Spelling and Grammar Standards

NoCheese

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth!"
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Anyway, thanks for changing it. I don't expect anyone to go back through analyses already on site and do SMCS edits (I certainly don't have that kind of effort in me), but it'd be great going forward if people were particularly attentive to this :)
Note that a Google search limited by "site:http://www.smogon.com/dex/xy/pokemon/" can be really helpful in trying to mass catch certain types of error, if you can find a target wording that doesn't create too many false positives. "Faints" alone sadly catches anything with Destiny Bond or Explosion or the like in its moveset, but targeted search is a useful way to hunt for certain repeated mistakes.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Note that a Google search limited by "site:http://www.smogon.com/dex/xy/pokemon/" can be really helpful in trying to mass catch certain types of error, if you can find a target wording that doesn't create too many false positives. "Faints" alone sadly catches anything with Destiny Bond or Explosion or the like in its moveset, but targeted search is a useful way to hunt for certain repeated mistakes.
Do you happen to know if move descriptions in the dex were taken from something in-game or were generated by Smogon people when it was made? The biggest thing that has always stood out to me is in Self-Destruct, Explosion, and Final Gambit; the descriptions read "faints the user."
 

NoCheese

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth!"
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Do you happen to know if move descriptions in the dex were taken from something in-game or were generated by Smogon people when it was made? The biggest thing that has always stood out to me is in Self-Destruct, Explosion, and Final Gambit; the descriptions read "faints the user."
These are Smogon generated, and for consistency with the grammar standards, should probably be changed to "causes the user to faint."
 

P Squared

whether it's rain or shine i know i'm fine
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Social Media Leader
I have been unsure of whether a bunch of things are okay or not, so here they are dumped into one post

1. "Base 100s" shows up a lot, particularly in set details ("x Speed EVs let y outspeed base 100s such as z"). Is this acceptable, or should it always be changed to "base 100 Speed Pokemon"? I have seen some people leave it and others change it, so I don't know... on one hand, "base 100 Speed Pokemon" is never wrong and is less informal, but if you use that then "speed" shows up three times minimum in the sentence, which I guess could be a lot.

2. The boost itself is called STAB, and the moves are called STAB moves, but is "STABs" okay if it's being used like "Yanmega's STABs are Bug and Flying" or "Terrakion's STABs have good coverage"? I've seen some people say this is fine, but I'm always unsure, so I try to change it to STAB types or STAB moves to be safe. Also, is "dual STAB" (like, "Klinklang resists Jumpluff's dual STAB") fine?

3. Is ", and is/has/can/etc." acceptable? For example, "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance, and is a good wallbreaker" or "Heracross has a good Attack stat, and can absorb status thanks to Guts". I thought that these should always be changed to either "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance and is a good wallbreaker" or "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance, and it is a good wallbreaker" (although the first one is usually better), but checks seem to be pretty divided on this issue.

4. I wrote up a big explanation about this one here. When talking about luring things in general English, we say stuff like "fishermen lure in fish with bait" or "mousetraps lure in mice with cheese". So the pattern is [something that traps/kills the target] lures in [target] with [something the target likes]. However, I have seen sentences such as "Scizor lures in Heatran with Superpower" here many times. Using the pattern as a key, it sounds like the sentence is saying that Heatran switches in because it likes getting hit by Superpower, which is pretty much the opposite of what it should be. I have tried to think of explanations for this and here are the results. So, what's happening here?
A: "lure" has a different meaning in Pokemon
B: I'm overthinking this
C: both A and B
D: it should always be changed to "Scizor lures in and KOes Heatran with Superpower" (or some other solution?)

would appreciate insight on any of these. thanks!
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
1. I've been using my judgement calls on that, following pretty much as you said. It's never wrong to say '100 Speed Pokemon'; it's also never wrong to say 'entry hazards' instead of 'hazards'. But there's a line we can draw ourselves in there to make the right decision I think. (Personally I 'correct' these things once per paragraph/section then let them be informal)

2. As you say, STABs is a non-word. The most common 'correct' usage of "STABS" is with STAB types--that's what I change them to. Of course you could say something convoluted like "The types X Pokemon gains STAB with" but why do that. I would say for your final example to use "STAB type combination"

3. Let's talk about this! Of course, it's probably most 'proper' to keep tense the same, but it can be a big pain to cross-check entire analyses.

