FANDOM

5,654 Pages
[v · e · ?]
Rhavkin
Main: Profile  •  Talk page (Archive: 1  •  2)  •  Blog  •  Contributions  •  Following  •  Sandbox
Lists: Today  •  Devil Fruits  •  Groups Bounty  •  Special:LongPages
Projects: Updates  •  Birthday Calendar  •  WIP  •  Draft  •  wanted pages  •  Redirects (Redirect page)

BackToTopButton Edit

What do you mean with incorporate? As "add it to the wiki global scripts"? If you are asking if it can be done, then yes, as you can see on the script page, it can be used sitewide. So if you want to request it, talk to the admins and if they agree, one of them can add it to MediaWiki:ImportJS. Simply add the line dev:BackToTopButton/code.js to the list of imports. {{leviathan_89 | 23:50, 13 March, 2020 (UTC)}}

Single users can add it to their personal global JS. If you want to make it available for everybody, even the casual readers, then we simply add it to MediaWiki:ImportJS. I was inactive for a very long time, so I'm no position to tell you if any decision/discussion was taken about it. If you get the ok from the admins, I can add it if they don't do that themselves. So best to ask them first, I guess. {{leviathan_89 | 07:22, 14 March, 2020 (UTC)}}

I saw the admins gave their ok, therefore I went ahead and added it. {{leviathan_89 | 21:17, 17 March, 2020 (UTC)}}

Oh, actually I forgot we were missing someone, but since it's still a majority I guess it's fine. By the "modern button" you mean the variant noted on the script page? {{leviathan_89 | 09:01, 18 March, 2020 (UTC)}}

re:js Edit

I have no objection. Yata Talk to me 09:01, March 14, 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's fine. Awaikage Talk 13:47, March 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re:js Edit

I have no problem with it. Go ahead.DancePowderer Talk 23:00, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

Re:JibuemonEdit

  1. I don't know exactly what or just the chapters he's appeared in. That is why we need an Appearances section.
  2. A couple of panels doesn't make him the leader.

Rgilbert27 (talk) 13:17, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

  1. "Said"? You think References covers "all" cameos, mentions or images only? I don't think so.
  2. Weak sauce.

Rgilbert27 (talk) 14:51, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

DoringoEdit

Hey Rhavkin! Thanks for catching Doringo's appearance in Chapter 0, I must have missed it when I wrote the page. I wanted to ask, why do you keep removing the reference that cites which pages he appears in Chapter 967? It can be a separate reference from the Laugh Tale one because they cite different information. I'd prefer to work this out here instead of having an edit war and taking it to Doringo's talk page. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 00:19, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Though I like the idea of utilizing different sections of his page, I'm not sure of either specific change given the fact that almost the entire crew was goofing around in the hot springs and that assuming he is a key member of the crew for seekng the Poneglyph is a little assumptive.

My philosophy when writing pages for minor characters is to use that specific level of detail to differentiate them from other characters. The Roger Pirates' pages were already being copy-pasted, which is an issue, so I included those little details like the Poneglyph and hot spring to show when Doringo actually appeared in the manga. Without that detail, we would have roughly 20 identical pages, not including their Appearance and Weapons sections.

It may not be relevant to the overall plot of One Piece, but the small details help us and others find where these characters actually appear. The same problem has happened before (like with the Whitebeard Pirates' allies), and users like Nightmare and I are trying to fix that way after the fact. If I can stop blanket copy-pasting that lacks detail now, I am saving more work down the line. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 12:08, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think your most recent change to the reference, where you include the page numbers and mention Doringo by name in the reference but keep it generally focused on Laugh Tale, is the best version. Thank you! I think using the page numbers characters appear on with more general references is a good combination, and I'm not worried that adding page references will confuse readers. If we have too many references that conflict, that certainly will, which is why I like how you struck a balance so much.

