Forum:Filler History Sections

So recently, I've noticed that we don't have history for the filler sections of a character's history. While I know this is non-canon, and might take up a lot of space on the page, using the hide template will prevent it from taking up all the extra space. The reason for needing this is that we are a wiki for everything one piece related, and leaving out the anime stuff is too biased. Discuss the idea here, and if a poll is not needed, we can go ahead and just start doing it.

An example can be seen on the Momonga page.

00:24, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
This a important feature we as Wiki need. This way we can have the history for events such as Strong World, with out the edit wars. On weather it should be featured on character pages, because it might or might not be cannon. 00:34, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why Momonga had the filler section... Anyways, I don't think we need a filler section. Some other wikis have a filler section and I always disliked that. We have the information in the episode. Even if we use the hide template, it will still show while we edit the page, and it'll make longer such as Luffy's history page (which is already extremely long). I keep thinking of that if we do add the hide template it'll look similar to Fairy Tail Wiki. It's just not needed in my opinion. 03:21, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * *Checks Momonga's page again* Yep, the template does look very similar to Fairy Tail Wiki, except it doesn't say "Click "show" to read the arc plot." 03:25, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we add a disclaimer or something before the section explaining that it's non-canon, and only happens in the anime? I don't think any of this information should be excluded since it is info for the character, and while it never happens in the manga, it still happened in another serial, so we must consider that. We don't need a "hide" template, but I don't see too much of a problem with it. I definitely don't think we should exclude filler information if they're already on episode pages because the episode summaries don't usually describe the entire thing, and having the info on the character's page can focus on it more in-depth. I see no reason to exclude non-canon information. 03:28, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

The hide template is there to cut down the page size Nada.

Calu: The episodes do not give information about the character and their filler history. Just brief details. We are a wiki, so all information belongs on the pages. 04:09, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

For the Straw Hats though.. we may have to have a special tab for Filler History, but we can decide on the specifics later. 04:11, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Another example is the Bleach wiki, where I think that they structured it quite well. While I don't think that we really need to do this, it wouldn't hurt the page to add the non-canon info as long as it's hidden by a template (unless it loads slower or something, which I guess I haven't really noticed). 04:15, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Just tab them all if you're going to do it. Putting them all in the same history section is a bad thing because it could lead to terribleness like what the Naruto wikia does and counting everything as canon. SeaTerror (talk) 05:21, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Tabbing them would screw up timing and make everything twice as confusing. If we want to have the non-canon crap in the history section, it should all be in the same place. And I'm pretty sure this wiki takes its canon too seriously to degrade into what the Naruto wiki does. 05:25, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.. we're not gonna ever take the non-canon as canon. Yeah ok then. Tabs won't work I guess. The SH history pages being longer though really shouldn't be a problem though. Ctrl + f. 06:09, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

We should have the info, because nobody ever writes out the episode summaries in the same depth that is required for character histories. And we should use the hide template in the character's history section, and not just manga/anime differences, so that it can be more understood when the episode took place. And because it's in the history section, it should be hidden. Using the hide template will really help spread awareness of what information is canon vs. non-canon, which will always be helpful. Tabs won't work, because there's really not enough information for tabs. As long as the hide template states that the things that are hidden by it are non-canon, I think this can only help us. 08:06, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to use the hide templates. If you insist on adding it, just section off the filler arcs in a way that denotes them not being canon, like dividing lines or something. 08:42, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

After running a few informal tests, I suggest simply placing a disclaimer template below the heading of each filler arc before the text that says something like "The following events are not canon and should not be treated as such." You can see the line tests in my sandbox, though I haven't tried every idea I have yet. 08:57, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think having tabs is a terrible idea. There are so many characters that have non-canon history, and sometimes they're not a big impact. Ace, for example, only had filler with a couple new characters in the Alabasta arc. That can be summed up in a paragraph. Maybe two if you stretch it. We don't need a tab in every character's page. I support DancePowderer's idea. 16:49, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Nada, filler has no impact on the story, that's why it's called filler, because it's just filling time until the stuff people actually care about happens. The only thing it does to the story is create plot-holes for the people who only watch the anime (see Zoro cutting metal). That's actually why I'm against adding it at all, since it would just cramp up the article and potentially confuse them, even if it's distinguished. 16:57, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

OK no tabs then.

