Spelling and Grammar Standards

The Dutch Plumberjack

ace of wands
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris an Administrator
C&C & TFP Leader
Alright. Read the stuff in hide tags too, it's a little more background-esque and was stretching the page but it's like half the crux of the argument. Tl;dr below, but read the full post for the full reasoning.

I went into the Z-move debate assuming the following two premises:

- We generally default to in-game / official spelling / phrases.
- We set our own standards if Game Freak's are excessively unwieldy / ambiguous or just plain don't exist (like Silvally-Water over Silvally, type: Water or whatever the official name would have been) or if there are small inconsistencies with previous precedences that we can remove without violating the spirit of the name (like how we normalised the outlier-y in-game spelling Shield Forme and went with Shield forme instead). We set our own standards when we need to or when what Game Freak gives us is inadequate, not when we can or when what Game Freak gives us can be done prettier.

Ambiguity is in the perception of the reader. Even if a given phrase technically has sixteen possible interpretations, if (most) everyone defaults towards the same, there is no ambiguity that we need to resolve—why would we specify something any further or word it any differently if, in a practical scenario, there's no confusion to clear up in the first place? Let's take a look at a very common kind of technical ambiguity we've seen in analyses since the beginning of time; consider a phrase like "Manaphy's Scald". Whether it's because Manaphy is an offensive Pokemon or because they'll be assuming a worst-case scenario, most everyone will be assuming Manaphy is running full Special Attack investment if they read a sentence like "Victini has trouble tanking Manaphy's Scald." (I did not run any calcs here.) However, not every Manaphy's Scald will be fully invested—Manaphy has (used to have) a perfectly viable Calm Mind set too, which doesn't run Special Attack investment, so in any XY analysis, "Manaphy's Scald" could very reasonably refer to unboosted 0 SpA Manaphy's Scald. So in a case like that, we'd specify it as "Manaphy's uninvested Scald" or "Calm Mind Manaphy's unboosted Scald" or whatever, but that's absolutely no reason to write "Manaphy's fully invested Scald" in cases where everyone will be assuming that's what we're talking about anyways. And I completely fail to see how the ambiguity in "Z-Surf" vs "Z-Scald" is fundamentally different from the one in "252 SpA Scald" vs "0 SpA Scald".


First of all, this was never a decision between "Z-Outrage" and "190-BP Devastating Drake from Outrage"; I apologise if I didn't make that clear at first, but we're not gonna be any wordier than we need to. And generally we indeed don't need to be wordy either.

On the topic of Z-Moves, I'd suggest going with Z-<move name> over "Devastating Drake" or whatever, just for the sake of clarity and not having to write the extra prose noting which move the Z-Move will be derived from, considering that the analysis I'm currently checking recommends two separate offensive Dragon moves and has a third one slashed...
People are less aware of this than I assumed at first (sorry about that fwiw), but offensive Z-moves only deal damage and don't have drawbacks or added effects, they are only differentiated by Base Power—so literally the only difference between "Z-Outrage" and "Z-Dragon Claw" is that the former is stronger, that's it. There is no reason, at all, to use Dragon Claw over Outrage as a Z-move under any circumstances. Furthermore, the analysis in question was (explicitly) written under the assumption of Outrage being used as the Z-move, and there was no mention whatsoever of Draco Meteor being used as such. So any mention of "Devastating Drake" could only reasonably have had Outrage as the base move, and there was no need for additional prose. "Z-Outrage" would not have been any more concise, and the Game Freak name being the standard didn't pose an issue.

It'd also be easier, for example, to read a Porygon-Z analysis that says "Porygon-Z can use Normalium Z for either Z-Conversion to set up or Z-Tri Attack to deal a lot of damage to the foe" instead of "Porygon-Z can use Normalium Z for either Z-Conversion to set up or 160-Base Power Breakneck Blitz from Tri Attack to deal a lot of damage to the foe."
There's really no need to be that specific. Tri Attack is the only attacking Normal-type move that P-Z commonly runs, and since this is a P-Z analysis it should be right there on the set anyway. "Porygon-Z can use Normalium Z for either Z-Conversion to set up or Breakneck Blitz to deal a lot of damage to the foe" provides the reader with all the info they need. "Z-Tri Attack" over "Breakneck Blitz" is not a noticeable improvement.