I agree that copy-pasting is valid in some uses. On the Roger Pirates' pages, we can definitely reuse descriptions of significant events that pertain to the entire group, like them all dropping off Roger and Oden and disbanding. I am wary of copying entire history sections, but I think that we can both agree that doing so is not productive. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 17:35, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

977Edit

Why did you reverse the edits? Those two are chapter notes and as important as the 4 above. Vision34 (talk) 12:45, April 10, 2020 (UTC)vision34Vision34 (talk) 12:45, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Killer Infobox Img Edit

It's not a major development or revelation so I don't really care enough to revert it, but wait until the chapter is officially released first. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 00:49, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

Miss GoldenweekEdit

Any other pages that are less than 100 bytes you want to delete or move today? Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:05, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Devil FruitEdit

i think its needed to write the unnamed devil fruit so people know about that and if people forget bout that, they can look at this section. the purpose of this wiki is to provide information as much as possible. Willy yeremi (talk) 12:25, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hungry DaysEdit

You may not like it but I found something beside those commercials on why there should be a page as much as I felt when I saw Reborn and when get around to it I hope you'll at least give some help. Rgilbert27 (talk) 21:29, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

Fukage and Bishamon Edit

That's more of a discussion for Bishamon's talk page. Majority supported deletion, so the page was deleted (talk page still exists, under the deleted article talk pages category) Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 06:24, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

Luffy Relationship SplitEdit

I understand why you want to split the pages further, but it isn't resolving the template issue. It also doesn't solve the root problem: the page is in need of drastic cuts and revisions. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 17:11, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Dory Edit

Huh? Redirects have always been used for searching. And unless they changed the rule during the time I stopped editing for like 5 years, we have always prioritized using actual links over redirects within articles. For example instead of saying "[[Luffy]] punched Crocodile", we say "[[Monkey D. Luffy|Luffy]] punched Crocodile". Unless that rule has changed, redirects wouldn't belong on articled anyways.

Besides that, why remove it anyways? It doesn't take up space, and the only thing it can really be used for is if someone searches the name to find out who it refers to. It has a practical, helpful use. Might be slightly confusing for anyone searching for Dorry, but that's what the {for} template is for. uknownada Talk 03:57, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re:RedirectsEdit

When I search the terms it redirects to the correct place. There's a wiki preference users can select that will take them directly to the page by hitting enter rather than the search page. I would consider it worthwhile, even if not everyone has that preference, to keep around redirects to aid in searching. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:16, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the dropdown thing. The only instance I've found where both a redirect and the real page show up in the link dropdown is Absa. I haven't found it for any other redirect, including Naomi, Luffy, Big Mom, Whitebeard, etc.

Also, is it a bad thing to have more redirects than pages? I am fine with removing redirects that no one will use for searching or linking, but I don't see the harm in having redirects that can be useful to search. If the Nightmare Luffy redirect is deleted, you wouldn't even get a dropdown from the search bar to go to the Gomu Gomu Techniques page. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 05:15, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not much for redirects either. They can become old, forgotten and just lead to other redirects. Which is why I would choose a pipe-link if I can til new pages/sections are made. Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:56, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Hey Rhavkin. If you are going to keep marking Redirects for deletion en masse, you should make a forum about it. Important redirects like Dorry and Komaking should never have been deleted. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 17:08, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I know you aren't marking all of them. But like I said, some of them are important and have no reason to be deleted. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 19:31, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "authorized." To my knowledge, we don't have any policies in the wiki guide saying that we need to authorize redirects. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 21:11, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, Rhavkin, but sending me the link to the category does not explain the authorization process or any "policy" we may have. Like I said before, given the fact that important redirects were deleted, stop marking "unauthorized" ones and instead open a forum about reorganizing ones that aren't in that category. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 11:38, April 29, 2020 (UTC)

re:Bad Links Edit

Hi, thanks for updating me. I've cleared out the reds now. Yata Talk to me 00:44, May 1, 2020 (UTC)

Cleared the images and created pages. However, I looked through my archived talk pages at least 3 times and can't find those red links. If you want, would you please find them for me? I've unlocked those pages.

