Talk:Base stats

Question

I came looking for an answer to Base Stats and how evolution affects them. I checked the evolution page as well and found nothing. After googling "pokemon base stats evolution" I found this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090323201124AA3kRL2

Pokemon Evolution and Base Stats? Will a pokemon that evolved earlier be stronger, or have different stats (i.e., maxing out a Riolu's happiness and evolving it at level 2 as opposed to levelling it to raise its happiness and having it evolve at, say, 20) simply because of base stats? Riolu's base Attack is 70 while its base Special Attack is 35, while Lucario has 110 and 115, respectively. So if I evolve Riolu at level 20, will it have more attack than special attack, but lower overall stats than had I levelled it at 2?

Answer 1: it doesn't matter what level you evolve it because stats are retroactively recalculated after evolution to fit the new base stats

Answer 2:they would be exactly the same, not counting IVs, EVs and nature a riolu that evolved at level 2 and raised to level 20 will be exactly the same as a riolu which evolved at level 20

First off, is it true that "stats are retroactively recalculated after evolution"? And can someone try to add the answer to this article or the evoultion article (or both). -Thanks --Lnk2128 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Base stats are inherent to a species. Every Lucario has the same base stats. IVs are different (those are determined at the Pokémon's in-game creation time, whether it's an encounter in battle, given by an NPC, or received in an egg), and EVs are determined by what Pokémon it battles.

To put it simply, if you cloned a level 1 Riolu, maxed its happiness, and rare candied it to level 2, evolving it and then battling six Bibarel, four Magneton, and two Pikachu to get it to level 20, it would be exactly the same as the level 1 Riolu you maxed the happiness of, trained it to level 20 against the EXACT SAME NUMBER of the EXACT SAME POKÉMON, and then evolved it. The problem is that cloning is really the only plausible way to have two Pokémon that start out the same, by having the exact same IVs, and training against the exact same Pokémon, aside from just using Rare Candies, is the only way to make sure EVs don't cause fluctuation in the stats (by level 20, EVs count for an up to 12-point difference in stats).

In short, no, it does not matter when you evolve a Pokémon. If it ends up at the same endpoint, that's always how it will be at that endpoint provided the same things are done on the way there (use Sun Stone, train against 50 Gastly, or train against the Gastly first, you'll still have the same Bellossom).

As for what the "retroactively recalculated" means, it means that the stat your Trapinch has in Attack does not carry over into its Vibrava form. For an Adamant natured Trapinch at level 35, with an IV of 26 in Attack and EVs of 200 in the same, its Attack is [((26 + 2 * 100 + (200/4)) * 35/100) + 5] * 1.1, or 111. This is just by leveling up, as you see that the stats are calculated when you do (though usually you just scroll through them without a thought, don't you? I do...). Now, on attaining level 35, its evolution into Vibrava is induced. Vibrava has only 70 base Attack, which causes your Pokémon to actually have a lower Attack stat until its evolution into Flygon (who has the same base Attack as Trapinch). As Vibrava, at level 35, the Pokémon has an Attack of [((26 + 2 * 70 + (200/4)) * 35/100) + 5] * 1.1, or 88.

It's only complicated because you can't see the values; you have to know them. Too bad there's no real way to tell your IVs except through online calculators. TTEchidna 21:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand it. The Trapinch example was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks alot ---Lnk2128 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the blunt points of this info be included in the article? I've always tried to evolve my pokemon ASAP thinking they would gain better overall stats, and after specifically looking for this info I only found it after going though the pages on "forms," "evolution," "base stats" and their respective talk pages. --Barakku 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just another question: Was it always like that, or has it changed through Generation? Yohrd 06:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It was always like that. The major discrepancy people see is the difference due to so many hidden values, such as IVs and EVs. Every Pokémon of a species has the same base stats, but it is highly likely that no two Pokémon of the same species which a particular trainer has will have the exact same stats, due to differences in those hidden values. Werdnae 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing about something like this as a kid, with my gen 1 Red. Everyone kept telling me it's all about the homegrown pokemon from a low level, hearing vaguely about how "no two pokemon are the same in stats," fearing my pokemon were screwed forever. Reading over IVs, EVs, eevees, whathaveyous makes me think there really needs to be a section to bring all of this together. I don't want formulas for powergaming/ect, I want a simple understanding that THIS is something simple to ensure extra points in X stat, and THIS is all the crap you don't need to worry about (form changes instantly change stats, so you don't need to worry about evolving ASAP)--Barakku 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Level

