User talk:Iliekmudkips: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Iliekmudkips (talk | contribs) |
(→Deleted Article?: new section) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Putting all branches in all members of a branched evolution line is not the way things are done at many Pokémon sites. [[serebii.net|Serebii]] doesn't do it, Bulbapedia doesn't do it, I could go on and on. Maybe you ought to lay off licking (or should I say "[[Lick (move)|lieking]]") {{p|Mudkip}}s--who knows what's in their scales?!--and actually read the {{bp|manual of style}} and {{bp|notability requirements}} before making another snap judgement.--[[User:Shiningpikablu252|Shiningpikablu252]] 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) | Putting all branches in all members of a branched evolution line is not the way things are done at many Pokémon sites. [[serebii.net|Serebii]] doesn't do it, Bulbapedia doesn't do it, I could go on and on. Maybe you ought to lay off licking (or should I say "[[Lick (move)|lieking]]") {{p|Mudkip}}s--who knows what's in their scales?!--and actually read the {{bp|manual of style}} and {{bp|notability requirements}} before making another snap judgement.--[[User:Shiningpikablu252|Shiningpikablu252]] 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Using "Find" and searching for the string "evolv" (which will catch evolving and evolve), I only found a guideline covering the anime. If most of the rest of the population think inclusion of the forks are a mistake, I have no problem with the changes being removed. I also did not anticipate anyone becoming seriously upset by the change because content was only added, in a similar format to an already existing article, rather than content replaced or article style broken in a new way. Its a simple revert, its not like I templated out the evolutionary lines or anything major in terms of reformatting. | :Using "Find" and searching for the string "evolv" (which will catch evolving and evolve), I only found a guideline covering the anime. If most of the rest of the population think inclusion of the forks are a mistake, I have no problem with the changes being removed. I also did not anticipate anyone becoming seriously upset by the change because content was only added, in a similar format to an already existing article, rather than content replaced or article style broken in a new way. Its a simple revert, its not like I templated out the evolutionary lines or anything major in terms of reformatting. | ||
== Deleted Article? == | |||
What is this deleted article about that you speak off? You don't have any remnants of it do you? --[[User:Sivart345|<span style="color:#4DC000">Sivart</span>]][[User talk:Sivart345|<span style="color:#00FF60">3</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sivart345|<span style="color:#00FFA0">4</span>]][[User:Firestorm|<span style="color:#7FFFF7">'''5'''</span>]] 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:52, 31 January 2009
So I heard some things... File:Ani258MS.gif
Anyway, welcome to Bulbapedia! Remember to follow the manual of style, and of course, capitalize Pokémon names. TTEchidna 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to categorize all new pages you create. --PAK Man Talk 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Two-Pronged Articles
Putting all branches in all members of a branched evolution line is not the way things are done at many Pokémon sites. Serebii doesn't do it, Bulbapedia doesn't do it, I could go on and on. Maybe you ought to lay off licking (or should I say "lieking") Mudkips--who knows what's in their scales?!--and actually read the manual of style and notability requirements before making another snap judgement.--Shiningpikablu252 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Using "Find" and searching for the string "evolv" (which will catch evolving and evolve), I only found a guideline covering the anime. If most of the rest of the population think inclusion of the forks are a mistake, I have no problem with the changes being removed. I also did not anticipate anyone becoming seriously upset by the change because content was only added, in a similar format to an already existing article, rather than content replaced or article style broken in a new way. Its a simple revert, its not like I templated out the evolutionary lines or anything major in terms of reformatting.
Deleted Article?
What is this deleted article about that you speak off? You don't have any remnants of it do you? --Sivart345 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
