Forum:Literary Technique pages: restore

I cannot believe you people. The literary techinque is very useful and you just have to flat out delete it. Why can't you just fix it instead of saying "it's useless, delete it"? i did not create these pages (Supernatural, Archetype, Timeskip, etc. etc.) just so someone can delete them. I created it to give this wikia an trivia pages instead of pages that just focus on the plot. The whole reason why I came here was to make creative pages that you can't do on wikipedia, and seeing how pages were merged/deleted, it just shows me that this wikia betrays the creativly. There is nothing wrong with the analyis pages and people need to learn to accept these pages without going: "It's useless!". If the page is clusmy-written: as an editor your suppose to fix it. I really want these pages back, how can I with sditors like you always bent on the plot-only pages? Would a wikia be focusing on a plot is bad idea? Of course. What is wrong with pages that be super-short? All wikia has it! Having pages like literary techinque would make this wikia more fun to read and more intersting! they are related and useful! This is One Piece encyclopida, where we learn every damn details about One Piece, deleting tthese articles defeates the entire purpose of this wikia

Joekido 02:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

The pages were redundant, the one piece wikia is not a place for literary techniques that aren't unique to One Piece. It just looks silly to have these pages, when there could be a simple link to wikipedia or wherever where it would be better explained than we possibly could. Some trivia pages are worthwhile, but these just added nothing of note to the wikia.Pandawarrior 12:19, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

No it does not look silly. You people need to stop thinking like that. These pages were suppose to keep track on how Oda writes his story. Like for example does One Piece have a plot twist? Of course look it up here Plot Twist and see lists of them. How many major flashbacks does One Piece have? Look it up here Flashback. Simple! One Piece is becoming a huge story and it's getting hard to keep track with everything that is going on there. The problem here is that you people are not open-minded enough. I'm not insulting anyone here, I'm pointing out the problems this wikia is facing.

Joekido 16:17, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Of course One Piece has flashbacks and plot twists. Like you said, its a huge story, that is to be expected. It's not a matter of open-mindedness, it's a matter of keeping the wikia clean and organized, so one can keep track of the huge story more easily. Superfluous pages like the Literary Techniques don't help with that. Pandawarrior 17:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it helps, as Joekido just said, whenever you want to know something about how/when/how much a certain technique is used in One Piece. It is an encyclopedia about "One Piece", not about "the plot of One Piece".
 * Apparently, it was of utmost importance to delete these pages as soon as possible, even if pro-deletion arguments had been answered, and valid anti-deletion arguments had been ignored. This is plain sad. sff9 (talk) 08:59, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you're too blind to have noticed the vote was in favor of delete? SeaTerror 16:12, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there hasn't been any vote. For less than a week, there was no activity on the discussion page, then Yatanogarasu indicated that DancePowderer changed his mind, deducing from it that majority said delete.
 * There was no formal vote, this "majority" only took into account what people said during the discussion. How do you know some wouldn't have chosen something else, if they'd been properly asked to choose between several clear alternatives?
 * Defining such alternatives was the purpose of the debate. It hasn't been achieved, because pro-deletion people just stopped answering to anti-deletion arguments. And that's too bad, 'cause I was eager to know how comes that a "list of archetypes in One Piece" is unrelated to One Piece, for example. sff9 (talk) 21:20, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * While the subject of the discussion may have its problems, the whole deleting stuff based on one person changing their mind is really not a justifiable course of action. At the very least, it warrants the restore request presented here. Besides Or maybe you're too blind to have noticed the vote was in favor of delete? is really not a very good counter argument made in good faith from the winning party.120.28.240.46 17:32, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. There's no good faith rule here. SeaTerror 02:46, February 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you just put your foot in your mouth there SeaTerror? Good faith means doing things with honest and sincere intentions. It separates the vandals, trolls, flamers, and whoever or whatever else from the regular contributors. When somebody does a mistake but later apologizes for it, that is good faith. When somebody adds something they thought was correct based on certain assumptions, that is good faith. When somebody discusses things with other people, taking into account to be not a jerk when talking to them, that is good faith.


