Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VorangorTheDemon (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 25 January 2008 (→Centralized TV Episode Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Merging the lists

I would like to work on merging the lists into either one or two articles. I would like to lean towards one, but we can split into a major and minor if we reach that point. We're going to have to shave off minor characters, condense the sort of minor ones (Ginyu Force into two paragraphs, Android 19 summed up in Gero, ect), and make sure to keep a standard for the major and secondary characters. Thoughts? TTN (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with this; the lesser the lists, the better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see a merger to be beneficial at this point. The one or two condensed lists would be incredibly difficult to read with the amount of characters that are already in our four character lists. Organization is another thing we have to take into consideration. With each class of characters (Humans, Saiyans, etc.) having their own list articles, a better form of organization is achieved than having all characters and all list being cluttered up into one article. What we should be focusing on right now is the ridiculous amount of lists on other subjects such as games and episode lists. That merger I would support. -- bulletproof 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with bullet on the subject ('sup!). Also - even barring the shaving that's been done, such a list would be far too unwieldy to maintain and impossible to ever truly get a handle on, as it's difficult enough to put the kibosh on cruft that's being added to the individuals now. Papacha (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we can move on to two lists if necessary, so size shouldn't be an issue. As for cruft, once the lists are actually cleaned and pruned, I'll probably go over them fairly often. TTN (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As Papacha pointed out ('sup!) a list like that would be difficult to maintain. However, I'm curious to see how you might be able to make it work. Why don’t you make a sub page and see what kind of list you can come up with? -- bulletproof 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The different Lists were created to avoid the existence of lots of stub-ish articles about minor and non notable characters. A lists of the lists would be extremely long. It is better to have these separated, more especific topics. Keep them all. --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping them as it is. I usually dont support mergers unless they are absolutely needed, and in the present state, I think the individual lists are pretty cluttered. So merging them into one or two lists would only increase the problems. The character lists are fine to me (but a little cleanup would do wonders) and the things that need more focus are game articles and those minor ones which we usually tend to ignore. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 09:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We could have two lists:

1. List of major Dragon Ball characters
2. List of minor Dragon Ball characters

I've seen most pages do that, like the Naruto, Bleach, and YuYu Hakusho ones. I also like the way List of Love Hina characters sets it up. Thoughts anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also guys, let's try to only list those who made at least two or three appearances in the series franchise (ie, don't list the farmer killed by Raditz, or anime-only characters or one-time manga characters). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, two lists can work. The more compact and concise, the better. Though, if it'll be OK with you guys, I would like to aim for one list and split off if necessary instead of going strait to two lists. It'll help focus them better than just throwing them into two categories. TTN (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sold, but by all means give it a shot. Papacha (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it doesn't work out, we can always go back to square one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I insist that you do this in a sub page first. -- bulletproof 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, bulletproof. A sub page is even more time consuming, this action should be done ASAP. It's rather difficult to keep track of four lists, which is why I just watch the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A sub page would give each of us a preview of what TTN intends on doing with the page without disrupting the articles in question. In a case like this where it is obvious that no solid consensus has been reached, a sub page preview should be the way to go. -- bulletproof 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets see a demo in the Sub page first and if it works, we can make it permanent. I actually use this technique to make major edits to pages. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is something that I threw together real quick. It shows the basic structure that I'm looking at. Neither the placement, size of the entries, or "roster" are final at this point. It's all up for changes at any time. Thoughts? TTN (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Now all we need is merge the content from the lists onto there. 3bulletproof, you're convinced by now I hope? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA. Let's not go about patting each others' backs just yet. I've still got an inkling that even with the pruning of unnecessary characters and whatever clipping the future holds this page will be _GROTESQUELY_ large. And the amount of snips to bring it to a reasonable quota might be far from your ideal, Sess; Dragonball - even abridged - constitutes a heckuva lot more characters than most series. As you say, let's move as many characters as we can onto the page, see exactly *how* large in scope we're talkin', and move from there. Papacha (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I have gotten the most important characters, and each section will not be much larger than the filler text I have added. If you think characters are missing, it's probably just because they're the ones that are being summed up instead of being given sections. Though, feel free to list ones that you think should be included. TTN (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that we might wind up with a resurgence of something like this. I really don't want a throw-back to the eye-sore from back in the day, give or take some aesthetics. The reason we have multiple lists in the first place is because when this was originally tried the result ran so pell-mell as to collapse on itself. Papacha (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All we have to do is make sure that anon edits are reverted daily, so that doesn't build up. I usually prune the lists I've worked on at least once a week, so with at least five users, it should be quite easy. TTN (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know. As Papacha said, the sub page already looks immensely large and it doesn't even have the actual content that will be used. What I don't want is a random list of characters. What we need is organization, with sections like "Saiyans", "Humans", etc separating content.-- bulletproof 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the majority that aren't going to be combined into a later write-up. 'Tis far from small, or organized at the moment. @_@ Papacha (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - The only way we'll ever get a list to pass for WP:GA or WP:FA is if we combine it into one organized list. Perhaps we should create a list of major and minor characters to prevent possible overloading and see how it turns out. What we should NOT do, however, is have four lists. It's quite ridiculous, IMHO, and it is too many pages to watch. I say, we try out TTN's experiment (or mine?) and see the outcome. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but saying, "The only way we'll ever get a list to pass for WP:GA or WP:FA is if we combine it into one organized list" just isn't a valid argument. Keeping track of four pages is not an impossible task either. Stuffing all these lists into one gigantic list (or two) would be not only incredibly difficult to read but way too complicated to get to. -- bulletproof 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When i first started reading the proposal here I wanted to keep what we already have but after looking at TTN's sandbox I think it looks pretty good. I like what we got now but this seems good too. Let's just keep in mind the main point here: to inform people looking for the information the in the easiest way.--Funkamatic (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it looks better now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still against these merges. The list are already organized, a large list like that would never gain GA or FA status. --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bulletproof16, Papacha, you guys okay with the new list for now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Still looks like a mashed up version of the lists we have now.-- bulletproof 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask, what's it going to take? I can settle for two separate lists if that's the case. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be trimmed and formatted after this is accepted, so it should look better. In regards to the formatting, it's based off of List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which is the best non-article one that we have available. To organize by origin would be rather messy. If we end up needing two lists, I would rather get one done first, and then split it, so that it is definite that the list is necessary. TTN (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear and its sequel have *FIVE* character pages, six if you tally in the by-game list: Classic, MGS, MGS2, MGS3, and Portable Ops. It's a perplexing example to emulate, as their editors utilize hubs as we do, just by game instead of "race", so to speak. There's grounds to argue if the characters weren't sieved by particular game that the original NEVER would have achieved featured list status. For my part I tend to doubt it, and Dragon Ball is a broader beast by far. Even following their lead, we'd need to lean more to racking the characters up by their appearances in Dragon Ball, DBZ and film. What we're doing now is or will end up more approximate to what the Naruto pages are doing: 1/2/3/4. Papacha (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never realized that only one game was covered in that. The organization used still is a valid example, though. Anyways, it will be fine to split into major and minor characters if it's truly necessary, but we should not go into this with the mindset of splitting. Also, I'm hoping to be able to turn this into something like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts, so it will be fine if it's a bit longer than the expected forty or fifty KB.TTN (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind if you guys want to make a go at this, but to evaluate anything you've got serious ground to cover. Until the test page is brought to whatever standard we're just going to be talking in circles about "what" we're attempting to do. Papacha (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...What??