The dilemma we're faced with is the following. On the one hand, the argument for keeping the Game Freak names is because it's what we should do if we very reasonably can, since we're simulating their game. On the other hand, the argument for changing to Z-<base move> would be that, in the practical context of our analyses, the Game Freak names would cause too much ambiguity and would force us to resort to unwieldy circumscriptions too often. Whether or not we should make this change depends on whether or not the latter is true. The one textbook example is Manaphy, whose Hydro Vortex can break through Unaware Clefable (under rain) and Ferrothorn (at +3), but only if Surf is used as the base move; Hydro Vortex from Scald is just a bit too weak. Let's analyse how prevalent this problem would be in more detail.

With how offensive Z-moves work, it's clear that the only potential issue with plain "Devastating Drake" or "Inferno Overdrive" is ambiguity regarding the Base Power. So, in order to see if the problem is indeed too big, let's take a look at what people use offensive Z-moves for. They are used as:

- lure moves, like Bloom Doom on Heatran;
- nuke STAB / main coverage moves, like Supersonic Skystrike on Landorus-T and Salamence, Devastating Drake on Zekrom, and Corkscrew Crash and All-Out Pummeling on Kartana.

In the case of lure moves, we can assume that those moves are being run almost exclusively with the intent of being used as Z-moves. Hence, the only base move option that makes sense is the highest-Base Power one, since its Z-move objectively outclasses those of weaker base moves, and that's the only metric we can base the choice for the Z-move on. There is no ambiguity as to what base move we're using, and there's no need to bother with extra prose to clarify.

In the case of super powerful STAB / coverage moves, (Supersonic Skystrike is basically in the same boat as the lure moves and) logic dictates that the base move would be the Pokemon's "best" move of that type, since it'll be using it as a main attacking move as well. For instance, Thunder may be stronger, but under normal circumstances, any special Electric-type will be running Thunderbolt as its main attacking move, so "Xurkitree's Gigavolt Havoc" _probably_ has Thunderbolt as the base move. Even in the event there's some that do run Thunder, in the absence of further specification, Thunderbolt is the assumption everyone will make. And if you do run Thunder, clarify it, just like you'd clarify 0 SpA Manaphy's Scald. Under normal circumstances, though, there is no ambiguity as to what base move we're using, and there's no need to bother with extra prose to clarify.

This leaves us with the following two cases where "implied additional data" is not enough to help us out and where potential ambiguity indeed comes in, meaning the Z-move alone does not tell us which move we're talking about:

- A Pokemon has multiple viable sets and no clear-cut "best" STAB move, like Manaphy, which can viably use Hydro Vortex from both Surf and Scald;
- A Pokemon runs both a physical and a special move of the same type on the same set, like that Zekrom if it actually uses Devastating Drake from Draco Meteor.

However, both of those cases are incredibly rare. This has already been shown in practice with how very few legit problems this has caused so far (the Manaphy Hydro Vortex one in OU Clef is the only one I'm aware of) and can also be seen in a couple theoretical ways. As for the former case, most types have a very clear-cut "best" move, like Fire Blast for Fire-types and Thunderbolt for Electric-types (this is compounded further by the fact that Pokemon running Z-moves will be offensive ones, meaning move pairs like Flamethrower vs Lava Plume realistically won't be causing any trouble); ambiguous pairs like Surf vs Scald (which in most other cases will be outclassed by Hydro Pump anyways) will be rare. Psychic vs Psyshock is another one, but that should be more or less it. This would also come into play only if the Z-move is referenced in a different Pokemon's analysis; after all, in a Manaphy analysis, you'd have the set, with only one of Surf and Scald, right there. Furthermore, keep in mind that it's only needed to specify this in cases where the power difference is actually significant; e.g., there's no need to state whether you're talking about +3 Hydro Vortex from Surf or Scald when you use it against Heatran, since it gets killed stone dead either way. Note that even for Manaphy, the one textbook example of ambiguity, there's a grand total of two foes where the power difference between "Z-Surf" and "Z-Scald" matters: Ferrothorn and Unaware Clefable under rain. In all other cases, plain "Hydro Vortex" will be all you need. As for the latter case, mixed attackers that run two STAB moves of the same type are essentially nonexistent as is, so this won't come into play often, if at all, either.


