Editing of Bulbapedia is currently restricted. Please see this message for more details.
Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire are coming this November!

Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel.

Bulbapedia talk:Disambiguation poll

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

I've suggested time and time again to make short links to the species disambigs. But no one gives me feedback on what those short links should be. Well, except TTE, because he seems to always have something to say about everything. --Pie ~ 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I say what I gotta. TTEchidna 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why we use the (Pokémon) in the first place?

Because we always have. The first of the Pokémon articles created featured this. Subsequent ones did as well. We now have 493 articles, and something like 160 disambigs. It would be a hassle to do the moving now-- an absolutely huge one.

Also: moves. Types. TCG cards. Abilities. All have what they are in parentheses. Air Lock. Electric. Energy cards. Conversion 2. Shall we move these as well? After all, Psychic is easier to link, but OH WAIT. It's both a MOVE and a TYPE. What to do... well, we could just disambiguate Psychic. And then someone linking to moves would link to a disambiguation page all the time, of course. Make it a bigger pain in the ass for us who know to automatically link with {{m}}.

And don't tell me that it'd not happen. People would link Fire Blast and Psychic the same. They'd link Grass and Psychic the same. They already do, anyway, because no one reads the damned manual of style. No one notices. No one lurks. No one just looks at the damn coding of the page and sees the PATTERN in that all of this stuff is linked like this.

So why, exactly, is a disambiguation page more important than the species itself? Because who's to say that a page filled almost completely with game data is more important than one filled with mostly anime data or manga data? Bulbasaur is important to those who play the games more than anything. Ash's Bulbasaur and May's Bulbasaur are for those who focus on the anime. Danerina is for someone who likes Pokémon PiPiPi Adventure. But Bulbasaur opens it to all. Believe me, if Bulbasaur's species page was just at Bulbasaur, I would never know that May had one (I stopped watching the anime mid-Johto and restarted near the end of BF), nor would I know that there was another in any manga. Who is to say that the games should be more important than the manga and anime? Oh, sure, they came first and are the basis for all other canon... but this does not mean they're the most important of the canons.

Plus, seriously. If you've been here for more than ten minutes you'll see that all Pokémon pages are at [species name] (Pokémon). There's not one exception to this. All 493 are. Arceus, Dunsparce, Snorlax, Latias. Doesn't matter, they're all the same. The search may be difficult, especially if you have a slow browser or slow internet, and you know, we're sorry if you do, but really... by now, you should know to just type in Bulbasaur (Pokémon) to get where you want. And if you can't type the é? Learn it. Alt +130 or Alt + 0233 on Windows. Option + e, then e on Mac. If you're using any foreign language you'll likely need to know this, among other keycodes. áéíóú.

