User talk:Tiddlywinks

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archived talk

Radiant Sun/Full Moon

Why do we have the Radiant Sun and Full Moon forms on Solgaleo/Lunala's pages and the form differences page? When I added Reshiram's and Zekrom's active forms to their pages it was removed because they aren't counted in the Pokédex like Xerneas's neutral mode, but yet Radiant Sun and Full Moon forms are also not counted in the Pokédex, yet are on their pages. --Celadonkey 15:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In Solgaleo/Lunala's case, the official site called them forms. (Whether that should be OK may be arguable.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. --Celadonkey 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding on, there are some Pokémon who have form differences recognized by the Pokédex but yet don't have their forms in the box at the top of the page (eg Furfrou). Should they be added? --Celadonkey 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Rotom is basically the high end of what we're willing to accomodate in the infobox. If there is a strongly compelling reason in the future, we might consider more, but something like Furfrou is simply impractical and relatively trivial—little benefit to worry about including it. It's fine with a gallery. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your help

..was unexpected in both "I didn't expect you to help" and "Why exactly did you do that" kind of way. So, thanks for the former, but for the latter, was that more an "oh my Nesci now just get over that class=expandable thing its bad nobody wants that", or rather an "i still have javascript disabled so i must've cleaned up and nothing more ♪♫♪♫"? Nescientist (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It took me a bit to parse your actual question here...but yes, I don't enable Javascript if I don't need it, and all I saw was apparently pointless HTML tags in the diff. I might've said about as much except I try not to sound too much like an ass (because sometimes people just don't know), so instead of writing something like, "That's weird yo", I just simplified the reason very, very basically.
That said, the first table is super short, collapsing it seems a bit pointless. In fact, actually reading that one, IMO it'd be better to just make those nested bullet points instead of a whole table (like Experience#Gain formula); or just nest the technical note about Gen I-II specifically. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Um, sorry for being cryptic, I thought you'd remember we already talked about that. Yo.
Thanks for the nested bullet points idea, sounds good, I'll try to see how that might work out. But for the other table, you accidently removed the expandable part (more or less), there wasn't a hidden anti-javascript agenda or something, right? (I know that HTML tags look weird—it's a workaround because for some reason, using * will always push everything down to the next line; so I'd prefer to restore that.) Nescientist (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hiding the entire table isn't generally the smart thing in any case. If you're going to collapse a table, you can generally just do it right on the table in question. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Z-Moves

I made a template at User:Celadonkey/Template:Z-Moves to assist with accessibility for Z-Move pages, similar to the "Variations of _" on a lot of move pages. I was wondering if it's ok for me to mainspace it and put it on all the Z-Move pages. --Celadonkey 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Lemme just ask, do you care if I (fairly) radically change the style and then mainspace it? Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't mind. Go ahead! --Celadonkey 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks awesome, thanks man. But I really think that having an MS for the species Z-Moves would be beneficial. Is there any way we can still implement it? --Celadonkey 14:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
They are pretty. But they make that part relatively big too. I don't think it's so bad since it's all summarized on the Z-Move page too already. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aether House

If you don't like my edit, find some other way to deal with misleading information that could give people the wrong idea of when Porygon could be collect. I am stating this from an intelligent standpoint, not to show any rudeness. -Tyler53841 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, did not see that. -Tyler53841 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RE:Moving pages

Can you move the page Gracidea (Sinnoh) to Gracidea Garden. After duscussion and waiting a long time, other users agreed and no one opposed the move. See Talk:Gracidea (Sinnoh) for further details. Or can you contact an Editorial Board member, as said on the Bulbapedia:Editorial Board page. Jeangabin666 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Verity Lakefront

You changed Verity Lakefront's text box back to a default text box after I changed it to a route text box. It is stated in the list of routes on Bulbapedia that the Sinnoh lakefronts are routes. It even says on the lakefront page of Bulbapedia that the lakefronts are routes. The three lakefronts are routes, thus deserving a route text box. --RedHailfire (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"List of routes" is not the criteria for deciding whether a location should have a "route" infobox. I'd be hard pressed to define exactly what those criteria are because there are a few places that are not numbered routes where we use a route infobox (and I'm OK with those), but if you want me to, I can try to figure out what the specifics are/should be. For now, though, please trust me that the lakefronts are regular locations, not routes. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The lakefront page also states that these areas are routes. Also, if these lakefronts don't get route infoboxes, then why does Spring Path get a route infobox? The lakefronts are much more like routes, for most of the lakefronts actually have tall grass. Spring Path is such an obscure location. --RedHailfire (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
To attempt some loose/theoretical explanations, "Spring Path" closely suggests something like a route, so it was perhaps easy to just put Route infobox there. A "lakefront" sounds more like a simple location, however.
This is not strictly justification, but, again, explanation for the current state of things (i.e., a basic answer to your "why"). The presence or absence of tall grass also doesn't really make or break a route, because plenty of locations (like the lakes themselves) have grass, and some routes don't (e.g., Kalos Route 1).
Sort of like I said above, it may be that we should solidify some criteria for what locations deserve Route infobox and which ones deserve Infobox location.
Let me ask (and try to answer this as earnestly as you can): why exactly did you change the template? Was it strictly because there was a route infobox template, and those pages weren't using it even though that's what you thought they were? Or was it more because you wanted to see the connecting locations like routes show them (and thankfully for you, the lakefronts are identified as "routes" in some places)? Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Another path in Sinnoh, called Seabreak Path, is a path and is considered a route, similar to Spring Path, yet Seakbreak Path doesn't get a route infobox. Seabreak Path is also on the list of routes here on Bulbapedia. I may fix the infobox later, since Seabreak Path is considered a route and a "path." I adjusted the lakefront infoboxes purely because the lakefronts are considered routes, and route infoboxes belong to routes. It makes sense to give a route an infobox literally called a "route infobox." I thought it was just common knowledge. --RedHailfire (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I also wasn't suggesting that all routes have tall grass, but most of them do. --RedHailfire (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The contrast of Spring Path and Seabreak Path perhaps gives you your best answer: there probably wasn't any rigorous thought about it all. This is a public wiki. It can be easy for certain "habits" to start small and slowly spread, very possibly via different people, and without perfect rhyme/reason. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you approve of my change of the Seabreak Path infobox? --RedHailfire (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm basically leaving it all alone at the moment. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Another template I thought might be useful

