Hello!

Talk page archive:

• Archive 01 (June 2016 - Feb 2022)

We just don't like them because you can use the[[pasture]]s syntax to get the link topastures. It's that easy considering this feature of the MediaWiki software. And this applies to other links displaying as plurals, e.g.[[Badge]]s asBadges. --C.Ezra.M_(T/C)21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And yes, I'm talking about thePastures redirect that was just deleted. --C.Ezra.M_(T/C)21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

While I understand I am not a staff member, and I do try to avoid focusingtoo much on cleaning up talk pages, I feel like my removal of the responses to comments that are over a decade old on the Masuda method talk page was justified. Force Fire has made it clear in the past that correcting old misinformation on talk pages is not necessary or important, particularly if the users that the comments are responding to have not been active in years and likely will not see them.

I am more than happy to be lenient, and I understand that cleaning up talk pages should not be the main focus of my edits (and they aren't), but responses to comments from twelve years ago seem flagrantly unnecessary and pointless, and few people will see them as most users look to the bottom of the page for new comments anyway.

If the discussion is that important to start up again, it should probably be in a new section at the bottom of the page. But to me, the discussion does not seem important. People should not be looking to the talk page for accurate up-to-date information, as that is what the main article is for. I do not believe it has ever been a priority to make sure that the talk pages have accurate information, as the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the main article, and if the improvements have already been made, and nobody disagrees, a discussion is probably not needed.

Moving forward, I will continue to be mindful not to be overzealous in removing comments, and in more ambiguous situations I will consult a staff member, but in this particular situation, I do think the comments should be removed, as to discourage the behavior. Thank you.13:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thanks for coming here and trying to discuss with me. (I believe you're talking aboutthis.)

I feel I should point out that I didn't criticize you or your general behavior, but just that one reversion, let's say maybe reversions of that sort in general. (Since you mentioned something about you, and your focusing on talk pages - I didn't mean that.)

As for the bottom of the page thing, I can only say that I usually at least scan the whole talk page (or the headers) before I create a new topic, and that sometimes I scan whole talk pages when trying to find information (regardless of who started any particular section, or if they're still active).

Which leads to another point you brought up, which is that talk pages shouldn't be a source of information (if that's what you're saying)? I (and other users, including staff) often use them for documentation purposes. I'd be more than happy if someone pointed out I was wrong even years after I wrote it.

Maybe you could clarify what behavior exactly you want to discourage and why? (I honestly don't see a problem with that edits.)Nescientist (talk)17:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the acknowledgment. I just didn't want to give off the impression that I delete comments willy nilly.

On your second note, I would argue that the time stamp really matters here. Information from a comment from years ago probably shouldn't be relied on as much as more recent information, or information in the actual article. As Force pointed out, one of the responses was interested in a source for some old information, and I still believe this request for information would be more likely to be seen in its own section at the bottom of the page, as well as any response with more information that someone else might add.

I do agree that talk pages can be useful in documenting some of the behind the scenes of the history of a page and the evolution of our understanding of a subject. However, I again would argue that if a user wanted to clarify some old misconception or ask for sources for old information, a new section would be the best place for it.

Specifically, the behavior I think that should be discouraged is responding to conversations (well) over 6 months, as it is against the talk page policy and isn't helpful or necessary. Even in situations where the discussion does have a good reason to be revitalized, it's best to just bring it up in a new section (unless perhaps when the existing comment is already at or near the bottom of the page), so that readers are more likely able to see it and potentially contribute to the discussion. Hope this makes sense, and thanks for being open to discuss this with me.05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

As a sidenote, after I saw my comments on the Masuda talk page were removed,, I did review the talk page policy and I also agree with them staying removed. (I would have removed them myself if they hadn't been already)

It should have been a new section, and in hindsight both of the users that provided the misinformation about Masuda not working for NPC trade Pokémon havelong been inactive, and wouldn't have seen my request for a source for the erroneous claim.Atrius97 (talk)05:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear we're on the same page. And thank you for understanding.06:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, my point kind of still is.. that I (at the very least) would have seen the request (and the answer), that I find it helpful (and/as I don't value the timestamp as much Force Fire and you apparently do), that I would typically trust some users even when they're inactive already.. and that I think it's silly to start a new section with the exact same topic (especially if it's an answer and needs context) just so it's at the bottom.

But yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm happy to disagree with you, though, but at the same time I'm also happy to consider what you said going forward. (I'm particularly happy that the opposite also seems to apply.)

I propose let's get back to work then ;)Nescientist (talk)15:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you've forgotten to sign a talk page comment, please don't go back and re-sign it as this will result in an incorrect timestamp--BigDocFan, Junior Admin Bulbapedia (talk)16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah sorry, I really should have signedwhile making the comment.. but I forgot. Anyway, I realized that right after the edit had saved, at which point signing should still be cool, as per the policy, and private discussion/consensus with BigDocFan. (If it's minutes or hours later, then that'll be a different story.)Nescientist (talk)17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ay man, you changed the descriptions forBleakwind Storm,Wildbolt Storm andSandsear Storm but even changed the moves' name completely toThunder, which is very much not the move they are. I changed them back. I appreciate the help but be careful next time!11:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh my gosh, you're right. Maybe I should start to check "Show changes" more often again to see the diff. Thanks :)Nescientist (talk)11:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you were one of the main people pushing to split up theStatus conditions page back in 2017. I've posted an cleaned up and completed version of the proposal table you madehere (I'm aware its something of a necropost but i felt it was justifiable). Was wondering what your thoughts on the page split are now. --Jump Drive (talk)03:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Entirely justified, please don't be afraid of adding onto sections you feel are unfinished!