So yeah. That's my personal reasoning. Anyone else got anything to add or say sucks about this? TTEchidna 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus the fact that nearly every single article on Bulbapedia would have to be edited to remove the P templates. Zurqoxn 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that's something I think Zhen would be able to get BulbaBot to do... TTEchidna 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So basically, the only reasons are "too much work" and "it's already this way". Are you implying that there's any mechanic of this Wiki that would make the disambig guideline on Wikipedia not applicable to this Wiki? I have shown that much more than 50% of all Pokémon do NOT have an article on even the most minor character in the species. And in all likelyhood, more than 50% of the articles that do have exactly that - a minor one-shot that says the exact same thing as what the episode summary would, but only plot details pertaining to the Pokémon. The simple fact is that disambig is a tool used for the sole reason that it is necessary - not for consistency. Most of the disambiguation is comprised of nothing more than disambiguating something and nothing, like in the case of Rattata. - A Link to the Past 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, the reasons are "consistency" and "ease of linking". Remember what I said about Psychic? If we no longer need the link templates for Pokémon, there's be at least a thousand new users who don't read the manual of style and would link moves and types with just the square brackets, and we'd have to go through and fix those. Who has to yell at those who don't read it to use the link templates, anyway? Me and others like me. It'd make my life so much harder if I had to say "use link templates EXCEPT WHEN LINKING TO POKÉMON PAGES :D". Rattata links to the page on the species despite there being no other Rattata, while Rattata redirects. This is so that the {{p}} template can be used with every single one of the Pokémon pages and have no redirects.
And again, you're bringing Wikipedia's policy here. Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia. We have our own manual of style. And ours highlights ease of linking, which is much, much easier to do when focused on a subject like Pokémon as opposed to Wikipedia, which focuses on so much else. Plus, well, jeez, I would have liked it if they didn't have some articles on a Pokémon species at [species] (Pokémon) and others at just [species]. It'd make everyone's lives much easier because then you'd not have to click every link in a preview to see if you linked to the correct place. And like I said: the species page is OVERWHELMINGLY in-game, main series data.
And just in case anyone catches a Pokémon at a later time (Who could've foreseen that Dawn would get a Pachirisu or Ash would have an Aipom? Not me. Hell, no one ever foresaw that we'd have a Double Team trainer class!) we have the pages for them already made, so no pages have to be moved, redirected, and so on. In your vision of Bulbapedia, Nightly Garbage Run would be at just Nightly Garbage Run. Oh fun, no way to even tell by the damned title that it's a freaking TCG card. We'd have people linking a deck with four Professor Oak cards to Professor Oak because it's the same style of linking, and then they'd get information they just might not care about, instead of the card's actual effect.
So yeah. What you seem to be trying to do is implement Wikipedia policy here, because they went and said "wah, we don't want 500 articles dedicated to Nintendo's second most popular franchise." Well, screw them, they say that the word "bravely" is opinionated. They put their funny little [citation needed] stuff after something that's well-known to be true, like "the Earth is round", even if in the sentence that it terminates there's a link to another page that substantiates the claim. Perhaps next we should do that with the level-up moves of all of the Pokémon, because sure, they're the same things that plenty of fansites have, but they're fansites, not Nintendo-sponsored, and so could be lying. Simply put, Wikipedia sucks when it comes to fiction... they even have a template for stuff that isn't written well enough that some moron could distinguish that it's fiction, even if it's about an anthropomorphic mole. Science articles... that's another story.
Again, my points are:
  • Consistency: Everything is at [species name] (Pokémon) already.
  • Easy to link: That's why the link templates are overwhelmingly one letter long.
  • It's already that way: If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
  • Information on page: Bulbasaur (Pokémon) is mostly about how Bulbasaur is... in the games. That's not representative of the species in all canons at all.
  • Bulbapedia IS NOT Wikipedia: Seriously. Zhen Lin is not Jim Wales in disguise. All wikis do not have to follow what Wikipedia says.
So ultimately, that's all the explanation I can give. What more do you want? I admitted that the search is inconvenient. Not my fault, besides, Wikipedia's search is so much more inconvenient, with some disambiguation pages being at simply (article), while others are at (article) (disambiguation). But I'm not about to suggest they start moving everything around, because like I said with the Pokémon articles, that's the way it's always been. There's no reason to fix what isn't broken. TTEchidna 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This Wiki is not different. Being about fiction does not make it different. Disambig exists solely because two subjects may conflict - some people may want to see the species, others may want to see the character. However, there is no case so far that shows that to be so besides examples such as Pikachu and Meowth. You may want to define disambig as something other than what is, but that matters not at all. The fact is that you and the rest looked at the many people who wanted to change it and gave the same argument - is Bulbapedia also against consensus? And clearly, this whole poll is invalid because obviously, most of the people who wanted to change disambig rules don't even know of this poll. - A Link to the Past 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It IS different! Bulbapedia is under BULBAGARDEN, Wikipedia is under WIKIMEDIA! And Bulbagarden and Wikimedia have absoulutely nothing to do with each other, got it? If you still don't get it, then I will need to take drastic measures...PichuLover14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You are still missing the point that Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia. Where there are multiple members of one species with their own articles, why shouldn't we list what we have? As TTE stated, it's a far more streamlined than the method than Wikipedia employs.
I've seen the underhand tactics you are trying to employ in that last paragraph many times over there, so much that even wikipedians are wary about the definition of "consensus". While we do employ it wherever possible - as is being done here - we also have our editorial board, which has the final say on policy. This allows us to employ common sense where Wikipedia is caught up in unnecessary continuous conflict. So I suggest come up with real arguments and bring those you claim are misrepresented here. It will have much more effect than what you are doing now. --FabuVinny T-C-S 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Consistency: You can have consistency with everything at [species name] too. As for consistency with other types of links, if you do this to Pokemon, then you can do this to almost everything else.
Easy to link: For Pokemon, at least, they're just as easy to link.
It's already that way: That's assuming it's "not broke", and then you have to say whether "It takes a search and a click for some Pokemon, but only a search for others, which is inconsistent" is broken. The disamb pages can be "merged" into the main Pokemon article, which is more convenient for people searching for the Pokemon.
Information on page: Ideally, there will be a short description about the appearances in the anime, with links to the "main article".
Bulbapedia IS NOT Wikipedia: Nothing to say here. This isn't really a counter to the idea itself, just to one of the arguments presented.
--Raijinili 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychic. Flying. Double Team. We can't do this with everything else or else we'll have data for a move and a type on the same page, a type and an egg group on the same page, and a move and a trainer class on the same page. We could also be lazy and say "oh, no need to use the é, because no one knows how to type it anyway. Pokemon's just as fine as Pokémon. And so is Pok'emon and Poke'mon and pokemon because no one wants to pay attention to spelling and grammar anymore", but we don't. Moving the species pages would just cause a cascade of problems and idiots would just link the same way to everything, never realizing "oh, duh, Psychic's a move AND a type!". No one's willing to work, and I'm sure everyone agrees that most article-writers on Wikipedia don't check every article they linked to make sure it was the right one. I don't want to have that happen here, too. TTEchidna 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as a follow up. Mercury, Venus, and Iron. If that's not a disaster, what is? Especially since Earth as a planet takes precedence over dirt. If I were in charge at Wikipedia I would've forced the planets to be at (name) (planet), their namesakes at (name) (deity), and elements at (name) (element). TTEchidna 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Psychic. Flying. Double Team. We can't do this with everything else or else we'll have data for a move and a type on the same page, a type and an egg group on the same page, and a move and a trainer class on the same page."

