5,094
edits
User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Preparing a redlink to a page set for deletion so it does not appear in Wanted pages later.
(Preparing a redlink to a page set for deletion so it does not appear in Wanted pages later.) |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TalkArchive}} | |||
==Welcome== | ==Welcome== | ||
{| class="toccolours" style="margin: 0.5em 0; border: 1px solid #3e7614; -moz-border-radius: 15px;" cellspacing="1" width="100%" | {| class="toccolours" style="margin: 0.5em 0; border: 1px solid #3e7614; -moz-border-radius: 15px;" cellspacing="1" width="100%" | ||
| Line 105: | Line 107: | ||
== Moves == | == Moves == | ||
I compiled a list of moves on my | I compiled a list of moves on my {{redlink|User:Pattyman/Moves Sandbox|userpage}} incase you are interested. [[User:Pattyman|<span style="color:orange">Patty</span>]][[User talk:Pattyman|<span style="color:orange">Man</span>]] 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:I don't generally concern myself about that particular flavor of minutiae, so I won't be adding to the list if that's what you meant. If you were looking for confirmation of anything like in previous instances, I don't see anything that apparently needs it... [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 06:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | :I don't generally concern myself about that particular flavor of minutiae, so I won't be adding to the list if that's what you meant. If you were looking for confirmation of anything like in previous instances, I don't see anything that apparently needs it... [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 06:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 1,392: | Line 1,394: | ||
:Oh, I'm sorry, I got confused by the existence of [[List of Pokémon with unique type combinations|this page]]. But besides that, a {{wp|combination (disambiguation)|combination}} by definition makes no distinction based on order. The explicit difference between combinations and permutations is that permutations take order into account while combinations do not. "Unique" is still an unnecessary qualifier. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | :Oh, I'm sorry, I got confused by the existence of [[List of Pokémon with unique type combinations|this page]]. But besides that, a {{wp|combination (disambiguation)|combination}} by definition makes no distinction based on order. The explicit difference between combinations and permutations is that permutations take order into account while combinations do not. "Unique" is still an unnecessary qualifier. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
That page is using unique in a different context. That page refers to ''pokemon'' who are unique in their typing. The page we're talking about is using unique to describe that to two tables make no distinction between type combinations of a different order. By saying it includes 171 unique type combinations of the possible 324, it implies that, for example, ghost/dark and dark/ghost are considered ''one'' unique type combination. | That page is using unique in a different context. That page refers to ''pokemon'' who are unique in their typing. The page we're talking about is using unique to describe that to two tables make no distinction between type combinations of a different order. By saying it includes 171 unique type combinations of the possible 324, it implies that, for example, ghost/dark and dark/ghost are considered ''one'' unique type combination. {{unsigned|Disgraced}} | ||
Maybe. I do agree with that. But instead of using the word combinations, how about saying "unique permutations"? I agree the combination doesn't by definition include order, but to most readers, they won't know that. I would prefer using "unique permutations". I know by definition that a combinations is a unique permutation, but for ease of understanding and wording, I think including unique is important. {{unsigned|Disgraced}} | |||
:(FYI, comments on talk pages should always be "signed" at the end by typing four tildes (~). ...But that doesn't mean you should resign your comments above. Just for future reference.) | |||
:If it would make you feel better, I wouldn't be against linking "permutation" and "combination" to their Wikipedia articles. But saying "unique permutations" may be more nonsensical than "unique combinations". At least "combination" has a colloquial meaning that actually fits "permutation". (Since I used both "permutation" and "combination" on [[List of type combinations by abundance|the page]], though, that colloquial meaning should have no impact. To the extent that a person's own misunderstanding may cause confusion, I am willing to link the words, but not add in "unique"...not with the current structure.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Okay. If unique is an unnecessary qualifier then how come on the ''Type'' article, it uses the phrase "171 unique combinations of types"? If combination means unique permutation by default, then that sentence should be changed to "171 Type Combinations" as unique is an unnecessary qualifier. [[User:Disgraced|Disgraced]] ([[User talk:Disgraced|talk]]) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