As to what level are the base stats on this site calculated? Xtreme Dragon Master 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't that stats of a Pokémon at a particular level, thay are a base value taken from the game data. The game then puts the base stats into an equation (I don't know exactly what it does), which results in the stats you see when you check the Pokémon. BTW, you should sign on the same line as your comment, rather than on the next line. Werdnae 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

User SnorlaxMonster has suggested moving this page to Species Stat. I strongly oppose this. The term "base stat" has been in use by the community for over a decade and is the primary name for these stats, while the term "species stat" has never seen any kind of widespread usage, not by the community nor by official sources. It is unfortunate that Nintendo refuses to officially acknowledge the existence of EVs and instead called EVs base stats, but although that may cause some ambiguity, far more confusion will be caused by moving the article to a name that's not even in usage. Viskiv (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We should be using official terms regardless of their use in fandom. For example, despite happiness being the term used and preferred by the fandom, once Friendship was shown to be the official term, it was changed. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Species Stat as this page's title, I do believe that if base stat is the official term for EVs (and they've been using this term for vitamins for quite a while), then that should be used as the title instead of EVs. Confusion can be mitigated by adding a "if you want the term used by fandom etc etc" at the top of the page. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 19:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. We have used unofficial terms over official ones before (shiny Pokemon were officially "alternately colored" in Gen III) and moving the EVs article to a term that has widely been used for five generations to mean something else entirely would create more confusion than simply going with a disambiguation at the top of this page. In other words, in this case, switching creates confusion instead of curing it. Bwburke94 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters what the community calls it; a disambig notice should be plenty to avoid confusion from people typing "base stat" into the search bar. As for the suggested move itself, I strongly agree that this article needs to be moved away from "base stats" because that term now officially refers to something else. I'm not all that fond of "species stat" in particular, but I can't think of any better alternatives. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference in this case is that the the term "base stats" has both a fan meaning and an official meaning, while there was never anything officially called Shiny Pokémon back in Gen III. If a term has 2 meanings that contradict each other, surely the official meaning should take priority? - Blazios _talk 21:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no official term for what is currently referred to as base stats. This is an important point. Another fundamentally different point between this and happiness/friendship is that there was no existing use for Friendship that would easily be confused with something else. Yet another fundamentally different point is that friendship actually describes what happiness was - the meaning of base stats is actually the exact opposite of EVs. Viskiv (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not about people entering base stats into the search bar. It's the fact that every other website, and just about every single member of the entire Pokemon community who knows about EVs, uses the term EVs to refer to EVs. Bulbapedia referring to EVs as Base stats will certainly cause confusion whilst EVs are still the term in complete widespread use. Viskiv (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

...and when Gen 6 gets released and early adopters start using the official terms, others will gradually hop on board with them and when critical mass is reached, nothing will be confusing any more. It'll be exactly the same situation as previous generations when people got used to the Japanese names and then complained when they were updated to the English names. Boo hoo, whine whine, and then they got over it. Insisting on using old fan terms instead of new official terms will just prolong the whining; it won't make the official term go away. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not even remotely close to the same situation at all. See the three points I made about the happiness/friendship change - they all apply. In addition, English/Japanese names are a terrible comparison - it's really blatantly obvious that you wouldn't keep Japanese Pokemon names on an English database, there's not even a discussion to be had there. The definition of the words base and stats in this context mean the exact opposite of what the term EVs refer to, and on top of this there's already an existing term with an opposite meaning that causes overlap, which doesn't have any other term by which it could be referred to. THAT is what causes confusion, I'm not saying "never change anything because change causes confusion", which is what you seem to be arguing against. Viskiv (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You still seem to be ignoring the point that "base stats" is now the official term for what was formerly known as EVs, so it doesn't matter whether it's confusing or does not accurately describe the topic; we must use it (unless, as was suggested on Talk:Effort values, the press release is inaccurate to what the game will call them). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "official term for what was formerly known as EVs, so it doesn't matter whether it's confusing or does not accurately describe the topic; we must use it" reeks of utter bureaucratic inefficiency. There is no law of the universe dictating that that we must use it. If you believe we should use it, please focus on providing good arguments for why, not simply say that we must use it no matter what regardless of any downsides to using it - that is not even remotely conducive to the discussion. Viskiv (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from the Bulbapedia Manual of Style, which determines how things work on Bulbapedia.

Formerly, the style was to name articles based on whichever name a character was most "well known by". However, this created debate as to who judges which name is most commonly known, and thus created unnecessary conflict given how rarely a character is known to the English-speaking fanbase more commonly by anything but their English name. Hence, the style has since been abandoned.

