Touhou Wiki talk:Guidelines/Standardization of Character Pages

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Style Comments

I am not a particular fan of the style used in the character articles right now. In particular, it's unnecessarily long and reads too much like an essay. For example:
As a human Marisa's true strength is such that she is able to use the highest class of magic power and so on, and especially in official depictions there is no reason to conclude that it was said that Marisa is weak. However, Marisa herself was compared by ZUN to humans of a level close to us, and from this it is said that her existence is closest to that of an ordinary human, and even as she was born, she was the daughter to the owner of a second-hand store in the village, as an ordinary girl.
There are redundancies, such as including "Official". Since this is a wiki to begin with, there's no need for it. Second, the word "human" is overused. Mentioning weak is redundant, since we already know she's strong from at least one source. Revised, it could read:
Marisa's true strength lies in her ability to use the highest class of magic power. However, her existence is closest to that of an ordinary human. She has been compared to ordinary people by ZUN, and she was born as the daughter of a shopkeeper in the village as an ordinary girl.
(Note: I'm pretty sure ZUN did mention somewhere, SSiB I think, that Marisa was intended to be someone for readers to relate to, or at least as opposed to Reimu.)
I hope I was still able to convey the writer's intentions. Shortening sentences like this would make it easier to read. I should note that I am somewhat biased in my writing style as my particular expertise is in scientific writing. - Kiefmaster99 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Revision is not bad at all, especially since I admit not to have wrote it myself.
As for the citation of where that ZUN's saying comes from, it is from the Meiji University talkshow "Dawn of Touhou. The original text is as follows: 話を戻して魔理沙は、あれ位の近い我々にレベルの人間がいないと誰も話ついていけないので、って理由でいるような感じ。

脇役だしね。. And furthermore, a little bit later (still concerning Marisa), 魅力のある脇役。具体的に言うとアレだけど、サブキャラ。 Perhaps it would be very good to translate these parts, which I plan to do soon.

There are parts where I feel that you have cut out too much, though. For example, in the first sentence, it is important to mention the word human, as this relates to Perfect Memento in Strict Sense, which stated that it was unusual for a human to use this level of magic power. Second of all, I think that in the first paragraph, it is still important to say she has never officially been depicted as weak. Also, I think the phrase "humans of a level close to us" is important to keep as it is quotation directly from the talkshow.--Tosiaki 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, as for a translation: To return to the original topic, concerning Marisa, if there were no humans of a level close to us, then then we could not have a conversation about anyone, which is what I feel is the reason [that she is in Touhou]. A supporting character.
Translation of other part: A supporting character with appeal. Concretely it is "something else," but, she is a subcharacter.
Note: my Japanese is not so good so there may be inaccuracies. However, I think this should get the general idea across.--Tosiaki 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
With regards to PMiSS, the phrase "which is unusual for a human" or "a feat unusual for a human" could be included. "As a human" by itself doesn't provide as much context.
I don't think it's necessary to note absence of evidence that she is weak; there's too much detail. Being weak should be mentioned where the character has been described as weak. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of "is weak" or "is not weak" assessments in every character entry.
I am reluctant to include the phrase in whole because now I'm overusing the word "human". I also find ZUN's phrase a bit verbose, which is why I contracted that as well. "Humans of a level close to us" implies the typical layman such as you or I, or someone the reader can relate to, as opposed to any other special being in Gensokyo. I don't think it matters too much is it was a shopkeeper in a village (as opposed to countryside?). Daughter = girl, so:
Revision 2:
Marisa's true strength lies in her ability to use the highest class of magic power, a feat unusual for a human. However, her existence is closest to that of an ordinary human. She has been compared to "humans of a level close to us" by ZUN, and she was born to a shopkeeper as an ordinary girl.
- Kiefmaster99 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a little more rearrangement like the following might be better:
Marisa's true strength lies in her ability to use the highest class of magic power, a feat unusual for a human. However, she has been compared to "humans of a level close to us" by ZUN, and so her existence is closest to that of an ordinary human, and she was born as the daughter of a shopkeeper as an ordinary girl.
Other than that, I think that your current revision of it is fine. As stated previously, much of what I am adding to character pages is not what I wrote myself so if revisions could be done to make it clearer and more concise, then it would be very good.--Tosiaki 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you're one of the main editors going through all this I figured you'd be able to correct them as you go along (the main reason I intervened was because it began to concern spell cards.) I still think it's better to start with an assertion followed by proof, rather than start with proof followed by a conclusion. Anyways, I guess I'll go through Marisa's article. - Kiefmaster99 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony64's edit to solving problems

