Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-24203813-20160112230454/@comment-1764483-20160113022811

Legofan9o5 wrote: ''"Strategically Viable"? WHO CARES OF VIABLINITY.'' Well, I care about viability, but that's besides the point. When making a plant, the ability has to be useful for it to be posted in-depth in the strategies section. As it is, you may, at best, get 2 or 3 sentences out of Cactus's Spikeweed ability.

''The plant is now a completely different entity that has enough content to support it's own page. Why, for the sake of the arguement, does PvZ1 and PvZ2 Pea-shooter remain merged after this rule? STRATEGIC IMPLICATION. They are both used in the exact same niche (cheap starter tower), exact same attack method along with the same weakness (AoE-less for example). The Strategic Value is constant, and having both iterations in the same page would cause less clutter than the aforementioned Cactus and Balloon Zombie. With the new abilities of both, the strategy needed to combat/use effectively is drastically different and therefore can constitute a new page.'' I am so tempted to correct various spelling errors here, but that's just off-point. As for your argument, plenty of other plants have been introduced for different reasons than in the first game: Starfruit's backwards projectile is rarely highlighted in PvZ2 while it made for a (somewhat) decent Digger Zombie counter in PvZ1, Jalapeno no longer exists to melt ice trails, et cetera. I really do not want to repeat myself, but I'm going to do so anyway: the changes made are still fundamentally the same: shooting spikes and changing height. Everything else is the same or not notable.

''"It would still be easier and less time-consuming to keep the two articles together to explain the differences more concisely." And how is that? Most pages that concern two massively differing iterations will have sections clearly split between the first and second games. See again, the Cactus article shows this the most.'' It would require having to relink all pages associated with a certain plant, force redirection of the rounded icons, ruin the infoboxes...

''And when split, what effect will it have? Dividing a large, relatively bloated page into two normal sized pages that would have navigation to allow for maximum efficiency for those who are looking for information.'' Yes, except a bunch of pages are even more clustered as is, such as the Conehead Zombie and Gargantuar articles.

''"As for the primal plants..." They will remain separate. They have different qualities and effects that differentiate themselves from their "Modern Counterparts" They create new strategy and have different use. Other than aesthetics, they share little to no correlation between each other. ''I never said anything about splitting the primal plants, I said that the primal plants had some information abridged to end redundancy which Dekagamer7X9 overlooked. Pay attention.

''"And no, Balloon Zombie and Newspaper Zombie should not separated. The former is too fundamentally similar to be split, and second is just stupid and pathetic to begin with."This quote needs to be here to finish off my counter argument, as it shows the bias exerted by Brain in this post. Labeling something as "just to stupid and pathetic" to explain why not to put effort into more articles is LAZYNESS. Splitting articles requires effort, but in long-term provides more accuracy, clarity and ease of use to those wanting information. ''How is saying that something is stupid and pathetic biased or lazy? I will admit that putting in extra effort isn't bad (which may end up contradicting my earlier statement about how we would have to redo several things that aren't worth the time), but I doubt this would harm clarity and I sure as hell know that accuracy is, in this case, the same in a 3-line article as it is in a 20-line article. Ease of use? Eh, that's debatable. I would say no, but then again, there's this thing called "cellular data" which may be reduced, but is it substantial enough to have a worthwhile effect on the wiki?

I think I may have missed something, but who cares? At the end of the day, it's debate, and I like debate.