Talk:Fist of the North Star
Kenshiro Techniques[edit]
I remember those particular descriptions of 'fucking exploding' being on Encyclopedia Dramatica before it ended up here. I remember it because I was the one who put it on ED in the first place as VaultTec2. I'm so happy to see that 1d4 thought it was funny enough to keep around (though the first technique where he gives you time to reflect on your wicked life isn't one I put up. Kudos to whoever did.) It's good to see a small piece of the original ED alive and kicking. This article is better even.
For real and for serious. Thanks.
Turbogook 03:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Horse society organization[edit]
It was written that horses in the wild are matriarchal and as such the alpha male of the herd is "a sex toy". This notion is false, misguided and reality is completely different.
In the wild horses depend and follow the alpha stallion. Herds are usually formed by one adult male and a number of young and adult females; other males usually leave the herd upon reaching sexual maturity. These young males usually congregate in all males herds for some years.
During the spring males from these bachelors herd fight the estabilished stallions for the right to have their own herd of females to mount.
As such the only time in which an herd of horses is not guided by a male is when the stallion dies and there are no suitable adult males in the area to replace him. In this rare case the herd follows the oldest mare;however as soon as an adult male is available he will take charge again.
Relevance to /tg/[edit]
Look, I know that this series is /tg/ approved, but does that really mean we need to detail absolutely every single thing about it especially when it has no tabletop aspect? There's plenty of other anime wiki's that could be made or already exist that the article could be moved over to, and just because some users like it, does not mean that it's relevant. -- Triacom (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A quick google search revealed there are a few unlicensed FotNS tabletop RPG himebrews out there. You guys who want it to stay, I'd suggest you download one and post it on /tg/, then hope you get a 200+ reply thread. That'd justifu this page, so long as you add the RPG to it. --Thannak (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's relevance comes from how it has become a euphimism for "manliness", much like how Twilight represents "emo" or "gay" and how Rebecca Black represents "fucking painful" then they probably should stay on the site if only to explain the meme, the same way that pages like What and Rage exist, despite not being directly /tg related, existing only to explain the term. Quite a few pages link to them specifically to illustrate those points. Certainly there doesn't need to be all of the in-depth exploration of the subject matter; at least an attempt to keep the humour so people understand the reference when people compare some things to them when writing their own articles. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Still, a bit more coverage of the homebrews would be a good idea to prevent this issue from arising again. Though come to think of it, does anyone even talk about Rebecca Black anymore, on /tg/ or otherwise? The only way I know she even exists is from 1d4chan itself. In any case, there's no need for it to be quite so in-depth as it is right now, but I'm not in a position to decide what is and isn't extraneous detail just by looking.--Newerfag (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you need to explain absolutely every single character and what happens in the series to cover a small meme? We don't link everything tangentially related to rage in the rage page, so why should everything irrelevant to the meme be on here if it serves no purpose? -- Triacom (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- If there was an RPG I'd say yes, since RPG's about existing settings need a place within the timeline to take place in, so giving a rundown on anything relevant is advisable. But this is assuming /tg/ gets super-excited about a homebrew. Pokemon for example ought to have a page examining each series and timeline (like how I did on the Tenchi Muyo RPG page) as for quite a while /tg/ had that extensive homebrew setting we all kind of forgot about. By contrast, there are many homebrew settings spread across multiple pages that would do well as just one single page with redirects. --Thannak (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh, this wiki started taking itself way too seriously in recent years. Like anyone ever came here for actual information.
