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)