[005]
Khyron42_Prime
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Is there any possibility of discussing the merits of the rule on \\\"Composite Tropes\\\" such as TheTeam, or FiveManBand and its villainous counterpart?
The indented version of \\\'\\\'this particular type of trope\\\'\\\' has several advantages, and its popularity across the wiki (despite the rule) stands as testament to its effectiveness. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each subtrope and which character (or whatever) applies to each seems necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related. When it comes to an example which requires the relationships between various characters and their archetypes to be understood, the bulleted system is clean, efficient, and effective - and again, already widely used in spite of the prohibition here.
The indented version of \\\'\\\'this particular type of trope\\\'\\\' has several advantages, and its popularity across the wiki (despite the rule) stands as testament to its effectiveness. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each subtrope and which character (or whatever) applies to each seems necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related. When it comes to an example which requires the relationships between various characters and their archetypes to be understood, the bulleted system is clean, efficient, and effective - and again, already widely used in spite of the prohibition here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Is there any possibility of discussing the merits of the rule on \\\"Composite Tropes\\\" such as TheTeam, or FiveManBand and its villainous counterpart?
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each subtrope and which character (or whatever) applies to each seems necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related. When it comes to an example which requires the relationships between various characters and their archetypes to be understood, the bulleted system is clean, efficient, and effective - and again, already widely used in spite of the prohibition here.
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each subtrope and which character (or whatever) applies to each seems necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related. When it comes to an example which requires the relationships between various characters and their archetypes to be understood, the bulleted system is clean, efficient, and effective - and again, already widely used in spite of the prohibition here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Is there any possibility of discussing the merits of the rule on \\\"Composite Tropes\\\" such as TheTeam, or FiveManBand and its villainous counterpart?
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each member and their role seems, frankly, necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related.
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each member and their role seems, frankly, necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Is there any possibility of discussing the merits of the rule on \\\"Composite Tropes\\\" such as FiveManBand and its villainous counterpart?
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each member and their role seems, frankly, necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related.
I vastly prefer the indented version, and it seems that it\\\'s used that way very, very regularly across the Wiki. The Five Man Band has a particular set of subtropes, and without specifying which are in play for which characters, very little information is actually conveyed by the example.
It just doesn\\\'t make sense to have an entry declaring a group of characters to BE TheTeam without explaining HOW they do so - it borders on being a ZeroContextExample:
* TheTeam: Tom, Dick, Harry, Lisa and Sean.
Adding \\\"work as TheTeam\\\" or \\\"are a five-man band\\\" or somesuch is redundant and unhelpful. This entry is just a list of names without context or use. You\\\'d have to comb through the entire page just to learn how this example applies, and no sense of relationship is conveyed; TheLancer example might convey that Sean is TheLancer to Tom\\\'s [[TheHero Hero]], but if Lisa is TheChick, her entry either has to a) contain the entire list of names AGAIN, or b) rely on the reader having \\\'\\\'memorized\\\'\\\' the list given in FiveManBand. Whereas:
* FiveManBand:
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
Basically, the indented form is a very effective way of organizing the information about how the \\\"composite trope\\\" is being used, and NOT using it leads not only to poorly-conveyed relationships, but also to a completely uninformative example under the supertrope\\\'s entry. Additionally, this can now occur:
* FiveManBand: While the main characters don\\\'t really ever work together, the military squad that appears in Epsiode 5 fits nicely;
** TheHero: Tom
** TheBigGuy: Dick
** TheSmartGuy: Harry
** TheChick: Lisa
** TheLancer: Sean
This way, characters who fit the respective subtropes within their groups can now be acknowledged as such even when their role in the \\\'\\\'overall\\\'\\\' story is too minor to warrant their inclusion as a primary trope example. Also, when you have LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters a ReTool, or a LongRunner, you might have more than one [[TheTeam Team]]:
* TheTeam:
** The show simultaneously follows two military units in different time periods: Reaper Squad in the present consists of:
*** TheHero: Tom
*** TheBigGuy: Dick
*** TheSmartGuy: Harry
*** TheChick: Lisa
*** TheLancer: Sean
** While in the far-future, Bouncer Platoon features:
*** TheHero: Sean
*** TheBigGuy: Evelyn
*** TheSmartGuy: Bob
*** TheChick: Steve
*** TheLancer: Adam
Keeping track of the relationships between these two sets of five characters could be extremely frustrating, requiring many redundant re-statements of each team\\\'s members in each separate entry. This way, all of the relevant information is conveyed up-front.
Now, simply listing the various subtropes is certainly a ZeroContextExample, but naming each member and their role seems, frankly, necessary to give the entry any context at all. And I\\\'m not advocating the simple supertrope/subtrope indented lists, like the example for {{Badass}}; but those aren\\\'t built around relationships, they\\\'re simply ideas which are generally related.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I can follow that, even if I do not agree with the reasoning behind those deletions, mostly because there are almost never official statements in the influences behind Pokemon design, name ethymology, and the like. Gamefreak is like that, bare bones until the fans piece stuff together. And going by a pure Gamefreak-esque approach to these, well, in my opinion will clearly decrease the quality of the pages. There are things that are clear and requiring a \
to:
I can follow that, even if I do not agree with the reasoning behind those deletions, mostly because there are almost never official statements in the influences behind Pokemon design, name ethymology, and the like. Gamefreak is like that, bare bones until the fans piece stuff together. And going by a pure Gamefreak-esque approach to these, well, in my opinion will clearly decrease the quality of the pages. There are things that are clear and requiring a \\\"yeah that\\\'s it\\\", and not even mentioning it without it, is information withholding.
And, once again, Pikablu in official merch.
And, once again, Pikablu in official merch.
