Talk:Grass (type): Difference between revisions
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
It doesn't have any value at all to anyone playing the game, you're right. It's simply more encyclopedic. I think we need to be careful about turning an encyclopedia into a more game-guide oriented thing. Not that this is that big of an issue, but accuracy and noteworthiness need to be taken together. The problem with having a note is that it may pad or confuse the point of stat averages - in an article about a type, isn't every pokemon of that type noteworthy? [[User:Sheep|Sheep]] 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) | It doesn't have any value at all to anyone playing the game, you're right. It's simply more encyclopedic. I think we need to be careful about turning an encyclopedia into a more game-guide oriented thing. Not that this is that big of an issue, but accuracy and noteworthiness need to be taken together. The problem with having a note is that it may pad or confuse the point of stat averages - in an article about a type, isn't every pokemon of that type noteworthy? [[User:Sheep|Sheep]] 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
Why exactly is it any good to be "encylopedic" if the information isn't very useful? Not including pre-evolutions would simply make the stat averages more relevant. Adding a few extra words is a pretty tiny price to pay. | |||
[[User:Jshadias|Jshadias]] 07:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
== The hell? == | == The hell? == | ||
What the hell's going on with the duplicate "Super/not very" effective thing here? No reason to have doubles of it. [[User:Evkl|Evkl]] 02:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) | What the hell's going on with the duplicate "Super/not very" effective thing here? No reason to have doubles of it. [[User:Evkl|Evkl]] 02:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:56, 25 February 2005
Apparently although the statistical averages are pretty useless I'm supposed to leave them alone. I don't mind that too much as they are small and actually look nice. However, the additional type chart is going a little too far. The information was already there, in a format that looked better, conveyed the information better, didn't take up unnecessary space, and didn't stretch the screen in a resolution smaller than 1024x768. Is there any problem with the format evkl established?
- Jshadias
Another thing, we need to decide on either a numerical or alphabetical listing of the Pokemon. I'm partial to numerical personally - among other things, it groups most evolution chains nicely.
- Jshadias
Statistical Average
I was going to add the average stats to all the other type pages, but my calculations don't turn up the same for Grass as what's reported on this article. I get these:
HP: 63 ATK: 68 DEF: 64 SPD: 56 S.ATK: 74 S.DEF: 68
Were the originals calculated manually? I made a simple routine to do it automatically that's sound but I want to make sure with the original poster. Sheep 01:13, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
The dude who posted the stat totals (whose name I don't remember well enough to spell) hadn't included dual-types into the calculations yet. Feel free to include a more accurate version, but keep the current appearance. IMO it'd be a good idea to discount pre-evos as well.
- Jshadias
But with respect to pre-evos, for instance, I don't think we should consider Scyther a pre-evo of Scizor for the Bug-types, or Onix and Steelix Rock-types.
Although that sets up an interesting "when do we draw the line" question, but I think we can figure that out for ourselves.
-Evan
It seems to me like the statistical average should include all those pokemon listed on the page, otherwise it would be misleading without a note under each statistical average report that lists all the pokemon counted. People still use pre-evolutions anyway, if they're playing the game and they havn't evolved yet. Sheep 16:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So have a note.
What value does including pre-evolutions have to someone just playing the game? I never said they weren't used, but they aren't very relevant to the stat averages. Not that the stat averages are relevant in the first place.
-Jshadias
It doesn't have any value at all to anyone playing the game, you're right. It's simply more encyclopedic. I think we need to be careful about turning an encyclopedia into a more game-guide oriented thing. Not that this is that big of an issue, but accuracy and noteworthiness need to be taken together. The problem with having a note is that it may pad or confuse the point of stat averages - in an article about a type, isn't every pokemon of that type noteworthy? Sheep 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly is it any good to be "encylopedic" if the information isn't very useful? Not including pre-evolutions would simply make the stat averages more relevant. Adding a few extra words is a pretty tiny price to pay. Jshadias 07:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The hell?
What the hell's going on with the duplicate "Super/not very" effective thing here? No reason to have doubles of it. Evkl 02:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
