User talk:Stats1989

Welcome to Bulbapedia, Stats1989!

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!   Nescientist (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Damage formula

Hello again, Stats1989. First of all, I want to thank you to your interest in Bulbapedia, and to the damage page in particular. As you can see here, in an effort to improve the article's readability overall, I recently edited some of your additions, and I want to explain to you what I did (and why) here in detail:

• The way in which a critical hit influences specific factors within the formula is not currently explained in the article in detail (but instead it is in the dedicated critical hit article). Hence, I feel that noting a difference in Generation I should not be included either. I feel the statement that damage is doubled (approximately) by 2 before Generation IV is sufficiently exact for Generation I as well.
• Reflect and Light Screen (I suppose you meant that) are already ignored in Generation II according to our critical hit page (and the source you added doesn't say otherwise), so I've reworded that.
• The actual damage formula you gave, including how and when rounding is performed, is different from how it is currently stated in the article (including the examples). While I believe that "your" version should generally be preferred, I have removed it for the meantime. Compared to understanding the formula, understanding rounding errors is a rather minor issue. In an effort to ensure that readers understand how damage is calculated at all, we shouldn't be baffling readers with two "different" formulas (in an already math-heavy article). The information on rounding you added, however, while not of major significance, is still additional information that could be usable and relevant, so, if you don't mind, I will try to somehow get that in within the next days — without confusing readers.

All in all, I hope that you will enjoy adding relevant information to Bulbapedia in the future as well, so feel free to take a look at the links in the above section. If you have any further questions or need some help, feel free to contact me at my talk page! Thanks -- Nescientist (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I'm also of a mind that we should mostly focus on one formula. And I do also think the more accurate one (with the proper rounding and factors in the most correct places) would be best. I look forward to seeing what you come up with, Nescientist, if you're able. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be a little patient about the damage article, and about adding info to it. Just for your information, I've created an article I feel includes the information you previously added in a better (and correct) way in my personal User Namespace (and as such it is subject to the Userspace policy). While it is being decided/discussed exactly how to change the current damage article, feel free to read my draft here. Thank you for your understanding, and happy editing! Nescientist (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)