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)

When I'm going through pages, I'm not looking for if the content is already in the mainspace. I'm simply looking at the userpage, and if it seems to have some sort of mainspace content, I add the tag. If I were to be checking the mainspace for every single page, that would waste so much time. Especially when I have something like 1800 more pages to look though. It's easier to do the two tasks separately. ^Maverick_Nate 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User feuds

If you find a user is being disruptive, taking things into your own hands is not always the best thing to do. You claim to have pointed out their poor choice of actions, yet you never once informed a single member of staff. Always notify a member of staff if a user is bothering you. If things get out of hand, stop and tell someone. Trying to boss people around doesn't fix anything, it only makes you disruptive as well. Not backing away from the issue after I told you to also makes your actions insubordinate. Take some time off and cool down. If Relicant continues being troublesome, we'll take action towards them as well. But you don't stop fire by lighting more fires. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 03:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Pumpkin, I just wanted your opinion on Blurbs Should they be written with a hidden tag as those who are not the part of Bulbapedia, they would think that there's blurb on one page and not on other they can treat this as a mistake as soon as all the pages get the blurbs the hidden tag can be removed....Do you agree?--Viv (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about the blurb section on anime episodes, those are all already added and finished. ^Maverick_Nate 06:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's quiet funny 1 week before, my friend said why there's blurb on one page and not the other........Good work!--Viv (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Viv, I don't know anything about the blurbs and have never edited anything to do with them. In the future, please try to find someone who might actually have an answer to your question. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fairy-Type Trivia

Hi, Pumpkin The reason you see all of that Trivia for other types, is that most of those types have ALWAYS been available in EVERY Generation. If you look at the types of Dark and Steel, the Trivia NEVER counts Generation 1 (They both say MINUS Generation 1). Dark and steel were not available in Gen 1; and Fairy was not available for FIVE Generations. Gen VI introduced the ONLY fairy Types. For example Gardevoir. Gen 3 did not introduce a Psychic/Fairy Type. They introduced a PSYCHIC type. It was later CHANGED to its current type. Same for some other moves and Pokémon. I'm just saying. My main point is, Gen VI INTRODUCED the ONLY Fairy-types, so that's why I deleted it.

Camj (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)CamjChari

Be that as it may, those trivia are a necessary part of every type page, so the proper course of action would have been to rephrase, not delete. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Misty's Gyrados

She didn't own Gyrados as a Magikarp. It's the same way with Ash's Primeape. - unsigned comment from Rahl1 (talk • contribs)

I think the line is harder to draw with Gyarados than with Primeape, though, since it was already owned by Cerulean Gym so it's unclear who actually "caught" it. Thanks for the other example, though, and please remember to sign your talk page comments. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mixed Horde details

I can vouch for the Zangoose/Seviper hordes, Roggenrola, both Nidoran hordes, and Tauros hordes on the mixed hordes since I have seen these myself and all areas I used for training grounds. For the rest I carefully checked my Prima strategy guide first before even posting it which I also used to double check the hordes I have seen. -Tyler53841 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying I doubted they could happen; I just think we should wait for confirmation that mixed hordes are the only ones for those species. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

From what it looks like it like that may be the case. I was surprised myself when I saw in my book that there was no Miltank horde, just the same Tauros horde with one Miltank. Another issue as to why I started it is that for example with the Roggenrola is not only do they have have their own full horde, but also a rarer version that has one Carbink in it and only certain hordes like that apply. That is why I was aiming for the hordes like that which apply. -Tyler53841 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Words

Boom, Kyurem.

Please don't encourage the addition of pointless trivia, like on the Greninja page. Said trivia should instead be on it's own page (List of Pokémon with shared species names?). If one piece of trivia noting multiple individuals share a specific trait isn't notable, then all similar trivium, regardless of subject, isn't notable either. --The Truth aka Relicant 15:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You've already been told by admins to leave the same-species-name trivia alone. Take it to one of them if you disagree; I'm just trying to maintain the status quo they've decided on.

Also, as I've told you before, putting files in section headers messes up Tables of Contents, so I'm removing it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hypocritical though. Plus, why are we adding such trivium when there's important X/Y-related things to do (such as uploading the E4 and remaining Gym Leader images, making pages for the new Trainer Classes etc). --The Truth aka Relicant 15:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add it; I am merely maintaining it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Replies

Shouldn't we try to keep them indented in the same place as the original comment? It seems odd to be replying to something two pages up and having the reply at the bottom. Usually, resetting indents is a new chain of conversation in many cases (except longer conversations that is). CycloneGU (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask the admins, not me. The policy they enforce is that all comments go to the bottom, no matter to whom you're referring. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You are correct with this edit, based on my Wiki experience. The problem I'm facing is that I still can't edit Headbutt after the many reclaimed bytes. I'll keep testing as I am adding move data for Gen. VI once it works again. CycloneGU (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Television trivia

I really don't think that someone who openly admits they don't know anything about what they're editing should presume some piece of information is wrong. The next time you don't know about something, I would suggest you bring it up on the talk page for the article, rather than assuming the other person is wrong and commenting out their contribution. If they were wrong, it can always be fixed when that's confirmed, for solid reasons. The alternative is that no one may get around to fixing your mistake - you, the one who admitted you don't know anything about it, as opposed to the person who quite likely had an actual reason for adding their information. Please be more mindful. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that particular TV show, but I do know dubious information when I see it. Lack of knowledge on a very narrow subject does not preclude prudent editing judgment. Also note that if I assumed it was wrong, I would have removed it altogether; commenting it out is a way of assuring something is fact-checked before we make it visible to hoi polloi. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

hello, i am new here so i hope it is okay that i am weighing in as a third party. i think mr. pumpkin was concerned with the ambiguity of the trivium and took a bold step—he wasn't challenging the information's validity or correctness. it's just that it was a little too vague to tell whether or not it definitely warranted inclusion as a piece of trivia, which is especially problematic since trivia comes with very unclear guidelines. ~ Coeplispex [☎] 19:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To Pumpkinking: Honestly, I think my greater annoyance - especially right now - is that your edit summaries (on the Television page recently) appear to be inviting a conversation. And the edit summaries are the absolute worst place for that. If you want to ask questions - questions ostensibly inviting actual answers - they should go on a talk page, where they can actually be responded to freely. Meanwhile, the summaries should be kept simple as much as possible.

Now, at this point, I'm not entirely sure what you're doubting, but just to be sure: my own edit was meant to be confirmation of the fact that the "translation" was actually supposed to be what the Pokemon was saying. As for being worthy of trivia, I happen to think that, even if a Pokemon's speech being "translated" happened more than once in the (main) games, it's still uncommon enough that the Watchy the Watchog program is worth noting in the Television trivia. I do not believe that a thing must be absolutely unique, certainly not in this case. And if the trivia policy is as unclear as Coeplispex suggests, then, again, whether or not that point should be trivia should really be discussed properly somewhere, and not just left as a comment in an edit summary. Your edit summary provides no place for the discussion you implicitly invite. That may be the thing that's really bugging me.

To Coeplispex: put that way, "Be Bold", I suppose I'm less irked by the first edit. But he certainly did challenge its correctness at least, quite explicitly. And the fact that the summary was so long and the challenge of its trivia-worthiness came after the other part meant I kind of missed it... Which is another reason summaries really should be kept simple. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)