Discuss > Protect
Today, three editors have added information from the SM demo (just to stress, info available from playing, not only from datamining). Three different editors have undone them, apparently without disputing their credibility/integrity (and I can personally assure it is accurate, Water Shuriken is special in the Demo). All of these edits apparently have been done in good faith. For Aaaaaa123456789 and Pumpkinking0192 in particular, who I know from some of their past contributions, I would strongly assume there is reason and open-mindness as well. What is apparently warranted here is to know whether we want to include the new demo data (stressing again, non-datamined-only data), and if so how. "Has been added/undone before" will not solve that problem. Neither will protection.
So, here's my opinion/arguments:
- Include. It is relevant information. (Independent of the final SM games.)
- Include now. It is relevant now, not starting November.
- Include without DEMO ONLY qualifiers. As long as you see it in-game, there is no reason to believe it will change in the final SM games; that something will change is an assumption, not that it will not. If SM changed anything, we would need to not delete Demo information (as it would still remain relevant for the demo); instead, we should just include changed info as if it changed between core games within one generation (like from DP to Pt in the past). Because it does.
This is a discussion; it aims for consensus, for improvement, for progress. Feel free to challenge what I wrote. Anyway, I do have faith that this may not actually be as controversial as it initially seemed. Nescientist (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since everything in a demo is, by nature, subject to change, it should probably not be listed in, say, the infobox. Not only it's not definitive; it also doesn't reflect the state of the games as used for, say, competitive play. On the other hand, the info is relevant now, so adding it now does seem sensible. Perhaps it should be added in a separate section/header for now, and edited back into the main page when (if, but most likely when) the info becomes confirmed in November as part of a full mainstream game. Aaaaaa123456789 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be a valid argument, and a reasonable consequence. I like that. Thank you! (It has apparently been adopted already.) Nescientist (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
How is the Physical/Special thing bad trivia?
Water Shuriken is the only move to change it's damage category without regards to Generation IV's physical special split.
I honestly think it IS trivia. Think about it. It's unique because the change has nothing to do with its type. So what makes it unnotable? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to agree that it feels notable enough. Water Shuriken's category change stands out because it is the only one that happened between two generations wherein the "types do not decide damage categories" rule was already in effect. Of course, it would need better and more accurate wording than originally.--電禅Den Zen 22:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennou, but unfortunately, I'm not so good at wording, when it comes to sounding professional. I'm going to need some help with this. Any ideas? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Dennou here. Tried to reword it properly. Nescientist (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennou, but unfortunately, I'm not so good at wording, when it comes to sounding professional. I'm going to need some help with this. Any ideas? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"~33.3% chance" for a second hit… on a multi-strike move?
Hey, I've noticed that the description of Water Shuriken states that "[t]here is a ~33.3% chance that [this move] will hit 2 times," but this contradicts the fact that Water Shuriken will always connect "two to five times in a row." I've seen this "~33.3% chance" statement on just about every other multi-stike move page; is there a reason why these pages don't say that there is a 100% chance for these multi-strike moves to connect twice? --RedHailfire (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's a list... It's saying what the chances for a total of 2, 3, 4, or 5 hits are. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ha, I feel dumb. I totally misunderstood what the description was saying. Thanks for the clarification. --RedHailfire (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Signature move of Greninja
Should it not be mentioned that this was one of Greninja's signature moves in XY? At the time, it was the only Pokémon able to learn the move (and it was clearly developed for Greninja). WOLKsite (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)