Forum:Regarding Fight Pages

okay, List of fights and the other fights we've got on the wikia right now. Lets decide their future.

Problems:
 * 1) Overall lists aren't encyclopedic
 * 2) Lists are trivia, recently I've been cracking down hence Trivia Guidelines, so we've got an issue there. In fact someone not so long ago raised the suggestion we should perhaps retire the listson the character pages as it is. :-/
 * 3) No one is added references and its been pointed out with List of fights in particular that its hard to reference. Why?  Because the fights are often spread out over a number of pages or broken into stages (Moria Vs. the Straw Hats, Luffy spent several chapters chasing Moria alone).
 * 4) The list continues to grow with no one attempting to resolve the issue.
 * 5) Chapters... Arc... Characters... And others... All these DETAIL the fights. Repeating the same details over and over again.
 * 6) Its a "dead end" page, we can't really link to it... We can only link FROM it. So this has to be resolved except, well, why would you link to it?  If the section all ready covers it, then its a pointless link.
 * 7) Honestly, folks are bound to look at the likes of 'Luffy', 'Boa Hanock', 'Baroque works'... But who will look up the fights?

Now once upon a time we started with Nami Vs. Kalifa, a page which was deleted for simulair reasons why Luffy Vs. Laboon and others are up for grabs by the delete button. So seeing these kind of pages return, its both annoying and fustrating since we've dealt with this before. Unfortantly, no one wrote up a guideline (come on, I'm just putting drafts up, someone else can do this too you know and why isn't anyone ever in objection to anything I write on them?) on how to handle such things. And "Events" have also been deemed undeserving of Pages. In fact the point 6. up there about dead end link is ultimately one of the most important things as its pretty much what made Nami Vs Kalifa a weak page, because that section of Kalifa's history was never inputted while that page existed.

I'm not completely against it, but I am concerned about us not resolving old issues. I'll put the link here I noted elsewhere, we do have lists on this wikia, but to date their either on pages with heavy detailing and references already (Devil Fruits) or exist because the pages they potentially created were too weak to stand alone (Animals, Dials). We do have *some* other lists, but they've been largely ignored for simulair reasons raised about 'list of fights'.

Also, while we're at it I'd like to resolve the issue of the weak list pages, including I think theres a 'techniques' page out there somewhere. We should get the whole thing sorted so someone can write out a draft guideline. One-Winged Hawk 12:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also regarding the name of fights... Luffy Vs. Crocodile. 3 times he fought him in seperate incidents (well at least two seperate incidents).  How do you title such cases?  Then theres how Thriller Bark went, it mingled around from Luffy Vs. Moria to Oars and only those that didn't involve fighting Oars and Moria directly are clear fights. One-Winged Hawk 12:58, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the point was in moving from talk page here? Anyway, previous part of discussion - Talk:List of fights. Regargding "non-encyclopedicy" of lists: see, for example wikipedia:Wikipedia:Lists. Ruxax 13:56, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to move it to the forum... That and I'm notsure if its worth moving it.


 * Plus here I'm opening up this to create a guideline, something I can't do on the fight page. I'm not sure what the guidelines called yet, and to be honest I'm half waiting to see how the other discussing fairs, but this is a space to talk about a possible guideline.  Mostly, what does and doesn't deserve a page.  I know we hae a guideline somewhere on this, but its lost and I want to properly organise it and rewrite a draft on it.  Or get ideas on how to improve the existing one.  Particular note, lists, which aren't covered by any of our guidelines.


 * The site forum is for discussing the site overall, article pages discussions are for discussing article. One-Winged Hawk 22:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Naming in case of multiple battles: for example, Monkey D. Luffy vs. Crocodile (Desert), Monkey D. Luffy vs. Crocodile (Arabasta Palace), Monkey D. Luffy (Tomb of the Kings), or chronologically Monkey D. Luffy vs. Crocodile (First), Monkey D. Luffy vs. Crocodile (Second), Monkey D. Luffy vs. Crocodile (Third) - doesn't really matter.

Naming: I think if the battle involves a Straw Hat pirate, then its name should go in the first place, then "vs.", then the other participant's name; otherwise the order of participants' names doesn't matter, just to choose arbitrary one variant; maybe to create redirect from the other variant.

Page Layout: like in the page Monkey D. Luffy vs. Alvida is already good.

Template: possibly. Ruxax 22:40, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

That was why I created the Event page, people were suppose to use it. We can can cover these battles in specific events.

