Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

User talk:Nescientist

Revision as of 13:52, 16 September 2019 by Spriteit (talk | contribs) (Transfer-only moves)
Welcome to Bulbapedia, Nescientist!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)  
 

Apology

Sorry for editing your userspace article without your permission. I failed to see your name in the article heading and only realized my mistake when you mentioned that it might be ready for mainspacing. Sorry for the trouble. --Super goku (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I did ask for exactly the source you provided, so I'd rather thank you. Nescientist (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Effect section guidelines

I've actually talked about that with an admin few years ago, then kinda forgot about doing anything with it. Eridanus (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, good to know. So SnorlaxMonster and I seem to agree on what is most reasonable in that regard. Anyway, our current move articles currently do (generally) not follow that "subsection only when changed" part (as well as some other ideas of the guideline), which has bothered me for a while. Right now, you basically have to read everything to know what you want to know in most cases. But I think especially if someone edits (almost) all move articles anyway (and I think between Tiddlywinks and myself, there's some chance in the near future), it might be a good idea to also adapt (after some kind of discussion/approval). If you have anything to add (or discuss), by all means, please feel free! Nescientist (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I might add some moves' data (and maybe item locations as they're kinda lacking) on Mystery Dungeon spin-offs sometime in the future, once I figure out how moves work (this is not helped by the fact that Gates and Super have moves work differently than in the older games, like how Pursuit went from inflicting status on the user to an actual damaging move). Eridanus (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Meowth Theater

Hey there, just wanted to tell you that the Italian names for the Meowth Theater dungeons are listed here on Pokémon Central Wiki, it would be nice if you could add them on the pages when you create them though they don't say what they are based on. --Raltseye prata med mej 12:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems not too hard to find out. Thanks! Nescientist (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice, you're welcome. I'll be adding the Spanish and French names in a while as they're not listed at neither Poképédia nor WikiDex. --Raltseye prata med mej 13:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Showdown

When you mention Showdown like this, it sounds ilke it's an accepted source. In the same way as if someone mentioned Serebii in an edit summary, I'd just like to advise you to please avoid doing this, if only because it may give other users the wrong idea. Just find another justification, and that's all you need to communicate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I'm usually more careful. I should've used nothing, or "backed up by". Nescientist (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't really need to note Showdown at all. If you want to remember it for yourself or something, perhaps you can make a userpage (or some file on your own computer). Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm keeping track, that's not the reason I write that in edit summaries. These "backed up by" statements are actually meant for other users. I see no reason not to explain to all Bulbapedia editors what I do, or why I do it in as much detail as possible (and reasonable), so that they at least do have the opportunity to reproduce/understand it, or tell that I've checked Showdown for that particular move/Ability as well and have absolutely no reason to doubt what Bulbapedia currently says. (And most specifically, I guess, that's you.) So I feel I should note that, actually. Nescientist (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
But if we don't accept Showdown, *I* don't really care about it. And no one else should either, at least not in making decisions about what's on a page. Those decisions should be made without the "benefit" of Showdown. Either you can back up what you're doing without referencing Showdown, or you shouldn't be making the edit in the first place. Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I know Showdown is not an accepted source; it doesn't influence whether I add something to a page. When Showdown contradicts Bulbapedia, I don't just add it to pages. Never have. Explicitly asked for whether I could, but accepted I could not. I leave them as they are.
However, contradictions are issues that should (ideally) be resolved. Had I not checked Showdown, I wouldn't have tested Heat Crash, and VioletPumpkin wouldn't have tested Whirlwind (well, I don't know, but maybe). Why should I withhold information? (And with that, I mean that I've read what Showdown says, not that it's necessarily accurate.) Nescientist (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
None of your examples above include any reason why you would need to mention Showdown in an edit summary. If you notice that Showdown says Heat Crash does something we don't say...at that point, there's nothing you need to edit. If you proceed to test Heat Crash and determine that Showdown is right...you still don't need to mention Showdown. "I tested this and discovered that it actually works like this" is perfectly fine, and/or is not helped by adding any mention of Showdown. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you just don't get it or something. "At that point" is exactly where I want to (or more precisely, should be able to) make public that I've checked Showdown, and that it contradicts. So anyone is able to know, and can potentially maybe even do something about solving the apparent contradiction issue. It doesn't matter whether that's on a user page, a talk page, or an edit summary (i.e., of a sensible, related edit). It just mustn't be on a mainspace page (coz it's unsourced/unconfirmed). Nescientist (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Then you've completely veered away from where this started, making an "affirmative" edit (so to speak) and "citing" Showdown. If there's other support, Showdown doesn't need mentioning.
As for noting where Showdown contradicts something, I don't think I care if you mention Showdown as the source of doubt. But I'm not sure that Showdown (all by itself) contradicting BP would be a reason to make any sort of edit to a mainspace page... If you want to say something on the talk page, though, that's great. (Personally, I'd say that a user page might be better, or at least if you can link to a user page, just so people can find all the contradictions you've discovered together rather than just stumbling upon one or two on different talk pages.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you want to, I can abstain from making these affirmatives "no doubt" edits!? It's just that they're explicitly affirming there is not a doubt, not merely not affirming there is a doubt.
Yes, right now, I'm gathering contradictions. As I said to you on your talk page, I will go to talk pages or create a user page with collected contradictions depending on how many there are ("Depending on how much "Showdown-exclusive" info it will be...") . Nescientist (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just gonna make this simple: don't mention Showdown in edit summaries. If you feel you want to at some specific point in the future, feel free to ask on my talk page. We'll see if we can discuss it more, or at worst, perhaps you'll get a better idea of what I mean just by how I answer your different queries. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
...And that was just about the single worst decision to make, in my opinion. It may be simple solution, but it is a major restriction (well, it's still very minor in the grand scheme of things, but the most severe policy in regard to the topic at hand), and from what we've discussed here, I don't think it is justified at all. (I don't even know why you think it is.) Don't get me wrong, but I'm not willing to create that much overhead and ask for permission on whether I'm allowed to mention Showdown in an edit summary. Which means I'm gonna have to abstain from mentioning Showdown in edit summaries altogether, despite all arguments I mentioned. Nescientist (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(resetting indent)More or less all I'm saying is this is plainly not working as an abstract discussion. If you want to discuss a specific case, I'll be waiting. If not, that's fine too. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel you've clearly done more than that, honestly. I felt the discussion went well as per usual, until you went "don't mention Showdown in edit summaries." (But I still feel you have good intentions, as per usual.) But I really don't want to discuss specific cases. Nescientist (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Well" is apparently a matter of perspective here. *I'm* not confident what saying "Yeah, okay" instead of "Don't mention Showdown" would have meant--that it wouldn't have ended up with you mentioning it somewhere I've been trying to say it isn't necessary. And I don't like continuing to discuss it abstractly. I'd much rather put it in the concrete terms of an actual case. Frankly, I can't see any case where mentioning Showdown would be useful, therefore I don't really feel my direction is a bad thing. But I was/am willing to be convinced if you can present a specific case that makes it clear. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
That I can do/try. This edit summary would better read something like "not including terrains and Knock Off although Showdown (or "another source" in general) suggests those" or similar at the end; that's worth including imo because of what I said in my third edit here, timestamped 12:57. (Yes, it's also suited for a talk or user page, but that's not the point.) This edit summary could have had "UPC, backed up by Showdown" because of what I said in my second edit here, timestamped 12:29 (I believe it didn't change / have no reason to believe it did change in Gen VI or something). (The edit summary you original came here for should have been different for the reason you gave in the very first post.)
And going the "in general" route: there's a difference between guidance and executive decision, or even infantilization. There's also a difference between prohibition except for approved exceptions (whitelisting) and allowance except for forbidden exceptions (blacklisting). Nescientist (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The one on Gust: there's absolutely no reason to include any mention of Showdown. UPC alone is entirely sufficient. Showdown adds nothing and may imply to some that it's a trusted source. If you also want to record things that Showdown verifies continue the same into Gen VI, again, feel free to do that on a user page or something.
If you're doing something else at the same time, like on Power, then I suppose I don't mind if you say at the same time something like "Showdown suggests [whatever], should be investigated". (Basically, I'd be much at ease if somehow it's clear that Showdown by itself cannot be blindly trusted for making such an edit.) I don't honestly think that's the best recourse anyway if you're looking to notify/potentially include other users (the talk page seems a better option to me), but I'm not really going to try to convince you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you want to, I can abstain from making these affirmatives "no doubt" edits!
I too always wanted to convey that Showdown cannot/should not be blindly trusted. (And it's not so much that I want to notify others by the edit summaries, but really just be more transparent in what I'm doing etc.) The way I see it, everything is cleared up now (we're even of the same opinion for the most relevant part), and there's not a problem. Thank you. Nescientist (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mount Lanakila and Blush Mountain

