Talk:Monkey D. Luffy/History

PH: Luffy vs Master
"She makes a barrier over Caesar, which Luffy breaks with Jet Gatling. Monet lets Caesar escape, and tells Luffy that if anything bad happens to him" It was actually Armament Hardening Gomu Gomu no Jet Gatling.

Oda fixed the darkened fists in the volume release http://www.imagebam.com/image/b7311a244932357 the WSJ version http://www.imagebam.com/image/b9a99f244932431 when Oda forgot Luffy´s black arms.Ssj7 (talk) 17:43, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Childhood but not Romance Down
Luffy's past (at least part of it) was revealed, his first meeting with Ace, Garp handing him to Dadan, so shouldn't this be in a new subject, besides Romance Down?--GMTails 19:24, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't we wait until the flashback is finished to resume this part of Luffy's life. Making resume chapter by chapter is a bad habit that we have in this wiki Kdom 21:04, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

The fillers shoold be included in one piece history. Just with the indication of being fillers.

Adventure on the Isle of Women
Why the text doesn't say that Luffy used haki against the snake sisters?Giotis 18:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he didn't, he only released his Haōshoku Haki unconsciously but he didn't apply it during his battle with them. MasterDeva 19:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok he did it unconsciously but he did it. The name Haōshoku Haki doesn't exist in the text that describe the battle.Giotis 19:11, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the missing info. MasterDeva 19:50, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox here
I want to ask if an infobox is allowed to exist here and if it doesn't I want the user who adds it to stop doing it.

Luffy friends
what happend to the image "luffy realise he still has his crew? i think we should return it. Strawhat1 11:27, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Tabs
This page is currently the longest page on the wiki (and it will keep growing). We should either tab the pre/post skip sections, or put them in templates. We'd have to do this for all the SH History pages. 00:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, and maybe we can also separate the inbox pictures. You know, pre-timeskip tab with pre-timeskip photo and post-timeskip tab with post-timeskip photo. Anti-Jester (talk) 08:24, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with creating subpages for pre-timeskip and post-timeskip.

I actually made this suggestion on the Rokushiki talk page about 3 weeks ago:
 * "I think separating the histories into different pages would make editing much easier. We can use their pre-series past as their primary history page and make the events within ONE PIECE the pre and post timeskip sub-pages."

海賊☠姫 (talk) 08:35, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Make them templates. One template per saga. 13:52, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

How would the tabbing work though? Would they be a subpage of a subpage? Or would there be two history tabs?

Templates seems like a bad idea because it would make it more difficult to edit. Let's not jump to a decision right away until we can see more of what options look like. Perhaps someone can sandbox them? 14:08, August 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Templatin' them is probably the best idea for editin' and yes subpages(of this subpage) for pre-timeskip and post-timeskip is a good solution too. :/ .. --

Subpages of a subpage sounds wrong. Templates are a way better idea. 14:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

No, templates would be horrible here - these history pages are updated every chapter and episode and it would impede editing too much. Also, templates don't improve the load time of a page, whereas tabs do (as long as they're separate page tabs, not tabber tabs). 14:29, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

We mustn't tab a tabbed page. Templates are the best option right now. 08:10, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

No need for templates. Let's just tab the pages. 08:21, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Templates would not help at all in this situation:
 * If you're just viewing the page, there's no difference between having templates and not having them - the page still has to load the same amount of data (if anything, pulling it from somewhere else would take longer).
 * If you're editing the page, then there are roughly a hundred headings and sub-headings, each of which can be individually edited to bring up a manageable section of source code, and load quickly when previewed.
 * If there are templates, then this just means anyone trying to edit the page will find that they can't, and they have to go somewhere else instead, so the editing process just takes longer.
 * Additionally, template edits don't show up on the main feed, making it more difficult to deal with vandalism and otherwise keep track of edits on these pages, which are amongst the most edited on the wiki.
 * There's also a lag between when a template is edited and when the changes show up on the page on which its transcluded. 08:52, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zo.

I also agree with Zo. 11:19, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

It seems we have a majority: 7:2 11:25, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

So can somebody propose the tabbing idea? 00:55, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 14:01, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Either this:

Or just this?

