11,872
edits
Talk:Shuckle (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Damage trivium: is it worth keeping?
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
::::::I agree to the complicated argument in general, but I guess there shouldn't really be a character limit per se. In this case, I think the trivium itself isn't really long ("Shuckle can deal the most potential virtual damage / The most potential virtual damage than can be dealt is 721,899,685"). It's just the explanation backing up this ''claim'' that is. I think I would be against keeping the trivium without having the explanation anywhere on Bulbapedia — that's pretty much like saying "Joe Montana is the best quarterback of all time", then running away. And again, if you doubt the trivium is correct, I believe that's a different issue. | ::::::I agree to the complicated argument in general, but I guess there shouldn't really be a character limit per se. In this case, I think the trivium itself isn't really long ("Shuckle can deal the most potential virtual damage / The most potential virtual damage than can be dealt is 721,899,685"). It's just the explanation backing up this ''claim'' that is. I think I would be against keeping the trivium without having the explanation anywhere on Bulbapedia — that's pretty much like saying "Joe Montana is the best quarterback of all time", then running away. And again, if you doubt the trivium is correct, I believe that's a different issue. | ||
::::::My idea would have been to only include it in all needed detail once. And in my opinion, the most adequate places seem to be damage or Shuckle. If there's consensus on not keeping it anywhere (because it's too contrived etc.), that's also fine to me; I don't want to cast my vote for or against that. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ::::::My idea would have been to only include it in all needed detail once. And in my opinion, the most adequate places seem to be damage or Shuckle. If there's consensus on not keeping it anywhere (because it's too contrived etc.), that's also fine to me; I don't want to cast my vote for or against that. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::::For reasons mentioned above, I would still like to "restore" the calculation somewhere. In case nobody says they're okay with that being as part of the trivium within an article (damage, I guess), I would be doing it at least as a hidden comment. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC) | |||