FANDOM

5,594 Pages

Forums: Index → Site Problems →  History Section Lengths
Note: This topic has been archived because the discussion is considered solved.
Do not add to it unless it really needs to be reopened. Consider creating a brand new forum instead.

Hey guys. I've been looking around through some articles recently and have noticed something that I think is a major problem. A LOT of history sections for for characters from past sagas like Alabasta, CP9, and Skypiea have awful history sections. This may not seem like a problem, but the length difference from characters from the older arcs to more current ones is crazy. I think that these older articles need to be revitalized. I would normally try to work on it, but I have a few projects currently and there are too many for just one person to do. Please share your thoughts on the issue. Montblanc Noland (talk) 21:20, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

i checked them out and i guess they do need some work, though a more important matter then troubles me is the length of the history section for each of the straw hat crew members (with the exception of luffy, whose history section was just divided) and i would like to propose that we do what we did on luffy's history page on the other members' pages as well-- Quoth The Raven "Nevermore" 22:40, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Straw Hat members should be addressed first. After that, we should compile a list of articles to update. But the most important thing is the Straw Hats. Montblanc Noland (talk) 22:42, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

We need to finish getting Luffy's sorted out first - there's still an issue on whether it should be split up past/pre-timeskip/post-timeskip or just past+pre-timeskip/post-timeskip and no-one's responding. Zodiaque             18:37, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

MN I could help with that, but what exactly do you mean by awful? Are they too long, inaccurate or do they have typing/grammar mistakes? Plus, I would need some refferance of the pages in need of correction cause searching on my own would be kinda chaotic. This job could be done at the same time with the SH history correction.Vaztalk 19:06,9/8/2013

By awful, I mean they lack any sort of detail. For example, take the Mozu and Kiwi page. In the Eneis Lobby section, it completely omits their fight with the Just Eleven Jurymen. It isn't even mentioned. Just detail stuff like that. Besides that, there aren't any glaring grammar issues and no inaccuracy. It is just a matter of lengthening them to the quality of current ones like Monet. I would love to have you on board if you want to help out! Thanks so much! I also think that forming a team to take care of inadequate history sections across the entire wiki would solve this problem and the Straw Hat problem. Montblanc Noland (talk) 19:26, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see. I'll start on Thursday then, when I'll have nore free time. I'll keep you posted on the pages I correct via p.m. Vaztalk 19:34,9/8/2013

Wow. Thank you so much! It might be a good idea to go chapter to chapter on the info, which is whats been done with the recent character pages. That'll get the most detail. I'll do the same when I have the time. Thanks again! Montblanc Noland (talk) 19:39, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that a discussion on history sections was brought up, because I have also few points that concerns me:

  • First, to answer Noland's concern, I also believe many secondary-character pages has poor history sections which also lack some plot points.
  • That said, I believe there is the specular issue on newer or popular pages: they are way TOO long! Seriously, it's like reading a novel "he saw this and do that after also saying that". History sections are becoming a wall of text in my opinion.
  • Also I often read many sentences, paragraphs or even whole sections that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The history section has to be always focus on the subject. This is more evident in history of groups. Take for example [[Shichibukai/History]]: that page has no reason to exist at all, because it doesn't talk about the shichibukai! It talks about each member instead, which is redundant since there are the character pages for that. A page like that should talk only about the shichibukai as group, like reunions, when a member was added or have left and the Marineford war. Stuff like
"Crocodile first appears under the alias of Mr. 0 and phones up one of his agents for a report. However, Sanji picks it up, as Mr. 3 is defeated and is in Mr. 3’s candle house.[12] Understanding that this conversation was not meant for him, and that an enemy is on the other side of the line, he lies to the Shichibukai by pretending to be Mr. 3, claiming to have killed everyone. However, Crocodile has sent the Unluckies to Little Garden in order to give an Eternal Pose to Mr. 3. At that moment, Sanji spots them looking in the window. They start to attack Sanji and he subdues them, but the noise made Crocodile suspicious. Sanji pretended that he had to give the Straw Hats a final blow. However, Crocodile asks Nico Robin to send Mr. 2 to Little Garden in order to kill Mr. 3 for lying to him."
has nothing to do with the Shichibukai. That paragraph belongs only to Corcodile's page and even in that case it talks more about Sanji then Crocodile himself.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this matter too, especially from the guys who usually work on updating history sections. leviathan_89 20:36, 8 September, 2013 (UTC)