As for blog posts and comments, most likely you need an admin or higher to edit those. Yata Talk to me 01:35, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

Re:910 Edit

The procedure for edit wars is to leave the page the way it was before the edit war occurred. You made an edit, ST disputed it, thus I reverted the page to the original version.

I personally did not have a problem with your edit, and would not have disputed it myself. I am simply enforcing edit war rules. Now, the reason ST disputed your edit was because of a decision made by this forum from five years ago. Now, that forum was mainly made in light of certain editors at that time who were obsessive with changing links and spamming activity/causing disruptions over it. I personally find the occasional link edit to be harmless, and think that ST would be better off addressing more meaningful issues. But what he says is true.

If you'd like to open up a new discussion about the issue, be my guest. Otherwise, I'd recommend picking your battles. Is a dispute over minor link formatting really worthy of an edit war? Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:18, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

Drake's AllianceEdit

I don't understand how he is not a member of the crew. An undercover spy is still a member. Until he reveals his identity, he is still a member of the Beast Pirates.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 19:44, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant by "reveal[ed]." "Reveal his identity" as in when he leaves the Beast Pirates by exposing himself to them as a Marine (or just leaving in general). Before he does that though, he is still a member of the crew. Even if he is undercover, that does not mean he is not a member at this point in the story.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 19:59, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that even though his allegiance is fake, his membership is official (as recognized by Kaido). That means that he is a member of this group, even if he is a member of the Marines. But since he falls under both Beast Pirates (and Pirates in general) and Marines, I don't think it is necessary to create a new column saying "Marines" "SWORD" just for him because he already is still part of the pirates group. These chapters show him as a part of the crew, so naturally he should go under it in the column. In the chapter where he was revealed to be a Marine, it made sense to have him in the Marine column because other Marines appeared (and also he played an important role as a Marine in that chapter). But creating a column just for him when he easily falls under another (especially in the context of these two chapters) is not that necessary.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 21:11, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

Well, having an asterisk showing undercover doesn't mean he isn't a member/a part of the crew. Would you say that the CP9 agents were never a part of Galley-La? I would still say they are members of Galley-La even if they were undercover. X Drake is a member because everyone in the crew recognizes him as a member. It would be different if X Drake stole the identity of a member and pretended to be them: this would make him not a member, but that isn't what is happening. One doesn't conflict with the other. Plus, I'm not sure if there is any rule saying you can't put an asterisk in that table.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 10:41, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

GallyEdit

Oh and the reason I put Gally (Loguetown) version in Loguetown Gallery was because he appears with that design in Loguetown. But the reason I put it separately in the Captain Gallery was because the Gally page itself recognizes the existence of two/three versions (We list two bounties and not one). I'm not arguing that they are different characters, but their different designs (associated with different statuses) warrant putting in a different portrait. But at the end of day, it still links back to the Gally page to show they are based off the same character.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 10:53, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Re:604 TriviaEdit

I have to respectfully disagree. The Page Layouts guidelines are exactly that; though most chapters have no trivia to speak of, 604 does, and not having a "Trivia" section in the Layouts guide does not preclude us from adding trivia to the chapter page. It does not violate any rules, and as a Content Moderator, I think it makes more sense there.Montblanc Noland :: Talk 19:32, May 15, 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to justify the existence of the "Artist" categoryEdit

[There's already a talk page about the issue, which was discussed previously]. A poll will be needed in order to justify the existence of an "artist" category.KingCannon (talk) 17:30, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

RE: ProtectionEdit

First, double check the words you typed. I'm sure you meant "protection" and not "protraction". Second, I prefer being neutral and I'll only protect pages when I'm sure it's necessary (like giving an edit war a time out).Fliu (talk) 01:57, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

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