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)