Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Talk:Giga Drain (move)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 01:19, 3 March 2013 by Pumpkinking0192 (Talk | contribs) (Anime descriptions)

Jump to: navigation, search

PP amounts

Has the PP been raised since generation III? Because my Weepinbell in FireRed knows this move, but it only has 5 PP, while the article says it has a base PP of 10. If this is incorrect, than what is the max PP for this? Wan Car Lhos 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Just checked Veekun, and it said 'Before D/P: PP was 5'. Tina δ 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Gen IV changed some moves, Outrage is 120 power, now, but wasn't before. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anime descriptions

I pared down the anime move descriptions with the comment: "This is so much more concise and no relevant information is lost. I'm sick of these overly-wordy anime move descriptions."

Littlmiget123 reverted that edit and replied: "There's really no such thing as being 'too detailed' on a wiki. :) Plus, 'which' and 'whose' makes it sound unprofessional."

First of all, yes, there is such a thing as being too detailed on a wiki. If no relevant information is being lost, there's absolutely no reason to make it longer than it needs to be - a longer paragraph will just make people less likely to trudge through it. As long as the amount of information is not diminished, briefer is always better, no matter what context you're in.

Second of all, what are you talking about? "Which" and "whose" look SO much more professional than those repetitive "this, AND this, AND this, AND this" clauses that were there before.

This is a problem that plagues just about all of the move description pages, so I'd like to resolve this one way or the other now, so there'll be precedent (i.e. so I know whether to even try improving any of the others). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first off, please, calm down. ^-^ This isn't a personal attack or anything, lol. Relax~ You don't need to get all defensive, lol. A wiki is a community with a bunch of people who see differently than others, not a free-for-all brawl. Second, in the future, don't revert and then bring up the issue on the talk page. It just causes for more problems, and more data for the processor to input.
Now, onto the issue itself. I really don't see a problem with them. I'll admit, sometimes, they do get a bit wordy, but the reason for that is because the moves are complex. I was raised in writing class to paint a picture with your words. Telling about how the attack is executed is the whole point of the anime descriptions. Shortening them and cutting out some of the words does make it easier to read, yes, but it also takes away the hard work that was put in it. It makes it seem lazier, in ways.
As I mentioned above, the point of the anime descriptions is to tell how the move is executed, and it helps a lot, since many fanfiction writers come to Bulbapedia, myself included, to see the descriptions as an easier way to see how the move is performed instead of having to trudge through search engines to have to find the episode and see how it is done. Taking away half of the paragraph does make it easier to read, but those are the browsers, the ones who just read it for fun, and not for those who actually need that information, right? There is a major difference between the two readers. Littlmiget123 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"But it also takes away the hard work that was put in it" - Just because a person puts work into a wiki article doesn't mean that someone else's changes "take away from" that work. If any improvements can ever be made, they are always inherently necessary, as we're striving for the best possible work, not the work that best preserves what one person wrote.
As for the "fanfiction writer" argument, I'd argue that that's just as much, if not more so, of an unnecessarily narrow policy as you think the "browser" argument is. Tons of different types of readers visit Bulbapedia, and we need to make things readable, attractive, and optimized for as many of them as possible, not just the ones who are using our paragraph as a springboard for their own writing.
As far as I can tell, this seems to be a clash between a creative-writing point of view (yours) and a journalistic point of view (mine). In my personal experience, I think the journalistic POV is much more common/endorsed on wikis in general as well as Bulbapedia specifically, but that may just be my confirmation bias at work. I'd love for us to get a consensus with other people (especially admins...?) instead of debating back and forth on what looks like a largely ideological argument.
(Also, sorry about the apparently unnecessary revert. I wasn't sure how to get your attention to the fact that something was on the talk page, so I figured an edit to the main page with "see talk page" in the summary would do it. And I don't mean to sound ticked, I just apparently always do. I really virtually never am.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)