Daizenshuu EX DB wiki...again

[VegettoEX]

That was the reason I was asking. We don't have written evidence, but then again, there's no written evidence that the sky is blue.

Sure there is. There are authoritative, scholarly, quotable, written articles that explain the types of light, spectrum, reflections, refractions, and human-given naming schemes that explain the "what", the "why", and the "how" of why the sky is perceived the way it is by our eyes and brains.

You don't have anything like that with the whole "ending at Freeza" scenario. There are no official quotes or inferences that explain it one way or the other, so there's literally nothing to write about from an authoritative perspective. That's why it's best served as an entry in the "Rumor Guide" instead of a fact-based article on the proposed wiki.

[Innagadadavida]

Sure there is. There are authoritative, scholarly, quotable, written articles that explain the types of light, spectrum, reflections, refractions, and human-given naming schemes that explain the "what", the "why", and the "how" of why the sky is perceived the way it is by our eyes and brains.

You don't have anything like that with the whole "ending at Freeza" scenario. There are no official quotes or inferences that explain it one way or the other, so there's literally nothing to write about from an authoritative perspective. That's why it's best served as an entry in the "Rumor Guide" instead of a fact-based article on the proposed wiki.

Yeah, that is true . What I meant is that we don't really need written articles to see the color of the sky. That was a poor comparison on my part.

[Amigo Ten]

Is there anything written about #8 being based on Boris Karloff's portrayal of Frankenstein's monster? Because even if there isn't, he so very obviously is based on it. How about stuff like that?

[Sprite Satan]

This is just my personal opinion but I'd like to avoid stating things as true that are based on "well, he SO is... look at him!" Maybe that applies to Ha-chan, I don't know, there may be something about his design influence written somewhere, but it cracks open a door that allows anyone who finds something "obvious" to put it on the wiki or removing other peoples entries because they don't find it as obvious.

[ThunderPX]

Besides, if it's really that obvious, you don't need to inform people of it, right?

[Bussani]

Maybe you could say something like, "Though he looks like Frankenstein's monster, no official source has ever confirmed that his design was based on it." Or something along those lines.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Maybe you could say something like, "Though he looks like Frankenstein's monster, no official source has ever confirmed that his design was based on it." Or something along those lines.

I think that will be a given when we put a picture of him in the article.

[Amigo Ten]

So there is no writing on that anywhere?

[Silver Sinspawn]

A comparison could be made. Its like "Krillin appears similar to Omi from Xiaolin Showdown"

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

A comparison could be made. Its like "Krillin appears similar to Omi from Xiaolin Showdown"

Or: Krillin looks like a typical Shaolin monk.

[Silver Sinspawn]

But neither have a nose.

[Herms]

A comparison could be made. Its like "Krillin appears similar to Omi from Xiaolin Showdown"

I think that sort of connection would be more suited to a trivia (though I'm not too keen on trivia sections either). Describing Kuririn as resembling a character made over a decade later seems kinda backward. Saying he resembles a typical Shaolin monk on the other hand would be describing him in a manner closer to what Toriyama probably had in mind, and it'd be a reference more people would be likely to get.

[Silver Sinspawn]

But for example, #8 is similar to Frankensteins Monster, or Metallitron is similar to the termanator. Those are good comparisons to make. Trivia should be restricted to interesting things such as "X is based on Y". Everything else that's important-ish should be mentioned elsewhere.

[desirecampbell]

In standard Wiki-rules (not that we can't change that for ourselves, but they're usually pretty good) the Wiki itself doesn't do original research - what this comes down to is anything that's in the article needs to be from somewhere else. If you think Ha-chan's page should have a line saying he looks like Frankenstein's monster then that information has to be taken from somewhere. One of two ways:

Some have said that Ha-chan is similar in appearance to Frankenstein's monster [citation link to someone saying it].

or

Ha-chan's appearance mimics the stereotypical Frankenstein's monster. (list several examples in a scholarly manner)

The point is, unless EX makes it clear otherwise, the Wiki will probably need to be treated like any other wiki, and that means: scholarly tone, citations, neutral point of view.

[JulieYBM]

Something that occured to me just now as I was reading Wikipedia's article on L (Death Note) was the use of opinionated reception and the like. Can I assume we'd like to incorporate that sort of thing into the Wiki as well? I'm interested in what the actual Big Four (Mike, Heath, Jake, Julian) think about it too. There's a wide-range of this sort of thing, so I'm wondering if we'd like to consider it or not.

[Herms]

Something that occured to me just now as I was reading Wikipedia's article on L (Death Note) was the use of opinionated reception and the like.

What, you mean like "Reception" sections? I guess those can be useful for movies, where you can reference objective stuff like its score on aggregate ratings sites like Rotten Tomatoes, or its revenue, but with individual characters those Wikipedia "Reception" sections always struck me as kinda pointless, because there's not really much objective stuff like that to go on.

[Adamant]

The Wikipedia "reception" section mostly just exists because guidelines state that article subjects need "real-world relevance", and someone figured that this translates to "some person writing for a site/publication with an actual income mentioning his opinion on the subject somewhere on the site/publication". This again naturally leads to these sections being filled with the opinions of whatever random Joes passing the criteria they could dig up. It's just worthless fluff for the sake of passing some nonsensical "relevancy" criteria, nothing we need to embarrass ourselves with.

[Innagadadavida]

On the Spongebob Squarepants Wikia, they have an article for every episode. At the end of each page, they have a section called "APM Music Identification." The section lists every song used in the episode, sequentially. I think that we should do something similar for our episode pages. We can use kenisu3000's website as a reference. If he still has it somewhere.

[Tamagon]

I like this, it's a good idea.

Also, for screencaps of the manga, do we use screencaps from the Viz Manga, or the Japanese manga? Or either?

[Hellspawn28]

The Japanese manga would be the best choice, but I feel the viz one would be a bit better since people would easily read it better. I still hope this wiki does get made sometime soon.