Touhou Wiki talk:Guidelines

From Touhou Wiki
Revision as of 21:05, 23 January 2012 by Tosiaki (talk | contribs) (Bulleted/non-bulleted list in Trivia or Fandom)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regarding character profiles[edit]

I've created a newer version of a character profile here. I think it makes a little more sense to have a few categories to organize the information rather than sticking it all in Fun Facts and relying solely on ZUN's weirdly-written profiles. There may be a few too many categories, though. What does everyone think? Darkslime 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone feels the same, but won't something be lost in the transition? You know, the spice, the zing, the spark that makes our pages great?

Breaking it it apart would be like breaking a mighty stone, the pieces become insignificant...

Besides, isn't 80% of Touhou fan-made? (Other 20% comes from ZUN building the skeleton that makes a character)

So, in a sense, it's as much of Touhou as the official stuff, right?

Of course, I could be very,very wrong and this could be the best thing since sliced bread!

(In essence, I have said nothing useful and I am ashamed...)

Well guys, make your pick!

For: Against: ♥★♦ 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down there. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it's okay to have some of the fanmade stuff in there, but there is a lot more to the characters in the canon works themselves than you may think. I just have a huge dislike for headers called "fun facts" that don't present information in any kind of organized manner. Darkslime 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Oh...uh... in that case nix what I said and...

For: Against:

♥★♦ 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a much better (and simpler) example by completely reworking Nazrin's page. How does that look to people? Darkslime 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit bulky. However, it's not entirely bad: Rather, it's a matter of finding a better way to arrange all that information and removing unnecessary/pointless information. For example: How important/necessary is to have the Spellcard Information there? If people want it, then how about we give it a better layout? Also, I find a subsection on "Relationships" to be quite pointless, as they are mentioned in the Main Profile and don't really need a paragraph or two of information. The information there can be part of the "Trivia" section, as long as it is really relevant or important to the character. The "Other" section might fall into "Trivia" as well. Also: Outline and Role? These two would work better as a single section... Something like "General Information", maybe? The less info sections we have, and the better organized they are, the better. Also, should a link to this discussion should be added to the Main Page Discussion, so more contributors can come here and voice their opinion? Anatole serial 09:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the "Relationships" and "Spell Cards" sections to be useful for quick overviews, especially for newbies. On the former, the section in the text is good for fleshing out the summary in the profile.
The distinction between the Other, Trivia, and Fandom sections is, I suppose, the distinction between story, gameplay, and fan characterization?
The whole article does seem a bit...fragmented. I'm not sure how to put it. I feel like the organization could be shuffled around a little, and maybe we could have some different level headers. Pufferfish101 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks fragmented because of the way the information is written and distributed. There are too many subsections, and many of them are too small.
I also think the Spellcards section is interesting and valuable info, but as it is right now it doesn't look good and feels like it takes up space that might be better used for other things.
If people want to keep the "Relationships" info, that's fine by me. However, bear in mind that it's also one of the smaller sections that make the whole thing look fragmented; it might look considerably better if incorporated into other bigger sections.
I'm gonna try and make some time tomorrow to whip out a quick prototype, highlighting possible improvements, as well as trying to find a solution to the Spell Card layout, which is my #1 concern. I'll post a link when it's ready. Anatole serial 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I should add that the number of spell cards per character can be highly variable, from 0 (Rinnosuke) and 2 (Momiji) to 45 (Marisa) and 47 (three fairies). Kiefmaster99 09:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm already taking that into account. Hence why I propose a solution in this prototype, by including a Collapsible Spellcard section. Notice how I also moved information around a bit, in an effort to reduce the number of fragmentary "main" sections by using subsections. I could've made a more profound edit of the general text in order to give it a better redaction, but I refrained from doing so, as this is merely a "proof of concept" and not the final article. What do you guys think of this prototype? Anatole serial 07:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, 1) I find that it's in an awkward place, 2) maybe it's just me but I get redirected to top of page when opening/closing, 3) spell cards is two separate words. I take it that it serves as a brief list, which it does well since it's ordered neatly, in which case the larger one which I haven't worked on for a while could just serve as a more exhaustive one (which I have ordered chronologically and kept Japanese names, for sake of TL consistency across the wiki). There are other factors that can complicate ordering (e.g. trios, cards that exist both standalone and with a sign (Comet) "Blazing Star", etc.) but I'll leave that until the issue arises. In short, can use some more work but looks promising. Kiefmaster99 05:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a good place for a box like that. So, in the latest version I moved things around and gave it back its own section, this time aiming for a representation that can accommodate Spell Cards that are repeated across multiple games. It's not noticeable in Nue's case, but, say, Aya's "Illusionary Dominance" appears in |SWR, |MoF, and |DS. I also moved other sections around, for clarity and order's sake. I also am toying with another idea ATM: How many people believe that I should include a Related Music information in a table similar to the Spell Cards one? As always, suggestions and ideas are always greatly appreciated. Anatole serial 07:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks better. With music, I don't think it needs its own section since there are far less songs to deal with. Most characters have 1 or 2, depending on whether you want to count stage music, and at most up to 7 (Marisa has Witches Ball, Magus Night, Love Coloured Magic, Love Coloured Master Spark, Oriental Dark Flight, Casket of Star, Dim. Dream). It could probably just go in the profile. Kiefmaster99 08:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That means I have two questions: Should we start organizing profiles in this manner, and should a "Music Themes" section be added to the profile template? The first one should take time, but the second one can be done relatively quickly. If there are no objections, I can start working through UFO's cast later today.Anatole serial 00:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the new layout. Sure it can be better, but it's already better than the old one, which is limited to 2 sections. Spellcard section is great, I've been forced to search for a character's spell card in different Game pages, and its painful for characters that appear in several games, like Reimu. I personally think the spellcard section for Nazrin (Feb 3, 2011, 1pm PST) looks good; however, it should be put at the bottom of the page. I also think the section division to be a little confusing, and can have overlaps, like Past/Role/Incident can contain similar information and can be combined into a "Story"(or something) section. Also, "Others" and "Speculation" sections can be the new "Fun facts". "Relationship" can be combined into "Personality and Behavior" as a subsection. Too many sections, maybe? To me, I would arrange the sections like this:

  • Summary
    • Name
  • Ability
  • Personality (which might include a relationship section)
  • Story (subsections may not be needed if this is not too long)
    • Past
    • Incidents/Role/Appearance
  • Fun facts
    • Meta
    • Canon
    • Fanon
  • Links
    • Spellcard
    • Games appeared in
  • Official profile

Jimreynold2nd 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that most of that information already appears int he Main Profile at the top of the page, which does a fairly good job summarizing the most general information about the character. The rest of the information can appear 'after' the Main Profile.
However, some of that information is too short / ambiguous to give it a more Informative structure. Remember, the Wiki's purpose is to maintain and disseminate information as accurately as possible through community contributions.
Have you seen how I arranged the information in This Sample Page? It's more streamlined and organized, without having many small-ish Main Sections, and taking all the subsections that are too small into a more general area. Anatole serial 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Mmm... yes, that looks better than the Mokou page right now. Still, I think the reason is because not enough information is put into the Nue page rather than too much info in the Mokou page. I tried this; but I must admit, it's basically your layout, with minor tweaks.Jimreynold2nd 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the links back to pages[edit]

For example, those Return to Touhou Wiki things on every page. I really think this is unnecessary. Is there some kind of justification for this being here? Darkslime 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was just a convenience thing, although the Alice logo in the upper left kinda nullifies that. Maybe to help those who aren't as wiki-literate find a way back to the main page?
Now if we're talking about, say, the subpages of fangames which add a link back to the main fan page game, I think those are pretty useful. But if there's a better implementation a la user subpages automatically linking back to the main userpage, that would be nice. Pufferfish101 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My issues with it are that 1) even if you went to a user subpage, or any subpage, really, you should be able to get back to the parent page simply by clicking the back button on your browser, assuming the pages have been structured properly and 2) I've never seen another wiki with them. Darkslime 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The back button will usually work, but in the instances where it doesn't, having a link back to the main article is useful. That's not really important though, as there are plenty of ways to do that without the "unique" method we have now. For instance, using normal wiki links or even a "See Also" section or the subpage links I was talking about earlier. Unless someone makes a bot though, we're going to have to make manual changes to practically every page on the wiki. Pufferfish101 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Return to Main Page is pointless, since you can just click Alice. But I like the link back to a main article, for example on the PMiSS pages, because you might have followed a link from elsewhere and don't have the main article in your history. Keiji 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So, with that consensus, does that mean we can kill all the return to Main Page links now? Pufferfish101 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. We can leave the other link-backs around(for now, at least :P) Darkslime 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Would this affect Google rankings of the main page? Kiefmaster99 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that KennyMan666's subpage movement is the solution to this. Subpages include an automatic tiny little link at the top of the page back to the parent page. I say we just get rid of these manual links as we convert pages into subpages. Darkslime 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As subpage navigation was recently made available, all the concerns I mentioned above are now moot. Fire away! Pufferfish101 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fanmade characters[edit]

