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.

The Smoker flashback is a contradiction because Smoker's canon childhood design has been revealed, and it's much different than how he appeared in Toei's version of his childhood. --Mandon (talk) 23:18, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Filler arcs + movies can have their own sections, as long as we clearly mark them as "non-canon". Contradictions in the canon storyline in the anime and manga can go in the the section dedicated to the differences between the anime and manga. 00:48, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

There's still a majority of people who said to delete them all at the beginning of the discussion. SeaTerror (talk) 01:03, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm still against the usage of non-cannon in history sections. I feel if it was to be used, it would cause more problems. 20:58, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

This wiki covers all of One Piece, not just the manga. In my opinion the anime and manga both have their own canons. All the filler arcs are canon to the anime. Whether the movies are canon or not, that's up for debate as some do not fit in the timeline. Strong World and Z are both canon to the anime because they are linked to their respective filler arcs. So in my opinion, we do what the Fairy Tail wiki does; which is leaving the filler arcs on the main page and using the hidden template. As for movies, tv specials, ova's, featurettes, omake's, crossovers, spin-offs, boss luffy arc can all go into a section called 'Appearances in other Media'. In my personal opinion we can keep Strong World and Film Z on the main page, as they are canon to the anime. Anyway, if you haven't seen the character pages on the Fairy Tail wiki then take a look, cause it actually looks pretty neat and tidy.--DuelMaster93 (talk) 22:00, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

I think using a collapsing section would actually be a good idea. And I'll restate what i said before: NON CANON AND CANON HISTORIES ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER SOMETIMES. But people will know which one is correct because the one that isn't is surrounded by big honkin templates. I do not understand why this is so hard. 22:17, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

For all I care the non-canon history sections can stay. I also believe Kaido has a point. People should be smart enough to know non-canon information can contradict canon information and which one is the correct one. If you want to stress this you can add a piece to the non canon template saying "This is a non-canon history section blahblah and therefore can contradict canon information". Using the hidden template is a nice idea imo and it'll cut the page length down significantly on some pages. It seems to me that making a seperate pages for the Straw Hats does not deem necessary if we're doing this. 00:03, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Collapsible sections seems to be a good compromise.

13:38, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Given the fact that the manga contradicted the anime's version of Sabo and Luffy's reunion, I went ahead and added the anime's version since that's our standard. That should give you an example of the consequence of these sections that I've been predicting for so long. Having two separate histories for the same event in the same paragraph isn't very attractive in the article, wouldn't you say? --Mandon (talk) 19:05, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

Actually that is not our standard. Since it's a small difference between manga and anime, it should go into the "Anime and Manga Differences" section. And in general we don't add random anime-only content into the history sections for canon arcs, only when it's an entire filler arc.

Anyway, hidden templates could work, though I'd still prefer a separate Filler History section. 20:15, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point.. I suppose I jumped the gun in my enthusiasm to prove a point. I just removed that part from the section.

But given the fact that the new special, Episode of Sabo is coming in a month - and will without a doubt contradict the manga, as there's no way they would have been able to know about the amnesia - we're going to have to really discuss the possibility of removing non-canon plot information from the history sections.. because it's going to look really weird having the Episode of Sabo history in the same context as the real history. Unless of course we decide not to add the Episode of Sabo history to the article.. which would be a double standard, as we kept the 3D2Y stuff. --Mandon (talk) 20:32, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, movies, tv specials, ova's, featurettes, omake's, crossovers, spin-offs, boss luffy arc can all go into a section called 'Appearances in other Media'. Filler arcs stay in main history with hidden templates, as the filler arcs are canon to the anime.--DuelMaster93 (talk) 22:49, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as anime canon unless the anime is the original source. SeaTerror (talk) 22:53, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

What I would like to do is take the line "In the anime, this character did this" out of the canon article and restrict them to Anime/Manga section