I'll probably have to refresh my memory, but I'll make sure to reply there.

(Also, I think you should be able to edit the userspace fairly soon if not already. We should obviously prepare pages in the userspace first.)Nescientist (talk)21:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the English voice actor forFriede,Crispin Freeman, deserves his own Bulbapedia page (especially since he was one of the adapters for the English dub of the first few seasons of the 4Kids run).MrWii000 (talk)03:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I notice you've send the same message to multiple people.

Please refer toUser talk:Frozen Fennec#Crispin Freeman.Nescientist (talk)10:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know about the decision. While it's understandable, do you know if it'd be possible to have a page made specifically for the (current) "last" pokémon? I've always found it very useful to loop from last to first and back.-unsigned comment fromIndagare (talk •contribs)

There are various ways to view the page of the currently "latest" Pokémon. Probably the fastest/easiest way is to access it via the list, which itself is linked via "Pokémon" in the middle of that template.Nescientist (talk)18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No rush, but I've left you a message on Discord when you get the chance.Landfish716:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oops actually, I went ahead and sent you an email.Landfish716:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cool, I did the same!Nescientist (talk)17:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I just wanted to bring up the changes that I made onDamage category, which you reverted. I'm not going to be mean or harsh to you, especially since I realized once I started making this topic that I should maybe just make a new discussion on that page;I guess I just feel like I want to explain my reasoning to you. (Of course, I don't need to, but this is where my neurodivergent self is going.)

Let me summarize what my changes were about. (This is mainly for anyone else who might see this.) Pokemon games have moves that fall into different groups, such asGrowl being asound-based move orCrunch being abiting move. These groups have gameplay importance, such as theSoundproof ability blocking all sound-based moves.

First off, with my label of 'method categories', you stated "I don't believe these are actually called categories". To that, I have to say;you're right! I don't believe that the label of 'method category' is ever used in-game for these groups. However, I also don't believe that any label is ever used for these groups as a collective. Of course, they have their own individual labels, but they don't have anything to refer to them as a collective, unlike how theFire andWater types are referred to collectively as "types".Now, here's the thing; as far as I've noticed, the term "damage category" is never used in the games (to refer to physical, special, or status moves) either. As far as I'm aware, the term "damage category" is about as made-up as the term 'method category'.

Second, you stated that 'method categories' are "unrelated to the page's topic".I can agree with this!... although, only partially. I wouldn't say 'method categories' are unrelated to damage categories, as they do have some similarities, such as being able to define moves. However,I can see the two not necessarily belonging together. I suppose one thing that resulted in me putting 'method categories' on the same page as damage categories is the discussion of whether the Damage category page should be moved to "Move category". I admittedly haven't looked at the discussion yet but, the point is, in some way I felt as though the "Move category" page was reserved, or that the Damage category page was potentially fitting to treat as if it was the "Move category" page.

Overall, I just wanted to have a page where all the move categories such as "sound-based" or "biting" would be listed, instead of all those pages being completely disconnected from each other. Maybe categories like those could be a great point for the Damage category page to be moved. Maybe categories like those have already been brought up! Anyway,I'm going to leave my ramblings here, and I'll go take a look at how I could handle this differently.RubberCrowy (talk)15:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I may interrupt, this idea is rather realized through this category:Category:Moves by usage method. If you wish to create a page that would list those groups, it would be better if you created a separate draft instead of adding it little by little to a page that is pretty unrelated.--RocketGrunt15:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh! I was completely unaware that page was a thing! Still, with my difficulty finding it; maybe it could be linked inDamage category? (Or in Move category if the page gets moved.)

Thank you! Again, I didn't know about that page! And, to clarify, I wasn't trying to create a page dedicated to listing those groups; I only tried to create a smaller sub-section for it. I also felt the topic was somewhat related, although I get the idea I might be only one of few who see the relation. (I also don't know how to describe the relation I see, so that doesn't help.)RubberCrowy (talk)15:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Damage category refers to the type of damage you deal, either physical or special. Those move categories we're talking about are another properties of moves, but that's it. Similarly, types, like Fire or Psychic, are another categories like that. The problem is, not all moves from yours categories deal damage, because powder moves are often Status moves, Dance moves like Quiver Dance too, or Growl from Sound-based moves. They don't dealdamage so I think we should not mix those concepts.--RocketGrunt19:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm just gonna continue this on your talk page, now that you've seen it. (If my reply fails to pick up on something you mentioned here, please be sure to remind me there.)Nescientist (talk)20:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Administrators