 * This maybe not Wikipedia but that doesn't mean you can be a class A jerk SeaTerror to everyone who disagrees with you. 180.190.146.241 05:22, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'm suprised that none of the adminstrators are reading this. What the fuck are there doing?. Anyway, back in Wikipedia, many people were complianing about how some people were deletionist that some group of people came here to create pages they wish to create without worrying about any deletionist. But this place is no differant then wikipedia, we still don't have any creative freedom to create pages whatever we like. Now many good pages were merged and deleted. It was like I came to the wrong wikia, this is not the wikia I used to know. Having pages deleted just shows that people are still stuck with the wikipedia structures. These pages needs to be restored and people need to accept these kinds of pages.

Joekido 06:44, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I dont wanna go against the "to-delete" lot, but it doesn't really matter if it stays : i personally want it to be restored , but we all have to work over it a lot : put some more examples ,etc .......... I mean if we work over it , we can make it worth reading. ............. And Joekido please hold ur tongue buddy : I can understand ur anger, but there are other-ways to make other users follow this forum :like inviting them ; i mean no offence to anyone !  Roranoa zoro     {^_*}  12:11, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think I speak for the other admins when I say that the reason none of us commented yet is because we weren't sure how to go about it. If you do restore the pages, I believe it would be best to merge some of the pages. Archetype and Timeskip can be merged with Literary Technique, since they are a way of writing but in a broader sense than what was on the Literary Technique pages, but that's neither here nor there. Flashback can remain its own page. Remind me, was there a list of flashbacks in the series on that page? If not, there should be (and only the big ones that span at least one whole chapter, Like Robin's and Luffy's childhood flashbacks, not the ones that are quick and last only one panel).

The only one I'm not sure what to do with is Plot Twist, mostly because there are so many of them in the series that the page would become too cluttered. I would suggest having the ten biggest plot twists added as decided upon by a community vote. If you are alright with these conditions, I will tell the other admins to add their two cents in this forum. If there are any alterations you want to make to this proposal, feel free to say so. I just ask that you please be reasonable with whatever else you might want.DancePowderer 06:03, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I don't honestly care one way or the other. I doubt anyone coming to this wiki will specifically look for those kinds of pages, and I doubt any previous vistors will be like "HEY! Where the heck did that page about Archetypes go, even though if I want a clear cut definition I can look anywhere else on the internet!?"... because why should they? This whole thing feels like it's grown way out of proportion. If you want to restore the pages, go ahead and do it, but I'd prefer if they were merged into one page. Or if that's too long just add tabs to one page so they're in a single place.

I much agree with Dancepowder and Yazzy. Like we did with a Mythbuster we can do the same with the literary techique. we can recreate the lit techique pages and tab plot twist, flashback, achetype, foreshadow, timeskip, countdown, and many others. I think I'll go ahead and restore the literary techique but someone else has to tab them

Joekido 07:58, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but we should really VOTE first, after all, we should consider everyone's opinion on this matter, and if the majority votes yes or no, then we should respect that and go with it. No regrets once the vote happens, and we abide by the conditions for keeping these pages. How about we merge them all? And vote officially before I restore them. Yatanogarasu 08:36, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. I think there are three main alternatives: leaving everything deleted, restore everything as it was, and restore to merge/modify. I volunteer to perform the changes in the third case, i.e. merge/tab all pages in one big "Use of Literary Techniques in One Piece" and rework it so that it would be interesting, useful and perfectly related to One Piece.
 * Also, for the vote to be clear, and the different choices to be well-defined, I guess we need a list of the pages in question: Archetype, Timeskip, Plot Twist, ‎ Flashback, Foreshadowing, ‎ Literary Technique, and Cliffhanger.
 * Does someone think of another alternative that should be put to the vote?
 * sff9 (talk) 10:33, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I dont know what U mean by Plot-twist : ............. please enlighten me : but still go ahead, I'm in for option-3 !  Roranoa zoro     {^_*}  23:40, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