"Base stats" is the official English name as far as we currently know. "Effort values" is the name they are most well known by. Thus, according to policy, we must use "base stats". If you disagree with that policy, then that is a discussion with a much larger scope than this particular article, and should be taken up with the admins directly. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That manual of style entry was not made with something like this in mind, but rather characters of the anime. To blindly apply it to absolutely everything regardless of the circumstance, without stopping to consider whether it would actually improve Bulbapedia to do so, is exactly the kind of bureaucratic inefficiency I was talking about. Furthermore, why even have a discussion on this page? You could just move the page and be done with it, if it really is an absolute must. There's nothing to discuss here if that's how we're handling it. Viskiv (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It was written with characters in mind, but I believe it applies here too — it boils down to official name versus commonly-used name, which is the same issue we're disagreeing about here. I am not an admin, nor was I the person to add the move template; but if I did have the authority, I would have simply moved the "effort values" page in the first place because, yes, there's nothing to discuss about that. The thing to discuss is what the target name for the former "base stats" page should be. SnorlaxMonster suggested "species stats"; that doesn't ring nicely in my ear, but I can't think of anything better. ("Base stats (fan term)" is the best I can come up with, but I'd rather not use a parenthetical disambiguation if we don't need to.) No one else has made any suggestions. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I don't really think there is much of reason to discuss EVs-> Base stats. The official term should always take precedence. However, without a new title for this page, it can't happen. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing is this simply isn't like other situations. I've given three reasons why, compared to something like the Happiness --> Friendship change, it would be detrimental to the quality of Bulbapedia to make this change. What is the point of enforcing a manual of style if you can't provide any reasons for why it would be beneficial to Bulbapedia to do so in this instance? The individual circumstances need to be considered, because there are so many things different from a situation like this compared to a situation like Japanese/English names.

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus."

