Talk:Jacquouille: Difference between revisions

Line 24:

::::::The part about Sandbox is interesting though, and I also understand it as referring to the Jacquouilles. Now, the wiki does currently state that Jacquouilles are Lividstones, only a particular variant of them. A bit like little Livingstones are a variant of Livingstones with their own article, but they are also mentioned in the main one. Sometimes it's hard to decide when to create a "sub-article" for a variant, and when to keep everything under the main one. Anyway, should I host a poll to see what people think about this one? —[[File:RRRGBAIcon8.png|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon0.gif|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon1.png|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]] 22:09, 10 September 2024 (CEST)

:::::::I read the whole feedback loop thread, and at this point, I’m appalled (and a little proud) at how much Ubisoft copies from the RayWiki. They use our character names, our images, our information, and yet they refuse to credit us? I say this calls for action. A court case is definitely a lot, but we ought to do something. We can’t have them “borrowing” our stuff and not even giving us credit (or Rayman 4)!

:::::::Anyway, I understand that the “Jacquouilles” are still Lividstones, but my point is that unlike the aforementioned little Livingstones (in their case, they’re half the Livingstones’ normal sizes and twice as annoying), there are no physical or functional attributes that are particularly distinct from the Origins Lividstones that would warrant their own article. Now sure, if they charged at the player, used shields, and sometimes had parachutes, then they might be able to have their own article. Oh wait… yeah this is a difficult subject to debate, even for me. You can set up the poll if you wish, but I’m not sure enough people would care about this matter to make as big of a stink about it as we have over the past month or so. -RayGamer99

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ::::::The part about Sandbox is interesting though, and I also understand it as referring to the Jacquouilles. Now, the wiki does currently state that Jacquouilles are Lividstones, only a particular variant of them. A bit like little Livingstones are a variant of Livingstones with their own article, but they are also mentioned in the main one. Sometimes it's hard to decide when to create a "sub-article" for a variant, and when to keep everything under the main one. Anyway, should I host a poll to see what people think about this one? —[[File:RRRGBAIcon8.png|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon0.gif|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon1.png|class=sprite|link=User:Hunchman801]] 22:09, 10 September 2024 (CEST)
+:::::::I read the whole feedback loop thread, and at this point, I’m appalled (and a little proud) at how much Ubisoft copies from the RayWiki. They use our character names, our images, our information, and yet they refuse to credit us? I say this calls for action. A court case is definitely a lot, but we ought to do something. We can’t have them “borrowing” our stuff and not even giving us credit (or Rayman 4)!
+:::::::Anyway, I understand that the “Jacquouilles” are still Lividstones, but my point is that unlike the aforementioned little Livingstones (in their case, they’re half the Livingstones’ normal sizes and twice as annoying), there are no physical or functional attributes that are particularly distinct from the Origins Lividstones that would warrant their own article. Now sure, if they charged at the player, used shields, and sometimes had parachutes, then they might be able to have their own article. Oh wait… yeah this is a difficult subject to debate, even for me. You can set up the poll if you wish, but I’m not sure enough people would care about this matter to make as big of a stink about it as we have over the past month or so. -RayGamer99