User talk:Rhavkin

BackToTopButton
What do you mean with incorporate? As "add it to the wiki global scripts"? If you are asking if it can be done, then yes, as you can see on the script page, it can be used sitewide. So if you want to request it, talk to the admins and if they agree, one of them can add it to MediaWiki:ImportJS. Simply add the line  to the list of imports.

Single users can add it to their personal global JS. If you want to make it available for everybody, even the casual readers, then we simply add it to MediaWiki:ImportJS. I was inactive for a very long time, so I'm no position to tell you if any decision/discussion was taken about it. If you get the ok from the admins, I can add it if they don't do that themselves. So best to ask them first, I guess.

I saw the admins gave their ok, therefore I went ahead and added it.

Oh, actually I forgot we were missing someone, but since it's still a majority I guess it's fine. By the "modern button" you mean the variant noted on the script page?

re:js
I have no objection. 09:01, March 14, 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's fine. 13:47, March 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re:js
I have no problem with it. Go ahead. 23:00, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Jibuemon

 * 1) I don't know exactly what or just the chapters he's appeared in. That is why we need an Appearances section.
 * 2) A couple of panels doesn't make him the leader.

Rgilbert27 (talk) 13:17, March 23, 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) "Said"? You think References covers "all" cameos, mentions or images only? I don't think so.
 * 2) Weak sauce.

Rgilbert27 (talk) 14:51, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

Doringo
Hey Rhavkin! Thanks for catching Doringo's appearance in Chapter 0, I must have missed it when I wrote the page. I wanted to ask, why do you keep removing the reference that cites which pages he appears in Chapter 967? It can be a separate reference from the Laugh Tale one because they cite different information. I'd prefer to work this out here instead of having an edit war and taking it to Doringo's talk page. 00:19, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Though I like the idea of utilizing different sections of his page, I'm not sure of either specific change given the fact that almost the entire crew was goofing around in the hot springs and that assuming he is a key member of the crew for seekng the Poneglyph is a little assumptive.

My philosophy when writing pages for minor characters is to use that specific level of detail to differentiate them from other characters. The Roger Pirates' pages were already being copy-pasted, which is an issue, so I included those little details like the Poneglyph and hot spring to show when Doringo actually appeared in the manga. Without that detail, we would have roughly 20 identical pages, not including their Appearance and Weapons sections.

It may not be relevant to the overall plot of One Piece, but the small details help us and others find where these characters actually appear. The same problem has happened before (like with the Whitebeard Pirates' allies), and users like Nightmare and I are trying to fix that way after the fact. If I can stop blanket copy-pasting that lacks detail now, I am saving more work down the line. 12:08, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think your most recent change to the reference, where you include the page numbers and mention Doringo by name in the reference but keep it generally focused on Laugh Tale, is the best version. Thank you! I think using the page numbers characters appear on with more general references is a good combination, and I'm not worried that adding page references will confuse readers. If we have too many references that conflict, that certainly will, which is why I like how you struck a balance so much.

I agree that copy-pasting is valid in some uses. On the Roger Pirates' pages, we can definitely reuse descriptions of significant events that pertain to the entire group, like them all dropping off Roger and Oden and disbanding. I am wary of copying entire history sections, but I think that we can both agree that doing so is not productive. 17:35, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

977
Why did you reverse the edits? Those two are chapter notes and as important as the 4 above. Vision34 (talk) 12:45, April 10, 2020 (UTC)vision34Vision34 (talk) 12:45, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Killer Infobox Img
It's not a major development or revelation so I don't really care enough to revert it, but wait until the chapter is officially released first. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 00:49, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

Miss Goldenweek
Any other pages that are less than 100 bytes you want to delete or move today? Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:05, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Devil Fruit
i think its needed to write the unnamed devil fruit so people know about that and if people forget bout that, they can look at this section. the purpose of this wiki is to provide information as much as possible. Willy yeremi (talk) 12:25, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hungry Days
You may not like it but I found something beside those commercials on why there should be a page as much as I felt when I saw Reborn and when get around to it I hope you'll at least give some help. Rgilbert27 (talk) 21:29, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

