User talk:SnorlaxMonster

Welcome to SnorlaxMonster
Nescientist was the last person to edit this page. They made the edit on December 18, 2016. Today is December 1, 2024.
On this day in 2003, Pokémon Channel was released in the US!

---

Home
Bulbapedia Talk | Archives Talk | News Talk
Bulbapedia Contribs | Archives Contribs | News Contribs
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---

Sandbox
Main Sandbox • Anime tournament trees • 20th Anniversary timeline • Anime ordering

Draft Templates
Berries Nav • BerryPrevNext • BerryBlending • PoffinCooking • BagRowSplit • DécorList
MoveInfobox • GOChargedAttack • Contest Move Data • GOLearnlist • Movedesc • Movegen
Art Gallery • Gen 6 wild Pokémon • Facility Nav • EP translation request • Shopitem • Spindata/Shuffle • HeldItems • Moveentry

Draft Pages
Razz Berry • Nutpea Berry • Maranga Berry • Golden Razz Berry • Surf (move)
Pokémon X and Y demo • Flight • Machine Part Rocket Grunt • Historian Hiker • Battle status • Team effect
Pokémon Syntax

Info Dumps
Environment • End-turn resolution order • Wonder Card data structure (Gen VI) • Link battle differences • Filtered Pokémon names
In-game trades in other languages • NPC mail • Old menu sprites
On this day • Pronunciation • Pokémon by release date • Designers • Egg designs • Signature moves

All Subpages

	60/100 HP
What will you do? Fight Pokémon Box: Items Run

Continued from my questions

Sorrry, I couldn't find the archived talk where I originally posted this. Anyway, why can't the Generation VI sprites just be treated like 120 by 120 still images? sumwun (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The archive is here. You can find it by mousing over "Pokémon" in the template at the top of the page (maybe I should make that clearer).

Anyway, there are no sprites in Gen VI, only models. Models just don't work the same way, so we decided to use artwork instead. --SnorlaxMonster 00:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anime ordering

Hi, I saw User:SnorlaxMonster/Anime ordering and I would suggest that you check out this (not made by me): https://github.com/mal/pokemon/blob/gh-pages/data/anime.md --PannenkoekenNL (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have the air dates on Bulbapedia. Having a list of them isn't really helpful in constructing that page. --SnorlaxMonster 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in chronological order, not only the air dates.--PannenkoekenNL (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Super Mystery Dungeon Move Descriptions

I'm planning to begin adding Super Mystery Dungeon's move descriptions to each of the move pages. However, each move has two separate descriptions, one on the move's basic info box, and another one that goes into more detail if needed, and I'd like your opinion (others are welcome too) on which should be used before I start. Most of the time, they're either the same or they managed to fit the most important details fit into the shorter one, but occasionally not; for example, Stockpile's short description doesn't mention its Defense/Sp. Defense raising effect. I've included example images of Stockpile and three others in this imgur album–Feint (expanded detail example), Extrasensory (where the 'short' one is actually longer), and Splash (another 'expanded detail' one, but both have a fair amount of fluff). There have been a few descriptions added already (mainly starter moves) and they've all used the short one, but I wanted to make sure I'm doing the most desirable thing before I put the effort into documenting them all. VioletPumpkin (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know. I haven't played Super Mystery Dungeon or very much of Gates to Infinity, so I haven't really helped with their coverage. In the older Mystery Dungeon games there are two descriptions for items (one very short, one full length), and I had been using the full-length descriptions on item pages. --SnorlaxMonster 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. I'm not familiar with the older Mystery Dungeon games, so it's interesting that something similar existed there. I noticed earlier today while working on the item pages that the people who had been editing those pages had been using the short descriptions for SMD, though in most cases those descriptions are very similar. That said, after looking at the entries for old games and comparing them to the SMD ones, it looks like the full-length ones were used for the old games, and more information than I thought was being lost with the shorter ones, so I think I'll go with the full-length ones. Thanks for answering! VioletPumpkin (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I've been using the long descriptions for the items I've been editing. At first, I wasn't aware of the short version so while I was editing I was confused about where people had gotten a different item description than me, so I changed them. I only realised later, but I've stuck to the long ones for now, but many of the item descriptions haven't been reverted to the long version. I agree that going for the long one has less risk of losing information.--Wowy_(토크) 08:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that, so thanks for the heads up. I'll probably be doing more SMD additions today, so I'll be sure to double-check the Health Drink page (where I made those edits) first. VioletPumpkin (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Struggle and recoil

