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)