I'm not sure if there's a need for it, but I made a template User:Celadonkey/Template:Spritebox/MS/1 for menusprites to be used in the sprites section of a Pokemon. I was thinking there would be another for Gen IV, Gen V, Gen VI, and Gen VII Pokemon. This one would be used for Gen 1-3 Pokemon. Is there any that needs to be changed and would there be a need for it in the mainspace? --Celadonkey 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I just realized... Would there be any way to do Gen I and Gen II menu sprites? I know that there are just general sprites like "Ball" and "Quadruped". --Celadonkey 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Just so you both know, the old menu sprites and their Pokémon are listed here. Eridanus (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This is awesome! I'll try to add this in. - unsigned comment from Celadonkey (talkcontribs)
All updated! Thanks. --Celadonkey 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe.
One problem about the template is that it basically requires changing when there's a new generation, when it's generally been our goal recently to avoid that in templates with such wide use as all Pokemon.
You can keep it around, but it's not something that can be signed off on easily given its wide effect. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
True, true. Is there any way I can rework this so that it would not have that problem? --Celadonkey 18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to try, you're welcome to. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, but how would I go about doing that? --Celadonkey 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how much you know about templates, but if you need to, I'd suggest checking out your welcome template links or introductions on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Then, you can try looking at what we do with other templates that are designed to avoid this, like dex, availability, and sprites on Pokemon pages.
Beyond that, I don't know how to tell you exactly what to do without just as well doing it myself (which I won't). Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I had an idea... What if there were templates for each box I already have (for example, a Gen I menu sprite template) and then those templates would be put together on a "master template" of sorts to be used on the Pokémon's page to make the full chart? This way, instead of all of the templates being modified every time a new generation comes, the sub templates would be adjusted appropriately, or if a new gen has completely new menu sprites, a new sub template would be created and added to the master template. --Celadonkey 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Actually, it might be a better idea to build the sub-templates on the Pokémon page itself instead of using a master template, because with a master template, we'd need different master templates depending on the game the Pokémon was introduced in - a different template would be needed for Bulbasaur and Dedenne, if that makes any sense. --Celadonkey 15:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this count?

I found a way to make Rockruff's Pokédex Entry from the anime Japanese. The translation in also there. does this count? - unsigned comment from Hamfart (talkcontribs)

I don't think we add dex entries until they're dubbed. On that understanding, I don't think it should be added.
However, I don't really know the anime. You may wish to direct your question to a staff member who's more familiar instead. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Am I allowed to move my archive back to my own page? I archived my talk page for no reason and want it back to my regular talk page. --Celadonkey 22:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If your new page hadn't really been touched, that might be an interesting question, but since it has, it's kind of too late to ask. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, rats. So I can't copy the code from the archive and place it at the top of my talk page? --Celadonkey 22:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That entirely defeats the purpose of maintaining the history. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Thanks anyways. --Celadonkey 22:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Weather Trio

The page Weather trio should be moved to Super-ancient Pokémon, an official term. It's been discussed on the talk page since early 2015, but we haven't gotten any response from the staff, but yet... Ataro has made a page Super-ancient Pokémon (Adventures). Can it be moved? --Celadonkey 13:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you want to talk to Ataro rather than me. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I dunno, I know that the comics are Ataro's thing and this isn't really a comics thing. I may bring it up to SnorlaxMonster, or someone. Thanks for the help. --Celadonkey 02:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Gen VII Images

Hey, I was wondering about how to upload images to the Archives. I have a few images for moves from Generation VII, and I am unable to upload them to the Archives. It says I'm not yet a confirmed user. I saw that you are active on the Archives, so I thought that you might know how to upload these images. --RedHailfire (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Archives has an autoconfirmed status similar to Bulbapedia. The long and short of it is, if you look around (which may not be an entirely trivial task, but also isn't impossible), you should be able to find some things you can edit/improve on the Archives to earn that status and be able to make uploads.
That said, do be aware that, in order to upload images from 3DS games, you have to have permission first. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Which page to put name locations on

Hey there! You recently reverted an edit I did to the Gen II base stats structure page, citing that information of default names for Pokémon doesn't fit there (presumably as it's not part of the 32-byte structure). So as not to get in an edit war, I figure we'll hash it out before doing anything. I'd argue it does fit on the base stats structure page, as it - as all the other properties on the page - is something common to and used for all Pokémon of the species. I'd go as far as to say the page shouldn't be about one single data structure (which the page title doesn't really imply, after all), but rather the how base stats of the Pokémon are stored in general.