Joekido (talk) 23:01, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of "if" the anime will contradict the manga.. it "will" contradict the manga. These last few weeks have proven to me that Toei does not consult Oda and takes liberties with the story that they otherwise shouldn't be taking, and contradictions have already arisen. Take Sakazuki's face.. they showed the right half, even though Oda intentionally hid it because of the scar.. then they added dialogue to the Sabo reunion, assuming that Oda would never showcase it in a later chapter. They have no regard for these things.. so it's much safer to just not have non-canon sections. --Mandon (talk) 23:26, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

It already happened before anyway. Trebol turned into mucus in an anime episode. SeaTerror (talk) 04:01, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what is the problem with collapsible sections of filler history? They are CLEARLY marked as non-canon. They are totally optional to read. Exactly like a filler section would be. But these have the added benefit of being placed in chronological order, so that complete idiots can easily find the information, and learn that it isn't real information. I still see no problem with this.

Small things you're complaining about, such as Akainu's facial scars would never be placed in a history section anyways. As far as I know, we do not put OVA/Special episode information in history sections. Keep your argument to things people actually want. 15:48, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

We actually do, or at least for one of them - that being 3D2Y. As for whether or they're marked as non-canon.. I don't find that particularly relevant. Episode of Sabo is about to come out and will almost certainly contradict the manga. So we have a choice.. are we going to cherry pick which non-canon information to add to character history sections, or are we going to abolish the sections entirely? That's the only way to avoid contradicting the canon. From how I see it, the benefits of abolishing or moving the non-canon sections so they don't sandwich canon arcs like the Narutopedia outweigh the cons tenfold. You just asked what the problem is with collapsible sections of filler history, but I can also ask a similar question. Why exactly do we need non-canon information in character biographies? I get that we're trying not to discriminate against the anime but do you really think it's worth having two separate reunions for the Straw Hats and Aokiji in chronological context? Warning or no, it's going to happen.. and it's going to look ugly in the article. --Mandon (talk) 16:26, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

"Look ugly" is just about one of the most subject statements people say on this wiki, and it means almost nothing. Try to be more descriptive, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

And as I just said, it's about the ease of the reader finding information. Non-canon information will be more easily found by anime-only readers, which make up a substantial portion of our readers. And as sooo many blogs, forums, and bad edits and things suggest here, many anime-only readers are unaware of what is and is not canon. Putting the information in chronological order, with the proper warnings spreads awareness of what is and is not canon. A filler section would not accomplish the same thing as easily, because there's no easy way to label the section so that people can know what they're looking for is inside it. 16:55, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

The poll says otherwise actually. That isn't a substantial number at all when you combine the results entirely. SeaTerror (talk) 20:14, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