Look, "cases like the Manaphy one" is a good reason to throw out the official standard. But "the Manaphy case" alone is not, circumscribing it in that case only is but a small and highly situational inconvenience, nothing we'd even bat an eye for if we didn't have the alternative of "Z-Scald" available. Quite frankly it's pretty annoying when people are clamoring for us to make a significant change to the standards because "ambiguity and overly complicated wordings galore" and then are unable to provide any valid scenarios where it'd actually be a problem. I know this is partly theorymon, but to reiterate, for an actual number, among all relevant one-on-one Pokemon matchups in the entire current OU metagame, there seems a grand total of two where the Game Freak Z-move names don't suffice. Not to mention that, due to the burn nerf, Scald is falling out of favour on Manaphy anyways.

Throwing out an official move name is not something to be taken lightly. In theory, there is a risk of ambiguity here, and when that indeed manifests itself every couple analyses or when we continuously need to write "175-BP Hydro Vortex from Surf" then god get those Game Freak names out of here. But when literally the only practical case where it poses an issue that we have been able to find is the Manaphy one, there is nothing wrong with the official names that we haven't seen (frequently) before. We 100% agree that Z-<base move name> is very much superior from a pure GP standpoint, but that's not too relevant if there is no problem with the Game Freak names to begin with; at that point, we're no longer changing Game Freak names to Z-<base move> because "Game Freak names are inadequate for what we're doing here", but because "we can do this prettier than Game Freak did it". And that's just not happening, sorry, not as long as it's their game we're simulating and analysing.

---------------

Since the GPers were (very understandably) concerned about ambiguity and wordiness when I polled them, here's some pointers on how to deal with Z-moves in the future. If you have any further concerns please feel free to ask us.

- Don't assume you need to specify stuff you don't need to specify! If "Kartana's All-Out Pummeling" always refers to Kartana's "Z-Sacred Sword", you can assume the reader won't be assuming a different base move, and you don't need to change anything.

- Let your context help you out! [11:17 PM] pluviometer: i really don't think "overly complicated sentences" is going to be a problem, it's not like every time we talk about the z move we have to say "devastating drake from outrage", like just have one sentence in moves/usage tips that says "use the z item on outrage" and then the rest of the paragraph just call it devastating drake

- Even if you don't play the meta of the analysis you're checking, the writer does, and you can assume they speak "the language of the meta". More specifically, if they didn't specify a base move to go with the Z-move, that probably means they didn't feel the need to! And this just further demonstrates that there's no ambiguity here that you'd need to resolve.
-----------------

Because I love spending six hours writing a post and then giving people a way to skip the whole thing while still taking in all the info, here's a bulleted tl;dr:

- Throwing out an official name is not something to be taken lightly and should only be done where it actually causes a prevalent problem.
- Mild ambiguity concerning a move's power is not at all something we're new to, think Pokemon that viably run different offensive investments, and no one has ever been too bothered by that. Literally the only difference this time is that we happen to have a concise alternative easily available.
- In a vast, vast majority of cases, there's not an issue with multiple base moves or the base move just isn't significant.
- We have seen in practice that ambiguity is hardly an issue in the current OU metagame, and for the same theoretical reasons it is not a problem in OU (few offensive Pokemon viably run multiple STAB moves, and even then "problematic pairs" like Surf / Scald and Psychic / Psyshock are rare) it stands to reason this won't cause trouble in lower tiers later down the line either.
- Use the official Game Freak name. In the rare cases where this doesn't convey all the necessary info, specify, either through the base move or through the offensive stat that is used (e.g., "special Inferno Overdrive"). Do not specify if you don't need to. Do not use Z-<base move>.
That's it.
 