- What do you think the Tactics pages are for? -- Triacom (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ironically, the fact that we didn't take ourselves seriously backfired. Now most people on /tg/ think it's unreliable and prone to stating misinformation as facts. Clearly we need to do a better job of ensuring the content is substantial even when not backed up with humor and/or memes. --Newerfag (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- There for sure needs to be a balance. 1d4chan is usually seen as niche version of Dramatica or a shit 40k wiki rather than something legitimate. When trying to do research for the creation of pages like Zenit or Brother Vinni, I noticed there isn't really any Wikipedia page dedicated to those things. I also found that some of the better tactica pages were actually referred to on places like Whineseer, or people's actual blogs and defended when criticized as being "one of the few good pages". By trying to make an all-encompassing take on the tabletop gaming scene, all relevant memes both new (Lelf) and old (Gazebo) rather than just inventing new ones or putting "Heresy" on every other paragraph, and by continuing to make excellent tactics pages 1d4 can actually start to gain relevance. There's not really a more inclusive site, for example chances are if you're looking for Malifaux you check their wiki which is fairly dedicated to sucking it off and ignoring downsides, presenting a newbie-friendly take on the lore and mechanics (if developed at all), or providing advice on ways to get into the game cheaper. Consolidating information is important, but if someone wants to go into detail about it using collapsible sections for the unrelated information would be preferable to allowing someone to ramble on and on or deleting it outright. Presenting the information completely and with ease of reading and understanding should trump any specific page length, and use of categories should mark relevance. That's part of why I enjoy the /v/ tag (and honestly, the tag and category system is what deserves the bulk of attention as we have many pages that aren't in the correct categories, making site navigation difficult and we really do need a restructured navigation tree), it makes it clear that its not fully /tg/ related but the opening paragraph should indicate why it deserved to be on the site (relevance to /tg/ media for example, through inspiration or common reference by the gaming community). While I wouldn't advocate having a Jojo page, making it clear in the opening paragraph that its referenced quite often with a template image stating its a cross-board reference, then linking any homebrews at the bottom (or making one, its honestly very easy to do BESM rules) to give it more legitimacy if need be. --Thannak (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Perhaps in those cases one could briefly cover them on the "Approved Anime" page or whatever if they're not enmeshed in /tg/ culture enough to justify their own page. But on the other hand, even then we'd have to make sure it's not just /a/'s flavor of the month leaking into the other boards again. The opening paragraph thing is a good start, though- it'll help keep the focus on the /tg/ aspect of things.
- There for sure needs to be a balance. 1d4chan is usually seen as niche version of Dramatica or a shit 40k wiki rather than something legitimate. When trying to do research for the creation of pages like Zenit or Brother Vinni, I noticed there isn't really any Wikipedia page dedicated to those things. I also found that some of the better tactica pages were actually referred to on places like Whineseer, or people's actual blogs and defended when criticized as being "one of the few good pages". By trying to make an all-encompassing take on the tabletop gaming scene, all relevant memes both new (Lelf) and old (Gazebo) rather than just inventing new ones or putting "Heresy" on every other paragraph, and by continuing to make excellent tactics pages 1d4 can actually start to gain relevance. There's not really a more inclusive site, for example chances are if you're looking for Malifaux you check their wiki which is fairly dedicated to sucking it off and ignoring downsides, presenting a newbie-friendly take on the lore and mechanics (if developed at all), or providing advice on ways to get into the game cheaper. Consolidating information is important, but if someone wants to go into detail about it using collapsible sections for the unrelated information would be preferable to allowing someone to ramble on and on or deleting it outright. Presenting the information completely and with ease of reading and understanding should trump any specific page length, and use of categories should mark relevance. That's part of why I enjoy the /v/ tag (and honestly, the tag and category system is what deserves the bulk of attention as we have many pages that aren't in the correct categories, making site navigation difficult and we really do need a restructured navigation tree), it makes it clear that its not fully /tg/ related but the opening paragraph should indicate why it deserved to be on the site (relevance to /tg/ media for example, through inspiration or common reference by the gaming community). While I wouldn't advocate having a Jojo page, making it clear in the opening paragraph that its referenced quite often with a template image stating its a cross-board reference, then linking any homebrews at the bottom (or making one, its honestly very easy to do BESM rules) to give it more legitimacy if need be. --Thannak (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ironically, the fact that we didn't take ourselves seriously backfired. Now most people on /tg/ think it's unreliable and prone to stating misinformation as facts. Clearly we need to do a better job of ensuring the content is substantial even when not backed up with humor and/or memes. --Newerfag (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think the Tactics pages are for? -- Triacom (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- While I'm rambling on the subject, I'd like to note one thing about the RL history articles. As Petro noted on the talk page for the Roman Empire article, "Is it just me or do these articles always start off as somewhat informative joke pages and slowly descend into poorly written wikipedia clones?" I know /tg/'s the closest thing we have to a history board, but if we're trying to cover history we're obviously not doing a good job of it. If we don't rewrite the pages completely so they're less obviously derivative, they're not going to stand up very well in the long run, especially since they too don't put much effort into explaining why the non-history buffs in /tg/ should care. Might want to continue that line of discussion on the aforementioned page, though.--Newerfag (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
