User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 5

Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives
Archive 1 May 2012‑Aug 2013	Archive 2 Sept 2013‑Nov 2013	Archive 3 Dec 2013‑Feb 2014
Archive 4 Mar 2014‑Aug 2016	Archive 5 Sept 2016‑Jan 2017	Archive 6 Feb 2017‑Aug 2017

Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Your archive template

If you change | align="center" | [[User talk:{{{5|Pumpkinking0192}}}/Archive {{{1|1}}}|Archive {{{1|1}}}]]<br><small>{{{6|dates of usage}}}</small> to | style="padding-right: 10px" align="center" | [[User talk:{{{5|Pumpkinking0192}}}/Archive {{{1|1}}}|Archive {{{1|1}}}]]<br><small>{{{6|dates of usage}}} in User:Pumpkinking0192/Template:TalkArchive, it'll add some extra space on the right-hand side. --Abcboy (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks perfect now. :) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Forme

Actually, the forme part was already there when I looked at it. All I did was capitalize the F since such capitalization seemed to be consistent where I was standing. I wasn't aware of any terminology rules or whatever. But anyway, it's cool. Do whatever you need to do. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

RE: Official sources

Sorry about that, when you asked for a source I thought you meant a source for his name. I realized after that while his name was confirmed by the image I linked to, his relationship with Samuel Oak was not, and at the time I did not have a source for that. The various claims of Nariya being Oak's cousin come from this tweet by Famitsu: https://twitter.com/famitsu/status/773718769117990912

I'm not sure if they count as an offical source, so I'll leave that up to your discretion. Skyarrow (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection

May I ask, primarily out of interest, why you say that "Prerelease articles should not be editable by non-staff"? Right now, I can understand how it makes sense to restrict access to some controversial articles or ones that have a history of being edited prematurely in some way ("Speculation crackdown"), but I wouldn't necessarily have derived a strict rule like that. (So, for example, I wouldn't have protected Lusamine in particular, as the article has basically only benefited from its non-protection.) Nescientist (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prerelease articles inherently, by virtue of being prerelease, will draw attention and speculation from people who are not familiar with Bulbapedia's policies. I think it's best to pre-empt that before it happens, and since the staff have been protecting things as requested, they clearly don't disagree. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So it's just two different philosophies, I guess; I might be a little naive, but I'd rather start off expecting improvement rather than a high likelihood of nonsense being added. Nescientist (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that Bulbapedia entirely shuts down non-staff editing at the beginning of every generation so staff can update our pages without interference, I think that ship had sailed a solid decade ago. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Future note, we don't prefer doing it for ALL prerelease info, just pokémon. You do have to have faith in editors before getting PROTECTPROTECT trigger happy, and I don't agree protecting moves/abilities/people outright should be a thing until real issues arise. Please bear this in mind. Kai * the Arc Toraph 01:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can actually understand the non-staff edit lock better; I guess it's really hard to ensure that each of the many edits to move learn levels etc. is actually trustworthy. For prerelease articles, I guess staff (and also you and me) can just spot errors rather easily, then fix them. (And then protect them.) I was interested in your reasoning/opinion, especially seeing you're non-staff. While I agree with ArcToraphim, I at least know what you are (have been) thinking, so thanks again for that. Nescientist (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

yveltal and the black death

I didn't base the black death analysis on color scheme or the fact it represents death. I don't know what has caused you to believe this. The black death aspect comes from the fact that it annihilated huge scores of humans and Pokémon with a roughly similar timescale and geological area as the real-world black death. Also, stating it has basis on the black death would be no different than stating the new alolan dance birds Oricorio are based off specific dance styles/practices. Pokémon are not singular, they are a multisided often Chimeric representation of multiple ideas, concepts and imaginings. Yamitora1 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It just seems like a huge stretch to me. You can find similarities if you're really squinting, but you would think that if the plague outbreak was intended to be part of Yveltal's origin, it would either have the Poison type (to indicate the disease basis), some Poison moves in its level-up learnlist, or at least some visual connection to the Danse Macabre, the most well-known symbolic representation of the plague. Yveltal doesn't have any of these. Also, note that it's a counterpart to Xerneas, which has no alleged parallel to anything like the plague; if the plague was meant to be Yveltal's basis, it would make sense for its counterpart to have a directly related or directly opposite basis, and Xerneas just plain doesn't. Origin sections are for the most likely origins, not every single tenuous connection that someone can dream up. The Yveltal-Black Death connection strongly seems like the latter to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So your reasoning that it can't be based off a historical event/plague is because its not a Poison-type? If you want to play types here, it is a dark type, that's just as close. Plus we have a virus based Pokemon, and it is not Poison-type, in fact it is Psychic-type which is strong against Poison-types. That would be like saying Rotom can't become a computer virus unless it becomes an electric/poison type. Poisons, Bacteria (such as that which caused the plague) and viruses work on separate levels. True some bacteria are considered poisonous (they produce toxins but are not by themselves toxic) but that is about it. Humans are not very reliable on their description on things. For godsakes, before West Nile and now Zika became the new hot topics/fear buttons, I saw little signs next to the bugspray section saying "Protect against mosquitoes that can carry the Malaria Virus" and I live in the US and it's been eradicated here for over half a century and is a parasitic one-cell organism, not a virus.

And if you want Danse Macabre, look at the promotional Yveltal art of it flying over a burning city or this image from the M17 manga http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/File:Yveltal_M17_manga.png that looks pretty Danse Macabre to me.

I must ask why do you have such a problem with stating it may have origins in one of the most horrific events in european and asian history when you allowed it to keep the Wyvern origin despite not being even remotely similar in appearance, and the fact gen VI already had 2 Wyvern Pokemon, the evolution of which actually does look like a Wyvern. Bing search Wyvern and this shows up "A wyvern, sometimes spelled wivern, is a legendary winged creature with a dragon's head and wings; a reptilian body; two legs; and a tail." to turn a phrase here, you'd have to squint until your eyelids inverted to see any similarities there.

As for Xerneas being the counterpart to disease, what more counterpart to disease can you get beyond immortality? As much as I wish it could have happened in the Twilight Saga, Edward and all his immortal sparkling vampire kin were in no danger of disease. In fact Edward was saved from the spanish flu by becoming immortal.

By the way, the term Black Death or Black Plague is only recent. One thing it was originally called was 'The Great Mortality' back when the plague was happening. Things were scary back then. There you are minding your own business, when suddenly you see the plague doctors in their bird-like mask roll into town and all you can think about is that imminent death has come knocking on your door to swift you away. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to discuss with a wall of text that big. Take it to a staff member if you want to continue arguing, please. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

about the mew glitch and glicth city pages.

1. I was trying to say that the glitch can also be done on the virtual console re-release on the nintendon 3DS.

2.I was putting the glitch city laboratories.com articles in my own words and also I said Gameshark because, according to glitch city.com, Glitch city in generation II can only be accessed by using Gameshark.

3. are there any easy articles that I can edit to? because the only time my edit remained unchanged and the same and not removed was when I added the ISBN number for the Fire Pokémon Keychain Book for the Fire Pokémon (Pokémon Keychain Book) page. Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Since it's applicable to all core series Generation I games regardless of system, and since few (if any?) glitches were fixed for the re-release, I don't think it's necessary to specify that.

2. It's probably best not to try to incorporate content from other websites, regardless of whether you've reworded it or not. Simply taking and rewording content from another website could still be seen as stealing their content. As for the GameShark, I think our glitch articles typically don't give much prominence to glitches that can only be performed with outside tools like the GameShark. Glitches that can happen in an unmodified game are our main focus.

3. The Editor's Hub has a lot of resources that can help you out. The list of articles needing improvement is probably the closest thing to what you're looking for, but I strongly encourage you to take a glance at all of the resources in the Editor's Hub to see what helps you. Best wishes, and happy editing! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Beldum

Sooo, I kinda wanted to know why wouldn't it be a spacecraft. I mean, it sounds way more absurd to me a random levitating bullet/dumbbell. In fact, being a satellite/rocket/spacecraft explains why it is a Psychic Pokémon, once space-related are often treated as such.

If it is a Launcher vehicle it also explains why it only learns Take Down and Headbutt moves, suggesting how it only keeps going forward. ExLight (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

uuh, so you're just goin' to ignore me? Kinda disrespectful to remove what other users had written and not give 'em a proper explanation. Are you even a Staff member? ExLight (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not a staff member, as you can clearly see on the staff list. Didn't mean to ignore you, just set it aside for a better time and then forgot that it was there. Beldum's name in both English and Japanese is based on dumbbell, meaning that is the most likely origin. (Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of the bullet one; I'll remove that, too.) I personally don't see much resemblance between Beldum and spacecraft beyond the vague shape, but if you'd like to ask an actual staff member for their opinion, feel free. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The dumbbell might be a reference to "dumbbell" shaped satellites, despite not having such appearance. On the other hand, its Species (Iron Ball Pokémon) may suggest other shapped spacecrafts, especially on their final stage; and its back/hand sure looks like some rockety thing. We may debate until we both reach some conclusion, but otherwise I intend to re-edit it as a possible origin and leave it to judged by someone from the staff.

Thanks for your attention tho ExLight (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I Don't understand

I don't understand the problem with the trivia I added for Pokémon Diamond, Pearl and Platinum. Please explain. Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Only" means something is the only one. Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum are three games. It's impossible for three things to be the only one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why can't I just re-word the trivia? Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, if you can find a way to make it notable, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't seem possible to me, nor important or interesting. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means if trivia is notable or not, sorry if these questions are bothering you. Awesomevenustoise101 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Force Fire/Trivia Policy and its subpages (accessible via the navbox at the bottom) will probably explain this better than I can. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My edits

I notice that you seem to hold my edits in high regard as "this is the way things have to be" (e.g. here). I'm just a guy who makes edits and has opinions. Unless I explicitly state "the staff has decided X" etc., I'm acting on my own and my opinion is no more important than anyone else's. I added a note to the top on my userpage a while back to try to clarify this. --SnorlaxMonster 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Where's your consistency?

Recently I made the edit that poison is the most common pairing with grass. Later, you reverted my edit, saying that it was obvious. Well, why didn't you revert the edit that fire has no pairing? You could easily look at the list and see that as well. All I'm asking is: why did you delete my edit but not the one it was attached to? Grass4Lyfe (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

To see that Poison is the most common pairing with Grass, you simply have to glance at the list and maybe make ballpark estimates of a couple of numbers. To see that Fire is the only type not paired with Grass, you have to have a mental list going of all 18 types, and go down the list, checking off each one, until Fire is the only one missing. I hope you can see that this is a vast difference in "obvious"ness. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Coudln't I have at least had the number of pairings still there? That's the most important thing. Plus, it's just a small trivia fact. I really just wanted to add the exact number of grass/poison matchups. It would take a log longer to count them than to just see it's the most common, I know that. It would probably even take longer to count the number of grass/poison pokémon than find out that fire isn't a match. Sure, it would take a few seconds to find out that fire isn't matched, but it won't take forever. The color is red, so just look for red. Also, there aren't a whole lot of pairings to look through. My main point is that saying there are 0 fire matchups is fine, but saying how many posion ones there are is not okay is confusing. Grass4Lyfe (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you confused about? I think my point was pretty clear. (And just to pre-emptively avoid a long discussion, in case you aren't aware, I'm not a staff member — I removed it because I thought it was unnecessary, but you don't have to persuade me to try to add it back. You can try to get a staff member to overrule me if you want.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just hopping in, Grass4Lyfe which would be more noticeable and obvious without counting? A plethora of purple (Poison) or the lack of orange (Fire)?--ForceFire 17:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop back in and say that the main reason I made that edit was to show the exact number of grass/Poison pokémon. It seemed like a small piece of trivia, so I added it to the trivia section. That is all. Grass4Lyfe (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By Previous Generation

I'm so sorry, I'd always wanted that section for convenience sake when looking up Generation II movepools; I didn't realize that it had already been established that it was not allowed. I didn't receive Carmenstar97's notification of removal until after I'd updated Ivysaur's page, so I'm sorry about that- I've apologized to him as well...Tjallan53149 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Jame's Weezing

1. I apologize for the spelling. 2. James's Weezing has been shown not to see itself as a bad guy along with Jessie's Ekans in the episode Island of Giant Pokemon. I know that Ekans has made that statement, but Koffing made it clear that it agrees, so I don't understand why you removed it. I think it's nessesary to add that to Weezing's personality. Besides, James stated it had a strong bond with it in A Poached Ego. TheGreenBeetle October 23 2016

Thanks. In the future, you should cite what episode something comes from in the text of the page when you first add it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

not unique = not notable

To what extend does this rule apply (and where does it come from?)

Because for example, Pikachu is not the only one to have been printed on money, Ekans is not the only one to have a foreign entry and Clefable is not the only one to share the same weight as Ethan. etc. MannedTooth (Talk) 06:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It varies depending on the eye of the beholder. Personally I would like to ax all of those type of things (I'm very anti-trivia), but the general consensus on Bulbapedia seems to be that the "not unique = not notable" principle doesn't apply to much more than "the only one"/"one of the only two"/"one of the few"-type trivia, so I don't generally pursue it outside of that.

As for where it comes from, I'm honestly not sure. A lot of us have been using it (me most vocally, but many others as well) for several years, and I can't remember whom I picked it up from. In any case, some staff members sometimes cite it as a justification themselves, so even though it's not a specific policy written in stone, it certainly is acceptable as a rule of thumb. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Silvally Name Origin

Greetings. I noticed that you removed my edit on the Section for Silvally's name origin. I'm just curious if there is a reason why you reverted my edit, other than the fact that you personally thought it was unlikely. I was under the impression that name origins are rarely officially confirmed, so I figure that my entry is just as plausible as all the others listed.

Personally, seeing as how Silvally is manmade and mechanical, I believe that it's very plausible that the Silicon Valley reference was intentional, at least much more likely than the inclusion of the word all in its name.

Apologies if I did something wrong. I'm still fairly new to this website.

--ImNotGoodAtPasswords (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right that name origins are not officially confirmed, but it's absolutely not the case that that means any entry is just as plausible as any other.

Although Silvally is manmade, it's pretty clearly a chimera; I'm perplexed as to what makes you think it's a mechanical creature rather than a manmade organic one. Nothing in its appearance or Pokedex entries seems to indicate that it has anything to do with the high-tech, computing-focused nature of Silicon Valley, nor even anything mechanical at all. Furthermore, it's extremely rare for the Pokémon franchise, especially in more recent generations, to make specific, direct references to non-genericized names. For all these reasons, the plausibility of Silicon Valley as an origin is virtually zero to my eye, although I'll defer to a staff member's judgment if you can find one who agrees with you. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The description and name for Silvally's RKS System lead me to believe that Silvally has definite cybernetic traits. The fact that Memories are clearly designed after optical discs all but confirms this, at least in my opinion. There's also the fact that Silvally is known as the Synthetic Pokemon, and has a metallic color scheme.

I have no idea how to contact the staff members and have them weigh in on this discussion, so I guess I'll just drop it for now. --ImNotGoodAtPasswords (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Mareanie

I think I did something to the Mareanie page, so I ask you to fix it. I'm sorry. I wanted to do something, but instead caused trouble. Myblueheart (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Solgaleo

No, it is not just the fact they're white that makes it based on Apollo's Space Suits.

Here's an image to help us to compare: http://bit.ly/2gYVlP6

We can see some obvious details in Solgaleo's design; like its paws resembling the suit's gloves, the orange stripes and, of course, its face is clearly a suit's visor, the most remarkable part in a space suit. Yeah, and it is pure white, just like them, pretty weird color choice to use on a Pokémon based on a Green alchemical lion. All of it while being a reference to one of the most famous Sun Gods. ExLight (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit, the Smash moves edits are a bit messy... Sorry :s MannedTooth (Talk) 06:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Looker

Hi, I got your message but you probably know about the agent from Red and Blue. There was even a picture. I mentioned that there was a possibility of this agent being Looker. However, my addition was reverted. RubyLeafGreenCrystal 04:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's speculation to say that agent is Looker. There is no reliable source to prove that Looker was created or conceived-of prior to Platinum. There is no evidence to suggest that the anonymous international agent from RB is anything but a random one-off. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In the [[1]] trivia, though, this speculation was mentioned.

Also, why was my edit to Jasmine reverted? The Steelix has same nick-name and gender. Seems too much to be coincidental. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; it's also speculation, so I've removed it as well. As for Jasmine, if you have to preface it with "possibly," it's speculation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Lunala/Sols edit?

