User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 2

Archived talk

• User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1

Numbered Lists

Thanks for the heads up on numbered lists. They are not included on the Manual of style, so I was not aware of them. Now I know! :-) --Marlofkark (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. =) Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Blue Tags

It's been awhile since I played as a male character, but I could have sworn that the blue tags on their clothing was exactly the same as the blue ones for the female clothing. Stripes and all. I could be wrong and I'll leave the decision up to you. Also, thanks for filling in some of the Snowbelle City stuff. :)(Voltdetector (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

I've got both genders on my games at the moment, so I'm certain the blues aren't the same. It's a bit techno-y or something around the corners for the male. I'd be happy to give it some other descriptor, I just don't know what'd be clear enough. In the meantime, it doesn't really need a differentiator (like brown for females did—for which "angular" is much better than "stripes" btw, thanks), so it'll be fine. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I trust you on that. And yeah, I guess it doesn't need a descriptor of it's own. Voltdetector (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I have responded to you here. There was nothing excessive with doing one edit on each half of the listings. In fact, it's better to save the first half so that, if a mistake is saved in the second half, it can be rolled back to and tried again. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I kind of feel the issue was resolved and everyone's basically happy and I don't particularly need to say anything to Voltdetector, so I don't really want to respond on Voltdetector's page. So:

Primarily: whatever Voltdector wants to say the issue was, I prefer to listen to that over someone else's speculation.

Similarly, there are various reasons for (or against) many things, but when you're just grasping at possible justifications for someone else's actions, I don't feel like I can really give an appropriate response. So I'm just going to refrain from addressing your other points. I'd be happy to discuss them if it ever becomes the point of a specific situation in the future. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to start anything with that (Voltdetector did also tell me in chat that all is well), I was just pointing out that there was in fact nothing wrong with what he did. It's not like he edited the same single section five times. Editing male once and female once is acceptable, and in fact I would even encourage that as a method of saving some of the work; you never know when something will happen like the power going out, and at least that way SOME of the work is saved to reduce the amount to redo later.

So yeah, no hard feelings. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have to be away or you're worried about accidents, you could just save your edit in a text file.

You can point out that there's nothing wrong, but I didn't say that there was, either. I just wanted (personally) Voltdetector to reduce the number of edits, especially since there was little reason to be doing them separately. And there's nothing wrong with me doing that either...

FWIW, you haven't swayed me about what I did in the least. I may well do it again. I just prefer to see fewer overall edits. But please understand that I have no intention of coming down on everyone who makes a couple of edits in a row to one or two random pages.

(And I'm sorry if I do or did come off a bit strong. I may well be a bit argumentative, but do be assured that I take nothing personally here. No hard feelings. ^_^ ) Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we simply have a difference in our editing styles. There is nothing wrong with using two edits on a page like that. Saying you "wanted (personally) Voltdetector to reduce the number of edits" because you think "there was little reason to be doing them separately" is your personal opinion. I was not speculating; I was saying there was nothing wrong with his editing. If you were to tell me that I should not be editing in that fashion, I would sure tell you where to put that opinion, and it wouldn't be on my talk page.

So yes, you do come off rather strong there. All I'm saying is don't harass other users for their editing styles because you have a different editing style than they do. That's all I'm asking you to do. Spend the time improving the Wiki. I've been a Wikipedia editor (before coming to Bulbapedia) since March of 2008; for that reason, I have the experience to back up my opinion. Yes, I sometimes have made numerous edits because I missed a mistake when reviewing; it happens. I even own up to it in edit summaries. But this wasn't a mistake, it was two separate sets of work in the same area. There's a difference. Don't harass users for trying to improve the Wiki; we'd rather have them improving it than being scared off. I'm at least glad that you've worked it out with Voltdetector, but keep that in mind for the future. That's all. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not characterize what I did as "harassment"; and do not either forejudge what I have not yet done (and potentially may never). I place much more value on judgement of actual things over hypotheticals and apprehensions. I fully believe I am capable of broaching this subject without scaring someone off. And you may be sure that I do keep that in mind. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thank-you. --Det^talk 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

How do you make a template collapsible? Also, thanks for the information you gave me. See ya, --SirFinkleBottom 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean a table? It goes something like here (click Edit for the section and then search for "expandable"). A slightly different and more complicated example is on Burmy (it's easiest to just click "edit this page" and search for class="collapsible"). But if you were thinking about using it on Days of the week, I wouldn't say it's necessary. Most of the individual generation sections are a quite reasonable length IMO.