DP: Leaving the information out is worse than not adding it. Like I said in the original post, we are here to provide information about what happens in the manga and anime, so excluding ANY history from a character's page is biased. Who is going to get confused when the label is right there? 21:25, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a disclaimer that bookends the filler information is good. It might work even better if that was combined with the hide template. It's more complicated to write out the code for the template, but I think that would be the best way to have this info in our articles. 06:25, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

So is anybody else REALLY "opposed" to doing this? 23:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of implementing anime-only content if there is a disclaimer below the headline as on the Momonga article. However, I do not like the idea of using the hide template, it should only be used in certain situations and not in the middle of two paragraphs, it will look inconsistent and look messy.

The hide template should be used for arcs that are entirely filler. For filler that takes place in the middle of canon storyline, (ie, Alabasta filler episodes), we should just use the double-ended disclaimer. For differences that are minor in canon episodes, those should just remain in the manga/anime differences section rather than being moved into a different section. 06:35, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

It seems a little unnecessary to use the hide template if we're not going to use it for all filler. It can be inconsistant. The hide template overall is unnecessary. We have the disclaimer, and we have the information under the canon material. What more do we need? 06:40, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% against adding the filler material that takes place during canon in the same section. It needs its own header and its own paragraph. SeaTerror (talk) 07:52, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Seaterror. It doesn't need its own heading. It can easily be placed in between arcs (with the exception of Little East Blue, but that can go before SW I guess). 10:35, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with SeaTerror on this one. Even though I'm against adding it entirely, I'm willing to budge if you can find a way of separating it well enough from the canon stuff that's already up. If it were up to me I'd almost say make a tab or sub-tab in the history sections. We've left it out of the sections this long for a reason, and that is because it has nothing to do with the actual storyline. Only canon information should be in the history sections. 09:34, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

The disclaimer is there for a reason DP. It says what it is, and nobody is going to be confused. Sub-tabs would be a waste of space since more than just the Straw Hats appear in non-canon scenarios. The disclaimer is the best option. Putting it in its own section is a big waste of space. Anyways, so far it seems to be just 2 against 5-6, so this should be wrapped up soon. 23:18, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

The best option would be to not put filler in the history section at all, like we have for roughly the last six years. The only reason this came up is because one ill-informed editor decided to make Strong World canon without prior discussion despite the stalemate reached on the issue of its canonical placement. Why ruin what was working with a decision that was rushed into clumsily and hastily? The two options you have put on the table are to either make the history sections look choppy as all hell with disclaimers and dividing lines or blur the line between filler and canon entirely. Did you ever stop to consider that this was a bad idea in the first place rather than just blindly pushing forward? There is always the option of not choosing what is proposed and leaving Things as they are. But, since most people seem to have forgotten that, it seems like history sections are about to become a lot crappier. 23:34, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I am actually interest at the proposal at filler addition. But I may have a solution since it seems to mess up the whole history section: create another section solely for fillers. The problem is, who the hell wants to type it all out (since I don't really watch the fillers myself)? If a separate section is not plausible, then just put a subtitle saying "This material is not canon" blah blah blah, like Momonga. 23:41, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no clean way to incorporate filler into the history sections. 23:45, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Leaving things as they are is still terrible DP. We are a wiki for both the ANIME and the manga. We cannot simply leave out information because "it doesn't matter". That is biased and isn't how a wiki should work. 23:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

As for who will type stuff up, This is why we have teams. 00:01, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

