Thread:Rodericky/@comment-134861-20200216190820/@comment-134861-20200221172440

"No. That's not it. What I'm reading here is that the design was too holistic even if the Digimon's design is directly but unintentionally designed from another form, even I think putting those new edits was ridiculous, but I put them in anyway. But, believe me or not, everyone's got an impulse, what can I tell ya?

If you want a rule specifically for this wiki for newcomer edits, you should put a new one here: Never put too holistic references to Digimon design based on how unintentional they are designed."

I have no idea what you're trying to say, and it sounds like you have somehow interpreted the opposite of what I was saying.

What you were doing was not holistic -- it was focusing specifically on superficial shared details to other characters, instead of looking at the actual topic of the article and talking about its design in its entirety. The problem with this is that it shifts the coverage from the topic to other articles, it implies intent where there often is none, and it makes claims that quickly become dated -- for example, a design section that said something like "unlike other Dragon Digimon, this one is pink" would become incorrect if Bandai released new pink Digimon -- and since the comparison is being made on one page and obsoleted on another, it can be easy to not realize the first page needs updated when the new page is made.

Whenever possible, articles should be "future-proofed", meaning that we want to minimize how often a page will need to be revised due to future publications. You can't avoid revising a species article if the species reappears in a new game, so those are a given, which leaves us with avoiding wherever possible a species article needing to be revised because of something that happens with a different topic. To do that, you need to limit references to other articles to things that are static and won't change.

This has nothing to do with you being a new editor.