UPC says that Struggle does not have recoil damage from Gen IV onward, and every other effect we have that affects recoil does not affect the self-inflicted HP loss from Struggle. And Struggle's effect contradicts our definition of recoil, as it is not depending on the damage dealt. Struggle's description never says recoil, and the in-game description does not call it recoil. So I could only imagine you mean/checked the message, and that that's just the standard recoil message that says "recoil"? In which case, I guess we should separate Struggle recoil from any other recoil, and just say that Struggle is also said to have recall, even though it... hasn't. Nescientist (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When you use Struggle in battle, it says "<Pokémon> was damaged by the recoil", just like every other recoil move. Its recoil damage is calculated in a different way to other recoil moves (except Shadow End) and it's not affected by Abilities that affect other recoil moves, but the game calls it recoil so that's what it is. Struggle is clearly a special-case move, so I think it being an exception to these effects makes perfect sense.

It's also worth noting that the move descriptions for recoil moves are worded the same way as Struggle's (not that you can ever see Struggle's move description in-game). --SnorlaxMonster 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair point. Well, technically, it isn't the same recoil than the others; so Rock Head's description, for example, is either refering to specifically the non-Struggle "recoil" variant, or does only refer to "some" recoil it can protect from. Does that mean that you think we should do what I just proposed, or do you think we should redefine our recoil definition (and make a special case for Struggle post-GenIII)?

Worth noting that Overheat and its variations also mention "recoil" in their descriptions. Would you prefer to include that on the page? Nescientist (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ability descriptions tend to try to be very concise because they don't have much room (particularly in older games). Struggle is an exception, but Ability descriptions don't tend to note exceptions; the Shadow moves that inflict recoil are also both exceptions to Rock Head. Also, Struggle calculated recoil damage the same way as other recoil moves did in Gen III, but it still wasn't affected by Rock Head.

I don't think Overheat is referring to the same concept (notably it doesn't say "recoil damage", just "recoil"). I wouldn't be surprised if the description didn't consistently use the word used for recoil damage across languages (although it might anyway).

As for what to do, my suggestion would be to fix the recoil page to correct the definition of recoil. --SnorlaxMonster 10:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions seem to be consistent across languages (checked Japanese and German). I guess the concepts may be related (negative effect of using a move), but they obviously aren't all the same. Anyway, our description says it's damage, as does the pokemon.com glossary that we encountered at Multi Battle.

I'll be redefining then, if you don't mind. Nescientist (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not that it matters anymore since we seem to have reached a consensus, but that page also says Struggle also causes recoil damage equal to 25% of the attacking Pokémon's maximum HP. --SnorlaxMonster 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, even better then. And I guess one just cannot share too much relevant information in any constructive discussion. Nescientist (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Can you check this edit war about the order moves should be listed: User_talk:VioletPumpkin#ORAS order. Jeangabin666 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ash's Donphan trivium intervention request

If it's not too much trouble, could I ask you to please take a look at the last few revisions of Ash's Donphan and give your opinion? I'd like a ruling from someone higher up so I don't have to go back and forth with Force Fire on a talk page, since frankly in the past few weeks he seems to have developed a vendetta against me. Thanks for your consideration. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the previous trivium was both vague and too specific (although those terms seem contradictory). I think this edit brings it to a reasonable point. I'm not sure about restricting it to just Oak's lab though: Charizard's return from Charific Valley was certainly in the same spirit.; it also excludes Pokémon the Series: Black and White, in which Ash effectively has more than 6 Pokémon on hand by rotating them between his party and Juniper's lab. --SnorlaxMonster 06:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was about to come here and say "never mind" after seeing that Force Fire re-adjusted it, but yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon Go Pokedex Data

Are we going to add pokedex data for Pokemon from Pokemon GO ? Pratik_12 _Talk 12:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I was planning on adding the data, but wanted to confirm and know where the data gets added Pratik_12 _Talk 12:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Pokédex entries are all taken from Omega Ruby, so there's no point listing them again. --SnorlaxMonster 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Stadium 2 Pokédex data

I am fairly sure Stadium 2 does not have its own entries. It loads Generation II entries; in case of Gold and Silver it seems to load the opposite version's (Crystal uses Gold's, apparently); using Red seems to load Gold's, Yellow has Silver's; haven't checked Blue yet. I am not sure if it depends on the game version or it randomizes for each Trainer ID (considering Crystal loads Gold's, even though Stadium 2 and Crystal had simultaneous release in Japan, so was it a translation thing?) Eridanus (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe you've mentioned this before. In any case, there's not much to do about it until we actually know how it gets them. It's also worth noting that our article for Pikachu has different capitalizations for "Berries" between Gold and Stadium 2. --SnorlaxMonster 13:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned it few years ago. I am mentioning it again because GO's case reminded me of it. Pikachu entry is the same in both games - it is BERRIES and not Berries or berries. The old games formatted certain words like this (it wasn't dropped entirely until Generation V as far as I know). Eridanus (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured there was an error on that page and it wasn't an actual difference. I have to focus on the Nintendo Direct now though, and I'm quite busy with other IRL stuff, so this isn't something I'm concerned about right now. --SnorlaxMonster 13:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploading images in Bulbagarden Archives

Hi. I am recently contributing on Pokemon Adventures articles -- mostly with Vietnamese translation. I notice that there are missing covers for some volumes and would love to contribute by uploading/adding cover pictures of these volumes, but then Bulbagarden Archives stated that I am not an autoconfirmed user there so I cannot really do that. But since that place is a place to add pictures (it seems so to me, sorry if I am wrong), what should I do to become an autoconfirmed user there? Thank you very much for your time and I am sorry if this bothers you. Saphir (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry on news article deletion...

I've started a thread on your deletion of the article I started on the Special Sun & Moon Edition Light Blue 2DS, and have mentioned the deletion as unfair. $aturn¥oshi said that I should inquire with you. - LDEJRuff 16:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw the thread, and I don't get it. I gave you my reason for deleting the page, which based on the thread you have seen. Why do you think that was unfair? (I should note that I did appreciate the effort you put into the article, but there's a certain minimum timeliness we need for covering news.) --SnorlaxMonster 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Effect sections etc.

This is a bunch of things, but I'll try to keep this short. I would kindly ask you to answer the first question, and I would appreciate if you took some time to answer any of the others, too.

1. Do you believe that it would be worth the effort/time to go through all "Effect" sections (or those of moves) in an attempt to standardize them better? (That's not a leading question!)
2. I've been creating this, and I believe that's what it should ideally be. (It's delibarately non-strict for some aspects, but it still seems incompatible with the current state of Effect sections sometimes.) Eridanus notified me he talked to you earlier, so if there's any go-to guy, it might be you. Do you agree?
3. What's the current guidelines that are implicitly in effect? (I hope you get what I mean.)
4. I intend to edit some Effect sections in the near future (if you're interested and not already aware, you could check Tiddlywinks' talk). So I've been thinking I could try to simultaneously standardize/simplify them better. If the "current guidelines" are not the "ideal" ones, which ones should I use? (I guess this question might be question 1 actually, and sneakily asks for some coordination/assistance. If there's plans/desire to change "current" to "ideal" for move effects, now might be a good opportunity.)

Additionally, while I'm here, could I ask you to possibly reply over here (you're listed as a contact)? It's not a top priority, and I won't start a lengthy discussion if you just don't know, but I would like to ensure this didn't simply go unnoticed. Thanks! Nescientist (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Policy question regarding mid-generation egg move parent updates on Pokémon pages

Recently, an edit was made on Alomomola that (correctly) added Corsola as a possible parent to pass Endure. Corsola could not learn Endure by level up until B2W2, but by checking Alomomola's Gen V learnset page, I saw that Corsola was not listed as a possible parent there, nor is it listed in the Gen V learnset page of most other Pokémon it could pass its 'new' B2W2 moves to. A similar situation arose with ORAS, where many Pokémon became new potential parents of some moves, but only some pages added them. As you know, the move pages have split columns to better note things like this, but the by breeding sections on the species pages do not. Since I couldn't find information on the correct way to handle this, and because I'd like to help keep things consistent, I'd like to ask if you know what the correct way is (either including the new parents, not including them, or something else)? Thanks! VioletPumpkin (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Moves that power up

Could you align the category's wording and the moves that are in that category (one way or the other)? You may or may not be aware, but doubling in damage is not exactly doubling in power. And you may or may not be aware of this, where I've also been collecting info like that. If I knew what the deal was, I'd be willing to help (also see the above section). Nescientist (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you go through and correct the wordings of appropriate moves to either "power" or "damage"? (Or just pick one, as you seem to be suggesting I do.) You're clearly much more familiar with the distinction than I am. --SnorlaxMonster 11:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording you just added was fine. (And I plan to go through all of them at some point.) It's just that the category "Moves that power up" currently says they "increase in base power". I was wondering if that wording should be changed, or whether the moves that actually double in damage should be in another category or something. Nescientist (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If the moves are more accurately described as increasing in damage than increasing in power, then please change that; I don't know which it is. If you know which applies for each move, then I think splitting the category into those two would be reasonable. --SnorlaxMonster 12:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, then let's stick to "Moves that power up" only including moves that are most accurately described as increasing in power; I will edit your additions where appropiate. For those moves that most accurately increase in damage, I believe Tiddlywinks might have had something in mind for the future, so I will not create a new category for now. Nescientist (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there were already moves in "Moves that power up" that were equivalent to the moves I added, such as Gust and Twister.

I don't get why you're categorizing Stored Power as both variable power and a move that powers up: what is different about it to all the other moves? It's the only move in the "Moves with variable power" category that has a fixed power (i.e. not — in-game).

I think you may as well categorize them now, so we don't have to go find them again later whenever Tiddlywinks wants to make his new category. --SnorlaxMonster 15:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's what made you add it to the others!? I don't know why Tiddlywinks added them; I presume he was just mistaken when he did (as he explicitly didn't add Earthquake). I didn't see them when I checked; I will remove those.

For Stored Power, Tiddlywinks might have added "Moves with variable power" for a technical reason: it's a trigger that modifies its power (see here). You added the "powers up" because it gets greater than advertised. I've kinda said to Tiddlywinks that I'd prefer to go that label-route; but I also don't like to undo what others have done without their consent (if it's a debatable thing).

For the category, I'm gonna create it once I can come up with an idea for its name. Nescientist (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Now I recall/know: Tiddlywinks wasn't in error, Gust and Twister apparently technically do work differently than Earthquake etc. I've reworded their prose. (They work like Earthquake, Magnitude, Surf and Whirlpool have worked in the past; I edited their prose as well and also added them to the category.)

And on Stored Power, you were right; if Gust isn't variable power, neither is Stored Power.

And if it's ok, I would like to wait for the category until I/we get to more/all moves; for now, it's just Earthquake, Magnitude, Surf and Whirlpool, and the complete list of "increases damage (directly)" is on my user page already (well, hopefully). Nescientist (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Stored Power is not (or was not, I'll go back to it in a moment) the only move in Moves that have variable power with a numeric power value, Water Spout has it as well and would probably be a terrible fit for moves that "power up". IMO, moves that power up should basically be something that's either "X" power (normally) or "X*mult" power (in most cases *2, but the multiplier itself should not really vary). I consider moves like Rollout and Fury Cutter close enough because they "power up" with successive uses, building very steadily/reliably. Stored Power's power varies based on however many stat stages the target has. You could use Stored Power for the first time and you might get its base power or its base power times 2 or 3 or 43; to me, that's very much "variable". Stored Power does not at all fit an image of a move that's "powering up" IMO. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I forgot, but it seems you (SnorlaxMonster) also wanted to sort out these categories "neatly" so you could use them on Forewarn. If it weren't for Eruption and Water Spout, I'd be happy to agree with you, but it's very hard to reasonably exclude them from a category for "variable power". I was a little unhappy that it couldn't be that neat myself, but I also consider it more valuable to actually have a place where the moves that can truly have varying power can all be found together. I think if we want a category for only physical/special moves with "—" for power, that should perhaps be something like Moves that do not have a fixed power. On the other hand, though, if the table on Forewarn is going to list all the applicable moves anyway, then linking to a category/categories is probably kind of pointless anyway; you can just describe them as "Moves that have a power of '—'" without actually losing anything vital. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There was another reason (strange factor); had I known, I wouldn't have removed it. Anyway, just focusing on Stored Power, I still feel like "higher than the label says" might be "powered up" (and it uses the user's stat stages). Unless I'm mistaken, that's the case for all moves that power up, but not for any other move. Unless they're meant to be mutually exclusive, I would suggest we include both.

The new power page looks splendid! (No, really!) Unless someone's faster, I would be taking care of Gen VI Abilities and moves within the next days. Nescientist (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What I basically meant the "power up" category for was for moves that have a binary condition: multiplier or none. The core of these is very much the things like Pursuit, Acrobatics, Smelling Salts. Rollout and Fury Cutter are a moderate extension therefrom. But Stored Power is very different from these. And "variable power" is basically "the rest".

And it really should be one category or the other. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the only reasonable way to divide moves between "powering up"/"powering down" and "having variable power" is to split based on whether or not the move has a fixed base power. Anything else and we're getting too subjective. --SnorlaxMonster 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I think there's something valuable in that "subjectivity" that that strict division doesn't allow for. (In part, like I said before, the division you want is really better described like "moves without a fixed power". "Variable" inherently invites subjective judgement. Better to use something less ambiguous if that's what you really want.) Magnitude is a very interesting case: it normally has variable power, but can also receive a 2x modifier, so a strict division between the current categories wouldn't allow both effects to be noted.

I'll propose this instead: Moves that power up should be a category only for moves exactly like Pursuit and Acrobatics: they double in power under a specific condition and never go any higher (i.e., no Rollout/Fury Cutter, no Echoed Voice, no Pledges). (Maybe it would be called something else too, if it's going to be so strictly defined.) Then, everything else goes under "Moves with variable power", and "Moves that power up" is categorized under that as well. The only possible hitch here is, it may be weird if Magnitude is categorized both as having "variable power" and "powering up", if powering up is itself a subclass of variable power. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a category with Pursuit but without the Pledges be pointless?

I think we only really need the categories for the power page. In my opinion, "Power up" should be meant to be for those that have a "standard" case but can power up, "variable"/"varying" (an unrelated category) for those that do not. How to define what a standard case is in an objective manner is tricky (on the other hand, we do not need to define that strictly, I guess).

In my mind, moves with multiple standard cases (Magnitude, Present) and those with a continuous scale (Eruption, Reversal, Crush Grip) are "varying" (that's some kind of definition already, I guess). Rollout and Magnitude should be in both. For Punishment, Spit Up and Stored Power, I don't really care — they could be in either, or both. Nescientist (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Parental Bond Information

So, I tested out how Parental Bond works in the main series games, in Generation VI specifically. I tested to see if it did or did not work with moves with a charging turn such as Fly and Solar Beam, via Double Battles, and found that they do not synergize. I feel that you should add this information to the article of Parental Bond, because I cannot. --KibiaXI (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is already on the page. "Moves with a charging turn only strike once, even if the Pokémon becomes fully charged in one turn (such as with a Power Herb)." --SnorlaxMonster 07:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Apologies for bugging you at this ungodly hour for a matter that isn't of necessity. Still, I feel as if links should be given to some moves for example, as the link's blue coloring makes it easier to spot, and it would help elaborate further. Thank you for your time.--KibiaXI (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not an "ungodly hour" for me in Australia, it was late afternoon/evening. I agree, so I've added (such as Fly and Solar Beam). --SnorlaxMonster 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you readd this in obedience? Your edit summary just ends abruptly.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Badge&diff=2527666&oldid=2522856 Unowninator (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hiya

Not to be a pest, but could you please add Kommo-o to the Pseudo legendary page? Nutter Butter (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Health drink french page

Why did Bulbabot re-added this after I removed it? This is wrong, the page it links to is the french page of Lookalike_Item#Mix_Elixir. MannedTooth (Talk) 08:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

BulbaBot synchronizes the links between the different language wikis. If you want BulbaBot to stop doing that, you need to remove the link from the French wiki (which I have just done). --SnorlaxMonster 09:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought ! Thanks ! MannedTooth (Talk) 09:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Game Locations

Something that has been bugging me is the Regional variant and how this affects the Game locations area of the pages for the Pokémon who have Alola variants and how I think they need minor improvements to help make it easier for people to understand that information on finding that Pokémon is not for the original version, but for the Alola version which would therefore require trade. The biggest issue regards the original Raichu, Exeggutor, and Marowak as none of them can be found without trading as it is impossible evolve into those forms in Sun and Moon. Doesn't need to be dealt with now, but I do think it should be in the future. -Tyler53841 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon Go South Asia

Should information about the Release of Pokemon GO be added to the Games section of the Pokémon in South Asia page??? If yes, then that info will have to be added by an administrator... → PikaTepig999 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Toyland

I am going t recreate the Toyland article but first, is Toyland the world rumble blast is set in or a specific area? Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know the answer to that question, you might not be the best person to create the page. --SnorlaxMonster 06:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, I just found out now that is the world rumble blast takes place in. Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Pasting from other articles

Sorry if I'm bothering you but is copying and pasting from other articles on this site OK? oops I forgot to sign Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use content directly from other Bulbapedia articles in Bulbapedia articles, but make sure you credit the source article in your edit summary. However, it is not acceptable to use content taken from other fansites. --SnorlaxMonster 11:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit

What was wrong with my edit for the Pokémon sun and moon section of the Pokémon 20th anniversary page? Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, It's just a restructuring of my edit.