Gonna reply to Levi's in a numbered format:

  1. Yep, same. I'd like to help fix them.
  2. I don't think there's such a thing as "too long". The history sections should be as detailed as possible.
  3. Yes, we should remove things that have nothing to do with the article. I don't agree with the Shichibukai thing, since I think it should talk about what each member has done, since it is Shichibukai history.

  Galaxy 9000   22:18, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

2. I didn't mean to introduce a "lenght limit". A section should be long as needed. I don't think the history sections should be "as detailed as possible", rather they should be "as complete as possible", which is very different.
3. But then it would be a mesh up of the characters history, that page should talk about the group, not what the members do case by case.

Here an example:

From Rob Lucci: "In the undersea passage, Spandam is yelling at Nico Robin for not keeping up with him. He yells at her, telling her not to stop and ordering Rob Lucci to drag her over and pull her by the hair if necessary. Robin is looking back at the dark tunnel, thinking she just heard a voice. Lucci grabs her by the arm, telling her it is an order for her to walk. Spandam laughs at her, asking if she really expects her friends to save her. He tells Robin that the sound she heard earlier was just her imagination and there is no way they could come here. Spandam tells her that they are getting closer to the Bridge of Hesitation, which stands before the Gates of Justice. When they cross the bridge halfway, the other half will come up and they will go through the Gates of Justice. After that, Robin will never feel hope again. As they continue walking, they all hear someone call out to Robin. Spandam panics, asking what that voice he just heard was. Robin smiles. Lucci tells Spandam to take Robin and continue on."

In bold the sentences that actually are talking about Lucci. And stuff like "Spandam panics, asking what that voice he just heard was. Robin smiles." are way too overboard. We are not writing a light novel, we are writing the plot! The whole paragraph can be summarized in "Lucci escorts Robin and Spandam through the underwater passage when Luffy is about to reach them. Having noticed his presence, Lucci lets them go ahead while he stops to intercept the pirate, excited for the imminent fight". My point is that even if someone thinks this way of story-telling is more detailed, complete or whatever, I fear it actually discourage people to read it. Luffy's history is already a light novel, basically. leviathan_89 22:47, 8 September, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Levi's said. More does not equal better - being able to be concise is a skill. I think part of it comes from histories being updated chapter by chapter, and we might get a better result if at the end of each arc people go through and trim sections down. Zodiaque             05:44, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

No. The Spandam example is because Lucci was there which is part of his history. The last sentence used as an example is definitely needed. It isn't like something about Gaimon being thrown on Ace's page. Removing that valid information is just a flat out moronic thing to do. SeaTerror (talk) 05:51, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between what is valid and what is relevant.DancePowderer Talk 06:06, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

In otherwords: don't remove anything valid. SeaTerror (talk) 06:13, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand you point, ST, can you explain it better? The text I quoted is form Lucci's page, and as I pointed out in the whole paragraph there are only two sentences that focus on Lucci. We need to be more conscious of the narrative point of view: that paragraph is suited for a chapter, which summarize the whole story, but not for Lucci's history. Lucci's history should focus only on Lucci. Here what I mean:

  • General point of view: paragraph as it is.
  • Lucci's point of view: "Lucci escorts Robin and Spandam through the underwater passage when Luffy is about to reach them. Having noticed his presence, Lucci lets them go ahead while he stops to intercept the pirate, excited for the imminent fight."
  • Spandam's point of view: "In the undersea passage, Spandam is yelling at Nico Robin for not keeping up with him. He yells at her, telling her not to stop and ordering Rob Lucci to drag her over and pull her by the hair if necessary. While Lucci does as ordered, Robin looks back at the tunnel and Spandam laughs at her, asking if she really expects her friends to save her and mocking her for being delusional. He tells her that they are getting closer to the Bridge of Hesitation, when they will go through the Gates of Justice, Robin will never feel hope again. As they continue walking, they all hear someone call out to Robin. Spandam panics, asking what that voice he just heard was. Spandam goes ahead with Robin, following Lucci's suggestion."
  • Robin's point of view: "In the undersea passage, Robin is yelled at by Spandam for not keeping up with him. He orders Rob Lucci to drag her over and pull her by the hair if necessary. Robin is looking back at the dark tunnel, thinking she just heard a voice. After being grabbed by Lucci, she is continually mocked by Spandam for still believing that someone will come to rescue her. As they continue walking, they all hear someone call out to Robin. She smiles, having recognized Luffy's voice."
  • Luffy's point of view: "Luffy is chasing Robin in the undersea passage while calling her out. When he finally exits the tunnel, he arrives in a storage room where he finds Lucci waiting for him."

If we don't differentiate between the subjects then we may as well copy and past a summary of the chapter. leviathan_89 22:54, 9 September, 2013 (UTC)

1000 points to Levi for making a fantasic argument. I agree almost entirely. Though I do think the Shichibukai should mention individual character histories, though only while the characters are considered members of the group (so Crocodile's Impel Down/Goldenweek cover story actions shouldn't be covered, but Jinbe's Impel Down activities should be). And the section should definitely be re-written to the standards Levi described above. I remember an old conflict about how Moriah's history section had a section for the Skypeia Saga where it said "Moriah ignored the summons for the meeting of the Shichibukai" and basically had an entire section devoted to his absence when he wasn't even known to exist as a character. I believe that section has been removed, but it's just another example of some of the useless information we can have. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 13:28, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the value in copy/pasting individual Shichibukai histories. The {{See}} template exists for a reason. The rules should be tightened so that only events involving two or more Shichibukai or the institution itself should be fully detailed, and in all other cases histories should be limited to a brief summary with a specific link to the corresponding character history page and sub-heading. Zodiaque             15:13, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  10:36, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite get the issue here. If there is part of history that includes the character or the affiliation should be mentioned in detail on the respective page. Length is certainly not an issue. Recently, when I was editing the Franky Family history section, I included all of Franky's solo action, too. Why? Because he was a member! It doesn't matter if he was alone at the time or with other members of the family.Vaztalk 14:22,10/28/2013

In my opinion there are two issues here:

  1. Prolixness: as shown in my example (a whole paragraph not talking about Lucci, in Lucci's page), too often the sections are talking about irrelevant things or in a tedious way. Section over-descriptively are tiring to read and boring. As in the example, mentioning characters' little thoughts or gestures is really unnecessary, otherwise the result is have two history subpages like for Rufy. Are history book written like that? I don't think so. We are not writing a novel, but an history section.
  2. Group history pages: the distinction between the group's history and single members' history is blur. Here we mentioned only the Shichibukai page, where the member personal history is copied and pastes. That's unnecessary in my opinion since, the members don't act collectively so there is no point to write what they do on their own. There is {{See}} for that. The subject must always be the group. That said, for other group pages, I don't know. In your example, Franky Family, if what each member does is explained in each member's page, is there any point to re-explained all together in the group page too? Can't we just write that the "Franky family aid the Straw Hats in the invasion of Enies Lobby, fighting this one and that one and doing this and that..." (example) ? leviathan_89 17:36, 28 November, 2013 (UTC)

By listing everything in the Franky Family example you think should be used, it would generalized and summarize what is used. The purpose of a group page's history, in my opinion, is to say all of the history of the group, including its members. I mean, if someone wants to read about the entire group instead of each individual article, that would be the place to get all of that info. Just seems logical in my mind.