I realise that this is Bulbapedia, not Wikipedia, but I see no reason that the same concepts shouldn't apply. There is nothing to be gained by enforcing rules for the sake of rules rather than for the sake of improving Bulbapedia. So far nobody has even tried to provide an argument for WHY using the official term would be better even with the downsides of the unique circumstances in mind. Viskiv (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Fans who know about EVs will probably be well-informed enough to know that Gen 6 renamed them (and if they aren't, they should be smart enough to look at the disambig notice at the top saying see X other page if you wanted Y topic), while fans who didn't know about them will come to BP looking for base stats because that's the official term used in-game. I see absolutely no reason official names supplemented by disambig notices wouldn't be the optimal arrangement. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As someone noted on the Effort values discussion page, this actually wasn't just a mistake by the writers of a press release - it's actually how EVs have been officially referred to since Ruby and Sapphire. Therefore, EVs were not named base stats specifically in Generation VI - and, despite the fact that they've been officially referred to as base stats for ten years, the entirety of the community still refers to them as EVs. Given that every single other website and every single member of the community still refers to them as EVs, moving them to Base stats simply causes a lot of unnecessary confusion. If the community does move to adopt the new terminology your stance would make more sense to me, but as is, they are completely universally referred to as EVs everywhere except in a couple of item descriptions and now a press release. Especially given the overlap with an existing term that refers to something that means the opposite and has no alternative, it makes far, far more sense to have the page under Effort values with a note that Nintendo has referred to them as base stats than the other way around, which would certainly cause confusion even with a disambiguation notice. Viskiv (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. The pages were where they were before because nobody took the time to notice that an official term had been created; you can't argue that things should stay the same because everyone used to be okay with the situation. The situation has changed: the values and the terminology for them are both becoming more visible in official media, which means it is becoming more urgent for us to use the official terms. In adopting new terminology, Bulbapedia is not a follower of the whims of the fan community, but a leader in adopting official terms regardless of their popularity or lackthereof. We are not Wikipedia and, unlike them, we do not go by common names when we are aware that they differ from official names. The values formerly known as EVs are "base stats". Period. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody ever noticed, in ten years, that EVs had been referred to as base stats in-game? That doesn't seem very plausible. My argument is not even remotely close to being based on "things should stay the same because everybody used to be okay with it", again, you seem to be arguing against things I haven't said. I brought up the point that the community has been using EVs for ten years despite it being officially referred to as base stats because you seemed to assume, earlier in the discussion, that it was a given that the community would eventually adopt the "new" terminology. After that point, you go back into suggesting that we should use official terms just because they're official without explaining why it's better, which, again, is just bureaucratic inefficiency that leads to a lesser quality. Viskiv (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely plausible and also true that nobody noticed, or at least nobody spoke up to bring it to the attention of the rest of us. Since the new term will be used in-game and the old one has never been, of course it's a given that the community will eventually adopt the new terminology, because otherwise no newbies will be able to know what anybody's talking about. I cannot fathom why you are so against following policy when doing so will not be harmful at all. Official name with a disambiguating note at the top. How is that not inherently better than an unofficial name? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again - base stats has been used in-game for ten years. How is it a given that the community will adopt it this generation, when they haven't for the last three generations that it's been used in-game? Your assertion that it's a fact that nobody noticed for ten years is frankly absurd. It's also absurd that you suggest no new players are capable of finding out what people are talking about when they refer to EVs, considering this hasn't changed in ten years. When players go to learn about the hidden values that affect their stats, it's much easier for them to learn what they are when everything refers to them by one name, instead of every single person and website except one referring to them by one name while one particular website refers to them by a completely different term that means the opposite and also describes the value inaccurately. That is why it's worse - it causes so much more confusion than just having the page under Effort values does. If the community does shift to using base stats as the term for EVs with a new term for base stats, then I would absolutely agree with you - but just assuming that it's a given when it hasn't yet happened after ten years and making changes that will cause confusion now based on that assumption is not something I can agree with. Viskiv (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am for the move. Bulbapedia should always reflect the current, official terminology used. The community will adapt to the official terms as they always do. There's no reason to keep the page at an inaccurate title simply on the basis that is has been used for a long time. Things change, plain and simple. Crystal Talian 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring my points in exactly the same way as Pumpkinking0192... you say, as if it were a fact, that "the community will adapt to the official terms as they always do" - but the only adaptation that the community has made to this official term over the past ten years is to completely disregard it and instead use a term that actually makes sense. And, yet again, the argument here is not to keep it just because it's been this way for a long time, but to keep it because changing it under these circumstances will only cause a lot of unnecessary confusion. Viskiv (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ignoring our point that "base stats" is canon and "EVs" is not. Canon is inherently superior to non-canon. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canon is not inherently superior to non-canon in all situations without any consideration to context. I've asked you to explain why it's better in this specific case. I've given three points as to why it's not, but you seem to be incapable of explaining why it's better. Viskiv (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is inherently superior in all situations on Bulbapedia. If we can use a non-canon term when a canon one exists, we can just name any page anything we want. Anarchy! This is a professional-level wiki, not just any old fansite. We have standards. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that this is the first time that they've been referred to in more than just passing on an item description as base stats and, from the sounds of things, this will be the first time that the games themselves go into detail about them. It's something that Game Freak clearly want to start making more available to a wider audience, meaning that this is really the first time that the term has been all that relevant. The fact that there was already a fan meaning for base stats is likely a reason that people didn't make the change before now, though given that the term is clearly going to be used more often from official sources and within the fanbase (newer players), it seems odd to me to not make the change now. Besides, all links to EVs will still redirect to the page, so it shouldn't be nearly as confusing as you're making it out to be. This isn't about being better, it's about being correct. - Blazios _talk 01:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hold on. What if they're not referring to EVs? What if they're just referring to base stats and how they can be increased (just like what the descriptions for the Vitamins etc say)? Here's how I see it:

From the "Understanding Stats" page:

"The rate at which these stats will grow depends on an underlying set of stats called base stats. Each of the six main stats has its own base stat."

That's not talking about EVs, that's talking about base stats. The Super Training page mentions how a Pokemon can increase its base stats (not its stats, but the actual underlying base stats) with Super Training. It does not say something like "with Super Training, a Pokemon can gain certain points called base stats that increase its stats". It simply says that their base stats can be raised, not exactly what raises them (again, just like the Vitamin descriptions etc).

From the Effort-o-Meter section on the "Super Training" page:

"Each Pokémon has some stats that will grow more easily than others and some stats that will take more work to raise. The inside (green) part of the Effort-o-Meter graph shows the stat levels relevant to each Pokémon species. The outside (yellow) part of the graph shows the base stat increases that your Pokémon has achieved through Super Training."

