9
edits
User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 2 (view source)
Revision as of 02:02, 11 November 2013
, 11 November 2013comment
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) m (→Television trivia: wrong indent) |
(comment) |
||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::::Talk pages are for actual conversations, yes. My long edit summaries are merely my explanation of why I'm doing something for when I don't actually expect a conversation — in this case, for example, a responding edit summary saying that it had indeed been fact-checked would have been sufficient (for that part of my concerns). As for trivia notability, the admins have (annoyingly enough) not gotten around to actually putting up a page for our trivia guidelines, but until those go up, the current de facto rule across all of Bulbapedia is that no matter how rare something is, it must be unique to be notable. This is because if we don't draw a hard line somewhere, it gets very easy to fight over how far the gray area should extend on a case-by-case basis, which is a waste of time, energy and server space. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 21:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) | ::::Talk pages are for actual conversations, yes. My long edit summaries are merely my explanation of why I'm doing something for when I don't actually expect a conversation — in this case, for example, a responding edit summary saying that it had indeed been fact-checked would have been sufficient (for that part of my concerns). As for trivia notability, the admins have (annoyingly enough) not gotten around to actually putting up a page for our trivia guidelines, but until those go up, the current de facto rule across all of Bulbapedia is that no matter how rare something is, it must be unique to be notable. This is because if we don't draw a hard line somewhere, it gets very easy to fight over how far the gray area should extend on a case-by-case basis, which is a waste of time, energy and server space. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 21:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::Okay, if you say "unique" is the de facto rule, I can stomach that, then. (Honestly, no sarcasm or anything.) However, I still think your explicit and open-ended questions of ''"Does it actually translate it or does it just give what a human THINKS it's saying, like real-life humans talking about what their pets are "saying"? / Is this the only instance of it in the games, or are there others?'' really did not belong in an edit summary, or not ''only'' in an edit summary. Period. If you just want confirmation, perhaps you should add that: "Can someone confirm..." [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC) | :::::Okay, if you say "unique" is the de facto rule, I can stomach that, then. (Honestly, no sarcasm or anything.) However, I still think your explicit and open-ended questions of ''"Does it actually translate it or does it just give what a human THINKS it's saying, like real-life humans talking about what their pets are "saying"? / Is this the only instance of it in the games, or are there others?'' really did not belong in an edit summary, or not ''only'' in an edit summary. Period. If you just want confirmation, perhaps you should add that: "Can someone confirm..." [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::uh, just wanted to make a note that my indentation was purposely single rather than double, as i was replying not to your response, mr pumpkin, but the original comment. same with this one. i'll refrain from further comment on this discussion, though. not really my area of expertise. ~ [[User:Coelispex|Coeplispex]] [[[User talk:Coelispex|☎]]] 02:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||