Thread: Suggestions, ideas, and problems

Originally Posted by Chosen of Mana

I recently ran off a full list of trainers in Stadium's Pika Cup (currently saved on a .doc) based off the archived site the pedia got its info on underleveled Pokémon. I had planned on constructing the rest of Stadium's teams this way, but just found out that Wayback can't seem to archive the entire website.

Should I upload the Pika Cup information anyway (and whatever else I can find), or wait until I can find a reliable source with all the information?

Upload it, it couldn't hurt :)

Originally Posted by winstein

Currently, Mime Jr. doesn't link to the Bulbapedia when its name is part of a post (you can clearly see that it doesn't auto-link there). Who is able to fix that?

That's it for now.

I checked the Excel file I provided for use with the links, and Mime Jr. is on there, as is Mr. Mime. I guess vBulletin just doesn't like periods at the end of phrases. I suppose this could be solved by making the linked phrase "Mime Jr", but then you would end up with Mime Jr. rather than Mime Jr.

Just signed up for an account on bulbapedia, and I've got a bit of a problem. I received my confirmation email message:

Someone, probably you, from IP address blah.blah.blah.blah,
has registered an account "Omega Metroid" with this e-mail address on Bulbapedia.

To confirm that this account really does belong to you and activate
e-mail features on Bulbapedia, open this link in your browser:

*link removed*

If you did *not* register the account, follow this link
to cancel the e-mail address confirmation:

*link also removed*

This confirmation code will expire at 18:28, 7 December 2012.

However, when I clicked on the Special:ConfirmEmail link, it opened up an "invalid confirmation code" window:

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Invalid confirmation code. The code may have expired.

I tried re-sending the confirmation email twice, but it was invalid both times. I checked bulbapedia and google for any reports of failure, didn't find anything. Anyone know why it didn't work?

So 2010 was the only year we did an improvement drive for Bulbapedia? I think we should do it again. It was fun, not to mention productive.

While looking through the pages of Pokémon Card GB2, I saw that aside of the disguised members of Team Great Rocket, none of the members of the team have their in-game faces listed on their respective pages (neutral, positive and negative). However, I posted on Tumblr a little while ago an image reuniting all of higher-ranked Team Great Rocket's faces (Fort Leaders, Bodyguards and the Leader himself). Here it is.

Since these are all on one image, one has to cut all of the faces to put them on their respective pages. I also have screenshots of their faces, but they come from an English-patched rom, which means these won't be "legitimate" to use.

In pages like In-battle effect item, there is inconsistency in the numerical degree of each item's effect on HP. For instance, Big Root increases HP recover from draining moves by 30%, Leftovers restores 1/16 of max HP (rounded down) per turn, Life Orb sacrifices 10% of max HP, and Rocky Helmet causes 1/6 damage on contact. It's all over the place. This also applies to other things that are calculated using max HP, such as Poison. We should decide on either percentages or fractions. IMO, fractions are stupid to calculate with and Pokémath should be as streamlined as possible. May I change all fractions I see into their corresponding percentages, perhaps with exceptions to endless decimal fractions like 1/3?

P.S. Does anyone know the likelihood of Sticky Barb being transferred to the attacker upon contact?

P.S.S. If Leftovers-gained HP is rounded down, does that also apply to all other damage/recovery caused by HP-calculated conditions? E.g., would Rocky Helmet deal 1/6 damage, rounded down?

1/16th is 6.25%, 1/6 is 16.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666...% 1/3 is 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333...% I would also actually be surprised if the game maths goes anywhere near percentages. So IMO no. I would suggest that with regards to HP gain or loss, fractions are used because of the ratios. If Sandstorm does 1/16th max HP per turn, then it's pretty clear that a Pokemon which takes damage from it is on a maximum 16 turn clock unless they can do something about it.

With probabilities, (e.g. 10% chance of flinch, 30% chance of paralysis, etc.) I think percentages are better suited as they are more clear. This is partly because those are multiples of 1/10th (or in some cases 1/20th) rather than being a straight portion. (i.e. 30% is 3/10 which goes to 1/3.3333333333333333...)

Big root I'd lean towards a percentage simply because it's clearer to say 30% than 3/10. Consistency is important, but less so than clarity.

