Talk:Nejita
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Improper referencing
Why were the references for individual works moved to a body of text? It makes it difficult to see individual, properly sourced credits for each piece of art. Why can't they at the very least, be present in the body of text, as well as the table?--Lewtwo (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Nejita&diff=next&oldid=3960412
- Since, I've properly re-referenced everything so that individual art is still credited rather than being lost in the bulk of text. Wrote a stronger bulk of text that doesn't repeat what was in the gallery itself, though citation is needed for his work on Shadowverse. Added more to the Biography. Changed instances of "featured" to something else, since they weren't "featured", they were simply the only artist. Upgraded text to talk about the content of the art and nejita's artstyle over time.--Lewtwo (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The first thing that caught my attention with the references was the fact that Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise repeat the same reference, when it would be much easier IMO to just reference them all together/once. Beyond that, I also think references on a bunch of images in a table feel random. Most references occur in text and I think that's good because that explicitly gives you context that hints what that reference is actually about. By contrast, if I just happen across these tables with a bunch of references, I think it's kinda a mystery why they would have references. I think, when the table was the only thing there, putting the references there is totally logical. But, personally, I think if there is text, that's the better place for the references. (I would also add that, as far as crediting each image, IMO the best way to do that would be to just put it in the file description.) That said, if you think the references in the table are useful, I guess it doesn't really hurt to have them there too.
- It's cool that you added more detail about the art pieces! Regarding some of those additions, I would caution you to be careful to keep language neutral. Things like "incredible effects" come off more as opinion. Try to keep it a little more solidly grounded, like the "bold lines" description. But it's looking like a much more complete page, good work! Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. My main concern is that the references are lost in the body of the text, and no longer correspond to a visual that the reader can identify with. We could rectify this by adding a line above the table saying why the references are there (maybe in bold/italic so it stands out) or at the beginning under the Artwork header, which stops us from having to repeat that disclaimer for each section. Putting references in file descriptions works for the archive, but it can't be a substitute for putting them on the page. The main reason for this is that readers simply do not click through to the archives, they will usually click the image itself to find a larger version, and will rarely, if ever click "file description" to take them to an entirely different website unless they are an editor. For mobile this is doubly so, I couldn't even tell you how to get to the typical image archive page on it, and ads repeatedly block the text for finding the full images on mobile to begin with. It's also a lot easier to track citations on whole pages via edit alerts, than it is individual images, which helps keep everything on the site relevant-- this is especially true in-case any reference links get deleted or changed. Also updated the text to be more neutral.--Lewtwo (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, references aren't exactly for the casual reader in the first place. And especially on a page like this, the casual reader doesn't really need a confirmation that the artist did an image; the fact that it's on this page is all they need. The references are for the people who are explicitly double-checking these things, i.e., mostly editors. Like, if I'm a casual reader, I think I'd see that reference, maybe click it, and go...oh, well that doesn't tell me anything new? It's true, it doesn't hurt; but that's just how I see it and why my instinct was that just having them in the text was plenty. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. My main concern is that the references are lost in the body of the text, and no longer correspond to a visual that the reader can identify with. We could rectify this by adding a line above the table saying why the references are there (maybe in bold/italic so it stands out) or at the beginning under the Artwork header, which stops us from having to repeat that disclaimer for each section. Putting references in file descriptions works for the archive, but it can't be a substitute for putting them on the page. The main reason for this is that readers simply do not click through to the archives, they will usually click the image itself to find a larger version, and will rarely, if ever click "file description" to take them to an entirely different website unless they are an editor. For mobile this is doubly so, I couldn't even tell you how to get to the typical image archive page on it, and ads repeatedly block the text for finding the full images on mobile to begin with. It's also a lot easier to track citations on whole pages via edit alerts, than it is individual images, which helps keep everything on the site relevant-- this is especially true in-case any reference links get deleted or changed. Also updated the text to be more neutral.--Lewtwo (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since, I've properly re-referenced everything so that individual art is still credited rather than being lost in the bulk of text. Wrote a stronger bulk of text that doesn't repeat what was in the gallery itself, though citation is needed for his work on Shadowverse. Added more to the Biography. Changed instances of "featured" to something else, since they weren't "featured", they were simply the only artist. Upgraded text to talk about the content of the art and nejita's artstyle over time.--Lewtwo (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
