User talk:Shiningpikablu252/Archive 70708-100708: Difference between revisions

User talk:Shiningpikablu252/Archive 70708-100708 (view source)

Revision as of 08:50, 26 September 2008

2,680 bytes added , 26 September 2008

→‎Re: Threat: new section

Raijinili

624

edits

@@ Line 1,112: / Line 1,112: @@
 :Not until it comes up on my schedule.  It'll be soon, though, trust me...--[[User:Shiningpikablu252|Shiningpikablu252]] 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
+== Re: Threat ==
+''It's been long since decided that a calculation like that on the Bone Rush attack is not notable for the article.''
+:Then it would be a good idea to show me where that was decided, no?
+''Do we state that Geodude from Fossil's average attack damage is 10 in a separate section? ''
+:"It hasn't been done before" is not an acceptable reason not to do something, unless it's been previously been brought up and failed.
+''No, we don't, because attack calculations are not notable unless they have a major impact on the game (such as a format ban).''
+:[[Bulbapedia:Notability requirements|Notability]] is not a condition for adding information, only for creating articles.
+''If we were to keep the section you've been insistent on adding onto this card article, we'd have to add that section onto ALL cards with damaging attacks and state their average damages. If we were to put down that Wooper from EX Unseen Forces had an average damage of 10 for its first attack and 20 for its second in a completely separate section, that would make things confusing indeed.''
+:That's a slippery slope argument. As I noted before, the average damage in this particular case is not easy to determine by the target audience of this wiki (i.e. not everyone who comes here knows calculus).
+''Case in point: That section you're insistent on adding is completely unnecessary.''
+:Why is it unnecessary? There are many definitions of "unnecessary", and the one you seem to be using is that it tells people specifics about how an obscure and mostly-useless card works. In that case, is the damage calculation less necessary than listing the HP, weakness, resistance, retreat cost, type, and energy cost? After all, they're stated information, not derived information.
+''Please don't put that section back onto that article or any other article, or else you may find yourself on the outside looking in.''
+:I tried to resolve the conflict with you (because a wiki should not be guided by "winning" or "losing", but agreement) and you ignored me for whatever reason. I waited long enough so that you would be on Bulbapedia and editing, and I assumed that you had nothing more to say on the matter.
+:As for your threat, a major principle of a wiki is collaboration. Even as an admin you are not empowered to make decisions about content policy, only enforce them. Unless you can show me where this decision was made, you shouldn't enforce it.
+The way I see it, I'm pro-obscure-info and you're anti-clutter. Of course, you can make up your own labels which are more supportive of your cause, but I would probably dispute them. --[[User:Raijinili|Raijinili]] 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)