User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 2

Archived talk

• User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1

Numbered Lists

Thanks for the heads up on numbered lists. They are not included on the Manual of style, so I was not aware of them. Now I know! :-) --Marlofkark (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. =) Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Blue Tags

It's been awhile since I played as a male character, but I could have sworn that the blue tags on their clothing was exactly the same as the blue ones for the female clothing. Stripes and all. I could be wrong and I'll leave the decision up to you. Also, thanks for filling in some of the Snowbelle City stuff. :)(Voltdetector (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

I've got both genders on my games at the moment, so I'm certain the blues aren't the same. It's a bit techno-y or something around the corners for the male. I'd be happy to give it some other descriptor, I just don't know what'd be clear enough. In the meantime, it doesn't really need a differentiator (like brown for females did—for which "angular" is much better than "stripes" btw, thanks), so it'll be fine. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I trust you on that. And yeah, I guess it doesn't need a descriptor of it's own. Voltdetector (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I have responded to you here. There was nothing excessive with doing one edit on each half of the listings. In fact, it's better to save the first half so that, if a mistake is saved in the second half, it can be rolled back to and tried again. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I kind of feel the issue was resolved and everyone's basically happy and I don't particularly need to say anything to Voltdetector, so I don't really want to respond on Voltdetector's page. So:

Primarily: whatever Voltdector wants to say the issue was, I prefer to listen to that over someone else's speculation.

Similarly, there are various reasons for (or against) many things, but when you're just grasping at possible justifications for someone else's actions, I don't feel like I can really give an appropriate response. So I'm just going to refrain from addressing your other points. I'd be happy to discuss them if it ever becomes the point of a specific situation in the future. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to start anything with that (Voltdetector did also tell me in chat that all is well), I was just pointing out that there was in fact nothing wrong with what he did. It's not like he edited the same single section five times. Editing male once and female once is acceptable, and in fact I would even encourage that as a method of saving some of the work; you never know when something will happen like the power going out, and at least that way SOME of the work is saved to reduce the amount to redo later.

So yeah, no hard feelings. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have to be away or you're worried about accidents, you could just save your edit in a text file.

You can point out that there's nothing wrong, but I didn't say that there was, either. I just wanted (personally) Voltdetector to reduce the number of edits, especially since there was little reason to be doing them separately. And there's nothing wrong with me doing that either...

FWIW, you haven't swayed me about what I did in the least. I may well do it again. I just prefer to see fewer overall edits. But please understand that I have no intention of coming down on everyone who makes a couple of edits in a row to one or two random pages.

(And I'm sorry if I do or did come off a bit strong. I may well be a bit argumentative, but do be assured that I take nothing personally here. No hard feelings. ^_^ ) Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we simply have a difference in our editing styles. There is nothing wrong with using two edits on a page like that. Saying you "wanted (personally) Voltdetector to reduce the number of edits" because you think "there was little reason to be doing them separately" is your personal opinion. I was not speculating; I was saying there was nothing wrong with his editing. If you were to tell me that I should not be editing in that fashion, I would sure tell you where to put that opinion, and it wouldn't be on my talk page.

So yes, you do come off rather strong there. All I'm saying is don't harass other users for their editing styles because you have a different editing style than they do. That's all I'm asking you to do. Spend the time improving the Wiki. I've been a Wikipedia editor (before coming to Bulbapedia) since March of 2008; for that reason, I have the experience to back up my opinion. Yes, I sometimes have made numerous edits because I missed a mistake when reviewing; it happens. I even own up to it in edit summaries. But this wasn't a mistake, it was two separate sets of work in the same area. There's a difference. Don't harass users for trying to improve the Wiki; we'd rather have them improving it than being scared off. I'm at least glad that you've worked it out with Voltdetector, but keep that in mind for the future. That's all. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not characterize what I did as "harassment"; and do not either forejudge what I have not yet done (and potentially may never). I place much more value on judgement of actual things over hypotheticals and apprehensions. I fully believe I am capable of broaching this subject without scaring someone off. And you may be sure that I do keep that in mind. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thank-you. --Det^talk 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

How do you make a template collapsible? Also, thanks for the information you gave me. See ya, --SirFinkleBottom 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean a table? It goes something like here (click Edit for the section and then search for "expandable"). A slightly different and more complicated example is on Burmy (it's easiest to just click "edit this page" and search for class="collapsible"). But if you were thinking about using it on Days of the week, I wouldn't say it's necessary. Most of the individual generation sections are a quite reasonable length IMO.

