User talk:104.136.200.207

Minor edits

I've noticed you've been putting 'Minor edit' as the edit summary for a lot of your edits. We have a checkbox for flagging edits as minor, just below the edit summary box though, so maybe consider using that. Turns out that checkbox only appears for registered users.

Although, you've been saying a lot of your edits are minor when a LOT of data is being changed in those pages, sometimes as much as 500 or even 1,000 bytes. Unless you have a good reason, edits like these should never be considered minor. Thanks! Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 20:59, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

IPs do not have the "minor edit" checkbox, just an FYI. Serpent King 21:51, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

I figured they were minor because they've largely consisted of nothing more than grammar tweaks. Regardless, I'll take your advice into account. :) 104.136.200.207 23:43, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

Your edits so far

...have been good. But there are a few things you're doing that aren't optimal.

• We have redirects for a reason. Don't change links from [[redirect]] to [[page|redirect]], because it not only make the code more complex, but means if the redirect is pointed somewhere else the link may not be correct anymore. This is especially true for redirects pointing to sections; use the redirect so if the section gets renamed, we only have to change one link (the redirect itself) instead of dozens.
• Why change "min" to "minimum" and "max" to "maximum" in damage tables? Abbreviations that everyone should understand are useful in tables, especially ones with a lot of data. If it's in text then sure, but I don't see the benefit here.
• There's no need to replace "1.4x" with "1.4×". There's nothing wrong with doing it as long as it's not the only change in an edit, but it's not really necessary.

Just my observations. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 19:12, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

• I'll leave any redirects I encounter unchanged from here on out instead of making them into "[[page|redirect]]".
• I did the minimum/maximum and multiplication sign changes for the sake of making the pages look less informal and more encyclopedic.

104.136.200.207 19:23, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

I personally think it's debetable whether "x" or "×" is "more encyclopedic", but since you appear to be consistent about it that's fine.

Also, reply to talk page posts on the same page, so everything is kept together in one place. And use <nowiki> tags if you want to type wikicode without it turning into wikicode. Toomai Glittershine The Engineer 19:27, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

Whoops, sorry about that. But yeah, using "x" in place of "×" is fine for informal situations, much like how "~" is the informal equivalent to "≈" in regard to approximation. Since this is a wiki, its article's grammar should be as encyclopedic as possible. 104.136.200.207 19:39, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

I disagree wholeheartedly. It's the same concept as the smart quotes: non-type-able characters are not to be used unless directly quoting something, or in some other special occasions. Anyway, using an "x" to imply multiplication is less effective than an asterisk "*" (unless I am misunderstanding the situation?) Serpent King 19:54, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

A simple Google search can easily bring up characters unavailable on a keyboard. 104.136.200.207 20:53, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

That's not really the point. Simplicity is the key here. Serpent King 20:57, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

Hence why I said a simple Google search. What you're talking about is convenience, which also falls under my suggestion of looking up any characters. 104.136.200.207 21:06, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

Removing my edits?

I've been editing Charizard (SSB4), but you've removed many of my edits a couple times. Is there a reason for that? I'm trying to remove misinformation and improve the writing quality of the article. Fitzpeter (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

The info I removed was already covered in some capacity in the article. If there's any additional info that you think should remain, let me know what it is and I'll be willing to work with you on fitting it in there. 104.136.200.207 01:34, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm rewriting significant parts of the article, not adding information. Mainly I'm better emphasizing the tools he uses more and fixing or removing misinformation. I don't believe these edits will conflict with yours, but here is a diff of the changes, and please tell me if there are any you object to: https://pastebin.com/a8b0eGYU Fitzpeter (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Aside from some grammar, which is minor, the changes I'm against are:

- The removal of the KOing options' KO percentages in both versions of SSB4 (I tested all 3DS percentages myself and listed the Wii U percentages from Ruben_dal's calculator)

- The repeating of up throw's KO potential

- The removal of Flamethrower's decay weakness

- Listing forward smash and up smash as granting invincibility and hitting on frame 6 regardless of the opponent being on the ground or in the air (Kurogane Hammer's page says otherwise)

- Removing the mention of forward throw's below-average base knockback

Aside from these nitpicks, I'm fine with keeping any of your provided info that I didn't mention. 104.136.200.207 16:43, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

I'll put back the flamethrower and leave fsmash alone (I've always thought it's invincible since Kurogane used to say it is). However, I don't know where I've removed kill percents or made uthrow repeat, and I don't believe that the note about usmash is significant enough (though I'll add a note that the first frame is grounded-only, because the second frame does have short horizontal range). Fitzpeter (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2017 (EDT)