Putting it on the character encoding page, as you suggested, makes no sense at all: the name data has nothing to do with the encoding of the characters at all, and isn't used in any related contexts. Seeing as the name data is used when creating a Pokémon and on summary screens, just like the rest of the base statistics... I'd say that's the best place. Not putting it anywhere isn't an option either, as that'd simply be withholding potentially useful information, which we of course don't want to do. What do you think? LpSamuelm (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Like you say: the list of names is very plainly a very different thing from the list of base stats. You're grasping at reasons to shoehorn that list into the page, when the only truly logical approach is to limit it to a single, readily identifiable structure. Based on what you're saying, we may as well have Gen III's base stats structure and Pokedex data structures on the same page; they're at least based on the same indices, which is basically equivalent to your argument for the list of names.
The best thing you could really argue for would perhaps be a different page altogether, one that could reasonably mention all the data relating to species. That seems like a bit of a weird idea to me, though, so I'm very unsure how such a page would be made, personally.
Anyway, I don't see the base stats structure page as being an appropriate place for it at all. If you have any better suggestions, I'm all ears. I'm basically okay with just saying it fits nowhere and removing it altogether if you think that's best, too. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't at all follow your extrapolation here. Not sure where the "like you say" part comes from, either - I'm not "grasping", it's quite logical. Here's an a bit more structured summary of how and why they strongly relate:
  • The "base stats" for a Pokémon is data that's used in any combination of a few ways. Not all of them have to be true for a point of data to be considered "base stats", as is apparent from their inclusion in the main structure. The ways are:
    • Informing choices when constructing a Pokémon (wild held item, gender ratio)
    • Basic, unchanging values for how the Pokémon acts (types, base stats, egg cycles, dimensions of sprite, growth rate, egg groups, TM/HM flags, catch rate, Exp. yield)
    • Basic, unchanging values used on the Pokémon's summary screen (types, base stats, dimensions of sprite)
    • And yes, even used in the species's Pokédex entry: the sprite dimensions byte.
  • In comparison, the default name of a Pokémon is used in the following ways:
    • Informing choices when constructing a Pokémon - all wild Pokémon get their names from the list.
    • Basic, unchanging value for how the Pokémon acts - if the Pokémon's name differs from the species, it is considered nicknamed, which has an effect when the Pokémon was received in a trade.
    • Basic, unchanging value displayed on the Pokémon's summary screen - the species name is simply displayed under the nickname.
    • In addition, it is just like the sprite dimension byte used in the species's Pokédex entry.
That's 4/4 of the purposes filled.
It's not really possible to, as you did, extrapolate my argument to combining the Pokédex data (which I was looking at just earlier today for Gen II; should make a nice new page) page with the base stats structure page, as the Pokédex data has no actual impact on the Pokémon. If you edit the Pokédex data, all Pokémon of that species look and act the same, with no difference even to the summary screen. Of course, as I mentioned, "removing it altogether" is not an option - skipping out on providing real information, even if it were to prevent meta-level "shoehorning" (which I really do contest), goes against the very purpose of a wiki. LpSamuelm (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You're talking about base stats as a very abstract concept.
The page Pokémon base stats data structure in Generation II is explicitly about a specific structure, about a contiguous set of data (a list) with entries corresponding to different Pokemon.
The list of names is a WHOLLY different list. It's not logical to conflate both of those things on a page called "Pokémon base stats data structure". It's TWO structures.
Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
They're two different contiguous data masses in memory, sure, but they're used in the same contexts. I say "Pokémon base stats data structure" can just as well mean "the structure of Pokémon base stats" (which may well include "the data is structured as part of these two parts of memory") as it can, as you assume, "this specific contiguous structure type in memory". Very logical, all in all.
Really - the page in question is the absolute best fit for information on this, hands-down. I'd say it's a really good fit, but even if you don't agree with that, you'd be hard pressed to find a page where it would fit better. LpSamuelm (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The page isn't about context. It's about a specific data structure. The one on the page. Not the list of names.
...I'll go ahead and ask (even though the answer would seem obvious if you're delving this stuff at all): Do you have any experience with computer programming? Because as someone who does, I can tell you, the page title just is NOT interpretable the way you want it to be. (And those pages are by their very nature incredibly technical, meaning that is the most reasonable way to interpret it.) It's one structure. Not anything kinda with the same feel. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am a programmer. And I really, really, don't appreciate the condescending tone you're taking. That someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they don't understand. Frankly, the fact that you choose to ask despite saying "the answer would seem obvious" tells me the entire point of the question is to be condescending, which... well, I'm not going to dignify that with further argument.
Now that that's out of the way: I'm definitely qualified to say that yes, it is interpretable that way. Obviously it is, since I'm interpreting that way. It seems to be subjective, though, since you don't agree - you're taking it as a "data structure" (as what you'd call a struct in C, for example), but seeing as the page is called "Pokémon base stats data structure" and not "The Pokémon base stats data structure", it may just as well be taken as "the structure of Pokémon base stats data".
You seem to be dodging a certain question a bit: what page makes for a better fit than that one? LpSamuelm (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely don't claim to always be the most politic, but I certainly don't mean to be condescending. Mostly I'm just frustrated by your views when it seems so obvious to me. I'm sorry if that comes off wrong.
I'm not dodging any question: I put it where it better belongs. (As you said, you disagree. I guess I didn't see any point in going into that part more; I wanted to focus on what I expected would be a more fruitful direction...) Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
So, first of all - how come you get to decide where it "better belongs"? Probably because you're a junior admin, huh.
In any case, I definitely oppose it being on the character encoding page. The character encoding is used for the names, sure, but it's also used for everything else in the game. If you put info on the species names there, why not put info on all the locations and structure of dialogue? For the Pokédex descriptions? For the list of items, the list of moves, the list of abilities, the list of trainer types? Because the contents of those have nothing to do with the character encoding except being encoded with it, just like the list of species names. LpSamuelm (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Like I said right off the bat...if you want to offer a third solution for where it belongs, I'm all ears. When people have differing opinions, that sort of thing is always a great option if at all possible. You've spent a lot of bytes trying to "prove" your opinion above when I already suggested to you a third option. By all means, try creating some user page to try to address it. I certainly see the point of your complaint; I'm not perfectly happy with it either, but it's better than the only other alternative currently. I would be very happy to have a third option. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And what I'm trying to do is convince you that no, making a separate page is not reasonable at this time (which you've said yourself). However, it is much more reasonable to have it on the page where I put it than on the character encoding page. Do I simply not have a say in the whole thing? You moved it elsewhere, making my initial placement an impossibility? Is that really how it is? LpSamuelm (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry to intrude on a talk page, but maybe it's helpful.) I think in an ideal world, we should have main "Data structures in Gen X" pages, with lots of sections that mostly link to the articles we already have, and with another section on the Pokémon names.
(Also, if you're interested in a second opinion: I believe if we link to it from the Pokémon structure page (much like we currently do), it should be... fine. Regardless of who is staff and who is not, I believe there are good reasons to not include it on either page, though.) Nescientist (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's rather curious, LpSamuelm: you think I'm being (more or less) tyrannical, when you're basically asking the same for yourself. Do *I* have no say against what you want? We're two people. We want exactly different things. There's no "winner" in that equation. There's no reason you're more right than I am except that you're sure you are. The idea that this makes me unreasonable or what-have-you is nonsensical.
At any rate, I think we've pretty much reached the point where I am prepared to turn a little "tyrannical" and explicitly throw in the weight of my authority as a staff member. I've tried persuading you and I would have hoped you could see what was obvious to me; but I'm at a loss for what to do when you cannot see it, short of seeking staff opinion. "Luckily", I don't have to look far. =P This is truly what I think is best for the wiki:
  • The data structure pages should as a rule only describe one structure. That is how those pages should be; not how you want to interpret them.
If you want to make a page that touches on more than one structure, get creative. Don't just say it's impossible. I'm certain you can make a page even if it looks a bit ridiculous. But you're not going to get anywhere so long as you keep thinking it's impossible and declining to even try.
It may be important to note that my word is not ABSOLUTE law. To be sure, I have some authority which should be respected. However, there are also many people above me who you may appeal to if you ever think I (or someone else) am terribly wrong in anything.
FWIW and perhaps obviously, I'd prefer if you just moved forward and either tried to work on a solution like I've suggested you can, or if you would just let it go and be productive in other ways. But I won't pretend there aren't other options. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pokétch app icons