BTW (just in case), when I suggested you update and save "all the days" at once, I didn't necessarily mean the whole page. It's perfectly fine to update part of it if you're going to be gone for a few hours or something. (Although it's also still nice if you at least update by whole generations, rather than leaving a couple days incomplete somewhere; it'll just look nicer to anyone else visiting the page.)I see you have updated the whole of GSC now. Great. ^_^ ...I'm not sure if I just missed it or if I started my response here before you saved that or what. =P Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Doduo and Dodrio

I believe the trivia regarding the coloring of Doduo and Dodrio's necks is important because due to how the gender differences for this evolution line was made, the official artwork depicted a male Doduo evolving into a female Dodrio. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because Funktastic~! did. She's who you should talk to. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:The Preview Button

Sorry about that, I do it while I read the chapter and sometimes I clicked it to fast before finishing the chapter. User:Animaltamer712:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Subjective Editing/Blocking you keep doing

I have to ask, why are you always erasing edits to things that you personally do not like, on here? The last thing I edited was White Forest, in order to warn readers that if you take too long to get there, you will be unable to catch any Pokemon there. This info was NOT in the article beforehand. And you erased every single edit I made in there, for no reason, at all. Why wouldn't you want people to know not to take too long to enter White Forest? This has been a problem with many people. Also, it is completely accurate that altering the DS clock will reduce the timer to White Forest's occupants. Currently so far, there is NOTHING warning people about how White Forest's countdown timer works. Nor is there even any info about how long the timer takes, which you also erased. Is this a power/authority thing? Why wouldn't you want to warn players about that? Also, there is NO WAY to fix this glitch now, and Entralink no longer works. White Forest in Pokemon White is now permanently unable to bring new residents in. And if there is some way that this can be fixed that none of us know about, why wouldn't you put that in there, too?

Sometimes, Bulbapedia can be a good website for info. But a LOT of crap you guys do is highly subjective and biased. It's bad enough you guys show a clear disdain for the older games and often like to retcon information. Like the whole name of "Ethan" and all the inaccurate retconning done with that and turning everything from Gold/Silver/Crystal into HeartGold/SoulSilver, even though they ARE DIFFERENT GAMES! HG/SS isn't identical to G/S/C, nor do they work the same way. Yet, Bulbapedia does not give one damn. Gold in Generation II is NOT "ethan" in Generation IV, nor can you get an Ambipom in Crystal version.

This thing with White Forest is another thing I don't see the point of restricting/blocking valuable information from. I think the info some of us "non-veteran" contributors put out there is valuable and "not being part of the insiders club" shouldn't block that info from being put on here. It's my opinion that you guys are out-of-line and having a "community based" website where only a few elite members get to control the information is no different than media sources with an agenda.

Can you guys at least EXPLAIN why you do these things you do, instead of just going "I don't like others contributing, so I'm going to keep erasing everything and banning people who fight me." The whole website loses quality when you guys keep being biased like this. - unsigned comment from Mcheetah (talk • contribs)

I'm happy to explain what I do. But please do not expect me to answer for the actions of others.

You claim I erased your edits for no reason. I did give reasons.

"Also, it is completely accurate that altering the DS clock will reduce the timer to White Forest's occupants." I did not say (or mean to) that it was inaccurate. I'm not 100% sure what my exact thoughts were at that point, but right now, I can tell you that I'd be happy to see that in the main article (i.e., not as "Trivia"), but ideally it should also quantify exactly how changing the clock affects the occupants. (This is probably why I didn't put it in myself.) Particularly: is there a set penalty to the occupants' parameters (and how much?) for changing the clock, or if it's set forward by X days does it just act like you haven't interacted with the occupants for X days? (Maybe the effect is different depending on if you go forwards or backwards?)

"there is NOTHING warning people about how White Forest's countdown timer works"? White Forest#Demographics.

In general, to your concern about warning people: Bulbapedia is not a FAQ or walkthrough. Bulbapedia is a wiki. For the most part, we should not be making "recommendations". In any case, the information users need to understand that is contained in the article already. "When the player enters the forest for the very first time, the total number of residents is determined by the number of days it took the player to reach White Forest." (That, with the table in Demographics.)

What glitch are you speaking of? Are you confusing the Entralink with the Pokémon Global Link? The Entralink is a local wireless function, not over the internet. I just now recruited someone from White Forest into Black City, so I'm quite sure you're wrong about that much, at least. (I do not wish to try the other direction at the moment, but there is no reason it should be any different.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Series 2

Sorry for the slow update, I was ill this weekend and didn't work on the card pages like I had planned to. Anyway, Pokémon Trading Cards series 2 is halfway updated lol. (I'm not feeling up to finishing the rest today XD) I uploaded all the images I have, though, you can find them here if you want to go ahead with your scanning now. Thanks for waiting! --ZestyCactus 05:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to see what I can supplement there this week and maybe get it up by the weekend. ^_^ Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heavy Anime Pokemon

Oh okay then, I was just going through to see if anyone had a problem with reason to remove them. Yeah, I only did the up to the 5th I thought going past the 3rd was a bit much. I felt like just having Snorlax seemed obvious so I thought Steelix and Torterra at least should have been included to make it seem like a more solid fact. I get what you mean about seconds being irrelevant.