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
overviews

Writing-wise, I am a fan of starting the overview with something that answers why you should use the Pokemon on your team / what role does the Pokemon bring to your team. You want to grab the reader's attention, and the primary audience of analyses is those who are looking to build a team I'd say. For example here, seeing Volc is threatening sweeper is more interesting than finding out it has Quiver Dance. Or here, Chansey being a staple is pretty useless information, but the 2nd and 3rd bullets are very relevant. It seems quite small, but this direction of thought is beneficial to "analysis".
useful stuff imo: wallbreaker, checks these specific threats, Spin / Defog, great hazard setter, probably more

compare to: high (Special) Attack, good defenses, access to Spikes and Stealth Rock

The second set of descriptions isn't actually "analysis" since you can find all that information on the dex page. There are subtle differences eg high stats doesn't automatically translate to wallbreaking / sweeping, having hazards doesn't always mean good setter, etc.

* Solid bulk and great typing, great offensive check to several OU threats such as Mega Charizard Y, Keldeo, and Manaphy. By virtue of its typing, it forces out some Ground-types like Landorus-T, Water-types like Keldeo, and Grass-types like Mega Venusaur, and its great speed tier further allows it to soft check Pokemon such as Kartana and Terrakion.
Immediately I'm interested in Latios if any of those Pokemon give my team trouble. Very helpful.

* Very solid defogger due to its bulk and ability, that, while being rather bulky, maintains offensive presence due to strong offensive moves
Also good, specific kind of defogger.

* Dialga's overall great natural bulk and typing combination makes it difficult to take down in one hit, a rather annoying Pokemon to face in Ubers.
Not a fan, it isn't clear why being "difficult to take down in one hit" and annoying the opponent is useful.

* It is one of the fastest Pokemon in the tier the turn it megas; only outsped by Pheromosa and a few scarfers.
Also not that useful, you don't choose a mon solely because it's fast.



also:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/fomantis-qc-3-3-gp-0-2.3591496/#post-7188392

Writing is important too!
 
Last edited:
one question, how would i write "fakespeed"?
What would that term be at all? I've never heard of it before :(
It's exclusively for Other Metagames, referring to the use of Fake Out+Extreme Speed (this is how you should write it by the way QY_CS) in STABmons, Sketchmons, or Balanced Hackmons to rack up priority damage, particularly on pokemon with an -ate ability. In standard, this never comes up as Smeargle will never use this and on Pikachu the two are illegal together.
 

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
one question, how would i write "fakespeed"?
Yup, should be Fake Out + Extreme Speed. This was actually specified in the old OM GP Standards here, but it looks like that thread was moved to Archives. Still could be a useful read though.

Good question!
 

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
bit of an update/announcement--

"do damage" is fine, don't worry about it being too casual. There's no need to systematically change all of these to "deal damage"

in a sentence like "Run 252 Speed EVs and a Timid nature to outspeed base 80s", the abbreviation "base 80s" is fine since it's pretty obvious you're talking about Speed here. Slight informality here is better than a sentence that unnecessarily says Speed seven times.

carry on!
 

The Dutch Plumberjack

ace of wands
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris an Administrator
C&C & TFP Leader
Quick post to say I've amended this bullet to clear up some confusion:

In any section where both the Mega Evolution and normal state are talked about, use the name of the Pokemon with no prefix (Tyranitar has exceptional Attack). If only the Mega Evolution or normal state is being discussed, ensure that this is clarified (Mega Tyranitar has good Speed, while non-Mega Tyranitar's Speed is a bit lacking); the name of the Pokemon with no prefix can be used to refer to both the Mega Evolution and normal state, as long as this is made clear by the context.
So basically, no need to specify "Mega" Salamence every single time in a Mega Salamence analysis; "Salamence" refers to the species as a whole, so as long as the immediate context makes it clear that the Salamence we're talking about is "Mega" (usually through specifying it the first time), then there's no need to insert the same word twelve times in a paragraph. Writers tend to intuitively end up doing a good job at preventing ambiguity as is, too. That said, do remain wary of, and fix, singular instances of "Lopunny" and "Medicham" in sections like Team Options / Checks and Counters; even though OU players won't actually assume you're talking about non-Mega Lopunny and Medicham, it still should be specified once in the analysis for good measure.
 
