11,900
edits
User talk:Nescientist/Archive01: Difference between revisions
→{{m|Swallow}}
Force Fire (talk | contribs) (→Rowlet: new section) |
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
There's only been two starter Pokemon that are dual typed. And the trivia focuses in on starter Pokemon, so the trivia is only talking about 8 Pokemon. Then it goes on about losing ''one of its types'', so it's talking about a dual type, of which there have only been two. So it's literally one out of two, making it not notable. And a single type becoming a different type isn't "losing" a type, heck the only Pokemon that "loses" a type is Gloom. The rest ''changes'' type.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 13:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | There's only been two starter Pokemon that are dual typed. And the trivia focuses in on starter Pokemon, so the trivia is only talking about 8 Pokemon. Then it goes on about losing ''one of its types'', so it's talking about a dual type, of which there have only been two. So it's literally one out of two, making it not notable. And a single type becoming a different type isn't "losing" a type, heck the only Pokemon that "loses" a type is Gloom. The rest ''changes'' type.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 13:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
:That's not true, and/or totally irrelevant. The trivium is focusing on Pokémon that lose a type upon evolution. (Are you arguing Eevee ''isn't'' losing its Normal type? I mean, it's there and then it's gone..?) | |||
:I already said it's a general wording. There's no "dual" in there. If Charizard was Dragon/Flying, both Charmander and Rowlet would lose one of their types. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 14:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::The trivia calls out starter Pokemon, not just Pokemon in general. It's not as straight forward as you think it is. "Rowlet is the only '''starter Pokemon'''...". A specific group of Pokemon is being targeted here. "... to lose '''one of its type''' upon evolving". Again, ONE IF its type, meaning more than one, so a dual type. So the trivia is now specifically targeting dual type starter Pokemon. Of which there are only two. Bulbasaur and Rowlet. Charizard is not a starter Pokemon. Torterra is not a starter Pokemon. They are evolutions of starter Pokemon, but they are not starter Pokemon themselves. The player does not start with those Pokemon. It is not the same thing. Back to the trivia, it is literally saying "Rowlet is one of two starter Pokemon to "lose" its type upon evolution". One of two is simply not notable. | |||
::As for "losing" a type. Eevee doesn't lose a type. It's type '''changes'''. Dartrix does not lose a type. It's Flying type '''changes''' to a Ghost type. A Pokemon getting its type changed is not the same thing as losing a type. Gloom loses a type because it goes from dual type to single. Heck, dual types are technically the only Pokemon capable of losing a type. | |||
::You adding the trivia back the first time counts as a reversion, i.e. you've re-added the same point three times. I know what I'm talking about, and I have explained as clearly as possible why it's not notable. You also asked for "another reason" for the revert/ There is no other reason. There being only two dual type starter Pokemon is the only reason why it's not notable.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, it is the only starter Pokémon that loses a type during their evolution journey. (Or make it "change" if you insist. It's "lose" to me, and according to the "to stop having something you had before" dictionary definition, but meh.) | |||
:::One of its types just means one out of some countable number. It's not "one out of two". | |||
:::Not sure why you're telling me Torterra isn't a starter, but to that I agree. | |||
:::I haven't readded a point the first time, but I have turned it into a more general statement. | |||
:::If you have no other reason and/or can't follow the logic I laid out here, let's just wait for abcboy to mediate here as well. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::I would say specifying that it's throughout the evolutionary line would make it notable, since the other starters gain a type upon evolution and that type usually sticks. And no, losing a type implies that it lost an attribute (for a lack of better wording), which Gloom only does. The rest still has a type, just a different one. Meaning, the type changes. | |||
::::[https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Rowlet_(Pok%C3%A9mon)&curid=213004&diff=3224083&oldid=3223461 This first reversion], the one you made after I removed it the first time yesterday. I added that edit to the count. And don't make it out like I'm inept, I know what you're saying, but your reasoning did not make the trivia any more notable.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks for unprotecting the page. | |||
:::::Yes, that revision is the one where I made the statement more general, as evident from my edit summary and virtually everything else I said thereafter; it's more general that what you just added to the article (since it would apply my hypothetical Charmander above). [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 15:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::... why should hypothetical's apply? If a new Pokemon comes along and makes it unnotable, then it'll be removed. Not that hard.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I mean that my wording is more general, i.e. it has a wider scope (since it would apply to my hypothetical Charmander, whereas yours wouldn't), so should be more notable. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 15:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Ah, you meant the whole losing/gaining/changing type thing. I think that boils down to personal opinion, for me, if a single type "loses" a type, then they'd have no type. 1-1=0. So I view a type change as just that, a change not a loss. I wouldn't mind a reword that gets rid of the gain/losing type mention (even if it's technically central to the trivia).--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