The green part is a Pokemon's base stat, and the yellow part is the base stat increases. That is, the yellow part shows how many effort values the Pokemon has gained, it's just not mentioned by name. To sum it up, I think Nintendo is just not using a name for what we know as "Effort Values", they just use the term "base stat increases", with "increases" being the "effort values". I therefore think the term "effort values" should stay and Base Stat not moved. Or, if anything, have Effort Values moved to something like "Base Stat increases". Angela-Samshi (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term "stat levels" in the Effort-o-Meter makes it clear that they've now renamed both things, so leaving "base stats" at its current location is not an option. You've raised a valid point, though; with this new information, it seems like "base stats" are now the term Nintendo's using for the combined "stat levels" + "base stat increases"/"EVs"/whatever. Nintendo's not being too clear on this, though. Maybe "base stats" should be an umbrella/disambiguation page directing users to "stat levels" and whatever the term we use for EVs is? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I took the "increases that your Pokémon has achieved through Super Training" to imply that the meter shows the base stats gained from Super Training only more than it being than what you've suggested. Besides, while base stat increases is hardly eloquent, it could just as easily have been meant to be referring to increases from 0 base stats for all we know. - Blazios _talk 01:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Addressing this bit from Pumpkinking0192...

"Yes, it is inherently superior in all situations on Bulbapedia. If we can use a non-canon term when a canon one exists, we can just name any page anything we want. Anarchy! This is a professional-level wiki, not just any old fansite. We have standards."

This is a blatant strawman argument if I've ever seen one. I'm starting to believe this is intentional - this is the third time you've addressed an argument I never made while completely ignoring the argument I did make. I gave several reasons as to why, in this particular instance, it would be better for Bulbapedia to retain the current names. The only claim you've even attempted to make to explain why it would be better to use the official term was that you assumed that it was a given that the community would move to the "new" terminology that's been around for ten years and apparently just wasn't noticed before now, and beyond that questionable assumption it's been nothing but "official is better no matter what, because I say it is". If that's the best explanation you can offer up, have fun with your "standards" - personally, I prefer a higher standard of encyclopedia quality over a higher standard of bureaucratic rule enforcement, but that's just me. Viskiv (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just me who says official is better. Look at both of the staff members who have posted on this page: Funktastic, a Junior Administrator, says, "We should be using official terms regardless of their use in fandom. [...] The official term should always take precedence.". Crystal Talian, an Administrator, says, "Bulbapedia should always reflect the current, official terminology used. The community will adapt to the official terms as they always do." This is a matter of Bulbapedia policy, not something to be messed around with on a whim because some guy on a talk page can use pretty rhetorical terms to try to convince everyone that their preferred fanon term is better. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And they, too, never addressed my points nor provided a reason as to why official is better in this scenario. I brought this up and backed it with logical reasoning because I feel it is better for the quality of Bulbapedia - I am not acting "on a whim". I liked the part where you attacked a strawman and when I called you out on it, you dismissed it as a "pretty rhetoric term". I'll take using "pretty rhetoric terms" over using logical fallacies like you do. Even still you don't address why the official term would be better. It is clear to me that you have no intentions of doing so, so I will take my leave from this conversation, since we are aiming for incompatible goals. My final thoughts on the subject... I did provide a quote from Wikipedia above which explains, quite excellently, the concept of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" - yet you are still interested only in enforcing policy to the letter with no consideration for circumstance, ostensibly in the name of professionalism. I guess Bulbapedia is a cut above Wikipedia when it comes to being a professional encyclopedia. Viskiv (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Target title for this page

Please use the above section for discussion on whether to move the page. This section is for what the page currently titled "base stats" should be moved to, assuming it is moved.

SnorlaxMonster suggested "species stats". My best idea is "base stats (fan term)", although I'd prefer not to need parenthetical disambiguation if we can help it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to wait until we have a clear official term, if there is one. If not, I think "Species stats" is the most reasonable and closest to what was used on the official site. Crystal Talian 00:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New page! "The inside (green) part of the Effort-o-Meter graph shows the stat levels relevant to each Pokémon species. The outside (yellow) part of the graph shows the base stat increases that your Pokémon has achieved through Super Training."

What the fans once called base stats are now officially known as stat levels, it would seem. That means that we can move this page to Stat levels and move Effort values to Base stats, yes? - Blazios _talk 01:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds canonical to me. Let's move base stats to stat levels. For the record, we also need to fix instances of "stat levels" where people have loosely used it to refer to stat modifiers throughout the wiki. See my response to Angela-Samshi in the above section regarding EVs → base stats. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

From my reading it's not clear whether Nintendo is using it as an actual term, or merely as a loose description. I believe that there is still too much ambiguity to fix that as the name at this point. Arcorann (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Blazios. This page simply calls them stats. Stat levels sounds like something that isn't outside the Effort-O-Meter's graph, so I serious doubt stat levels is the official term. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 02:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I misread (tired, sorry), but I stand by that they shouldn't be called stat levels unless the term is used more times than just once. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)