It's not subjective at all. Why would anyone think [> At the age of 23, Sakazuki joined the Marines alongside a 26 years old Borsalino, and came under the tutelage of instructor Zephyr. (/endnoncanon) Sakazuki grew up in blah blah blah joined the marines blah blah blah potential backstory] looks attractive in an article? We all know how much Oda likes flashbacks. I can almost guarantee you that Akainu will get one. Now as for your other point, I can't possibly imagine why anyone would come to a site riddled with manga spoilers if they don't read the manga. Even if there wasn't a poll I'd still be sceptical of your assertion of "substantial numbers". So with that being said, what we have is unnecessary, canologically contradictory information sandwiched in between canon arcs. What's the point? There's no benefit to it. This information can easily be conveyed through other means. What's going to happen if the Episode of Sabo shows a different backstory than what the manga showed us last week? We're going to have to add it, because that's our standard. What happens if Akainu, Aokiji and Kizaru get flashbacks? Then we'll have two different backstories next to each other. This stuff is a problem - a very real problem that I've been predicting for over a year now, and it's going to happen. Probably within the next month. --Mandon (talk) 20:54, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, anything not present in the manga such as filler arcs will go in the history under collapsible sections. Filler scenes and contradictory information shown in canon arcs go into anime and manga differences. Movies, TV Specials, OVA's, Featurettes, Special Episodes, Omake's, Crossovers and whatever all go into a section called 'Appearances in Other Media'. Collapsible sections would only be 2 small lines, and won't make the page look 'ugly'. If anything, a filler history section would look ugly, especially due to the fact it's not in chronological order. As for the number of anime-only viewers on the wiki, the poll suggest that there is enough fans that only watch the anime, and given not every single person who has visited this wiki has taken that poll, you would think that there would be more.--DuelMaster93 (talk) 01:32, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Many people likely come to this site don't even know what manga is. If you only know One Piece as an anime, and you google information on it, you end up here. If you're so close-minded that you can't even imagine that a lot of people don't like to read anything, let alone manga, then I don't know why I'm arguing with you... 02:27, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Just go with Duel's suggestion. 15:03, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that many people don't read the manga, JSD. That's not the point. You have to factor into why people don't read the manga. They prefer seeing it animated - and want to see the story unfold through that medium. So the idea of someone like that coming to a site riddled with spoilers from the manga is very baffling. But even in spite of that, that's not what we should be discussing. The information would still be in their respective sections - it would just be placed differently, so we wouldn't be alienating anyone. And as great as collapsible sections sound, they don't remedy the issue of canological contradictions, which is the main issue I have with sandwiching non-canon arcs/movies/ova's in between canon arcs. Toei improvises with the canon, Episode of Sabo is going to contradict the manga, and we're going to have to add the fake history next to Sabo's real history unless we change this before it airs. --Mandon (talk) 15:36, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

You're making Episode of Sabo sound like a big deal, which it isn't. As far as I know, only specials that have a completely different storyline from the manga (like 3D2Y) get their own sections in histories. And your claim that conflicting history sections on the same pages will "confuse" people is wrong, as people are just as likely to get confused if the filler information is taken to separate pages. They are just likely to understand that the information is non-canon in a collapsible section as they are with a separate page. All a separate page will do is make the history disjointed.

Also, you seem to be repeatedly bringing up Kuzan and Sakazuki's past as an example of information that could get conflicted, but not anything else. Besides any possible contradictions being unimportant due to the non-canon templates, given that Oda oversaw Film Z, it is highly likely that those descriptions will correspond to what actually happens in the manga. 16:28, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we just do what the Naruto wiki does? Also Oda said Film Z isn't canon. SeaTerror (talk) 19:58, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Likely that it will correspond to what happened in the manga? Film Z isn't canon so no. And besides Oda blatantly saying that it wasn't canon, the movie itself contradicts the manga already (Marine HQ).

And the reason I bring up Episode of Sabo is because we've set a standard for adding OVA information into articles with 3D2Y being put into respective articles of characters who appeared in it. So for the sake of consistency and not having a double standard, we're going to have to add Episode of Sabo's storyline into Sabo's article, even if it has some alternate explanation for why Sabo didn't go save Ace.

But anyways, you asked me to use more examples of what could get contradicted, but it really isn't relevant if there isn't anything else besides that. One Piece doesn't have a whole lot of filler or movies that feature canon characters besides the Straw Hats, so the level of contradictions would admittedly be small. But even a small number of contradictions is still a massive problem. Much more massive than a couple of anime viewers getting confused by the filler episodes they watched not being in a character's biography. Also, for a problem you guys seem to bring up so much - you haven't exactly explained how anyone could get confused by giving filler it's own section. People aren't that stupid. I'm sure they'd know the basic definition of what "non-canon" means. Your point that it will make the history "disjointed" isn't valid in my opinion, because non-canon material isn't a part of a character's "history" to begin with, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

I'm actually not suggesting we have two separate histories, one with canon material and one with canon material and non-canon material. I'm suggesting a tab that only has non-canon biographies, like movies, filler and OVA's, categorizing them in sub-sections nice and neatly - and for filler, each section notes when each arc takes place within the timeline and episode chronology. By doing that, we keep the information neatly sorted, and above all else easily accessible. I don't agree with ST's suggestion of doing stuff like the Narutopedia, since it pretty much does what we do with filler arcs, only instead of having a "non-canon" warning they just say, "in the anime blah blah blah" and it's kind of inconsistent what non-canon stuff they display in a character's article. --Mandon (talk) 21:58, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

But the content of each tab is heavily dependent on the subject's presence in canon and non-canon material. If a character is significantly more present in either, then the one where they don't show up much is going to be a stub. Plus, it is important to keep all the arcs in chronological order; filler arcs often relate to past canon arcs like Foxy's Return. The chronological placement is helpful when anime watchers read the histories and understand when filler arcs happened, especially when they relate to canon history.

I do believe we have double standards for OVAs, as I can't find anything from Episode of Nami or Episode of Merry, specials which were just abridgements of existing arcs, while histories from original works like 3D2Y are included. Episode of Sabo is most likely in the former category and history sections will not be required for it.

At this point we're going in circles, I say we look at who is on what side and either close this forum or take it to poll. 22:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Actually I said to just do the links instead. You don't need a description when the information is already on the proper articles. Also there's no such thing as anime canon unless the anime happens to be the original source like TTGL. Also for Foxy's Return arc we already have contradictions on that due to the arc on the wiki being considered 4 episodes when it's actually 2 episodes long due to Toei changing what happened with Aokiji. SeaTerror (talk) 02:44, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Simply linking is just lazy. Going by your logic we should just remove the history section alltogether cause summaries already exist in the arc pages. It would be a pain for people who actually want to read these filler descriptions cause some characters don't appear much in fillers. For example, Vivi made a very brief appearance in the Ruluka Island arc, and if someone see's that arc listed on her page, they would have to go to that specific arc page only to find 2 sentences at most about her being in the arc. And as stated before; movies, tv specials, ova's, special episodes/arcs, crossovers, omake's, spin-offs, and whatnot can all go in section called 'Appearances in other Media'. Only filler arcs will be included in the history. Additional scenes and changes from the manga will go in anime and manga differences. It's not that hard people.--DuelMaster93 (talk) 21:22, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Let's just poll it. --Mandon (talk) 17:56, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Bump --Mandon (talk) 22:55, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Alright, let's talk poll.

I want the "things stay the same" option. Maybe a second question about collapsible sections, or was that clear majority? What else do people want? 23:07, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

1. Keeping as is 2. Collapsible sections 3. "Non-Canon" section. 4. Removing the sections entirely

--Mandon (talk) 03:35, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. 21:47, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

5.Putting everything in the anime and manga differences section. 6. Or Making separate tabs entirely. That would really work on only the Straw Hat articles though. 7. Making links to the articles where the stuff takes place such as a link to Foxy Return arc. SeaTerror (talk) 21:50, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, instead of a poll with SEVEN options, can we use a poll only with options that people (particularly those who have actually posted on the forum) actually want? I know you only want one option, ST. 22:21, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps just ask whether 1. People want the sections to stay 2. People want them moved or 3. People want them deleted

And say option 1 wins, we have another poll on whether people want removable sections or not. If Number 2 wins we pull on how they would be moved. Number 3 would take care of itself. 22:39, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Bump.. --Mandon (talk) 18:04, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Bump 2.

Was there anyone who opposed the collapsible sections? If not, then that doesn't need to be a separate option. 16:52, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

So basically the three options should be: keep as it it, add a non-canon section, or remove content? Have I got that right? And so help me the next person who bumps this forum without bothering to add content will get a stern talk page message.

16:57, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Keeping them the same and making a non canon section are the same thing since we already do that. The best thing to do is what Kaido said to do since there are multiple ways to remove the stuff if that wins. SeaTerror (talk) 19:29, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

So to simplify it even more, we're looking at a poll that's basically keep or remove. Excuse me a moment while I hit my head on a wall.

16:21, August 12, 2015 (UTC)