4,549
edits
Bulbapedia talk:Disambiguation poll: Difference between revisions
Bulbapedia talk:Disambiguation poll (view source)
Revision as of 14:46, 16 October 2007
, 16 October 2007→Why we use the (Pokémon) in the first place?
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::So ultimately, that's all the explanation I can give. What more do you want? I admitted that the search is inconvenient. Not my fault, besides, Wikipedia's search is so much more inconvenient, with some disambiguation pages being at simply (article), while others are at (article) (disambiguation). But I'm not about to suggest they start moving everything around, because like I said with the Pokémon articles, that's the way it's always been. There's no reason to fix what isn't broken. '''[[User:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">T</span>]][[User talk:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">T</span>]][[wp:Echidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">E</span><span style="color:#0000FF;">chidna</span>]]''' 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ::::So ultimately, that's all the explanation I can give. What more do you want? I admitted that the search is inconvenient. Not my fault, besides, Wikipedia's search is so much more inconvenient, with some disambiguation pages being at simply (article), while others are at (article) (disambiguation). But I'm not about to suggest they start moving everything around, because like I said with the Pokémon articles, that's the way it's always been. There's no reason to fix what isn't broken. '''[[User:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">T</span>]][[User talk:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">T</span>]][[wp:Echidna|<span style="color:#FF0000;">E</span><span style="color:#0000FF;">chidna</span>]]''' 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::This Wiki is not different. Being about fiction does not make it different. Disambig exists solely because two subjects may conflict - some people may want to see the species, others may want to see the character. However, there is no case so far that shows that to be so besides examples such as Pikachu and Meowth. You may want to define disambig as something other than what is, but that matters not at all. The fact is that you and the rest looked at the many people who wanted to change it and gave the same argument - is Bulbapedia also against consensus? And clearly, this whole poll is invalid because obviously, most of the people who wanted to change disambig rules don't even know of this poll. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | :::::This Wiki is not different. Being about fiction does not make it different. Disambig exists solely because two subjects may conflict - some people may want to see the species, others may want to see the character. However, there is no case so far that shows that to be so besides examples such as Pikachu and Meowth. You may want to define disambig as something other than what is, but that matters not at all. The fact is that you and the rest looked at the many people who wanted to change it and gave the same argument - is Bulbapedia also against consensus? And clearly, this whole poll is invalid because obviously, most of the people who wanted to change disambig rules don't even know of this poll. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
::::::It '''IS''' different! Bulbapedia is under BULBAGARDEN, Wikipedia is under WIKIMEDIA! And Bulbagarden and Wikimedia have absoulutely '''nothing''' to do with each other, got it? If you still don't get it, then I will need to take drastic measures...{{User:Pichu lover/sig}} 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | ::::::It '''IS''' different! Bulbapedia is under BULBAGARDEN, Wikipedia is under WIKIMEDIA! And Bulbagarden and Wikimedia have absoulutely '''nothing''' to do with each other, got it? If you still don't get it, then I will need to take drastic measures...{{User:Pichu lover/sig}}14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
::::::You are still missing the point that Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia. Where there are multiple members of one species with their own articles, why ''shouldn't'' we list what we have? As TTE stated, it's a far more streamlined than the method than Wikipedia employs. | ::::::You are still missing the point that Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia. Where there are multiple members of one species with their own articles, why ''shouldn't'' we list what we have? As TTE stated, it's a far more streamlined than the method than Wikipedia employs. | ||
::::::I've seen the underhand tactics you are trying to employ in that last paragraph many times over there, so much that even wikipedians are wary about the definition of "consensus". While we do employ it wherever possible - as '''is''' being done here - we also have our [[Bulbapedia:Editorial board|editorial board]], which has the final say on policy. This allows us to employ common sense where Wikipedia is caught up in unnecessary continuous conflict. So I suggest come up with real arguments and bring those you claim are misrepresented here. It will have much more effect than what you are doing now. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Fabu-Vinny|C]]-[[User:Fabu-Vinny/Sandbox|S]]</sup> 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ::::::I've seen the underhand tactics you are trying to employ in that last paragraph many times over there, so much that even wikipedians are wary about the definition of "consensus". While we do employ it wherever possible - as '''is''' being done here - we also have our [[Bulbapedia:Editorial board|editorial board]], which has the final say on policy. This allows us to employ common sense where Wikipedia is caught up in unnecessary continuous conflict. So I suggest come up with real arguments and bring those you claim are misrepresented here. It will have much more effect than what you are doing now. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Fabu-Vinny|C]]-[[User:Fabu-Vinny/Sandbox|S]]</sup> 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||