We don't leave any information out right now. Summaries for each episode are available on each episode page (even though many of them are not completed). As a compromise, why not just fill in the episode summaries and leave the information out of the character pages? 00:19, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Episode summaries don't tell the history of the character. It's not the same at all. 00:33, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's called a compromise, because neither side is getting exactly what they want, but is settling. If it were the same, it wouldn't be called a compromise, it would be called you getting your way. 01:01, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's not a compromise if it doesn't help anything. The episode summaries will NOT give us the history of the characters, so it isn't a viable option at all. Like I said, as a wiki we may be biased against the anime, but we shouldn't let our biases get in the way of doing what a wiki should do, supply ALL the information, and not leave out stuff due to our personal beliefs. 01:06, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

We do supply all the information, just not on the character pages. 01:10, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how episode summaries don't tell the history of a character. IF you look at any decently-written long summary, it has all the happenings of the episode, for every character. 02:31, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Character histories are basically extracts of chapter summaries. The episode summaries are the same as having that part of the character history combined with the others at the time. Now, you're probably going to slam this now by questioning the purpose or relevancy of the character histories altogether. The canon histories are more important than any filler, that's about what it comes down to. 02:44, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Wrong mindset DP. No information is more important than another. This is a WIKI, not a fansite.

Also.. So you expect people reading to go to episode pages to see what happens to the characters? The same argument could be said for the canon info. We may find it more preferable to us, but to the average reader who comes here to learn, they don't go to the episode pages to find the history of a character. 02:48, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I realize that each part of the histories is important, but the canon information should get priority in this case if filler is just going to ugly up the history sections. We would be better off making a Filler History section under the History section and just provide context for when each takes place, like "Somewhere between blank and blank, Spa Island happened. Insert said character's Spa Island history here." Or "This happened during the Post-War Arc". That way they remain together, yet distinct, and one doesn't get in the way of the other, and we don't have to make the history section look like a choppy, divided mess. 03:03, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

The way it's done on the Momonga page looks very clean. What is "choppy" about it? 04:35, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

If we use a hide or disclaimer template, we do have an element of control over how it looks. With the right template, we could make things look smooth and not "choppy". My problem with what's on Momonga's page now is that the disclaimer isn't very big or noticeable. If the disclaimer isn't noticeable, then people will just think it is canon information. 16:49, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

And if it is made bigger, it would disrupt the reader's flow of the article, which is why I said it would look choppy. Momonga's page isn't an issue as of now, but imagine if it were on a page that's been in more filler, like one of the Straw Hats. I feel that breaks the flow of the article, which is bad. 16:56, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

The disclaimer on Momonga's page is way too tiny to easily read. Heck, it hurt my eyes just trying to make out it. Plus, it's not very noticeable, and easy to miss. Can we change the size of the font? 21:54, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

The size is fine. You must be exaggerating if you say you can't even see it. 03:39, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

As long as it only makes the page look "choppy" when it's expanded, it's fine. The disclaimer kind of should disrupt the flow a bit, because that's how people will notice that it's actually non-canon information. And I actually looked at Momonga's page on my dad's computer which is much smaller than mine awhile back, and tiny text like that was difficult to read, and my eyes are fine. 17:53, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Either way, the disclaimer is an eyesore. I still think we should make a filler history sub-tab. That way we can add the stuff without having to put the disclaimer in at all. Yeah, it's a schlep to make a sub sub-page, but it would put an end to just about every problem here. 20:50, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

For every character? That seems a bit unnecessary. How bout tabs for the major characters and a separate section for less important ones. 21:25, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with either add filler history section or not, since we have a big user-base we shouldn't have much troubles adding them, but I'd like to say something about some suggestion about how doing that: I disagree with both using tabs and the hide template. History should be in the history section and in the correct chronological order, that's the way it should be. About using the hide template, I rather not because that template takes the text as parameter, as such you need to escape all the pipes (for example in image codes) and I believe there is also a limit on how big the parameter can be. I suggest simply add a note like Spoiler, something like "filler history starts here" and a similar one at the end. If you really want something like the hide template, I can make up something with the collapsible classes, but all the text should be put in a div and I don't like it either. Moreover, why do we have to hide the filler section? I find it pointless.

I do not mean I can't see it. I can see it perfectly fine, but being able to read it, now that is another story. But since I don't have excellent eyesight, I'll just leave that up to my poor eyesight.