23:14, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah but theres another thing offically none of these things have name. Bilkan is a made up name as it is because otherwise we don't have a name for these guys, and it was only matches to Shandian and skypiean. Thats why its important we get something up. One-Winged Hawk 06:35, April 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am against such Joekido's plans. 1) These thought up names are completely subjective. 2) How will you classify things into 'skirmishes', 'battles', 'conflicts', etc. On one hand these words are almost synonyms. Such classifying is also subjective. On the other hand even deciding what fights are significant enough is unresolved now. 3) If you will group fights then in most cases you'll just come up with describing the whole arc. The initial idea was exactly in describing individual fights, I think. Ruxax 14:50, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

First Angel, the Bilkans page is not the only one which doesn't have a name. The arc and saga articles are also made by us. In particular the Saga division is nothing canon at all. I would say that the page name is the minor issue, the major one is what we put inside. In particular there are two arguments at the moment. Do we do 1 article per fight or do we regroup them. Concerning the 1 article per fight, the problem that we face is, what fights deserve a page ? Luffy vs Coby lasted 2 pages but it may have an interest concerning Coby development. To me a fight needs to be at least one chapter long to be considered. Also there is the problem of the battle like Marineford or Skipiea. There is no interest in dividing Marineford battle into different pages. It also happens more than once that the fights change fighter in the middle like in Thriller Bark. Concerning the group version we need a way to differenciate it from the Arc articles but that should be possible by focusing more on the character development and the new fighting techniques. To me the second solution has my preference, as it can have interest in grouping them. After all the duels from Arabasta and Enies lobby are interesting as a all too and it can help make the pages stronger.

Concerning the list of fight page, I think that a table like the List of canon characters character is worth thinking as the sort propertie can be usefull. We could also add a Winner and First attack columns

Now we have the Events page, what do we do with it ? Because there are other things than fights

Kdom 17:54, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

For the list page, some people seem to find it useful to a point. It however may really need some proper maintenance as to what should be added. Not every instance where one character hits another is instantly a fight. Nami hitting Luffy and Zoro can't be called a noteworthy fight as it's for comedic purposes. Luffy hitting Coby can't be called a fight as it's not even a fight in essence. Even Brownbeard attacking Foodvalten can't exactly be called a fight as from what can be seen, no one seems to be fighting against him or his crew.

For the fight pages, they kinda do seem repetitious. Other than some plot summary and some references, they don't exactly look like they could provide anything else that is found in other page. The Luffy vs. Alvida one that's been cited, I don't know myself. You can probably fluff it up with decor like a template but other than that I'm not sure if it's good. The problem of which fight should get an article is also indeed an issue. For some people, certain skirmishes may look really important to note. For others, they may look like info that would just create a really small article.

For naming issues, it really kinda depends on content. For arcs and saga divisions, they can be allowed as they provide easy division of plot summaries for users. For Bilkans, yeah I'm not exactly sure. There is kinda a reasonable point made about there being differences in the moon people. However, there is kinda a bit of assumption and speculation there which is so so. In any case, it's kinda different matter in entirety to the topic at hand.

For the events page, it's not exactly a solution to the fight pages problem as there are indeed other things that would classify as an event other than a fight.Mugiwara Franky 17:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its more of a fan fanatic/fluff filler, its the same as trivia, whats interesting to one person doesn't always prove to interest another. Fluffing up articles was indeed a old article habbit I had when I came here in 2006, but over the last 4 years I've found fluffing up an article can make a page drift off course.


 * Its got potential to cause more arguments then it already has if allowed TO stray. Saying that, sure there isn't an officla arc or saga to begin with, but we can't work the wikia without those pages existing, whereas with these we can and have done so up until this point. The names are one of the two big issues though, and above this is the breaking big fights into smaller ones.  For instance, Thriller Bark.  Which I'm about to prove the point of the whole reason for not needing them.


 * Thriller Bark from the Nami rescue onwards was Straw Hats Vs Moria's lot, though there were smaller fights everything from finding the monster trio shadowless to Moria falling was basically ONE fight overall. Which means we're repeating 3/4 of the Thriller Bark arc on one page.  If you break it down into its smaller parts you create a bunch of incomplete fights since one thing led to another.   And the same thing applied to Skypiea and the final Fight with Baroque Works.  Although they have odd solo fights here and there, they don't have many independant fights like Luffy Vs Bellamy and Luffy Vs the Gorgon Sisters.


 * I think someone at this point needs to do a weigh in on the pages and a preposal to fix all the broken problems. While some pages we can get away with in the wikia, these have got more then just a few problems that those other pages have.  I know the more we discuss this subject the less I like them and the more problems I keep thinking about that I didn't think up before and overall MF, I'd rather see the solid "clear as rain" keep worthy pages worked on then these.  As I said, to me its a waste of time.  Esp. when there are so many articles covering these pages information already.  Anyway, despite the deadline I don't see anyone putting too much effort into fixing the articles long list of problems, which is not a good sign at all... Yet even I myself allowed Mythbusters to stay and I must confess, its been one of our more useful pages... However in the case of mythbusters, there was a large hidden potential we could use that I also found in Joekido's FAQ in the end.  :-/ One-Winged Hawk 21:17, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay its a day overdue, but I was ill yesturday... So what ARE we doing with these pages? One-Winged Hawk 12:47, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has provided the start of solution for these pages. I suggest we delete them. Kdom 20:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well everyone knows my stance on them, anyone else with any final words before I up them in the delete page? One-Winged Hawk 22:25, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't exactly have a defense for them just some suggestions. It maybe okay I guess to put them up for deletion since no solution has been brought up.Mugiwara Franky 11:20, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just to signal that a topic has been started concerning their deletion here. Kdom 18:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)