Then link tabs five and six to and, or something along those lines. 14:23, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe just have it say "History", and then there's a separate tabbing mechanism on the History page that links to Pre or Post Skip. We'd have to have the character's past on the main history page. 14:25, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

i like the first one better-- 16:14, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Agree with gal. 13:18, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gal too. 13:19, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Further agreement with Galaxy. 16:14, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Look at my previous comment above^, I had the same idea.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 20:50, August 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that I agree with Gal, who has the same idea as you. It's basically the same thing. 09:12, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Agreement with Galaxy. But if we just had to pick between the given examples, I like the first one more. 15:41, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Gal. And Kaizoku-Hime. 15:46, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 15:36, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Most of us agreed. 09:44, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Gonna tab them since everyone agreed. 09:58, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Having just the past on its own (like everyone else above wants) causes problems - the Shanks quote clears both margins, resulting in a heap of whitespace given that the contents section no longer pushes it below the infobox, so we would have to remove it (it doesn't really fit anywhere else). The past section is also pretty short. 12:01, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a page about his past. It's fine as it is. 12:03, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you say you agreed with him above when he suggested it? 12:08, September 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * The current tabbing sucks,combine 'em into the first set of tabs--

Hmm, I didn't see the last sentence of his post. I think that we should have the pre timeskip history on the main page and have a separate one for his post timeskip history. 14:29, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Move the Shanks quote to the end of the section about Shanks. Makes more sense there anyways, because you have no idea wtf he's talking about at the top of the article. Then, the past works better as it's own page. 20:08, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

No, it will ruin the page. 06:45, September 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Did I not ask in chat to say more about how it "ruins" the page? I don't even know how to respond to you, since I have zero understanding of your opinion. And because I can't respond to you, you bring this discusion to a grinding halt and no progress can be made. It's really problematic for the wiki if you can't describe your opinions with sufficient detail. 12:40, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

His past isn't long enough to have its own page. 12:44, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

It's longer or just as long as than all of Brook's subpages, except his history. It's got two arcs of info. That's good enough for me.

And how would the tabs even work if they aren't something separate from the normal history section? We need a page called "Monkey D. Luffy/History" that the main tabs direct to. But if the actual tabs are "Luffy/Pre Timeskip" and "Luffy/Post Timeskip" those are different names. And the situation we have now with 2 identical pages (Luffy/History and Luffy/Pre Timeskip) is not ideal.

Also, we should use different colored tabs for the history article, otherwise they just look like another row on the main tabs, which gets confusing with the regular history section there. 13:02, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

It's still not even close to as long as his pre or post timeskip history so it will look bad. We will keep his main history page for the past and the pre timeskip history and we'll use this one for his post timeskip history. Also if you want to change the colors, go ahead. 13:07, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring Staw's silly argument about the length (which doesn't matter), I do think we should combine Pre and Past, simply due to the formatting of the page, as you can see here. 19:51, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Past is part of the pre-timeskip history anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 20:13, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

The Shanks stuff was, but the Ace/Sabo/Luffy stuff technically was told later, and was a flashback. 20:15, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Timeskip came after that. SeaTerror (talk) 20:22, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

"Pre Timeskip" refers to events that happen before a timeskip. The stuff with Shanks was before the story began, and a timeskip of 10 years happened before Luffy set sail. That WAS the argument for giving it its own page, but the argument is now moot, since the formatting of the page goes to crap if we do that, so it's best to combine them, unless we can figure out a way to fix the issue. 20:34, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm confused. Monkey D. Luffy/History directs you to the "pre-series" tab, but that tab still contains all of Luffy's history. What are we doing?! 03:48, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

It's the Pre Series and Pre Timeskip tab, which contains all the flashback content and pre timeskip content. Don't think it's an issue if History goes there, and if the other tab is Post Skip.

