User talk:Maverick Nate/Archives/9: Difference between revisions

Line 306: Line 306:
Sorry for only answering now. I've been really busy with something and I wasn't able to answer earlier. But I've been thinking about what you said. Personally, I prefer the current template/method of organization (one entry for each unique card with all its releases listed together...). But that's just my opinion. I think that making an entry for each individual release is kinda unnecessary... On the other hand, the Item/Supporter/Stadium template seems faster to edit. And the pokémon cards are not like the trainer cards which are always being reprinted in decks and all... It's your call. Whatever you decide, I'm fine. [[User:Metalizard|Metalizard]] ([[User talk:Metalizard|talk]]) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for only answering now. I've been really busy with something and I wasn't able to answer earlier. But I've been thinking about what you said. Personally, I prefer the current template/method of organization (one entry for each unique card with all its releases listed together...). But that's just my opinion. I think that making an entry for each individual release is kinda unnecessary... On the other hand, the Item/Supporter/Stadium template seems faster to edit. And the pokémon cards are not like the trainer cards which are always being reprinted in decks and all... It's your call. Whatever you decide, I'm fine. [[User:Metalizard|Metalizard]] ([[User talk:Metalizard|talk]]) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:Yup, I get what you mean. That's a good ideia. But, just to be clear, tell me if I'm thinking right. From the following pages that need to be updated: "Box Topper", "Owner's Pokémon", "Retro card", and "Delta Species Pokémon"; "Box Topper" and "Retro card" will also use the Item template like the "Secret card" page, while "Owner's Pokémon" and "Delta Species Pokémon" will use the big block template, right? Also, the Retro card page has a column that says "Original Release". Should that be kept? It makes sense to have it but the template would have to be adjusted. Same thing for the Delta Pokémon page. It has a column with the regular type of the Pokémon and another column with the delta type. Wouldn't it be better to just use the type column of the big block template for each card as usual and forget the regular type column? [[User:Metalizard|Metalizard]] ([[User talk:Metalizard|talk]]) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
:Yup, I get what you mean. That's a good ideia. But, just to be clear, tell me if I'm thinking right. From the following pages that need to be updated: "Box Topper", "Owner's Pokémon", "Retro card", and "Delta Species Pokémon"; "Box Topper" and "Retro card" will also use the Item template like the "Secret card" page, while "Owner's Pokémon" and "Delta Species Pokémon" will use the big block template, right? Also, the Retro card page has a column that says "Original Release". Should that be kept? It makes sense to have it but the template would have to be adjusted. Same thing for the Delta Pokémon page. It has a column with the regular type of the Pokémon and another column with the delta type. Wouldn't it be better to just use the type column of the big block template for each card as usual and forget the regular type column? [[User:Metalizard|Metalizard]] ([[User talk:Metalizard|talk]]) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
== Cards related by illustration ==
Regarding your edit summaries, which read: "This is not how these sections should be done because the card has nothing to do with the location. the artwork does. The card art is what should be incorporated into these pages" and "However, this is just to correct things temporarily"
Am I right in assuming that this means that you (Head of TCG) do find the information I gathered valuable/worthy of being kept in the articles? In other words, would you like me to stop gathering such information? And what about the changes I made to the card articles? More or less the same questions can be asked for those.
I'll take the liberty of questioning your judgment, in the form of a few points you may wish to consider:
* In your argument, you're treating a card illustration as separate from the card (print!) it is featured on, when it is in fact an integral, defining part of it.
* This way of listing cards is already done in other articles (the articles I consulted to see how Bulbapedia would like this to be done), sometimes supported by a "gallery", but not removed in favor of one.
* Incorporating the card illustrations into the articles would require "creating" (cropping) and uploading many new images just for this purpose.
* Lists are not only less work (images, as described above) and easier on the eyes (e.g. any of the lists I added compared to the layout of Kanto Gym Leader articles' Artwork sections) than "galleries", but are also more informative, and invite readers to visit Bulbapedia's TCG articles, rather than just look at an image.
To be clear, I'm not at all against incorporating the illustrations into the articles (via "galleries"), but I do find it counterproductive to dismiss card listings in favor of these, due to the advantages described above. If necessary, the listings' wording and/or section titles can be changed to specify that the instances only pertain to card illustrations. [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 11:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
5,386

edits