I like to hear what people think about this edit I did. Would it be fine to use what I added onto the char pages? Also, we still need that word to replace Trivia. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the changes to the "fanon" section, I think it is quite fine. As I think that different characters have "fanon" sections that are either in paragraph form, bullet form, or a mixture of the two (depending on character), it only makes sense. Just a little thing, though: for things in paragraph form, I do not think it is quite necessary to have "entry names" the say way as for bulleted information. Also, I do want to request time to edit the "fanon" sections before such changes are made for each character.--Tosiaki 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda thought the same thing, but I thought entry names would be a good idea for paragraphs form because I feel that we should keep a bit of the wiki's tradition to have some kind of a listing (if you know what I mean lol). Also, I'm not 100% sure on "Fanon Culture" that I suggested. To me, it doesn't sound right, but "Fandom Culture" sounds somewhat better. I don't think having "Fanon" on its own as an h2 section looks professional either, so if there's a good name for the section, plz use it :). Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, perhaps for paragraphs, entry names could be optional, or something.--Tosiaki 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why I added Gallery

I feel that it's quite daft that there's an official profile section on a number of characters where there's an image and it says in the text "N/A". That isn't an official Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen some wiki(a)'s having a gallery for every character on their own. Much like a category, rather than on the page though. It could be useful, as indeed the "official profile" should not consist of only images. ☢ Quwanti 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion about addin' lesser-known fanon among Seihou

This may be stretching a bit, but I think that we should add unpopular fanon content in relation to Seihou so we can boozed up the western fanbase a bit. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 17:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For e.g., Icarus' phrase "I'm the last boss I'm strong!" has been acknowledged in the Japanese fanbase, but it isn't as known as Erich's lasers (how did they get popular?) in the western fanbase. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 11:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as long as it could be sourced, I guess. It would especially be better if there was a source that actually said that it was common (for this, I guess even a blog or discussion boards are okay) rather than simply to give examples of it.--Tosiaki 11:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


With the way things are going atm, concept is becoming the longest section for some characters (excluding official profiles), and I find that annoying. idk where this info is coming from, but certainly this needs to be cautioned. By the looks of it, we still haven't got a properly good layout of the page (and one (me) doesn't care about how the info flows). How I see it, the word "concept" is our prime problem.

This is why some people would notice my suggestions to certain things (like Canon and Danmaku sections). if needed, I'll put something on my sandbox for tests... Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it simple, I'm getting fed up of looking at revisions all time, sorting out certain things...... Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an accurate assessment. "Story" and "relationships" still seems to take up the majority of the character pages.