Why is the fact that all of their numbers are prime not notable? The notable part was that it shares that trait with Necrozma, the UBs, and the other members of it's family. 99apples (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Talian, a staff member, initially removed it. I was simply following their lead. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Then remove it from necrozma also? 99apples (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Pumpkinking. You probably know I usually don't really care about trivia, but this particular trivium has caught me, and it won't let go. Maybe you have also seen me presenting arguments here before.

Well, I know you're probably more into that discussion on the UBs' status than I am, so I'd like to ask you on what your personal opinion here is, if there is any. (I'm currently making up my mind on how to further react and where.) Thank you! Nescientist (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included anywhere at all. Our rule of thumb for trivia is that generally, for something to be notable, it must be unique to a particular Pokémon, evolutionary line, or sometimes small group. Since this trait spans not only a small group (the UBs) but also a separate evolutionary line (Solgaleo/Lunala) and, on top of that, an entirely unrelated standalone Pokemon (Necrozma), it's too widespread to be notable for the purposes of our trivia standards.

If future games reclassify Necrozma as an Ultra Beast and clarify that Cosmog's evolutionary line are definitely UBs and that it's not just Aether's speculation that they are, then it would definitely be notable on the Ultra Beast page (but not any of their individual species pages). Until then, I don't think it's notable at all but I'm willing to defer to Crystal Talian's judgment to hesitantly allow it on Ultra Beast (but again, not any individual species pages).

That's my take, but I'm not a staff member, so you should look elsewhere if you want a binding opinion. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware you're not a staff member; when I ask for a personal opinion, I'm not looking for a decision. I prefer to consider things myself in any case (even if only for myself), and I know you can sometimes shine at that, too.

I think I knew about all these generallys and usuallys, but I for one think there actually is a really good reason for deviation here: that this somewhat hidden feature is delibarately shared between related Pokémon, namely the Ultra Beasts (which may all be Legendaries) and specific Legendaries (which may all actually be UBs as well). For where to put that, the problem is that there's no connection from Solgaleo to Ultra Beast, for example, so including it on individual non-(confirmed-)UBs pages as well seemed most logical to me, in order for people to make that deliberately intended connection from there.

However, if you disagree based on your own opinion (and not solely based on some rule of thumb, some standard or another person's decisions or edits), I will just drop it for now. So, now that I can be sure you know what I know, do you disagree? Nescientist (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I feel that until the maybe-UBs are eventually confirmed as UBs, there's not a good place I'd feel comfortable with it fitting, and if it does go somewhere, it should be duplicated across as few pages as possible. But don't allow my opinion to stop you from pursuing it with the staff if you think it should go somewhere. Discussion is how these things are decided, after all, and it's better to have discussion with many people than just the two of us. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, you wouldn't stop me! :P

No, seriously, this isn't really on whether to discuss. When I know that a decision has been made, no matter how much I dislike it, I don't think it's fair to ignore that and (publicly) discuss nonetheless. This is just on whether I should care enough to be "pursuing it with the staff", to challenge the decision (which would involve me questioning it at least on a staff member's talk page, and requires me to have the integrity and endurance to go all the way to the top for the topic at hand, if necessary).

Anyway, thank you very much for this open-minded discussion. Nescientist (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mismagius?

I don't understand why my edit to Mismagius's Bulbapedia page was deleted, even though I corrected a mistake. - unsigned comment from Sirspykerks (talk • contribs)

I was not the one to remove it, Tiddlywinks was. Ask them. Also, please add new sections at the bottom, not at the top. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Hi. I saw why you reverted. But is it really coincidence that the rival is the other player charatcter? I always thought the player charcters were simply reversed depending on the one one chosen. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I couldn't understand what it meant when you said I was putting undue weight on the idea of completing the Pokedex. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The rival is only the other player character in RSE/ORAS and XY. In every other game, the rival is a different character, and if the other player character appears it's not in the function of rival. Our wikiwide standard when talking about game storylines is to refer to the player character as "the player" and the rival by the name of the rival. That doesn't change for the outlier cases of RSE/ORAS and XY. As for HGSS, the whole point of your addition is focused on completing the Pokedex, which as Tiddlywinks told you is not the goal of the game. (Not to mention the fact that you wrote about GSC as if the Pokedex could be completed, which it couldn't. The starters, Legendaries and fossils had to be transferred from Generation I.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I always saw the player characters as separate from the player, so I see where my problem came in. One note though (although this is trivial). Completing the pokedex, while quite overlooked, is really the true goal of the main series (the game originated from Tajiri's childhood hobby of insect collecting) Also, beating the champion in Red and Blue was, on careful thought, a means of catching MewTwo. This is emphasized in Pokemon Origins where Red's main focus is on completing the Pokedex rather than becoming League champion. Back to discussion, thanks for clarification. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why did you undo my edit on James? You forgot to add a summary. - unsigned comment from TeamRocket745 (talk • contribs)

