FANDOM


ConcernsEdit

As you may have read back in the naming conventions thread, I've raised a concern on the recent changes a certain editor. Now I'm all up for adding content and for new users, as well as change, however, I am not really into the whole change previously established norms without discussing it with anyone thing.

Because really, it incoveniences old and new users alike, and because of that, I was truly glad that you updated the manual of style article as so we can finally move on with this, however, it is taking too long, and I have yet to find out whether or not I should just get rid of a month worth of edits and embrace this new structure someone has put up.

Right now I'm just talking about the character pages, however, there maybe other non-character articles that were edited without my knoweldge, and that makes it harder for us.

Now if you have read my post in the forums regarding the character articles, I'd like you to pay attention to the most egregious change of structure:

The Background section in some articles have been completely removed and was then relocated to the now-named Plot Section. This does not sit well for me, first off the Background section is there to give insight on a character's personality, past and behaviour before the start of the series, as a contrast to the current character during the course of the series. Grouping it within a single section pretty much takes the point away, even if the text has been unchanged, as well as the fact that it would tremendously bloat up the Plot Section that would most likely expand as the series progresses.

Second concern is the naming of Plot, now this would not be much of a problem if we were to not use the In-Universe style of editing. Naming it as a Plot would make it seem that we were simply summarizing the involvements of the character in the story, which would be correct it if it weren't for the fact of the style of In-Universe editing. Naming it as Chronology or even History will not make it seem that we were simply summarizing the involvements of the character in the story, but also make it seem that the story occurred in actuallity. Also, ever since of these...changes I notice that there are two separate sections for both Toaru Majutsu no Index and Toaru Kagaku no Railgun, I find it really unnecessary.

I would like your opinion regarding this.---TheGreatEye 20:32, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


Actually, I do have thoughts of outright reverting the changes that user has done over several characters; but I realized that it might be rude of me to do so. However, I'm not saying that I'm supporting his edits, though.

I agree with what you said about the Background section and you can proceed in editing it accordingly. As for Plot, we are to implement the In-Universe Style of Editing, so its best that we avoid those mentions about volumes and chapters and move it to References. Plus, isn't "making it seem that the story occurred in actuality" the main purpose of the In-Universe Style? I've already pointed out my choice in the Manual of Style.

Why the disagreement in segregating the chronologies of Index and Railgun? You certainly know that the anime series has severely modified the Angel Fall Arc, and the timelines of Index and Railgun, though most of the timeline can overlap, it is safe to just separate the two timelines.

Finally, apologies for not being able to work on the Manual of Style with a consistent pace; many things happen, and there are things to sacrifice in the end. Don't worry, I won't stop working on the Manual of Style. I just need some time to think about what to write on it. :P

heraldofmeridian♣ 01:47, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the segregation of the series into two subjections, is that I just I don't like keeping them separate as sections. I preferred the old type of sectioning where both series have a subsection of its own where they are under the Chronology, it makes it more organized that way.

Also, I'll be awaiting for the finished product.---TheGreatEye 03:41, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

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