Difference between revisions of "Talk:Water tile"

522 bytes added ,  22:56, 20 August 2021
:::::While it's technically true that the word "tile" can be used to refer to practically anything that tessellates, I feel that most people, when hearing the word, will immediately think "a square (or, rarely, rectangular, triangular or hexagonal) shape that forms a repeating pattern on a traversable floor", ''especially'' in the context of a video game (where the term is strongly associated with grid-based gameplay). Also, I can understand how "Water" and "Ice" could be confusing as article names given the existence of the types, but "Sand", "Snow", "Mud", "Spinner" and "Teleporter"? They don't exactly share their names with anything else particularly significant. I also don't see how those titles are too broad, either. Given the nature of Bulbapedia, which focusses on a game/anime/manga franchise, we're obviously not going to have Wikipedia-like articles on such general concepts as {{wp|water}} or {{wp|sand}}. The logical conclusion when seeing such a title on this wiki is "this article probably describes the unique properties/significance of water/sand/snow/whatever in the Pokémon series". By your reasoning, Force Fire, wouldn't "[[Ledge]]", "[[Hole]]" and "[[Darkness]]" be unsuitable article names? [[User:Pale Prism|Pale Prism]] ([[User talk:Pale Prism|talk]]) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::Consistency is also what we want with articles of similar nature. So having Water (tile) and just Snow wouldn't be consistent.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 05:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Why? Aren't intuitiveness and accuracy ultimately more important? There are already several examples on this wiki of articles that are similar to one another but don't all follow the exact same naming convention. Take {{i|Metronome}}, {{i|Black Belt}} and {{i|Pearl}}, for example, all of which are items that share their names with other significant concepts and thus have the disambiguator "(item)" in their article titles. Not all item articles follow this pattern, however, because their names don't clash with anything else. How is that any different to this situation? Also, if consistency is what's most important, why do "[[Hole]]", "[[Ledge]]", "[[Puddle]]", "[[Soft soil]]", "[[Tall grass]]" and "[[Trap]]" all exist as article titles (not to mention all of the section titles on the [[water tile]] article)? SurelyShouldn't they should all have the word "tile" appended to them.? [[User:Pale Prism|Pale Prism]] ([[User talk:Pale Prism|talk]]) 23:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Also, an addendum: regardless of what the decision is as to whether or not these articles should all follow the exact same naming convention (and whether or not "tile" ought to be replaced with "(terrain)", "(obstacle)", "(flooring)", "(object)", nothing or whatever else), I still think that the [[cave tile]] and [[cave]] articles ought to be merged. There's literally no reason to have them be separate. [[User:Pale Prism|Pale Prism]] ([[User talk:Pale Prism|talk]]) 22:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)