Talk:Volume 1

From Detective Conan Wiki

Description format. By file or by case?

Recently User:CoolKid94 redid the first Manga Volume page that so that it the case description is on a per case basis instead of a per manga chapter basis. I'm not sure if that is a useful improvement because it makes it less clear what files correspond to the described plot (less specificity) and the method runs into trouble when a case spans multiple volumes causing a description split (harder to keep coherent plot). I liked having descriptions for every file instead of every case better. Just to be clear, I don't mind the spoiler tag usage for resolutions and gadgets introduced and such. What do you all think? Chekhov MacGuffin talk 01:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's better to have the description according to manga chapters instead of cases as it provides more precise information in regards to where in the manga story frame, a given situation occurs: it allows the reader to pinpoint the exact File where the related description is to be found. Again, the purpose of this wiki is to convey every bit of DC information possible in the most convenient, practical and precise way while remaining clear and very accessible on the reader-friendly side. I believe the old version of Volume 1 is more appropriate and precise in this regard. --Maurice talk 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to contribute to the wiki a little. Personally, I like the case by case version better, since it makes more sense to me to have the whole description in one place, rather than broken up. I also agree that we should make the wiki a great source of information, but I don't think that we should make it too easy. What I mean is that I want to tell people what's going on, but not everything. I just want to arouse people's curiosity about what happens. That way they'll want to know more and will buy the volumes, making sure that they don't quit releasing them. After all, if the wiki had everything, then there'd be no point to watch the series, and people wouldn't know what they'd be missing. That's my logic, but feel free to disagree. I've also started a topic in the forums about this here: , so feel free to state your opinions here, too. I'm completely open to changing it back, so don't think I'm biased or anything. User:CoolKid94 17:11, 25 August 2011 (EST).
One thing that needs to be made clear separate from the formatting is that it is absolutely the job of the wiki to tell people everything. We hold nothing back because we strive for completeness. That's why we have case resolutions and spoilers. While we hope people will be encouraged to read the series after visiting the site, the primary purpose of the wiki is informative not advertising. It against the wiki's mission to sacrifice clarity and depth of information to try to solicit readers.Chekhov MacGuffin talk 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly as Chekhov said. Like any other wiki, we do strive for completeness. She's perfectly right and that's been our number one goal from day one. The reader is the one who decides whether he wants to read the information on the wiki or not. The wiki is in no way imposed on him/her. They are completely free to watch/read the series and then read the wiki if the wish. It's a matter of choice. Our only job is to provide information. We don't try to think about what the user should know so that they "can still enjoy the series". They decide what they want to know, not us. They decide how they want to watch/read the series and how much they need to know about it. It's all up to them. It's their responsibility. Entertaining the user instead of exposing knowledge objectively would defeat the whole purpose of being a real and complete DC library on the net (basically what every wiki strives for in their respective domain). I still believe having it broken up by Files is much more accurate overall as it correctly places the situation and context within its rightful File location and makes it easier to reference to in other articles or for the sole purpose of general referencing (among fans for example). Last note: could you refrain from altering the other volumes until a consensus is reached pleased? I see that you updated Volume 2 recently. Thanks. --Maurice talk 15:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It's great to see you throwing out your ideas like this, but I'm gonna have to say that I prefer Volume 1 the way it was prior to your edit, CoolKid94. Pretty much everything I have to say has already been covered, so I'll leave it at that. There are many other ways you can contribute though, so even if we don't change the format of the volume articles, don't give up! A Wiki is a community that depends on hard working contributers. I'm sure you'll have other new ideas that perhaps we can implement in the future! But for now, I agree with Chekhov and Maurice. --Jigsaw 15:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File by file definitely. This allows viewers to see exactly how each case unfolded without guessing what parts happened in each chapter. Besides, we already divided the manga pages up so that viewers know what files belong to each case. --Skyechan 20:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Then I'll take all of your considerations into account. I'll wait a while before putting up anything else. I'd also like to apologize if I PO'd any users. Also, about what I said before about the completeness factor, I kind of jumped the gun and said what I wanted to say in the wrong way, so please forgive me. I'm just really bad at getting my thoughts out sometimes. In a attempt to clarify (probably poorly), what I meant is that I don't really like reading summaries that are super long. I just like concise stuff. But that's my opinion. Take it how you will. Also, keep voting in the forums, too! CoolKid94 17:13, 26 August 2011 (EST)

The way things have fallen out, I sense general support for having it the way it was among the mods and some of the users who cared to speak up in the thread. Should we convert it back to the case by case system? Chekhov MacGuffin talk 03:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I say go ahead. It's been over 2 weeks and there's a general agreement on the matter. --Maurice talk 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)