New pages notability

I was wondering, imagine some very abstract Bulbapedia editor is dreaming of (high-quality) mainspace articles on subjects such as

• Nebby,
• Aura (game mechanic, the UB and Totem thing),
• Confusion (status condition; just imagine there'd be a whole lotta details),
• Affection (may be a possibility to intersect Amie and Refresh),
• Template:ZMoveInfobox (in a similar vein to how the German wiki handles that),
• Target,
• anything, in general/by extension,

and that they're also able and willing to provide at least one of that, but they'd like to avoid putting in work for articles that turn out to be either unnotable or userspace endlessly, what would they be supposed to do? Asking for a friend, of course. Nescientist (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally, if there's a topic of questionably notability, I like to build it in the userspace to establish notability (although I do have a lot of pages that are intended for mainspace but have sat in my userspace for ages). If you can build a detailed page in the userspace that's not just full of fluff and within scope (i.e. related to Pokémon), it's unlikely to get rejected. (Fun fact: Confusion is on a list of page ideas on a post-it note that has sat next to my desktop approximately since we gave status conditions their own pages back in 2010/2011.) If you want to make sure your userspace page you think should be mainspaced doesn't get forgotten, it's a good idea to poke a staff member (feel free to come to me with this kind of thing, although depending on the topic you might be more successful by asking the appropriate Editorial Board member). --SnorlaxMonster 12:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. While I do understand that, for Aura for example, I'm not 100% sure it is notable myself. That's a case where someone should do research quite a bit, which is a potential waste of time. And for others one might not be able to judge how notable it turns out to be beforehand. And even if I think it turned out to be notable, is there some way I can ensure the EB thinks the same and it wasn't all a waste of time (I'm likely biased if I invested time and effort)?

So, in case of doubt, I can ask an appropriate staff member beforehand, on a case by case basis, and that staff member then might be able to guarantee that, if the article is of decent quality, it will get mainspaced?

Can you tell me how notable/relevant/sensible you think the things I've listed are? (For me to maybe scratch them off my list of "should be created... eventually".)

Status conditions are what I want to do next, so once I've started a userpage on confusion, please be my guest. Nescientist (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally, if a page requires a lot of research but isn't notable, then the information would simply be placed on other pages, so it wouldn't be entirely a waste.

You can certainly ask beforehand, but if they're unsure, what's typically going to happen is the staff member will tell you to create a draft to show how such a page could look. For example, I really don't see what content you could even have on an "Aura" page, so right now I don't think it's notable, but if you went and did a lot of research and actually made a page of a decent length, you could convince me it is.

For my personal opinions on your list:

• Nebby: would certainly be notable
• Aura: Convince me there is actually content that would be on this page. I can imagine a list of the auras each Totem Pokémon/Ultra Beast has, but I don't really know what else there would be.
• Confusion: As I mentioned earlier, I certainly think there's enough information there for a page.
• Affection: I was the one who nominated the split last year, but since it only applied to Amie it didn't happen. Now that it's some shared stat between Amie and Refresh I think there is more of an argument, but the same could be said about of lot of the mechanics of both minigames.
• Template:ZMoveInfobox: I think Z-Moves are probably fine using the same infobox as other moves for now.
• Target: Assuming this refers to attack targets, I think a page detailing the game mechanics of targeting would be interesting, although I believe the official term for possible targets is "range" whereas "target" is specifically the Pokémon chosen. --SnorlaxMonster 13:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

• For Aura, I think there wouldn't be a lot information, but we do seem to have independent articles for virtually all other game mechanics (as far as I know, at least). I'm not trying to convice you, though (and I'm not willing to do research atm), but I had imagined it might (ideally) be a nice page being linked to.
• For Z-Moves, I don't like how messy the type-specific Z-Moves' templates look like, with half the template basically just confusing readers, screaming "READ THE TEXT!" instead of helping.
• For target/range, I'd imagined that page to be about both what you select and what you actually hit/affect, and to differentiate/explain a little. I think I said somewhere before that we often conflate the two, and don't really explain the difference anywhere (or, that there is one, even). Nescientist (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all yours. If you want to mainspace it and need help linking to it, I might be able to assist when I'm around; the vast majority should be done in a single edit here, though. Nescientist (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)