User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 6

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) 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. --Celad onkey 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)

That's fine that you disagree with the change, but that's how it is. I'm putting the trivia about Mew and Muk that Thorin added back up. --Celad onkey 20:06, 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)

I've notified SnorlaxMonster on his talk page asking for mediation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You said that following prescriptivism makes something respected. I explained why I don't respect prescriptivism. Yeah, it's a big difference. But I wasn't comparing or contrasting. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Just to be clear, I am absolutely fine with people wanting to replace "comprised of" if they are changing the whole paragraph or sentence. If they are changing solely to remove "comprised of" (like Ratchet), then that's a problem. "Comprised of" is acceptable and is not a grammar error.--Force Fire 05:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Skarmpexey"

Remember that "Skarmpexey" thing I added to the Metagame terminology page and you deleted it because I was "an unreliable source of information"? Well, I actually got that straight from the Mudsdale's mouth, excuse my pun. That info actually came from Nintendo itself (from the PGL page). See here:

"Another of the top teams featured a very defensive strategy, but stop us if you’ve heard this one already. You may remember one of the top teams in the Battle of Alola included the combination of Skarmory, Toxapex, and Blissey. In the Battle of Alola, the same Trainer once again finished near the top of the field, this time combining Skarmory, Toxapex, and Blissey’s previous evolution, Chansey. While none of these Pokémon are heavy hitters, they could slowly deal damage with Toxic, Toxic Spikes, and Stealth Rock while using Recover, Roost, and Soft-Boiled to stay healthy. These Pokémon were joined by a Tapu Bulu that knew both Leech Seed and Substitute, a tricky Pokémon to take down for opponents using similarly defensive teams."

(Nintendo, PGL. "A Look Back at the Alola Friendly.")

So it basically is a SkarmBliss setup with a Toxapex with Recover combined with a Subseeder Tapu Bulu. (PlatinumPokenut (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

Nowhere in there does it use the word "Skarmpexey". You made that up. That's what I was saying. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A bit late, but...

Why did you delete my origin for Nihilego? Nihil (nothing) + ego (refers to Freud's psychological ego, which is the rational decision making part of the psyche) refers to how Nihil has no ego, and only has an id (the survival and instinctual part of the psyche, which obviously relates to Nihilego. --Celad onkey 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I misinterpreted what you wrote. The previous name origin was structured as "[ nihil (nothing) + ego (I) ] or ego (psyche)", so I had that on my brain and didn't realize yours was intended to be structured as "nihil (nothing) + [ ego (I) or ego (psyche) ]". Because of this, I didn't realize you meant "nihil (nothing) + ego (psyche) = only an id"; I took it simply as "ego (psyche) = close enough to id". Yeah, that was my bad. If you change it back, though, can you try to make the structure clearer? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. These things happen and I should've worded it better. --Celad onkey 16:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rowlet is Moses

Why do you keep removing a clear reference to a famous literary work?!--Arisboch (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have only removed it once, and I removed it only to enforce our policy against edit warring. When I asked you to discuss it, I meant discuss it with the person who originally removed it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, if you want to be a stickler for rules, I'm gonna ask him/her.--Arisboch (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the edit I made to Event?

Munchlax is obtainable through an event, as I got my munchlax with a Snorlaxium Z, through an event, so why removing it?

Adrizz (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not; Glik did. You may want to be more careful about whom you're complaining to.

Either way, Glik's edit was warranted, since that page is for event-exclusives, and Munchlax is not event-exclusive. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Unova

My apologies, but I did not quite understand why the part about the new cities and routes were "This section is not about out-of-universe accessibility, it's about actual in-universe changes to the landscape that happened within the game world." I understand why you took out the part with the Giant Chasm accessibility, but what about the part with the new cities and routes? Did you mean the section was to include natural occurrences such as the landslides on Route 10 and the Challenger's Cave as opposed to man-made changes? If you meant that, then why is the mention of the Riches villa demolition still there? I mean no disrespect and I don't want to start an argument, I just want to understand, because I'm a bit confused. IUPLC (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)IUPLC

Everything else in the section — the Riches' villa's demolition, the landslides, etc. — actually changed in-universe from BW to B2W2. On the other hand, things like southwest Unova and Humilau City would clearly have still existed in the game world even though they didn't appear in BW. Their addition in B2W2 is just a matter of the game developers deciding to add new areas, not a matter of several towns cropping up out of nowhere in the interim between games. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thank you, that makes a lot of sense and is quite helpful to me. IUPLC (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Preview button

Oh. My bad. I was aware of the "edit this page" button, though. Some sections seem to be impossible without it. TheUltimateGamer (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Shuffle Mobile?