<small>(resetting indent)</small>Not sure what you're trying to do with that current wording, but Charmander also is a starter Pokémon whose typing does not remain the same throughout their evolutionary line. My original wording is the most general I can think of, and I think that should be used. "Rowlet is the only starter Pokémon whose final evolution does not have all of its types"/"does not retain all of its types until its final evolution" or something like that is the next best thing I can come up with, it's slightly less general but at least it is correct. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 17:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Edit warring == | |||
Please do not edit war, if you disagree with an edit, go to the talk page of the user that reverted you or the talk page of the article in dispute. Do '''not''' repeatedly revert that edit. I've already explained ''three'' times why it's not notable.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:I've asked abcboy for arbitration. In my point of view, I just (politely) addressed your faulty logic in each of my TWO reverts. If you don't understand something, discuss it, seriously. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 14:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Previous gen learnlist template == | |||
I've just realized, it doesn't really handle crossgen evos. For example, {{p|Politoed}} isn't available in Generation I, but it can technically originate from [[Generation I]] and have moves by transferring from these games, since {{p|Poliwag}} and {{p|Poliwhirl}} exist in Generation I. Trying to change numbers right now to add the fields for G1 will add a link to non-existent moveset article in the header. [[User:Eridanus|Eridanus]] ([[User talk:Eridanus|talk]]) 22:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:What do you mean, you just realized? Like, [[User talk:Eridanus#Transfer moves|we talked about it already]], right? | |||
:I saw Akurochan already do [[Special:Diff/3279933|these kind of edits]], you're basically complaining that changing the header to have them actually pop up would be a bad idea (because it would introduce redlinks)? Like yeah, that's why I suggested at your talk page to think about another (sub-)section "via transferring Poliwhirl/<species> and then evolve". | |||
:That's what I can say that I hope helps, but anyway, I'm sorry but I'm not really sure what exactly your question is (if there is one), or what you want to discuss with me; maybe you can clarify, then I'm willing to help. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::Whoops, honestly forgot about it. Basically, these moves have already been added but the template doesn't support them yet so you have rows that are just all white cells, like [[Politoed (Pokémon)#By transfer from another generation|here]], at least for some Pokémon. [[User:Eridanus|Eridanus]] ([[User talk:Eridanus|talk]]) 16:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, as I said, it was Akurochan who caused this - I don't even know how complete/correct it is. I feel I don't have the authority (nor the responsibility tbh) to do anything about it unilaterally either, other than agree with you that that's not ideal. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Anime series sections == | |||
Hey, I created a proposal of adding series sections in the articles for Pokémon species. For instance, adding "Pokémon the Series: Diamond and Pearl", "Pokémon the Series: Black & White", etc. sections in {{p|Pikachu}}. | |||
This is being discussed here: [[Bulbapedia talk:Editor's Hub#Pokémon pages with anime series sections]]. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 13:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Yup, noted. (Quite sure I had actually already seen that.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 13:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Zacian == | |||
What had happened in [[Special:Diff/3348689|this edit]] was that I was intending to delete [[Special:Diff/3346494|trivia that ForceFire deleted several days ago]]. I had left the Zacian page open in a tab while the wiki was locked intending to delete that, so from that open tab (which still had that trivia on it) I edited the trivia section and blindly deleted the last trivium from the page. That trivium was fine and I didn't mean to delete it. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 11:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Haha yeah, something was off, I couldn't exactly figure out what it was, but usually your edits make more sense, so.. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 08:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Steel Beam decription == | |||
Hi, here to talk about Steel Beam and Mind Blown description. The way it is on SB and MB pages now isn't fully logical, as "Steel Beam is not affected by Rock Head" implies that it should've been affected to begin with. As SB isn't a recoil move, there's no original connection between those two topics. Specifying that it is not, in fact, a recoil move gets rid of this vague idea. Or it can be removed at all, since it was probably added when Mind Blown wasn't fully researched and counted as a pseudo-recoil move. | |||
