User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 6
| Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ||||||
Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Burmy
I should've explained myself better, but that's quite hard in the edit box! My intention was not "wormy" as in "worm-like", but as in "infested with and home of a worm". Wormy could also mean weak and untrustworthy (as in Burmy being the first stage of evolution, and weak), but I imagine it as in Burmy burrowing into nearby materials to create a cloak. I will to defer to you though, as I do not intend an edit war, and these name origin sections are quite subjective also, so my opinion does not automatically trump yours. While we are at it though, do you know what is meant by "brr" or "burr"? I imagine "brr" is because it wears a cloak so that it doesn't get cold, but that might be stretching the name origin thing. As for "burr", I don't know... it is not made of metal, and as far as I can tell, it is not known to stick to passersby, like the velcro burdock plant. With that one I feel like I'm missing something... -Uncleben85 (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced by either "infested with worms," "home of a worm," or "weak and untrustworthy." I prefer to err on the side of excluding tenuous origins. For that matter, I don't really like "brr" or "burr" either, so I wouldn't argue if you wanted to get rid of them — I left them mostly out of inertia. As for what's meant by them, the talk page has some discussion, including in this section. I don't find the arguments there very convincing, but it is what it is. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Pumpkinking. I'll make a section on the Talk page and see what sort of consensus there is. -Uncleben85 (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Replied
No disruption intended. I left a response on the page to reach consensus. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Last comment at Talk:Petrel. Likewise, I have one at Talk:Archer. I intend to leave the matter here but would still like some advice and opinion from a senior editor. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for being understanding and discussing. I should clear things up, though: I'm not a staff member, so if you want an end-all be-all final answer, I'm not the person to approach. I can only give my opinion as a fellow rank-and-file editor. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Controversy
What do you mean do your own research. You can't just say that of course it needs sourcing.Sly Fox (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Bulbapedia is a wiki about Pokemon-related topics. If you want stringent sourcing about swastikas, you can go to the Wikipedia page for swastikas and look at those sources. It's not part of our purview. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just letting you know...
According to trivia policy, ties are notable, as long as there are only two Pokemon involved in the tie. --Celadonkey 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't see that and I don't know when it was changed, but it used to be that ties flat-out disqualified a point. I disagree with the change. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Heatmor
I am pretty sure that images, depictions, and/or pictures do count as minor appearances. In Mew's page, two minor appearances are images. One appearance is a picture of Mew in a magazine, and another appearance is an image of Mew on a computer screen. I think the appearance of Heatmor as a picture does count if Mew's picture appearances count as well. - unsigned comment from RedHailfire (talk • contribs)
Comprised of
FYI, this has been discussed. For example, User talk:Ratchet and Clank 1995#Comprised of. I don't know if you ever noticed. But the wording you're "fixing" is exactly what was deemed OK. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- What was agreed was flat-out wrong. See, for example, here, here, or here, which generally agree that although the "comprised of" usage is prevalent, it's not correct and should be avoided by writers who know the difference. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- At best, though, I think it is a difference that has been much mixed up. If you have to be "careful", that just sounds like prescriptivism to me, which I don't generally have a lot of patience for. Language evolves. There are some things where you can draw a clear enough right and wrong; but that's not this. It was previously decided that, for BP, it would be okay, so unless you want to appeal that and hope for a reversal, that's what we'll stick by. I'll intend to undo your edits in the near future on that basis. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Prescriptivism is how respected sources remain respected. I'm all for descriptivism in casual use, but books, newspapers, encyclopedias, etc. need to be prescriptive if they want to be seen as authorities. People don't respect the content itself when the presentation has errors.
- And yes, I absolutely want to appeal the ruling. Based on that talk discussion, it looks like you and Force Fire decided what you decided before any discussion had occurred, so I strongly feel the ruling wasn't properly arrived at. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- When prescriptivist thinking gets you people who think that something like "up with which I will not put" is 'good', I can't honestly respect it overall. There are a lot of "prescriptions" that can just get in the way of effective writing.
- You may know it, but if you want to appeal it, you should pick someone on staff at a higher rank than Force Fire and bring the issue up to them. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Way to put words in my mouth. "Comprises" and "up with which I will not put" are orders of magnitude in difference, and I never argued anything resembling approval of the latter. Good job shutting down discussion by creating a strawman. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- At best, though, I think it is a difference that has been much mixed up. If you have to be "careful", that just sounds like prescriptivism to me, which I don't generally have a lot of patience for. Language evolves. There are some things where you can draw a clear enough right and wrong; but that's not this. It was previously decided that, for BP, it would be okay, so unless you want to appeal that and hope for a reversal, that's what we'll stick by. I'll intend to undo your edits in the near future on that basis. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
