Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-2189621-20161122201812/@comment-7091122-20161125023519

Legofan9o5 wrote: Camwood777 wrote: (Evolutions as sub-bullets) That formatting could work out well, as it does nullify my issue of organization. Plus the addition of the whole of the evolution line would be mildly helpful in navigation by cutting out an extra page jump.

An issue I still have however is the relivancy of their addition. Then again, plants like Parsnip have a See Also containing melee plants and Guacodile. They all are somewhat similar in a single aspect to Parsnip, but they ultimately have very little relivency to the plant itself.

This thread needed to be made just to get the concept of mentioning PvZ:AS at all, so I assume that this addition would also need its own thread due to it's further extent of mentioning PvZ:AS with varying degrees of relivancy. So don't be too suprised if someone believes the addition of your proposed evolution line is too obscure to be useful if utilized before everyone has a say in the matter. I'd argue that they're arguably even more relevant than those; while Parsnip and Guacodile only have attacks in common, most evolutions are, well, just that; by a gameplay standpoint, they couldn't be any more relevant.

Think of any game with an evolution mechanic like that, like Pokemon. Now imagine if Bulbapedia didn't have a link to evolutions for that Pokemon when those exist. It'd be confusing, and not to mention just unhelpful.

So why should PvZ:AS be an exception to that sorta thing? And don't give me that "nobody cares about/plays PvZ:AS" excuse.