Either way, like DP said, the disclaimer is an eyesore, and we should definitely do something about that. I don't really care about where we put filler history sections in the pages, or if we don't have it in the pages at all. 23:05, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why we just can't move all the non-canon stuff to the Manga and Anime differences section. For example for Momonga's page, just put the Z's Ambition Arc under the Marineford Arc. No tabs. If a disclaimer is necessary put it in bold writting underneath the heading of Manga and Anime differences. For characters like the Straw Hats, you're better off putting a filler tab. DuelMaster93 (talk) 23:20, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think Levi's right on this one. If we are going to include this information at all, it should be chronologically, without other tabs and such. However, I think that only major story changes that are nowhere to be found should be included; minor details that don't affect the plot between the anime and manga should be left to the individual episode and manga pages. On a separate note, am I the only one who thinks that the disclaimer, especially the one suggested by Levi, isn't a total eyesore? It's no worse than an image in a history section. 23:46, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an eyesore PX. Also, Duelmaster: That's for stuff that happens in canon arcs in the anime that isn't canon. 08:47, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

About the disclaimer, it doesn't have to be like Spoiler, we can style the way we want. Even just a simple "(filler)" in the header title is fine.

That's what I was thinking Levi. Shouldn't be too hard for people to read it. 19:30, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 07:05, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

@Levi: the hide template does not necessarily take the text as a parameter, I added a begin/end option a while ago for it to be used with tables. I personally think that hiding these sections is the best option. Having to jump all filler sections when reading the history seems annoying, even if they are easy to identify.

I see, I didn't know. If we will use a start/end system, I'd like to use the collapsible classes then.

Here an example. We can update the hide template or make a dedicated template for filler sections, though I'm still fine with a simple "(filler)" in the header.

Yeah, I agree that we should use dedicated filler hide template, in the way Sff described. 16:55, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

So does this need to be polled? Or is it pretty much accepted? 22:10, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make a poll only about if we should add the filler sections. About how we style them we can try different things later, no need to vote now on that. If we vote now we will be bound to the poll's results even though we still didn't see how our proposition will turn out to be, so we may be regret it later. Beside I think we can reach a simply consensus here or on a talk page... if there will be different points of view then we will open another poll.

Make it just to see if we should add the sections. There's too much nitty gritty technical stuff to leave it up to a poll. 22:38, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
'''The poll is now CLOSED. We will have Filler History sections, but the exact specifics must be decided below.''' The poll ended on January 27, 2013 at 22:40 UTC

Should the wikia have filler history sections?


 * Yes, the wikia should have filler history sections.
 * 22:41, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:44, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16:19, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 17:41, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:04, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:29, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:33, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:33, January 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the wikia should keep things as they are.
 * 22:46, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 03:47, January 14, 2013 (UTC) (unless they are tabbed)
 * 03:52, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Klobis (talk) 05:48, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16:55, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 17:39, January 14, 2013 (UTC) (Only tabbed)
 * 22:31, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Post Poll Discussion
Discuss. 22:39, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity, what will the disclaimer look like? 22:42, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Like this. But we can adjust if needed. 22:43, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs only. SeaTerror (talk) 23:10, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs only is a good idea. Separate them as much as possible. 23:48, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Uhh no. Putting a tab for EVERY CHARACTER that has been in filler is a terrible idea. We'd have to do a Shiki tab, a sengoku tab, a garp tab, all vice admirals, all the admirals, all marines (Film Z). Just not worth it. 23:49, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Plus they would have to be referenced anyway. It would screw up the reference section by mixing up canon with non-canon. SeaTerror (talk) 23:50, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Not really ST. 23:50, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Actually it would, since that would be intermingled with no way of separating. Just make them subpages of the history section, ie Garp/History/Filler. Put a tab at the top of the section. Not that hard. 23:54, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

It's a waste of pages. Anyways, this is going to have to be voted on too, because some people supported the disclaimer above, and some the tabs. 23:56, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

