Direction

[Evie the Bird Mother 🌸 ☽]

A poll in regards to wiki organisation. Please express what you want  . Thanks for your time.

[Parzival]

>  they are glitch, bug just "exploit'
haha i see what you (maybe) did there

[Evie the Bird Mother 🌸 ☽]

>  they are glitch, bug just "exploit'
haha i see what you (maybe) did there

Lol actually I didn't see potential play around there. ^^;

But mmm.

[Sherkel]

Reorganise pages to not necessarily say they are glitch, bug just "exploit' (but indicate: requires no other exploit, or trainer escape glitch division category etc

Renaming them as such when necessary to provide more descriptive titles? Yes. Maybe it won't amount to too much more clarity and I'm just tired of seeing the word "glitch" everywhere, but it makes sense and won't cause any less clarity.

Inclusive approach to articles (as science, glitch derivatives/and or art, ACE creations, programming, obscure or 'secret' curiosities and unused content).

The more, the merrier. Caspar stuff aside maybe, if it's Pokémon glitches or anything that could be called Pokémon glitches, it goes here. It's what the site is at its core.

Counter (placeholder). You can also vote this if you want to suggest something not in these options.

It's much easier to open a discussion than to properly follow up on it...I think I've said all I'm able to think of as of a while ago.

Keep specific criteria for glitch bug trick exploit etc. (just create some clear rules for a page to be so)

As I explained in the related thread, yes.

Restrict our scope more (please give elaboration if ok)

At most, maybe nix Caspar only because other sites are already doing it better. But overall, no.

[bbbbbbbbba]

Well, we cannot mass rename pages without having a working definition of the terms we use, or it will cause less clarity. Calling everything a "glitch" is not ideal, but it surely beats calling things "glitch", "oversight", "trick", "exploit", etc. totally at random.

Also, I'm skeptical about the "the more the merrier" mindset. It seems to lead to a bunch of low-quality articles drowning out the few pages that really needs some love. I am not against including anything related to Pokémon glitches, but I am against not doing it right. Case in point: A minor specific case of text box ID matching, not even mentioning text box ID matching, and taking a spot in the "Misc R/B/Y" template.

[Sherkel]

Whoops, forgot and stuff.

Well, we cannot mass rename pages without having a working definition of the terms we use, or it will cause less clarity. Calling everything a "glitch" is not ideal, but it surely beats calling things "glitch", "oversight", "trick", "exploit", etc. totally at random.

Glitch = error in code with notable consequences (rematching Sabrina in Red/Green is barely over this line and I maybe should have called it as such)
Oversight = error in code without notable consequences (you see it, then you don't)
Trick = use of a glitch to reach an outcome (Old Man rename function + left-facing shore tile, the latter being the glitch)
Exploit = use of a non-glitch to reach an outcome (RNG in all generations, bike shop instant text...arguably errors in application of code even if it's not as blatant. Shoot.)

Also, I'm skeptical about the "the more the merrier" mindset. It seems to lead to a bunch of low-quality articles drowning out the few pages that really needs some love. I am not against including anything related to Pokémon glitches, but I am against not doing it right. Case in point: A minor specific case of text box ID matching, not even mentioning text box ID matching, and taking a spot in the "Misc R/B/Y" template.

Let's see...yeah, I'd merge that with text box ID matching. Still would prefer to include mentioning it, though. Not really the opposite of what I said, but a good point nonetheless.

[bbbbbbbbba]

Glitch = error in code with notable consequences (rematching Sabrina in Red/Green is barely over this line and I maybe should have called it as such)
Oversight = error in code without notable consequences (you see it, then you don't)
Trick = use of a glitch to reach an outcome (Old Man rename function + left-facing shore tile, the latter being the glitch)
Exploit = use of a non-glitch to reach an outcome (RNG in all generations, bike shop instant text...arguably errors in application of code even if it's not as blatant. Shoot.)

Under these definitions, should dry underflow be classified as a trick? Or is it still "its own weirdness"? I guess this depends on whether failure to handle x255 item stacks is considered an error in the code or not. ISSOtm would probably say yes, I would tend to say no, and others may have different opinions. Although most people probably simply don't care...

Also what do we call things that are "not obviously useful" or "obviously not useful", and are consequences of glitches? For example, what do you think of ZZAZZ? Should that be considered a "trick" too?

[Sherkel]

Under these definitions, should dry underflow be classified as a trick? Or is it still "its own weirdness"? I guess this depends on whether failure to handle x255 item stacks is considered an error in the code or not.

Dry underflow would be a trick under those definitions, as would a lot of other curiosities. Ability to have a stack over 99 is the glitch.

ZZAZZ is just an effect. It wouldn't have been called a glitch of its own if there was even the notion of debugging back when it was first observed.

[bbbbbbbbba]

Dry underflow would be a trick under those definitions, as would a lot of other curiosities. Ability to have a stack over 99 is the glitch.

ZZAZZ is just an effect. It wouldn't have been called a glitch of its own if there was even the notion of debugging back when it was first observed.

Hmm, maybe "effect" is the missing link in the categorization system. Most effects are specific to one glitch, and would just be described in the respective glitch pages, but some common and/or useful effects (e.g. expanded item pack, or simply item stacks over 99 --- they usually come from setting invalid Pokédex flag #256 in the first place, but can also be first achieved by other means, like Select glitch) certainly deserves their own pages. And I'd say a lot of existing pages belong in this category.

[Sherkel]

A good amount of pages are already denoted as such, though maybe more should be. I'll rename any examples I see that aren't too well-known. (And wait, the expanded item pack is triggered by Pokédex flag 256?!Oh, yeah, it's putting a 0 after where 151 would be if that's what you meant.)

[bbbbbbbbba]

(And wait, the expanded item pack is triggered by Pokédex flag 256?!Oh, yeah, it's putting a 0 after where 151 would be if that's what you meant.)

The usually route to an expanded item pack involves encountering MissingNo or 'M twice to change the quantity of the sixth item to 255, which works by setting the highest bit of the quantity byte, since it is the "seen" flag for those Pokémon with dex number 0 (really 256, because the dex number minus one is used as the index into the flag array, which underflows for dex number 0).

[Sherkel]

(And wait, the expanded item pack is triggered by Pokédex flag 256?!Oh, yeah, it's putting a 0 after where 151 would be if that's what you meant.)

The usually route to an expanded item pack involves encountering MissingNo or 'M twice to change the quantity of the sixth item to 255, which works by setting the highest bit of the quantity byte, since it is the "seen" flag for those Pokémon with dex number 0 (really 256, because the dex number minus one is used as the index into the flag array, which underflows for dex number 0).

Ah, that's what you meant. I always forget that the cloning happens due to flipping a bit to on.

[Evie the Bird Mother 🌸 ☽]

The results are in:

Reorganise pages to not necessarily say they are glitch, bug just "exploit' (but indicate: requires no other exploit, or trainer escape glitch division category etc
2 (20%)

Inclusive approach to articles (as science, glitch derivatives/and or art, ACE creations, programming, obscure or 'secret' curiosities and unused content).
6 (60%)

Counter (placeholder). You can also vote this if you want to suggest something not in these options.0 (0%)

Keep specific criteria for glitch bug trick exploit etc. (just create some clear rules for a page to be so)
2 (20%)

Restrict our scope more (please give elaboration if ok)0 (0%)

As such, will keep the inclusive approach. 40% of the votes are other categories; so will try to address these things with a structure reorganisation.

On hindsight, this poll (being quantitative) is naturally biased to the options I wrote, so I'll read through all the suggestions in the replies too.