I hope this is the place to ask, but how would you include an important alternate set probably in Other Options or mentioned in an article (i.e. something like "Magikarp's can make decent use of a set utilizing Transform / Judgement / Moongeist Beam / Roar of Time" versus "Magikarp can make decent use of a set utilizing Trasform, Judgement, Moongeist Beam, and Roar of Time"
 

Eclipse

Like a chimp with a machine gun
is a Contributor Alumnus
What I used when mentioning Grassium Z for Tapu Bulu's OU analysis in OO was this:

"A Grassium Z set with Swords Dance, Wood Hammer, Horn Leech, and Superpower allows Tapu Bulu to throw off a strong Bloom Doom..."

So the latter should be correct in that instance as opposed to the former.

Edit: Oh thanks for clarifying that Gato, I'll go submit an edit to change my analysis for consistency's sake
 
Last edited:
When referring to boosts gained from Speed Boost, should we capitalize the Speed Boost i.e. "Venipede outspeeds Ponyta after one Speed Boost" vs. "Venipede outspeeds Ponyta after one speed boost"
 
Say "after one Speed boost." Since having Speed Boost is one of Venipede's most important traits, it shouldn't be difficult for the reader to figure out where the boost is coming from.
 

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
tldr: you probably won't need to use "wincon" in analyses

Tentatively redefining wincon to be:
In a specific battle, your wincon is the Pokemon you use to try to win the game. Because games have can have unpredictable events, the Pokemon you build your team around may play no part in your victory; thus, consider "wincon" from an in-battle perspective, not a teambuilding one.
Rule of thumb: If someone could mistake "wincon" and "sweeper" to mean the same thing, don't use "wincon".

Here is a more detailed explanation why this level of detail is important:
In my opinion, there are two main problems. First is people confusing "wincon" with "win condition". This is clearly still an issue: many people still refer to Pokemon as "win conditions". And I hope anyone who reads and writes regularly is not ok with calling a Pokemon a condition. Here is where I rebut the "language is malleable" argument by saying that inconsistency is bad (ie "win (or victory) conditions" is a common phrase in many video games, programmers use conditions every day, etc. Therefore, people who understand what conditions are should be met with the same concept in Pokemon. No, "they can figure it out" is not a good argument.).

From the original PMs it looks like Gato, TDP, P Squared, and me compromising with "wincon" was an attempt to curb this confusion (which hasn't worked), and to move away from people thinking "wincon" is synonymous with "sweeper", which brings me to the second issue.

People commonly hear "wincon" in sweeper situations (you can find many examples in the discussion forums). However, obviously you can win in many ways: you may have to stall your opponent out with Toxic, or barely survive a hit and KO back. Therefore, "wincon" and "sweeper" are not interchangeable. Experienced players' version of "wincon" has all the thought about the game state and team composition behind it, but this is usually lost to inexperienced players since they don't know how to analyze Pokemon like that yet. This is why since the coining, I have moved toward using "wincon" only when talking about live games / replays (language is malleable). This should help avoid people from using the terms interchangeably because they will hear the whole situations and with analysis.

And if anyone is going to chime in with the "but the term is so prevalent it's to hard to change now", don't. I can't see how laziness is a good reason.

