User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 2

Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives
Archives:	Archive 1 dates of usage

Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And what about all the Pokémon you removed?

So you removed the "unofficial" list of single-gender counterparts from the Gender page. I'll ignore the fact that I think it was a mistake for now and instead ask: Okay, so now where are Tauros, Miltank, Gallade, Froslass, Rufflet, Braviary, Vullaby, and Mandibuzz on the page now? And why does the next section talk about Pokémon with no official "or unofficial" counterparts? You "corrected" the page by removing relevant information, which is true even if you think that the "unofficial" counterparts don't belong on the page, since the page still has a list of mono-gender Pokémon that is now woefully incomplete. Combining this with the apparent lack of consensus (I frequent another Wiki where consensus is the be-all and end-all) and can you blame me for reverting? --HeroicJay (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They should not be paired on the page in a section like that because they are not related by evolution or breeding, like the Nidorans and Volbeat/Illumise, and have not been explicitly stated to be related, like the eon duo (in the anime canon).

Sorry that I did not notice that the mono-gender list excluded Pokemon previously mentioned on the page; now that you've brought this to my attention, I've noticed it — if you had an issue specifically with that, you should have said it specifically in an edit summary or fixed it yourself, rather than the vague edit summary you gave which didn't explain anything. In any case, now that I know what's up, I think excluding previously-mentioned Pokemon is a silly thing to do, and the table should just list all mono-gender Pokemon to avoid confusion for people who examine only that section.

The already-existing consensus for Bulbapedia in general is that unofficial things should not be presented next to canon as though they were on equal ground. That's what the Appendix and Shipping namespaces are for. There doesn't need to be a consensus for each individual question or topic. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"First since" trivia

If no "first since" trivia is ever notable, why do things like this: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/BW116#Trivia exist still? - unsigned comment from The Great Butler (talk • contribs)

Because nobody has noticed it/bothered to remove it. "Other stuff does this, so it's okay for me to do it" is not a valid excuse for anything — in wikis or in life. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Accusations

Please refrain from making accusations whenever I bring up Georgia's Bisharp when comparing things. thnk u --The Truth aka Relicant 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants to hear it; we're all tired of it. Let things go through the normal Wiki process to establish consensus rather than hijacking discussion for your own personal vendettas. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There you go again with the accusations. Since when have I ever hijacked a discussion? --The Truth aka Relicant 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also wat is the limit of notability, or are you making up rules? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The admins (as far as I know) have an official trivia policy in the works behind-the-scenes. Until that comes out and I can cite it, I have nothing to say except that the general guidelines I use and have seen others use are that something is only notable if it's unique (first or last time is okay, but never second or third; only one to do X is okay, but rarely/never one of the only two or three) because we don't want a lot of duplicated trivia cluttering a wide breadth of pages. This isn't written-in-stone-official, but I've seen it enforced by staff so it's good enough for me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Having seven weaknesses is pretty notable, since even with Fairy's introduction, no existing type combinations result in a Pokémon having more than seven. (also you didn't answer my other question) --The Truth aka Relicant 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said we should add it somewhere else. It shouldn't be cluttering up six pages. The point of the trivium is the seven weaknesses, not the Pokemon themselves, so it belongs on an article about weaknesses rather than the individual Pokemon pages. I haven't answered your other question because this is an ongoing problem and you refuse to listen, so it's fruitless to continue. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well then why aren't you making the page? And I would listen if Pokémon with a decent amount of screentime actually got character pages instead of some Pokémon whose only relevant in one episode.--The Truth aka Relicant 17:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody wants to hear about your crusade for a Pokemon nobody but you cares about. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who thinks that a certain Pokémon deserves its own page. And what makes you think I'm on a crusade anyway? I use a certain Pokémon as an example against another and you claim I'm insane. --The Truth aka Relicant 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Those posts on that talk page are over a year old, and it's already been decided that Bisharp is nowhere near notable for its own page. Please don't bring it up again. ☆GamerGeek☆ 21:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Message from Viv

Happy belated Halloween Pumpkin!! And please do not consider it as a water cooler....As wishes can be made on talk pages.... --Viv (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Three things: 1. No, talk pages should not be used for non-wiki-related things such as "wishes". 2. Halloween is next month, so it can't be "belated" yet. 3. When you begin a new topic of conversation, please create a new section for it. Do not co-opt the end of someone else's conversation; it's rude. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

First thing 'Wishes' can be made and I have made it to the admins too.

Second thing, I wished for the last year's Halloween, so that's obviously belated.

And third thing, I forgot to make a separate heading! Have a good day!--Viv (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood

You are mistaken about this. The word "Hollywood" DOES have a standard Japanese loanword and the anime Hollywood's name isn't the same. Of course, my spelling as "Horiwood" is purely arbitrary. It could as well be "Horywood", "Horrywood", "Hoolywood" or "Holywood" (with single l, this is the spelling that Dogasu prefers). But nonetheless, the name should NOT be romanized as "Hollywood" because this would suggest that the location's precise Japanese name is ハリウッド (the normal loanword for "Hollywood"), which is not true. The name is purposefully corrupted as ホリウッド and the pronunciation isn't the same. --Maxim (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. Is it possible for us to put this explanation in the article somewhere (even if only hidden) to prevent others from assuming the same thing I did? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add a Trivia section. --Maxim (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

About what I said

hey, about the Mega Evolution topic I was talking about, I could find nothing in the archives but the CoroCoro pics of Mega Garchomp and Mega Mewtwo X. In addition, I have a screenshot of the original post I made, but it's unnecessary to put on the wiki. Also, I'd not like to have proof rubbed in my face via words if you understand. I've worked on several other wikis before, so why is only the staff working on the new material and not the entire community? Also, this site could use a visual mode aside from the Command Prompt style type of coding. I hope I haven't offended you in any way nor have I made you take my words personally. The Seeker (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks buddy! HoennRemake (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mainspace tag

Please don't just remove the mainspace tag. It's so that we know what's there so that we can deal with it appropriately. I'm just finding all the pages at first before we actually look at each one individually. Duplicate pages and pages that don't have any worth to them anymore will become deleted in due time. ^Maverick_Nate 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning; if it's a duplicate page that has nothing of value to add to the mainspace (which it is), I don't see the point of adding the tag and then going back and deleting it later when you could just delete it immediately. In any case, even though you're doubling your work, I see that removing the tag is effectively quadrupling your work, so I'll stop. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)