Evil Paragon (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick Questions

Do you think the clothing page needs to have pictures of the different types of tags? Because I found a rip of them on a Spriter's Resource awhile ago and I was going to ask you about it before doing anything, since you seem to be more of an expert on this than me. Voltdetector (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be much more convenient to use an image of the tags in the tables than an improvised text description. Of course, you may want to double-check with staff on the Archives to make sure the images you found are okay to upload. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know which of them to talk to. I'm kinda new to stuff around here still. >_< Voltdetector (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From a quick check, hHt14 seems to be fairly reliably active recently. You can post on his talk page and with a little luck you should have a response within 24 hours. If it happens to drag on too long, though, you can always just check the Recent changes log for active staff and try to ask someone you see there. (You may want to check their contributions to see if they're frequently active or just there on a rare occasion, just in case they slip away before you leave your message.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Voltdetector (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the game, the old man who talks about Mirage Spots does not capitalize the 's' if that helps. But most places Capitalize it. Yamitora1 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure, does he actually use "Mirage spots" with a capital 'M' in the middle of a sentence somewhere? And when you say most places, do you just mean places like fan sites? If so, we should of course follow the games first and foremost. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mirage is capitalized, and I mean both fan and I think official sites/social media mentions. However, that might be simple personal preference for whoever is in control of those sites/accounts.

Anyways, here is the old man's Dialog

They say, here in Hoenn, there are places 
called Mirage spots.
One does not simply walk into a Mirage spot.
Not to mention that these places also
appear and disappear mysteriously.

in both instances that he mentions Mirage Spots. he Capitalizes the M every time. from what I see in screen shots from the original games, he use to say Mirage Island in all caps.

Likewise, another man inside the same house in Pacifidlog Town says

Mirage spots...
It must be the weather conditions that seem to
make the visible at some times and not others.
Or are they truly appearing and disappearing?

So I guess we should stick with Mirage spots as the capitalization of the term. Yamitora1 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I've gone and fixed it around the wiki, then. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical Captures

You have undone my changes at the Catch rate article. Please have a look at the discussion page of Dragonfree (talk) --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey guy, how about talking to me instead of abusing me in the editing comment section and doing edit war like you have done previously with Marnix?
Can you make a comprehensible explanation why it should be 65536 (=2^16) instead of 65535 (=2^16-1) like it always is? 65536 also is inconsistent with the other generations.
The other point is the fraction of that formula. You insist on 1/4 which means that the total capture chance is in Generation V like in IV or VI. But nevertheless you claimed different probabilities in the Critical Capture section which is even inconsistent with the whole rest of the article. If you can't explain that, I'll soon change it back. --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to copy your response from Dragonfree's talk page to Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI. That's where it belongs. Please continue the discussion there.

Also, I would ask you to please be very careful in the future about linking a different user and their talk page like you did above. It looks exactly like a signature, and when your actual signature doesn't look like a usual signature, it is very easy to miss your real signature and assume the comment is from Dragonfree. Thank you.

Now, regarding your second comment...

1) Please refrain from making this personal (and/or try not to take it so personally).

2) Regarding the rest...allow me to take a little more time to respond to that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay...

Regarding 65535 or 65536: addressed at Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI.

Regarding 1/4: let's lay this out, since your comments above don't seem quite right to me.

(The below will all assume throwing a regular Poke Ball at Kyurem (or Giratina) at full health with no statuses)

In Gen III-IV, the shake probability b is about 25%. With four shake checks, this makes the final capture probability 0.39%.

If b in Gen V uses a fourth-root, then b is about 25%. With three shake checks in Gen V, this makes the final capture probability about 1.5%.

If b in Gen V uses a third-root, then b is about 15.8% and (with three shake checks) the final capture probability is 0.39%.

Now, if you would suggest that Gen V is probably not a fourth-root because it makes the final capture probability different from what it was: I cannot accept that as reason enough to say it uses a third-root. I am very sympathetic to that reasoning, but it proves nothing. The developers could have made a mistake, or decided they wanted it that way, or who knows what. If you think the Gen V formula must use a third-root, try to prove it.

The way to prove it might be to find a Pokemon that could reliably be captured (maybe given sleep, and/or a certain type of Poke Ball) if the Gen V formula uses a fourth-root but which may break free if the formula uses a third-root. I'm sorry to say I'm not eager to do that work myself (though I perhaps it's not really that difficult), but I would be overjoyed if you could find such a case that we could test to find out for sure whether the formula should say 1/4 or 1/3. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You pointed out the key aspect for Generation V: Is it a fourth-root formula (call it 4RF) which makes a different result compared to all the other generations or is it a third-root formula (call it 3RF) so that instead only the probability of a single shake check changed? I believe in the 3RF. Well, the simple reason would be: four shake checks --> fourth-root, three shake checks --> third root.
you cannot proof it by catching a Pokémon reliably. Both formulas would give a 100% chance. So you must catch Pokémon (in Generation V of course) that can break free, but don't have a too low chance. Example:

Catching with Sleep using Dusk Ball: Basculin (catch rate 25), 3RF = 28.6% --- 4RF = 39.1% --- Difference = 10.5%

But you can also catch a Pokémon with 255 catch rate just using a Poké Ball. The difference will always be maximal about 10.55% for some mathematical reason.

