46,150
edits
User talk:Time Turner: Difference between revisions
→Species
m (→Species) |
|||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:::::My point is that what you're doing is not covered under the proposal whatsoever and is therefore not applicable to the argument you bring up, ''and'' is removal of perfectly valid information. The general all-encompassing "Species" category keeps enemies in it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | :::::My point is that what you're doing is not covered under the proposal whatsoever and is therefore not applicable to the argument you bring up, ''and'' is removal of perfectly valid information. The general all-encompassing "Species" category keeps enemies in it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | ||
::::::According to the proposal's name, contents, and list of affected categories, it is ''only'' relevant to ''game-specific'' categories. Even if that was something that was ''planned'', it was explicitly not implemented in said proposal. Therefore, the general species category should still have enemies in it, as there is otherwise no subcategory containing them, as they are ''still'' species. They're distinct on the game-specific categories due to enemies being a specific gameplay element with a specific function, which is not applicable in the wide range of meanings employed by the general species category. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:52, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | ::::::According to the proposal's name, contents, and list of affected categories, it is ''only'' relevant to ''game-specific'' categories. Even if that was something that was ''planned'', it was explicitly not implemented in said proposal. Therefore, the general species category should still have enemies in it, as there is otherwise no subcategory containing them, as they are ''still'' species. They're distinct on the game-specific categories due to enemies being a specific gameplay element with a specific function, which is not applicable in the wide range of meanings employed by the general species category. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:52, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | ||
:::::::What I mean is that the general species category groups things by game, taxonomy/form, elemental use, and some other miscellanea, which I'd consider a wide range. As for the proposal, I'd say [[:Category:Species]] not being on the list of affected categories pretty much proves my argument beyond a doubt. Anyways, if enemy species shouldn't be under species, should non-boss enemy characters not be under the character category? Because that's a direct comparison. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:01, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | |||