User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 4
| Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ||||||
Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Small group
Pumpkinking, early Normal-type Pokémon like Patrat and Bunnelby is too small of a group to note right so I hidden a piece of trivia on each of the Pokémon pages anyway. --Cinday123 (Talk) 04:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Japanese seiyū
Hello, I've noticed that you've changed the term "seiyū" to "voice actor" on Becky's page twice. I won't undo your revision because we really shouldn't get into an edit war, but I have to remind you that the term "seiyū" is used when referring to Japanese voice actors in order to distinguish them from English voice actors. It's also a rule Kenji-girl established on the Project VA page.
Also, you suggested that the "List of Japanese voice actors" page use the term "seiyū" but then it'd be inconsistent with Becky's page...either we'd have to change both uses of "seiyū" to "voice actor" for both Becky's and the list's pages, or else we'd have to do the opposite for all other VA articles. ☆GamerGeek☆ 22:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't change it twice. After my first edit, I saw your edit summary pointing out Project VA's guideline, and as you can see, my second edit was merely to add a Wikipedia link. I don't see how using one or the other ("seiyu" or "voice actor") on all pages is inconsistent; if anything, the way we have it now is inconsistent, as we use two different terms on different parts of the wiki. We should pick one and be consistent with it across all pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Evolution
Evolution and its derivatives are always capitalized according to the Pokémon Syntax, what's wrong with it? --Cinday123 (Talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if you had cited that source in the first place. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- And please check the Pokémon Syntax if you noticed. --Cinday123 (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Don't patronize me. I already acknowledged that I saw your source. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- And please check the Pokémon Syntax if you noticed. --Cinday123 (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Aqua Ribbon/Wallace Cup
(link) It does, but I was going for with a Ctrl+F'ble solution here. And perhaps speaking just for myself, but I initially didn't even know the winner gets an Aqua Ribbon, so I wouldn't even know where to look.
Would you agree with simply moving it to the end, meaning while not getting in the way, we'd still have it easily noticeable? (edit link):
- Floaroma Ribbon (Settling a Not-So-Old Score!)
- Aqua Ribbon (Strategy with a Smile!) (winner of the Wallace Cup)
- Celestic Ribbon (Battling The Generation Gap!)
- Chocovine Ribbon (Another One Gabites the Dust!)
- Daybreak Ribbon (Playing the Performance Encore!)
--Dettalk 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Aqua Ribbon is not the winner of the Wallace Cup, though, so that's not grammatically accurate. Would either "Aqua Ribbon for winning the Wallace Cup (Strategy with a Smile!)" or "Aqua Ribbon (Strategy with a Smile!) (for winning the Wallace Cup)" be sufficient? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've learnt not fight you people too much over what I think is right, so as long as it mentions that "Wallace Cup", I'm happy with what you think is best.
- But to me the first suggestion seems a little "clumsy", though, as it deviates a bit too much from the rest and as a sentence might make you think 'well, why not name all the other Cups too?' (which I don't think even have names).
- I'd personally go with either of these (the first one is yours):
- Aqua Ribbon (Strategy with a Smile!) (for winning the Wallace Cup)
- Aqua Ribbon (for winning the Wallace Cup in Strategy with a Smile!)
- --Dettalk 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Logical quotes
Should we just leave it the way it was when added, first come/first serve? Pikachu Bros. (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't normally believe in compromising on ideological grounds, but in this case it's in my favor, so I suppose so. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific Trivia
Sorry to bother you, but could you help me understand a little better why you thought the piece of trivia on Steelix's page shouldn't have been there? I know it's no big deal, but pointing out something that is scientifically incorrect seems like a valid thing to put in a trivia section to me. AGGRON989 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the same reason that trivia about Wailord being less dense than air has been repeatedly removed from its page — it has to make assumptions about the Pokemon world working the same way as ours, when it clearly doesn't. Aside from the existence of Pokemon themselves, there are tons and tons of other completely ridiculous things in the Pokedex — Alakazam having an IQ of 5000, Ponyta's hooves being harder than diamonds, etc. Simply put, the Pokedex is just not a place for any kind of scientific data that makes sense in our world. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you'll pardon the intrusion, but I'd also note that Steelix's entries only say its composition is diamondlike, not that it is necessarily made of diamonds. (Others even say it is harder than diamonds, which should imply that it cannot be made of them.) So the trivia point was off the mark in the first place. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Shuckle trivia
Couldn't Shuckle potentially get Ice Ball through Mimic?--Cold (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- True. That wasn't listed in any of the original discussion about the trivium, though, so I hope it's understandable that I overlooked it, especially since Shuckle can't even get Mimic unless it's migrated forward all the way from FRLG or XD. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Mega stat trivia
Just so you know, Dennou made it pretty clear that that was just an opinion and is by no means binding. Now, I've seen SnorlaxMonster remove such trivia as well, so it's basically a de facto rule. I only decided to add the exclusion rather than remove the whole trivia because there has been no official rule. In my opinion, Mega Evolutions are not like pseudo-legendaries for several reasons: they are alternate forms, not just unusually strong Pokémon; they are not just a fan designation based on stats; and they are temporary, in-battle-only changes, which basically makes them no different than a stat-boosting move. As you can see from our edits, someone thought it notable that Archeops had the highest BST of all Fossil Pokémon, a group with only 11 members. I'd say that small groups like Fossils or Babies or starters should only note the highest BST, while larger groups like types and legendaries should note each highest stat as well. (Sorry for the essay, lol). --TheVeryBest 05:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- And in my opinion, any opinion by a staff member, even if explicitly non-binding, is better than having no policy at all, and is thus good enough to apply until another staff member disagrees. But I see your point, and agree that small groups shouldn't note such things. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Pokédex trivia
Nice work on dealing with removing all the trivia from those Pokédex trivia pages. Just so you are aware the only reason I added that trivia piece for the Kanto Pokédex regarding Magnemite and Magneton was that my attempt to alter the template itself regarding that information itself failed when I previewed it, so I decided to add that trivia piece instead. -Tyler53841 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes more sense for it to be a trivia point than to try to jury-rig the templates in a way that probably wouldn't even end up being very clear to the average reader. :) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plus unlike Johto, it did not require the creation of another Pokédex page, anyway thanks for the update on the trivia, as long as it serves its original purpose I don't mind if the wording is changed. -Tyler53841 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also one other thing to point out is let's wait until more concrete details regarding the Pokédex for the Ruby and Sapphire remakes is confirmed to affect what decision will be made regarding the Pokédex listings for Hoenn, especially since many of the Pokémon listed in it now have the Fairy-type attached to them which would only end with either a new page or a need for a new trivia piece. -Tyler53841 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Plus unlike Johto, it did not require the creation of another Pokédex page, anyway thanks for the update on the trivia, as long as it serves its original purpose I don't mind if the wording is changed. -Tyler53841 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Roxie
I know where you're coming from, but for me, it doesn't matter whether the bass is left or right hand oriented. One can see that for themselves without the article having to tel them that.--ForceFire 03:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- And that's a much better (and more communicative) reason than "other people have removed it." Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Bestow
I am quite surprised this happened! What I did on Bestow's page was remove 'In other generations' section, for the reason that it is still the image from Generation V which goes in the main infobox and it is hence pointless to create a separate section for the same image. As you might check with moves like Snarl, and Simple Beam, and Entrainment, no 'In other generations' has been mentioned on their pages as well due to the same reason. So I would like to ask what prompted you to revert my edits (and call me a vandal on the top of that; it really hurt me!) when a similar pattern is followed for other Generation V moves. Harryghost (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- My bad. Somehow I managed to think the infobox image was from Gen VI — although now I can't comprehend why I would think that, as it's clearly pixelated rather than a 3D model. Vandalism was the only reason that occurred to me for why someone would remove what I thought was not a redundant image. I humbly apologize. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
That J episode
https://youtu.be/v1xysHR0jsM?t=983
The only reason they didn't die was that they were lucky enough for Gardevoir to Teleport them. Unowninator (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Zapdos edit
Thanks for the edit you recently made to Zapdos's page.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Nature Power revert
How is that self evident? The point of the articles is to educate the reader on the intricacies of the moves, and it can't do that if information is left up in the air. in your rationel, it should be evident that Hidden Power is affected by the abilities, however that is not the case. Hidden Power is a normal type move, but it is not treated as one by the ability.
Moves behave in all kinds of unpredictable ways, like how Curse places a curse on the user if they have protean.
For all the reader knows, if a Pokemon has acquired Refrigerate and then uses Nature Power while Electric Terrain is on the field, the move would be a Ice-type thunderbolt just like how Normalize makes Thunderwave a normal-type move that can bypass ground's immunity. The problem is, it won't, so if you try to use Nature Power against a ground type in this scenario, all you're going to do is throw away a move because it'll still be immune. Yamitora1 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's self-evident because Nature Power is merely "calling" the other move in the same way Metronome does. Since "called moves act the same as they do if they're used normally" is a general rule, it's only exceptions to that rule that need to be noted, since a reader can always easily navigate to the called move's page to read about it. If we wrote about every called move's interactions with everything else in the game (especially, god forbid, on a page like Metronome) it would balloon out of control. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Zygarde
Bringing this up here before I do any further edits. The Zygarde section seems to put a lot of emphasis on trying to justify the Loki's children theory, and Norse mythology in general. Leaving little room for other interpretations. If you want to trim down the section I suggest removing a lot of the justification for these theories too. Like how are long lines fine like this one: Zygarde Complete Forme may be based on Hel, the ruler of Helheim, the realm of the dead in Nordic myth. She is often depicted as a half alive and half dead being, which may have inspired Zygarde's theme of balance between life and death. But a short note that Complete may be based on a combined Mecha not? Complete has a very strong physical appearance and generally looks inorganic, this in contrast to Hel who is frail. The Mecha note can help give insight into that.
Flatworms being able to form into bigger multi-cellular creatures is incorrect, they can just split into several individuals if cut in two, but not actually merge. Flatworms should either be left out of that sentence completely or get their own specifying that case. I support the first. Also I think Euglena is worth mentioning because they are the creatures that visually look the most like Zygarde Core, on top of the photosynthesis link. Petrichor (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to avoid excessive detail. Which interpretations get focus and which don't are something that I have no particular stance on. The Norse mythology thing has been heavily pushed by other users, though, so I've been hesitant to trim it because people tend to throw a fit when it's trimmed. But you're more than welcome to try to do so yourself if you want. As for flatworms, sorry about that. I'll adjust that clause. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ar-KAY-Us
Why did you undo my edit? I've seen the promotional trailer, it clearly says "Ar-KAY-us". CrashBash (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies. That trivium had stood like that for a very long time without anyone objecting, you left no edit summary to explain, and we often have vandals who change minor things for apparently no reason but enjoyment of seeing subtle wrongness go unnoticed, so I assumed you were one of those vandals. It seems you were perhaps instead just correcting something one of those vandals had slipped in long ago. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