On another note, this discussion was opened a while ago and the issue hasn't been worked on in FOREVER. I have slacked on the references for Vaz's expanded articles, I'll admit, but no one else has helped but Vaz, Gal, Espada, and me. We haven't finished the Enies Lobby characters and still have the rest of the arcs (if you really want an example look at Patty). For such a large problem, no one seems to want to do anything about it. Montblanc Noland (talk) 18:15, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

I completely, totally, and thoroughly agree with Levi. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Each history section must be focused on its subject, and irrelevant details have to go away. sff9 19:38, December 5, 2013

Encyclopedia's are supposed to be informative so your idea of an encyclopedia is not what one is. SeaTerror (talk) 00:27, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant then it's not informative. leviathan_89 00:37, 6 December, 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to prove it is irrelevant. If it was something on Luffy's page about Moda then it would be irrelevant since they never met. SeaTerror (talk) 01:07, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

Usually if you are talking about something else other then the subject of the article, then it's irrelevant or just out of place. My first example shows that. leviathan_89 16:46, 6 December, 2013 (UTC)

Your first example talks about Lucci so what you just said doesn't mean anything. SeaTerror (talk) 16:53, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

  1. What makes encyclopedias informative is that they organize, structure, and summarize information so that it can actually be used.
  2. His example is about how a lot of what's in Lucci's history section is actually unrelated to Lucci. sff9 17:59, December 6, 2013

Exactly, in my example out of a whole paragraph only two sentences were about Lucci, hence my point. The history sections should be like an history book not a novel. leviathan_89 19:46, 6 December, 2013 (UTC)

Reading your points again, Levi, I completely agree on the matter of Lucci's page. I can understand a little bit of the Spandam stuff being in there for context, but what is currently in it is far too much filler. However, the fact that many pages lack any sort of detail like the one on the Lucci page is atrocious. I opened this forum originally to discuss the lack of information, but I'm glad it has branched out to reach other issues. Montblanc Noland (talk) 21:36, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I take the discussion out of your original post... obviously if an article lacks information or a complete history we should add it, but maybe we can use this forum to discuss how we should do that. leviathan_89 21:42, 6 December, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I completely agree. We should set a standard level and content value for what we put in. Obviously, the filler stuff in Lucci's page is unacceptable, but that doesn't mean that I want to limit how much detail should be added. This is also a problem with article stubs. An article has a missing section, so someone fills it with one sentence. That is not acceptable. In the smaller pages I have edited, I have tried to elaborate and focus on detail of that character's history. I don't include other characters' histories, but I put in as much detail as possible. As a reader and editer, that is the kind of content I'm looking for. Montblanc Noland (talk) 22:10, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't filler because the information is canon. The fact is it is all related to Lucci because he was there. His actions and the actions of others effected all that were involved. SeaTerror (talk) 09:10, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

It's not filler, but it's unrelated. When you told a story you should focus on the protagonist, the rest is just noise which make the section long and heavy to read. That section as it is now, is describing the story from the point of view of the reader, not Lucci's. We can as well copy and paste it as it is in Robin's, Spandam's and Rufy's page then. leviathan_89 10:43, 7 December, 2013 (UTC)

That is your own personal opinion that its "noise" and makes it long and heavy. The page is fine how it is because it gives the full story the way it should be done. SeaTerror (talk) 11:04, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

"That section as it is now, is describing the story from the point of view of the reader, not Lucci's. We can as well copy and paste it as it is in Robin's, Spandam's and Rufy's page then." quoted for truth. The full story is already in the chapter/episode pages. Character articles are meant to provide a perspective on the story. sff9 15:55, December 7, 2013

Sorry for calling that stuff filler. I just meant extra stuff that doesn't need to bee in Lucci's history. I agree with Levi and Sff9 about the character perspective instead of the general reader perspective. The more focused on the character of an article, the cleaner the article will be to read and navigate. Montblanc Noland (talk) 23:36, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Article is already easy to navigate. The more valid information there is then the better. By Levi's logic we should also remove the part that had Spandam telling him to drag Robin just because it mentioned two non Lucci characters. SeaTerror (talk) 00:13, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting ridiculous, once again ST is just making exaggerated examples that nobody would ever support. Let's just poll it and then think of a way we can go about guaranteeing we'll actually make the needed changes. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 00:19, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously we need a poll but many people want to ruin the wiki with these history section changes. Might as well get NinjaSheik to come back since she tried to do the same thing before. SeaTerror (talk) 00:29, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm down with a poll. I'm not trying to cause any sort of issues or conflicts. Personally, I'm more concerned with how short some articles are. Montblanc Noland (talk) 00:56, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well articles will become a lot shorter if removing the valid information from the history section wins on the poll. The only issue with expanding articles is people would have to rewatch and reread a lot of episodes/chapters. For video game articles it would even be harder. SeaTerror (talk) 00:59, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I've been reviewing chapters and episodes to get more information. I go about it the same way I do with stubs. Gather as much information as possible and then put it on the page. I can't really do much with the video game characters except those from Unlimited Adventure. Montblanc Noland (talk) 01:34, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

"By Levi's logic we should also remove the part that had Spandam telling him to drag Robin just because it mentioned two non Lucci characters." - did you even understand what I'm saying? The fact that there is an interaction with Lucci means it's pertinent to the page, though that doesn't mean you have to mention everything either (example: if a soldier is making the salute to Lucci when is passing by, is there a need to mention that if other things are going on?). Also I'm under the impression that you think that's because an article is long then it's a well article, that's absolutely not true. If I go and triple the length of Lucci's page without actually adding informations but just by reformulating the sentences in a more prolix way, do I make it better? I don't think so. The text should be simple, complete and not heavy to read. For example another problem of history sections (but also article in general) is that since we update it every week we tend to add sentence by sentence, hence the text is often disconnected and long because we use a whole sentence to say every single details that comes up, instead that using just one to sum up them all. Also, I don't know how can you poll this... there is no method or rule to set, this should just be a reminder, everything else is left to the editors' judgement. leviathan_89 01:42, 8 December, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Levi, a long article isn't automatically a good article. Whenever I look at a character's page, it just feels bloated and a serious time-sink with the amount of text I'd need to read. We may be an encyclopaedic wiki, but we're not just re-telling the story in transcript (or as Levi has already said, "We're not writing a light novel"). Keep it short, straight-to-the-point and relevant. People come to this site because they want to get the information they want quickly and precisely - not so they can read an essay about it. As it currently stands, most of the pages (as a whole, not just the History sections) could benefit from thorough text reduction and re-writing.   Kuro      Ashi   01:58, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting yes but not reduction. Valid and good information is what this wiki is about. SeaTerror (talk) 09:45, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's ambiguous... It's not valid and good informations, but relevant (to the subject of the article) ones. leviathan_89 11:37, 8 December, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the trouble. Some people's history sections have different perceptions than that of the others. But I agree to change all the history sections to be consistent with one another. Certainly not reducing it, but at least cut out any unnecessary section/repeats, non-canon, and so on. If two people's history sections are similar enough because they were together in the particular battle, why not just change one of them and then "copy-and-paste" for the other to simplify things? Yata Talk to me 17:40, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

I won't blame anyone if he copy and paste two paragraph because two characters were together, but ideally they should be adapted to each character, focusing and put emphasis on the action of the subject and less on the other character. It can also mean just changing the subject of the sentence sometime. leviathan_89 17:51, 8 December, 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example from Robin's page, from yesterday's episode (and the corresponding chapter):

Robin and the Straw Hat pirates were later seen on a Seaslope, which are pretty common according to Law. A little while later, Luffy started to explain that they formed alliance with the Heart Pirates to take down a Yonko. Law then started explaining about the operations and underworld deals of all the major pirates of the New World and that Doflamingo, also known as Joker, has the most influence in the underworld. Law continued on, saying that Doflamingo's biggest client is Kaido, which greatly shocked Kin’emon and Momonosuke. Law proceeded to explain the next goal of their plan which was to cut down Kaido’s forces as much as possible, specifically his army synthetic devil fruit users. Law also revealed that the current number of synthetic devil fruit users is about 500. Law assured the crew that the number would not grow any time soon, due to the capture of Caesar Clown. Law concluded by saying that the devil fruits are being made on their next destination, Dressrosa, and also warned the crew to not underestimate Doflamingo. Luffy asked if Kin’emon had business on Dressrosa and Kin'emon revealed that he has a comrade being held prisoner there.

Go back and read that chapter, and you'll see that Robin appears in only two panels, and as a background character to boot. Zero lines of dialogue, zero participation in conversations. Yet she has that massive paragraph of copypasta which is on all the Straw Hats' history pages. Why? Zodiaque             18:10, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Because he explained it to all of them which makes it perfectly valid. SeaTerror (talk) 18:22, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on... if you want to know the whole story, read the chapter. That paragraph has nothing to do with Robin, it can be sum up with "Robin was later seen on the sunny where Law debriefed the Straw Hats about his plan and their next actions". If you are saying that is perfectly normal to write ALL of that on Robin history simply because Law was talking with everybody including her, then by that logic it should also be copied and pasted on the Sunny history or why not the New World page? It's all happen in the new world after all... leviathan_89 18:41, 8 December, 2013 (UTC)

Nice Straw man. SeaTerror (talk) 18:46, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's better to not give any argumentation at all... nuff said. leviathan_89 19:05, 8 December, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone basically agrees except ST who's being ST, so why does the discussion go on? sff9 19:33, December 8, 2013

That's a very good question, Sff. I think it's safe to say we've decided to change the article.

The real question now is how we go about doing it in a way that assures the task is completed for all articles. Are there any tricks other wikias use for massive article overhauls that we could use as well? My only idea is some kind of template added to every article with a history section that indicates that it hasn't been checked, and once someone has re-written the article, they remove it. It'd be slow, but I don't know of any better way to do it. Hopefully a big ol' "ugly" template can inspire some users to get this project done a bit faster than JPG deletion project, which has gone on for well over a year. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 19:40, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now that the discussion is ending, I want to say that i am available to work on the project as long as it is made clear to me exactly what has to be done.Vaztalk 19:45,12/8/2013

No it was a straw man fallacy since you tried to twist my words around to include Sunny and New World. There should still be a poll because you can see I wasn't the only one that said the articles should be as detailed as possible. Besides we already know how much of a complete disaster this will be due to what NinjaShiek did. Vaz if it is decided to do this then all you need to do is remove valid information and it will be done. SeaTerror (talk) 01:17, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Even if there was a fallacy in one argument, it doesn't mean the overall point is incorrect. Besides, you are using a straw man as well since you keep bringing up NinjaShiek even though she removed details directly pertaining to the character, as opposed to removing information that doesn't directly pertain to the subject of the article. Videogamep Talk 08:23, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

You weren't even here so you don't even know what she did. She removed everything. SeaTerror (talk) 10:17, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

If I did a straw man fallacy, although more then an argument my example was purposely exaggerated to make a point, then you did a fallacy-fallacy. Should I point out that for the entire forum, while I and others posted clear examples and arguments, you keep repeating "No they are valid informations", which without saying why they are valid it's the same as saying "No, they have to stay", or "the article should be as detailed as possible" which is something everybody agreed on, just that being detailed doesn't mean adding pointless things. A clear example is that Robin paragraph, that has nothing to do with Robin but belongs to Law's history (hint: it's the subject of the whole paragraph).
@JSD: I don't think there is a fast way or even an urgency to update the articles, just keep in mind this forum when updating the pages with new informations and when you do that maybe check again the old sections to see if they can be updates. And as I said, sometimes all it takes is to change the subject of a sentence just to make clear who the subject of the article is. leviathan_89 11:47, 9 December, 2013 (UTC)

