Do questions still break rule 1.4 if they have a plausible answer?

Question

If a plausible answer can prevent a question from breaking the rule, does any guess or theory count as a plausible answer, or does there have to be no disagreement? How long should we wait for a plausible answer before closing the question? A few days? A week?

Comments

Wouldn’t that be just be theorizing? Are you asking for theorizing to be an exception to the rules?

---

Rule 1.4 deals with Low Quality questions, which the status of has some objectivity, but can be determined with precedence. If the question is low quality, but doesn’t have an answer on pokebase (not a repeat question) but it could be plausibly answered, what happens? Is what I think is trying to be conveyed

---

I will say it is interesting since this question I answered years ago is more trivial and could violate parts 3/4 of Rule 1.4 but I found a form of an empirical answer for it. It’s theory or conjecture, but it has some logic behind it:

https://pokemondb.net/pokebase/314804/why-is-mudsdale-heavier-than-guzzlord

---

From Rule 1.4.3:

Requesting insider info that fans can't access, **or requires pure theorising.**

Theorizing without evidence is called guessing, which isn't allowed. Theorizing with evidence is called a probable answer, which usually is allowed.

In regard to my question you answered today, I think because Bulbapedia offers a plausible explanation for the strange occurrence, the question was fine, although I agree that it straddles the line of "answerable".

---

I personally wanted to close https://pokemondb.net/pokebase/420369/does-oceanic-operetta-have-base-power-while-other-only-power , but someone else cleared my flag.

---

That might have been me, in my opinion, Manectrics comment was almost unequivocally the reason for the difference in BP.

I think like any other question they have to be talked about and decided on

Answer 1

In general, I would say no. If a theorising question happens to get a satisfying answer, then we'd be silly to remove that question. We enact the wording of rule 1.4 that says it's taken "case-by-case".

At the same time, I would like for there to be leeway for staff to make quick calls on questions that are clearly rubbish. I don't want to wait three days (or however long) to see if Junichi Masuda has commented on why Wooper can learn Dynamic Punch.

If Masuda really did comment on that, would we leave the question up? Probably... but we're trying to operate within reason here.

Does any guess or theory count as a "satisfying answer"? I'm sure you already know the answer is no and there is no pleasant way to moderate this. It's our job as staff to make a call. If we think the question is aimless then we should close it. If there really is a weird nugget of trivia to be enjoyed then we shouldn't be a killjoy.

We already leave closed questions public for two days before we hide them. I think this is enough time for the tragics among you to do that fateful google search that decides whether the Wooper Dynamic Punch question is going to be answered.

Comments

Dynamic punch's index number is 223. The .223 Remington entered production in 1964. 64 is 2^6. TM06 in gen 2 is toxic, which had 85% accuracy back then. According to Jeffery Material Handling and Mining Machinery : General Catalog No. 85, pulleys with clutch number 85 can have a 56 inch diameter. Wooper's Johto Pokedex number is 56. Therefore, Wooper learns dynamic punch. QED