Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28809980-20190304005621/@comment-5754239-20190304023844

Welcome back, Merry! :)

I agree that we need to concretely define what a "History" section needs to have because the current system of having trivia for things like "This rip was uploaded for [event]" but not other aspects of the infobox is inconsistent.

I also agree that the "History" section should lend itself to explaining the context of a rip's joke (what about the event that makes this rip a part of it), how it was created, and any previous / subsequent rips that are related to it (like remasters, twin rips). However, I think the rule of "repeat information from the infobox" should not be applied to a rip without a clear reason. With all of the examples you've given, there is a clear reason for these rips to have a history section, and even then only some of the elements of the infobox are relevant.

Explanation of these articles
With "Septette for the Dead Princess", the section is used to mention its predecessor, a date is included to illustrate the timeline with the twin; however, with the MIDI version the upload date have anything to do with the rest of the section, though the rest is very interesting and relevant.

One improvement would be to mention that the author of both "Septette..." rips was the same author, and add the timeline of the two rips into the MIDI version's article. That would tie them together further and justify the date is mentioned in the MIDI version's article. As for the mention of the authors, I think the mention is necessary because omitting it runs contrary to one of my long-standing beliefs that this wiki exists to celebrate rips and the people who rip them.

With the "Battle 1", mentions of the events that the rip was a part of is necessary to explain the jokes and why they appear. It is then expanded to include its date (because the date is relevant to the rip being a part of two event days) and its author (because it's the natural way to move forward. Omitting the author would be a detriment to the article.).

With "Narrow Road", the author and date have even more justification. New Guy is the origin of the rip's joke, and him being the one who ripped it explains a lot about why the rip exists. The date places the rip in context with other events in the rip's history and shed some light on it. Actually, I'm not too sure about whether the specific date needs to be there except to highlight how long it has been since the origins of "wace" and the upload of the rip.

Conclusion
My point is, lines like "This rip was made by [ripper]. This rip was uploaded on [date]." should not be on every article unless it lends itself to the "not too essential" Trivia-like information in the History section. If the date, or length, or playlist or whatever is in the history section, it has to be justified. It has to add to the article.

My main reason for this is because it's redundant and irrelevant to have every page repeat information that is already in the infobox. It's a similar reason to why our current Trivia sections' use of "This rip was uploaded as part of [event]" is usually useless; it doesn't lend itself further to the article, and only serves to poorly flesh out the article by repeating elements from the infobox.

If a history section is on an article, it needs to have a solid foundation (i.e. interesting history) to be fleshed out properly. I think that's something you've demonstrated, and I want to make that clear.