  • It's unnecessary to point out a small number of tricky things. I did say "almost". Besides, it's not hard to set up a list of priorities for the categories of move, type, and what have you. Do you have any reasons why making such a list would be bad? If not, then consistency is not much of an issue.
  • There's already a consistency issue with TCG cards. Why is it that I haven't seen any diambiguations for TCG Pokémon cards? Are they not important enough for their own place in disambiguations?
  • Also, articles with "é" in the name are supposed to have redirects which do not include the "é". This is in the manual of style. I quote: "[T]his allows for people who don't know how to add the special characters the same access as the rest of us."

"We could also be lazy and say 'oh, no need to use the é, because no one knows how to type it anyway. Pokemon's just as fine as Pokémon. And so is Pok'emon and Poke'mon and pokemon because no one wants to pay attention to spelling and grammar anymore', but we don't."

  • This isn't about laziness at the expense of correctness. The analogy implies that there is something inherently incorrect with an alternate system. (As a side note, would it be good to modify the search engine to read macron'd/accented letters as equivalent to normal letters, as capital letters are the same as lowercase letters?)

"Moving the species pages would just cause a cascade of problems"

Well, I can't answer any of them if you don't list them.

"...idiots would just link the same way to everything, never realizing 'oh, duh, Psychic's a move AND a type!'. No one's willing to work, and I'm sure everyone agrees that most article-writers on Wikipedia don't check every article they linked to make sure it was the right one. I don't want to have that happen here, too. "

  • There is no evidence that the current system prevents this problem any more than there is evidence that an alternate system would aggravate it. This isn't a strong point.
  • Is everything on Bulbapedia for registered editors, or is it for the casual surfer who may very well have minimal knowledge about how to use a wiki for information? While this wouldn't be an argument for a change, it's certainly an argument that decisions which affect the casual user directly should not be strongly influenced by a "maybe this would make it easier for new editors to adjust to our style".