4. I agree, lures are bait, not the killing blow
 
Last edited:

Weebl

Hey!
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
D: it should always be changed to "Scizor lures in and KOes Heatran with Superpower"
While I agree that the usage of "lure" that you've pointed out is incorrect, you aren't solving the problem by changing it to that. In fact, your change has the very usage problem that you're trying to fix. Take the sentence "I bake and eat the cake with my hands," for instance. This sentence has two verbs, one subject, one direct object, and one prepositional phrase. Clearly, the prepositional phrase applies to both verbs (I use my hands to both bake and eat the cake). My example sentence has the same meaning as this one: I baked the cake with my hands, and I ate the cake with my hands. The only difference is that the example one is far more concise because it uses parallel structure. Now, applying this equivalent meaning to your supposed fix, we get: Scizor lures Heatran in with Superpower, and Scizor KOes Heatran with Superpower. Take away the second clause in that sentence, and we get the very sentence you were trying to eliminate. Fixing this for good is quite simple. "Scizor lures in Heatran and KOes it with Superpower."
 

Oglemi

step up, snap ya back
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
3. Is ", and is/has/can/etc." acceptable? For example, "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance, and is a good wallbreaker" or "Heracross has a good Attack stat, and can absorb status thanks to Guts". I thought that these should always be changed to either "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance and is a good wallbreaker" or "Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance, and it is a good wallbreaker" (although the first one is usually better), but checks seem to be pretty divided on this issue.
Context and voice is everything in these instances, and it depends on how much the author is trying to stress either the first or second point they're trying to make. In my opinion, separating the clauses with a comma separates Swords Dance from wallbreaker. Without a comma, it appears that Feraligatr is a good wallbreaker because of its access to Swords Dance. But by adding a comma it looks like the sentence says that Feraligatr has access to Swords Dance, and in addition to that it is also a good wallbreaker, not necessarily because it gets Swords Dance.

Also RE: STABs, I'm not entirely sure we should be sniping all instances of STABs. It's a non-word but it's so pervasive in our current dialogue that I think we can make an exception and just let "STAB moves" be shrunk to STABs (which really, if you spell it out in your head it says Same Type Attack Bonus(es), which makes sense in a sentence like "Weavile makes great use of its STABs to eliminate Ghost- and Dragon-types alike.")

Agree with Weebl and Gato on the other stuff
 

Lemonade

ᗜbleep bloop I am a robotᗜ
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
opportunity cost?
not big on this term esp because it's not very common outside of economics so it can confuse a lot of potential readers, but for the most part I've been seeing it used correctly. I guess in the instance I'm talking about (Mega Metagross) there is suitable explanation of what opportunity cost means, but like you could also just say "When considering Mega X for your team, keep in mind it uses the Mega slot, which could be used for another Pokemon with different qualities" or something.

I say just avoid using it in analyses because 1) if you use it without explanation, you will probably confuse readers 2) if you use it with explanation, then you don't need to use the term anymore.
 
While I agree that the usage of "lure" that you've pointed out is incorrect, you aren't solving the problem by changing it to that. In fact, your change has the very usage problem that you're trying to fix. Take the sentence "I bake and eat the cake with my hands," for instance. This sentence has two verbs, one subject, one direct object, and one prepositional phrase. Clearly, the prepositional phrase applies to both verbs (I use my hands to both bake and eat the cake). My example sentence has the same meaning as this one: I baked the cake with my hands, and I ate the cake with my hands. The only difference is that the example one is far more concise because it uses parallel structure. Now, applying this equivalent meaning to your supposed fix, we get: Scizor lures Heatran in with Superpower, and Scizor KOes Heatran with Superpower. Take away the second clause in that sentence, and we get the very sentence you were trying to eliminate. Fixing this for good is quite simple. "Scizor lures in Heatran and KOes it with Superpower."
Your suggestion is sound, but if 'lure' is causing semantic problems, I suggest the use of 'invite':


'Scizor invites a switch-in to Heatran, and (predictably) KOes it with Superpower'
 

Lord Alphose

All these squares make a circle
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Would you explain the problem you have with 'lure'? Lure makes more sense than invite, when looking at literal definitions.

Lure is defined as a "tempt (a person or an animal) to do something or to go somewhere, especially by offering some form of reward."

Invite is defined as to "make a polite, formal, or friendly request to (someone) to go somewhere or to do something."
 