Originally Posted by Aviator Zero

In pages like In-battle effect item, there is inconsistency in the numerical degree of each item's effect on HP. For instance, Big Root increases HP recover from draining moves by 30%, Leftovers restores 1/16 of max HP (rounded down) per turn, Life Orb sacrifices 10% of max HP, and Rocky Helmet causes 1/6 damage on contact. It's all over the place. This also applies to other things that are calculated using max HP, such as Poison. We should decide on either percentages or fractions. IMO, fractions are stupid to calculate with and Pokémath should be as streamlined as possible. May I change all fractions I see into their corresponding percentages, perhaps with exceptions to endless decimal fractions like 1/3?

Werdnae pretty much said everything I was going to. Fractions are more accurate, so we should use those rather than rounding to a percentage. However, when we can get an exact percentage, I don't see a problem with using them. If they are in a situation where they are being compared however (I don't know of any examples, but feel free to provide them), then it would make sense to put them in a form where it is easy to (whether this would be fractions or percentages would depend on the situation).

^I get the feeling that this has resolved nothing. Fractions for HP-based calcs, except stuff like Big Root, because 30% feels right. Percentages for probabilities, except also roughly half of all item/condition/ability descriptions, sometimes, maybe. Rules are different on Fridays, too.


Can we replace this (File:Baby Nidoqueen and Baby Rhyhorn.png) and this (File:Mewtwo in the City.png) with these? Both are full resolution and quality. I don't get why we let these ugly old images lie around forever.

Originally Posted by Aviator Zero

^I get the feeling that this has resolved nothing. Fractions for HP-based calcs, except stuff like Big Root, because 30% feels right. Percentages for probabilities, except also roughly half of all item/condition/ability descriptions, sometimes, maybe. Rules are different on Fridays, too.

Percentages when they are exact, otherwise fractions. Therefore it is consistent.

Can we replace this (File:Baby Nidoqueen and Baby Rhyhorn.png) and this (File:Mewtwo in the City.png) with these? Both are full resolution and quality. I don't get why we let these ugly old images lie around forever.

Sure, I've updated them. They stay because people just don't have access to the high quality images. If you have access to such images, you should just update them yourself.

Argh. I began going through the images I have and comparing them to the ones in place. Most are better, but here's the thing: I can't upload a new version of [an] image. For instance, I had to create a whole new page/file for File:Young Mewtwo.png called File:Young Mewtwo crying.png. I went ahead and replaced the image on Mewtwo (anime) with my own, but it'd be much better if I could just upload a new version of the same page/file. I really don't want to make a new page for every single photo, which I doubt is allowed.

EDIT: I think I know why now. According to Archives:Staff, I need an admin to grant me such power. Then again, I am apparently able to upload freely on Fergus' Gyarados since I reverted it. Loopholes! But really, admins, please help. I just want to replace our grubby old images with pretty new ones that are usually exactly the same.

Also, would anyone like me to add more screenshots to the dub edits section of M01? I have suitable replacements for the 8 images already there. If not, I'll clear this set from my computer.

EDIT: Image uploading issue is resolved. The questions regarding more screenshots, rounding down of HP damage/recovery, and possibility of Sticky Barb transference still outstanding.

You can upload over existing images once you are autoconfirmed on the archives. This is separate from the autoconfirmation on Bulbapedia. I don't recall whether there is an edit/upload limit on the Archives or if it's just time. It's not something that the staff can give or take away. And because every autoconfirmed user has that right, it hasn't been spearately added to the Junior admin staff group. If someone who was not autoconfirmed somehow got Junior admin rights on the archives (side note: I doubt this would ever happen. We would require someone to be familiar with the archives before considering giving powers.), they would not be able to upload over existing images.

If I could suggest an article, could I suggest an article about pseudo-version exclusives?

Basically, it's about Pokemon who are not version exclusives, but are more common in one version over the other that they behave like version exclusives in a way (but are not, since they could technically be found). One example is Grimer and Koffing. In Red and Blue, one is more common than the other (Koffing is common and Grimer is rare in Red, and vice-versa for Blue). A recent example is Throh and Sawk, in which one is found normally, but the other could only be found in the rustling grass at a low encounter rate. Cottonee and Petilil could fit this category for being an in-game trade that allows players to get them even if it's not normally found in their respective versions.

Understandably, this is not popular enough for an article (and it may be difficult to do), but this is a suggestion and hopefully anyone here would consider this.

Thanks for reading.

i dont think its popular enough for its own article, but we might could add something to the Version Exclusives article.

Volbeat and Illumise in Ruby and Sapphire would be another example.

I think simply noting these kind of things underneath the version exclusive lists (like we currently do for several other conditions) would be a good idea.