13,669
edits
User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 5 (view source)
Revision as of 06:40, 2 December 2016
, 2 December 2016→not unique = not notable
MannedTooth (talk | contribs) (→not unique = not notable: new section) |
|||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
Because for example, {{p|Pikachu}} is not the only one to have been printed on money, {{p|Ekans}} is not the only one to have a foreign entry and {{p|Clefable}} is not the only one to share the same weight as [[Ethan]]. etc. [[User:MannedTooth|<span style="color:#FF8000"> MannedTooth </span>]] ([[User_Talk:MannedTooth|Talk]]) 06:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC) | Because for example, {{p|Pikachu}} is not the only one to have been printed on money, {{p|Ekans}} is not the only one to have a foreign entry and {{p|Clefable}} is not the only one to share the same weight as [[Ethan]]. etc. [[User:MannedTooth|<span style="color:#FF8000"> MannedTooth </span>]] ([[User_Talk:MannedTooth|Talk]]) 06:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
:It varies depending on the eye of the beholder. Personally I would like to ax all of those type of things (I'm very anti-trivia), but the general consensus on Bulbapedia seems to be that the "not unique = not notable" principle doesn't apply to much more than "the only one"/"one of the only two"/"one of the few"-type trivia, so I don't generally pursue it outside of that. | |||
:As for where it comes from, I'm honestly not sure. A lot of us have been using it (me most vocally, but many others as well) for several years, and I can't remember whom I picked it up from. In any case, some staff members sometimes cite it as a justification themselves, so even though it's not a specific policy written in stone, it certainly is acceptable as a rule of thumb. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) | |||