You just proved you didn't read anything I said if you think I didn't state why the information should stay. SeaTerror (talk) 17:37, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I know I wasn't here then, but I looked at her contributions after you kept mentioning her and some of what she removed was relevant information and some wasn't. Either way, constantly bringing her up every time someone wants to remove irrelevant information doesn't help your case. Videogamep Talk 18:14, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

The information you want to remove isn't irrelevant. Mentioning Moda on Luffy's history section would be irrelevant. SeaTerror (talk) 18:17, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

"Because Law was speaking with everybody including Robin" it's not even an argument. It's not so much different from my straw-man "Because he was on the sunny" then. That's the reason why that paragraph should just be summed up as "Robin was later seen on the sunny where Law debriefed the Straw Hats about his plan and their next actions". It doesn't matter what the plan is because it's not her plan, we just have tell what she is doing: nothing. When the plan will be put in action we will tell what Robin does and what her objective is. We will explain what the plan is in Law's page or in the chapter page, not in Robin's because it's not about her.

Also my whole point here was not only about unneeded parts, but how the sections are wrote in the first place. Like in Lucci's case, many times are overly describing (describing it's not the same as story-telling) going as far as focusing on little gestures or thoughts. These unneeded parts make the articles, long, confusing and actually are covering the real informations about the actual subject. You just think that as long the history sections are super long and talk about everything that happened in the manga (and to everyone) then it's good, while it's the opposite. What's the point of having individual history pages since they are the same for everybody? Let's just make a global history where we summarize the whole manga and that's it. leviathan_89 18:38, 9 December, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the individual history sections don't need to have everything since people who want to know the exact details can either read the manga or go to the page for that arc. Videogamep Talk 18:51, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

You'll now have to prove that the articles are confusing and that it isn't good to have super long articles. Here's a hint: you literally can't because its a personal opinion. Just like how putting the Nakama article on the mythbusters page was a bad move since it was a personal opinion. SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Since we seem to be pointing out fallacies now, you just committed a big one by endorsing view f/o, a view that states that things are either verifiable facts or opinions that are meaningless. The problem is the view itself isn't verifiable meaning it fails it's own test for worth. Also, you frequently commit tu quoque fallacies. Videogamep Talk 19:53, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Nope no fallacy. I already said why they made the articles better and the fact is everything said is an opinion in this forum. He cannot prove that it make it confusing for readers because I can guarantee I never got confused once due to the content. SeaTerror (talk) 20:11, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Actually there still is a fallacy because you attack criticism by pointing out fallacies in their argument instead of addressing the criticism. You also need to address the view f/o fallacy since that is a major fallacy that you just committed again. And saying that you never got confused is meaningless because you already know all the details and the people who would be reading history sections are people who want to know about the character or want to clarify something. If there is a chance that someone would get confused we should do something to minimize that chance. Videogamep Talk 20:55, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed the arguments that were then ignored. There is also a very small chance of that even happening. You don't cater to the less than 1% but cater to the rest of the people that wouldn't get confused. Especially not when it is removing valid information. SeaTerror (talk) 20:59, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the view f/o fallacy. Videogamep Talk 21:02, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to address. There was no fallacy. SeaTerror (talk) 21:26, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Arguing facts and opinions is a fallacy for the reasons I listed above which was one of the first things I learned in my philosophy class which focuses on logic and debate. Videogamep Talk 21:35, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is opinion based. Just read Levi's statements over and over again until you see that. Also by your logic everything is a fallacy, even in a traditional debate. SeaTerror (talk) 22:01, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

1. It's not just something I made up. 2. I'm saying that claiming something is "just an opinion and not a fact" is a fallacy. This still allows for debating various topics by defending your views. What it doesn't allow for is attacking a view by claiming it's only an opinion. Videogamep Talk 22:16, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Oh I get it. You're trolling. Because " These unneeded parts make the articles, long, confusing and actually" is obviously a fact and not an opinion. SeaTerror (talk) 22:19, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

