Talk:Water tile

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 13:54, 11 September 2021 by Nescientist (talk | contribs) (→‎Move)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Given how non-grid-based the core series games have become in the past five years or so, does it really make sense to refer to different types of terrain as "tiles"? I think that we should remove the word from the title of this page and those of similar pages. Pale Prism (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

While I understand the thought, there is already a disambiguation page for water in this case. I might suggest "Water (terrain)" as an alternative, though I'm open to other ideas. ht14 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I did have a similar idea, but I felt that the word "terrain" might cause some confusion given the existence of the in-battle terrain mechanic. Is there any particular reason why we can't just move the disambiguation page to "Water (disambiguation)"? Another option would be "Water (obstacle)", but that still wouldn't solve the issue completely, because some of the other "tile" pages can't really be considered obstacles. Pale Prism (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Water, and the other proposed names, are just far too broad to be considered titles talking about one specific thing. People searching for "Water" are most likely looking for the type, not the terrain. Having "Water (disambiguation)" seems like an unnecessary step.--ForceFire 04:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see how "tile" doesn't fit (anymore)? (I think tiles don't have to be quadratic!?)
At the moment, I think it's still the best title. Nescientist (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
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 water or 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? 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.--ForceFire 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 Metronome, Black Belt and 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)? Shouldn't they all have the word "tile" appended to them? 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. Pale Prism (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you intended this, Pale Prism, but just in case... I oppose moving this to just "Water"; most users typing "Water" wouldn't be interested in this article's topic (but having the article named like that means they would land here).
I agree with you on what you said about consistency, but for a lack of a really good/better option, I still think the current title is probably best. (Also, in case you missed it, I started a merge discussion for cave/cave tile, and I'd be interested in your rationale/opinion.) Nescientist (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)