448
edits
Talk:Gender: Difference between revisions
m
Grah formatting( MY OWN COMMENTS).
m (Grah formatting( MY OWN COMMENTS).) |
|||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
===I fixed it, sort of=== | ===I fixed it, sort of=== | ||
...which is to say: while my solution will probably not please everyone, at least ALL single-gender Pokémon are now back in the article. --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | ...which is to say: while my solution will probably not please everyone, at least ALL single-gender Pokémon are now back in the article. --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
P.S.: I also tried to bring the table more in line with the others on the page in terms of background color & fix a few formatting errors, but my edit got a bad formatting warning. It looks fine to me, so I posted it anyway, but maybe someone could identify what exactly Bulbapedia believes I broke? --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | <br>P.S.: I also tried to bring the table more in line with the others on the page in terms of background color & fix a few formatting errors, but my edit got a bad formatting warning. It looks fine to me, so I posted it anyway, but maybe someone could identify what exactly Bulbapedia believes I broke? --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
:LaprasBoi, I agree with your point that we shouldn't have differently-formatted tables on the same page, but I disagree with most of the rest of what you're doing. We should absolutely not group unofficial counterparts together; they are '''unofficial''' and we report facts, not opinions. Thus, National Pokedex order is the easiest way to enforce neutrality on this article. Likewise, the symbols are completely unnecessary; the headers easily signify gender, and evolution lines are irrelevant to the subject matter of this page. (Also, please add new comments to the '''bottom''' of the section, not sandwiched in the middle. You're making your monologue hard to follow.) [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 00:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | :LaprasBoi, I agree with your point that we shouldn't have differently-formatted tables on the same page, but I disagree with most of the rest of what you're doing. We should absolutely not group unofficial counterparts together; they are '''unofficial''' and we report facts, not opinions. Thus, National Pokedex order is the easiest way to enforce neutrality on this article. Likewise, the symbols are completely unnecessary; the headers easily signify gender, and evolution lines are irrelevant to the subject matter of this page. (Also, please add new comments to the '''bottom''' of the section, not sandwiched in the middle. You're making your monologue hard to follow.) [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 00:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
::I '''''DID''''' PUT THEM IN NATIONAL POKÉDEX ORDER. Then I moved later-introduced evolutions & pre-evolutions to be with their pre-existing family members. Then I moved all the legendaries to the end. This just HAPPENED to put all counterparts next to each other; it was completely unintentional, but I thought it was a nice bonus & a good compromise since there is NOT a consensus here yet, clearly. That said, I don’t really mind the split into two tables, but I disagree that evolution lineage is should not be considered for ordering; & also see no reason to include alternate formes & megas.( And my comments are placed based on what I am responding to. You can easily trace the intention by looking at how far they are indented. But here, I WILL subsection this, since it is relatively separate from the earlier dialogue, though still within the same conversation.) --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ::I '''''DID''''' PUT THEM IN NATIONAL POKÉDEX ORDER. Then I moved later-introduced evolutions & pre-evolutions to be with their pre-existing family members. Then I moved all the legendaries to the end. This just HAPPENED to put all counterparts next to each other; it was completely unintentional, but I thought it was a nice bonus & a good compromise since there is NOT a consensus here yet, clearly. That said, I don’t really mind the split into two tables, but I disagree that evolution lineage is should not be considered for ordering; & also see no reason to include alternate formes & megas.( And my comments are placed based on what I am responding to. You can easily trace the intention by looking at how far they are indented. But here, I WILL subsection this, since it is relatively separate from the earlier dialogue, though still within the same conversation.) --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
:::::That one looks a lot clearer to me. I vote that we use it. --[[User:WyndFox|<span style="color:#992232">Wynd</span>]] [[User talk:WyndFox|<span style="color:2B65EC">Fox</span>]] 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | :::::That one looks a lot clearer to me. I vote that we use it. --[[User:WyndFox|<span style="color:#992232">Wynd</span>]] [[User talk:WyndFox|<span style="color:2B65EC">Fox</span>]] 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::::Well, I mostly just think it's a lot uglier. =/ [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Well, I mostly just think it's a lot uglier. =/ [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::No, it does that for Snorunt but NOT for Kirlia. | :::::No, it does that for Snorunt but NOT for Kirlia. But I like the new one with purple best anyway, especially since it turns out I have no clue how to fix the current one. :-p --[[User:LaprasBoi|LaprasBoi]] ([[User talk:LaprasBoi|talk]]) 03:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC) | ||