This seems to be the way to do it, so we should implement this say thing on the other Straw Hat pages. 19:42, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

You only need a pre-timeskip and post timeskip tab. SeaTerror (talk) 19:44, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine to me to use on the other pages. But can we get some different colors or a different layout for the tabs? When you go to the History page, it's hard to notice that the new tabs appeared, since they blend in with the other tabs. 04:48, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Pre-series needs to be changed regardless. That implies it happened in a different series. We only need two tabs separated in Pre-Timeskip and Post-Timeskip histories too. SeaTerror (talk) 18:50, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the post time skip arks? With hody and ceaser clown? they are not there. Confused. Lightbuster   (173.22.70.0 23:33, October 4, 2013 (UTC))

>_> they were tabbed-- 23:42, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

You can find it by clicking the last tab titled "Post Timeskip". 02:39, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Right, the discussion about this is over. We've moved them already. Now, somebody just needs to change the colors (probably a good idea), and we'll be set. 15:17, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Any idea what colors would be good, or should we just use black and white? 22:48, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

321360 and C2D1DE? 10:24, October 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you link an example? 13:33, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion isn't over. "Pre-series needs to be changed regardless. That implies it happened in a different series." SeaTerror (talk) 20:00, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

No, Pre Series means it happened before the series began. 20:55, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. SeaTerror (talk) 20:57, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Stuff like flashbacks is before the beginning of the series, therefore it's before the series began. 20:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

It happened during the series. Pre-series means it happened in a different series. SeaTerror (talk) 21:44, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the definition that's being used here. 00:19, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

That's because you made up your own definition. SeaTerror (talk) 02:16, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

No no, you're the one misunderstanding what it really means.

Anyways, anybody other than ST have objections to that naming? 02:24, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding; just a made up definition. If you have to have it that way then it should say Past instead. SeaTerror (talk) 02:34, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Past is stuff that happened before the beginning of the series, aka pre-series, aka anything in a flashback or before the adventure began. 02:43, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Pre-series is ok, but "Past" is better. That's what we use in section headings and it's more consistent. 15:08, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Past doesn't mean anything like Pre-series at all. Past means it still happened in the series past. Pre-series means it happened elsewhere in a different series. SeaTerror (talk) 18:28, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Past is more clear and consistent with how we word section headings. 02:48, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Using Past is fine and it sounds better. Pre-series sounds awkward and Past technically means the exact same thing. 17:31, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yet they don't mean the same thing at all. SeaTerror (talk) 18:46, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

In this context they do. 20:07, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

That would only be because it was a made up definition. SeaTerror (talk) 22:20, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeez, ST, we're agreeing with you that we should use past, and you're still arguing with us...

At any rate, can we change it yet? 22:29, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Change it.

ST, pre-series is the same as past. 22:30, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

So is the discussion over? 06:41, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

I changed Pre-Series to past on all the SH templates. The discussion isn't quite over yet since we still need to decide on a color for the history tabs that's not the SHP colors. 14:29, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Bump 20:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Just change the color that is highlighted. Black is probably the best to distinguish it. 21:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be over... What color do we use? 02:10, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Do what you said earlier. Let's see what it looks like. 04:11, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Do a test and see what it looks like. 13:08, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Black has been edited in. 14:35, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. If someone edits it in to the other SH pages, we can finally close this, I think. 14:45, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, we can finally finish this! 14:49, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for more opinions first. 14:52, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god this color looks SO BAD 15:01, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

White colored links are better with the black BG IMO.--

Well the red link doesn't look the best, maybe like Roranoa said do white links. 15:07, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Any other ideas on colour? 17:32, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do white. 01:56, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping, with the proposition that we use the actual "whole" saga names, instead of the weirdly organized way we're doing it now. Sea of Survival: Super Rookies Saga and The Final Sea: The New World Saga. 03:31, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody against this? 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this but we have to do it on all SH history sections.

It has been done on all the Straw Hat pages. Are there any complaints, or can we finally put this discussion to rest? 15:16, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Post and Pre is better because they are shorter. However if it has to stay this way then the colors absolutely need to be changed. The tabs should not be a different color than the other tabs. SeaTerror (talk) 11:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

More people wanted the color differentiation, so that's why it was changed. Why shouldn't it be different? 15:22, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Agree with what gal said,but lets change those colors,they look real ugly imo.--

Ironic that you who is so asinine about consistency wanted it to be a different color. SeaTerror (talk) 01:40, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Consistency has nothing to do with differentiation. 01:56, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Ironic. Also only Vaz was the one who commented in support of the the idea to use those long ass saga names. Plus it literally makes no sense to use them since nobody even calls them that. The colors should be the same since having them different is also done for no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 15:36, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if nobody calls them by those names, because they're official names given by Oda for the first and second half. There's really no reason not to use them.