Side note: Basically, there are two versions of "wincon". Experienced players know how to analyze games and teams when they hear "wincon". Inexperienced players do not, so they often take "wincon" as interchangeable with "sweeper". Because the terms are not synonymous, we should be more specific about how we use "wincon".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muk

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
I see many people use "while" as an "and"-like conjunction, which should not be allowed (e.g. "The EVs maximize bulk, while also allowing this other thing" should be "The EVs maximize bulk and allow this other thing."). The two consistent uses of "while" are
1) to contrast options (ie more or less like "whereas", though some people think "while" should be used in this way, not worth arguing that here), such as the different moves slashed on a set or EV spreads, and
2) to say two events are happening at the same time. Somewhat simplified, you can replace "while" with "during the time that" or something. So, I would not consider a sentence like "The EVs maximize bulk, while also allowing this other thing." to fit this "rule", since "allowing" isn't really an action like "running / eating / etc.". The given EVs always maximize bulk and the EVs always allow this other thing to happen, so they aren't really events, thus making usage 2) not correct.

have some references (more how "while" is used, for events / activities)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv69.shtml
https://languagetips.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/weekly-language-usage-tips-while-or-whereas-you-or-your-asking-gerunds-and-possessives/ (Fowler quote I guess)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/as-when-or-while

I would also not consider this a "words change" case. If "while" is consistently used to contrast things, then when someone uses the word to include things ("and"), a contradictory meaning is created. This (can) leads to confusion etc. (It is fine to overload "while" with two distinct (contrast, same time) meanings though.)
 
I have question regarding the apostrophe rule. Currently I'm writing an analysis for Landorus, and when I have to talk about a certain something of it, such as its moves or ability, I write it as "Landorus' moves" or "Landorus' ability Sheer Force", instead of "Landorus's moves" or "Landorus's ability Sheer Force." Some people prefer to write it like the latter, whereas I prefer the former. The rule says when there is an "s" at the end of a word, one should simply just add an apostrophe after the s, and when there isn't, the it should be written as apostrophe+s.

So my query is which one is correct? And if both are acceptable, then which one would be better to write in the analysis?
 

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
I have question regarding the apostrophe rule. Currently I'm writing an analysis for Landorus, and when I have to talk about a certain something of it, such as its moves or ability, I write it as "Landorus' moves" or "Landorus' ability Sheer Force", instead of "Landorus's moves" or "Landorus's ability Sheer Force." Some people prefer to write it like the latter, whereas I prefer the former. The rule says when there is an "s" at the end of a word, one should simply just add an apostrophe after the s, and when there isn't, the it should be written as apostrophe+s.

So my query is which one is correct? And if both are acceptable, then which one would be better to write in the analysis?
"Landorus's" is what you're looking for. s's is the possessive form of a single Landorus. s' is possessive form of plural Landoruses (Landorusi?). So if you said "I went out and found a whole herd of Landorus in the forest today; the Landorus's forest is really cool" you'd say that. In the other cases say "Landorus's ability Sheer Force"
 

Kris

ungabunga
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I have question regarding the apostrophe rule. Currently I'm writing an analysis for Landorus, and when I have to talk about a certain something of it, such as its moves or ability, I write it as "Landorus' moves" or "Landorus' ability Sheer Force", instead of "Landorus's moves" or "Landorus's ability Sheer Force." Some people prefer to write it like the latter, whereas I prefer the former. The rule says when there is an "s" at the end of a word, one should simply just add an apostrophe after the s, and when there isn't, the it should be written as apostrophe+s.

So my query is which one is correct? And if both are acceptable, then which one would be better to write in the analysis?
the latter is correct, normally both are acceptable, but with our gp standards we use the latter

aite fuck gatodelfuego
 

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
There should be a difference between "standardizing" things and "make every analysis sound the same." Please do not encourage removing writer voice by removing colloquial (or encyclopedic for that matter) alternate word choice, unless it's flat out wrong like the misuse of "abuse," it makes writing and checking analyses boring.
 

