5,386
edits
User talk:Crystal Talian/Archive1: Difference between revisions
→Reversion of Special abilities section initiative
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
::The Bulbasaur article lists 13 moves, and uses colorful language. By my method, using a threshold, only 1 move (i.e. Seed Bomb (Bulbasaur does not learn Power Whip or Bullet Seed by leveling up)) would be listed, and it would not be presented in colorful language. As such, I think that is a horrible example, and focusing on these supposed similar instances in your reply derails the discussion - I don't know of any, so they played no role in my editing. You say that you (we) do not want any moves other than "signature moves" listed, but I asked you to explain this opinion, not repeat it. And I don't see how this initiative has to interfere with these "upcoming changes", which I have no idea what are about, as you ignored to elaborate on them back in April at my talk page, section "Examples in the Mainspace". It's not really testing, neither was the Tynamo edit, which you similarly reprimanded me on back in April; they're single edits, improving the encyclopedic article, breaking no rules whatsoever, not forcing other articles to follow suit, and even easy to revert. You're telling me to bring it up with staff first, and at the same time, you (a member of staff) refuse to actually discuss this initiative upon my invitation, right here. I don't know what to make of that, really. And I've used talk pages a lot, when my ideas involve large changes, but you can see for yourself how much that has achieved so far, even when people do agree with me. I feel like you have a habit of [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889491&oldid=1889385 just] [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889494&oldid=1889491 removing] [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889505&oldid=1889494 content] without addressing the idea itself, [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889494&oldid=1889491 sometimes without even making sense]. This is without mentioning your actions (or lack thereof) in relation to the matter "discussed" on your talk page, section "Move trivia". I've even got a section on my own talk page named after you, completely incognito, out of the blue, still clueless as to how that came about. If you have to disapprove of an idea, can't you at least engage in dialogue about the actual idea, or otherwise leave the reversions to people who are willing to do so? [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | ::The Bulbasaur article lists 13 moves, and uses colorful language. By my method, using a threshold, only 1 move (i.e. Seed Bomb (Bulbasaur does not learn Power Whip or Bullet Seed by leveling up)) would be listed, and it would not be presented in colorful language. As such, I think that is a horrible example, and focusing on these supposed similar instances in your reply derails the discussion - I don't know of any, so they played no role in my editing. You say that you (we) do not want any moves other than "signature moves" listed, but I asked you to explain this opinion, not repeat it. And I don't see how this initiative has to interfere with these "upcoming changes", which I have no idea what are about, as you ignored to elaborate on them back in April at my talk page, section "Examples in the Mainspace". It's not really testing, neither was the Tynamo edit, which you similarly reprimanded me on back in April; they're single edits, improving the encyclopedic article, breaking no rules whatsoever, not forcing other articles to follow suit, and even easy to revert. You're telling me to bring it up with staff first, and at the same time, you (a member of staff) refuse to actually discuss this initiative upon my invitation, right here. I don't know what to make of that, really. And I've used talk pages a lot, when my ideas involve large changes, but you can see for yourself how much that has achieved so far, even when people do agree with me. I feel like you have a habit of [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889491&oldid=1889385 just] [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889494&oldid=1889491 removing] [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889505&oldid=1889494 content] without addressing the idea itself, [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Tynamo_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=1889494&oldid=1889491 sometimes without even making sense]. This is without mentioning your actions (or lack thereof) in relation to the matter "discussed" on your talk page, section "Move trivia". I've even got a section on my own talk page named after you, completely incognito, out of the blue, still clueless as to how that came about. If you have to disapprove of an idea, can't you at least engage in dialogue about the actual idea, or otherwise leave the reversions to people who are willing to do so? [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::A Pokemon's moveset has nothing to do with its special abilities. If more than one Pokemon can learn a move ''by any means at all'', then it is not special to that Pokemon. This is why we would ideally like to include only signature or previously signature moves. They are unique and therefore "special" to that particular Pokemon. "Single" mainspace edits such as your Tynamo and Munna edits are not actually singular. They set a standard. If we note something or display something on one page, we must be consistent and do it on all similar pages. So when you, or anyone else, adds references (as in the Tynamo edit) or set a certain standard (such as Munna) then all similar pages should do the same for consistency. Not to do so is unprofessional and, frankly, sloppy looking. If you wish to discuss topics like this more thoroughly, then you should create a topic on the Pokemon's or on the Pokedex Projects talkpages where it's easier for more members (and staff) to respond to it, rather than relying on my input alone. [[User:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#9F00C5">Crystal</span>]] [[User talk:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#FF00FF">Talian</span>]] 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | :::A Pokemon's moveset has nothing to do with its special abilities. If more than one Pokemon can learn a move ''by any means at all'', then it is not special to that Pokemon. This is why we would ideally like to include only signature or previously signature moves. They are unique and therefore "special" to that particular Pokemon. "Single" mainspace edits such as your Tynamo and Munna edits are not actually singular. They set a standard. If we note something or display something on one page, we must be consistent and do it on all similar pages. So when you, or anyone else, adds references (as in the Tynamo edit) or set a certain standard (such as Munna) then all similar pages should do the same for consistency. Not to do so is unprofessional and, frankly, sloppy looking. If you wish to discuss topics like this more thoroughly, then you should create a topic on the Pokemon's or on the Pokedex Projects talkpages where it's easier for more members (and staff) to respond to it, rather than relying on my input alone. [[User:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#9F00C5">Crystal</span>]] [[User talk:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#FF00FF">Talian</span>]] 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::That's quite the bold statement; that the moves (manifestations of the powers a Pokémon possesses) a Pokémon is programmed to learn by leveling up (the most specific, direct manner of "distribution") "has nothing to do with its special abilities". The remainder of your argument hinges on equaling "special" with "unique"...may I suggest changing the section title in case that's the intended definition of the word? The can't-be-more-than-1-out-of-all-instances-argument, while often highly relevant, is not applicable to everything; you're dealing with more than 600 instances (similarities are bound to occur), and the information being cut due to enforcing this argument is not some new trivia point or whatever, but information concerning the exact subject matter of the target section. I still disagree regarding those two edit examples. They may set a standard, but that's not what constitutes the problem. What matters is whether that standard is an improvement to the site or not; if it is, consistency will eventually come around. Clearly, you wouldn't remove something good just because it makes the remaining articles look "sloppy"; you obviously remove the content because you find it adverse. This would be fine if you actually addressed/discussed the proposed idea, but your lack of involvement has been plainly obvious from this exchange. And that is unfortunate, so yes, if my ideas are to be dismissed, I would prefer "discussing them more thoroughly". With uninvolved, reverting patrollers like you around, I suppose there's no other way than proposing ideas via discussion pages, drawing from userspace page examples. If that's the way Bulbapedia is to be run, then so be it. Let's see how that goes. Case rested. [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 17:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||