Notability of IQ skills

[kelvSYC]

Bulbapedia currently has very little good info on MD and MD2, especially when it comes to IQ skills. Three sysops have claimed that IQ skills are not notable, while I contend that they are at least as notable as abilities.

Now, these three sysops have been preventing me from making a significant addition to Bulbapedia, and have reverted virtually all of my partial work. One even claimed that it's because every Pokémon can learn every IQ skill, which a quick Serebii check will show you that it is false.

My question to the community: do you think IQ skills are notable?

 

[MAGNEDETH]

notable? yes.
but, do they deserve their own page like an ability? no.
they are not mainstream games, and therefor,
one page is enough.

 

[Maverick Nate]

We never said they weren't notable. We said that they should all go on the same page. Mystery Dungeon 2 is not a main series game, it just doesn't get the kind of amount of articles as say Diamond and Pearl do. But that doesn't mean we can't have the information. We have specified an area for the information you want, but you insist that all the IQ skills go on seperate articles; however, they aren't notable enough to be seperated like that. They all can and will go on the IQ page under IQ skills.

 

[kelvSYC]

We never said they weren't notable. We said that they should all go on the same page. Mystery Dungeon 2 is not a main series game, it just doesn't get the kind of amount of articles as say Diamond and Pearl do. But that doesn't mean we can't have the information. We have specified an area for the information you want, but you insist that all the IQ skills go on seperate articles; however, they aren't notable enough to be seperated like that. They all can and will go on the IQ page under IQ skills.

That's funny, you were implying in an earlier discussion that you didn't want it. Okay. Fine.

Tell me why they are not notable enough to have their own page. I remain unconvinced without evidence.

 

[MAGNEDETH]

they are not main series games. if those articles were notable enough, we would have already made the articles. theyre simply isnt any useful purpose to giving each IQ its own page.

 

[kelvSYC]

So Bulbapedia exhibits systematic bias that disadvantages MD and MD2. Duly noted. You could have just simply posted something that says "we don't do MD".

I also question whether you really want 65-odd rows on a single page, with as much data as I can cram...

 

[MAGNEDETH]

youre putting words in my mouth.
we do indeed carry info on MD games, but, as for bias. possibly, yes.
they dont carry the same weight the main games do.

as for 65 rows of stuff, i cant comment as i dont play MD games.

 

[shiningpikablu252]

There's things that don't have their own pages that are more notable than individiual IQ skills. If we were to give individiual IQ skills their own pages, then we should give articles to every single Pokémon every anime rival's been shown to have (a Gary's Skarmory article would be really crappy) including Butch and Cassidy, each of the 50 Battle CDs from Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness, each of the individual Battle-e cards (which are in the process of being merged into articles about the packs), each different print of a TCG card, every single anime voice actor, and so on and so forth.

It's not that we don't want to include Mystery Dungeon information, but insisting that the Super Mobile IQ skill is more notable than Kenny's Alakazam is taking things a bit too far. A list of IQ skills for Mystery Dungeon 2 along the same lines as the one for Mystery Dungeon 1, one after the other, should provide the perfect coverage for IQ skills.

 

[kelvSYC]

There's things that don't have their own pages that are more notable than individiual IQ skills. If we were to give individiual IQ skills their own pages, then we should give articles to every single Pokémon every anime rival's been shown to have (a Gary's Skarmory article would be really crappy) including Butch and Cassidy, each of the 50 Battle CDs from Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness, each of the individual Battle-e cards (which are in the process of being merged into articles about the packs), each different print of a TCG card, every single anime voice actor, and so on and so forth.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Abilities are a game mechanic, so are IQ skills. How you determine whether anime character X's Pokémon is more notable than some game mechanic will always be subjective. I'd suggest that you compare apples to apples here. I remain unconvinced that IQ skills are not notable enough to warrant their own articles.

But still, I find it ironic that there's a project on Bulbapedia to include every single one-time appearance throwaway character which has some serious momentum while you are claiming this.