The colors are different to differentiate them from the regular tabs. It really does help in doing that. 15:44, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

I don't like using the Saga names because if we ever learn a fact about any SH member's past after the timeskip, then those tab names become incorrect. We fall into a grey area where the event was revealed in the one saga, but happened in another. We're best off sticking to what we had before. 17:24, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

Not really, since the events technically took place in that saga. 17:25, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

The names should also be what people actually use. Nobody but Oda uses those Saga names. Pre and Post were the best way to do it. Also the colors don't have to be different at all. An intelligent person can just read the name of the tab and know what it stands for. SeaTerror (talk) 09:15, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd say that past events fall outside the Super Rookies Saga. It's easy enough to say that Luffy's past is part of it, but another thing all together to say that Brook's would be part of it, considering Roger was a rookie himself. 14:54, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Since we were introduced to the events during the saga, it still fits pretty well.

@ST, "nobody but Oda" is a perfectly valid reason to use the names. Next, you'll say we should use unofficial names when Oda writes them in English, because "people might not use those names". 05:07, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

But then we run into what I mentioned in my other post: Events from a character's distant past that are introduced the NW saga. (For example, say we learn which island Brook is from in some flashback story.) I don't think such things would belong under the Super Rookies section heading. 05:11, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

This is why I think we should have the pasts of the characters on the "history" tab, and then have the sub tabs be the ones we're using right now. All confusion would be avoided that way.

Then there's the problem of when we find out what the Straw Hats did during the timeskip. Where would that information go? 05:13, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd say again that events during the timeskip fall outside either saga. It's easier to say that it's pre-timeskip than to say that it's in the Super Rookies saga. And if we go with what you said, then we'd still have to make a "Past" tab so that people can easily determine past information is there. All in all, I think we cover the most bases with the "Pastand Pre Timeskip"/"PostTimeskip" tab names. 05:18, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

"During the timeskip" is not pre-timeskip.

I just think using Oda's official names is best, since it gives a little more officiality to the pages. 05:22, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

We could easily just poll this so we can finally get this out of the active discussions. There's little to discuss here anyways. Anybody against a poll being drafted? 07:00, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

We still need to change the links back to pre and post and change the colors to normal colors. SeaTerror (talk) 19:56, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

^what ST said.--

We really should finish this discussion now, it's been dragging on far too long. I think that we should just say it's pre/post-timeskip, as it's somewhat less confusing on where the information belong to. 21:38, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

The issue is more the fact that the tabs are just too long and really were changed for no reason at all. It is definitely easier too make them pre and post. The other issue is the colors. It is better to have them the same color as the other tabs. I see no reason why they need to be different. SeaTerror (talk) 22:00, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on the colors, the tabs didn't need to be of a different color scheme, and at any rate, it looks terrible with the other tabs. Change it to the same color scheme as the other tabs. And you're also right on the names of the tabs, it's definitely easier. All agree on this, or do anyone want to drag this out any longer? 22:04, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do a past/pre timeskip and during/post timeskip structure. Also, as a compromise on the tab color issue, why don't we just reverse the normal SH colors for the added tabs? That keeps them looking pretty much the same, but makes sure they are more noticeable too. 15:40, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Past/pre-timeskip and during/post timeskip is common sense, let's just do it and be done with it. And yeah, I like your compromise for the tabs' color scheme, JSD. We already do that for tabs we're on, so no problems with it.

Now, can we please freaking wrap this up? 21:10, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

i agree with jsd-- 22:39, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Make a poll. 04:02, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JSD too. We don't need to poll this since it's a minor change, you're the only one against, and you changed them on your own without a poll in the first place. 04:07, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I need to see an example of the inverted colors first before I decide. SeaTerror (talk) 04:09, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Actually yeah, inverted colours won't work since we invert them for the currently active tab page, so it will look like the active history tab is is inactive and the inactive history tab is active. Needs to be the same colours as the rest of the tabs. But there's sufficient agreement for the name change. 04:21, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I still think we need some kind of solution for the colors that's not leaving them the same, so perhaps black/white text but the same for the background? Kind of the same as what we've got right now, but reversed. 05:30, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to have different colors at all. They were fine before they were changed. SeaTerror (talk) 15:06, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
made a test poll-- 01:22, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think we actually need more discussion and examples on the color issue, I wish they could not be ignored. I still maintain that we do need different colors for the additional history tabs because if they were the same as the main tabs, it would be very difficult to notice that the additional tabs are there. Also, I've just had the idea that these additional tabs should be centered in the bottom row, not all the way over on the left.

