Changes

Line 259: Line 259:  
:::A Pokemon's moveset has nothing to do with its special abilities. If more than one Pokemon can learn a move ''by any means at all'', then it is not special to that Pokemon. This is why we would ideally like to include only signature or previously signature moves. They are unique and therefore "special" to that particular Pokemon. "Single" mainspace edits such as your Tynamo and Munna edits are not actually singular. They set a standard. If we note something or display something on one page, we must be consistent and do it on all similar pages. So when you, or anyone else, adds references (as in the Tynamo edit) or set a certain standard (such as Munna) then all similar pages should do the same for consistency. Not to do so is unprofessional and, frankly, sloppy looking. If you wish to discuss topics like this more thoroughly, then you should create a topic on the Pokemon's or on the Pokedex Projects talkpages where it's easier for more members (and staff) to respond to it, rather than relying on my input alone. [[User:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#9F00C5">Crystal</span>]] [[User talk:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#FF00FF">Talian</span>]] 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 
:::A Pokemon's moveset has nothing to do with its special abilities. If more than one Pokemon can learn a move ''by any means at all'', then it is not special to that Pokemon. This is why we would ideally like to include only signature or previously signature moves. They are unique and therefore "special" to that particular Pokemon. "Single" mainspace edits such as your Tynamo and Munna edits are not actually singular. They set a standard. If we note something or display something on one page, we must be consistent and do it on all similar pages. So when you, or anyone else, adds references (as in the Tynamo edit) or set a certain standard (such as Munna) then all similar pages should do the same for consistency. Not to do so is unprofessional and, frankly, sloppy looking. If you wish to discuss topics like this more thoroughly, then you should create a topic on the Pokemon's or on the Pokedex Projects talkpages where it's easier for more members (and staff) to respond to it, rather than relying on my input alone. [[User:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#9F00C5">Crystal</span>]] [[User talk:Crystal Talian|<span style="color:#FF00FF">Talian</span>]] 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 
::::That's quite the bold statement; that the moves (manifestations of the powers a Pokémon possesses) a Pokémon is programmed to learn by leveling up (the most specific, direct manner of "distribution") "has nothing to do with its special abilities". The remainder of your argument hinges on equaling "special" with "unique"...may I suggest changing the section title in case that's the intended definition of the word? The can't-be-more-than-1-out-of-all-instances-argument, while often highly relevant, is not applicable to everything; you're dealing with more than 600 instances (similarities are bound to occur), and the information being cut due to enforcing this argument is not some new trivia point or whatever, but information concerning the exact subject matter of the target section. I still disagree regarding those two edit examples. They may set a standard, but that's not what constitutes the problem. What matters is whether that standard is an improvement to the site or not; if it is, consistency will eventually come around. Clearly, you wouldn't remove something good just because it makes the remaining articles look "sloppy"; you obviously remove the content because you find it adverse. This would be fine if you actually addressed/discussed the proposed idea, but your lack of involvement has been plainly obvious from this exchange. And that is unfortunate, so yes, if my ideas are to be dismissed, I would prefer "discussing them more thoroughly". With uninvolved, reverting patrollers like you around, I suppose there's no other way than proposing ideas via discussion pages, drawing from userspace page examples. If that's the way Bulbapedia is to be run, then so be it. Let's see how that goes. Case rested. [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 17:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 
::::That's quite the bold statement; that the moves (manifestations of the powers a Pokémon possesses) a Pokémon is programmed to learn by leveling up (the most specific, direct manner of "distribution") "has nothing to do with its special abilities". The remainder of your argument hinges on equaling "special" with "unique"...may I suggest changing the section title in case that's the intended definition of the word? The can't-be-more-than-1-out-of-all-instances-argument, while often highly relevant, is not applicable to everything; you're dealing with more than 600 instances (similarities are bound to occur), and the information being cut due to enforcing this argument is not some new trivia point or whatever, but information concerning the exact subject matter of the target section. I still disagree regarding those two edit examples. They may set a standard, but that's not what constitutes the problem. What matters is whether that standard is an improvement to the site or not; if it is, consistency will eventually come around. Clearly, you wouldn't remove something good just because it makes the remaining articles look "sloppy"; you obviously remove the content because you find it adverse. This would be fine if you actually addressed/discussed the proposed idea, but your lack of involvement has been plainly obvious from this exchange. And that is unfortunate, so yes, if my ideas are to be dismissed, I would prefer "discussing them more thoroughly". With uninvolved, reverting patrollers like you around, I suppose there's no other way than proposing ideas via discussion pages, drawing from userspace page examples. If that's the way Bulbapedia is to be run, then so be it. Let's see how that goes. Case rested. [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 17:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 +
:::::For future reference, you would've saved about 6,500 bytes of futile discussion if you had told me right away that the Special abilities sections were being abandoned—without these, the initiative is irrelevant. [[User:Yvnr|Yvnr]] ([[User talk:Yvnr|talk]]) 07:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    
== Why? ==
 
== Why? ==
5,386

edits