User talk:sumwun

Welcome to Bulbapedia, Sumwun!

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules: Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct. Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around. Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page. Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style. You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy. Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page. If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite. Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment. For more handy links, see the welcome portal.

Thank you, and have a good time editing here!   --ZestyCactus 03:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

Talk pages are for suggesting improvements to the articles, no for small talk. If you want to have an off topic discussion, you can go to the forums. Thank you.--ForceFire 03:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Which page was it?sumwun 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:MAGNEDETH/hate

Just so you are aware, a majority of the users on that talk page, including MAGNEDETH himself, aren't even around anymore, so replying to the countless discussions is just pointless. Also, said discussions are well over 6 months old, so again, there's really no point in continuing the discussion. If you want to discuss things like that, go to the forums.--ForceFire 04:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Again, please don't use the header as the main comment, they are meant to be a title describing the discussion. You type your comment below the header, just putting your signature puts people off and makes it look like spamming.--ForceFire 05:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This is still a thing, by the way. You're still using the header to post your comments while placing "The header says all" in the actual comment. Like I said above, the header is meant to describe the discussion (in a few words), while your actual comment goes below the header. Thank you.--ForceFire 04:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

But what if I can describe my entire situation in a few words? sumwun (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You describe your situation in the actual comment section below the header. The header is just a title. Like a title of a book, it doesn't explain the whole plot of the story, it's just a few words.--ForceFire 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

But what if it's not an entire story, like the question I just asked on Kogoro's talk page? sumwun (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Have the title be "hello" or "hey" and have the question be in the comment section. Look, this message is basically to tell you to not use the headers to write out your comments and that have "the header says all" in all your comments comes off as spam.--ForceFire 12:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that. sumwun (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to talk page comments

Please do not respond to comments that are over 6 months old, as this is almost always not allowed by Bulbapedia policy. If you have something new to add to a discussion that is over 6 months old, it is best to create a new section for it at the end of the talk page. ChE clarinetist (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that. For some reason, I already put a comment at the end of the page saying almost the exact same thing. sumwun (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing talk page comments

Please don't edit old talk page comments, even your own. After a couple of minutes it might be fine to adjust a small bit of phrasing to clarify something, but it's definitely not OK to go back and make significant changes a week or more after the original comment was made, as you did here. If something new has come up and you want to say something different, make a new comment to explain instead of editing your old one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I won't do that anymore. sumwun (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Encounter rates

I've noticed you ask in several places where Bulbapedia gets its encounter rate data, so in case you didn't see my response on one of those pages (I don't remember which, by now): it's via data mining. Somebody (idk who) hacks into the game and finds the exact rates that the game uses. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulbapedia's encounter chances are sometimes different from encounter chances on other websites that claim to also datamine their games, so I'm trying to ask around (including on other websites) to figure out why it's so inconsistent. sumwun (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The next time you notice an inconsistency, it might be worth checking the history to see if the rates that are currently on our pages are the same as those that were initially added. Since we're a wiki, it's unlikely but always possible that someone could have changed them in the interim without anybody noticing. Alternatively, it's also possible other sites (or us) may have botched their datamining, or could have datamined part of their data and simply extrapolated from there instead of datamining the whole thing properly. There are a lot of possibilities. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DPPt dataminers

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know why you are so invested in this? You've already asked variable staff members and some have answered you, yet you are still asking the same question. Why do you want to know so badly? Is there something that we are missing? If there is, could you directly say what it is and we will look into it.--ForceFire 15:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I know several sites that all claim to datamine their information, and in several of the wild Pokemon encounter chances, all those sites except Bulbapedia are consistent. I wanted to ask someone who has access to the datamined stuff to double-check all the encounter chances. Also, did some of them answer already? Which ones? sumwun (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the odds are that whoever datamined our data did so about a decade ago, which explains why no one can remember who did it (if the person is even still here). It may get you better responses to frame the question as "who is able to double-check it" rather than "who did it". Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Incidentally, I brought up one instance of our inconsistencies with staff recently on Talk:Sinnoh Route 223 and the response was basically "shrug, someone else will do it eventually", so I don't think pursuing this with staff will ever get it fixed, sadly. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