I get what you mean by your reasoning, but the thing is many Pokétch apps are already represented in the item lists of the locations they are obtained in by icons other than the Pokétch sprite, and have been so for years now. Some of them are icons of the Pokémon featured in their respective apps, so they make sense, but what I want to ask you now is that what do we do with this thing now? Do we replace all the app icons in item lists with the Pokétch icon, leave them how they are now and just try not to come up with any new ones, or something else? What do you think would be the best solution? --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to think of those placeholders. When I first saw what you added to Sunyshore City it just looked wrong. After you've pointed out everything else, I look at, say, Pal Park, and it doesn't seem so bad.
But. There's also a simple enough solution. Just use the app images from the Pokétch page for the "sprites". Part of me was thinking for a while that that'd be best, if only! And then I realized we totally have those and we can. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Template edit request

In SM004, the Rotom Pokédex gives a ton of new entries. Besides the obvious Pokémon entries, I chose to add the descriptions it gave about catching Pokémon and Pokémon Centers as well. The first one already had an entry way back in EP001, so it's already been taken care of. However, the entry for Pokémon Centers still has a red link. Could you edit the Pokédex template to remove the red link? --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to have been taken care of. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Abcboy (talk · contribs) apparently took care of it before you could. BTW, as I checked out the Pokédex template out of sheer curiosity, I noticed a special entry tag (or whatever it should be called) reading "Togepi's power". I dug into Togepi's article history, and found out that that thing was used for Togepi's second AG entry at some point, but was already taken out in 2010, which was ages ago, but apparently the special note was never removed from the template. Just wondering that shouldn't something unnecessary like that be removed, even if it doesn't technically show up anywhere? --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
PS. Is the "Purpose" part in the template the same thing as "Dexter (purpose)", in other words, repetition and thus unnecessary as well?
The template is used on a large number of pages, editing it for something that's currently going to make zero difference isn't altogether wise, so for now it's just fine. (Try to always keep your signature last as well.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Maybe next time it's really necessary to edit it, that can be done too. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that time seems to be now. The newest dub episode has two double entries, and the template needs editing once again. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The next time you come upon a case that causes an explicit problem in a template like that, can I ask you to consider holding off on saving it with that problem? Try asking first, so that you're not imposing a red link or something like that. Especially, there should REALLY be an option in {{Animedexbody}} that doesn't require updating such a heavily used template every time a new random odd case pops up. If we don't fix that soon, please try to keep that in mind and ask us BEFORE you use the template in an "unexpected" way again so that we can implement such a fix, which you can then freely use to use the template without problems.
Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
So basically your point is, "Tell first, wait, and then edit". Gotcha. In that case, I'm now telling you ahead that I'm planning to split Yanma's OS entry into the main entry and a section called "Yanma's attacks". Thanks. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've updated the template. Where you'd put the 2nd parameter, you can now just put None|po={{p|Yanma}}'s attack (or whatever for anything else that pops up in the future). Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you too. I've tested it out on Yanma's page, and it seems simple enough. So I was wondering, should ALL exceptions in Pokédex entries (i.e. all entries not about a Pokémon species) be replaced with this feature so that they don't need to be listed on the template itself, or should they just be left the way they are now? --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to go out of your way, but if you're doing anything else at the same time and you want to redo it, feel free. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Would anyone know how to delete an account?Empoleon042806 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can delete your account if that's what you want, but we could probably block it indefinitely if that aligns with whatever reason you want it deleted for. If you're perhaps dissatisfied with the name you chose, it can be changed once. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Genderless vs. gender unknown

I can't find hide nor hair of the phrase "gender unknown" on any of our pages in regard to what you mentioned. If "gender unknown" is the new canonical term for it, shouldn't we change everything to use the correct term? If not, shouldn't cosmic duo use the same usage we use on every other page? Either way, we should be consistent with one term or the other, not a haphazard mishmash of whichever people feel like. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I kind of meant you should talk about it "publicly" on the article's talk page, not come to me individually. I think that'd be more useful.
(FYI, one thing I didn't have space to write is that I'm not rightly sure what makes genderless canon as you claimed. If you can specify the sources you were thinking of, I'd love to know it. Again, though, I don't mean here.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
(The source I was relying on was... the fact that we use the term and don't use a "fan name" template on top of its page. That's all... I'll bring it up on the genderless talk page, since that disambig seems to be the grandparent of anywhere that might be relevant.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

FP Increasing FC Costs

Really, you have to delete a important detail. It was part of a incomplete section. One of the reasons was: Needed Costs for all facility levels for introduction by visitors. Please re-add them.

Bluebird3639 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That information was actually there already. Nobody remembered about the incomplete template to update it, that's all. Nothing's been lost. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ether

Hey! Sorry, I was meant to put it in the edit summary, but Ether is the Japanese name and she's called Cherie in English. At least to my understanding, disambiguations don't count if it's the Japanese name and therefore there's no clash in terms of the article names. If not, I'm happy to be corrected.--Wowy(토크) 07:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If someone's only heard the Japanese name, they could still search for that here, and then if there's no note they'd just be left confused. There may still be ways for them to find it, but that'd be relatively difficult especially if they're not super familiar with us/wikis. I imagine there's other examples of this being done but I wouldn't know where. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Move infobox and "flags"

Hey there! I believe you're still the flag officer around here? As you know, they're not exactly all perfectly accurate (as in, they're annoyingly deserted: half of our infoboxes have mirrormove incorrect, for example, but then there are none of the GenV+ "flags" I pasted on the talk of what I remember you were doing). I'm currently doing some related work there (which involves compiling lists of incorrect "flags"), and the more I do, the more I think this needs to be reformed rather radically. Before I go ahead, I want to ask: Do you have an opinion/plan on how to handle "flags" in infoboxes? Assuming there isn't something in the works already, could we (not necessarily just the two of us, but Bulbapedia as a whole) discuss (and eventually settle on) how to handle them? I believe this really needs some conceptual work before anything else (and it is about time!), that's why I'm coming to you. Nescientist (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really grasping what you're getting at. I guess that means no, I don't have any plan or anything. So in short: lay out your ideas. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Continued here. Note that I added some more "flags". Nescientist (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Pulse/Wave

はどう is translated as Wave, same as the japanese version of Aura, Lucario's power.--Martianmister (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pulse is equivalent. Especially since they were translated in English as "pulse", it's fine to use that in our translations as well, rather than just take the lazy/mechanical route of obeying whatever Japanese-English dictionaries say. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