However, I would like to make the suggestion to rename "concept" to "character" and move "appearance" and "name" up to "general information."--Tosiaki 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate my previous suggestion of actually dissolving the "concept" section altogether and changing everything under it into level 2 == == headings (excluding "name" and "appearance," which can be moved up to "general information"). It doesn't seem quite necessary to bunch up a whole lot of things like "ability," "occupation," "possessions," "occupation," "strength," "personality" etc. as if they had anything in common. The only thing they have in common is that it is related to the character, but since it is the character page, this seems to be extraneous to need to bunch them together in that way. They might as well be all be their own separate sections.--Tosiaki 16:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it seems to be unnecessary to have many "inner layers" of headers in the first place. Not to say that we should follow Wikipedia in everything we do, but I currently find the layout of most Wikipedia character pages to be much better in layout than our character pages. And, after looking at many of the character pages on Wikipedia, it seems like things simply look best for character pages when the table of contents is as linear as possible, without too many things "within," and this especially goes for the "concept" section where almost none of its subsections seem to be that related in the first place - which is why it seems to be best to simply to turn each sub-section into level to headers of their own. It also seems that there is no need to fix the ordering of the sections either - for this, I think we should get rid of the statement on the page, saying "please note the order of the sections" and change it to "the ordering of the sections may be different for certain characters."--Tosiaki 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So, I just made a "minor change" to the Reimu Hakurei page. Does this look better and more sensible than it was previously?--Tosiaki 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Concept" should answer the question: "how is this character formed", but it is true too many information get stuffed into one section. Adding to that, your second suggestion (dissolving the "concept" section) doesn't seems to be bad.
Though, this stuff gets changed so many times. We have to make a conclusion now. ☢ Quwanti 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(to Tosiaki) Even though you better applied the changes first to your own user page rather than immediatly to the page, it looks okay to me. ☢ Quwanti 17:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be no problem to proceed to apply this to all character pages then, I guess.--Tosiaki 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not yet. Several people should agree in my opinion. ☢ Quwanti 18:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, for now, I will just leave it at Reimu Hakurei and Marisa Kirisame being changed, I guess.--Tosiaki 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... Actually, those two look OK tbh. I think I can cope with that. However, will it go well with characters who don't have a lot of info (like PC-98 and Seihou)? I mean, I don't know the answer, so I suppose we just wait. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"the ordering of the sections may be different for certain characters." <-- That's fine if it is "that" necessary lol. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, for Seihou, PC-98, and others without much info, perhaps they can be condensed into smaller general sections, without the need of having separate sections for personality, occupation, etc. - looking towards the existing secondary sources as a guide. Having so many small sections does not really improve readability all that much, I think.--Tosiaki 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks cleaner without, so I don't mind trashing Concept. As said, the problem is that it simply became too bloated. It could have worked if we included only fictional/historical basis, Name, and maybe Appearance. The rest being crammed in were just leftovers from previous layouts, if I remember right. I only question where information on a character's basis might go if we get rid of it. Just leave it somewhere in General? Back to Trivia? U❊T❊W 12:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If it could fit in general (I am thinking for Mamizou Futatsuiwa, where the "character basis" is merely talking about the species) - perhaps it could blend in with the rest of the "general information" text without having its own sub-section - in other cases (I am thinking for Suika Ibuki, Kasen Ibaraki, Byakuren Hijiri, etc.) perhaps it could go somewhere later in the page under a section called "Character basis", maybe just above "Additional information."--Tosiaki 12:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that it's not the Concept's fault for having so many subsections; it didn't go, "Hey, you know what I need? I need more subsections!" With that, the topic really should directed to "What belongs in Concept?"

