User blog comment:Joekido/This Wiki/@comment-1595565-20140112060812

You talk about all this change like it's bad. Wanna know what all that deleting and merging did? It made things easier to manage and navigate. Almost all of the voice actor pages save for the Straw Hats either didn't have pages or were woefully out of date. Rather than leave over 100 pages out to wither and die, we decided to outsource them to Wikipedia since all their voice actor pages are up to date. With that, we cleared one elephant from the room. The animal species pages that were merged were either stubs or just big enough to be considered not stubs. We consolidated and spared the wiki from dozens of sub-par articles that really had no chance of further expansion. The decision was about quality, not quantity.

Analysis of the series never went away, it simply shifted. It's now done the same way you did this post, in blogs and forums. Don't get me wrong, I love content analysis, I really do, but articles are not the right place for it. Mostly because, while valid, it could easily be seen as opinionated, which we don't like on articles. Even when it's not it still sticks out too much and disrupts the flow of the article. Blogs are actually better for the kind of thing you're talking about since they allow for actual discussion, unlike talk pages (anyone mentions page comments and I shoot them), which are about changes to the articles. We want to be informative while not being totally obvious when it comes to information like that. If I read an article that talks about literary techniques, a lot of times my reaction includes the phrase "No duh." There's no new information to gain from "The Risky Brothers foreshadowed Shirahoshi's appearance." Some people might go "Oh yeah, they did," but it won't be anything new. It would be the same thing as saying "Luffy has a big bounty on his head" anywhere in his article. It's so obvious that there's no need to add it. I don't know if you've ever read a hard copy of Encyclpedia Britannica, but there is little to no analysis in the articles. It's information with no interpretation. That's what we're doing here. We give the people the information and let them figure the stuff out themselves. To be idiomatic with a slight variation, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't tell them how to drink.