It's not that we don't want to include Mystery Dungeon information, but insisting that the Super Mobile IQ skill is more notable than Kenny's Alakazam is taking things a bit too far. A list of IQ skills for Mystery Dungeon 2 along the same lines as the one for Mystery Dungeon 1, one after the other, should provide the perfect coverage for IQ skills.

Really? Let's see, such a table would require the name in multiple languages, the flavor text, the minimum IQ required in stars and points, a listing of which groups get the IQ skill, whether the ability can be disabled, and a description of their effects (about as detailed as Aggressor - "While this skill is active, attack and special attack is raised one stage while defense and special defense is lowered one stage" or Sharpshooter - "While this skill is active, the critical hit rate for all moves by this Pokémon is raised 15%. Does not stack with Scope Lens, but stacks with Super Luck, Patsy Band, and Type-Advantage Master."). I highly doubt that would be "perfect".

Then again, since you are a sysop, and you have the power of making actual edits without having them get reverted at the drop of a hat, prove it. Make such a table containing all 65-odd IQ skills as I described it. Then argue why it should be the way it is.

 

[Maverick Nate]

Then again, since you are a sysop, and you have the power of making actual edits without having them get reverted at the drop of a hat, prove it. Make such a table containing all 65-odd IQ skills as I described it. Then argue why it should be the way it is.

You obviously know exactly what you want in this table. Why don't you make it... under the IQ skills section on the IQ page where it belongs.

 

[TTEchidna]

Really? Let's see, such a table would require the name in multiple languages, the flavor text, the minimum IQ required in stars and points, a listing of which groups get the IQ skill, whether the ability can be disabled, and a description of their effects (about as detailed as Aggressor - "While this skill is active, attack and special attack is raised one stage while defense and special defense is lowered one stage" or Sharpshooter - "While this skill is active, the critical hit rate for all moves by this Pokémon is raised 15%. Does not stack with Scope Lens, but stacks with Super Luck, Patsy Band, and Type-Advantage Master."). I highly doubt that would be "perfect".

In multiple languages? Dude, we don't have to have its name in every language on the damn page. You want every page to consist of an infobox, a description, and a LIST OF LANGUAGES? That's not a page, that's something that belongs in a list.

Then again, since you are a sysop, and you have the power of making actual edits without having them get reverted at the drop of a hat, prove it. Make such a table containing all 65-odd IQ skills as I described it. Then argue why it should be the way it is.

Why has Yami Takashi's whine taken over everyone on this wiki? Honestly. Try and make an edit on Wikipedia and then come crying to us when they revert you for being unsourced. When you're concentrating on style and not having a bunch of crappy stubs lying around everywhere, you can't let kids who have NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING just go off and do whatever they want.

 

[kelvSYC]

You obviously know exactly what you want in this table. Why don't you make it... under the IQ skills section on the IQ page where it belongs.

I can't – because apparently on Bulbapedia a regular user can't make an edit without the explicit approval of a sysop, it seems. Because of boneheaded admin decisions like not allowing edits in User space, I can't even make a simple sandbox that will allow me to experiment on a private branch. Now you on the other hand are an admin, and since admin = god here, maybe you should do it since it's guaranteed to not get reverted. Since you can do that, maybe you can tell us how it turns out.

 

[kelvSYC]

In multiple languages? Dude, we don't have to have its name in every language on the damn page. You want every page to consist of an infobox, a description, and a LIST OF LANGUAGES? That's not a page, that's something that belongs in a list.

Did I say a list of languages? The infobox has English and Japanese - that should tide people over. I'd argue that a page would have the infobox, a description, and a list of Pokémon who can learn the IQ skill (for convenience, since that's derived from IQ groups). This is pretty much what a page on an ability has.

Why has Yami Takashi's whine taken over everyone on this wiki? Honestly. Try and make an edit on Wikipedia and then come crying to us when they revert you for being unsourced. When you're concentrating on style and not having a bunch of crappy stubs lying around everywhere, you can't let kids who have NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING just go off and do whatever they want.

The problem is that the way thing are, Bulbapedia is not a wiki. Admins are accountable to no one. On WP, you have AFD to argue whether a page is worthy of inclusion. Here, the only discussion we have is after an admin deletes something and people make an uproar. With that kind of "admin == god" attitude, it's a big disincentive to contribute.

 

[TTEchidna]

Since about half of them are essentially learned by everyone, unlike the moves, I don't think it's worth it.

We're definitely accountable. TOW's AfD is bureaucracy out of control, and they only do it because they don't have enough admins to get to everything and make an educated decision fast enough. Plus, admins use it as their own personal vendetta machine.

Plus, yes, let's have an AfD on every damn fancharacter some idiot kid decides to make a page on. Watch as Bulbapedia turns into the mess TOW has. But if you think you can make a good article on some crap from a side game (which, again, since it's not a main series game, you can see why no one's made any effort towards it), go for it. Set up one of these IQ skills as a test to see what it'd look like. Set it up as a subpage of yours. If it looks like enough information that can't just be put on a separate page (such as the abilities, which don't have these groups like the IQ skills do), it'd be good to go. And an infobox that would go with can just be added later.

 

[Martonimos]

I can't – because apparently on Bulbapedia a regular user can't make an edit without the explicit approval of a sysop, it seems. Because of boneheaded admin decisions like not allowing edits in User space, I can't even make a simple sandbox that will allow me to experiment on a private branch. Now you on the other hand are an admin, and since admin = god here, maybe you should do it since it's guaranteed to not get reverted. Since you can do that, maybe you can tell us how it turns out.

See, things like this represent a blatant disregard or a good chunk of what Bulbapedia is. The userspace was locked with good reason because people were working on their userpages infinitely more than they were on the actual articles. As far as a sandbox goes, that's unfortunate, but unnecessary; you may as well use the main one for any experiments. And I don't think I need to point what's wrong with that last statement. Our admins' edits, like those of our other good users, tend not to get reverted because they're good edits. If they do get reverted, the people in question will open a dialogue ad try to come to a consensus. It doesn't always work, but it's better than clicking the "undo" button every ten seconds.

 

[kelvSYC]

Since about half of them are essentially learned by everyone, unlike the moves, I don't think it's worth it.

That's news to me. MD2 has 60-odd IQ skills, and I only count five that are learned by everyone - Course Checker, Escapist, Item Catcher, Item Master, and Exclusive Move-User. The remaining abilities appear in no more than three IQ groups (there are ten total). I think a retraction is in order.

We're definitely accountable. TOW's AfD is bureaucracy out of control, and they only do it because they don't have enough admins to get to everything and make an educated decision fast enough. Plus, admins use it as their own personal vendetta machine.

I'll have to ask what TOW is first, since I don't necessarily get the context.

And "admin approval" isn't a personal vendetta machine? There were a lot of bad faith deletes here. It could be personal vendetta - I was never informed of this until I found out for myself that my hard work was reverted and deleted. I could have at least been informed of this, or better yet, I could have at least be informed of some civil discussion before all this happened - then I could at least say that a consensus was reached.

Plus, yes, let's have an AfD on every damn fancharacter some idiot kid decides to make a page on. Watch as Bulbapedia turns into the mess TOW has. But if you think you can make a good article on some crap from a side game (which, again, since it's not a main series game, you can see why no one's made any effort towards it), go for it. Set up one of these IQ skills as a test to see what it'd look like. Set it up as a subpage of yours. If it looks like enough information that can't just be put on a separate page (such as the abilities, which don't have these groups like the IQ skills do), it'd be good to go. And an infobox that would go with can just be added later.

At least that's a bit constructive, unlike the other two admins I had to deal with. But what's there to ensure that what I commit is not deleted by some admin because it lacks the admin's "seal of approval"? Cause honestly, I don't feel comfortable contributing to Bulbapedia unless I have some assurance from the SS^H^Hadmins that this will not happen.

But going back to the main question, there has yet to be a convincing argument to put 65+ IQ skills all on one page. If Bulbapedia is to be a reference for everything Pokémon, then we can't have something like "just because it's not a game mechanic in the main games" be a valid discriminant. Is there any real valid arguments out there?

 

[kelvSYC]

See, things like this represent a blatant disregard or a good chunk of what Bulbapedia is. The userspace was locked with good reason because people were working on their userpages infinitely more than they were on the actual articles. As far as a sandbox goes, that's unfortunate, but unnecessary; you may as well use the main one for any experiments.

So you are advocating that I try and experiment on the main space. I did, and it got reverted and deleted before I was done, and that's why I'm here. That's kind of a circular argument, isn't it?

And I don't think I need to point what's wrong with that last statement. Our admins' edits, like those of our other good users, tend not to get reverted because they're good edits. If they do get reverted, the people in question will open a dialogue ad try to come to a consensus. It doesn't always work, but it's better than clicking the "undo" button every ten seconds.

No, it's pretty clear from what I went through that admin edits don't go through the same scrutiny that a blue-collar user like me would. After all, they can delete entire pages without warning. If dialogue was opened and consensus was reached before action was taken, then we would all be in a better situation. Instead, dialogue was established after the fact, and in the moment where I have to investigate as to why my edits were reverted and deleted without warning I end up clicking "undo" every ten seconds.

It's not working for me now, and it probably won't work in the future, I can tell you that.

 

[MAGNEDETH]

It could be personal vendetta - I was never informed of this until I found out for myself that my hard work was reverted and deleted. I could have at least been informed of this, or better yet, I could have at least be informed of some civil discussion before all this happened - then I could at least say that a consensus was reached.

sounds like youre doing all this as a sort of personal vendetta.
most new users consult an admin before tackling such a large task.

 

[Martonimos]

So you are advocating that I try and experiment on the main space. I did, and it got reverted and deleted before I was done, and that's why I'm here. That's kind of a circular argument, isn't it?

That's not what I said at all. I said use the main sandbox; it's located in the Bulbapedia namespace. As long as you don't erase anyone else's stuff when you add your own, and use the preview button to minimize the number of edits that you make, you'll be fine with that. And like TTE said, you can always make a subpage for this.

No, it's pretty clear from what I went through that admin edits don't go through the same scrutiny that a blue-collar user like me would. After all, they can delete entire pages without warning. If dialogue was opened and consensus was reached before action was taken, then we would all be in a better situation. Instead, dialogue was established after the fact, and in the moment where I have to investigate as to why my edits were reverted and deleted without warning I end up clicking "undo" every ten seconds.

It's not working for me now, and it probably won't work in the future, I can tell you that.

The only page that was outright deleted was a link template, just like the fifty or so that we have already, that almost anyone could easily re-create. Everything else you added was reverted, and as you so persistently demonstrated, could easily be re-added.

I've called out admins several times before, and I've NEVER gotten in trouble for it. The one time it was something more than a minor screw-up, the admin went straight to the forums and opened a discussion on the issue. The consensus reached was not at all the one I had been hoping for, but because it was discussed fairly and openly, I accepted it.

And as far as dialogue goes, I firmly believe that it was your responsibility to open it. As I've said repeatedly throughout this ordeal, edit wars solve nothing. If your edit gets reverted, regardless of whether it was by a sysop or a normal user like me, your first priority should be to find out why, not to revert in turn, and to figure out how to change things for the better.

The easiest solution here is to add all the information you want without creating dozens of more pages to put it on, as everyone else has been saying. I confess to knowing nothing about IQ skills, but it seems to me that if three sysops and several other users are telling you something, it might be worth at least listening to.

 

[kelvSYC]

sounds like youre doing all this as a sort of personal vendetta.
most new users consult an admin before tackling such a large task.

It is turning into one, I have to admit. But I have learned a few things out of all this: "be bold" is not in the spirit of Bulbapedia, and that Bulbapedia admins, for the most part, are total control freaks. Maybe the occasional one has something constructive, but those kinds of admins are rare. Not exactly the image that you'd like to project to wannabe contributors.