♥★♦ 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see what need there is for "concept".--Tosiaki 08:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Right Nazeo is. Prehaps we can keep concept and ONLY put "origin" (what the char is based on etc.), name and appearance. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 01:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I think would make most sense to simply integrate the "character basis" information into the "general information" section as a "concept" subsection, going before "name." Maybe appearance could also be separated from "general information" - maybe.--Tosiaki 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
lol just realised what you mean: "Character basis" = what I mean with "origin" *not keeping up with recent stuff*. Well, I'll need to think about that as I feel it won't go under GI. Also, I can't see appearance even going under GI. Obviously, it suppose to describe what the char looks like, as well as similar to name, so the only thing I can suggest to put those two is concept. As suggested on my sandbox, we can use "Name and Origin/Character Basis".
Like Quwanti said, we need to come to a conclusion NOW due to the pages getting changed all the time, as well as the standardisation doesn't fit with all pages right now... Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have made an edit to the relevant sandbox as a small suggestion. I am not sure myself as for whether it is optimal or not, but the basis for this suggestion is that "appearance" does not really have much to do with the "concept" of the character except for a few limited cases - I am thinking of this "concept" section as something like the "Concept and creation" sections on Wikipedia character pages, although with limited knowledge of its "creation," it would, of course, the section would be called only "concept." Therefore, I would like to ask if this suggestion makes sense or not.--Tosiaki 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been talking to Nazeo and IbarakiIbuki, and they think appearance fits best under concept since that section is the "basic idea" of the character. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with appearance not having much to do concept. However, we could change "appearance" to design" (Still keep all info as it is though)? Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 04:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The idea that the concept section is supposed to be the "basic idea" of the character does seem somewhat troublesome, though, due to the difficulty in defining "basic idea," since many other things could be said to fit under that as well, and to put only "appearance" as opposed to some other things into "concept" would thus seem somewhat arbitrary - that is why I suggested that "concept" be restricted to simply being the section for explaining "character basis" and nothing anything else, so as not to be too broad of a section. Additionally, in changing "appearance" to "design," I am not exactly sure how that is supposed to make it more clear what the section is about.--Tosiaki 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... true. I just want to note out that in the infobox, we have appearance referring to the char appearing in game, manga, etc., while the section is a description of the char. I somewhat see this as troublesome, so I also have another suggestion. Why don't we change to "Description of Character"?
When I type concept in google images, I get a load of cars. When "concept character", there's characters. Don't want to be sounding like a layout maniac, but should we really be having Appearance outside concept?
So to some up, we're defiently keeping name and origin/char basis under concept. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, since there does not seem to be a need to include a lot of subsections within that section, it seems like it would be best to include things as subsections only if there is a clear relevance. For name, it seems to be nothing more than a part of explaining origin/basis (limited to explaining "origin/basis of name"), so that seems definite.--Tosiaki 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
lol. Again, I'm not keeping up with this, so the "basis" word to me is all over the place *sweatdrop*. Anyway, I'll edit the page and see if it was we were looking for. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I just like to point out that not many have an origin/char basis and I'm still up for having Appearance (or "Describtion of Character") under Concept. With appearance, concept won't have anymore than 2/3 sections, which isn't bad at all. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if "concept" was renamed "character design," then appearance could naturally fit.--Tosiaki 01:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That's fine by me ^.^ Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The need to have Additional Information

Our next problem is Additional Information. If we're gonna have "<other>", than what's the point of having this? If we are going to have "Conceptuals", than it's going to be confusing if we are going to keep add info, but on the other hand, if we were to put <other> as sub sections to add info, than there is a reason to keeping this (like said on the page, the opposite of General Info). This is rather confusing me, so I like to ask for opinions. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit unrelated to your comment, but I think that perhaps as a better name for "trivia," it could simply be "additional information." That is to say, perhaps it might be good if "additional information" could be by itself without any sub-sections, and simply list the additional information.--Tosiaki 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, so your saying to have everything under Trivia move under add info? That's, umm... OK I suppose? I mean, already with Fanon Culture, we keep it under Add Info if there's no need for paragraphs, so... With that, I like to hear another users opinion. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 13:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I have an alternative idea. Similar to what we did to fanon, why don't we do same for Add Info? Or... um.... Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In case you misunderstood my previous comment, that is what I was suggesting.--Tosiaki 04:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
AH! OK, sorry about that! ^^' Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Finalization and Implementation

If there are no more details that need straightening out, should we start standardizing? Ibaraki Ibuki 16:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going in a process of writing out a "General Information" section for each character, and I guess it could still be done before I do that, although it would preferably be afterwards. In any case, I guess I should hurry up with regards to this task.--Tosiaki 16:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Take your time while we start on the rest (hope you're ok with that). Ibaraki Ibuki 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine.--Tosiaki 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Before the characters pages finally have their desired style I would like to suggest one another thing. Galleries. On, for example, Daiyousei's page the images are listed in "Official profiles" even though she does not have one. Maybe for every character a gallery on the bottom. A disadvantage would be that for some character it may become too big. Leading into another one;
On the Kingdom Hearts wiki they make use of a Gallery, which would be on this wiki something like: "Gallery:Reimu Hakurei". Advantage is that images are all grouped together, and within that gallery the images can also get organized! ☢ Quwanti 22:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm down for it. What do you think about imposing limits as to which how many images can be used or what images should be used? --This message from DeltaSierra4 was delivered on 22:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Well the profiles and their pictures are hidden anyway reducing the space unless manually opened. It all just goes back to what is genuinly significant. Anything that relates to something that can be understood only by picture should be kept. Perfect Memento in Strict Sense and The Grimoire of Marisa should pictures and sigil should be moved out to a gallery though. --Hikaruxz 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In my head I wanted to add every image were the character is present in (from the games, so also the small images sprites), but that may be a little too much, haha. But I think at least the portraits should be uploaded (both from the character select screen, if present, and the in-game portrait). And otherwise miscellaneous images from the various books (if it adds something to the pages).
If it would be used only on the character pages I two rows with four images each would be the maximum. If the extension is used it depends on which image should be used. ☢ Quwanti 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more inclined to go with the style of having a link to the gallery in the actual Character box, just after the picture of them is displayed. I'm willing to show what I mean upon request.

