Talk:Lumiose City save glitch
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Deletion/redirect/merge/etc
There seems to be an edit war going on surrounding this page. I don't know why it was tagged for deletion, because it's not a stub. But if a majority were to favour not having this page, then it makes loads more sense to redirect to Lumiose City#Glitches rather than delete it entirely. —★レシイラムtalk 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is a major glitch with massive consequences. So it's notable for its own article.--ForceFire 11:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tagged it for deletion not because it's not notable but due to the article being an ipso facto copy of this. This would be obvious to anyone that bothered reading the reason stated in the
{{Delete}}template. サトミュウ (SatoMew) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)- This is a bit tangential, but I think you meant de facto instead of ipso facto, SatoMew.
- Beyond noting that there are non-trivial differences between the two texts, I don't care enough to try to compare them closely enough to judge whether there's any significant difference in the content. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- ipso facto means "in and of itself" so the expression I used is correct. The current iteration of this article inherently makes it a duplicate of that section. There isn't anything important here that is not already mentioned there (and it can be easily added anyway). サトミュウ (SatoMew) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the bug is notable enough for a page (it is) and has enough information about it to not be a permanent stub (it does), then the obvious solution is to simply reduce the information on the list of bugs. glikglak 19:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of what information is on the page, you don't just throw a deletion notice on the page and walk away. Bring it up on the talk page first. As you can see here, plenty of people disagree with you. --HoennMaster 01:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, I do not see the point in starting a discussion for something that has an obvious solution. And the illusion of opposing majority shouldn't be a deterrent, it's not like it stops being your mess and your call in the end.
- This is EOD as far as I'm concerned. サトミュウ (SatoMew) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of what information is on the page, you don't just throw a deletion notice on the page and walk away. Bring it up on the talk page first. As you can see here, plenty of people disagree with you. --HoennMaster 01:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the bug is notable enough for a page (it is) and has enough information about it to not be a permanent stub (it does), then the obvious solution is to simply reduce the information on the list of bugs. glikglak 19:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- ipso facto means "in and of itself" so the expression I used is correct. The current iteration of this article inherently makes it a duplicate of that section. There isn't anything important here that is not already mentioned there (and it can be easily added anyway). サトミュウ (SatoMew) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tagged it for deletion not because it's not notable but due to the article being an ipso facto copy of this. This would be obvious to anyone that bothered reading the reason stated in the
