1,753
edits
Pikipedia:Proposals: Difference between revisions
→Canon and regional differences on Pikipedia: (late 2 cents)
(→Canon and regional differences on Pikipedia: (late 2 cents)) |
|||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
:::Timeline would be best, and if down the line, they pull a Zelda and start rearranging thing, having each game be it's own "block" would make things much easier to organize.--[[User:Jpmrocks|JPM]] ([[User talk:Jpmrocks|talk]]) 12:53, January 26, 2024 (EST) | :::Timeline would be best, and if down the line, they pull a Zelda and start rearranging thing, having each game be it's own "block" would make things much easier to organize.--[[User:Jpmrocks|JPM]] ([[User talk:Jpmrocks|talk]]) 12:53, January 26, 2024 (EST) | ||
::A timeline article is ideal. I'm iffy on the idea of splitting 3 separately from 1+2 (although obviously 2 is the only direct follow up to another game). But, I do think this is better than trying to treat all four games as one single timeline. 4 was the first game to really bring in contractions, so this is really the first time treating them as one timeline has stopping making sense. — [[User:Bossclips|'''Bossclips''']]<sub>[[User talk:Bossclips|''(talk)'']]</sub> 06:19, March 11, 2024 (EST) | |||
=== ''Pikmin 1+2'' changes === | === ''Pikmin 1+2'' changes === | ||
| Line 141: | Line 143: | ||
:::Well, regardless then of Switchables, we should still prioritize the "most recent" version of treasures and locations being the main focus of the article, and then have alternate locations, models, IDs, etc in a separate section in the article. --[[User:Jpmrocks|JPM]] ([[User talk:Jpmrocks|talk]]) 01:23, March 4, 2024 (EST) | :::Well, regardless then of Switchables, we should still prioritize the "most recent" version of treasures and locations being the main focus of the article, and then have alternate locations, models, IDs, etc in a separate section in the article. --[[User:Jpmrocks|JPM]] ([[User talk:Jpmrocks|talk]]) 01:23, March 4, 2024 (EST) | ||
::::An issue with doing it that way is that there are just so many factors to consider with it. One treasure could link to 5 different articles without a very strict rubric/criteria for counting as an "alternate" treasure. I.e., [[Lip Service]] and [[Family Raft]]. — [[User:Bossclips|'''Bossclips''']]<sub>[[User talk:Bossclips|''(talk)'']]</sub> 06:22, March 11, 2024 (EST) | |||
=== Structure of the canon pages === | === Structure of the canon pages === | ||
Some people (such as [[User:Flamsey|Flamsey]]) have commented that the way we document Pikipedia's position on the canon is quite strange, with some things documented on the [[Canon]] page and some things documented on [[Pikipedia:Canon policy]]. It is quite an unusual split and I'm not aware of any other game wiki that does things this way. Restructuring these pages to show the information in an easier-to-understand way would be a good idea, but how could this be done? — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST) | Some people (such as [[User:Flamsey|Flamsey]]) have commented that the way we document Pikipedia's position on the canon is quite strange, with some things documented on the [[Canon]] page and some things documented on [[Pikipedia:Canon policy]]. It is quite an unusual split and I'm not aware of any other game wiki that does things this way. Restructuring these pages to show the information in an easier-to-understand way would be a good idea, but how could this be done? — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 01:05, December 28, 2023 (EST) | ||
::I think it's not that odd. One demonstrates how canon is to be applied when writing while the other covers the topic like regular articles. I don't see an issue with it as it is now. — [[User:Bossclips|'''Bossclips''']]<sub>[[User talk:Bossclips|''(talk)'']]</sub> 06:25, March 11, 2024 (EST) | |||