About the underlevelled Pokemon page

I saw that the pictures have been removed and I completely understand why they have been removed. But although an odd question but is SpriteIt still active on Bulbapedia? Because his most recent contributions and activity from what I'm aware of dates back to 2016 at latest. I'm asking as I'm not sure if I will be able to contact SpriteIt regarding his page for permission to have the template modified. If you know any way to contact him it would be great if you could tell me how so I can ask about the change in template. Although preferably it would make the page look better with pictures, if not having them is what he wishes than I'm completely fine either way.Nikuriku (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

My removal of the column is entirely about what I think, not SpriteIt. That table is much too busy for a huge picture of the Pokemon's artwork. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheers for the advice from my talk page.
Fair enough about the table being too busy for a picture of the Pokemon's artwork.
Also would it be better to remove the "Picture" column since there are multiple methods of obtaining an underlevelled species of a Pokemon along with the fact that it never was really used to begin with?
Also if the "Picture" column is removed could I bring back the "Artwork" column? This is since the "Picture" column was never really used to begin with while the added "Artwork" column was used so in my opinion it would make sense to replace the picture column with an artwork column.Nikuriku (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know how Picture would be used. I think if it gets to where it might be mainspacable, removing it can be considered, but until then, I'd rather give SpriteIt as much time as possible to respond to the page being edited and give any input (even if it just ends up being "Do whatever").
Like you said, the Picture column wasn't really used so even removing it doesn't really change a thing about the rest of the table. The artwork is still relatively huge and everything else relatively busy. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey I know this is old and most likely this will not be approved but this is why I'm asking here first:
Would I be able to make my own Underleveled Pokemon page so I would be able to add my own information and change the template? This is so I can modify the page without distorting SpriteIt's original page format. Also from that page I'm only taking the information I have added there(it's still going to be on the original page however).
If I can't make my own page then is there a way I could contact SpriteIt regarding the page? This is so I can discuss about modifying the original page and get his input before doing anything major since I'm not sure if he goes on Bulbapedia still.Nikuriku (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The userspace exists for a reason, and we welcome users making use of it to try to develop new pages. If you want to move it in a new direction, you're more than welcome to make a page in your userspace to play with it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! I assume I can get the stuff I added from the other page and make a different template?Nikuriku (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. But I don't think there's a lot of ways you can go wrong. Just dive in, get to it. If there's any issues, we can all figure it out. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy vs. evasion

I had believed you knew this all along, way before I realized it, but now I'm better safe than sorry: As accuracy and evasion stat stages are combined to one multiplier (Gen III onward), nothing can modify one but not the other. Or, in other words, "boosts its evasion by 25%" is another way to say "decreases accuracy of attacks targeted at it by 4/5". It's shorter and probably more intuitive/natural, but it doesn't allow us to be consistent, nor to link to one of the three consistently (and I understood that you preferred {{stat|accuracy}}). (It's also a little less precise technically/mathematically, I guess, but I think that really shouldn't matter.) More or less, I believe we (and UPC) are using "accuracy" (or {{stat|accuracy}}) as the generic term that encompasses both "accuracy"s and evasion. Nescientist (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like leaving these things implied and ripe for misunderstanding, so I take it you're responding to the edits to Snow Cloak.
Second: you're talking about stat stages, but Snow Cloak doesn't affect stages, it's just a multiplier. ...Perhaps you understand this, but that's not clear to me, and it did (plainly) confuse me.
You do have a point that accuracy and evasion reduce to the same, ill-defined "stat" after stat stages are applied. (If we go by UPC for DPPt, all multipliers come only after stat stages are resolved.) I.e., at a technical level, you can't really say whether a multiplier affects accuracy or evasion.
So I think how we should handle it is that, in any cases where a multiplier nominally "affects" the user of a move, that affects their accuracy (like Hustle or Compound Eyes), while a multiplier that nominally affects a Pokemon that is the target of a move (like Snow Cloak or Gravity) affects evasion. This may be what the descriptions for those Abilities try to follow, but we may have gotten too concerned with the wrong things in some places. (If there are any categories for these sorts of multipliers, the question of what's right for them becomes interesting. Likewise, the multipliers that are split between accuracy and evasion at Statistic#Stat modifiers become equally interesting.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't tell what your first sentence means, but my post was motivated by you asking for proof it affects something other than accuracy (which could have been either an educational, rhethorical statement; or you being unaware that that's not really possible).
I believe I understand the difference between stat stages and the rest. What I wanted to make you aware of is: Accuracy and evasion have a single, combined table lookup (unlike say Atk and Def).
For things that do affect stat stages (Double Team etc.), we obviously need to refer to that stat whose stages are affected. For everything else, I guess we have some freedom, and I believe we're currently consistently saying "increases/decreases {{stat|accuracy}} of moves [against it] by factor/percentage" (see Tangled Feet's edit history).
Both ways of saying it have their drawbacks (as I said above). I guess it's a matter of philosphy/ideology, and of where we want to link to. I believe either way is okay. It's just that whenever UPC etc. say "multiplies accuracy of attacks against it by 4/5", we're free to reword it to "boosts evasion by 25%" if we desire, because it's really the exact same thing.
(As a side note: for Gravity and fog, we can say both "affects accuracy/users" or "affects evasion/targets" even ideologically. Official wording from Gravity's effect apparently is neutral: "Moves are more likely to hit for five turns.") Nescientist (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
(I can't tell how the stages are really related to anything in particular here... So I'm just going to plow ahead until it becomes clear that I did miss something.)
I think "where the multiplier comes from" is an eminently reasonable distinction. If it comes from the target's "condition" (like Tangled Feet), that's their "evasion" that's affected; if it comes from the attacker, it's "accuracy".
Gravity and fog are more field-wide effects, but I think we still can and should consider them logically. As far as Gravity, it should be pretty clear logically that gravity hampers a target's evasion. Fog should likewise logically affect an attacker's ability to aim (their accuracy). Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a reasonable philospohy/ideology, in my opinion. (And for anything not called Gravity or fog, in-game descriptions may be unambiguous anyway.) Nescientist (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Teleport