The only time a page is wasted is when it's half-assed and abandoned. As long as the page is being used for something, it's not a waste. 23:59, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Well anyways, should I go ahead and start the next poll? 1 week for it is probably long enough. Tabbed or Disclaimer will be the two options. 00:03, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait a little bit before starting another poll. Let more than 3 people discuss the results of the first one. 00:48, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Making a new page simply for filler sections is unnecessary and confusing. Not only would the information not be in chronological order, but this would mean that every character would have a separate tab for filler history. While it may work for people like the Straw Hats (if then, I'm having doubts), it certainly won't work for people like Momonga and Garp. 01:05, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Many characters' non-canon history are just a paragraph or two long. Having an extra tab only for that? I don't think it's worth it, and a reader isn't going to want to have to go an extra page just to find more information, when it could just as easily be in the main page. 01:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then if there is no tab leave filler section unsourced. SeaTerror (talk) 03:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I also think a new tab for minor characters is a bit much. And the argument that relates to references makes no sense to me. Last I checked, we still referenced the "Anime and Manga Differences" sections and several other things with non-canon information, which means we've already had mixed canon and non-canon references. Plus, in order for a reference to make sense, you have to look at the article, not just the reference section, which means people will still see the non-canon disclaimer.

I also still think we should make the disclaimer more visible. With larger text and some colored lines, perhaps? 03:38, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

How bout this:

The following synopsis is considered filler and is not considered part of the One Piece canon.

03:43, January 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good to me, PX. Maybe just make it a bit smaller than normal text, but not as small as the current one. Also, since it will be used for history sections/summaries only, we can have it say "The following events are considered filler and are not part of the canon story." I think that's a bit easy to understand. We may also want to make one that closes the section so that you know when the filler sections end. Something like "The Preciding events..." 04:19, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, start with...

The following events are Filler and are not considered part of the Canon story.

and end with....

Concludes filler section.

04:26, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. 04:58, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I call for the tab still. SeaTerror (talk) 03:45, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Poll is up. No voting until tomorrow though. Discuss your concerns with the poll or forever hold your peace. 04:32, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

From what was said above about the varying amount of filler and how it would be silly make a page for so little, I propose a 3rd option of playing it by ear and treating each page individually should be added. 05:06, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that's a good idea. Not only would it be inconsistent from page to page, but it would still be out of order chronologically for the tabbed pages. Still, it couldn't hurt to add that to the poll. 05:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too inconsistent, it would just divide the pages into two groups. Nothing major. 05:13, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

The issue still remains with the mixing of canon and non-canon references though if we do that. SeaTerror (talk) 19:15, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

References can be marked as non-canon, but really, it's not that big of a deal. 05:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Second Poll Pre Discussion
Discuss concerns here. 04:35, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Done Dp. 05:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

If the disclaimer wins, should another disclaimer be added at the end of the filler history to close it? Otherwise everything between the disclaimer and the next section can be mistaken as filler. 05:58, January 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. Above, I gave a sample opening and closing for a filler section. However, the exact disclaimer details and appearance can be ironed out later. 06:02, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

That's not necessary the case, if you write "in this section" is obvious that next one it isn't. Anyway, I think this poll should just decide whatever method use: Let's keep styling out of the poll.
 * Tab.
 * Main history section, with a disclaimer/note.
 * Tab if many filler section, disclaimer if few.

Should an option be added to just include the filler history, and not have a disclaimer at all? 05:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Should've mentioned that before the poll started. 05:59, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Second Poll
''The poll is now over. We will use a disclaimer/note to distinguish the filler history section.

1. Use a separate page/tab for all filler history sections. For example: "Garp/History/Filler".
 * 06:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 06:24, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

2. Use a disclaimer/note to distinguish filler history sections.
 * 1)  05:45, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 05:47, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * 05:50, January 29, 2013 (UTC) I would prefer none at all, but....
 * 1)  20:20, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

3. Use a separate page/tab for articles with extensive filler history, while a disclaimer/note if it's short.
 * 05:14, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Post Vote Discussion
Get to deciding the format. 21:46, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with using pretty much what PX showed above. 01:15, February 10, 2013 (UTC)