♥★♦ 21:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple suggestions

Thought I should point this out, but as I see this now, there are different suggestions for how the standardisation of the character pages should be (including the infobox). A lot of parts of this current standardisation has been agreed on though. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


It appears people are OK with what this standardisation looks like for the character pages, so if no one comments on improvements or suggestions withing a week I will go though all character pages and convert them to this standardisation. Thank you. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what I said in the above. I'm gonna start on Sunday morning 00:00 GTM+00 time if no one wishes to say owt. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 15:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking through this, I noticed that the "name" section is located far in the article. It's better for etymology stuff to be the first thing. Actually, looking at other character examples on Wikipedia, that entire section should be moved up. Character basis should go before Background. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested by Darkslime to move this section down under Story cuz Story would be second important after General Information (Although I can't remember what other reasons why we have it as "Gen Info, Backstory, History" lol). tbh, I don't really see a problem with this, but if it's necessary to change it, that's fine by me ^.^ Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"Fanon culture" sounds pretty odd. "Fanon" or "fandom culture" sure, but "fanon culture" makes it sound like the culture itself is fictional. --Prime32 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It was origially "Fandom", but it was changed. Prehaps "Fandom Culture" would fit lol. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 13:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Brought it up on the infobox talk page but not sure anyone saw it. I'd like to suggest adding a space to the infobox listing any significant items possessed by the character, like Marisa's Mini-Hakkero or Reimu's Yin-Yang Orbs. --Prime32 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be in support to adding this to the infobox, but only an admin can add it. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 12:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What name shall we use for the 'Fanon Culture' section? - Voting poll


Fandom (Preferred term)
Fandom Culture
Fanon Culture

Comments & Discussion

It was noted that 'Fanon culture' sounds pretty odd by Prime32, which I agree on some cases. However, There isn't really enough people coming in to contribute what is the best one to use, so I'm opening a voting pool for users to add their names to. There are 4 choices to choose on, but you may add your own if you wish. The votes will come to a conclusion on 15th of July, 2012 (That's about a fortnight). However, I'm still going thought the pages and changing it to 'Fanon Culture' until there is a conclusion. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 19:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added my name to "Fandom Culture". Also, no other person has voted yet, so I'm extending the deadline to the 25th of July, 2012. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Imo Fandom sounds simple enough. I dunno if we would need "culture" behind it though... DeltaSierra4 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with DS4. Fandom (which refers to the collective fans of a series) is sufficient if the main difference we want to draw is between canon bits and fanon, which the fandom has come up with. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Likewise with me. I feel also that "fandom culture" sounds slightly redundant. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(minor comment) "Also, please don't use the word arena. This is a poll, not a battlefield." - Kiefmaster99 <-- Sorry if I offended anyone with using this word (idk why I choosed it ^^'). I don't wish for this to be a battlefield, just a general and civil discussion :) Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for time keepping, I'm gonna revert the deadline back to the 15th, so that gives one more day to vote. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Voting is closed, and we have reached a conclusion. 'Fandom' is the preferred term over 'Fanon Culture' with 4-2. Work in standardising should begin. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding space between character names (in Japanese)

I've realized in the character pages (and many other pages), names in Japanese are written with a space between their surname and given name (e.g. 博麗 霊夢). Is there some kind of intention to it (like for more comprehend-able purpose for the English-only speakers)? Because we usually don't separate them.--Doncot (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be derived from Wikipedia convention, although they use a smaller space. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. Is it possible to adopt the Wikipedia style (using one byte space: " "), and specifically put its description for the style as a standardization on this page? --Doncot (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Character Basis

I've got some issues with this section. For one thing the name sounds kind of awkward, but mainly I'm unhappy about what it contains.