A plot twist is something that occurs in the story that is completely unexpected. It would completely change the direction of the storyline and/or how we perceive a character. Ace and Whitebeard's deaths were plot twists during the Marineford arc.DancePowderer 23:48, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oh!........but how do u define it ?..........u can find a lot of 'em :: like new crew-member, or even Shanks comin' 2 Marineford , etc ; thanks anyway !  Roranoa zoro     {^_*}  23:56, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question, actually. Joekido, would you mind giving us a few examples of plot twists in the series that would fit in with what was on the page? Just so we have something to use as a reference point. Thanks.DancePowderer 03:52, February 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what's the time limit for the vote? Also, the poll is not fair, i.e. if there are 4 votes for delete and 2 for each of the other alternatives, "delete" would win whereas there would be a majority in favor of "keep".
 * I suggest to at least use the following scheme:
 * All literary devices pages remain deleted.
 * Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist")
 * separated pages
 * merge
 * tab
 * This would settle the fairness matter. sff9 (talk) 12:36, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true : Ya the poll's gotta be this way. 12:55, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true : Ya the poll's gotta be this way. 12:55, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Also, it should be clear that if the pages are restored, they'll be anyway be reworked to be more related to One Piece. That's important, because "they are unrelated to One Piece" is the sole pro-deletion point everyone agreed on. All in all here's my proposition:


 * 1. All literary devices pages remain deleted.


 * (votes here)

2. Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist"), rework them to be more related to One Piece, and
 * 2.1. Keep them as separated pages in a "Literary Techniques in One Piece" category.


 * (votes here)


 * 2.2. Merge them into a single "Use of Literary Techniques in One Piece" page.


 * (votes here)


 * 2.3. Tab them into a "Use of Literary Techniques in One Piece" article (like the Animal Species article).


 * (votes here)

This way, there would be no bias. sff9 (talk) 13:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I somehow fail to spot the "restore, but connect them to one piece" - option? That was my problem really, the information that the articles provided were sure interesting, but felt like they don't belong here (they seemed like standard wikipedia articles - no One Piece flair or examples given). Was that idea discarded?Jinbe 14:57, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually this is one of the modifications I proposed just above.
 * I'll try to explain more clearly what I want to do: Some of these pages hadn't much One Piece info and seemed like standard WP articles; but others did feature significant info about One Piece.
 * But overall, they looked like articles about given literary techniques, with examples in the story; this wasn't good. They should have been entirely focused on the story.


 * Thus, the reworking would (roughly) consist in transforming them into lists of uses of given techniques in the story.
 * This way, they would be as interesting as they were, but would not seem inappropriate for the wiki. The lists would be exhaustive when possible, such that they can be used as a reference. sff9 (talk) 15:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup I understand that, my question: Is that 1, 2, 3 or 4?
 * Maybe I'm suffering a brainlag, but I can't find the corresponding option below ...?Jinbe 15:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, in fact, I proposed to modify the poll to take that into account. See my proposal above. I guess we should wait for Yatan or another admin to acknowledge that and make the modifications before going on with the vote. sff9 (talk) 15:37, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. While we are at, it might be a good idea to temporarily restore the pages, so others can refresh their memory on what we are talking about. At least during the voting process.Jinbe 15:47, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. While we are at, it might be a good idea to temporarily restore the pages, so others can refresh their memory on what we are talking about. At least during the voting process.Jinbe 15:47, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and when is the deadline for this vote?Jinbe 14:59, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

One week after it started. Oh, and vote DOWN there, not up there. Yatanogarasu 19:16, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment to had that majority rules shall be taken with care concerning deletion. Indeed even if it's a minority, some people are interested in the content of these pages. They will lose this content completely when they are deleted whereas they can simply be ignored by those who are not interested. As for the subject itself, I'm quite amazed that some people considered the flashback of one piece not relevent. They are keystone of the story. And I agree with Joekido, there are other things that are important beside the plot. In particular, making analysis of the story is much more interesting than paraphrasing Oda. 87.152.223.11 21:25, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same at first, but it is not that easy. Allowing pages like that (in their old form) to stay opens Pandoras Box. First it starts with literary techniques, then with real life pirates and in the end we created a wikia where a third of all pages has nothing or barely to do with One Piece. Lets be honest, the articles had no connection to the series, you could copy them to another wikia (slap Naruto, Dragonball or Bleach over them) and it would make no difference. Sure they are interesting, but that is only my opinion. I just don't want to press the "random page" button and end up on something unrelated - I can visit wikipedia for that.

So I can understand that some contributers fear that more "unrelated" pages will follow if we allow them to stay - and Joekidos first reply somewhat confirmed their fear: "I want to give this wikia as many pages as possible". Of course that rings an alarm for some people. 22:19, February 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't agree with Joekido either. Making as many pages as possible is futile; and it's not for the sake of creative spirit or something, that I think it's worth to keep the pages. I also don't like real-life articles, I consider that removing the real pirates' articles was a good thing.


 * But I just think it's possible to make something valuable with those literary pages, something that really suits the wiki.
 * As for the Pandora's Box, I wouldn't worry about opening it just a little: looks like there are several watchful editors ready to close it straightaway in case of abuse! sff9 (talk) 23:00, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I respect the poll-whatever the result is, but since I've never presented my arguments for my choice , here it is : "I wonder how it is not related to OP when it is all about Literary devices in OP ! "-- 23:17, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has deleted the vote of an IP : come-on it's too unfair !(not that I wanna increase votes on my side !) : If u want account-only voting : I'll make a hundred accounts ! U gotta allow them to vote or atleast provide a valid reason otherwise. 23:48, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

It is not about mere accounts, it is about accounts that are known. It is the reason why we vote like that and not with polls. You can fake your IP address, but you can not make up accounts with a few hundred (or even thousand) edits that easily. Fairness is the very reason why we don't let IP's participate (otherwise people would question the vote as a whole, making it rather pointless to vote to begin with) 00:01, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Typically, accounts without history of editing usually are worthless votes anyway. Unless you edit the wikia, you don't know what its like to edit. Even if a thousand new accounts are made, they won't count unless they have a history. One-Winged Hawk 00:30, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok-Ok I got it and who added that stuff @ sitenews : it's so cool ! 01:00, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Yeah, Plot Twist aside, can we start voting yet? Yatanogarasu 08:48, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. All literary devices pages remain deleted.


 * Yatanogarasu 08:48, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * One-Winged Hawk 17:38, February 24, 2011 (UTC)#


 * 2. Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist" if JoeKido does not provide sufficient examples).
 * 3. Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist"), and merge them into one page under "Literary Device".


 * Pandawarrior 19:53, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist"), and tab them like "Animal Species".
 * 08:57, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 08:57, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Renewal Votes
Sorry, sff9 brought up potential bias on my polls, so let's use his. I copied this from above and let's vote here. Yatanogarasu 20:18, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

End date for vote (sorry for forgetting to set it before): A week away from the start (March 3, 2011) Yatanogarasu 23:01, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. All literary devices pages remain deleted.


 * Yatanogarasu 20:25, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's REAL fan fluff. We're coping without them anyway. One-Winged Hawk 23:02, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 15:04, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Meganoide 15:23, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

2. Restore all of them (may exclude "plot twist"), rework them to be more related to One Piece, and
 * 2.1. Keep them as separated pages in a "Literary Techniques in One Piece" category.


 * (votes here)


 * 2.2. Merge them into a single "Use of Literary Techniques in One Piece" page.


 * (votes here)


 * 2.3. Tab them into a "Use of Literary Techniques in One Piece" article (like the Animal Species article).