It may seem redundant to have the words ''unique combination'' together as a combination by definition is unique, but for the sake of confusion, most people don't differentiate between combination and permutation. I can confidently say that most people wouldn't know the difference even though there is one. While technically that is the difference, for simplicity, including the word ''unique'' would prevent any confusion despite it being redundant. If avoiding redundancy outweighs the cost of a wordy sentence that may cause confusion to most people who don't know the difference then leave it unchanged. [[User:Disgraced|Disgraced]] ([[User talk:Disgraced|talk]]) 13:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Just because most people don't know the difference is no reason to lower standards. What about the people who ''do'' understand the difference and consider the phrasing plainly dumb? Or are confused because they take it to mean something else (as I did: "[[List of Pokémon with unique type combinations|unique to one Pokemon/family]]")? The solution is not to cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of the rest. You seek a solution that is correct for ''both''. Linking "permutation" and "combination" satisfies that, while adding "unique" very much does not. | |||
:As for [[Type]], its intro is fundamentally different from [[List of type combinations by abundance]]'s. Whereas the latter page goes to pains to give an example of the same type combination assigned differently and explicitly mentions "permutations", the former is kept simple and brief. In that brevity, with "324 possible ways to assign types" so near, it makes sense to directly contrast that to unique combinations therein. The type page does not explicitly explain how some of the type assignments can be the same, so some "redundancy" is actually useful in that case. (I don't really consider it "redundant", per se, but I don't know what to properly label it either.) | |||
:(I would also advise you to avoid making multiple edits in a short time to a page. It's better to just take the time you think you need beforehand, or else defer it to later.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
I made that edit to the Type page as to completely remove any reference to permutation at all. It's unnecessary to refer to combinations and permutations and then distinguish between them when the only thing need to be made clear is that there are 324 possible ways to order types an 171 ways if you discount the same type combination in a different order. Not to mention your pretentious attitude in thinking it is a lower standard to use combination and permutation interchangeably when the difference between the is very minor and in almost all modern use of the word combination as a synonym to permutation. Instead of displaying your higher standard of vocabulary, perhaps the point should be made to get the point across in as few words as possible. [[User:Disgraced|Disgraced]] ([[User talk:Disgraced|talk]]) 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:In point of fact - the very point I made above, in fact - "permutation" is not mentioned on [[Type]] at all. That is ''every'' difference. That usage of "unique" is ''highlighting'' a quality of "combinations". That ''is'' brevity, economy of words. It's not important for the Type page to go to the pains that the abundance page does, so it does not, but highlighting the difference between possible ways to assign types, which may have some "repitition", and combinations is still valuable. | |||
:Your primary interest here is arguing against "unique combinations" just because it wasn't right on the abundance page. But that fails to take into account the significant differences in both pages. Language does not always follow the exact same rules for things that ''appear'' the same. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
I have to say you've been quite rude, intolerant, and narrow-minded. By refusing to acknowledge the double-standard and hypocrisy of allowing the redundant use of ''unique combinations'' to be disallowed on one page but allowed on another. Not only that but claiming that fixing a minor error is pedantic behaviour. Your intolerance and narrow-mindedness is excessive and your unwillingness to accept that perhaps you can be wrong is disgusting. You revert to edit wars, Ad Hominem, and downright pretentiousness as evidence to your beliefs. Your immature and child-like methods grow tiresome. --[[User:Disgraced|Disgraced]] ([[User talk:Disgraced|talk]]) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I've tried to explain to you why it's not "hypocrisy". For what it's worth, I have not in any of the above meant any particular rudeness or insult or any of the rest you ascribe to me. | |||
:I have not seen anything approaching "proof" that I am substantively wrong in these cases. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Yikes == | |||
I made lots of mistakes in the second edit. Tried to correct them and you beat me to "Misgagius", a typo which I also made at {{p|Mismagius}}. Wow, I must be tired today. | |||