I also wanted to implement this logic onto Mind Blown page, so I waited to see how people react to it. Didn't expect this edit though. Are you sure that putting Parental Bond near a Gen 8 move is a good idea, even as a hidden note? There's no need to theorise what would happen, even if we have Mind Blown interaction with it. I specifically removed Parental Bond part because of this. It can be added when (if) Megas and Steel Beam would actually meet each other. [[User:Itan|Itan]] ([[User talk:Itan|talk]]) 16:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:It doesn't imply it should, in my opinion. I think it makes sense to specifically add the known lack of an effect/interaction, when people might legitimately come to that page to see ''if'' there is an interaction. (And by "people", I don't necessarily mean high-end compatitive battlers or game mechanics researchers.) | |||
:I actually didn't realize that Parental Bond is tied to ''Mega'' Kangaskhan (read:unavailable), I just saw that Kangaskhan became available via DLC. It's just a hidden note, but I guess if you happen to make an edit to that page, feel free to remove that hidden note as well. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 16:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
::If someone wanted to search whether Steel Beam is affected by Rock Head or not, they may as well be looking for a reason WHY it isn't affected. There's no clear answer to that - non-recoil moves are simply not mentioned on Rock Head and Recoil articles. This sentence is more confusing than it is simplyfiyng, as it says "unrelated_stuff does not affect this thing". Rock Head '''is''' unrelated to Steel Beam, so either this sentence doesn't need to exist, or the connection between two topics needs to be explained. Let me think of an example (made up just now) - Defog article - "Defog doesn't get rid of Leech Seed". Why should it? No connection, just like here. "Defog doesn't get rid of Leech Seed, unlike Rapid Spin" - provides reason "Why should it". [[User:Itan|Itan]] ([[User talk:Itan|talk]]) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::My main point was that I was basically only ''correcting'' the faulty logic, that <code>no recoil <=> not affected by Rock Head</code> is fundamentally tied. Note that {{m|Struggle}} has recoil (it is even explicitly called recoil by official sources) but is unaffected by Rock Head. (I initially mentioned Tackle, forget about that.) It's unaffected because it just happens to be unaffected. | |||
:::I also don't like to say "this is not recoil" because negatives are hard to prove, and not future-proof (GF might just as well append "with recoil" for Mind Blown's next in-game description, and then that mechanics-centric wording just falls apart). | |||
:::The difference between this and your hypothetical Defog example is that people (in my opinion) have more reason to ask "Hm, is this thing that's much like recoil affected by Rock Head (which typically affects recoil moves)? Let's go look it up." than "Hm that thing that's much like Rapid Spin, does it also get rid of Leech Seed?" I see what you're saying, though. Generally, I'm probably very inclusionist here (and I'd almost rather add your hypothetical to Defog than remove that line from Steel Beam). [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::: Saying "Not affected by Rock Head <==> Not a recoil move" is wrong because of three moves that don't follow this rule. Two of them are Shadow moves and the last one is Struggle, so inexperienced user would be confused as if Mind Blown was an exception as well. Those exceptions are reason enough to provide some explanation. | |||
:::: Once again, if certain person comes to visit this page because they thought Mind Blown was/wasn't a recoil move and wanted to check it, they would leave it with strong impression that it IS, in fact, a recoil move, that ISN'T, for some reason (not provided on the page), affected by Rock Head. | |||
:::: I understand possible confusion with recoil moves - that's why I provided that description in the first place. I just don't get your "main point" - why there shouldn't be an explanation to why it isn't affected. We do have other exceptions which don't need explanation because they just work that way - they are Recoil but they don't get affected. This one looks like Recoil, isn't Recoil, isn't affected. It's different. [[User:Itan|Itan]] ([[User talk:Itan|talk]]) 20:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::And that's exactly what my "main point" was, that's why I removed it. It used to say "{{a|Rock Head}} and {{a|Reckless}} do not affect Steel Beam ''as it is not a [[recoil]]-based move''", but being "a recoil-based move" is not a sufficient condition to be affected by Rock Head and Reckless; and also because there's no proof it's not a "recoil move" (which is a non-strictly defined term that has no immediate usefulness; we know it's unlike Take Down and all the other "standard" recoil moves, but you technically cannot prove it's not "recoil"). | |||