ST, I never troll. I may be sarcastic at times but when I say something seriously I mean it so please don't accuse me of trolling when I'm actually trying to contribute to a forum. Endorsing the view I explained above means stating that something is just a personal opinion and doesn't matter, which only you have done. Anyway, this doesn't matter and if we keep going back and forth with fallacies, this forum will never end so why don't we just go back to the actual topic. Videogamep Talk 22:30, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Actually it does matter since those opinions can sway other people to view something that way. Plus I have been on topic this entire time where I had pointed out valid information that matters. SeaTerror (talk) 22:32, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to reread this forum. You are the only one who is still arguing in favor of keeping the history sections the same and that has only made this forum go on for longer than was needed. Videogamep Talk 22:38, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

The argument has also been about what is and isn't valid. I can see most of the information being removed just because somebody thinks it isn't valid. SeaTerror (talk) 22:47, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

That could happen, but if it does the edit can be undone and debated on the talk page. Videogamep Talk 23:05, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

So in other words this will be like image wars all over again. SeaTerror (talk) 23:31, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I said it could happen not will happen. Besides, the people who will be making the changes will be regular users who know not to remove everything. Videogamep Talk 00:18, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

A little offtopic, but I got a complain that SeaTerror is using NinjaShiek as an example of "removing everything" here, and she finds it offensive, and requests for it to stop. So please do respect her wishes. Yata Talk to me 00:31, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

I used it as an example because it was valid. It is what she did. If she gets offended then that is a personal opinion. Nobody was trying to be offensive. SeaTerror (talk) 00:40, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

So at the end of the day I yet to prove another thing I'm saying while your strongest argument so far was "Law was talking to Robin"? Why are we still arguing with SeaTerror again? If we say it's a personal opinion then so it's yours and the it seems the majority here agreed with me so far. I don't think what I'm saying is so subjective though... this is pretty much about the editor's judgement, but saying that "you shouldn't adding irrelevant informations or being overly describing" is one of the rules of thumb in writing articles. It's like saying "grammatical errors makes an article look bad", isn't that obvious? What should I prove? (and why you don't have to prove the contrary again?) It's the same as writing a newspaper article or a history book. Keep it simple, get to the point. The current style used is a novel-style which is not fitting an Encyclopedia or to be precise the history sections. The paragraphs in these example are not bad per se, are bad as history sections (for characters). We should use a story-book or newspaper style instead. Honestly I don't know why I should prove that unnecessary informations shouldn't be added... if they are unnecessary, by definition we should avoid adding them. And as for why they are unnecessary, if you are talking about something that's not the article subject then it's unrelated. leviathan_89 00:42, 10 December, 2013 (UTC)

@ST, okay. You've used her name to prove a point. Can you at least find someone more of a vandal to use as an example, someone who deserves it more than she does?
That aside, this history section thing is long indeed. It says what certain characters does bit by bit, such as quoting what they are saying, instead of just basic-downing the thing. I do suggest we cut out those parts, while add some more important info for the one-sentence ones. Yata Talk to me 00:48, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

That literally makes no sense. She was mentioned because her kind of edits are what this forum is about. SeaTerror (talk) 01:27, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

If she's offended, then just drop it. You don't need to bring her up every time someone wants to make articles more concise. Videogamep Talk 01:34, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

The issue is she wasn't a vandal so Yata's idea was bad. Using her as an example is the only way since she was the only person who ever tried to do those kinds of edits. SeaTerror (talk) 01:37, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

If she feels insulted by that, then you should respect her wishes and defend your point another way. Videogamep Talk 01:48, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Can we focus on the subject? leviathan_89 02:30, 10 December, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, all is said. No more using her as an example? Yata Talk to me 02:34, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

So I should use somebody that doesn't exist as an example? SeaTerror (talk) 02:40, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, make somebody up, make some event up. We do THAT all the time. Yata Talk to me 02:41, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just start making the changes since only one person is arguing against it. Videogamep Talk 08:34, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let's start changing the history sections accordingly. Yata Talk to me 02:48, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.