BTW (just in case), when I suggested you update and save "all the days" at once, I didn't necessarily mean the whole page. It's perfectly fine to update part of it if you're going to be gone for a few hours or something. (Although it's also still nice if you at least update by whole generations, rather than leaving a couple days incomplete somewhere; it'll just look nicer to anyone else visiting the page.)I see you have updated the whole of GSC now. Great. ^_^ ...I'm not sure if I just missed it or if I started my response here before you saved that or what. =P Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Doduo and Dodrio

I believe the trivia regarding the coloring of Doduo and Dodrio's necks is important because due to how the gender differences for this evolution line was made, the official artwork depicted a male Doduo evolving into a female Dodrio. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because Funktastic~! did. She's who you should talk to. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:The Preview Button

Sorry about that, I do it while I read the chapter and sometimes I clicked it to fast before finishing the chapter. User:Animaltamer712:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Subjective Editing/Blocking you keep doing

I have to ask, why are you always erasing edits to things that you personally do not like, on here? The last thing I edited was White Forest, in order to warn readers that if you take too long to get there, you will be unable to catch any Pokemon there. This info was NOT in the article beforehand. And you erased every single edit I made in there, for no reason, at all. Why wouldn't you want people to know not to take too long to enter White Forest? This has been a problem with many people. Also, it is completely accurate that altering the DS clock will reduce the timer to White Forest's occupants. Currently so far, there is NOTHING warning people about how White Forest's countdown timer works. Nor is there even any info about how long the timer takes, which you also erased. Is this a power/authority thing? Why wouldn't you want to warn players about that? Also, there is NO WAY to fix this glitch now, and Entralink no longer works. White Forest in Pokemon White is now permanently unable to bring new residents in. And if there is some way that this can be fixed that none of us know about, why wouldn't you put that in there, too?

Sometimes, Bulbapedia can be a good website for info. But a LOT of crap you guys do is highly subjective and biased. It's bad enough you guys show a clear disdain for the older games and often like to retcon information. Like the whole name of "Ethan" and all the inaccurate retconning done with that and turning everything from Gold/Silver/Crystal into HeartGold/SoulSilver, even though they ARE DIFFERENT GAMES! HG/SS isn't identical to G/S/C, nor do they work the same way. Yet, Bulbapedia does not give one damn. Gold in Generation II is NOT "ethan" in Generation IV, nor can you get an Ambipom in Crystal version.

This thing with White Forest is another thing I don't see the point of restricting/blocking valuable information from. I think the info some of us "non-veteran" contributors put out there is valuable and "not being part of the insiders club" shouldn't block that info from being put on here. It's my opinion that you guys are out-of-line and having a "community based" website where only a few elite members get to control the information is no different than media sources with an agenda.

Can you guys at least EXPLAIN why you do these things you do, instead of just going "I don't like others contributing, so I'm going to keep erasing everything and banning people who fight me." The whole website loses quality when you guys keep being biased like this. - unsigned comment from Mcheetah (talk • contribs)

I'm happy to explain what I do. But please do not expect me to answer for the actions of others.

You claim I erased your edits for no reason. I did give reasons.

"Also, it is completely accurate that altering the DS clock will reduce the timer to White Forest's occupants." I did not say (or mean to) that it was inaccurate. I'm not 100% sure what my exact thoughts were at that point, but right now, I can tell you that I'd be happy to see that in the main article (i.e., not as "Trivia"), but ideally it should also quantify exactly how changing the clock affects the occupants. (This is probably why I didn't put it in myself.) Particularly: is there a set penalty to the occupants' parameters (and how much?) for changing the clock, or if it's set forward by X days does it just act like you haven't interacted with the occupants for X days? (Maybe the effect is different depending on if you go forwards or backwards?)

"there is NOTHING warning people about how White Forest's countdown timer works"? White Forest#Demographics.

In general, to your concern about warning people: Bulbapedia is not a FAQ or walkthrough. Bulbapedia is a wiki. For the most part, we should not be making "recommendations". In any case, the information users need to understand that is contained in the article already. "When the player enters the forest for the very first time, the total number of residents is determined by the number of days it took the player to reach White Forest." (That, with the table in Demographics.)

What glitch are you speaking of? Are you confusing the Entralink with the Pokémon Global Link? The Entralink is a local wireless function, not over the internet. I just now recruited someone from White Forest into Black City, so I'm quite sure you're wrong about that much, at least. (I do not wish to try the other direction at the moment, but there is no reason it should be any different.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Series 2

Sorry for the slow update, I was ill this weekend and didn't work on the card pages like I had planned to. Anyway, Pokémon Trading Cards series 2 is halfway updated lol. (I'm not feeling up to finishing the rest today XD) I uploaded all the images I have, though, you can find them here if you want to go ahead with your scanning now. Thanks for waiting! --ZestyCactus 05:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to see what I can supplement there this week and maybe get it up by the weekend. ^_^ Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heavy Anime Pokemon

Oh okay then, I was just going through to see if anyone had a problem with reason to remove them. Yeah, I only did the up to the 5th I thought going past the 3rd was a bit much. I felt like just having Snorlax seemed obvious so I thought Steelix and Torterra at least should have been included to make it seem like a more solid fact. I get what you mean about seconds being irrelevant.

