Bulbapedia - Shipping "protection"

D

D558

New Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Why do all shipping pages have the:

The article you are attempting to reach contains theories of a romantic relationship between ____ and ____. If you are offended by such material, please turn away now.

To proceed to the article, click here: _________Shipping




Does anyone in the world actually get offended at all by any of this stuff? No other pages seem to have this type of warning that i know of.


If these pages "offend" people i would think it is as silly as if they protected the dark-type page because SOMEONE may obscurely think that Dark-type is a racist term
 
I'm going to move this to the Bulbapedia forum, since it's in regards to something done on Bulbapedia.
 
The main reason I am aware of is for homosexual shippings.

It also lets us keep Shipping pages out of the encyclopedic space. Shipping is speculative and in most cases not the encyclopedic content that we strive for.
 
They do serve a purpose. The original reason was something along the lines of a person wandering into the page, and apparently wasn't expecting what he found (probably a gay 'ship or a human/pokémon 'ship), and if one sort of 'ship needs a warning, to be far, all of them got warnings. It was suggested, then a mod made it happen. (The talk page survived somewhere, though damned if I can find it.)

Because there are also people who don't like relationships between eternal ten years olds.
 
If you're looking up shipping to begin with, you open yourself up to seeing all sorts of things. It's not like there aren't all sorts of relationships in canon anyway (here I pull out my favorite example of Squirtle's crush on Almond, which is both male/male and pokemon/human).
 
Blackjack Palazzo said:
If you're looking up shipping to begin with, you open yourself up to seeing all sorts of things. It's not like there aren't all sorts of relationships in canon anyway (here I pull out my favorite example of Squirtle's crush on Almond, which is both male/male and pokemon/human).
Click to expand...

When people hit "random page", they're not looking for shipping articles.

The last thing we need is to bring the shipping articles into the mainspace. That would be a disaster, as most (yeah, most) of them are non canon (that's a subtle way of saying "completely fanwanked"). Like Trom said, putting those articles in their own namespace keeps them from littering the mainspace with un-encyclopediac content.
 
Well if it's applied to gay ships, I hope it's applied to every straight ship as well. There's nothing more "wrong" with gay ships than straight ships.
 
deiXmachinis said:
Well if it's applied to gay ships, I hope it's applied to every straight ship as well. There's nothing more "wrong" with gay ships than straight ships.
Click to expand...

As we said, it applies to all ships.

We don't discriminate, but we are sensitive to the fact that lots of different ships could offend the sensibilities of some visitors.
 
OMGZ KENY IS NAWT IN LUVS W/ DANW, KENY LUVS ZOIE.

Basically it's to keep the homophobes from whining (though some find a way to anyway) and shipping wars from starting.
 
Unfortunately, people are just that easily offended. They are utterly incapable of showing any sort of tolerance to any sort of differing opinion.

To be honest, I've always thought of all those shipping pages are utterly useless. Frankly, it's about as needed as a bullet to the brain.

Please tell me why on earth we actually need pages dedicated to individual ships?
 
Still, I think we should combine some of the pages. They may be notable, but not for their own pages. Each of those shippingredirects counts towards the page total, but many of those pages are sooo low quality. Why should we lower the standards? They should still be combined, because some of the ships are so ridiculous. The most notable ones should have their own pages, but most of the rest should be combined.
 
There are a number that don't deserve the notability. Those, however, are actually in the minority of the ones that do deserve their own articles.

There are plenty with notes of canon in them. Each one-sided 'ship is notable, each Ash 'ship in its own right is notable, and 'ships centered around the main cast at all are mostly notable.

And even if you combine the pages, the redirects still have to be left as is, because they're, you know, going to be redirecting to the combined page and not just the individual article. So moot point on page count is moot.

Considering there are only about 150 'shipping articles, compared to the TGC articles, shouldn't even be targeted for removal. I could just as easily say, "Hey, those cards. They're just /there/. How about combining some and lowering the page count?"

And you would say, "But the cards are actually important!"

And I would counter, "Not to the majority of the fandom, they ain't."

"Shipping isn't either."

"And yet, 'shipping is universal to the fandom as a whole. The card game is a marketing ploy. Which one do you think generates more interest as a whole?"

And we'd be unable to measure that, because you would cite the tournaments, the casual players, the revenue, etc...and I would cite the WHOLE Internet. And we'd get nowhere.

Hence. You have ideas about the 'shipping articles? You send them my way.
 
I'm not saying delete them, I'm saying combine them. If every Ash ship is notable, why not make one page about all of them, with like, the ones with Misty, May, Brock, Dawn, Tracey, Paul, and Gary getting a description on the page with a main article sort of thing. Take a look atGold_(Special)#Pokémon. I think this sort of could really be implemented.

There are 23 ships with Ash, but how many of them are developed enough to have a whole article devoted to them? Just take a look at how stubby, incomplete, cleanup the articles are. Take Shipping:GoggleShipping for example, only one hint is listed, so it could easily be listed in a new page, "Shipping:Ships with Ash". And all the extra redirects could go to "Shipping:Ash" where the page would be "The article you are attempting to reach contains theories of a romantic relationship between Ash and another Pokémon character. If you are offended by such material, please turn away now."

I think you are mixing up being notable, and having any information at all. These ships would still be listed, described, and elaborated upon. It wouldn't be that big of a problem if the articles weren't so...bad. Many of them are uninformative skeletons that are just a bunch of templates saying how bad the articles are. (citing Shipping:ChikoShipping) Having one big, informative, complete article, would improve your section so much. We at Bulbapedia strive to have good articles, but so many shipping articles barely hit the bar. Having so many articles like that make the section, and the project look poor as a whole. I'm just trying to present a way to make to make Bulbapedia look better, not to bring your section down.

Having pages like, Shipping:Ships with Misty, Ships with Ash, Ships with Pokémon, would make everything more informative, and bring a lot of information in one place. It would also make the shipping section look better.
 
Luna, cards aren't ships. Cards are canon and indisputably notable on that basis alone. The same cannot be said for ships. Some are more notable than others, and I don't think the request to evaluate what's actually viable as a page should be disputed...we need to look at, perhaps, sprawl, and take action on what shouldn't be there. If that means 1 page or 100, well, let's do it.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of combining shipping pages. Of course, I prefer the idea of deleting them all, but combining is the next best thing.

In my humble opinion, it would be wise to combine all Ash ships under different sections in a page along the lines of "Shipping:Ships with Ash," etc.

Of course, this would mean ships would often be featured on multiple pages, but I don't see that as a problem.
 
Please note: The thread is from 16 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom