User talk:GrammarFreak01/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Line 471: Line 471:


:::::: Thank you for completely ignoring what I just said, but if I must answer the very likely scenario is the creators first heard of the creature through the classic fairytale than the original legends, which are difficult to research.[[User:Horo-kun|Horo-kun]] ([[User talk:Horo-kun|talk]]) 21:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you for completely ignoring what I just said, but if I must answer the very likely scenario is the creators first heard of the creature through the classic fairytale than the original legends, which are difficult to research.[[User:Horo-kun|Horo-kun]] ([[User talk:Horo-kun|talk]]) 21:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I did not ignore what you just said. I just think your reasoning for including it is not good enough to excuse inclusion. From where I'm standing, "Origin" sections always talk about the things that inspired the Pokémon of concern, and they do not go off on small tangents for the sake of "clarification". Nothing more, nothing less. If the robe itself played a part in the inspiration of Cyndaquil, yes, it could be included. But if it's just going to be included for the sole sake of bringing further context on the legend that inspired Cyndaquil, then I don't see what's the point of its inclusion if it didn't inspire Cyndaquil itself. Why go off on this tangent in the "Origin" section if it has nothing to do with Cyndaquil's origin?
:::::::The robe didn't even help "clarify" the legend for me, because I know absolutely nothing about it in the first place. The only people who would benefit from this, if needs be, would be people familiar with the legend itself. And I doubt everybody who visits this site would be aware of it unlike me. For the most part, it's just a piece of trivia that should belong on the "Trivia" section itself, if needs be. [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
86,550

edits