Hey, just for transparency I guess, I'd love to know about your source for the Sun encounter rates at Mount Lanakila and Blush Mountain. (It'd be really neat if it's a new dump or something I just haven't seen and could peruse myself as well.) Thanks! Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel a bit ashamed. Me not being transparent, sigh. What was the above section all about?
I don't know about your source, but the German Pokéwiki seems to have a different one. For Glühberg and Mount Lanakila here, I made sure they started off with that data and that an admin added it, and that it actually makes sense (adds up to 100 etc.). You might want to get in touch with them maybe, especially because they sometimes added encounter rates for SOS Battles, though I assume (see Talk:SOS Battle) those might just be "base rates". At the very least, you can take a look at what they have when you're sure we have it wrong or not at all (which is what I'm doing a lot these days). Nescientist (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems a bit passive aggressive.
I'll leave it there and keep on doing what I can. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh, why? No, no, no. :( It was not meant like that, honestly. Why do I apparently often come across so harsh?
Maybe I should have separated my answer and my suggestion a little more. I don't know how close your (staff's) connection is to them, but if it's not totally out of reach, I could imagine it would be helpful to ask them. And looking at their pages often is. Nescientist (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess I made the wrong connection(s) and didn't understand some of it right. I'm glad to know that, then. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks again. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

About Dazzling/Queenly Majesty.

Well, I got your message and I just wanted to apologize for the trouble as well as say that I've gotten what you told me.IM-T-MAN2 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick Claw

Hey, you seem to be better at reading the disassembly than me, so I'm asking you to try this instead. Can you work out the probability of Quick Claw activating in Generation II? I think it's related to this section, but I'm confused where the variables that the random number is being compared to are coming from, which is what I would need to know to determine the probability. --SnorlaxMonster 17:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, those are always a hassle, and I'm still learning, so maybe you're better off asking Froggy25 for more sophisticated/reliable information.
Anyway, I believe the c value is this 60, which is loaded in GetOpponentItem here. The e value seems to be whatever is popped here, and it's really hard to track down where it was originally pushed, but I believe it might have been here at some point (and maybe dynamically at other locations in a similar manner); anyway, it would make sense for it to be that same 60 as well (the player's held Quick Claw parameter).
That would amount to ~24% chance of activation. Also note that UPC (also) say it is 15/64 (although I believe it is 60/255, not 60/254, and they say GS not C). Nescientist (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Pushing/popping moves things to/from the stack. The stack is a last-in, first-out structure; if you push 1, then 2, then 3, your first pop is 3, then 2, then 1. A push instruction just says "take the value from this variable (bc, de, whatever) and put it on the stack", and a pop instruction says "take the current value from the top of the stack and store it in this variable (bc, de, whatever)". That is, it doesn't in any way remember "They pushed 'bc' before, but they're popping 'de' now, so that's something different". There's only ONE, "dumb" stack.
FYI, as far as I know, most of the time, pushing and popping should pretty much exclusively be a way for a function to preserve variables, since CPUs only have a limited number of available registers; when another function is called, it may very well need to use registers that the caller wasn't finished with, so they get stored on the stack so that the caller can restore those values after the called function returns. That is, you usually shouldn't have to look far to see where a popped value was pushed, and/or you don't usually have to worry about if it was pushed by a called function. Specifically, in the crystal disassembly, you were right about where you said 'e' was popped in, above, but it was only pushed a couple lines before that, not far away. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I know what a stack is, I just thought they used different ones. But yeah, in that case, e is the player's held item's 60 (from GetUserItem) and c the opponent's (GetOpponentItem). Nescientist (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Damage article

Hello, I checked around and could not find where you got permission to make the changes to that article. If you want to mainspace something from your userspace, you have to ask a staff member for approval to move it. As for my opinion, technical aspects of the franchise is not something I have knowledge or interests in, so I can't have a say. Thank you.--ForceFire 05:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, this comes as a surprise, actually. This is something I've worked on for a long time, with an enormous amount of effort, discussion, sourcing, and (at least sometimes) coordination, with Tiddlywinks in particular. If that doesn't constitute as "permission", and if you feel that indeed (more) permission was required, then I apologize. (But then I should also mention that this change involved updating formula images on the Archives, and if you rollback what I did on bp, you'd have to rollback on the Archives as well.)
As far as I'm concerned, although the change in bytes looks horrific, it was merely a rearrangement and corrections of the page itself (that just has been prepared in my userspace rather than the editor), and not a move, actual "merge", or a BIG big change really. (I even did not touch anything on "type effectiveness" out there, which should be the most "controversial" part.) Nescientist (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You still need to ask for permission to move the final product, countless prior discussions does not mean you have permission. Regardless of it being an update of the page, you still need permission to move it (not merge, there's a very specific way to merge pages, which only admins can do). Also, I'm not an admin at the archives, so I don't have the power to revert an upload.--ForceFire 05:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I know that this (generally) is the case for page moves or merges, but what I want to say is that this was neither. Basically, what I did is prepare an edit (a moderately large one, but still an ordinary rearrange/correct edit) publicly in a userpage (and extensively discussed etc.), and then merged it in to preserve edit histories for everyone (by preserving concurrent edits on both ends, which should be usual procedure for a (pseudo-)merge like this, admin or ordinary editor). It still surprises me (I thought I had almost done too much). Nescientist (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your Nightmare edit comment

Note that "---" in general means accuracy bypass, but 100% should remain since that's how it is in III and onwards. --FIQ (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant something like "100%", which is the format we do for other modified moves. It may make sense here, even more so as you cannot observe that "100%" in-game anyway (although that's what it still is technically), but I'm also ok with it being in the prose only. Nescientist (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical formulae

Hello! Since you have shown interest in this area in the past, I thought I might consult with you about an idea I had for an article. Mostly, I think it would be a good idea to bring together the various information on formulae in the games, especially the earlier ones for which more information is known (due to the disassemblies). Additionally, it would probably be nice to be able to explain the exact algorithm used in each case, including the order in which operations are applied (this affects how rounding works, for example) and how working values are stored (especially quotients) since this can affect accuracy of results. See this section for a look at what got me thinking this might be a good idea.