:::::I wouldn't oppose something like "Unlike most recoil moves, SB is unaffected by RH and Reckless" if you insist. But I believe people want to know "is this affected by Rock Head?" much more than "is this a recoil move?", where again, "recoil move" is a non-strictly defined term that has no immediate usefulness (and we wouldn't even technically ''know'' the answer to). [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{indent}}We can't call it a recoil move when there's no evidence that is it one. It does not mention "user was hurt by recoil" after attacking, which every other recoil move does. Not affected by abilities - yes, may be an exception, but it is still an evidence against recoil. There's simply more evidence against it being a recoil move, while the only thing that suggests it can be a recoil move is HP depletion. Curse-like HP depletion. Curse isn't a recoil move by our standards. We can't prove Curse isn't a recoil move if we use your logic. But we don't need to, because we set the rules. Yes, there's no official list of recoil moves provided by GameFreak, but classification we provide on Bulbapedia is good enough for our use when there's evidence behind it. We say that a recoil move is defined by "X", and when some move doesn't meet most of X criteria, it is not a recoil move. If GF provides proof that it is a recoil move, even breaking all criteria we came up with, we'll change our ways. Heh, I speak loudly of "we", as if I was a major figure here. Anyway. | |||
About that line, "{{a|Rock Head}} and {{a|Reckless}} do not affect Steel Beam ''as it is not a [[recoil]]-based move''". You're twisting the logic. While being a recoil move does not guarantee being affected by Rock Head, not being a recoil move guarantees not being affected by Rock Head. In this sentence I'm not saying that it isn't a recoil move because it it not affected by Rock Head, I'm stating that it isn't affected by Rock Head because it is not a recoil move. It is not a recoil move because we define it so. Definition part is described higher. I think this sums it up. | |||
Oh, and we can get another opinion. I had a talk with FinnishPokéFan92 about Steel Beam a while ago, where I learned why Steel Beam is not considered a recoil move. I don't think we can come to a conclusion on our own, to be honest) Different view of the situation would be helpful, wouldn't it? Or just one decisive blow. [[User:Itan|Itan]] ([[User talk:Itan|talk]]) 17:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Just so we're clear, it's like.. ''of course'' it's not ''that'' recoil. I don't dispute that at all. It's not recoil as in.. the standard recoil (Take Down etc.). I think it was probably me who removed the word "recoil" from Mind Blow's page even before the game was out!? | |||
:But that doesn't mean it's not.. recoil. There's no definition of what recoil is. It's a bunch of moves that act the same (standard recoil), plus Struggle and some weird moves that act differently, for some weird reason. I don't think "we" (the community) define what recoil is, but rather Game Freak does, for example via messages (as you pointed out). Steel Beam works more like Struggle than Take Down; as I said, what if the in-game description added "by recoil" in the next game..? | |||
:About "twisting the logic", you're probably right in what you're saying, maybe I was trying to argue too hard haha. But anyway, it's not intrinsically tied, there's no reason the logical relation that's true right now needs to be true forever. | |||
:Yeah of course, feel free to seek other opinions (some public talk page?), or just suggest alternate wordings I could better relate to. You probably agree, this isn't really important enough for an eternal discussion. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry to interject here, but I feel like we can fairly safely define a "recoil move" as any move that displays the recoil message. (An if a subsequent game were to add that message to Mind Blown/Steel Beam, then they would become recoil moves in that game.) That's also how Reckless defines it, although Struggle is an exception because it's an exceptional move (for good reason). --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 13:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::Just first off, two links so we're all on the same page: [[User talk:SnorlaxMonster#Struggle and recoil|1]] [[Talk:Recoil#Struggle, Shadow End and Mind Blown as recoil moves?|2]]. | |||
:::If you mean "define" as in a postulate a strict definition of what is ''and isn't'' a recoil move, than we probably ''can'', but why should we? We shouldn't in my opinion. | |||
:::It's actually one thing I would've done differently than even UPC; why define a more strict/exclusive definition than Game Freak? There's really no need to. We don't have to, and it's a risk. Slightly offtopic, but actually I tend to believe unneccessarily strict definitions (and, by extension, rules) are one thing that is common across all of Bulbapedia; my guess is that everyone really dislikes ambiguity. | |||
:::One example is that UPC used to say "Struggle is not recoil" (see the 2016 discussion, where you, SM, basically convinced me to move away from a strict mechanics-centric definition). They had no need to say that, and it's been fairly widely accepted as being untrue/misleading. Another example is something like "The loss of HP from Pain Split is not damage!!!", but then [[Special:Diff/3343000|I found out this]]. Again, no need to say that. I hope you see what I'm trying to say. (Again probably slightly offtopic, but I guess it's the same reasoning why I'd like to [[Talk:Type#"Typeless"|avoid saying damage has a type]].) | |||
:::The only benefit I can see is that it's shorter and conveys the actual information (like in this case, being affected by Rock Head etc.) more easily - which is not enough ''for me'' to define it strictly, to basically take that risk. I realize that I'm probably in an overwhelming minority, but that's just what my mindset is. | |||
