (And if things go in Differences section, who would check to make sure all the language explains canonicity correctly?)

Anyways, I've written a lot here, and I really don't want to see this last forever, but I also would appreciate it if my concerns were actually addressed instead of just latching on to one thing I say, and arguing only about that. 00:18, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even realize you were trying to create some kind of "compromise" by bringing up the differences section. That wouldn't even really be a compromise, it's basically just what we do right now. But in any case, this will be a compromise no matter what, as intially we wanted to delete the filler histories altogether. Regarding your concerns:

00:09, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even think we necessarily need to delete the template. Some kind of explanation on "non-canon"/"filler" would be useful at the beginning of the Filler History sections.
 * Already adressed this above: "For the Straw Hats, we can just make new subpages for Filler history (if we're supposed to cover all the movies etc. then there's more than enough for separate pages)"
 * As I said, I think putting the template at the beginning of the sections would be fine.