This is too big a project to do on my own, so I want to gauge community interest and see if someone knowledgeable about the game mechanics might be able to help out. --Felthry (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm certainly one of the firmest supporters of more community crowdsourcing efforts, and if it's within my area of expertise, I'm likely willing to contribute there. Especially when someone is asking who is also been giving.
My problem right now is that I can't really envision what you're aiming at. Would it be a game mechanic article (in the spirit of Character encoding in Generation I) with headings such as "Division", or one with headings such as "Experience", or something else? Would it be something you're being linked to, basically detail subpages? What would be the benefit of that article, what information would it have that Experience etc. wouldn't have? Or wouldn't it be intended for mainspace, be more like a manual on technicalities, or like some sort of code inspection hub?
And then there's my "In general" opinion piece nobody has asked for: when there's formulae involved, the two goals of "accuracy" and "simplicity" may often conflict. I always try to find a decent compromise, one that's at least "not inaccurate" but "understandable". I think technobabble never really makes sense, especially when it's about a children's game after all. Actually, I think this is a problem Wikipedia has (or had) with math-heavy articles: they describe concepts accurately, but at the cost that only mathematicians understand them. Nescientist (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking something like Character encoding in Generation I, to use your example. I mostly thought of this while trying to make some sense of the code; I found there didn't seem to be any sort of resources on the game's detailed mechanics and computational algorithms anywhere on the internet and that is something I would like to have. "code inspection hub" sounds like about what I'd want, but a manual on technicalities is probably more encyclopaedic. --Felthry (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I still can't grasp it. Roughly like Spading for math/code details only? Maybe try to draft it, then I might understand it better?
(If you intend it for mainspace, that's really hard for me to imagine as an independent article, but if it's for userspace, or Appendix, then it might be a good idea.)
I'm not interested in learning everything about assembly just to technobabble about it, but otherwise, if it's useful, generally, I could definitely (at least!) try to support you along the way? Nescientist (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to draft something up at some point to see if it's even worth doing.
I'm the sort of person who wants the highest accuracy possible, even at the expense of legibility, though of course a low-accuracy high-legibility article should accompany any particularly arcane article. --Felthry (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

UPC

As you have noticed with Stadium Bubblebeam, UPC has a ton of incorrect information. Please, do not use it as a source. Only use disassemblies from the games, either from github.com/pret or datacrystal. --Froggy25 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I am careful, and I do prefer/doublecheck with disassemblies (where possible), and I do "overrule" UPC where necessary. (Also, FYI, I run a list of cases where I'm in doubt what information is correct, the contents of which I will either check myself, or publish at some point.)
When I added BubbleBeam's 30%, I wasn't aware of datacrystal. But even then, I'm still not aware of any instance where I changed "correct" to "incorrect" based on UPC. (And frankly, in the case of BubbleBeam, the 10% we had before was way worse.) Further help/complaints (and/or specific cases) can go here directly, please. :) Nescientist (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Power

I noticed you mentioned that Hidden Power is countered by Counter and not Mirror Coat prior to the physical/special split. However, your text seems to indicate that Hidden Power's damage category still matches its type ("Regardless of Hidden Power's actual damage category"). Have you confirmed this to be the case? Because the Counter/Mirror Coat interaction would indicate to me that Hidden Power is always a physical move prior to the physical/special split. --SnorlaxMonster 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was on purpose.
Damage calculation 
Apart from Counter/Mirror Coat, Hidden Power seems to behave like a special move if its actual type is "special", i.e. it uses SpAtk etc. (While I believe that's the straightforward assumption anyway, Showdown and Psypokes also say that.) Of course I haven't personally tested or confirmed every detail, but I did test Reflect in-game in Generation III, and it didn't affect a Hidden Power Water. (And I read the Crystal disassembly, which was part of the reason why I investigated it in the first place.)
Actual damage category 
While in every other case it is obviously Counter<=>physical<=>Atk/Def etc., it apparently is not here, and I guess it's not my/our decision to "define" what Hidden Power's actual damage category is in that case. (That's why I wasn't saying "it's a special move BUT" nor "it's a physical move BUT", but instead "regardless of what its category is".)
So yeah, I guess it was also my intention to implicitly imply that Counter and Mirror Coat are weird, not the rest. Especially when in Generation III, they do work "as expected" for Weather Ball. Nescientist (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Gender ratios

Oh, I see what my mistake was. I was thinking there were (x-1) values strictly less than x, when in fact there are x because you have to count 0 as well. I guess that makes the percentages you added the correct ones. I was thinking they were inconsistent with the prose. --SnorlaxMonster 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to get lost in inequalities and zeros. I assume the "nominal ratios" are canon and you know where they originated, but could you maybe revisit the "skewing" part in the prose (possibly just delete it)? As a side note, I think the prose is odd post-GenV (for the most part because you seem to have just squeezed it onto the personality value page, for lack of a better place, so maybe it's as good as it gets)!? Nescientist (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The nominal ratios are what seem to be the clear intentions from the code, but off-by-one errors in Gen II and Gen III-V mean it's not-quite-right. They're probably stated in some guidebook, but I couldn't find them. I guess the skewing part could just be deleted, since it's fairly obvious from the table the way in which they are skewed.
Yeah, I think the personality value page is the best place for that right now, but it might be worth going into more detail elsewhere on the page, since this bug means certain personality values are impossible. Perhaps the impacts of Cute Charm should also be mentioned on the personality value page in the same section. --SnorlaxMonster 17:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't see that (from the code either of us sourced), and/or the intention might be 1:8 instead of 1:7.
So, that personality value part is true, and gender is based on the PID? (Because from looking at the rest of the page, I thought it had no relation at all.) In that case, sure, somewhere on that page is best. I have no idea how Cute Charm works, though. Nescientist (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
For Cute Charm, I was specifically referring to Generation IV, in which it forces one of several possible PIDs (note that the groups in that article are incorrectly divided). In Emerald, apparently nature is generated first, then if Cute Charm activates the game generates PIDs until one satisfies both the required Nature and gender.
Regarding the intended gender ratios, consider Generation III: If the comparison was simply "strictly greater than" rather than "greater than or equal to" makes the Pokémon male, then all of the ratios would exactly match the nominal ratios. To me, this is a clear off-by-one error that demonstrates what the intent is. 1:7 is a bit trickier since it was introduced in Gen VI, but it seems to be aware of the off-by-one error but overcompensated, since if the threshold was one lower it would be 1:7 (ignoring the restricted domain). Since 256 is not divisible by 9, it's not possible to properly implement 1:8 without restricting the domain. --SnorlaxMonster 05:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt their true intention was "1:1" etc., but I was thinking about whether it was "official".
For Litleo/Pyroar, if that threshold value is indeed 225 (as suggested by ScireM's pastebin), that would not be symmetrical (i.e., "1:7"+"7:1" don't add up to 254); for an "intended" 1:7, they should've chosen 223. If SciresM just made a typo during calculation (or I fail to understand their calculations) and the threshold value is 223, then I would agree the intention was "1:7", but then our values are wrong. I don't know which it is. (Do you?)
Thanks for explaining Cute Charm. (But: does it have an effect on PID post-GenV? If you say gender and PID are still interrelated, then it should have!? I also realized that you actually recently added the restriction on PIDs, so that's a thing that depends on the gender post-GenV? I'm so confused there, maybe you could provide a code snipplet or something that shows the interrelation?) Nescientist (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think 1:7 was intending symmetry, it's just they tried to actually make it 1:7 after accounting for the existing off-by-one error, but ended up overcompensating. I believe that the currently listed threshold is accurate to the games, my point was about developer's intent.
My guess would be that in Gen V, if Cute Charm activates, it just regenerates the wild Pokémon's PID until it is the appropriate gender. I'm fairly sure it doesn't work the same way as Gen IV, because it's no longer possible to abuse it.
Regarding the restriction on PIDs due to gender, that was SciresM's recent discovery, and it applies from Generation VI onward. It does not occur in Generation V. --SnorlaxMonster 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, is the theory that they're smart enough to understand they're off by one, but then they're not smart enough to actually add one, to understand that 224/256 is exactly 7/8 and 225/256 is not, or to fix it for any of the other ratios? Not a theory I'm particularly enthusiastic about.
I didn't know they also discovered (or knew) that the buggy gender determination influences PID generation (GenVI+); again, I presumed they were independent.
Not into Cute Charm, but it would make sense to be rolling back to Emerald behavior, basically. Nescientist (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Wait, we actually have the whole thing (for breeding). It seems PID doesn't depend on gender (nor the other way around), so I will remove that entire part. For the gender ratio, I went to the talk page hoping someone has a guide book that confirms either "1:7" or "1:8" for Litleo/Pyroar. While doing that, I also noted that the section directly above mine confirms the independence for Gen VI. Nescientist (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollout/consecutively executed moves