 * Pandawarrior 20:23, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * sff9 (talk) 22:07, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 23:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16:17, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruxax 19:31, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 00:42, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhm, I guess it is worth a try if Sff9 volunteers to make them related to One Piece. Can not deplore something that doesn't exist yet. 01:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pacifista15 00:01, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * MasterDeva 19:20, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * MasterDeva 19:20, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, time's up! Based on the votes, it's option 2.3, make one page and tab them all. Yatanogarasu 05:31, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll tab them all for now, but there may be some that I'll eventually merge with the main page. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do the reworking until next week, as I'll be most of the time away from an Internet connection this week. I'm really sorry about that, I feel kinda guilty... Hope you won't mind too much. Don't worry, the work will be done. sff9 (talk) 10:56, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Might as well restore more pointless articles such as the real life pirate articles. Let's make an article about Sails! SeaTerror 14:58, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't like it any better than you do, but we're outvoted, what can we do? But if anyone does make an article about sails, I'll delete it and warn that person for vandalism. Yatanogarasu 18:41, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * On top of that, the option to delete them isn't completely gone. The condition is/was to connect the articles to One Piece, which has yet to happen. If I can help you in any way sff9, feel free to poke me 18:53, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Note; if all admin staff agree that the restoration is not fesiable, they can outrule a vote. Obvious, this isn't popular and was done with the tabbing for images. With results looking bad for MF who overturned it at the time. At this point I ask, well, whats the point of this wikia? What guidelines support or deny a return? Regardless, unless all 4 agree, it can't be overturned.


 * I'm very disappointed the membership voted to support articles with little point... For me, it questions the direction the wikia is going and if people are clear what is suitable or not suitable pages via guidelines. Unfortantely, I already know theres nothing about this kind of thing in our guidelines and this issue would need to be adressed by the staffing. I'm not writing guidelines anymore for the wikia because quite frankly, it feels like no one pays attention to them anyway. And at this point there is enough staff and editors to organise the wikias own guidelines. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 20:50, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm angry because it means Joekido'd "worst of the worst" moments have been restored to their full former lackbuster glory... Joekido, please don't take this as a sign you can go mad and make more articles just because the membership voted your previous articles back up. Their annoying and your a good editor without having to create pointless and meaningless articles like these. One-Winged Hawk 20:54, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Come-on even if all the admins are against a poll result : they cant do anything but accept the results, if they can just veto the results , that's just an over use of their admin status !(sounds harsh , but very true)
 * There is still an option to delete : If the articles restored are really all that meaningless as u say, we can just delete them ::: " BUT I WONDER HOW U DISMISS "LITRARY TECH...s IN OP " as " NOT RELATED TO OP ! ".
 * Sounds rude, but every user must respect the poll results ( even an admin ) , unless he/she comes-up with an argument against it ! 05:36, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds rude, but every user must respect the poll results ( even an admin ) , unless he/she comes-up with an argument against it ! 05:36, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if its OP related, it may have lots of other issues that prevent it. Admins blocking usually only occurs when it becomes apparent that its not such a good idea. Like if it was something very illegal or against the guidelines entirely. Its situational anyway. ITs also can be meaningless even then, I'd explain this, but this will have to wait until tomorrow anyway, its sort of 1:48 in the morning and I'm whacked out so I'm not mentality ready to explain things away. One-Winged Hawk 01:48, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with these articles? I think this is an absolutely brilliant idea. When do you ever see literary analysis on subjects like anime? I think articles like this could give a more scholarly feel to the wiki. Sure, some of the articles need to be re-written and centered more on One Piece, but I don't see the harm that the articles are doing being there. GamingBuddha 03:01, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is they are not needed and do not belong on the Wikia. They never should have been restored. The only reason they were created was to give the Wikia a higher article count. SeaTerror 16:26, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 2
It's time to bump this. We should finally delete these once and for all because they are just not needed and are really bad articles. SeaTerror (talk) 01:47, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again

Joekido (talk) 01:52, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I actually forgot these pages still exist. Nuke them. They're terrible. 02:12, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the pages but I think they are useless. We should get rid of them. 02:29, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

They kind of are since we don't need to list every single plot twist or the fact that there was a timeskip since everything there can be found by reading the articles. I doubt anyone comes here to look up literary techniques. 04:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't they are useful but since there was a poll that decided they stay, why bump it again?