Catching without ailment using Poké Ball: Patrat (catch rate 255), 3RF = 33.3% --- 4RF = 43.8% --- Difference = 10.5%

These 10.5% make the difference. --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, this is solved in Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI.

Also, you should really follow the custom of indenting your replies one further than the previous response. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha. I answered here because you answered here. --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 19:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ORAS Berries and Lumiose City Juice Shoppe

I was wondering if you would like to add ORAS berries to the Juice Shoppe info. I can put some berries on throw away pokemon, trade them to your game and we can find out what class the berries are and their effect when mixed together. Yamitora1 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally, that'd be super cool. ^_^ I'll send you a PM. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Designs section for ORAS page

At least three areas have had noteworthy changes that makes them qualify for this section as minor notes. Hoenn Safari Zone (since the area is nowhere near the same as the original games), Scorched Slab (Major expansion), and Mt. Pyre (minor change of where the exit to the exterior is). I can easily handle Mt. Pyre since it is just a minor update, but I feel you are better qualified for the Safari Zone and Scorched Slab since you are better at compressing notes than I am. -Tyler53841 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually have ORAS... Right now, to me, Mt. Pyre sounds like such a small change I don't personally care about noting it (after I play ORAS, I could think differently). The Safari Zone's geography is not explained on this site well enough for me to know what to say, and I don't want to spoil myself as much as watching a YouTube video would do. (But if that'll be mentioned under Design, it might also be best to move the Safari Game point out from Mechanics and mix it into the Design point.) I can do Scorched Slab fine, though. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Need some help

If you check out my recent addition to the Sea Mauville page, it talks about the procedure to unlocking Spiritomb. Could you help me think of a way of adding it to the ORAS page as I need to think of the best way to keep it short and simple for that page. Also if you need to look at the footage directly I can provide a Youtube link which helped me earlier being I performed it on my game myself. -Tyler53841 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think if you get into details that are too fine, there can be a lot that doesn't necessarily need to be added to the ORAS changes. I'm not sure what you think should be added for Spiritomb. If what you basically want is that Spiritomb is catchable, IMO it's basically the same for a number of other non-Hoenn Pokemon that can be caught (after you get the National Dex I think?) in various places, and Spiritomb isn't that special out of all those. (If it's that it's catchable at Sea Mauville, that doesn't seem like an important detail.) It seems there's nothing currently noting the new non-Hoenn encounters so if you wanted, you could put that in. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Encounter rates

Hi, you know the exact porcentage of rates in X and Y, because it's annoying see letters than numbers --HoopsterJohn (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know, but I agree that it's very annoying to not know. I had planned to ask it of someone(s) soon. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on that. It will take some time though. Adamws (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have numbers? Or maybe you mean you're asking? If you need any help with anything like transforming the raw data to Bulbapedia-usable data, I'd be happy to help if I can. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to the area and encountering Pokémon in game. If you want to help, you can start in the east part of Kalos and work westward. Adamws (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've honestly done some of that already. =P But it'll be much more reliable to get exact numbers (and I'm still not sure if such empirical data is really acceptable). Since they're out for ORAS, I can't really imagine why the same data for X/Y isn't public. I'll go ahead and make an inquiry now, in fact. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you do that. I'll keep doing it my way to get at least close to the percentages. If you find the exact percentages, feel free to correct the errors on the ones that I have done. Adamws (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like XY encounter data was known, but I have no idea where it might have been posted. At any rate, I've got that data now. I'll do some work to turn it into a convenient format to browse and fill in Bulbapedia's tables, and then I'll get to updating them.

Adamws, in the meantime, since you have ORAS, maybe you could check my recent contributions for the places where I need someone to confirm if encounters are possible or to determine which encounters appear where exactly (or et cetera), and uncomment and/or label that stuff as appropriate? (FYI I finished with ORAS at 14:00 on Dec 18, and I started it at 19:56 on Dec 17.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Soaring Stunts Table

lol no I'm not trying to avoid trying to spell them out, but I think having Forward and backward/backwards is not as eye appealing.

You actually had the same thought I had about ↑↓ instead of ← →. Before your edit, I was actually changing them to the up and down arrows while adding another stunt (err I guess? does breaking count?), and changing Stunt to Maneuver and Effect to Description. I want to try and make the table as Aesthetically eye appealing as possible.

So how does this look, and I couldn't figure out how to do it, but what if we put notes at the bottom showing a legend for the arrows?