So... why aren't fan characters allowed, anyway? The page doesn't say. Keiji 20:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate to load up the wiki with self-insertions and whatnot? Think about it. Momiji 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think one encyclopaedic page about the phenomenon of fanmade characters itself (not many pages about each character) would be usefull though. --Coyc 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but self-inserts are a bad idea regardless. I meant characters that actually exist in a fangame. Keiji 10:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If there was to be some kind of fanmade character in a relatively popular derivative work, then if you absolutely must describe them, do not put them in the main Characters category. Darkslime 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not intending to, I was just wondering. Keiji 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They fall in-between the cracks of "Fandom" and "Offical" Touhou since the line is blurred to to our sense, since so much of Touhou comes from the fans.

Do I agree with a self-insertion?

No, I don't.

Games such as Touhou Mother may have characters that show (Like Porky), but he alone isn't related to Touhou Universe and doesn't justify being part of the main page.


A another Character from the same game is in fact a Fan Character, and while I can't post since I haven't referenced it yet *Cough* Rinbokusan,I will say she comes from a Touhou Fangame that never released called Shindensen, so publicly she does have history as a Character with some history and relevance to the series.

Does she deserve to be part of the main page?

Eh. I'd say stick her where the level up goddess is for Touhou Labyrinth.

Any others? :3

♥★♦ 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no blurred line between fandom and official. If ZUN (or possibly anyone else that owns the touhou franchise) didn't release it himself, then it's not official. I can create all sorts of characters like more Aya rivals and even create a school full of photographers, and for sure there is 100% relevance and history, but it's not official. --Tsukihime 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

About the Additional Information section on the main game pages[edit]

I've never liked it being there, so how does Undefined Fantastic Object's page look? I've added a Characters section, sparse though it may be. The problem I can see is that there are three "main" articles listed under Gameplay. My justification for this was that if a page needs to be linked from there, it probably deserves its own subsection on the main page. Darkslime 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with having multiple main articles. I would interpret the "Gameplay" section to be anything related to actually playing the game, including strategies and spellcards. For instance if I'm interested in the story behind it, I would probably look there than somewhere else. --Tsukihime 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reputable fun facts[edit]

"Do not post any speculation as fun facts unless it has already gained reputable status. Otherwise, it's just forcing your views onto other people."

I interpreted this as "it's ok to post speculation (ie: made up stuff) as long as everyone else agrees". Just because every living human on this planet, except ZUN, agree something makes sense, still does not make it a fact. Comments on my interpretation? --Tsukihime 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If we move onto the new layout (which I think is being rolled out) there would be 2 sections: Trivia and Fandom. Trivia will have to be official (i.e from ZUN) and Fandom is for speculation. I think that will make it easier.Jimreynold2nd 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

New Character article guidelines[edit]

If I'm right when a person is mentioned in The Grimoire of Marisa or Perfect Memento in Strict Sense, then it should be placed in Official sources, right? But when there are some summaries, should those just be deleted?

Romanization style[edit]

The guidelines say we use Hepburn style romanization, but there's a few variants of it (traditional/revised/modified). Which one does the wiki use, specifically? I'm particularly interested in what to do with long vowel sounds and 'n'. The vast majority of the pages seem to use Wāpuro rōmaji, so I'm wondering if that means we'll have to go back and edit those articles. (What's preferred, ou or ō?) As for the ん, do we make it into m in those cases or keep it as n? Or, do we leave everything as is because it all falls under Hepburn style anyway? Mizutori 13:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd variant, if you can even call it that. It follows Hepburn in the sense that it is used over Kunrei, while the spellings themselves actually tend to follow kana spellings/Wāpuro (Yuugi, Yuuka). As someone who wrote part of that section, I more or less wrote down the de facto standard used. Discussions about Kunrei/Hepburn do exist, but I'm not sure quite where here. - Kiefmaster99 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
So basically, so long as we don't use Kunrei anywhere all variations of Hepburn are okay? Mizutori 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. Side note - currently we use kana spelling (most names), sometimes modified/no macrons (Gensokyo) - Kiefmaster99 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits, I found that some edit using yūrei instead of yuurei, so is this the new guideline of writing such words? - KyoriAsh 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Revising Character Article Guidelines[edit]

I was wondering if we should revise the guidelines to reflect Quwanti's character page redesign (which I think looks pretty good). More specifically:

  • Replace "General Information" with "Concept"
  • Add "Appearance", "Name", and "Relationships" as sub-sections. (Thus info related to those sub-headings should be moved here.)