"Oh, and as a follow up. Mercury, Venus, and Iron. If that's not a disaster, what is? Especially since Earth as a planet takes precedence over dirt. If I were in charge at Wikipedia I would've forced the planets to be at (name) (planet), their namesakes at (name) (deity), and elements at (name) (element)."

  • I'm not following. Is the disaster in the long list of disambiguations? Or in the inconsistencies for what is placed as the main article? As I said, a priority list should be easy to construct. All you do is take the disambiguation pages, see where each one links to, and compare the average page views for the sets of (move), (ability), (type), (TCG), etc.

--Raijinili 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, say some new user comes in and wants to fix up Alakazam's moveset. He links to Double Team and Psychic, not knowing anything about disambiguation. Type's more popular, then he's just linked to a TYPE in a MOVEset. OOPS. And NO ONE's gonna change it because NO ONE ever does on Wikipedia either. TTEchidna 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Analogously: Someone new comes in, with the same situation, except he links to a disambiguation page. How's that any better? It'll still need to be corrected to use the link template that goes directly to Psychic. --Raijinili 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but then it's easier because with the link templates, all we gotta do is change the square brackets to {{m|}}. Besides, I bet I wouldn't even catch it half the time, because I don't have the damn time to check EVERY LINK. TTEchidna 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The link templates can stay. I don't see why you think that the link templates would all have to be changed. The 'mon pages don't even have to be moved. Merging the disambigs into the 'mon article, and setting up a redirect, would work just as well.
"Besides, I bet I wouldn't even catch it half the time, because I don't have the damn time to check EVERY LINK." This is not relevant to the debate as, once again, the situation is mirrored in both cases. You haven't shown how linking to a disambig would be better than linking to Psychic itself, especially if Psychic had a bunch of "For blah blah blah, go here" at the top. You sound as if this would be something you would only have to be angry about if there's a change of method, which is not true. --Raijinili 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I'm gonna pull the "already this way" card, because arguing to move Venus to Venus would likely get the same response on Wikipedia, even though it's the opposite way. TTEchidna 07:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Wikipedia, so that's not a good justification to use such an argument against me, but it would actually fall under "The term 'Venus' is more commonly used for the planet, as searches for 'venus+planet' on Google outnumber searches for 'venus+goddess'." So are you arguing that I'm a hypocrite because Wikipedia doesn't make sense to you, or are you arguing something else? --Raijinili 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing date?

Should this poll have a closing date? I was just thinking about the last two public polls we had (James/Gardenia's Cacnea and the ads) and both of them had a closing date. Should this have one as well, or not? --PAK Man Talk 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I started this poll, so I feel I have the authority to decide. Yes, there will be a closing date, this Sunday (October 21). --Shiny NoctowlTalk | Contribs 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We're winning! WE'RE WINNING! Agent 448Talk | DP 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More evidence

As a Pokémon, I need to step in on this. Apparently, ALTTP doesn't live up to his name. The past is the present for our disambig. pages. If he doesn't like it, don't bother. that is one to about 493 living Pokémon. Gallade14:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. We really are living Pokémon. Optimus35 is off in sleepytown...

Well, it's more that we've got them there based on precedent. Anyone making a big stink about the Pokémon disambigs, why aren't you yelling at Wikipedia to make the solar system's smallest planet at Mercury? TTEchidna 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I thought I told Gallade not to go sneaking on! Agent 448Talk | DP 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I leave the com as {Remember me on this computer} so I guess that's how he got it.

End of the Line

Yep, the opposers win... Agent 448δ | DP 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well don't gloat about it. TTEchidna 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia link: John... Agent 448δ | DP | 08:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just in case you're not convinced yet... Agent 448δ | DP | 08:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)