Maneuver	Description	Combination
Bucking	The Pokémon begins to thrash while the rider lets go. The rider then attempts to maintain their balance on its back.	A or ↓ + A
Braking	The Pokémon makes a sudden stop and pulling back.	↓
Accelerate	Increases the Pokémon's speed.	B + ↑
Ascend	The Pokémon pitches upward, increasing its altitude.	X or ↑ + X
Descend	The Pokémon pitches downward, decreasing its altitude.	Y or ↑ + Y
Inverted Decline	The Pokémon pitches upward, while simultaneously decreasing its altitude and drifting down in a backward motion.	↓ + X
Inverted Incline	The Pokémon pitches downward, while simultaneously increasing its altitude and rising in a backward motion.	↓ + Y
Somersault	The Pokémon takes an abrupt nosedive, spinning downward in a corkscrew fashion and then righting itself after completing a 180° flip.	↑ + L
Loop the Loop	The Pokémon pitches upwards, inverting itself and the rider in an arch before nosediving and completing a 360° flip.	↑ + R
Scoot Back	The Pokémon wriggles several paces backward.	↑ + A
Barrel-roll Dash	The Pokémon accelerates forward, spinning to make one complete rotation.	↑ + B
Zoom climb	The Pokémon accelerates rapidly upwards while rolling into a spin.	↑ + Y & A
Dive-bomb Dash	The Pokémon accelerates rapidly downward while performing a spinning dive.	↑ + Y & B
Backtrack	The Pokémon will pitch upwards 90°, break into an erect spin making 3 rotations, followed by leveling off at another 90°. This forces itself and the rider to reface the Hoenn region.	Reaching the Map's edge

Personally I would much rather have actual button pictures, but I'm not sure how to do it, or if the staff would accept it. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a legend is needed if up/down really do correspond well to forward/back. Those images above would definitely need to be shrunk somewhat if they were going to be placed in the table (or basically anywhere), but personally, I don't really feel any need to improve the aesthetics of describing controls. I like ↑, X, B, etc just fine. (And if those images are representative of what you have, you would seem to be missing L/R, and it simply wouldn't be acceptable to use images for some of the controls but not all.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I would shrink them naturally, and I do have the R and L buttons made,, just not uploaded to my 4shared account. So should I go ahead and add this table to the article? Yamitora1 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

...Now, yeah. =P Sure. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Choice of words

As to why I chose "disables and hides", it was to clarify that the option is not just greyed out (disabled) but also hidden. But your rewording is better, though. SatoMew 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Old discussions

Hello, I need a clarification on the "Please refrain from resurrecting discussions older than 6 months" rule. The discussions on a wiki aren't forum threads, and if they aren't a very specific question to one particular user, it doesn't grow old and can still be consulted. Old content is still consulted and the discussion may still be a question the user wanted to read. Adding precision more than 6 months later isn't for the original poster but for the next users asking themselves the same question, and thus there isn't any "resurrecting". Otherwise, why aren't discussions removed after 6 months? Because it can still answer the next user. So exactly why forbidding more precision to be added? (Besides the obvious readability of a heavily discussed page of course) Yes, I know there's a line about that in the FAQ, but it's very general and the exception is subjective. So I'd like to know the reasons. -- Gpm (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If a question is years old, it is very unlikely any user is still checking for answers to it...

The user's question where you responded actually was answered. Q: "Why does it say sunny instead of night?" A: "Because that's just how it works." Your comment didn't add anything significant, just trivia at best (which, IMO and FYI, would be fine on the mainspace page). If the thrust of the question was answered, then no tangential additional "precision" is really needed if many months have passed; if they had wanted clarification, they would have asked, and if anyone else wants it, they can make a new question. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I often check discussions to see if a question I have has already be asked, and I read other questions because they can be interresting as well, even if it's not my question of the moment. I assume other users do the same and I thought it would be nice to add some precision. In the case we're speaking about, you are right it's really just trivia, no problem I understand. Thank you for your answer! -- Gpm (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"You!"

...yeah, I guess it slipped my mind on that one. I was being careful when doing the other two; notice the writing on Route 119.

And knowing this is all needed to get TM93 Wild Charge bugs me. I was going to go on a TM collecting spree today for the final ones. Now I might as well train for Victory Road. Still have four TMs to find in Mirage Spots too, so I hope I have good Streetpass results in a couple of days. CycloneGU (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Starters and Fangs

If you have a bunch of Fire Fang encounters for Mudkip, I'm going to consider testing complete. I think this is like the elemental monkeys in Unova, though it doesn't in all cases cover weaknesses as the monkeys did (and I didn't really use them LOL). I have the edit ready to go. CycloneGU (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rematch Data

I'm moving on to this project. I'm convinced from my own game experience, however, that rematch data is not in a set order, but based on where you are in the story. For instance, I rematched Dylan's Lv.18 Doduo (Route 117) three consecutive times, and much later my first "rematch" against Gabby and Ty was at Lv.41 when I was expecting a Lv.29 battle. How should we document rematch data for the time being? Should I just put information for each Route as I come across it in my userspace and we can decide from there how to handle it? I think I prefer having separate tables, and then each sub-header can say something like, "After obtaining the 'Blank' Badge" followed by the appropriate data. I can show what I mean after I have some data. CycloneGU (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like their RSE Trainer entries have a more or less similar problem, insofar as only one battle is displayed even though it appears they may have different teams.

Rematches in general aren't handled terribly gracefully and/or uniformly (I believe?) on Bulbapedia. For past generations, there have been devices like the VS Seeker, and if that icon is in their row, I've come to understand that to imply that you should visit the Trainer class page to see their rematch data. For Gen VI/ORAS/Gabby and Ty, that's not really applicable, though...