Weebl

Hey!
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Astyanax, as Lord Alphose stated, using "invite" over "lure" makes little sense when looking at their meanings. Also, it is far harder to change which word or phrase the community uses than it is to change the way the word is used (see the most common (and incorrect) usage of "STABs" vs the correct "STAB moves," for example. It's simply a changed wording, as opposed to something entirely different, like your suggestion is. To be honest, replacing "lure" with "invite" is impractical. Regardless, I think you're missing the point a little here. Whether you use "lure," or "invite," the problem in usage persists. The actual use of the word "lure" is completely fine; there's nothing wrong with the word itself. It's the way the word is being used that's incorrect. In fact, your suggestion does nothing to fix this problem of usage because by simply replacing instances of "lure" with "invite," you get "Scizor invites Heatran with Superpower," which is equally incorrect.
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
my personal opinions and stuff

1: Personally I like base 100, but if you don't know what it means, you really don't know what it means (i.e. it derives its meaning from association and how people talk about Pokemon, not general English context). Not sure if that's an actual problem, as such, and base 100 Speed Pokemon sounds bad as get-out, i'd rather not ever see that written. 100 Speed Pokemon (no base) sounds o.k. though.

2: I really, really like STABs > STAB moves. I've seen it in a huge number of analyses, so i'd argue it's accepted, and it sounds fine to me personally. I just don't see a real reason to get rid of it and i personally like how it sounds. I saw Gato killing them and followed suit in my amchecks but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

3: Yea, that depends on the author's intent, usually where I comment asking what they are trying to convey.

4: Like Weebl said, invite / lure is irrelevant. Obviously the easy fix has already been mentioned, i.e. 'Scizor lures in and KOes Heatran with Superpower. On the other hand, I kind of understand how people think of the verb; luring in mons' has kinda become 'defeats it as it comes in', though the reason I identify it as such is chiefly because of this problematic usage, so...eh, i could go either way, slightly in the get rid of it camp since it's a pretty quick fix in most cases.
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Also RE: STABs, I'm not entirely sure we should be sniping all instances of STABs. It's a non-word but it's so pervasive in our current dialogue that I think we can make an exception and just let "STAB moves" be shrunk to STABs (which really, if you spell it out in your head it says Same Type Attack Bonus(es), which makes sense in a sentence like "Weavile makes great use of its STABs to eliminate Ghost- and Dragon-types alike.")
Somebody (idr who it was but it wasn't somebody random, perhaps superjocke? Vox? C_P? a few months back told me that this use of STABs was mega incorrect. I was sort of on the fence for keeping 'STABs' but usually I thought it was better in 'STAB types' situations. I believe it was said that STAB was to become 'STAB types' and 'STAB moves'. Players have tons of extremely incorrect colloquialisms that are said; is this one worth keeping?
 

Oglemi

step up, snap ya back
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I think STABs is an ok one worth keeping, because really its base is already a term that's coined, and it's so pervasive that it's worth not having to correct each time
 
Astyanax, as Lord Alphose stated, using "invite" over "lure" makes little sense when looking at their meanings. Also, it is far harder to change which word or phrase the community uses than it is to change the way the word is used (see the most common (and incorrect) usage of "STABs" vs the correct "STAB moves," for example. It's simply a changed wording, as opposed to something entirely different, like your suggestion is. To be honest, replacing "lure" with "invite" is impractical. Regardless, I think you're missing the point a little here. Whether you use "lure," or "invite," the problem in usage persists. The actual use of the word "lure" is completely fine; there's nothing wrong with the word itself. It's the way the word is being used that's incorrect. In fact, your suggestion does nothing to fix this problem of usage because by simply replacing instances of "lure" with "invite," you get "Scizor invites Heatran with Superpower," which is equally incorrect.
Yeah, I should have read the context more. I thought the issue was with the word 'lure', not the actual way it was used, in which case, changing it for a different word does not change anything.

No need to be pedantic though, buddy :^)
 

NoCheese

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth!"
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I think STABs is an ok one worth keeping, because really its base is already a term that's coined, and it's so pervasive that it's worth not having to correct each time
A Google search limited to the XY dex only finds me 12 entries with "STABs" so if the issue is pervasiveness, I'd be happy to change each of those entries.

EDIT: obviously, where STAB is singular, pinpointing errors is a little tougher, since there's not a failsafe way to differentiate "STAB" used as a noun from permissible uses, but I just ran "STAB" -"STAB attack" -"STAB move" -"STAB attacks" -"STAB moves" and though there are definitely a number of false positives, there's under 40 entries total (false positives and all), so I can easily make these changes if we would like.
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Can we decide whether in Doubles and VGC hitting an opponent with both Pokemon is double-targeting or double targeting?
 
So, can you use "Scarfed" to describe to a Pokemon with a Choice Scarf? And "non-Scarfed" for variants that don't have one? It also works for Banded, but I'm not sure how I feel about Specsed or something like that.

Although, I should say that when I was just getting into competitive stuff, I had no idea what it meant for a Pokemon to be "scarfed" or "banded," so if we want clarity for noobs...?

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top