^If these get deleted,i'm reopening every forum that was polled.--

That poll was years ago and forums can be reopened if enough time has passed. It was done with the nakama forum. 16:59, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

enough time has passed,what's that supposed to mean?--

According to the poll rules, three months. 21:31, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I try to get the bunch of completely useless, poorly written and essentially crap pages deleted before? Whatever, my stand on this is the same as ever, burn the pages to crisp ashes, and then toss the ashes out to the fishes. 21:43, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Fine, go head and delete it, then this wiki is gonna suck even more because of how stale it became. Not having fun pages mdans the wiki sucks. Now Im going to sit back and watch the whole thing fold; become crappy because of editors like you can't expand your freedom to create whatever we wish on this wiki.

Joekido (talk) 22:07, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh grow up. A wiki is a collaboration of what users think is best. If the majority want this deleted, then by our own rules they should be deleted. 22:10, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me to grow up. I have my own rules too and I believe these pages should stay

Joekido (talk) 22:13, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

It's undeniable these pages are useless, like those voice actors/seiyu pages, that's why we deleted all those. 22:47, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

They're not useless

Joekido (talk) 22:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

A wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia about a specific topic. Having "fun" pages doesn't contribute to that. If you want to keep the page you will have to make a better argument than just "they're not useless". 00:32, January 4, 2014 (UTC) Ye know I found a lot of wikias that has fun pages. Lostpedia is a prime example

Joekido (talk) 00:36, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

"Other places have it" is no better than "they're not useless". 00:50, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

That argument was actually bad since we have plenty of articles that are not exactly encyclopedic. Those pages like Mythbusters however are still useful. SeaTerror (talk) 00:53, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to be 100% encyclopedic if the page in question is useful. The literary techniques page isn't. It's pretty redundant since most of the information can be found by reading other articles. 01:39, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I would say this is needed, and then I discovered TVtropes. If somebody wants to know the literary techniques of One Piece, they can go there or something. I'm for deleting. 01:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this page:

''I cannot believe you people. The literary techinque is very useful and you just have to flat out delete it. Why can't you just fix it instead of saying "it's useless, delete it"? i did not create these pages (Supernatural, Archetype, Timeskip, etc. etc.) just so someone can delete them. I created it to give this wikia an trivia pages instead of pages that just focus on the plot. The whole reason why I came here was to make creative pages that you can't do on wikipedia, and seeing how pages were merged/deleted, it just shows me that this wikia betrays the creativly. There is nothing wrong with the analyis pages and people need to learn to accept these pages without going: "It's useless!". If the page is clusmy-written: as an editor your suppose to fix it. I really want these pages back, how can I with sditors like you always bent on the plot-only pages? Would a wikia be focusing on a plot is bad idea? Of course. What is wrong with pages that be super-short? All wikia has it! Having pages like literary techinque would make this wikia more fun to read and more intersting! they are related and useful! This is One Piece encyclopida, where we learn every damn details about One Piece, deleting tthese articles defeates the entire purpose of this wikia''

Joekido (talk) 01:59, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

You can just move the articles to your user subpage if you want them archived anyway. I did it plenty of times. SeaTerror (talk) 02:00, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

The truth is that most of the users that supported this in the previous poll are either gone or inactive, so another poll could have a different outcome. Saying this, I think that if we reopen it, we have to be ready for whatever follows. Personally, I have never visited nor edited those articles and don't find their content useful, but I don't see why their existence bothers you so much. There are many shitty and useless articles around after all.

None of us are arguing about the length or the quality of the article, just the usefulness of it. Ordinary people who come here to read about One Piece wouldn't come here to read about the literary techniques used. I'm sorry if you are offended by this, Joe, but you are the only one who has argued in favor of them since this was reopened and you haven't given any arguments as to why that page is necessary. 02:43, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

ST: "really bad articles." Panda: "They're terrible." Jade: "poorly written and essentially crap page"

I think plenty of us argue about the quality too mate.

Why can't you guys just improve it?

Joekido (talk) 03:05, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Answering for myself I can say this: I don't edit articles that I am not interested in just for the sake of editing. Just like I don't edit filler anime-only stuff because I only like the manga. This is supposed to be fun, one cannot be forced to do a task he doesn't feel like doing.

