Forum:History Page Consistency

Me and Jade have been discussing this in chat. Some of the character pages use interesting names as the headlines, and some characters just use the arc names. Obviously this is a big change, so we felt it would be best to create a forum about it. To be more consistent, we need to choose one option.

1.) Use arc names

2.) Use interesting names.

Galaxy9000 (talk) 19:30, July 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is [ an example of what Gal is talking about].

Discussion
2nd option. SeaTerror (talk) 19:33, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Per ST. Cheese Lord (talk) 19:34, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should do what's kind of already used on Luffy's page: Arc names, with sub-sections of the arc getting the "Interesting names". So it would go Saga Name-> Arc Name-> Sub-arc interesting name. If only one is to be used though, it should be arc names. Arc names are just easier to understand. Yeah, they're less fun, but it makes the wiki more readable and smooth.

This is also the kind of thing we should put in our Manual Of Style, if anyone ever wants to post on the forum and get that idea off the ground. Here's the link to that. JustSomeDude...  19:46, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

No. Just no. It's inconstant and we don't want that. 19:55, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Keep the sagas up there, spice up the arc section titles. 01:36, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I like JSD's proposal. Simple, yet interesting. The only thing we have to make sure of is that we keep all the "interesting sub-arc" titles the same between all the character pages. 01:54, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DP (it is actually the current practice, I think). Take Doflamingo, for example: "Meeting of the Shichibukai" and "Bellamy's Punishment" accurately describe the whole scenes in which Doflamingo's featured. Putting "Jaya Arc" and "Skypiea Arc" does not look right in my opinion, because Using sagas is more or less necessary to help the reader locate the event in the story (since we have no dates).
 * 1) these titles are Straw Hats–centered, whereas it is an article about Doflamingo;
 * 2) they span 10 volumes, whereas he appears in a couple chapters only;
 * 3) "arc" is an out-of-universe reference, whereas we should as much as possible keep the articles in-universe only.

(As a side note, I disagree with you PX, since as I said, one of the interests of using "spiced-up" titles is that we can center them on the character—meaning they can be different for each article.)

I like having both saga/arc names because while they don't apply to all characters, they are how we refer to the series as whole. Honestly, I know that Doflamingo meeting with Bellamy and the Marines too place in the Skypeia Saga, but if I wanted to find the chapters myself, I couldn't. I don't even know which comes first, because I don't have a strong reference point to the rest of the series. Arc names just help further zero in on when things happened.

As far as consistent spiced-up names, I think they should be the same for all the characters that are in the same situation. For example, most of the SHs and Smoker are captured by Crocodile at Raindinners, expect for Sanji and Chopper. So all those SHs and Smoker should have one spiced-up name for that section of the story, and Sanji and Chopper should have different ones. JustSomeDude... 14:31, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

About your first point: exact chapters/episodes are supposed to be provided through references anyway. About your second point: I don't get what we gain by doing this, but we lose some perspective. In your example, having something like "Imprisoned with the Straw Hats" for Smoker, "Prisoners of Crocodile" for the Straw Hats, something else for Crocodile and Robin, etc., would be better in my opinion than using the same heading for all characters. It widens our perspective on the story. On the contrary, using fixed titles for each scene boils the story down to a mere sequence of scenes seen from the reader's point of view.

I see what you're saying about the names. As long as the section names are similiar enough, like in your example, (and the sections are broken up in reasonably similiar locations) I don't have a problem. JustSomeDude... 17:20, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

The "interesting names" thing was actually my doing... When we left wikipedia I wanted something that would catch the readers eyes, something that I hoped would make them read, I guess as a long-term reaction to the restrictions that wikipedia put down on us. Some folks didn't always feel the same way because "Jaya arc" instantly made people know what that section was about. Thus, I myself was already switched to "Jaya arc" before I stopped being a regulaur. Plus it was hard to be creative with the titles all the time. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 07:43, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think the Saga names should stay, but the interesting names should be under that. Just having the arc names makes the section SLIGHTLY redundant, and like Hawk said, can make some users think that that's what the section is about. Also, interesting names can make the Wiki feel more lively. Doing it through arc names makes it look TOO professional, if that makes any sense; just a bore to read. 04:00, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

My opinions: For Straw Hats:
 * ==Saga==
 * ===Arc===
 * ====Interesting Name====

For everyone else:
 * ==History==
 * ===Saga===
 * ====Arc/Interesting Name====

The reason for this is that Straw Hats have a devoted history page, and a major presence at every stage of the story. For them, the lowest sub-heading is level 4, which is still a reasonable size. For everyone else, history is only a section, so going Saga → Arc → Interesting Name (which I've seen on some pages, and changed whenever I've seen it) leads to a level 5 heading, which is the same size as normal text and should always be avoided.

For everyone who isn't a Straw Hat, I would suggest putting Saga name as a level 3 heading, then Arc name as a level 4 heading for the first paragraph, then Interesting Name as a level 4 heading for subsequent paragraphs that relate to the same arc. From an organisational point of view, I'm against having just an interesting name if there's only one short paragraph relating to the arc for that character (e.g. the Shichibukai not being present at the meeting in the Skypiea saga). 04:27, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * *headscratch* I've tried to dig into this but, still can't make a decision whether to go "Saga/Arc only" or "Interesting name only" - a hybrid doesn't look that good, especially when it comes to the Straw Hat pirates' articles where we read/watch flashbacks of a "10years+ distant" past.

Arc

 * or

Making a name

 * Native speakers may find better spellings though. ;P
 * Saga/Arc structure is handy when it comes to quick orientation where to find it in the manga, but may become unhandy for chronical issues. Sure, we can still add a "before the main story began" paragraph for events like Chapter 0 or minor appearances in the Straw Hats' flashbacks, but that doesn't look good to me (personal taste though). Additionally, it's a bit redundant to have the Saga/Arc structure because we add the sources through qrefs anyways, isn't it?
 * Oh, and - offtopic - I'm against leaving out that shichibukai ignored the meeting in Skypiea Saga. Sengoku expresses his pleasure about two of them showing up in the first place. Even if we decide on keeping the Saga/Arc structure as it would be odd to have the meeting showing up in three Shichibukai articles while leaving it out completely in the other four. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 07:09, September 26, 2012 (UTC)