The Dutch Plumberjack

ace of wands
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris an Administrator
C&C & TFP Leader
There should be a difference between "standardizing" things and "make every analysis sound the same." Please do not encourage removing writer voice by removing colloquial (or encyclopedic for that matter) alternate word choice, unless it's flat out wrong like the misuse of "abuse," it makes writing and checking analyses boring.
Any particular examples you have in mind, just so we can all get on the same page? The stuff that I tend to remove are abbreviations like max, vs, 1v1 (casual writing that doesn't really affect voice and hence does not serve much of a purpose; anyways is a similar case, since it is generally labelled as too casual and is interchangeable with anyway in all aspects including tone / voice), and colloquial / encyclopedic word choice when it does not match the tone of the rest of the analysis (it's pretty horrid when a writer briefly enters thesaurus mode in an otherwise pretty casually written analysis; guess the issue here would be "inconsistent voice"). Obviously in addition to false friends like abuse / quintessential / etc. Agreeing that one-word changes for the sake of tone should be rare unless we're talking about extreme cases like "cockblock" (which actually was used in an analysis once) / they are outright inappropriate. Other things that I've seen denoted as too casual in the logs of the GP server are stuff like cheese / typespam, because they are in a way technical yet at the same time too vague, which for reasons that might leave this post tl;dr is a thought process that I can agree with; the primary issue with them would be similar to "jump point".
 

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
Also encourage writers to think about the changes instead of blindly following everything, because editing is less effective if it is one sided. Writers should be saying "I didn't implement these things for these reasons." if there's something they disagree with.
 

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
Any particular examples you have in mind, just so we can all get on the same page? The stuff that I tend to remove are abbreviations like max, vs, 1v1 (casual writing that doesn't really affect voice and hence does not serve much of a purpose; anyways is a similar case, since it is generally labelled as too casual and is interchangeable with anyway in all aspects including tone / voice), and colloquial / encyclopedic word choice when it does not match the tone of the rest of the analysis (it's pretty horrid when a writer briefly enters thesaurus mode in an otherwise pretty casually written analysis; guess the issue here would be "inconsistent voice"). Obviously in addition to false friends like abuse / quintessential / etc. Agreeing that one-word changes for the sake of tone should be rare unless we're talking about extreme cases like "cockblock" (which actually was used in an analysis once) / they are outright inappropriate. Other things that I've seen denoted as too casual in the logs of the GP server are stuff like cheese / typespam, because they are in a way technical yet at the same time too vague, which for reasons that might leave this post tl;dr is a thought process that I can agree with; the primary issue with them would be similar to "jump point".
I really don't think simple abbreviations that everybody knows like "max" and "vs" should need to be spelled out. I understand the reason why we (and by we I mean I'm pretty sure me and Jelli iirc, it may have even been before then) standardized one-on-one, because there were like 4 different ways people were writing it out (1v1, 1vs1, 1-on-1, etc). But for things that don't have alternatives, I don't understand the point in writing them out, especially if we allow contractions, and when no one in their right minds would ever actually speak the full word in irl conversation outside of emphasis (in max's case anyway).

I was also getting upset at the changing opponent to foe but I see you guys made a definition for both so I'll digress there.

I would actually think stuff like "typespam" and "cheese" that enters the common vernacular as time goes on should be considered to be added to coined terms and adapted rather than trying to fight the tide, so to speak.

Agree on thesaurusizing your writing is bad, not what I'm trying to accomplish here. Just felt like the GPers were taking too much liberty in changing words to make analyses sound robotic rather than being flexible in word choice.
 

The Dutch Plumberjack

ace of wands
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris an Administrator
C&C & TFP Leader
i forgot to finish my reply to this
I really don't think simple abbreviations that everybody knows like "max" and "vs" should need to be spelled out. I understand the reason why we (and by we I mean I'm pretty sure me and Jelli iirc, it may have even been before then) standardized one-on-one, because there were like 4 different ways people were writing it out (1v1, 1vs1, 1-on-1, etc). But for things that don't have alternatives, I don't understand the point in writing them out, especially if we allow contractions, and when no one in their right minds would ever actually speak the full word in irl conversation outside of emphasis (in max's case anyway).
I've always seen abbreviations vs. writing them out as a case of article casualness vs. analysis pseudo-formality actually, which is why I tend to see these as straightforward one-on-one changes. They're the same word (in terms of etymology / root) as their full version so they don't actually affect voice, outside of making the writing more casual, which is why I feel they are at odds with analysis GP standards.