I would say yeah, list whatever battles are applicable. And for each "rematch" or battle after the first, include a note.

Trainer	Pokémon
Interviewers Gabby & Ty マリとダイ Mari and Dai Reward: $2,320 Rematch, with 6 badges	Magneton Lv.29 No item
	Loudred♂ Lv.29 No item
Trainers with a PokéNav by their names will be registered in the Trainer's Eyes or Match Call function after the first battle, and may have a rematch with the player with higher-level Pokémon.

...or something like that. (I imagine that'll work a little better than I think it does here in a whole table.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea there. I was planning to just use a new sub-header "Rematches" under the originating table, and still within, say, "Generation VI" (the extra set of equal signs). Doing that and your labeling idea would allow all rematches to be in the same table, and grouped by when they occur. Of course, each "group" can also take place in unique tables, so we have "Rematches with the Knuckle Badge", "Rematches with the Balance Badge", "Rematches after entering the Hall of Fame", and so on, meaning each set of rematches is a table. On the Rematches page itself, after I confirm specific data (such as when they start occurring; I'm now holding a Stone Badge in Alpha Sapphire and have not seen rematches yet), I can edit that in there. As for Gabby and Ty data, using that example, I will be doing special research on them. CycloneGU (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I got rematch data eventually after getting the Stone Badge when my Alpha Sapphire arrived, so it is only a matter of time, luckily it would be as painstakingly long for a rematch to occur compared to Gen. III, so give it some time and keep an eye on your Trainer's Eyes because once the color changes from black to white, then you know it is ready to go. -Tyler53841 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And given how often Dylan wanted to fight me (and lose again) with the same Lv.18 Doduo, they will want a rematch again right away, so it will make it very simple to catalog all the data. I'm guessing the rematches begin when you clear the Rusturf Tunnel events with Team Aqua/Magma since you said you only have the Stone Badge, and I have no rematches yet (not even Calvin on 102!). CycloneGU (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to be on the right path. The first rematch request has appeared from Lass Haley on Route 104. Time to see if her team has improved any before I go visit the Devon President. CycloneGU (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

[Outdent] Got my first rematch, and I was wrong, it was Cindy. Not Haley. Though Haley I think wants one, too, so I think Cindy just wanted one after I re-entered 104. In any case, I still have to battle Winston, then I can move Haley and Winston up there as well. What are your thoughts to the format I have used here on my copy of the 104 data? Note that "Other Rematches" is strictly for storing data that is not yet personally confirmed. CycloneGU (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of reinventing the wheel. There's nothing wrong with the current format, just change the tt text to "After # of Badges/entering Hall of Fame". glik^glak 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That is the other option, but sometimes the wheel can be tuned up as well. I'm just looking for opinion on the proposed format. I do agree that it would add a lot of headers at the expense of making smaller tables, so the question is whether we prefer a cleaner look or for all data for one generation to remain in a single table. This is why I put the idea in the user space for now, and I intend to make edits to the mainspace style for the time being so that the data researched is not lost. At the very least, having a rematches header provides a break in the data that I think is needed even if we don't split off groups of rematches. CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with Glik. As it stands, I have nothing but questions about why Cindy is in a section "Rematches after obtaining the Stone Badge" and also in "Other Rematches". If she just starts offering rematches after the Stone Badge, then (if you're gonna have a rematch section) all of her rematches should just be there and the first should say something like "First rematch, any time after obtaining the Stone Badge". (That's a big "if" for me. Like I said, I don't get it, so I'm making a big guess.)

I'm also, as a rule, not fond of "tt" when other notation is possible (such as I demonstrated above). On the other hand, I may be sympathetic to objections to my example format, and since the "tt" becomes repetitive (first, second, third rematches...), it's not completely terrible... Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the concerns of TT is for mobile users, who would not have a mouse to hover around and bring up the tooltips. I think it's best to try to avoid them when possible as well, but in some cases that might just be difficult to do, and an additional note in the prose would be useful for those users so that both userbases are covered.

I'll revisit the userspace version once it's complete. Keep in mind I just created it, and the reason it's set up as such ("Other Rematches", which normally would not exist) is so that I can move data around once I confirm it. I'm still doing editing on the other 132 pages (wherever there are rematches, anyway) in the meantime, but I'm only doing 104 under my suggestion, and it will be better seen once completed. CycloneGU (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The text underneath does look better, but I don't think it'd really works when rematches get condensed (see Cindy and Winston in Emerald). glik^glak 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my way to conduct the initial battle with Winston right now as I never did that, so I'm hoping to unlock the rematch right away before heading south to Dewford. I already have Omega Ruby with all eight Badges, so I'm using Alpha Sapphire for this research (up to seven Badges) and will be doing the Hall of Fame research using Omega Ruby afterwards. After I get the Winston rematch in, I'll save an edit with their first rematches and the "Other" section will shrink. I'll do a second edit later with the second batch of rematches once I know when they occur, but I think that's after the second Badge. Heck, I have to have more battles in Petalburg Forest right now, as well.