This seems to be an out-of-universe section (and General Information an in-universe one), but Design is definitely in-universe - it would make more sense in General Information, renamed to Appearance. I suggest adding to Character Basis any items from Additional Information related to how the character was created and what their intended role is in the story - stuff by ZUN like "originally Byakuren's brother was going to be the boss, but an old man would be weird", "Kaguya and Mokou were going to be in the fighting games" and "Yorihime is deliberately overpowered" (heck, right now the stuff that would normally be Byakuren's Origin is on her page as a trivia item). Gameplay information like Reimu's homing attacks + small hitbox would also go here, under another heading. I'm open to suggestions on exactly what all the headings would be.

As for the name "Character Basis", if Design is changed to Appearance then that also frees up the name "Character Design", which would better fit the set of information I mentioned (though there's probably more fitting ones out there). --Prime32 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

On the point of renaming, I am fine with changing "Character Basis" and "Design" to "Character Design" and "Appearance". Hopefully, there won't be lots of fuss over that, though I probably should confirm there is some consensus on this before making the change.
I really like Prime32's suggestion of adding stuff from Additional Information about the conception of the character to Character Basis/Design; this page's description on that section should be modified to account for that. The idea of having a section about gameplay information on the character is also intriguing. If we are going to add a section about that, I feel it should be its own header rather than be a sub-header of Character Basis/Design. My rationale is that I thought the intent of that section is to describe the gestalt of the character. It's also why I feel that Design/Appearance should remain under Character Basis/Design. I do think that Prime's argument is valid, and I am not totally against moving Design/Appearance to General Information; it's just that a character's appearance in-universe can be influenced by out-of-universe factors (mostly related to the person, animal, place, concept, or thing the character is based on). Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I rather see "Design" as how the character was formed (designed) by ZUN. Actually, the same for the whole section. Besides, I think "Appearance" clashes with the "Appearances" in the character infobox. "General Information" is how the character is in the Touhou Project universe.
I'd like to see a section about gameplay and such though, so no problems about that. ☢ Quwanti 11:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
After a long delay, I've decided I'll change "Character Basis" to "Character Design" and leave everything else as it is for now. I'll also work out how to introduce a "Gameplay" section. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Two issues

I've got a couple of issues with the current standard. First, the Backstory section including a separate History subsection strikes me as unnecessary and confusing for editors.

The second is regarding the Story section. I'm going to propose that instead of splitting it up into games/literature/whatnot, we instead put the character's appearance into chronological order. ― Darkslime 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the 'History' sub-section should be removed – it sounds redundant. Also, having it in chronological order sounds quite interesting. It'll make it easier for visitors to be aware of where a section fits amongst others. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

