User talk:Abacos

Welcome to StrategyWiki!

Hello Abacos! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the StrategyWiki Guide or visit the IRC channel to chat, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the forums. To keep up-to-date with the goings on of the wiki, consider adding the noticeboard to your watchlist.

Please remember to sign your name when leaving comments on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! — Moydow ^{T · C} 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Pokemon taxonomy

Aha, I got a kick out of your user page. Very cool! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. For a user whose only constructive edit to the site has been one small grammatical correction, I'm not certain how much we should support multiple and frequent edits to content on a user page which, while creative, provides no benefit to the site or its users, and would be more suited for Google Drive. I would much prefer to see you making more constructive and factual edits to guides that we could use much more help with. Procyon 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(lol @ NotMyHandle's response on my talk page.) He is correct, I'm an admin and one of the co-owners of the site, but I don't like to throw my weight around. I was merely expressing my opinion. You're welcome to continue editing your user page, I would just prefer to see some other helpful edits around the site. Goodness knows I make my share of typos and errors (as you have seen), so I know there are plenty to fix. Off the record, I understand and sympathize with your philosophical position, I'm just not sure that you're going to convince Creationists about evolution by using Pokemon as an example of proof... Procyon 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of booting you off just for working on your user page. I'm just protective of the site from people who use it exclusively for their own personal scratch pad instead of contributing useful edits as well. Again, I understand your position, and I'm like minded, but arguing the point here is like traveling to Columbia to argue your position on Palestinian-Israeli relations; no in Columbia cares. I highly doubt that anyone with an opposing position to yours is going to come to this site, see your user page, and be swayed by your arguments. And from personal experience, the amount of effort you pour into convincing them usually does not produce satisfying results. Procyon 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Paco beat me to it, but yes, everyone is welcome to begin a new guide, no matter how new they are to the site. The admins will help and make sure to include any formatting details you might have missed. So please feel free, anyone who wants to add an old-school RPG definitely has my blessing (not that they need it, just saying...) Procyon 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Japanesu Nihongo

Have you looked up what the term is for "evolution" in Pokemon in the original Japanese games? It would be interesting to see what word they use compared to English. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

NMH's question really interested me, so I did some research. On the Japanese Wikipedia page, they use the term shinka (進化, しんか^?), which is literally translated as evolution. 進 means progress and 化 means the action of becoming. Very interestingly, the article goes into some of the changes made to the game to make it acceptable in Islamic regions where the term "evolution" was forbidden. Although this is now a translation from Arabic to Japanese, the Japanese term used to replace 進化 is hentai (変態, へんたい^?) which in this context is translated as metamorphosis or transformation, although it also means pervert or weirdo in Japanese, and where the English term for animated pornography originates. Procyon 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mega Man Battle Network/Battle Chips

I moved the explanation to the beginning of the article. There shouldn't be anything afterwards; reference-like notes aren't necessary. A general description of battle chips or a link to a different section would be useful (I'm just brainstorming). My main reason for posting here was to request that you provide an example of how to read the data in the "Program advance" column. Like, "For example, FtrSword's Program's strength is (l3*) 2xHero B, and if you use the chip in n.1 it..." (I have no prior knowledge of this game, nor the mechanics/layout of the menus/equipment allocation process; such an explanation would be very nice at /Getting Started. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What do the stars mean on the Program Advance page, such as "10x HeroSwrd B*****"? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! So, are the stars actually part of the name in the game? Or do they have a separate "Stars"-like stat? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then it looks like the entries in the star columns, such as "07" should just be single digit "7" (no significant digits necessary here). Also, under Suggested Folders there is this sentence which I am confused about,

"Some chips are available in one copy only in the video game, therefore it would be necessary to link two GameBoys-Advance and exchange chips to gather more of the same type."

Do you mean,

"Some chips are available only once in the game. As such, to acquire more of the same unique chip it is necessary to link two Game Boy Advances and transfer a chip acquired in the other game cartridge."

--Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great. Would you mind jotting down these nuances at the start of the page? Thanks. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy white magic

Hi Abacos. It's fine if you want to expand the existing spell information on the white magic page, but the page is already big enough and the last thing it needs is another table with redundant information. Having the information sortable really isn't very helpful. Procyon 02:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to create mock-ups at User:Abacos/Sandbox. The column with the type shouldn't have "a - type" or "c - type" in the cell; just "type". I think the consolidated table was harder to read than the split up tables. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove Sun-Tzu classifications and replace with "Non-combat", "Support", "Debuff", and "Attack". I think those are all straight forward; especially since the target column right next to it clarifies it. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not certain what benefit reducing the eight tables into one giant table will provide. The presentation of the spells according to the eight levels provides a clear enough breakdown of all 32 spell without potentially confusing matters by forcing users to hunt for the spell they are looking for in a huge list. What do you propose a large table will help clarify? Procyon 03:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Our standard is sentence case; do not capitalize any words in a title beyond the first that are not pronouns

Thank you. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NMH is not talking about game titles, he's talking about walkthrough headers, those things between the equal signs. For example:

This Is Wrong

Game titles should always be capitalized, except for the words like "the," "or," "a," "an," "and," or "to" and prepositions of four letters or fewer unless they are the first word in the title. For example:

Correct	Incorrect
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe	The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe
To Be or Not to Be	To Be Or Not To Be

Procyon 03:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why making a grammar difference?" I got a kick out of that one. The main thing here, that you haven't realized for the sake of argument, is that we do not identify headers as actual titles, such as with the title of a novel. Maybe you can help change that stance. The point was to standardize the layout of the site for monitoring purposes. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My "shorter" answer. If it's copied from in-game, match the case. Otherwise, sentence case. -- Prod (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ability/item classifications

"Peace" doesn't make any sense to me. Support is also peaceful. Healing spells are restorative; better classified as "Restoration" or simply "Support." Non-combat is a widely used term for out of battle skills, such as exit. I suggest that we break down the classifications into more specific ones (e.g. Support into Buff and Healing/Restoration) and use Non-combat for those special skills; it is also a good way to mark support skills that can be used out of battle (so a healing spell could be listed as two types: Restoration as well as Non-combat). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The five make sense to me. Sorry to be so against "Peace" - it is just ambiguous when used in this context. Times of "peace" may not be peaceful; e.g. if you're walking around in a dungeon with monsters nearby... It's just too odd, whereas non-combat is straightforward. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-combat is more specific than "Miscellaneous spells", which is also what they are. We could make things even MORE complicated and just call them "teleportation" or "telekinetic" spells... Really, these type designations are arbitrary and not really that useful if the individual spell info has these details explained on a per-spell basis. The point is to come up with type designations that are shorthand for certain properties; e.g. "Non-combat" means either "This cannot be used in battle" or "This can be used outside of battle." This is important for healing spells that may be used in combat, but may not be used outside of battle (depending on the game/ability). I was against the type column for these games for this specific reason, since the designations are not specific. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Travel looks fine. Make sure the type designation applies accurately to all of the spells in a list (each game needs to be reviewed individually for exceptions). Also, please remove the blank rows. They are unnecessary and add junk space when sorting. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed in DW3 or 4 spells that Antidote was listed as travel. Is it not useable in battle as well? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be used in Battle and outside of it. Paco (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Abacos thinks it can only be used outside of battle... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Exploration/Combat

Those are not categories, they are use cases. I changed the header of the column from "Type" to "Use". Look, Abacos, I'm speaking strictly for myself here as a guide writer and user of the site, and not as an administrator, but I don't think trying to find a universal (and highly subjective) classification system for spells across RPGs is a productive area for SW guides to explore. If there are in-game classifications like Final Fantasy's Black and White magic, then it belongs in the guide. Otherwise, the amount of confusion and disagreement it lends is greater than the amount of informative help it provides. It would be far more helpful if you help generate content for guides that don't yet exist, than to attempt to apply deeper analysis to existing guides. That kind of contribution, while interesting from a philosophical stand point, is generally outside of the scope of this site, or at best, left to the talk pages of a guide instead of in the guides themselves. Other editors may disagree with me, and that's fine, we run the site democratically, but I am somewhat dismayed by the amount of distraction this discussion has caused. Again, this is simply my personal opinion. Finally, yes, there are Illustrations for DW4 magic, but that was released in 1990, and I'm quite far from there, still stuck in the first quarter of 1988, so it will be a while before I get around to obtaining and scanning the pictures. Procyon 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can continue working on anything. The point here is to not create more work than necessary, and to stay objective/confined to the information presented within the game. Original research, to some degree, and "subjective" classifications are unnecessary and could potentially be removed by future editors, since it may be difficult to complete if left unfinished. Also, recreating tables, when the data is already in a readable format, is also unnecessary. If it is objective to the game, however, it will not. Keep it simple! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DW3 merchant

How is the merchant useful at end game? In your "different approach" party setup you transformed a thief into a merchant at the end... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)