I can't test this. Do you have access to it? If so, I'd like to verify that the changed HP data indeed matches for Mobile, not just 3DS; Liepard (Stage 87) is the subject of my current test after I have already cleared Buneary.

Alternatively, if you know whether there are still datarips like the good old days, if you have a link to the current ones for 3DS and Mobile that would be sensational. CycloneGU (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm the HP has changed on mobile as well; I did a run of Buneary before updating the app and it matched the "old HP" column, and then I updated the app and did another run and it matched the "new HP" column.

I believe pastebins are still happening, but I'm not sure where to find them. I'm sure someone in the Query Den would be able to provide a link. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I was given this link. Looks like not every version gets one now.

I have done some partial updating, partly to make sure the data I put in at once is accurate and saved before adding more, but also because some of it I don't have yet. LOL New swappable skills (see I from here) are in, though the RMLs and AP I haven't studied. II I have not touched, and don't remember if we actually recorded this before, but we probably should. III is not touched. IV has had its rows created and descriptions added, but I have not updated the language table or odds/multipliers yet (I am told we have them, they will be coming). V is done except for Liepard, the only one I'm wondering about for Mobile as both differed before; I can run a play on mine and see where the win occurs, too. I have not noted the later things anywhere yet. CycloneGU (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Trivia on Pokemon Sun and Moon

I feel that it is notable, as events are limited time and can't be accessed by anyone after it ends, and so don't remove that you can only obtain one of each Apricorn Ball outside of going to a limited time event, like how Charizardite X and Y are version-exclusive outside events in X and Y, so they are considered version-exclusive, even though several events specifically gave the Charizardite from the other version, changing depending on what version you had. I'd refer to the Trivia Policy, but the one for games is incomplete. PartHunter (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There being only one of each ball is absolutely irrelevant to the trivium in the first place, though. When it was true, it was tenuously worth keeping because of its truth, but when you have to tack on exceptions to it, it becomes totally unnotable. To go with your Charizardite example, it'd be like having a trivium on the Pokemon X and Y page saying "These are the first games to introduce Mega Stones, some of which are version-exclusive, except through events." The whole bit about version exclusivity is totally irrelevant to the sentence, just like how the bit about the uniqueness of the Apricorn balls is totally irrelevant to the trivium it was tacked onto. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the limit of only one available is important enough to be notable, as they are essentially consumable items, so having only one of them is quite significant given that this kind of item is normally available in unlimited supply, and even extra Master Balls can be won. PartHunter (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My point is that it's not relevant to that trivium. Of course the limit of only one is notable elsewhere, like on the Poké Ball page. But not on a trivium that's merely about what games certain items appear in. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Setting up" evolution.

I meant this. If a Pokemon can evolve, the dotted rectangle will appear under it, which allows to "setup" evolution in this manner. A figure that is "set up" can be recognized during a match by having the dots appear in the quick summary of figure (ie. when clicked). I am not sure how to word it otherwise. Eridanus (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a little more research and reworded the sentence to try to express what I think is happening. Could you check on it and revert/revise if I'm wrong? Thanks! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Time-Space Axis

Hi there! It seems Japanese isn't the only language you're unfamiliar with. "A three movie story arc" is the very definition of a film trilogy, as you can see here. Also, the pages for M10, M11, M12, M13, and History of Pokémon all state that the first three movies in the Diamond & Pearl series series are a trilogy, so if you're going to argue against that, please be consistent and remove that piece of information from all these pages.
But before you edit the aforementioned articles, I strongly suggest you to read the content people present to you more carefully, or maybe use Ctrl + F to search for a specific word. The link I provided explicitly says that Arceus and the Jewel of Life is the conclusion of a film trilogy. "Watch the stunning finale to the trilogy when all of the secrets of the previous two movies will be revealed!" Before starting an edit war, check your facts. xoxo --Mi ku ri 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, maybe try to be less condescending. xoxo

