96
edits
Talk:Super Training: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→Revision 2112800
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:I do think some of your descriptions could stand some editing to...make them more wiki-worthy (and some of the points like "a single shot may score both goals" are pure walkthrough material), but many of your description points were basically on point and worthwhile, IMO. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | :I do think some of your descriptions could stand some editing to...make them more wiki-worthy (and some of the points like "a single shot may score both goals" are pure walkthrough material), but many of your description points were basically on point and worthwhile, IMO. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::For what it's worth, I didn't notice how opinionated that table was; I had my blinders on and was looking only at the standard Super Training table, which has no descriptions at all. I agree that toned-down it could be useful, but without mathematical data from the code itself, I'm not sure how to make it suitably neutral. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | ::For what it's worth, I didn't notice how opinionated that table was; I had my blinders on and was looking only at the standard Super Training table, which has no descriptions at all. I agree that toned-down it could be useful, but without mathematical data from the code itself, I'm not sure how to make it suitably neutral. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
Thanks for replying, lads. I was not exactly concern with wiki-worthiness when I added them. I meant to set up some sort of a column as a framework or something so others may begin to add. Now that when I am reviewing them, I think the only worthy point to put up is the -9999 points of deduction when hit in the second last regiment. But then, we have no place to put it up there. And walkthrough materials, I am not sure how to achieve a balance. There are certainly some phenomenal observations possible in these regiments, like the scatterbug and spewpa's hits are not damaging but the vivillon's are. I don't think mathematical figures are crucial. Sometimes, unbiased qualitative data are better if quantitativeness cannot be achieved. -[[User:Iosue|Iosue]] ([[User talk:Iosue|talk]]) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
