- Archived talk
- User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1 (through Sept 14, 2014)
- User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 2 (through Nov 5, 2015)
- User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 3 (through Feb 22, 2017)
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)
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)