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)