Hey, could you maybe elaborate on why my edit apparently didn't adress my concern, or shifted the problem? (I guess you realized: my concern is that it sounds like "wild mon" takes precedence over Mean Look etc.) I've looked at my screen for minutes, but I really can't seem to find it. I'd like to "fix" it, which really... doesn't make sense when I'd be trying to just repeat my earlier edit!? Nescientist (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I might have actually missed or mistaken the "wild" part at the beginning. It was still densely worded, though. It's kind of annoying, because if this were the effect when the move was intro'd, you'd say "Teleport causes the user to flee. It can fail depending on the user's level and because of trapping moves." without having to worry about, "Wait, you can't say 'always'." Being a change like this makes it hard to do smoothly (because I would have said the original way was basically easiest/fine). But I've tried to communicate the same thing more smoothly all around now. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I really do try to find concise wording, but sometimes I apparently just lack the sensitivity, the ability to realize it is overly worded, so I appreciate any simplification you're able to provide.
In the meantime, I'll be thinking about starting a petition urging for Game Freak to not do bugs, because it's really annoying for us to represent them. Seems kinda selfish. Nescientist (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

I saw Looker having a separate quote page (Looker/Quotes) and wonders on the full requirements of having to create a new page? I was editing Lillie's quotes and the whole thing took to 97.1KB. As for Looker, because since it's from many games, so I assume the full requirements are that the quotes must be very long and the character must have appeared in several games in order for a new page to be created? Also would "Upon being defeated" and "After battle" makes more sense? Or if "After battle" could mean even if you lost? Thirdly, if I were to create my own "User:Ruixiang95/..." on the ghosts appearing in the Pokémon games, which I doubt will be mainspaced at all, will that be a breach of the website's policy? Thanks! — Ruixiang95 11:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC), Edited: 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There aren't specific requirements for splitting quotes, but you're right, it probably shouldn't be split if they're only in one game or generation.
I almost like "After battle", but unfortunately it probably is a problem that it sounds like it applies even if you lost the battle.
We're more than happy for users to use the userspace to try out pages that they think would improve the wiki. You can include the {{mainspace}} template at the top, and when you think you're all done, you can add the parameter "status=complete". Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandal

[[1]] Whom you reverted will not stop. Should we block? RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

ability3 field in Template:Pokémon/7

The field to list a third possible ability for Template:Pokémon/7 (and Pokémon/6) was way overdue, so I prototyped a version that accepts 3 abilities. The only difference between this version and the current one is the line that handles the ability fields.

Please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks!

TehPerson (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We're not eager to add another conditional in a template that already has plenty, especially when you want to use it on so many pages that use the template so much. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
So is there some technical-related issue with this, or this being something too low priority to consider? TehPerson (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
...It's exactly as I said. Let me put it less ambivalently. We will not be updating the template for that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Intervention, please?

Do you mind intervening on Cress's Panpour, please? Pikablu refuses to listen to me when I point out that the trivia they added break policy, and they're persistently edit warring to reinstate the trivia. Thanks. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Template questions

Hey, I've got a few questions regarding templates:

  • Are we expected to avoid images in (high-use?) templates? Is there any (server-related) issues?
  • Do you know whether the software evaluates all branches of ifs, and whatever will not display due to "display:none"? Or, in other words, is there a reason to nest ifs of subsets within each other (e.g., if a<100 then ((if a<50 then x) y) rather than if a<50 then x; if a<100 then y)?
  • You seemed to be eager to wrap what currently is "display:none" entirely in ifs. I believe wiki syntax does not provide that functionality to wrap entire tables in ifs (expression error for me), but it may be possible with HTML. Is there a particular reason to try that (seeing how Wikipedia suggests using "display:none")? (Possibly the above point!?)

Of course, it's related to this (in particular, the damage category icons and the contest stats). Thanks in advance! Nescientist (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Abstract issues don't always work well for me... What makes you apprehensive about images?
Similar to above... I'm going to go with, I don't know, what's your issue?
Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't exactly "suggest" display:none, it has it as an option (which perhaps notably comes after wrapping content in #if). I suggest it because display:none very explicitly hides content. Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Cacophony_(Ability): perhaps every species page links there because that's a default value in the Pokemon infobox, but it's hidden—it's still part of the page, it's just not visible. This is just, in general, a less than ideal problem (preferably only "valid" links would show up), but more to the point, there's cases where it can very explicitly cover something else you want to find. Suppose there's a parameter that, if set, shows a line with a link to "page", and if it's not set, that's just hidden. Based on the output, you might imagine you could check What links here for "page" to see where the parameter is set, but in truth, it wouldn't be any use to you; and it should be. I couldn't say for what, but I'm fairly sure I ran into just that problem for something in the move infobox. (FWIW as well, instead of very obliquely referring to "You seemed to be eager", being very specific about exactly where you get something like that from can only help. At least, that's true for me. Even if I did—eventually—realize what you were talking about here.)
Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It's because very few templates seem to make use of images/icons. For example, these look so much better than the current templates IMO, and also nobody seems to have added the category icons to the move infoboxes although they existed way before the template was designed, and that made me wonder whether that's due to images (in templates) stressing servers or anything. I included them, but if use of images were a reason to reject template proposals, that'd be good to know (in general/"abstract").
Thanks, I didn't think of "What links here", I just thought of categories, and none were added in that "display:none" parts. But thanks for pointing it out—Floral Healing, for example, currently links to Appeal, and it really shouldn't. So I shall try to avoid "display:none", even if that involves some HTML workaround I guess. (Correct?)
Example is the contest data within the move infobox; if a move needs no "Contest Spectacular", it needs neither "Super Contests" nor "Contests" and so on. If the software was smart and only evaluated what it really needs to (much like most "normal" programming languages/parsers), in most cases, it would need to evaluate less parser functions if those were nested, it wouldn't need to query some color templates, etc. So, I shall try to have them nested I guess. (At least I can't see any real drawback, now that I need to wrap entire tables instead of simply using "display:none" anyway.)
I parsed your intention from here. Nescientist (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's no case where images would be a problem, but I don't know how. In this particular case, if those icons would be any sort of problem, they'd be very simple to remove, so that certainly wouldn't be grounds to reject everything.
You don't need to use HTML—and shouldn't, really. We're a wiki. We can expect people to know/learn wikicode. HTML can only complicate things. Just stick with wikicode.
The only generic argument I could make about nesting would be readability (counting brackets is annoying). There's probably documentation that could tell you. I rarely have the stomach to really digest things as dense as that tends to be, though.
Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I believe the wiki syntax doesn't allow for wrapping entire tables in ifs (specifically, I'm having problems with the opening and closing {| and |}), so I would need to use HTML (<table>) as a workaround. I'll try to see if I'm mistaken and/or can make it work somehow. I know using HTML it's bad.
Exactly, yes. But I think it's minor, especially when I'll try to intend properly. (And I think expansion depth can be a problem, but only if we get like a dozen more contests.)
Thanks. Nescientist (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify that the wiki syntax can be used to hide entire tables. I was able to make it work without using HTML. Nescientist (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Z-Move Effect