I actually did not consider the fact that people use "max" as is in irl conversation, which is a reasonable argument why readers would find it less bothersome than "vs" (vs I don't think I'll ever like; "max" with this rationale I guess I don't think I'd feel strongly enough about to fight people over even though I'd never actually allow it myself). On the other hand, I don't think irl conversation should actually really be used as an argument here, because that's what casual writing is based in; could see this being vague so I don't mind elaborating on this, but for the sake of keeping this post readable I won't rn, and there's a good chance we're approaching this from entirely different angles anyways, too.

Contractions being allowed is a fair point that I've never really been able to justify myself (and the main reason why I call it pseudo-formality lol), usually my thoughts are "technically we shouldn't but it's not worth fighting it at this point and it's not really that big a deal either way".

I would actually think stuff like "typespam" and "cheese" that enters the common vernacular as time goes on should be considered to be added to coined terms and adapted rather than trying to fight the tide, so to speak.
Not that sold on "cheese" because it's _really_ slang and imo a big argument against that one is an argument that I've heard against splashable before, not "that's literally not what this word means and its actual meaning does not work in Pokemon" which is what I usually cite as the reason why it's a bad word, but "I don't know what this word means and I cannot infer it from anything either"; I've heard cheese to refer to all kinds of "obnoxious" strategies, but other than that I really don't see a clear common denominator between say BP and Swagger, and I'm unable to draft up a definition for that word even after hearing it numerous times in context. I don't like how it seems I'd have to rely on "you know what it means when hearing it" here without the word having an actual defined meaning, which makes it feel inherently "too" casual.

"Typespam" should be fine further down the line probably yeah, it's a pretty new thing (only really seen it pop up in analyses this gen) so I'm not too comfortable standardising it just yet, but that does seem like a pretty normal case of the vernacular evolving. Which also is the stance I'd usually take, treat it as casual slang at first but wait and see how pervasive it gets, and standardise it when it has clearly become "standard" Pokemon vernacular + can intuitively be understood by new players.

Agree on thesaurusizing your writing is bad, not what I'm trying to accomplish here. Just felt like the GPers were taking too much liberty in changing words to make analyses sound robotic rather than being flexible in word choice.
Ye, guess max / vs is the only thing we disagree on, otherwise imo one-word changes should happen only with improper word usage, inappropriateness, or _extreme_ casualness like "suck", for which afaik we're on the same page.
 

The Dutch Plumberjack

ace of wands
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris an Administrator
C&C & TFP Leader
Also need to post a quick PSA on this, since we've decided to change the forme names for Lycanroc. Currently Midday goes by Lycanroc-D and Midnight goes by Lycanroc-N. Midnight is staying as is, but Midday will just be Lycanroc from here on out; Dusk Lycanroc will, when it is released, be given the forme name Lycanroc-D. Very suboptimal fix but coming up with something entirely new for Dusk would have been quite the headache.

Reasons why we believe this is an acceptable change to make even at this stage in the generation:
- Midday Lycanroc is only really relevant in PU and slightly relevant in NU, not in higher tiers, so there's not a lot of damage yet in terms of analyses we'd have to fix and not a lot of people's programming we'd have to erase;
- People tend to refer to Midday as just "Lycanroc" in everyday language as it is, so we wouldn't be intruding on natural language / setting an artificial standard (which any "new" standard for Dusk Lycanroc would have been);
- There is some grounds for seeing Midday as the "base" forme anyways (native to Sun, the "primary" game; see also how the dex / PS list it as just Lycanroc, which I assume is for this reason. Also see in the first posts of this thread how we also considered going with just "Lycanroc" too but decided there was no good reason. There is a reason now.).

We're only doing this because we think this is the lesser of several evils, and we don't intend to do this ever again, so this should not be used as precedent for anything ever.

That is all :toast:
 

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

Top