Now that you say I'm wrong, I realize I'm working indirectly off separate pieces of information and may have jumped to conclusions about which one was right. Let me explain my reasoning, and maybe you can tell me what should be fixed and where.

I was doing some testing with Metronome in Moon (no interesting results there yet), and during the course of that, it happened to call Uproar while there were two foes on the field (thanks to one wild Pokemon calling for help). Uproar remained locked in, as the category description says it should. On the other hand, I was consulting our page for Metronome and saw that it says:

In Generation VII, if Metronome calls a multi-turn move such as Rollout or Dig, the move will activate on the first turn, but will fail and end the move on the next turn, with the exception of Geomancy.

Since this clearly contradicted the behavior I saw Uproar exhibit, I assumed this meant Rollout does not "continue to execute" as the category describes. That was probably the wrong conclusion to jump to, now that you point it out. But I'm not sure where else the problem lies. Perhaps the sentence on Metronome's page is wrong? Can you help figure this out? Thanks. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try. Problem is, I actually don't really understand what the Metronome sentence is trying to say. Is it, if you happen to call Dig, you go underground, and next turn Dig fails???
The way I see it, there are three different kinds of "multi-turn moves", i.e. moves with a charging turn, moves that require recharging, and consecutively executed moves. I really don't know why Dig would be affected by something but Geomancy would not—they're both moves with a charging turn. My best guess is that someone just happened to have Rollout miss on the second turn it was locked in, and jumped to wrong conclusions (i.e., that this was Metronome's fault).
So, if your tests confirm my theory and contradict that line (or, what it's supposed to say), I would suppose you just remove that line!? Nescientist (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Crash and Heavy Slam

Did you intend to change the powers for the intervals when you edited Heat Crash and Heavy Slam? From your edit summary, it seems like this might just be a copypasta from Electro Ball. UPC supports the old values. --SnorlaxMonster 10:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Whaaat? No no noooo. Copypasta indeed, thanks. Change, change, change! ... <jedi>You never saw that.</jedi> Nescientist (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Gene

I actually don't know if his deck page will be kept yet, so I have been hesitant to go to the trouble of moving it in case we end up deleting it anyway. If the decision is made to keep it, I'll deal with it then. The reason it might be considered unneeded is because there is a page for Rock Club, yet another for Gene himself, and the third being his decklist directly - and all feature decklists. We'll eventually update the club pages overall with the GB2 deck names, and also add the decklists to each club member's respective page. Most likely, the specific decklist pages that will be kept (or created, as applicable) will be the ones I am currently collecting data for, which are the autodeck ones - and about 20-30 of these 76 decks, coincidentally, are held by NPCs (there are, I'm hearing, 154 total decks in the game between the two autodeck sets and all NPCs).

Nonetheless, I do thank you for pointing it out, and I'll keep it in mind in case the specific deck page is kept. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha, there were just too many options for me to handle (propose to move the deck page, rewrite its intro, propose to delete it; move the trivium, duplicate it, ...), so I thought I'll just give you a hint. :P
Also, IMO adding the raw Japanese is pretty crucial for a Japanese-only game; for example, if I were to play the game in the future, expect me to enter "いわのうえにも3ねんデッキ" in the search bar, rather than "3 years on a Rock Deck" or "Rocky Summit Deck". That's more of a concern to me than where Gene's/ゲンゾウ's deck might actually end up—it's probably the most straightforward course of action for those who can read/type kana, but I guess it's not easy to foresee if you can't. I just want to stress that, even if you're already aware.
I don't know how desparately you need that, but I may be able to extract kanas from screenshots. However, there will probably be better choices for translation requests in most cases. Nescientist (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
For the autodeck listings, I actually have all of the Japanese names right here. I'm not worried about updating them on the listings in my userspace because, when we create the pages or otherwise place the deck info where it goes, we can pull them from there anyway. All the same, I don't mind it for the four Rock Club decks, though the prose I've written will most likely never end up on a page, anyway.
As a side note, the Japanese NPC deck names are all right here with a pastebin of just the decknames that are apparently NOT in the autodeck machines over here. I'm just choosing a set order for going through all of the decks, starting with the autodeck ones because every single deck is easy to pull the data for right from the machine. I use the RAM dump to find the decklists from NPCs, and I'll use this to match to the autodeck listings by searching my own Notepad copy when the time comes. Even once I pull all the deck listings, though, we have to figure out how to use it. LOL CycloneGU (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
See, I knew you had a plan! Sounds promising. Nescientist (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Raises" / "Rises" on Embargo

I know what you mean, but I personally think it make more sense to be "raises by one stage". However, due to consistency with the other articles, which all uses "raises". So I rather put as "raises" than "rises". Correct me if I'm wrong. — Ruixiang95 00:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I see your problem, and I had guessed that was the reason you undid that edit.
However, I believe if it's actually an error, we really shouldn't spread it for consistency. It may not be a groundbreaking error that needs us to go crazy "OH MY GOD FIX EVERYWHERE NOW!!!!", but it's still something I believe we shouldn't be un-fixing. (It's also not something I believe is "worth the edit" just to fix, but I'm pretty sure I've "corrected" it on pages I was working on, and pretty sure others did as well—so I imagine it really shouldn't be all the pages using "raise" consistently.)
Anyway, it's not something I care too much about. If you (still) do, feel free to move on and discuss this with others (or do whatever you think is appropriate), I won't be standing in your way.
I hope that soon I will be able to induce consistency when(/if) I'm finally ready to go through all move pages semi-automatically. (Probably the best idea is to remove the prose entirely, for most pages, at least). I hope we'll be there soon, so we can have consistency, correctness, and conciseness. Nescientist (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
IMO as well "raises" works better. (A couple others agree with me.) "Rises" is active, so it sounds like the stat has some sort of volition in the matter. To my knowledge, "raises" was used basically everywhere until about Gen VII when some people started changing it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
..."Raises" and "rises" are both in the active tense. Avoiding that would mean phrasing it "<stat> is raised." Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread Ruixiang's comment a bit and thought that was what they already said, it should be "is raised by", yes. People have pointed out that saying the stat raises is incorrect; somehow my brain may have been making the jump to the correct interpretation, it's never seemed a problem to me at all (and kind of still doesn't), but either way, "rises" is not preferable IMO. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible typo?

Hi there. Someone has brought to my attention a possible typo on the damage page. Since you'd been working on the page extensively and I'm not sure if I'm even doing the calculations right, I was wondering if you knew the correct number. --Carmen (Talk | contribs) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I introduced that typo when I recalculated the formula, but forgot to update the text as well. Thanks for catching it.
I've doublechecked, and 196 should be correct. FYI, as I've taken care that the formulas now do abide by math rules, all you really have to do is calculate in the order you usually would, always round down any non-integers you encounter along the way, and don't precalculate Modifier (the only real reason it's still separate is because it would increase the formula's width). Nescientist (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it! It turns out my mistake was using the precalculated value of Modifier, though I'd say having the precalculated value there makes it a bit misleading. Perhaps that value could be taken out, or the formulas could be combined but just separated into two lines (though I'm not sure how that would look)? --Carmen (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it would imply we get rid of "Modifier" entirely. That said, I'd probably support it. (I have briefly tried pluggin in some formulas, and the best solution I could come up with is to still use two images each regardless, which we would need to somehow align on-wiki. As in, the images would look similar, coz they wouldn't change much. Modifier all on its own is about where my desired maximum length is.) Nescientist (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

TCG2 Deck Names

The deck names I'm inserting on each club member's page are the proper translations, and someone who has helped with a lot of other Japanese translation work on the site is assisting me with this to make sure the names are correct. If you see something inconsistent somewhere (such as a name I don't correct in the prose), go ahead and fix it. For now, I've just added the club member deck names to the actual club member pages and in the tables at the club pages, but there may have to be other corrections made in places I haven't looked (I plan to also rewrite the prose on the pages eventually when I know more about the TCG1 game). If you have any questions please reach out to me as it's possible I may make a mistake myself, but as a starting point assume the 38 or so TCG2 deck names on the 32 member pages and 8 club pages (I still have to add Murray's; I'll get to that, but they're already on the club page) is correct. CycloneGU (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have to say I really like how you're doing this transparently!
The issue I pointed out at Club Master Isaac isn't that any translation isn't correct. They all seem to be okay on their own, but the set of translations isn't consistent. So this is all about context.
...And I might lack context to properly synchronize them. (And in this case you guys probably initially didn't realize you should.) If I understand correctly, the GB1 translation team (officially) translated じばくでビリビリデッキ as "Zapping Selfdestruct Deck". (Correct?) I'd prefer if we could translate the Japanese the same, not "Zap by Selfdestruct Deck", as I think it's an appropriate direct translation. The GB2 term, ビリビリじばくデッキ, is almost the same, yet you added it as "Electric Suicide Deck". I think it's not wrong per se, and maybe there's a reason for you to do that (such as "that's a popular fandom translation" etc.), but if there is not (i.e., if it's just a sophisticated translation that is missing the GB1 context), then I'd rather use something along the lines of "Zapping Selfdestruct Deck", because the original Japanese is clearly referencing the GB1 deck name, while our current translations clearly (like, almost deliberately) are not.
If I happen to catch a similar case and I'm unsure what to do, I'll contact you directly, then? Nescientist (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The difference with GB1 is tat there was an English release. Therefore, the English name is what we use. If any do not use the English name...I'll get to it eventually, possibly weeks from now. LOL I can move pages if I find something's incorrect. I may also have the translations checked on the GB1 Japanese, and have a page with all of the Japanese deck names to use as a starting point for that. So it can be checked later. CycloneGU (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Direct links

Usually we prefer direct links instead of redirects. Why are you making so many links to "super effective"? Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because it will always redirect to the most appropriate section on the most appropriate page. To add, you'd probably never see the "redirected from" message in this case anyway. (You may want to also read this.) I typically prefer direct links as well, but I don't think linking redirects is particularly evil either (if it's not [[Pikachu]] or something), and in this particular case, the redirect link seems to be the better option to me. Nescientist (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Question: what at all makes the redirect "better"? Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't really figure out what your intention is here. All I can really do is to repeat what I already said. (Do you perhaps not see I was always updating the actual link target?) Nescientist (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You said, "the redirect link seems to be the better option to me." Why? (If you have to repeat yourself exactly, I'd appreciate if you do that to explicitly answer this, because for my part, I can't tell what it is you'd be intending to repeat.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The important part is "because it will always redirect to the most appropriate section on the most appropriate page." Direct links don't have that property. Nescientist (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not true? At all? If you link to a redirect that points to page#section, linking page#section instead still puts you exactly at the right place. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)No, sorry, you've lost me. Isn't that my point? And what is it that's not true?

Let's maybe get to the concrete case: linking {{DL|Damage|type effectiveness|super effective}} links to a non-existing section, while both [[super effective]] and {{DL|Type|type effectiveness|super effective}} link to exactly the right place. Currently. However, consider

  1. "Type effectiveness" get its own article;
  2. "Super effective" gets its own article;
  3. the section is renamed "type interaction stuff";
  4. the section is subdivided and one subsection is "super effective";
  5. the section is moved to another article (e.g. to "Damage#Type effectiveness");
  6. "Type" itself is renamed "Element".

"Super effective" (the redirect itself) would need to be relinked to the proper section anyway. Nescientist (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So...in short, it looks like what you've been trying to say is that, I guess (although I don't like guessing), redirects are better because you only have to update the redirect(s) if the target page/section changes, as opposed to updating some amount more of direct links. (I guess that's what you were trying to say when you said they "always" point to the right place, but there's a gigantic logical gap in the wording you used. On its face it's even false, which made it additionally confusing (because they have to be updated by someone, they're not "always" automagically correct if something changes).)
The problem remains that that's still not what we've done as a rule, and as far as I know what our policy is. If yours is okay, are we just going to abandon all restrictions on redirects? Should we? Or if not, what are the circumstances in which it's okay, and why?
(Fun fact also: if scripts are turned off, I believe redirects don't work beyond getting you to the page--any section target is more or less ignored.)
As far as your list of possibilities: to start, I think it's unlikely type effectiveness would get its own page, but more, I think it's certainly much less likely that super effective would get its own page (when it's definitely a small subset of type effectiveness). In general, I also think that type is a page that shouldn't change overmuch. (It may also have been hypothetical, but the last suggestion is pretty much just ridiculous. The third was bad enough too, but I think even hypotheticals should be reasonable.) So, personally, I'm not sure you "need" to link to the redirects anyway. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Correct. (Though I didn't generalize quite the way you did, I basically said that that's the main reason why I preferred direct links in that case.)
I don't do it as a rule either, I used common sense, and I plan to do so in the future. I don't think there is such a policy—if there is, I haven't found it. Anyway, in my opinion, a lack of a rule isn't necessarily a flaw in policy, and in this case it's probably wise. I don't see a "problem" in doing sensible things—rather, it is what policy should aim to facilitate.
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it's a MediaWiki limitation; even directly searching for redirects (e.g. "type effectiveness") with and without scripts results in different URLs. (Consequently, reloading cannot remove the "redirected from" message without scripts, but it removes it with scripts. So technically, it may even be a Mediawiki achievement that redirects can display the target page without scripts at all.)
The reason lies in the fact that I used this example to illustrate, yes, because we weren't really on the same page before; I don't want to rename "type". And I don't think you need to link to redirects either, but again, in this case, it seems to be the better option to me. Nescientist (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not all policy is explicitly collected somewhere. (I don't think that's entirely a simple task.)
I've asked and I've currently received the advice that if a redirect points to a base page, the direct link should be used over the redirect, but if the target is a section, linking the redirect should be okay. I can accept this policy. On that note, then: happy editing. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please, why do people justify redirects by just making them lead to the desired section of a page. In my philosophy, you just use the {{DL}} template in those situations. Seriously, it's not that hard. Redirects should be avoided at all costs if possible. So my opinion about this "justification" or whatever is an absolute no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
PS. Sorry for the angry rant. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nescientist, your reasoning makes it appear that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Why would you assume that super effectiveness would get moved or get an article? Don't get too optimistic. Even if the section was renamed, the link can just be changed. No harm done.--ForceFire 05:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand. I don't assume that, and I didn't suggest there was any harm done.
It is my reasoning, I can't help but state it when asked, and I can't stop it from giving you that impression, apparently. I tried to have this at mole hill level at virtually every opportunity that matters, and I don't understand what makes you essentially resurrect this discussion. Nescientist (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I personally agree with Force Fire. And if I may add my own opinion, already presented in an crude rather crude manner above, redirects should be avoided. Just use the {{DL}} template to create a direct link to the desired section. Just as easy, and less redirect links. If "super effective" gets its own page one day, which I personally doubt, you can freely go add these links, but right now, I think that you're just creating loads of unnecessary redirect links for no good reason other than "Because I feel like this way is better." Please, learn to respect other people's ways of thinking. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'm now convinced that you're trying to discuss. So am I, then. (It's important you understand that—I am not your enemy.)
Not sure what exactly you're agreeing with or why; I already said I'm trying hard not to be a rebel (and, no offense, but I believe I'm the ultimate authority on my thinking), that I don't expect "super effective" to get its own page either, and that I didn't suggest there was any harm done.
If you think I'm doing it because I want to show off or just have it my way, you are mistaken. I honestly believe they're not "unnecessary", but that I do have "good reason". I'm not the only one who disagrees that redirects should be avoided at all cost: Wikipedia disagrees (but they're Wikipedia), TTEchidna once disagreed in allcaps, SnorlaxMonster disagrees in this particular case, and even the MoS sometimes requires linking to redirects. (I'm not doing it because I'm lazy either, but after careful consideration.)
That said, we could all be misled. But respecting others' opinions doesn't mean to blindly share them; it means being open for arguments, which I believe I am. Of course you may share your opinion, and you may try to convince me there's reason to back down, if you do have arguments (and if you so desire). But be aware that any sequence of "NO"s just won't cut it.
This isn't a personal thing, and I hope you can at least be okay with my opinion? Hope you understand. Sincerely, Nescientist (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Testing

Just regarding your comment on Roaming Pokémon: testing is absolutely not impossible. If you think you can't "prove" it wrong because you can't be sure whether paralysis was supposed to activate, that's kind of an excuse. You can easily do it enough to reasonably rule out that possibility—I'm sure I've even seen you do exactly that sort of thing for other effects. I hope you won't use that as an excuse somewhere else to lean on something when it's being questioned by someone else.

As far as paralysis/infatuation preventing fleeing, I've traced AND tested those effects and confirmed you're correct. I didn't think it'd be easy to trace, and it did take me a while of thorough examination to figure out where fleeing was checked in relation to the check for paralysis, but I did find that EnemyTurn_EndOpponentProtectEndureDestinyBond leads to the paralysis check and comes after TryEnemyFlee. I also tested paralysis and confirmed that it doesn't prevent fleeing. (I wouldn't say that infatuation is "nonsense" exactly =P , but you're right insofar as it doesn't apply to the roamers. ...Although it would have been a relevant concern for other fleeing Pokemon—but it won't be any different from paralysis, so it's not an issue anyway now.)

Anyway, testing is always a very good idea, since it ensures sure you're not missing some unexpected path for things to trace through or case for it to hit. Or at least, if someone is questioning it, then IMO it's the responsible thing to do. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, of course testing is the most reliable method. And no, I won't misuse it. The proof thing may have been some kind of excuse in this case, and if it was, it primarily was in order to get infatuation out of there (while I'm currently unable to test). I did trace the exact same thing you mentioned (probably more), so as always, I was confident that it wasn't just a guess. (Also, my opinion piece you didn't ask for: I believe there shouldn't be double standards for what to remove/replace, so if I was in your position, I wouldn't have undone my edit, unless I seriously questioned its validity.)
As for this specific case and why I even undid your edit without testing: Even if I was mistaken (which, again, I basically ruled out), I would've still removed nonsense without adding any (=improvement).
In short, I believe I'm not careless, and I do like testing. And thanks for testing! :) Nescientist (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I was mostly concerned that you said it was impossible to test, when it certainly wasn't/isn't.
I didn't have any sort of double-standard when undoing your edit. I absolutely did question its validity. (I can't really imagine why you thought I did otherwise.) Having learned that the flee "priority" was so weird, I believed it was well worth testing thoroughly. You just pointed to "only these two things stop fleeing outright" and glossed right over the other two completely. You gave no indication that you had any credible idea that the other two truly didn't affect it at all beyond presumably just "they're not listed there", which is not strictly adequate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Haha, no! I said it is impossible to prove via testing (and we agreed there's a decent amount of cheating in that statement).
I think you're saying I could've said something in the edit summary? You're right (and I tried to do so in the second one). Nescientist (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Good faith

I honestly can't really imagine why you think I had an "attitude" from my reversion on Poni Meadow. I'd just like to remind you that assuming good faith should be a basic courtesy.

FWIW, I noticed the issue you mentioned this time before, but I didn't realize until now that that was a tooltip on the cell; I thought it was a transient bug of the "N/A" tooltip, since it worked fine when I hovered over it afterward. I understand your edit now. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(Not sure if we still need the disclaimer, but as always, no offense intended.)
Um, thanks for the reminder, but why in the world would you think I didn't assume good faith?
The "attitude" I'm concerned about is that, at least in my opinion, some of your actions, in particular some of your recent actions I encountered, show (or at least convey) a narrow focus on what your own opinion or agenda is. Like, why is your first instinct that my edit (or anyone's, for that matter) is not well thought of and pointless? I even mentioned hovertext, and I guess my instinct would rather be to assume "Huh, they must be using some obscure North Korean browser!?" or something. And all that aside, I think edit summaries needn't be this.. definite!? It suggests or implies that you objectively know better, which, in this case, you objectively didn't. Nescientist (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If "good fatih" doesn't fit for you...I don't know. The long and short of it, I suppose, is that "Drop the attitude" is pretty rude. If you have an issue such as above, the appropriate venue is a talk page.
To your actual issue... I don't suppose you want me to just assume that everyone's right and leave edits alone?
Can you tell me, could I boil your basic issue down to, you don't like that I don't go to people's talk pages to ask for clarification and instead just revert? Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
My intention was to not make a big deal out of it. And I certainly didn't want to sound rude. (Also, I did say "please"..)
By "the actual/basic issue" you mean what I just said I'm concerned about? No, I don't want you to, but I'd much prefer if you're first instinct isn't as much in the "I'm right, the other is wrong" direction.
No, being bold is often good and there's probably too much talk between the two of us already. But if you're already at a revert (or at the point where you disregard/neglect another opinion), maybe try to word the edit summary in a way that shows you're open-minded!? I don't really know how to word it; the same thing I said above. Nescientist (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If you didn't want to make a deal of it, then, honestly...you needed to be much clearer than just vaguely saying "drop the attitude".
As far as I'm concerned, I can always be wrong when I make a reversion (at the very least in the first instance). I'm sorry if my mind doesn't always work around to the most absolutely careful wording possible, but that's just not in me every hour of every day. You'll just have to forgive me for being human. (Perhaps this comes closer to illustrating what I meant by "assume good faith". Don't assume I'm not open-minded. ...Perhaps be a bit more "open-minded" yourself. =P ) Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be (or sound) patronizing, especially when you're a staff member and I'm not, so.. But point taken.
To be honest, your edit summaries often somewhat.. intimidate me to rather not challenge it, or prepare for a lengthy discussion; you sometimes just seem so self-assured and.. final, almost as if you must of course be objectively right. (Plus, I believe I'm super not sensible, so others may probably be intimidated more easily, or take it personally.) I for one can't differentiate cases where my suspicion is justified and you do care from those you just do a casual edit. It's good to be reassured that this is not, nor has it been, your intention or a general "attitude". :) Nescientist (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Confusion/Hustle

FYI, I said right in the edit summary that Hustle is already in stat increasing Abilities. I.e., either that row belongs in your tentative section or you have to be okay with Hustle being exactly as confirmed as, say, Overgrow. Either way, Hustle shouldn't have a separate row. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize that and overlooked that. Thanks. Nescientist (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fur Coat

I just noticed this edit. I don't understand the reasoning given at all. Can you explain in more detail? Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's basically a test whether something "affects damage" (as in, directly, like damage×modifier at the end), or something else deeper within the damage formula (power/Defense/..):
Whatever the inner part may be (if you make a breakpoint before STAB, basically), for a super-effective STAB move, it will be multiplied by 1.5 and then by 2 on integers. If it were again divided by 2 after that (as in, "Fur Coat halves damage", literally), it would need to be some integer that gives 2 when multiplied with 1.5 and is then floored, which is impossible. So that division needs to be before that breakpoint.
"[A]ll that text simplified to Defense anyway" just means that that explains the same phenomena with fewer assumptions and less words (which is because Psyshock, Psystrike, Secret Sword, and moves that deal direct damage do not use Defense). Nescientist (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I felt like I might see a glimmer of what you mean for a moment, but then I came back to my original thought: if it's halving damage, then if you got 2 HP damage, that just means before Fur Coat it was 4 HP damage. I don't see how more damage is "hard" (primarily at a gut level, at least).
Your explanation is ultimately a little complicated to me. This is what I'm taking from it. (I'm looking at the damage page and presuming Fur Coat would come among the "other" modifiers.)
  • If STAB is basically the last modifier applied to the damage, then that's (say) floor( dmg * 3/2 ) = 2 (where dmg is an integer).
  • If Fur Coat is the last modifier applied to the damage, then that's (say) floor( floor( dmg * 3/2 ) / 2 ) = 2 (where dmg is an integer).
I mean, long story short, the only difference between these cases is a factor of 2 in dmg. I don't understand how you can say that it must be the former (and presume that Fur Coat was already accounted for in dmg there).
In fact, you mentioned something being impossible above. As near as I can tell, the former case is impossible with integer arithmetic: 1*1.5 = 1.5 and 2*1.5 is 3, neither of which round down to 2. By contrast, 3*1.5 = 4.5, which rounds down to 4, which you can divide by 2 to arrive at 2 HP of damage if Fur Coat halves "damage".
Also, I wasn't really concerned with the last part. But saying Fur Coat halves Defense isn't assuming anything but that the description accurately reflects the mechanics. In the absence of other data, that's not "assuming", that's just all you can do. Certainly it's not guaranteed to be correct, but you have to do some investigation before you can make that conclusion. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's complicated. (But, um, did you just forget the super effective part?)
  • If its among "other", then it should be floor( floor( dmg * 3/2 ) * 2) / 2 = 2 (which simplifies to floor( dmg * 3/2 ) = 2, where there is no "dmg" integer that fulfils that)
  • If its not, then it should be floor( floor( dmg * 3/2 ) * 2 ) = 2 (which "dmg" = 1 solves)
Also, from my understanding of their wording, "boosts/reduces damage" has always been a statement that may technically be "boosts/reduces Attack/Defense/power"; it's just more general. (Trying to answer what I think you asked, but I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph; if anything's still unclear, please reword.) Nescientist (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I did forget supereffective. "STAB" is very easy to see.
It looks like you reversed the bullet points from the order I had above... But OK, I see how that goes then. (It's honestly not my favorite method because we're still kind of working around a blind box—meaning who knows if we mistook something or other—but it's what we have.)
For the last part, I was just making the point that "All that text simplified to Defense anyway" would not, by itself, have been reason to change the description that was there. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Silph Co.

Can I know why did you undo my edit on Silph Co.? It was very inappropriate to base judgement purely on Exeggcute's movepool when Lance's were using Dragonite with move out of his possible set, even worse when the editor forgot every other instance of the same Exeggcute which was supposed to have identical information.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. Sooo...
  1. Why did you undo 01ff86d1's edit in the first place?
  2. Because based on their edit summary, they saw that Exeggcute use PoisonPowder. Entirely sufficient.
  3. I don't think it was inappropriate, and I didn't base it purely on Exeggcute's movepool.
  4. Lance doesn't have to do anything with that edit, but yes, his Dragonite is a special case obviously. Some select Trainers' Pokémon have special moves, yes, but Blue, at Silph Co., only when the starter was Charmander, and his Exeggcute really don't.
  5. When Blue's starter was Squirtle, his Exeggcute is Lv35 instead of Lv38, at which point it hasn't learned PoisonPowder. (And even if it had, 01ff86d1's edit would still be correct.)
Also, new sections should have a title, and you could have waited for a response instead of undoing the same edit (by two different editors) for a second time. Nescientist (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've checked the game. Exeggcute indeed has Poison Powder and I was the only one to do that. Both of you just assumed that it has to be which is the a bad way to provide information about the game.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Their edit summary read "I have observed that Exeggcute's moveset contains PoisonPowder (..)". It couldn't be clearer.
They saw an error, then fixed an error. Nothing wrong here.
Then you undid that edit repeatedly, along with false claims ("you should change both Exeggcute's movesets" / "well, this is incorrect"), came here to rant at me a little, and after I calmly explained to you in detail, you just ignore that, falsely claim we didn't check and were assuming, and pretend to be a hero for doing the same thing that we started off with?
..yeah, whatever. (Meaning: I do not intend to discuss this any further.) Nescientist (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Nescientist and the other user were in the right here. Team Rocket Grunt, I advise you to pay close attention to edit summaries, as the original user did say they confirmed it and confirmed it even further by checking Exeggcute's movepool. Checking the movepool is a viable way to make sure information is correct, as the game uses the four most recent moves a (wild/trainer) Pokémon can learn at a specific level as its moveset (and Exeggcute would know PoisonPowder by level 38).--ForceFire 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Transfer-only moves

I noticed you and sumwun were in a sort of campaign to get a section in Pokémon's pages to list moves it can only know if it came from an earlier generation, so I figured you might be interested in this. I have been thinking about having something like that in Bulbapedia for a while now, and I just created a page in my userspace with an exemple of the template that might be used for that. It's no big deal, I basically adapted the move tutor template, but it looks like a better way to organize it than some other versions I've seen.

If you find that useful, feel free to bring any suggestions and eventually correct some mistake I may have made.

Also, about the chances of having the "transfer-only moves" section in Pokémon's pages, when talking to admins or other staff that feel reluctant about this, a suggestion would be to tell them that the whole section could be under a hide/show button, so only those interested would see it. Suic12- (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, this is awesome. I'll take my time to evaluate all of this over the course of the weekend.
Anyway, right off the bat, I don't remember any admin actually opposing this, I think they just realized how it's super hard to compile a list (like: it's not worth it). Maybe adding to this, I'm not really "in a sort of campaign" to get it (or to make it), but I was just stressing how I think it is sensible and worthwhile. Actually, I'm not as invested ever since my last campaign (among other things) went not too well.
Next initial thought: I don't like hide/show buttons. Not in general, and probably not here; it's (almost) as important as those other moves, and for learnset pages, it would be at the end of the page anyway.
Also, without having looked at your template, I kinda imagine that it would probably need several such templates, one per generation, such that the template for GenV learnset pages would only display the columns III and IV, for example. (My thought process never made it very far, though, so I think I never thought of a way to display anything.) Maybe you could enhance your userspace page with what Bulbasaur (Pokémon)/Generation V learnset would look like!? (I also didn't examine what existing templates there are, or how suitable they would be, but I intend to over the course of the weekend.)
Also, there's User:Tiddlywinks/Transfer, and if that's mainspaced, it would be a much better link target than the inter-gen template. That's my initial thoughts. Nescientist (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the way it is now, each generation would need a different template (except gen III, obviously). Two templates, actually. The one I linked here needs this one to work, plus a footer template I didn't bother to make (it could probably be shared among generations), just used raw code for now. Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to create another parameter to display only the boxes for the corresponding generation, I'll still think about that. Anyway, I'll get to work on the Generation V learnset version, it won't need a lot of changes.
One thing that would happen is that, since generations I, II, and IV only have one other generation each they can receive Pokémon from, the "Generations" column and the colored boxes would be useless, and could just be removed (maybe have the section header be "By transfer from Generation <number>").
The hide/show button wouldn't be my first option as well, just in case it might help reach a consensus.
About how hard it is, I agree it would be a lot of work, but all the information we need is already here, so most of the work could be simplified by having a program compare the learnsets in each case.
Tiddlywinks's page also looks better to me, didn't know about it before. I realized the lack of an article like that when looking for a page to link to.
Well... Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep you up to date if I change any major things. Suic12- (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I do like most of it, there's surprisingly many good ideas in there. (I guess the template coding could potentially be optimized, but I wouldn't do it without improving at least the move tutor template in a similar way.)
The one thing that I don't fully understand is why did you exclude event moves? In my "what can <species> know" centric thinking, I would exclude GenI and GenII event moves at later generations' learnsets, because those cannot be transferred, but I would include all other event moves, because those can be (or could have been) transferred (unless I'm mistaken, of course). I would probably explain the GenI/II event-moves exclusion in the footer, and one could think of marking the others with a double dagger, i.e. the whole move/row. (I was unable to find a case where a move is event-only in one, but not in another generation; but it could exist. I think different color shades wouldn't work, so my best bet would be two entries then.)
As for Generations I, II, and IV, your idea sounds good. It wouldn't hurt to sketch one of those as well. (Briefly, in an attempt to get consistent headings, my best idea was to put "These moves can only be obtained when transferred from Generation III" within the header for those, but I doubt I'd like it.)
And then I also thought what was still needed (i.e. excluding mainspacing Tiddlywinks' page), and came up with the following:
  1. The missing templates, obviously.
  2. A list of all transfer moves we need, per generation, potentially marking event-only moves. I don't have that, and it's super hard to create, and I couldn't do that without help. (I might have someone whom I can reach out to, though.)
  3. A list of move parameters per generation, in the desired template format. Tackle, for example, would need to display a power of 35 in GenI, 50 in GenIV, 40 in GenVII, different accuracies, etc. That again is hard to create.
  4. A way to automatically generate the desired additions, and a way to automatically edit them in. If my math is correct, it should be about 2*151+4*493+3*156+2*72+1*81=2967 pages to edit (give or take some special cases like Ditto and Wormadam), so it needs to be automated.
  5. Since we're automating, we would also need a way to figure out which moves need to be bolded and italiced. That's not easy to create, there are some pitfalls.
  6. Staff approval (of the templates).
I wouldn't be surprised if someone on Bulbapedia already had #3 or #5, maybe staff members or else this guy based on their talk page.
For the last four of those, I would recommend User:abcboy (who also operates BulbaBot), but it's still unclear whether that would work. And that's even if #1 and #2 are ready, and #3 and #5 exist or were newly created. Nescientist (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason I didn't include event exclusive moves is just because I still wasn't sure on how to deal with them. They should be listed too, but that's the sort of thing that may require further/individual analysis. Trying to begin simple, your double dagger idea should work fine for moves that are always event exclusive. Maybe if a move happens to be event exclusive in only some of the generations, there could be an asterisk next to te gen number (like that: III*) and a different marking could be used for the move itself.
My idea now, to create examples of most possibilities, is to make one template for each generation (except III) and with each of those, one example from a Pokémon of each appliable generation. Don't know if the templates will be ready soon, but the rest of the examples from gen VII shouldn't take long.
About #2, trying to make the lists completely manually can be almost as hard as editing all pages manually. We probably will have to browse through the pages one by one, but maybe I can come up with a way that we can simply put the code from the learnset pages in a program that would give each Pokémon's list right away (supposing that most or all of the pages follow the same pattern). I don't know very much about programing, but I guess what I know may be just enough for that. Of course, if we can find anyone more skilled than me, it would be great. I may start working on that after I get the rest of the templates done.
For the rest of your items, I think there's not much more to be said until we see how far we can get on the first two ones. Looks like it's going to be really hard to get it all done, but still, let's see how it goes. Suic12- (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, looking forward to it. If there are only few event moves that are not always event-exclusive, I guess I'd still prefer two rows (one of them with a double dagger) over your idea.
For #2, my main problem wouldn't be the program, but the crawling (and maybe the combination). But as I said, I might be able to reach out to someone.
Anyway, based on past experience, I'm not willing to get heavily involved in this before at least #4 and #6 are sorted out. (That's not to say I won't help, such as if you choose a different order and seek assistance.) I hope you understand.
Also, you might want to consider mentioning this discussion (or parts thereof) at that project page to receive wider attention. Nescientist (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(resetting indent)It's been a while, but I just wanted to let you know that by now I have all templates that might be needed pretty much ready, along with one example for each situation (entry (1 and 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and header (1 and 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) for each generation, and a footer).

I'm now working in a way to compare the learnsets of a Pokémon in different geneartions automatically, and it could be said I'm about halfway through getting this code ready. The major issue is that I would still need to mannually go through all Pokémon and learnset pages and save the html code as a txt file in my computer, which will take a while.

There are some things I would like your opinion about. First, I'm already considering event exclusive moves that are also exclusive to an earlier generation to be "transfer-only moves", but if an earlier gen move (event of not) is not exclusive only because the destionation gen has that move as event exclusive, I think it should still be considered a transfer-only move. Second, I'm not really sure on how to treat the difference between special moves and event moves, since some special moves are more event-like or one-of-a-kind, like dream world moves, while others are fairly common, such as island scan moves. There are also event moves that cannot be transferred, such as those exclusive to Spiky-eared Pichu and Cosplay Pikachu, so they may need to be listed beforehand. Suic (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice.
I'd still recommend abcboy.
Your first consideration is reasonable (although when you talked about "transfer-only" moves that was initially a bit misleading to me I guess). I guess I agree, it should be done that way (if only for a very complicated and niche reason, i.e. because not doing it would come with the drawback of implying that a moveset with the not-included move and another past-only move was not "legal", when in fact it could be).
I can't differentiate between what Bulbapedia considers special vs. event moves either, my guess is it's probably inconsistent (without having thoroughly analyzed). If I differentiated, I'd probably do it with "Can I get it with brand-new copies (or would I need to have done/received something in the past*)?", and then explain that in the footer (something like "could only be obtained in past generations through time-limited events")?
Yeah, moves that cannot be transfered should not be listed. (That certainly includes the whole bunch of Generation II moves for Generation I, and probably even some HM moves). Nescientist (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked me to respond here, the list I have that I've been using to check move data I created in Excel and used regex to compare to what we currently have listed on the learnset pages, it should be noted though that it's still possible there are mistakes, any errors on the moves pages will still be present since that's where i pulled the data. --Spriteit (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nescientist".