Ok then, let's discuss: Why do you think the E should be lowercase? Nescientist (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

...I was the last one to say anything on Z-Move. And what I said seems basically clear enough to me. Either you have a response that will attempt to discount something I've said (and/or you'd like clarification on something), or we can only disagree. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you discounted anything I've said, and yet you reverted. Why did you revert? (I don't think any of your statements is factually wrong, but I don't see how that makes you revert my edit.) Nescientist (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no solid reason to think that phrase should be in title case. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
But wouldn't that be the most logical assumption for a key term? And also, wouldn't title case require one or two additional assumptions, namely that the beginning of the "line" (what you see in the infoscreen; I know it's not literally a sentence) is in title case, and that the capitalization changes between title case and sentence case within that same line?
Or in other words: Is there solid reason to think the phrase should not be in title case? (Or even rather be not in title case?) Nescientist (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you think a "key term" is/why Z-Power Effect is such. "Z-Power effect" seems simply descriptive, not particularly "special" or anything (for any solid reason). Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't challenge that until now!? That is because I noticed that in German, it is one word "Z-Kraft-Bonus", which can hardly be purely descriptive, and is different from the website's actual description (which is something with "Effekte"). Also, as it's in front of a colon, it's quite explicitly summarizing/shortening what it "describes"; it's designed to be to the point. Nescientist (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want me to have challenged it being a 'key term', I'm don't know how I should have done that when, again, I still don't know what you think that is and when this is furthermore the first time you've mentioned it.
I absolutely don't know enough about German to say much about that term, but I do know that all German nouns are capitalized. By that, I'd be very hesitant to infer too much from the German. As for it being in front of a colon, you're making a big assumption by inferring anything from the capitalization there; being explicitly set off, there's no telling how purposeful that capitalization is. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Haha, of course I don't want you to challenge something I would eventually say. But what I mean when I say "it's a term" is that, well, it is an official term, official terminology, something that should be bolded and translated on the page; you didn't un-bold or doubt it was more than a pure descriptive sequence of words. (And with that German, I didn't mean to say anything about capitalization. It was an argument why it is a term, and not merely a pure descriptor.)

I know that it's technically an assumption to say "Z-Move Effect" is correctly capitalized this way. But in my opinion, it's actually way more of an assumption to say it should be "Z-Move effect" (because I guess terms are typically capitalized, because "Z-Move effect" requires the two additional assumptions I mentioned before, and because "Z-Move effect" just doesn't seem to be used anywhere official). If you really insist and disagree that it's a term, I guess we can agree that we disagree, and you would obviously have the right to make use of your Junior Adminship to overrule me if you wish—but then you should also de-bold and remove it from "In other languages". (But I honestly think I made rather strong arguments.)

But saying both "it's a term" and having it lowercase seems almost contradictory to me; I really hope that we will be able to adjust the article accordingly. Nescientist (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinion either way on this, but let me just point out that there are plenty of "terms" that we translate and use bold but that are officially lowercase. There's a whole list of them at User:SnorlaxMonster/Pokémon Syntax#Capitalization. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and/but I think we have them that way exactly because they are not capitalized in sentence case (despite being terms). But either this one is, or (we're assuming) it's in title case and capitalized (only) because of that. Nescientist (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The plain fact is, there is no context where you can guarantee that "your" capitalization is intentional. Uppercase is plainly a special thing; it is not something you assume by default. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah really? Okay, I thought one would assume that by default (for a term, or a Pokémon term). In that case, even though I would still prefer to have it capitalized based on my arguments, I guess it's not as crystal clear as I initially thought. I don't care too much then. Nescientist (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk

So like four people get involved and I'm the only one in trouble? Really fair treatment here. So glad we have admins to make this place so much more inviting and remove all the information.--Pikablu (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, you were the one most obviously egregious when I saw it. So I did your message first. (After the page itself.) Beyond that, I have various concerns that are not all limited to this site. Try to avoid jumping to conclusions. Or at very least, if your "unfair treatment" is really your concern, be earnest about that (for example, pointing out politely and reasonably the people you think also warrant some sort of messsge); if all you're gonna do is drawl sarcasm at me, you're not putting yourself in any good light. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