Edit summaries don't have sufficient length for me to have tried to get into this detail, but I was arguing under the premise that just because these movies happen to have slightly better continuity between them than other Pokemon movies do, doesn't make them a trilogy by the traditional sense of the term. Their stories are still three self-contained stories rather than one overall one. But I will concede to the word "trilogy" on the grounds that that page uses the word, even if I think it's using it too loosely.

However, I still strongly oppose the term "Diamond & Pearl series trilogy" because it implies that the trilogy includes all movies from the Diamond & Pearl series, which is certainly not the case. I'd much rather a more general phrasing like "the last movie in a trilogy during the Diamond & Pearl series", which I'm adding as an attempt at a compromise.

In conclusion, thanks for descending to the same level of ass that I was being. I apologize for my being an ass. I hope this compromise is acceptable. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Without taking a side here, I would like to contribute this link to the discussion. It contains the first three Diamond & Pearl movies and describes its contents as The complete Diamond and Pearl movie trilogy in one set (Movies 10 – 12). The DVD set was released in Australia on June 16, 2011, while Zoroark: Master of Illusions was released in Australia on June 1, 2011 (by the same publisher). However, it's also worth noting that there are multiple subsequent DVD sets that include all four Diamond & Pearl movies in a single collection (although none of them seem to have product descriptions beyond describing the individual movies). --SnorlaxMonster 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New Scan for SM025

Hi! There is a new image scan for SM025: [[1]] PokeAmour (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in image scans and have never edited anything related to them, so I have no clue why you thought I was a good person to bring this to. Take it to a staff member or someone more strongly involved in Project Anime. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Porygon2

I'm not sure why would that not be something to put as trivia. Before FireRed and LeafGreen were released, I'm sure lots of people used Battle Mode to battle with a Porygon2, since the Porygon family was not available in Ruby, Sapphire and Colosseum. A similar situation happened later with Bonsly in Pokémon XD.

Croconaw2000 (talk)

It's absolutely pointless trivia. It's been more than a decade since the time you're talking about... the few people who might have cared about it at that point certainly don't anymore by now. I find it very doubtful that anyone is so invested in a particular obscure 'mon that they care whether or not they can encounter it as an NPC in games that came out in a very specific, narrow range 13-15 years ago. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Code of conduct

You get around here on Bulbapedia enough that you should understand our code of conduct. Please don't let frustration (or what-have-you) spur you to insults like here. That's not kosher.

Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User:Eduardinho Excuse me Why did you edit the page I edited, my edit was not fake - unsigned comment from Eduardinho (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you because you re-added the material after a staff member, Force Fire, removed it. This is called edit warring, and it's a blockable offense, so please don't do it.

Additionally, please be sure to sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your signature. This gives a link to your user page and/or talk page, which is required by the signature policy. Thanks! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Archeops

Look, obviously you think of yourself as the best, most unbiased, most knowledgeable Bulbapedia editor ever. So I'm not actually going to change anything from the name origin section of Archeops because it's really tiring to turn a fun thing into a discussion with an unresponsive wall. Heck, I won't even look at what you reply here (if you even take the time to reply to an under educated, substandard editor wannabe thing like me). But I will say this just so that you "try" to be a bit less judgmental next time:

1. Name origin section is exactly that: a guide to try to clarify the origins of pokemon names. The suffix ops in Archeops is obviously taken from dinosaur names in order to make it sound more "dinosaur-like", like it or not. Yeah probably they didn't think about what it meant, but when naming a fossil pokemon, real dinosaur names is the first source they will use.

2. There are only two possible scenarios with your correction of my correction: either I'm right about the origin of the name and you're too near-sighted to see it, or you're right and it has nothing to do, but at the same time you're a hypocrite for thinking just for one second that a completely obscure connection to Egyptian "Cheops" is more plausible than a bona fide taxonomic dinosaur name.