Fukage and Bishamon
That's more of a discussion for Bishamon's talk page. Majority supported deletion, so the page was deleted (talk page still exists, under the deleted article talk pages category) Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 06:24, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

Luffy Relationship Split
I understand why you want to split the pages further, but it isn't resolving the template issue. It also doesn't solve the root problem: the page is in need of drastic cuts and revisions. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 17:11, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Dory
Huh? Redirects have always been used for searching. And unless they changed the rule during the time I stopped editing for like 5 years, we have always prioritized using actual links over redirects within articles. For example instead of saying "Luffy punched Crocodile", we say "Luffy punched Crocodile". Unless that rule has changed, redirects wouldn't belong on articled anyways.

Besides that, why remove it anyways? It doesn't take up space, and the only thing it can really be used for is if someone searches the name to find out who it refers to. It has a practical, helpful use. Might be slightly confusing for anyone searching for Dorry, but that's what the {for} template is for. 03:57, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Redirects
When I search the terms it redirects to the correct place. There's a wiki preference users can select that will take them directly to the page by hitting enter rather than the search page. I would consider it worthwhile, even if not everyone has that preference, to keep around redirects to aid in searching. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:16, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the dropdown thing. The only instance I've found where both a redirect and the real page show up in the link dropdown is Absa. I haven't found it for any other redirect, including Naomi, Luffy, Big Mom, Whitebeard, etc.

Also, is it a bad thing to have more redirects than pages? I am fine with removing redirects that no one will use for searching or linking, but I don't see the harm in having redirects that can be useful to search. If the Nightmare Luffy redirect is deleted, you wouldn't even get a dropdown from the search bar to go to the Gomu Gomu Techniques page. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 05:15, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not much for redirects either. They can become old, forgotten and just lead to other redirects. Which is why I would choose a pipe-link if I can til new pages/sections are made. Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:56, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Hey Rhavkin. If you are going to keep marking Redirects for deletion en masse, you should make a forum about it. Important redirects like Dorry and Komaking should never have been deleted. 17:08, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I know you aren't marking all of them. But like I said, some of them are important and have no reason to be deleted. 19:31, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "authorized." To my knowledge, we don't have any policies in the wiki guide saying that we need to authorize redirects. 21:11, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, Rhavkin, but sending me the link to the category does not explain the authorization process or any "policy" we may have. Like I said before, given the fact that important redirects were deleted, stop marking "unauthorized" ones and instead open a forum about reorganizing ones that aren't in that category. 11:38, April 29, 2020 (UTC)

re:Bad Links
Hi, thanks for updating me. I've cleared out the reds now. 00:44, May 1, 2020 (UTC)

Cleared the images and created pages. However, I looked through my archived talk pages at least 3 times and can't find those red links. If you want, would you please find them for me? I've unlocked those pages.

As for blog posts and comments, most likely you need an admin or higher to edit those. 01:35, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

Re:910
The procedure for edit wars is to leave the page the way it was before the edit war occurred. You made an edit, ST disputed it, thus I reverted the page to the original version.

I personally did not have a problem with your edit, and would not have disputed it myself. I am simply enforcing edit war rules. Now, the reason ST disputed your edit was because of a decision made by this forum from five years ago. Now, that forum was mainly made in light of certain editors at that time who were obsessive with changing links and spamming activity/causing disruptions over it. I personally find the occasional link edit to be harmless, and think that ST would be better off addressing more meaningful issues. But what he says is true.

If you'd like to open up a new discussion about the issue, be my guest. Otherwise, I'd recommend picking your battles. Is a dispute over minor link formatting really worthy of an edit war? Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:18, May 4, 2020 (UTC)