After taking a look at a few notable pages not one one of them even used the History subsection. I'm not even sure if it's ever been used. It's probably safe to delete it. UTW 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Having the appearances in chronological order sounds like a nice idea. If we're going with that, maybe we can move info from "<x> in the PC-98 games <or> Post-PC-98 <or/with> in unofficial Touhou works" section into story (or maybe merge those two sections)?
As for the history section, even now I don't think I ever understood what the distinction was between backstory and "history", so I'm okay doing away with it. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. For now I'll get rid of History, and if I come across it in an article then I'll remove it. As for the story section - once we think about it a little more, and maybe after we actually FINISH them (lol), we can change it. ― Darkslime 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of merging "Story" and "<x> in the PC-98 games <or> Post-PC-98 <or/with> in unofficial Touhou works" together in some way, maybe changing the title to "<said char>'s appearances" similar to the Hakurei Shrine article, along with it being somewhat similar to the structure of the character articles on the Mario wiki. Going off topic from this discussion, I do personally think that the latter said section is causing cluster and separation, and in some areas, redundancy. E.g.:
  • For "cluster" and "separation", what I meant that, obviously, the section only talks about the PC-98/Seihou version of the character in general, in which it can contain info that's more fitting for "Story" or "Relationships". For e.g. Marisa Kirisame has info about her speaking style and relation with Reimu during the PC-98; that info can easily placed within the "Personality" and "Relationships" section respectively; we just ensure that we start the paragraph with "During the PC-98, ..." while explaining in the "General Information" section about the differences between the PC-98 and Windows.
  • For "redundancy", a good example would be VIVIT's article. Her role in Samidare is explained twice. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any applies, I'm going to go forward and do this type of style on Yuuka Kazami's article to see if it's a preferable structure. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Official Profile Removal

I was wondering if we should remove the "Official Profiles" completely from the character pages altogether, where if users want to read the profiles, then they look at the "Official Sources" section and go to the omake.txt or character setting.txt page that's on the dedicated games page. The reason I propose this is because (a) it's taking up too much memory storage for one page and (b) the article itself should be, like, the "complete profile" of the character. All the images could go into the "Gallery" section, as I did for Seija Kijin's article. Any comments would be appreciated :) Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Story Section

Thought I'd say this for clarification on what I'm currently doing. Continuing from the 'Two issues' discussion, as people would've notice, I've removed the '<Characters name> in the PC-98 games <or> Post-PC-98 <or/with> in unofficial Touhou works' section from various articles and merged PC-98/other information with various area of their articles. I'll be later removing this section, and the '<Characters name> in non-Touhou Works' section, from this guideline. To add to this, also as some may've noticed from my recent edits, I've been using h3 sections under the 'story' section, which the h2 section itself I've been renaming to '<character name>'s Appearances' (frankly, I'm still not too sure whether this is a good name for the section). Looking back however, I think it's still best to use these h3 sections and have them in chronological order in their respective categories (such as 'Literature' and 'Windows Games'). Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 23:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Character Design" name change

I've recently been using "Background Information" instead of "Character Design" or "Character Basis" on some non-character articles (such as the Shrine Tank) as I struggled to see what would've been best fitting on what the appropriate title ought to be (I couldn't've put "Tank Design", sounded too weird IMO). I was wondering if this should be standardised on all character pages because such name for a title says exactly what it is; information on its origin, name and appearance of design. I thought it can also be fitting for the sub-headings to fit under this section as well if there is no "General Information", but such info exist on abilities, personality, species, etc. (i.e. make the sections "Background Information" and "General Information" interchangeable) I'll continue to use this on more articles that I'll be introducing (including the separation of the Unnamed Midbosses so each midboss has its own article) unless anyone disagrees? Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 13:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So basically you want to merge "Character Design", "Background Information" and "General Information"? To be honest, I don't even know where "Background Information" came from and started being used, since it's not even listed on this page. But if we were to go one way, it would just be to call it all General Information.
However, my concern is that having everything under General Information would create a wall of text under one heading and generate a sensory/information overload. In some characters' cases, it would take up half or more of the page. Honestly, I would prefer the way it is now. Pages are segmented very nicely, with each heading having its own clear goal as to what it is. As it is, "General" typically applies to and is relevant to character canon, while Character Design applies to, well, the design of said character and what's gone into it conceptually.
The only things I would change is to a) move Backstory below Character Design and B) now that I've heard it, change all instances of Character Design to Background Information, especially since "Character Design" and the "Design" sub-heading are redundant. Maybe we could delete "Origin", as well, and just have it be part of a descriptive leading paragraph along with ZUN's thoughts on creating the character, if available.
EDIT...Wow, just noticed this was from a year ago. Sorry. Well, still applies, since the different ways pages are is confusing. "Background Information" is currently being used in pace of Character Design, at least, so that's a good thing. However, the Standardization page and old character pages really need to be edited to reflect current standards, whatever they may be.UTW 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)