I've been considering using this same page for ALL of my rematch data, but for now that might be overkill (even if I do get a Userspace policy exclusion). I'll just edit on each page with Badge requirements and use 104's data for prepping the format. I'll be prepping it for both Tiddlywink's idea and my split tables proposal, and in the end we can figure it out from there if any changes are made. It would be nice to get something more user-friendly for sitewide use. CycloneGU (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

...And that's kind of what I meant before, that rematches are not handled uniformly. =P I looked at Route 118 before, and that doesn't list any rematches. I think Route 104's format looks alright, though. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

118 probably wasn't researched yet, and I was going to start researching 111 since I saw the same problem there before making the discovery that everyone suddenly had Lv.43-44 teams. Hence why I've added this to my projects. I'm going around everywhere after major plot points and Badges earned to find rematch information. I'm playing Alpha Sapphire right now in a way I normally don't; by taking a single team and overleveling them, and adding a couple here and there who basically sit back and watch most of the time until needed. I already have Sceptile and haven't even gone south yet. CycloneGU (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Research" my foot. (Absolutely no offense intended.) The RSE Trainers have had rematch data on their Trainer class pages for some while, but the route doesn't list those. That's the rub. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Yeah, some routes' were just never added, for some reason. And it's not like every Trainer's rematch teams and what triggers them aren't known. They're all in the guide. glik^glak 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks, I'm looking at OR/AS data, which is completely missing. I'm not (yet) looking at Gen. III.

Glik: I agree, it was easy for this to be found, but I think the way the rematches are now done (see 111-VI now, there are two sets listed and nothing in between or afterwards) has left large batches of data unfound, which is what I'm correcting.

Right now, every single Trainer on my rematch card is looking for me, and I still have to chop down trees on 116 to get a few there. I'm hopping around for info. CycloneGU (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks, I used your idea at Petalburg_Woods. I decided I'll use that immediately and just quietly do my own format (including that in it) for 104 separately. CycloneGU (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't go altering any formats until we can actually agree on something. Any changes will most likely have to be done to every game, so keep them uniform until then. glik^glak 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I'll have to do a lot of userspace edits to accommodate data until something can be agreed upon, then. I like and agreed with what Tiddlywinks suggested, hence why I started using it. I'm not pushing my own opinion on anything else for the time being.

Will there be a problem if I use my userspace to store personally confirmed data until something can be agreed upon? I can move data from there to the mainspace when a format is agreed, and we can even use the page I create (to accommodate all of the rematch data in fact) to grab data to eventually be used in that new format. I'll use Tiddlywinks' idea in my userspace for now and copy the reverted edits to there for starting points. CycloneGU (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your userspace can essentially be used for whatever you want. If you're really gonna worry about making too many edits, though, you can always write down your data in a text file or something and save it there until the end of the day or something.

FWIW, I'd likely side with keeping the current format, between the hassle of changing it everywhere and it generally being adequate. But maybe not; especially once I've actually expereinced this feature myself. (Rematches have generally been one of the last things I've ever cared about, though...) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Having five rematches in one table entry and forcing people to rely on tooltips is not a good method of presentation. I know I'm taking on a lot of potential projects, but once a potential new format is agreed upon for OR/AS (starting with OR/AS as it's incomplete), we can move it back for R/S/E as well on the same pages, and move it to other regions at a later time. I can handle all OR/AS rematch data as I'm literally combing the game right now; I'll just have to remember to check EVERYTHING.

I'm creating a userspace page with all I've confirmed so far and notating it at the top, even stating I'll work on it some via Notepad to attempt to reduce the number of edits (I have to bring them in after a few to make sure there are no errors). I'm only including rematch data on it. You'll see it on Recent Changes after I save everything. One thing I think the tables could use is a show/hide format like here; that would let users expand them if they want that data. I presume mobile users can do that? CycloneGU (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Game Location Data

I've seen this both ways, so I'm asking. Has a consensus been established (link me if possible?) as to whether the text boxes for OR/AS under game location data (on all Pokédex pages) should both have white text or dark text? I've seen mostly dark at first so made that a standard edit, but the last three or four all show white text. CycloneGU (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. I think black text is "supposed" to be "right", or intended/believed so by a few people (at this point in time, that's mostly just an impression I can't solidly back up), but I honestly think the ORAS colors are a little too dark to contrast with black text well, so I actually prefer the white, myself. But I've not at all tried to force or argue that opinion anywhere. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen both in use. Sometimes, I only see one (I have seen OR white and AS dark on the same line). So yeah, everyone seems to be doing their own thing until the data is added, then it can be made uniform later I guess. CycloneGU (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Just talked to Kogs about it. The consensus is that white text should be used for both OR and AS. ^ht14 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Check. All right, I'll have to review all of the Hoenn Pokémon pages; I've seen both black and white used in the Pokédex entries as well. Tiddlywinks, feel free to nab any before I get to 'em if you're in the area anyway. Or, HT14, would using a bot be better? CycloneGU (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Just refer to me as ht or ht14 =P Uhh, I do not have control of any bots. I would say manual is better; while you're at it, you could add Pokédex entries (aha! that's the word) that you may have missed first-hand. ^ht14 04:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I'll be in the area anyway for some edits, I will certainly notice if anything is missing, so that should not be a problem. I'll copy the colour text on the clipboard so I can just throw it in; I have to check doing both at once on the location entries since most lines will have both at once, too. CycloneGU (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wailmer