All we can do for now is wait for someone else to come along who can datamine the info from the games. I have been adding to beta pages, [Datamining in-game content], this article from tcrf may also be of help to you if you want to give it a go of datamining content as well. Frozen Fennec 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that link supposed to throw a "bad title" when I click on it? sumwun (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Link fixed, sorry about that. Should be helpful though. :) Frozen Fennec 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Page button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Also, if you want to edit multiple sections of the page, make sure that you click "edit this page" at the top of the page rather than editing it by section. Thanks! --Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussing things first

If you want to make a change that's going to affect a large number of pages, please bring it up for discussion first even if it's only a formality. This helps to prevent everyone from having to do double the work if you make a mistake (like leaving off "base" from the phrase "base stats" in all those categories that I had to fix for you just now) or try to do something that needs to be undone (like the Abilities Tiddlywinks had to revert). It's just easier for everyone, you included, to discuss first. Thanks for your consideration. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to remember this from now on. sumwun (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Message

Got message. Yes, I admit it is annoying. I often have left messages on talkpages and no one ever replies. But I think it is a rule. Maybe you can leave a message again. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not respond on my talkpage. I think today will be my last day of editing here. I wish to take a break from the internet if i can. I may return again some day if. I want. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Effects of moves that ignore Abilities

I was wondering if you could explain where you got the info you added to pages like Moongeist Beam? Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think all of it was from Smogon.

https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/moves/moongeist_beam/

https://www.smogon.com/dex/sm/abilities/shadow_shield/

sumwun (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sticking specifically with Moongeist Beam for the moment... Is Full Metal Armor really supposed to be in there, and/or why? And just so I'm clear, the rest (like the whole sentence with Pressure), you just composed yourself based on your understanding? Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a copy paste thing. Sorry. sumwun (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't answer the last part. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The information I added to mold breaker, turboblaze, and teravolt was already apparent from the list of abilities ignored, but I wanted to make that part more clear. What I added to sunsteel strike, moongeist beam, and photon geyser was based on my own understanding. sumwun (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Dragon (type)

You removed the section about the type's offensive and defensive characteristics, but then it was on all the type pages except for Dragon. And to remove it from all the type pages, you'd need consensus to do so. Also, when you removed the section, all the information you left in it was already in the type effectiveness template, so the section wasn't worth keeping. Some users believe that these sections should be removed from all type pages because Bulbapedia is not a strategy guide and if you removed all the information that violates that, all that's left is type matchups and statistical averages, which is already in the rest of the article. But removing them would, again, require consensus among users of this wiki (and wiki staff permission). Dinosauramiable (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I already tried bringing this up in Talk:Normal (type), and nobody responded for a long time. I guess I just got impatient. I also didn't try to delete everything that wasn't redundant; I added information about powder to the fire type page. sumwun (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want the sections removed, bring it up with the staff, but don't remove them until you get staff permission. Dinosauramiable (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I plan to do something like that sometime this week. sumwun (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Dinosauramiable (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Normal

I was trying to distinguish between unresisted (having no existing Pokémon that resist it) and unresistable (impossible to resist with the current type chart). Dinosauramiable (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone I know uses "unresisted" for both definitions, but I guess you really can say whatever you want because there's no rule saying you have to use "unresisted". sumwun (talk)

Discussing

I understand that it's been a week since your comment on the talk page for Normal. However, just because there's no response doesn't mean it's smart to go ahead with what you want anyway. The least you can do is post again asking if your question has been forgotten or what.

The reason I haven't been able to form a response yet is that it took a while for me to try to gather other input, and the topic is relatively complicated besides (certainly when you break down over a dozen lines individually). It would have been much nicer if you had asked about a response again instead of yet again making a large edit just like you've already done before. I apologize that I didn't leave any response at all (even "That's a lot, I'll have to consider" or something), but I hoped to be able to move faster.

At the moment, I'm going to leave your edit, because I don't like the edit war-y nature that it's basically devolved into. I will try to examine the comments you made closely and form a satisfactory response for both of us, and from there I will determine what may deserve restoring or changing in the edit you made. In the meantime, please do not make similar edits to any other pages.

Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for you. sumwun (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Ground edit

You'd need mod approval for a change that big, and now all the type pages except Ground have detailed battle properties sections. Dinosauramiable (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)