I edited these pages in a pathetic attempt to make them nicer and better, at least in quality, before realizing the pages were completely useless and the wiki's quality wouldn't change if they were deleted, and went to DP about the possibility of deleting them. As I may have mentioned before, it didn't work out, because of the verdict in the poll when you brought the pages back, Joe. I didn't give a damn about literary techniques used in One Piece back when I still edited, and I still don't give a damn about literary techniques used in One Piece.

You want reasons on why the pages are useless? Fine. I'm pretty distracted, and can't focus on this for very long, sorry. Anyway, the pages are completely useless because no one even remotely give a crap about the literacy techniques used in One Piece, and even if they do, as Nada pointed out before, there's TVtropes. They're poorly written, and I haven't seen anyone editing any of the pages for months, at least, majorly revamping the pages, so it's heavily outdated, and no one clearly want to update them.

Sure, you could argue that we can update/improve the pages. We could do that, sure. However, you cannot force us to do something we do not want to. I stopped editing, because of the community, and I do not want to start editing right now. Even if I wanted to edit again, I'd be reluctant to start editing again by taking on a large project about something I couldn't even be bothered to pretend to care about. Other users, I can't be sure, but they probably don't want to update the pages, because it's not fun to them, since editing is a completely volunteering or they don't know enough and don't want to be bothered learning all of that stuff just for the sake of improving the pages.

And Joe, what do you mean by "fun"? This is even worse than my English class, and we've been talking all about sonnets and symbols and gender reversal roles, and who's to blame for what in Macbeth for the last month. Frankly, I'd pick sitting through my English class for an entire week than read these articles. 03:33, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad thing,but I'll reopen forums that were polled once in three months-start a discussion-make a poll-do it again after 3 months.--

If you reopen them just for the sake of reopening them they will just be closed again. You can waste your time if you want, though. 04:43, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm still fairly new around here, but I could go either way. If they are gone, it wouldn't affect me. If they stay, however, I think it might be a helpful addition to readers. If they stay, then the different devices themselves need to be explained better. I find the pages muddled and hard to understand at times. They seem to have a purpose, but, in their current condition, they need a lot of work. Montblanc Noland (talk) 04:46, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

If you reopen them just for the sake of reopening them they will just be closed again this should be closed for the exact reason.It's a nice page keep it alive.--

It doesn't serve any purpose since it reiterates what people can find out just by reading other article pages. The cliffhanger section is especially pointless since almost every chapter ends on a cliffhanger of some sort. 06:22, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

There's another reason why these pages aren't very useful. All the literary techniques, cliffhangers, flashbacks, etc., are really, really common in just about every story ever. Having these pages won't change anything or help anybody because, unless One Piece is the first story you've ever read/watched, everybody pretty much knows what these things are. Or maybe not, since half of the things in the Plot Twist page aren't plot twists at all. And do we really need a page on how time passes? You can probably find every single technique listed on that page in a single novel. You can find each technique in a movie! These things are not rare in the slightest. Every story has them. Stephen King uses them. Shakespeare used them. Ever read the Bible? Even God used them! How are these pages useful when they're not even unique? 06:41, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Improvement was what kept them from being deleted last time. While there was an improvement, it wasn't much of one. Most people can identify literary techniques as they see them. They don't need to read an article to know that what happened in chapter x was a plot twist or a cliffhanger. The articles really are the non sequetir of the wiki. A wiki isn't the same as a high school English class. Quite honestly we don't even need to have a poll. I don't think I've ever seen a decision this unanimous. 06:47, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even know how these pages survived last time. Let's just get rid of it if no more protests arise. 07:21, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Just give Joekido a chance to archive them to his subpage first then delete. SeaTerror (talk) 08:08, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Pointless, provides little useful information. Agreed, delete them. 17:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I just marked it for deletion. 19:07, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Why can't we keep the main page but get rid of plot twist and other smaller pages?

Joekido (talk) 19:14, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

+1 for deletion of it all. Not much of it seems very encyclopedic in nature (many terms are not academically accepted) and what is encyclopedic is incredibly obvious information. 19:22, January 4, 2014 (UTC)