I see the difference now. I think it's possible just to superscript both in the same line. I'll demonstrate in a moment. If it was the only place to find in each game, I'd have no problem with separate entries, but with so many entries superscripts is the way to go, I think. I'll look into this change for anything else found in the water area entering the hideout as well (I think Tentacool is in that group among others). CycloneGU (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there's still any problem with that. Still cleaner than listing everything twice. CycloneGU (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Basculin has similar problems, being split between B/W and B2/W2 because of Blue-striped vs Red-striped, despite a significant string of locations (not quite approaching Wailmer, though). If I wanted to spend more time searching, I'm sure I could find more examples than those just in the hideouts, too. And then there's probably some number of Pokemon who have a small number of identical locations, with one that's different between versions.

If you want to "fix" this sort of problem, I think you should consult a staff member first. I have a feeling, though, that it simply defeats the purpose of the template.

Also: if you don't expect to take long, it'd probably be wiser to just prep your edit and your message and post both at the same time, rather than leaving two messages here just a short interval apart. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad, for some reason I thought you were a staff member. I will definitely suggest it though (not this moment, but at some point) as I've seen the practice in use elsewhere in other templates; I don't think it would be an issue, but yeah, not our call either way. CycloneGU (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fansites as sources

Hello. I just wanted to drop a friendly reminder since I saw this mentioned in one of your edit summaries. Fansite, including Serebii, are never acceptable sources for mainspace, intended mainspace articles, or information intended to be added to articles. Thanks! Crystal Talian 05:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All information I have has a source here. But in some cases I used Serebii to figure out where that information is, because it wasn't complete or obvious here (to me at least). As an example: I had Togepi marked as unobtainable in ORAS. Checking Serebii's unobtainables, I saw Togepi wasn't in that list, looked up Togepi's location on Serebii and then checked that (Lavaridge Town) here. Now I have Togepi and its relatives marked correctly. The same sort of thing happened for a few others. But this (using another site to correct a mistake that can be—and is—also verified here) is not against any rules to my knowledge. You shall have to enlighten me if I am mistaken.

I know well to confirm things from other sites as much as possible, and to try to hold them at arm's length if it's not possible. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So long as you doublecheck it in hard-copy yourself, that should be fine. Crystal Talian 06:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rematches

Can you do a quick scan of the page right now and make sure there are no obvious errors? I'm still questioning the Timothy one because I have no unlockables between the Balance and Feather Badges, but other than that I think the bulk of it is correct. I mentioned the Mysterious Sisters on Sea Mauville, however, and that they are pretty much locked in their room until you have Dive, which means either the dump data is incorrect or there's a set of rematches for them that a player can never do without cheating (and I don't know if I can cheat to that extent with the Power Saves to get access to Room 1).

I'll be adding the remaining Routes while on my way to the seventh Badge (since the entire map is unlocked with Mossdeep except for Evergrande and Sky Pillar. I'll add Meteor Falls and Victory Road either during a lull after that or after getting the final Badge. I may not even have to spend time in AS doing that, either; I can go to OR and pick up in the eight Badge standing (I am saved after a little training right after getting the Badge, haven't even gone to the waterfall yet), then I just have to get to the Pokémon League. CycloneGU (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If a match isn't available, it's of course perfectly fine to just say "X is their first match and Y is their first rematch". And if someone eventually finds a way to get the other match, then it can be added then (if the way to get there is legit; otherwise, it's not worth it).

I've been messing with XY a bit so in ORAS I'm still just in Slateport. So, just scanning your page, I can't say there's much obviously wrong. I'll check Timothy when I can. And I thought about using the dumped Trainer data to check if the Pokemon where you have uncertain items (mostly "Oran Berry?") actually have those items, but I haven't gotten around to that. That's all I can say right now. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been checking Oran Berries by attacking such that they are under half their life, rather than completely KOing them. So far, all Oran Berries are verified, but I'm suspicious of Sitrus Berries in the final rematches. I need to bring my Linoone (Covet; Skitty learns it eventually, as well) into a few battles to see if other items can be found on other Trainers. CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're intent on checking it in-game, it's a lot simpler to use a Frisker. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, except it only checks on entering battle. I'd have to keep sending it out and back in. CycloneGU (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Or use two. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes. But I also have two Covet users. Once levels are high enough, that's easy to do except where three or more are battled - and I can just redo the battle without saving quite easily or do the battle again later. Since most won't have items, it's not going to matter which method is used. CycloneGU (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)