11,917
edits
Talk:Shuckle (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Damage trivium: is it worth keeping?
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
::::But ''if'' this belongs anywhere, as far as I'm concerned, it ''really'' only belongs on the [[damage]] page, because that's very much the core. Shuckle is otherwise pretty much equally as important to the trivia as {{a|Flash Fire}} or {{m|Ice Ball}} or just about any other part of the situation is; but it's not really sensible to put it on all those pages, nor is it any more sensible really to only have it on ''Shuckle'''s page. This is about damage; IMO that's where it belongs. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ::::But ''if'' this belongs anywhere, as far as I'm concerned, it ''really'' only belongs on the [[damage]] page, because that's very much the core. Shuckle is otherwise pretty much equally as important to the trivia as {{a|Flash Fire}} or {{m|Ice Ball}} or just about any other part of the situation is; but it's not really sensible to put it on all those pages, nor is it any more sensible really to only have it on ''Shuckle'''s page. This is about damage; IMO that's where it belongs. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::Very persuasive, Tiddlywinks; your first paragraph pretty much summed up my opinion but more eloquently, and your second one won me over. I've added the point to [[damage]], but as long as discussion is ongoing here I'm not removing it here yet (although I agree it should go). [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | :::::Very persuasive, Tiddlywinks; your first paragraph pretty much summed up my opinion but more eloquently, and your second one won me over. I've added the point to [[damage]], but as long as discussion is ongoing here I'm not removing it here yet (although I agree it should go). [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::::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) | |||