32,622
edits
Forum:General proposals: Difference between revisions
→Remove game title mentions from Ultimate newcomers' special move page openings
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:You have a point that this writing choice is inconsistent with prior series entries. I do not think removing it is beneficial for the individual pages, which is likely why Black Vulpine disagreed with the edits, but agree that being consistent across sections is ideal. Because this would be a widespread change, I think everyone would need to be on board with it (probably impossible), or would need to be officially added to the list of 'Things to do' etc.. [[User:FunkyGrip2000|FunkyGrip2000]] ([[User talk:FunkyGrip2000|talk]]) 17:49, February 16, 2024 (EST) | :You have a point that this writing choice is inconsistent with prior series entries. I do not think removing it is beneficial for the individual pages, which is likely why Black Vulpine disagreed with the edits, but agree that being consistent across sections is ideal. Because this would be a widespread change, I think everyone would need to be on board with it (probably impossible), or would need to be officially added to the list of 'Things to do' etc.. [[User:FunkyGrip2000|FunkyGrip2000]] ([[User talk:FunkyGrip2000|talk]]) 17:49, February 16, 2024 (EST) | ||
::At the same time, removing these title mentions wouldn't be ''un''beneficial — there's numerous other context clues on these move pages to prove that the moves and their users have only been in ''Ultimate''. '''EDIT:''' I don't think it would be that widespread, either — we're only looking at a modest handful of pages, and some of them already lack a title mention. [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 15:58, February 17, 2024 (EST) | ::At the same time, removing these title mentions wouldn't be ''un''beneficial — there's numerous other context clues on these move pages to prove that the moves and their users have only been in ''Ultimate''. '''EDIT:''' I don't think it would be that widespread, either — we're only looking at a modest handful of pages, and some of them already lack a title mention. [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 15:58, February 17, 2024 (EST) | ||
I don't think there will be much, if any, pushback for going ahead with this. Looking at a random sample of move articles shows: | |||
*If a character uses a move in every game, don't mention any games. | |||
*If a character uses a move in one or two games, mention them. | |||
**If that move has been in use since a particular game, saying "since [GAME]" is fine. [[Blaster (Fox)]], [[F.L.U.D.D.]] | |||
**If that move has been in use for three or four games before changing in a particular game, saying "until [GAME]" is fine. [[Bomb (Link)]] | |||
The exceptions to the above is the characters added in Ultimate (except Daisy who was grandfathered in with Peach's articles). Looking at the linked discussion with Black Vulpine, it seems the crux of the issue is the reasoning used. If you say something like "It is [CHAR]'s only [DIRECTION] special, no need to mention [GAME]" or "Simplifying/saving bytes. Don't need to mention every game" would be more acceptable. Heck, "Consistency with how other special move articles word the intro" would be fine, just not "future proofing" which gives no indication on what the edit is about. --[[User:CanvasK|CanvasK]] ([[User talk:CanvasK|talk]]) 14:11, March 26, 2024 (EDT) | |||