Why is the Super Saiyan article now being reverted to its crufty edits? Also, is it better to have anime only Super Saiyan forms in their own section? I think it makes the article less "in-universe" because it then looks at the concept of the Super Saiyan from OOU rather then how it actually exists in the series.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A vandal IP was online last night, and I had to go over serious reverts today to fix a lot of articles. I would appreciate if someone would tell me a way to revert multiple edits by a user in a single click. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback, seeing the ammount of cruft this project deals with, I would recommend that some of the established users give this a try. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the rollback tool a few days ago. It's pretty awesome. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a extensive editing history so I use Twinkle right now to revert vandalism. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But the edits aren't being done by random IPs this time, it's bulletproof who's doing it. I've tried explaining the significance of editing the page the way I think it should be edited, but he doesn't agree with me and keeps reverting my edits. The main issue is that I want anime only transformations and original manga transformations to be separate, and he doesn't. I just think it looks f*cked up if the article's main subject is the Super Saiyan, but when you go down to the transformation section, it starts with Giji (False) Super Saiyan. To me, it both looks like crap and is has potential to confuse general readers. Also editing it as a single list provides a more "in-universe" look at the Super Saiyan, something that we Misplaced Pages editors are obligated by guidelines to avoid. Moving on, in my opinion, the Gohan article is the best character article that we have right now. It's very informative, has good refs and is the least crufty out of all of them. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to have separate sections for manga and anime only transformations simply because the differences between the manga and the anime have already been noted in the sections above, not to mention the Dragon Ball (manga) and Dragon Ball (anime)/Dragon Ball Z/Dragon Ball GT articles already linked in the page. Besides, it cannot be said that Toriyama's depiction of the subject is different than Toei's depiction as they do indeed share similarities. Listing both depictions in a single section does not give it an "In-Universe" look, and should not be an issue regardless since Policy forbids us from making references as to what is and isn’t considered Canon because of the delicacy of the issue. All of that can be straightened out in the Dragon Ball articles I listed above.-- bulletproof 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not distinguishing canon from non-canon. It's distinguishing Toriyama's invention of the subject from Toei's interpretation. And no, it isn't clearly distinguished in the earlier sections on the page. I don't see anything that does clearly distinguish it at all. Also it is an article about a subject in a series, not a guide to that subject. That's not what Misplaced Pages articles are, otherwise just go to a fansite. We need to report OOU info about the Super Saiyan, not simply tell everyone the stuff that exists in the series alone. Us structuring our articles like fan page guides (the current Super Saiyan article for example) is what got us in this mess in the first place, and what downgrades all of our articles (which resulted in ton of members leaving because everyone edits the articles like a fan page and NONE of our articles are even close to FA because of this reason). I'm not trying to attack you, it's simply the way it is, you can't structure these articles like guides otherwise it's simply a page on the internet that fans can come to to indulge in their interests. It's not informative for anyone but fans, that's the point that I'm trying to convey. Also we don't need all the pictures. Again like I said, it's not a transformation guide, it's an article. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think if we dont stop now, this page would soon heat up. I have a solution, lets vote on the matter. Should we have a single list of transformations or have two lists distinguishing the Animie and Manga transforms. Lets vote here right now, and reach a civilized consensus which everyone would agree on. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote

VorangorTheDemon suggests that the Super Saiyan article should have two lists, differentiating the manga and anime only transformations. The other approach by 3bulletproof16 is that to have a single list of all the transformations (correct this if I am wrong) for the sake of simplicity. Lets vote on the matter and reach a decision.

• Separate Lists - I would go with the idea to have separate lists. I think its more informative this way and anyone can get an overview of whats what. In other words, its a whole lot less CRUFTY. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate Lists - Obviously I've already made my point several times, and I agree with you completely on the cruft thing. Misplaced Pages articles aren't supposed to look like guides, they're supposed to look like articles. Good articles fashion themselves based on OOU ("Out-of-Universe": Looking at the Super Saiyan from a real world point of veiw instead of just telling how it appears in the series as a single list would portray) The three Super Saiyan forms in question (False, Legendary, and SSj4) all were inventions by Toei in order to enhance the involvment of fans. False was originally Toei's vision of the Super Saiyan, Legendary was meant to go back to the original legend of there being a single, Legendary Super Saiyan, and Super Saiyan 4 was made simply to keep the series going. I think it is essential to keep these separate because I think it compares and contrasts Toriyama with Toei, and depicts both of their individual development of the Super Saiyan concept. It's not canon to non-canon because it's 1) not stating it, and 2) Represents both concepts equally (as "non-canon" is often regarded with less respect), which then gives the article a more OOU structure. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate Lists - Sounds good to me. I'm always up for clarifying the difference between the great work of AT and what others put into it.--72.174.170.165 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify the problem? Are pages being changed? Is this a user problem? --72.174.170.165 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

People have recently been doing major changes without consulting anyone else. It's starting to piss me off. This is the reason why our articles are so crufty. People want everything to look more like guides and not articles, and that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. If you want a guide, go to a fan site, don't make them here. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists