157
edits
Bulbapedia talk:Project GlitchDex: Difference between revisions
Bulbapedia talk:Project GlitchDex (view source)
Revision as of 03:43, 18 January 2008
, 18 January 2008New section: Notability criteria
No edit summary |
(New section: Notability criteria) |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Okay. I've looked over a few articles and from what I can tell, the consensus within Bulbapedia is to '''not''' treat the glitch Pokémon as "real Pokémon". On the [[MissingNo.]] article there was actually an edit war with some people attempting to classify it as a "Pokémon", but from what I can tell the clear consensus is that MissingNo is not a "Pokémon". To that end, I modified the Template:GlitchPkmnInfobox so that it doesn't put the page in any Pokémon categories. However, recently MissingNo. was put into [[:Category:Normal-type Pokémon]] again. Should it be acceptable to include glitches in the type categories? I'm only asking because I don't want to revert that edit and inadvertently start another edit war. [[Image:Ani201QuMS.gif]] '''<code>[[User:Abwayax|abwayax]] ([[User talk:Abwayax|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Abwayax|c]])</code>''' [[Image:Ani201ExMS.gif]] 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | Okay. I've looked over a few articles and from what I can tell, the consensus within Bulbapedia is to '''not''' treat the glitch Pokémon as "real Pokémon". On the [[MissingNo.]] article there was actually an edit war with some people attempting to classify it as a "Pokémon", but from what I can tell the clear consensus is that MissingNo is not a "Pokémon". To that end, I modified the Template:GlitchPkmnInfobox so that it doesn't put the page in any Pokémon categories. However, recently MissingNo. was put into [[:Category:Normal-type Pokémon]] again. Should it be acceptable to include glitches in the type categories? I'm only asking because I don't want to revert that edit and inadvertently start another edit war. [[Image:Ani201QuMS.gif]] '''<code>[[User:Abwayax|abwayax]] ([[User talk:Abwayax|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Abwayax|c]])</code>''' [[Image:Ani201ExMS.gif]] 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Eh, I think we should.. if it happens to share a normal type, however. So no [[:Category:Bird-type Pokémon]]. {{User:TinaTheKirlia/Sig}} 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | :Eh, I think we should.. if it happens to share a normal type, however. So no [[:Category:Bird-type Pokémon]]. {{User:TinaTheKirlia/Sig}} 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Notability criteria == | |||
Here's something that's really been bugging me. Where exactly do we draw the line between a notable glitch Pokémon and a non-notable one? Obviously [[MissingNo.]] is notable, and apparently the 20-something other Gen I glitches listed are too... but what about the 120-something others that ''aren't''? Furthermore, should glitch items and attacks deserve pages? Even pages such as [[List of glitch items]]...? [[Image:Ani201QuMS.gif]] '''<code>[[User:Abwayax|abwayax]] ([[User talk:Abwayax|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Abwayax|c]])</code>''' [[Image:Ani201ExMS.gif]] 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||