1. Please sign your talk page comments by typing ~~~~ at the end.

2. New sections go at the end of talk pages, not at the beginning.

3. I reverted you because we don't do "relationships" sections on Bulbapedia. Before trying to add sections like that, consult other similar pages and the anime manual of style (or the particular manual of style for the subject you're writing about) to see whether or not your edit is appropriate. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Sorry. I am quite accustomed to Wikipedia that I have failed to understand the rules here. If theses rules exist, however, what is the point of the Preferences link at the far right corner? I think you know what I am talking about. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Mostly just for dressing up your signature with custom colors and stuff, such as Force Fire has. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Vacuum Wave

While I will concede to you on this topic, I would very much appreciate it if you could actually participate in the Talk page discussion before going out and imposing your sentiments on the rest of the site. I noticed that you pulled this same act on the Move variations page as well.

This is the third time that you've reverted one of my edits without discussing it beforehand, and it's starting to get rather frustrating. -ImNotGoodAtPasswords (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If an edit is in line with existing site consensus, it doesn't need to be discussed. I also strongly subscribe to the Be Bold principle (see also: wp:Bold, revert, discuss cycle) for both adding material and first-time reverting it (but after that, going to the talk page is necessary to avoid an edit war). Honestly, I think you're being a little bit oversensitive. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Volatile trivia? (re: cosmog line)

I thought volatile trivia was considered bad. What makes this obviously volatile trivia good? Nutter Butter (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The status quo stands until consensus changes. At this point, the consensus is that the Cosmog line is the only confirmed Legendary evolution line. We don't have enough information about Type: Null and Silvally to prove that point definitively false, so while it's still in flux the previous consensus remains. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Why is it always a problem to respond to old topics on the talk pages, especially if the question still remains? some one else would have to ask again, which makes even less sense, so If I want to know something and no one answers I would have to push or re-ask every half a year, which is more chaos than just someone answering it even years after. Intrestingly I found no rule on duplicate content except for on different pages. but on a lot of sites I see, no duplicate content and no reviving, which of course makes no sense.

Best Regards, My1 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page policy reminder

Hey, while you are correct that threads older than 6 months shouldn't be resurrected, note that our policy actually reads "Unless an old conversation is still relevant and there is a good reason to revitalize discussion, comments on sections older than six months old should not be made." Because the Twerp page's notability and status is still in question, it is perfectly acceptable to continue to weigh in on the discussion until a final decision is made. --Pokemaster97 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Grimer/Koffing/Trubbish edits

I think the "evolution levels" that you removed is not referring to the number of stages of evolution, but rather the levels at which evolution occurs, which may still be a valid similarity to note: grimer evolves at 38, koffing at 35, and trubbish at 36. Just thought I'd let you know about that, since you seemed confused as to why it was there in your edit summaries! Xolroc (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Move template/Gracidea

I noticed you added the move template on Gracidea (Sinnoh) a short while ago, and I just thought I'd remind you that when you add such a template, you should start a section on the talk page with your reason for the proposed move. If you want to start a section on that talk page now, that'd be great. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My addition of the template was purely procedural; I added it as part of the process of cleaning up after Jeangabin's improper method of challenging the page title. I have no knowledge of the movie in question, so I merely followed the suggested title Jeangabin proposed on the talk page. I thought since he had already proposed it, that was sufficient. In any case, I have no reason for the proposed move beyond cleaning up after Jeangabin, so you'll have to go to them if you want a reason that can result in any discussion. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, between there not being any section name that jumped out as the obvious candidate and your name not being in the talk page's history, I didn't realize the relevant comment was at the end of a very old section. A clear section about the move, at the very least, is always good (much like you seem to have remedied it). Thanks! Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)