The second poll sucks. It includes a bunch of options nobody has advocated for, and misses several of the options people actually want. I still want "Past and Pre-Timeskip" and "During and After the Timeskip". The currently used tab names should also be an option. I don't think anyone wants a variant of "History I", etc either, but I could be wrong on that. 18:20, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure the majority already said to use Pre and Post for the tabs. SeaTerror (talk) 18:50, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I can tell, only the departed Galaxy was against returning to the example I said in my last post. No need for a poll on that since it's a clear majority. Can someone with time go change all the tabs?

And I'd still like more discussion/examples for the color issue. 15:41, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Time to bump this. This should have been done with ages ago. SeaTerror (talk) 22:42, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

The articles still need to be moved. SeaTerror (talk) 17:24, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Articles are all renamed now. I don't particularly care about the color anymore, so if someone does and can provide examples we can do that part of the poll. Otherwise, I'm calling this issue finally closed. 21:05, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Adding fillers, films, specials and OVAs in history
You added films Strong World and Z. Why not everything? Of course with the label non-canon...Kaste1 (talk) 21:32, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has to write them first. 21:35, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, writing them is impossible. For example, if you write the Warship Island Arc you have to change the end of the Loguetown Arc. They arrive with Apis to the Reverse Mountain and they fight Eric. So how do you write them?Kaste1 (talk) 22:39, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, since they're their own section. The events have to be repeated, but told from the non-canon point of view.

(The filler history would work better as a separate tab though) 22:42, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

By seperate tab you mean a tab with all the canon history and the fillers or only the fillers? Kaste1 (talk) 20:10, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I mean one with just the fillers, in the order they happened. 22:04, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I like seeing them all together. But then there are the differences and that creates problems. Is it possible seperating the manga history and the anime history (including Movies, specials etc)? Or is it too much?Kaste1 (talk) 22:33, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible Sections
Let's settle this here!--Rgilbert27 (talk) 22:24, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

When starting a discussion, you should lay out your explanation for these changes. The page is over 100k bytes, so it needs to be split. Visually, I am not a fan of collapsable sections. Anyone else have other ideas? 00:36, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

I used the collapsable on the Chapters and Volumes page and I'm currently working on something else because it is visually better then scroll throughout a large section like the list of volumes. Also, as Rgilbert27 pointed out to me, it lower the byte count, so it has a benefit out side of visuality. Whether or not it fit on a history section is another story.

Personally, I rarely read history section, and the 100K split rule is a bit limiting on the main characters pages, so if we do decide to use collapsable then I think it would be best to merge the pre and post timeskip (especially since the tabs are already messed up and the pre\post tab in the history subpage is missing).

What I am trying to say is that for people who aren't caught up with the story, history sections are spoilers so collapsable is a good idea. For people who are caught up with the story, history sections are just a list so why not make it easier to find something on it? Rhavkin (talk) 05:47, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

It has to be discussed first before making major changes. Collapsible sections do look bad as already mentioned by Noland. Spoilers don't matter since anybody who's on a wiki should know they would get spoiled. SeaTerror (talk) 07:55, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

You can't decide whats matter to anybody who's on this wiki, collapsible give everyone a choice what to read and what not to read. "Looks bad" is a personal preference so it shouldn't be reason. Rhavkin (talk) 08:18, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that Rhavkin. But if you want another point, how about the fact all of the headings used for the Content box at the top of the page disappear? That is an important navigational tool, and the collapsable sections essentially get rid of that. While the collapsable sections make more sense for hiding large tables like on Chapters and Volumes, it's use here is doesn't.

Also, you, Rhavkin, should not have added collapsable sections without consulting an admin or starting a forum. They don't work on this page, and now Chapters and Volumes has templates that exceed the include size limit, which adds a whole new component to this: processing issues. For every major change I have proposed (universally used past tense in history sections, video game sections on pages, and even adding a large batch of images when I first joined the wiki), I have made forum posts, as have most other users. This whole conversation should be moved to a forum instead of happening on Luffy's talk page, because it could be a lot longer and should be about overall usage of the feature rather than just here. 12:32, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The only headings that disappeared are the sub-headers, not the Sagas which are important navigational tool. And as for the C&V, the templates were already there beforehand for each 10 volumes. You can look at my contributes and see I only added collapsable on the tables, not the page itself.

