User talk:Force Fire/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

User talk:Force Fire/Archive 8 (view source)

Revision as of 20:11, 1 March 2017

3,101 bytes added , 1 March 2017

→‎Trivia: new section

Areku

31

edits

@@ Line 421: / Line 421: @@
 Sorry about the Fletchinder trivia - I forgot that Crabominable had an I. --[[User:Celadonkey|<span style="color:#287a43">Celad</span>]][[User_talk:Celadonkey|<span style="color:#e85545">onkey</span>]] 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 :No problem.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#F1912B">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#F6B775">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#5599CA">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#90BDDC">ire</span>]] 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
+== Trivia ==
+After reviewing your policies, I have a few questions.
+* Why is the section called "Trivia" if it is not intended to contain obscure, minor details? If the concern is that the section would become cluttered with information or otherwsie become more difficult to read, perhaps consider dividing the section as clearly on the page as you've divided it in your policy.
+* How is it possible for one person (or a small group of people) to remove information from a "trivia" section on the grounds that it "isn't interesting/notable"? Your policy acknowledges that different details are interesting to different people, so "notability" seems like a flimsy and ill-defined basis for considering what trivia is and is not allowed; this holds true in spite of your efforts to specify some parameters. Again, maybe "Trivia" is not an appropriate name for the section if this is how its content is determined.
+* Inconsistency in notability. How is my trivia on legendary stat distribution less notable than {{p|Suicune}} being the only legendary beast that ''doesn't'' have a unique Effort Value yield? Being slightly less notable than two other Pokemon doesn't seem very notable to me. Or is it simply a submission that has fallen below the radar despite EpicDeino's open invitation to remove it if it isn't notable (13 August 2016)?
+Anyway, this is the part where I explain why I think my trivia complies with your policy (aside from failing to submit it to the discussion section first, which won't happen again now that I've read the could-be-more-prominently-displayed policy).
+* My trivia identify 2 stat combinations that are unique throughout the entire Pokedex and that are each applied exclusively to Legendary Pokemon across different gens (1-2 and 4-5). This makes it more notable than the fact that most sets of Legendaries do the same thing but only with their immediately-obvious counterparts from their own generation (it's also more notable than other forms of obviously-related Pokemon such as the Eeveelutions). The trivia is even more compelling in the case of gens 4-5, as the affected Pokemon are also all dual-typed Dragons that represent a fundamental force/trait/concept in the universe ''and'' all 5 of these dragons are featured on the cover of a main-series game. Altogether, I feel that this trivia is more closely related in nature to your "Flame Pokemon" example than to your understandable adherence to what makes a "unique/notable stat".
+* Would you find this trivia more appropriate if I structured it and the other relationships I described above in the same way as the {{p|Noibat}}/Zubat relationship?
+As a side note, I didn't add this trivia indiscriminately simply because it's something I noticed. The same process that revealed this relationship also revealed that Gloom and Porygon have the exact same stats except for swapped HP/Attack (as but one example), but I felt those didn't strike the right convergence of interesting, not-immediately-obvious and logical-in-hindsight. [[User:Areku|Areku]] ([[User talk:Areku|talk]]) 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)