12,161
edits
Talk:Shuckle (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Damage trivium: is it worth keeping?
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
:And another (personal?) note: You (Pumpkinking) recently [[Special:Diff/2521545|removed]] a calculation at {{m|Ice Beam}}, quoting {{u|Force Fire}} who removed it here at Shuckle [[Special:Diff/2445690|once]], saying "We are not a strategy guide. This is all that needs to be said." I definitely agree to the first sentence, and I {{tt|possibly agree|read: I'm unsure myself, but someone else is/was sure}} to the second one ''for the Shuckle article''. If you remove the calculation from Bulbapedia entirely, you basically refuse to give readers an explanation (which basically makes some kind of unsourced claim, causing Unowninator and possibly others to be confused); someone (apparently) "did the math", you just removed it. (And that was actually the point why I included the link to Ice Ball, cause at the time I did that, the whole calculation was there.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | :And another (personal?) note: You (Pumpkinking) recently [[Special:Diff/2521545|removed]] a calculation at {{m|Ice Beam}}, quoting {{u|Force Fire}} who removed it here at Shuckle [[Special:Diff/2445690|once]], saying "We are not a strategy guide. This is all that needs to be said." I definitely agree to the first sentence, and I {{tt|possibly agree|read: I'm unsure myself, but someone else is/was sure}} to the second one ''for the Shuckle article''. If you remove the calculation from Bulbapedia entirely, you basically refuse to give readers an explanation (which basically makes some kind of unsourced claim, causing Unowninator and possibly others to be confused); someone (apparently) "did the math", you just removed it. (And that was actually the point why I included the link to Ice Ball, cause at the time I did that, the whole calculation was there.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
::Yes, I believe giving the whole calculation is too strategy guide-ish for our pages, and that without the calculation it's too easy to accidentally be wrong for us to retain in good conscience. I think it should go altogether. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ::Yes, I believe giving the whole calculation is too strategy guide-ish for our pages, and that without the calculation it's too easy to accidentally be wrong for us to retain in good conscience. I think it should go altogether. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::Do you see any reason why restoring the calculation (''anywhere'') would be bad (i.e., worse than the current state)? Or rather, do you (personally) have a reason why you removed the calculation in the first place (but of course not the entire thing)? From what I can tell, you ''seemingly'' agree that notability and reliability are largely independent issues, and that the (''complete'') removal didn't solve the notability issue but at the same time introduced/worsened the reliability issue. | |||
:::Regarding "it should go altogether": I don't heavily disagree, but I also don't really agree. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||