Talk:Alola Route 11
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Latest comment: 4 December 2016 by Jaxon in topic Commented out sections
Commented out sections
I've noticed that on a lot of location pages (like this one), the Pokémon tables are commented out, and was wondering if someone might be able to provide an explanation as to why this is. Jaxon (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's because they're still in development. Keeping them commented out lets them be worked on until missing information (like encounter rates) can be decided on, at which point they are made visible. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a new practice then? Because I can remember several pages for XY/ORAS that didn't have encounter rates defined yet (displayed as "??%"). Jaxon (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I personally was not around for the development of those pages, but if that's how it was then, it does seem like it is a new practice. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I still find it odd that they would be commented out based on unverified encounter rates, as I still see usefulness in at least seeing what Pokémon are avaliable in at a location, but that's just my personal opinion. At any rate, thank you for taking the time to help me. Jaxon (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- The encounter rates are there. Pretty much all that needs verification are the encounter locations (so grass, "surf", fishing, caves, etc.). --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Some places also have different encounter rates per location (such as Route 1 having different encounter rates for different patches of grass), so all of those have to be verified as well. --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 04:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further clarification. However, I still don't understand why the table has to be hidden for these reasons - would it not be better to at least show which Pokémon are avaliable and add an incomplete category to the section detailing what's missing? Jaxon (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realise until now, but shouldn't the locations be verified as all being in the grass, seeing as the route has no other place to encounter Pokémon? Jaxon (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you're there (or anyone is), and you know it has only grass, we'd be very happy if you could make the appropriate edits. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Although I still don't see why the tables have to be hidden if these things are unconfirmed, as knowing which Pokémon are avaliable in an area - regardles of whether or not their locations, encounter rates, etc. are confirmed - would be nice information to have. Jaxon (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you're there (or anyone is), and you know it has only grass, we'd be very happy if you could make the appropriate edits. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realise until now, but shouldn't the locations be verified as all being in the grass, seeing as the route has no other place to encounter Pokémon? Jaxon (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further clarification. However, I still don't understand why the table has to be hidden for these reasons - would it not be better to at least show which Pokémon are avaliable and add an incomplete category to the section detailing what's missing? Jaxon (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Some places also have different encounter rates per location (such as Route 1 having different encounter rates for different patches of grass), so all of those have to be verified as well. --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 04:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- The encounter rates are there. Pretty much all that needs verification are the encounter locations (so grass, "surf", fishing, caves, etc.). --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I still find it odd that they would be commented out based on unverified encounter rates, as I still see usefulness in at least seeing what Pokémon are avaliable in at a location, but that's just my personal opinion. At any rate, thank you for taking the time to help me. Jaxon (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I personally was not around for the development of those pages, but if that's how it was then, it does seem like it is a new practice. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a new practice then? Because I can remember several pages for XY/ORAS that didn't have encounter rates defined yet (displayed as "??%"). Jaxon (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