Apparently, these changes have already been put into practice, so I think these changes should be made "official". (And while we're at it, I'd like to propose moving info under "Backstory" into the "Story" section." Ibaraki Ibuki 17:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, as some have already done, I'm moving Relationships into Story and adding a Personality sub-heading under concept UTW 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, a discussion about the character guidelines is also occurring in the Editor's Corner and Here. I'm just keeping people aware and the communication a-flowing. ♥★♦ 04:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To all the fairies, before using Sanae or Hina as examples for the new guidelines, at least make the pages respect the guidelines, they blatantly don't! I'l fix that myself --Sefam 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

They don't? Hmm.. Well, I have written the guidelines according to those two pages, but if things are still not good then please fix it, lol.  ☢ Quwanti (Talk) 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Game music documentation - propose adding older, established translations as notes[edit]

Wouldn't take much effort, would alleviate confusion, and would also return a result to the music page if someone searched for the older translation. This would add utility while retaining the more correct translations. Win-win, yes? K.B. 04:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This mostly needs to be done for the EoSD songs. NForza 04:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulleted/non-bulleted list in Trivia or Fandom[edit]

Has the use of paragraphs or bullets in trivia or fandom been discussed? I consider the omission of bullets, or the introduction of long paragraphs to the fandom section, as it stands now, to disrupt the flow of the character articles.
Both trivia and fandom were originally under the heading Fun Facts. "Fun Facts" were just that, tidbits of little known stuff, whether canon or established in fandom, whether of English or Japanese origin. About a year ago, Fun Facts became separated into Trivia and Fandom, to separate canon from fanon. Any format changes done to one would naturally have to be done to the other (i.e. if the fandom format becomes chaged, so would trivia).
As well, using bullets in Trivia, followed by non-bullets in Fandom, flows unnaturally. Fandom would have to be moved up before trivia, which may raise the ire of some editors who prefer to keep Fandom after all canon. Either that, or Trivia would have to be rewritten in paragraphs.
In any case, I prefer to keep those sections as concise as possible. - Kiefmaster99 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer all trivia to be at the bottom. Trivia by definition means "unimportant facts," Fandom, on the other hand, is definitely not the same thing as "trivia." It is not a subset of trivia. It is not a list of random facts like trivia. It would be preferable if there could be some fandom sections in paragraph form than in bullet point form. I would suggest "Fandom" be moved above trivia, and maybe for trivia to be further divided into two sections, canon and fandom.--Tosiaki 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I should note that the Fun Facts became renamed Additional Info it seems, although it does seems that Fandom is treated as trivia. As well, I would consider it a bad idea to separate trivial fandom from the rest of fandom. First, it flows poorly. Second, it creates the question of "What fandom is considered trivia?". This becomes too subjective and allows 'popular fanon' to trump over less-known ones. That being said, we already exclude lesser-known fanon outright. - Kiefmaster99 18:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the very idea of the "trivia" section itself is problematic. "Trivia" itself means "not important." If we want to include only important information, then no "trivia" should be included.--Tosiaki 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Trivia is intended to be a 'catch-all' for information that doesn't fit easily into the above sections. As it relates to fandom, it also acts as a catch-all for a bunch of one-liners. - Kiefmaster99 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Trivia was probably a poor choice for naming the section, then. After all, "trivia" means it is trivial. Maybe "additional considerations" would be better. Or simply, "Additional Information."
Also, perhaps "Fandom" should be separated from Trivia. Fandom, after all, is something of its own - I don't see much sense in bunching it with something else.--Tosiaki 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
To make myself more clear, I think that rather than bunching together "Trivia" and "Fandom" under "Additional Information," perhaps they should fully be separate, as simply "Additional Information" and "Fandom"--Tosiaki 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As of now, I have two suggestions:

  1. Separate "Trivia" from "Fandom" completely, maybe renaming "Trivia" to "Additional Information" and "Fandom" to "Fanon"
  2. Turn the "fandom" sections into paragraph format. When describing fanon, there is little reason to need to use bullet points.

Do these ideas seem reasonable?--Tosiaki 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)