:::As I said, I can see what the majority probably thinks is best, and if - like here - the consensus is to do it anyway, that's totally fine. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 10:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::"''why define a more strict/exclusive definition than Game Freak''" - If we use the definition of any move that says it has recoil is a "recoil move", and any move that does not say that does not have recoil, then we're using the exact same definition of recoil move as Game Freak. That's the point I was making earlier. Sure, we could just say that we don't know what recoil is, but that would require ignoring what the games are telling us. When we discussed Struggle previously, I recall that I pointed out two things: 1) that the games call it recoil and 2) that the [https://www.pokemon.com/uk/play-pokemon/about/video-game-glossary/ Video Game Glossary on Pokémon.com] does. We have no such evidence for Steel Beam or Mind Blown (or Curse). | |||
::::As for damage (which I don't really want to get into detail on here), from Gen 4 onward I have always used Magic Guard as a reference for whether HP loss should be considered damage: If HP loss is blocked by Magic Guard, then it counts a damage; otherwise, unless it is the damage from an attack (which Magic Guard specifically excludes), it is not damage. For earlier generations there's nothing concrete to reference against, and I suspect Pain Split's interaction with Bide is actually just a bug (especially since status moves did exist as a distinct category in Gen 3, at least for Taunt). --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 12:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::My point was that Game Freak isn't saying "This is definitely not recoil", we are. We're basically saying "Recoil moves are '''''only''''' moves that have that message"; Game Freak isn't. And that I preferred us not to do so (either). (As for classifying Take Down, Struggle, and all the others, as recoil, we're all in agreement.) | |||
:::::You often point out that the game often uses (and especially used to use) "open definitions" (for example, "Powers up recoil moves" is Reckless's in-game description, but that doesn't mean there can't be recoil moves that Reckless does not boost). You're artificially narrowing the definition, and I think you don't have to. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 12:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Stadium 2 == | |||
Hey, thanks for editing and improving the Stadium 2 trivia I had added in [[Pokémon Crystal Version]]. :) | |||
If you don't mind, please also check the trivia section of [[Pokémon Stadium 2]] and see if it needs any changes. I added basically the same trivia point there earlier, about Crystal being missing from the boxart and manual. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 17:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Done, no problem. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
== AG078 == | |||
Hello. Thank you for your edits to the formatting on the episode template for [[AG078]]. I could not figure it out myself and didn't even think to play with the apostrophes. --[[User:HoennMaster|<b><font color="darkblue">Hoenn</font></b>]][[User talk:HoennMaster|<b><font color="darkgreen">Master</font></b>]] 22:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
:No problem. I just thought if text is italicized and apostrophes show up where they shouldn't, that was a good starting point. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
== {{m|Swallow}} == | |||
Yeah, you might correctly think the equation I added is not even helpful. | |||
However, I might explain its correctness. | |||
Assume a level 100 {{p|Snorlax}} with 1/524 HP, and then Snorlax uses Swallow. | |||
'''Case 1''': Snorlax uses Swallow after using Stockpile once. | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{HP_{max}}{2^{3-n}}\right\rceil 3\ge n > 0</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^{3-1}}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^2}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{4}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}= 131 </math> | |||
'''Case 2''': Snorlax uses Swallow after using Stockpile twice. | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{HP_{max}}{2^{3-n}}\right\rceil 3\ge n > 0</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^{3-2}}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^1}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}= 262 </math> | |||
'''Case 3''': Snorlax uses Swallow after using Stockpile three times. | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{HP_{max}}{2^{3-n}}\right\rceil 3\ge n > 0</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^{3-3}}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}=\left \lceil\frac{524}{2^0}\right\rceil</math> | |||
<math>HP_{Recovered}= 524 </math> | |||
I hope this explains my edit well. --'''''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<font color="turquoise">Bfdifan2006</font>]]'''''<sub>[[User talk:Bfdifan2006|<font color="lime">something to say?</font>]]</sub> 19:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
:I do realize that you basically transformed the text that was already on the page into a formula, and that it ''basically'' works out. You added the ceiling, though, which is the thing I was trying to challenge. In Generation III, it is flooring, and I'd doubt it'll be ceiling in later games. (I realize I could have made that clearer in my edit summary, though.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||