Going to add similar trivia to {{p|Murkrow}} and {{p|Misdreavus}}...if I can word it correctly. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Direct link == | |||
Can I ask the point of [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Day_Care&curid=3466&diff=2163393&oldid=2159559 this edit]? That {{template|game4}} was actually designed for that specific purpose of linking it that way and it actually adds ''more'' bytes to the page to hard link it instead of that template. So that one isn't a laziness use, and in this situation, it's okay to link to "Pokémon Green Version" as a redirect. ^^' (I do agree that we don't need something like "Pokmon FireRed", though, that's just silly to have). Thanks for your understanding! [[Special:Contributions/Zesty Cactus|--]][[User:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#006400">'''Zesty'''</span>]][[User talk:Zesty Cactus|<span style="color:#3CB371">'''Cactus'''</span>]] 02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I don't like redirects for any reason. If you want to revert it, I won't argue against a staff member, but I just don't consider a "solution" that creates a redirect to be a good solution, fewer bytes or not... [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::If I may since I got alerted to the edits here (posted earlier)...doesn't having to redirect through a template also cause a loading of that template, meaning ''more'' bytes to be loaded to generate the template result? I think direct linking (Tiddlywink's method) is a cleaner way to do it, and makes more sense to other editors on the page instead of a template I never even knew existed (I always thought those were direct linked, have never edited that page). Just my opinion, though. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 02:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::'''Tiddlywinks:''' Just because you dislike something, doesn't mean you should go on a massive purge of such. It's always best to contact a staff member before undertaking a massive project such as this. They'll help you know what's okay and what's not. | |||
:::'''CycloneGU:''' No, it doesn't do anything of the sort. The only time a template can cause additional load is if its a template calling another template, which is not the case in any of the links that were being changed. Link templates exist to reduce the amount of code on pages, and to allow common link formats to be handled in a quicker, and more efficient, manner. - [[User:Kogoro|'''<span class="sc" style="color:#DA70D6;">Kogoro</span>''']] '''-''' [[User talk:Kogoro|'''<span class="sc" style="color:#FFB6C1;">Talk to me</span>''']] - 03:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::You're applying my response above to too wide a context. I was speaking against the supposed savings that Zesty Cactus said the template provided, which, by my values (i.e., redirects are bad), do not make the template acceptable. | |||
::::I did not at all start this "purge" "just because" I dislike redirects. I certainly won't deny I dislike them, but the primary factor was that it is also my understanding that redirects are undesirable on the wiki. ''That'' is why I started fixing them. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::My take is that redirects are fine in cases of user error; for instance, "charmander" instead of "{{p|Charmander}}" or, as I tend to link as I'm used to it, "[[Charmander (Pokémon)|Charmander]]". However, maybe I misunderstood. Templates like the Pokémon one I just used work, but from a user editing standpoint, it's easier for a user to pick up on the second linked example of "Charmander" there. If the Daycare one is like this, then fine, it works; however, I think Tiddlywinks' method is easier for other editors to pick up on and not accidentally screw up if a character is accidentally added or removed. That said, on some pages space is at a premium (see [[Headbutt (move)|Headbutt]], which has had a couple of revamps including one I suggested in some way), so templates save a few characters as well on those pages. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 07:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Hey, Tiddly? About uniqueness... == | |||
When you say something "unique" enough to be noteworthy, what exactly do you mean, for future clarity? Here, I'll give you a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Normal/Ghost or a Fairy/Fighting type Pokémon, would that be worth noting in the trivia? After all, no other Pokémon has these combos to date.[[User:IM-T-MAN2|IM-T-MAN2]] ([[User talk:IM-T-MAN2|talk]]) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:As a rule, if a Pokemon(/its family) is not the only one about which you can make a claim, it's not worth including in trivia. The hypothetical of unique typing isn't really hypothetical. =P [[Diggersby (Pokémon)#Trivia|Diggersby's trivia]] notes its unique typing, as I'm sure the [[List of Pokémon with unique type combinations|other Pokemon with unique typings]] do. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) | |||