30,366
edits
User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
→The route to improve the damage article
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 947: | Line 947: | ||
::::Just as some kind of explanation, or maybe excuse: It's just that I've been considering to check/correct move effects (''possibly'' after doing something with [[User:Nescientist/Effect section guideline|this]], but not sure) ''before'' I have no clue whether it's still up to date. (And this is not primarily about minor things.) As it's a rather time-consuming thing to do or plan, it would be open up opportunities ''at least for me'' if you could possibly move your judgment on Showdown a bit further upstream your priority list (at least above the damage article stuff). | ::::Just as some kind of explanation, or maybe excuse: It's just that I've been considering to check/correct move effects (''possibly'' after doing something with [[User:Nescientist/Effect section guideline|this]], but not sure) ''before'' I have no clue whether it's still up to date. (And this is not primarily about minor things.) As it's a rather time-consuming thing to do or plan, it would be open up opportunities ''at least for me'' if you could possibly move your judgment on Showdown a bit further upstream your priority list (at least above the damage article stuff). | ||
::::I've seen other users at talk pages basically saying "''I just tested <effect> in <game>, it's not what the page says. Can someone confirm/correct?''", where I could just answer "''Yes, I already noticed that, I'm sure you're absolutely right, and that it is <effect2> instead, but yeah, the article doesn't reflect this.''" For me ''personally'', it's kinda sad to see others basically relying on info that's outdated from my point of view, and it's also weird to give answers that basically go "I'm sooo clever, trust me, don't trust Bulbapedia." (you may or may not believe me here :P) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) | ::::I've seen other users at talk pages basically saying "''I just tested <effect> in <game>, it's not what the page says. Can someone confirm/correct?''", where I could just answer "''Yes, I already noticed that, I'm sure you're absolutely right, and that it is <effect2> instead, but yeah, the article doesn't reflect this.''" For me ''personally'', it's kinda sad to see others basically relying on info that's outdated from my point of view, and it's also weird to give answers that basically go "I'm sooo clever, trust me, don't trust Bulbapedia." (you may or may not believe me here :P) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::Showdown? I may need to apologize. When I tried to ask about it, no one apparently knew much about it and I kind of forgot/didn't think about pursuing it myself. Part of me thought you would contact whoever's working on Showdown, too. I thought you were a bit more familiar with all of that, so you would know who to go to or where to look a little faster than I would if I had to look into it. So I haven't been thinking about that myself, actually. Unless you really do know well who to go to, I guess I can try to reach out to whoevers sometime today. | |||
:::::And are you saying that you can't answer "Yes, I already noticed that [etc]" because you would know that from Showdown? We don't restrict people's "sources" on talk pages. If you want to say, "Yup, Showdown suggests such-and-such is the real mechanic(s)", you're entirely free to make that response. We're only strict with what makes it into mainspace pages. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 10:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
== About the page splits mentioned on your userpage... == | == About the page splits mentioned on your userpage... == | ||