I know you might not care too much about this, but I wanted to ask about the Mystery Dungeon item pages since we've discussed it (a little) before. I've made a page for throwing items where I've split the page into each game. The advantage is that the template doesn't become too complex and ugly, and you can write information specific to each game (e.g. IQ skills). Another advantage is that the item "stick" changed its name to "wooden spike" (both English and japanese) (I am assuming they have the same effect with just a different name). So sorting it out by generation would mean that the 'same' item isn't duplicated twice. The disadvantage is that you can't compare the changes that have been made over the different games, and also when someone searches "Geo pebble", I think the search would only land on the page and not on the exact item. I tried to make a page for throwing item because it's relatively sparse, but I don't want spend time making any changes to big pages such as the Wonder Orb page before approval. What are your thoughts? --Wowy(토크) 08:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to figure out what to say sooner...
Can you give any examples of where you think an item gets complex besides regarding buy/sell prices? (I don't really know what you mean when you mention IQ skills above either, and I don't think I see anything about that on your user page.) For the most part, it seems to me like, since the template is meant to handle multiple games, it seems best to use it like that (aside from how messy the prices get). Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A slow response is better than no response! And I also don't know what the best way is, and it's fine if we end up leaving it as it is. But if you take Wonder Orb as an example of a list getting complex, some orbs are available in all the games (e.g. Slumber Orb), some are available only in a RBTDS (e.g. Silence Orb), and some only in GTI (e.g. Notice Orb, well I haven't found it yet in SMD and there are no reports of it online) etc. Like the throwing item, some items also changed names (e.g. Foe-Evolution Orb --> Enemy Evolve Orb). So for anyone playing just one of the games, the list gets confusing as to which one is relevant to your game or not, until you open each table. I guess you could argue that the page is just a list of all the orbs in all the games, but maybe the page should strive to do more than that (maybe?).
When I mentioned the IQ skills, what I meant was when you open the "In Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team and Blue Rescue Team" tab, then you can see a mention of IQ skills since that info is relevant to that game, while when you open the "In Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Gates to Infinity" tab, you can see a mention of Team Skills since that info is relevant to that game. So you can put information relevant to that game under each tab rather than having it all at the top of the page.
Whatever happens, thanks for you thoughts! I'll keep them in mind. --Wowy(토크) 23:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been advised that a compromise could be grouping games. Like sections for "Only in [RB]", "In [RB and TDS]", "In all games", etc as required. That way you'd still have only one template for each item.
I don't know what to say about ones like Foe-Evolution Orb --> Enemy Evolve Orb except that it's arguably working alright as it is now on Wonder Orb, with just separate templates for each name. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good in theory, but it ends up with too many arbitrary sections: "Only in [RB]", "[In RB and TDS]", "[In RB, TDS and GTI]", "[Only in TDS]", "[Only in GTI]", "[Only in SMD]", "[In all games]", and would separate similar items that should be grouped together (e.g. Stick, Silver Spike and Iron Thorn are obviously counterparts with different strength, but Silver Spike would come under "All games", while Stick and Iron Thorn would be classed as "In RB, TDS and GTI"). If that's the case, I'm more than happy to keep the MD item pages as it is now rather than make that change (it also doesn't solve the buy/sell price issue).
On another note, should Foe-Evolution Orb and Enemy Evolve Orb be listed together on the same template since the Japanese names are the same, while Stick & Wooden Spike, Iron Thorn & Iron Spike be listed separately since they have different Japanese names and so are distinct items?
And thank you, I appreciate your responses! :) --Wowy(토크) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Are those arc/straight categories a strong in-game distinction, beyond just how they behave when they're used? If not (and possibly even if they are), then you could forego those sections. There's only three arcing items, I think it would be fine then to just talk about the different behaviors and highlight the three arcing items at the top of the page or something.
Strictly speaking... Yeah, the Foe/Enemy Evolution Orb should be in a single template, basically like Paralyze Heal. On the other hand...that unfortunately brings about a similar sort of problem as you mentioned before, since the closed template doesn't display the note about the previous name. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, how does the page look now? --Wowy(토크) 04:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you misorder the Rare Fossil and Gold Thorn in the TDS section? Seems good to me otherwise. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Magikarp

I had believed it was rude of you to just undo the entire edit when I thought you seemed to be adamant to keep that section clean, and wanted me to possibly move it elsewhere. However, if your problem was not where it was added, but that it was added at all, I believe it's just as rude. By now, it should be clear that I (currently) disagree. Either way, please feel free to outline your rationale.

(As an aside, I believe it's quite striking you expect me to possibly start the discussion by undoing an edit, again. Or is this you exerting Junior Admin powers?) Nescientist (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest... The argument you're attempting to make here simply makes no sense to me. You're thinking something that's just totally different than what I'm thinking.
The situation is very simple. I saw you added something to Magikarp a earlier that didn't belong. You reverted my reversion and called my reversion rude. That makes no sense, and your simple reversion completely ignored the problem I pointed out. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Honesty is always good. I'm in.
In my opinion, a simple undoing of an edit (that is within the MoS) is almost always some kind of rude if that undoing is based on personal opinion only. Even moreso when the edit is not one word, but an edit the editor obviously spent time and thought to it. (I thought about it for several days, and it took more than half an hour to finally implement my edit.)
...And it's more rude (and very striking) when the editor/edit attempted to solve an issue. Your reversion didn't address the problem at all. It just reinstalled it.
What problem did you want to address in your edit comment? I understood that you wanted to make me (or everyone) aware of the fact that this should be about the species the article is about, not describe a game. I am aware of that, it's just that the game is about that species. The game is literally called the species—I can't do anything about that. What I did was focus on Magikarp appearing there (and I pointed that out in my reversion).
(Just in case: The patterns are the most important part of it, in my opinion. I insist they need to be somewhere on the page.) Nescientist (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to say... (With, for what it's worth, no offense intended.) It doesn't matter how much time you spend on an edit, if someone undoes that for what they think is a good reason, your investment/disappointment in no way justifies you automatically labeling it rude. Just because you put effort into something doesn't give it some magical protection.
You say I didn't resolve the problem you were concerned about. Fun fact: I don't really know Magikarp Jump. My intent was that someone who does should address that concern in a better way than your edit did. (This all comes around to: you're invested in this thing and feeling hurt about it. I won't say you can't be, but don't lay it all on other people. They don't have to have the same investment as you.)
You state the problem exactly, but declined to try to address it at all. There's a whole article for details of the game. Pumpkinking's edit addresses Magikarp's appearance about as deeply as (as near as I can tell) it needs to be.
And there's already an explicit place for sprites. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I am in absolutely no way feeling hurt or something about my edit being removed. Simply removing that much value created focused at solving a problem (one we even agree on), is bad—regardless of who created that value. (And I didn't say that value gave it protection, or used it as an argument to "automatically" call it rude.) In short: Removing the entire thing entirely is certainly worse than what I did.
I know Magikarp Jump a bit. And/but I don't quite understand what makes you think my edit was bad. If you (have read my explanation above and) specified, I could try to address your concern. (Again, I focused on Magikarp in the game, not the game itself.)
Are you suggesting to append it to the core games' sprites? I initially wanted to have the patterns near the prose explaining them, but I'm okay with your suggestion as well. Nescientist (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Call it what you want then, there is still no justification for calling a good faith edit "rude". Anything not to your liking is not "rude".
I'm not sure why you're offering to address my concern when I've already said that Pumpkinking's edit is good. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, I misread that part. I'm fine with that as well, if we add the patterns (in prose and images). Would you please edit them in (or answer where I should put them)? Nescientist (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I already said, if they belong anywhere, there's already a sprites section. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope you already know this, but after reading this whole section again, I wish to very explicitly state/reconfirm that no offense was intended on my part either. I was not trying to attack you personally, and I hope you didn't draw that conclusion at any point. (I obviously suck at reading your mind sometimes.) Nescientist (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Marowak

Based on your response to PlayerKing95's page what is your stance on the moves used in SM034?--Rahl (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really follow the anime. I'll pass the question along. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Shuckle

Thanks for dealing with the vandalism from Joel, hate things I like that.--BigDocFan (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Meant to be I hate things like that.--BigDocFan (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)