User talk:Nescientist

Hello!

I'm Nescientist, welcome to my talk page!

If you leave a question or request, I will try to respond here as soon as reasonably possible. (This implies that there'll usually be no need for someone else to respond on my behalf.)

Unless otherwise stated, my edits (and responses) are primarily my own thoughts and not necessarily reflective of the opinion of the administration as a whole. If I make an edit or talk page comment that you disagree with, I encourage you to challenge me on it. Note that this only applies to me and has no implications on how other staff members utilize their authority.

Talk page archive:

• Archive 01 (June 2016 - Feb 2022)

Plural redirects

We just don't like them because you can use the [[pasture]]s syntax to get the link to pastures. It's that easy considering this feature of the MediaWiki software. And this applies to other links displaying as plurals, e.g. [[Badge]]s as Badges. --Bfdifan2006 _(T/C) 21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I'm talking about the Pastures redirect that was just deleted. --Bfdifan2006 _(T/C) 21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page policy

While I understand I am not a staff member, and I do try to avoid focusing too much on cleaning up talk pages, I feel like my removal of the responses to comments that are over a decade old on the Masuda method talk page was justified. Force Fire has made it clear in the past that correcting old misinformation on talk pages is not necessary or important, particularly if the users that the comments are responding to have not been active in years and likely will not see them.

I am more than happy to be lenient, and I understand that cleaning up talk pages should not be the main focus of my edits (and they aren't), but responses to comments from twelve years ago seem flagrantly unnecessary and pointless, and few people will see them as most users look to the bottom of the page for new comments anyway.

If the discussion is that important to start up again, it should probably be in a new section at the bottom of the page. But to me, the discussion does not seem important. People should not be looking to the talk page for accurate up-to-date information, as that is what the main article is for. I do not believe it has ever been a priority to make sure that the talk pages have accurate information, as the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the main article, and if the improvements have already been made, and nobody disagrees, a discussion is probably not needed.

Moving forward, I will continue to be mindful not to be overzealous in removing comments, and in more ambiguous situations I will consult a staff member, but in this particular situation, I do think the comments should be removed, as to discourage the behavior. Thank you. Landfish7 13:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for coming here and trying to discuss with me. (I believe you're talking about this.)

I feel I should point out that I didn't criticize you or your general behavior, but just that one reversion, let's say maybe reversions of that sort in general. (Since you mentioned something about you, and your focusing on talk pages - I didn't mean that.)

As for the bottom of the page thing, I can only say that I usually at least scan the whole talk page (or the headers) before I create a new topic, and that sometimes I scan whole talk pages when trying to find information (regardless of who started any particular section, or if they're still active).

Which leads to another point you brought up, which is that talk pages shouldn't be a source of information (if that's what you're saying)? I (and other users, including staff) often use them for documentation purposes. I'd be more than happy if someone pointed out I was wrong even years after I wrote it.

Maybe you could clarify what behavior exactly you want to discourage and why? (I honestly don't see a problem with that edits.) Nescientist (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the acknowledgment. I just didn't want to give off the impression that I delete comments willy nilly.

On your second note, I would argue that the time stamp really matters here. Information from a comment from years ago probably shouldn't be relied on as much as more recent information, or information in the actual article. As Force pointed out, one of the responses was interested in a source for some old information, and I still believe this request for information would be more likely to be seen in its own section at the bottom of the page, as well as any response with more information that someone else might add.

I do agree that talk pages can be useful in documenting some of the behind the scenes of the history of a page and the evolution of our understanding of a subject. However, I again would argue that if a user wanted to clarify some old misconception or ask for sources for old information, a new section would be the best place for it.

Specifically, the behavior I think that should be discouraged is responding to conversations (well) over 6 months, as it is against the talk page policy and isn't helpful or necessary. Even in situations where the discussion does have a good reason to be revitalized, it's best to just bring it up in a new section (unless perhaps when the existing comment is already at or near the bottom of the page), so that readers are more likely able to see it and potentially contribute to the discussion. Hope this makes sense, and thanks for being open to discuss this with me. Landfish7 05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As a sidenote, after I saw my comments on the Masuda talk page were removed,, I did review the talk page policy and I also agree with them staying removed. (I would have removed them myself if they hadn't been already)

It should have been a new section, and in hindsight both of the users that provided the misinformation about Masuda not working for NPC trade Pokémon have long been inactive, and wouldn't have seen my request for a source for the erroneous claim. Atrius97 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear we're on the same page. And thank you for understanding. Landfish7 06:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, my point kind of still is.. that I (at the very least) would have seen the request (and the answer), that I find it helpful (and/as I don't value the timestamp as much Force Fire and you apparently do), that I would typically trust some users even when they're inactive already.. and that I think it's silly to start a new section with the exact same topic (especially if it's an answer and needs context) just so it's at the bottom.

But yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm happy to disagree with you, though, but at the same time I'm also happy to consider what you said going forward. (I'm particularly happy that the opposite also seems to apply.)

I propose let's get back to work then ;) Nescientist (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Signing

If you've forgotten to sign a talk page comment, please don't go back and re-sign it as this will result in an incorrect timestamp--BigDocFan, Junior Admin Bulbapedia (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I really should have signed while making the comment.. but I forgot. Anyway, I realized that right after the edit had saved, at which point signing should still be cool, as per the policy, and private discussion/consensus with BigDocFan. (If it's minutes or hours later, then that'll be a different story.) Nescientist (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)