Evil Paragon (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick Questions

Do you think the clothing page needs to have pictures of the different types of tags? Because I found a rip of them on a Spriter's Resource awhile ago and I was going to ask you about it before doing anything, since you seem to be more of an expert on this than me. Voltdetector (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be much more convenient to use an image of the tags in the tables than an improvised text description. Of course, you may want to double-check with staff on the Archives to make sure the images you found are okay to upload. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know which of them to talk to. I'm kinda new to stuff around here still. >_< Voltdetector (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From a quick check, hHt14 seems to be fairly reliably active recently. You can post on his talk page and with a little luck you should have a response within 24 hours. If it happens to drag on too long, though, you can always just check the Recent changes log for active staff and try to ask someone you see there. (You may want to check their contributions to see if they're frequently active or just there on a rare occasion, just in case they slip away before you leave your message.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Voltdetector (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the game, the old man who talks about Mirage Spots does not capitalize the 's' if that helps. But most places Capitalize it. Yamitora1 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure, does he actually use "Mirage spots" with a capital 'M' in the middle of a sentence somewhere? And when you say most places, do you just mean places like fan sites? If so, we should of course follow the games first and foremost. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mirage is capitalized, and I mean both fan and I think official sites/social media mentions. However, that might be simple personal preference for whoever is in control of those sites/accounts.

Anyways, here is the old man's Dialog

They say, here in Hoenn, there are places 
called Mirage spots.
One does not simply walk into a Mirage spot.
Not to mention that these places also
appear and disappear mysteriously.

in both instances that he mentions Mirage Spots. he Capitalizes the M every time. from what I see in screen shots from the original games, he use to say Mirage Island in all caps.

Likewise, another man inside the same house in Pacifidlog Town says

Mirage spots...
It must be the weather conditions that seem to
make the visible at some times and not others.
Or are they truly appearing and disappearing?

So I guess we should stick with Mirage spots as the capitalization of the term. Yamitora1 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I've gone and fixed it around the wiki, then. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical Captures

You have undone my changes at the Catch rate article. Please have a look at the discussion page of Dragonfree (talk) --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey guy, how about talking to me instead of abusing me in the editing comment section and doing edit war like you have done previously with Marnix?
Can you make a comprehensible explanation why it should be 65536 (=2^16) instead of 65535 (=2^16-1) like it always is? 65536 also is inconsistent with the other generations.
The other point is the fraction of that formula. You insist on 1/4 which means that the total capture chance is in Generation V like in IV or VI. But nevertheless you claimed different probabilities in the Critical Capture section which is even inconsistent with the whole rest of the article. If you can't explain that, I'll soon change it back. --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to copy your response from Dragonfree's talk page to Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI. That's where it belongs. Please continue the discussion there.

Also, I would ask you to please be very careful in the future about linking a different user and their talk page like you did above. It looks exactly like a signature, and when your actual signature doesn't look like a usual signature, it is very easy to miss your real signature and assume the comment is from Dragonfree. Thank you.

Now, regarding your second comment...

1) Please refrain from making this personal (and/or try not to take it so personally).

2) Regarding the rest...allow me to take a little more time to respond to that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay...

Regarding 65535 or 65536: addressed at Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI.

Regarding 1/4: let's lay this out, since your comments above don't seem quite right to me.

(The below will all assume throwing a regular Poke Ball at Kyurem (or Giratina) at full health with no statuses)

In Gen III-IV, the shake probability b is about 25%. With four shake checks, this makes the final capture probability 0.39%.

If b in Gen V uses a fourth-root, then b is about 25%. With three shake checks in Gen V, this makes the final capture probability about 1.5%.

If b in Gen V uses a third-root, then b is about 15.8% and (with three shake checks) the final capture probability is 0.39%.

Now, if you would suggest that Gen V is probably not a fourth-root because it makes the final capture probability different from what it was: I cannot accept that as reason enough to say it uses a third-root. I am very sympathetic to that reasoning, but it proves nothing. The developers could have made a mistake, or decided they wanted it that way, or who knows what. If you think the Gen V formula must use a third-root, try to prove it.

The way to prove it might be to find a Pokemon that could reliably be captured (maybe given sleep, and/or a certain type of Poke Ball) if the Gen V formula uses a fourth-root but which may break free if the formula uses a third-root. I'm sorry to say I'm not eager to do that work myself (though I perhaps it's not really that difficult), but I would be overjoyed if you could find such a case that we could test to find out for sure whether the formula should say 1/4 or 1/3. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You pointed out the key aspect for Generation V: Is it a fourth-root formula (call it 4RF) which makes a different result compared to all the other generations or is it a third-root formula (call it 3RF) so that instead only the probability of a single shake check changed? I believe in the 3RF. Well, the simple reason would be: four shake checks --> fourth-root, three shake checks --> third root.
you cannot proof it by catching a Pokémon reliably. Both formulas would give a 100% chance. So you must catch Pokémon (in Generation V of course) that can break free, but don't have a too low chance. Example:

Catching with Sleep using Dusk Ball: Basculin (catch rate 25), 3RF = 28.6% --- 4RF = 39.1% --- Difference = 10.5%

But you can also catch a Pokémon with 255 catch rate just using a Poké Ball. The difference will always be maximal about 10.55% for some mathematical reason.

Catching without ailment using Poké Ball: Patrat (catch rate 255), 3RF = 33.3% --- 4RF = 43.8% --- Difference = 10.5%

These 10.5% make the difference. --- Pokémon _Questions? -- 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, this is solved in Talk:Catch rate#Critical catch shakes in Gen VI.

Also, you should really follow the custom of indenting your replies one further than the previous response. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)