While I'm well aware of the "talk first" procedural, on several occasions I tried it got very little attention, and then it was left hanging without resolution, with people like ST saying "the talk hasn't ended" and nothing is done. All in all, it's better to ask forgiveness then permission. Rhavkin (talk) 13:19, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

I believe the subheadings are structurally important for navigation. I apologize that I got the template include size thing wrong.

If you tell ST and I can't "decide what matters" based on what we think looks good or bad, then you shouldn't decide to make a structural change without a discussion or decide what headings are important enough to keep in the Content box. You can make your arguments and state your opinions, but we operate this way to prevent surprise changes and edit wars. Moreso, these changes broke the navigation we had to Luffy's post-timeskip history, presenting another problem.

As for the procedure, I have proposed things that haven't gotten much response and have fallen flat. Disappointing as it may be, I still follow procedure. Intead of opening a forum, messaging the admins before making a major change would also be appropriate. I've done that as well, and I get no pushback. Permission is always better for forgiveness. 14:40, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Actually the pre\post was messed up since spiting the relationships. I didn't say sub-headers aren't important, and I checked and the problem can be solved if we include to collapsible on the page and not have separate subpages like Rgilbert did. Rhavkin (talk) 15:06, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Kaido for that hint but I still think collapsible sections can help in the long run with a little tweaking.--Rgilbert27 (talk) 20:15, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think collapsible sections are worth it. The table of contents is important for navigation and honestly using that to get around kind of defeats the purpose of collapsing the sections. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:21, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but it would eliminate the needless scrolling for pages running too long.--Rgilbert27 (talk) 20:28, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

But you don't need to needlessly scroll when our table of contents is functioning properly. That is really a moot point. Visually, it looks worse. From a functional standpoint, it operates worse. Sure, it cuts down on characters, but making Saga-specific subpages would solve the problem just as well and lack the issues your collapsible sections present. 02:25, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Like I said "tweaking".--Rgilbert27 (talk) 03:10, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Could we all agree the problem is fixed and move on because SeaTerror‎ would ratter undo than talk?--Rgilbert27 (talk) 01:20, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

Alright ST, do you have a problem with changing the format by putting in the subpage templates instead of the full text? I'm not overly familar with how it affects the page, but it doesn't impede editing. I still oppose making the sections collapsible though Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:39, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

It looks bad and we must discuss any changes first. Definitely no collapsible sections. SeaTerror (talk) 19:48, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

The one you undid didn't look bad and like I said tweaking.--Rgilbert27 (talk) 00:53, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

We get it, collapsible sections would need to be tweaked if we decide to keep them. But we only have a 3 to 2 majority against them now, so wait until someone else comments or until you have something to say of substance. Repeating yourself does not convince us that it is the right decision.

Even if we go with split pages, I'm sure that'll need tweaking, too. The problem is the base idea and how it impedes users' ability to navigate the page. The 100k limit is supposed to make navigation easier. The collapsible sections technically get around that rule but do not solve the issue in my opinion. 01:09, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

You need to explain what you want to tweak so we can test it elsewhere before we can agree with anything. The page cannot be your experiment zone, because it's live. For almost a month the Yonko Saga was buried in the Dressrosa Saga collapsible section, which is unacceptable. The fact that the history subpage tabs on the top of the page are no longer working doesn't please me either.

So please, explain what fixes can be made to the collapsible sections. Because right now, they don't help with navigation. You say you want to reduce scrolling, but collapsible sections don't help with that at all. Let's say I wanted to look up the summary of Luffy's fight with Katakuri. As it currently is, I can just go to the table of contents and jump right to that section. But with the collapsible sections, the only thing I can jump to is the Yonko Saga section (provided it's not buried in the Dressrosa section like it was before), and then I have to scroll all the way through Gold, and Zou, and the summary of the first fifty chapters of Whole Cake before I can look through the Katakuri fight summary. That's a lot more scrolling. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:37, August 28, 2018 (UTC)