User talk:Pumpkinking0192

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives
637 Archive 1
May 2012‑Aug 2013
376 Archive 2
Sept 2013‑Nov 2013
671 Archive 3
Dec 2013‑Feb 2014
407 Archive 4
Mar 2014‑Aug 2016
748 Archive 5
Sept 2016‑Jan 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. --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)
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. --Celadonkey 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 (talkcontribs)

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.--ForceFire 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. --Celadonkey 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. --Celadonkey 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 --Mikuri 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 (talkcontribs) 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. - unsigned comment from ‎Tailswalker (talkcontribs)

If you looked at the most recent edit I made, you would see I did not dispute your addition of the -ops suffix nor the removal of Cheops. I merely rearranged the parts of the section to make the obvious Archeopteryx origin the most prominent and to downplay the "this is literally where the name comes from" segment, given that Pokemon names virtually universally are created by wordplay, not literal translation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Stages Section (Main Article)

We're having a discussion right now about reformatting the Stages section at Pokémon Shuffle. I'd like your thoughts on this as one of the main active editors for the game. Should we give Stages its own page, or do you think it's better left where it is? I already have in mind that Tutorial is leaving regardless of the decision, because that's specific to Puerto Blanco and Sandy Bazaar. CycloneGU (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm... I could support it either way, depending on what it ends up looking like. The section as-is doesn't seem long enough to justify a separate article to me, but I can imagine it being expanded to justify one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The main concern was the table listing all the areas. With the table floating to the right, it's not too long a section, but some casual readers might find it confusing wondering what the areas are, not realizing they are necessarily among the main stages, and the three lines at the end of the table spur that confusion linking to the other pages linked in the prose. I'm starting to warm to the idea of it having its own page as there could be additional blurbs on Expert Stages, and the others, in the Stages article anyway. The main reason for having its own page is because of that very table; we might even be able to expand the table on its own page.
See my last edit to my Sandbox and look at that as if it were a page of its own. That's possibly a good starting point for expansion, though my working on that in the sandbox itself was assuming it remains a section. Is that too long, perhaps, for the page?
Unrelated, I'm also thinking of splitting the version history since it's now the longest part of the article, but that's another topic. CycloneGU (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I definitely like the presentation in your Sandbox better. I wouldn't say it's too long to be part of the Pokémon Shuffle page, but it also works as a great seed for expansion.
I was just thinking about suggesting a split for the version history myself. Judging from my scroll bar, it takes up at least half the real estate on that page, so it seems like the most obvious candidate to split. (As a side note, as I was looking up dates of introduction for Main Stages and Mission Cards last night, I noticed a lot of missing information and inconsistencies in the version history, probably the result of different people updating it and not attempting to follow the formatting of previous entries. So once it's decided whether or not to split it, I'll try to carve out the time necessary to whip it into shape.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Version history is now split. It resulted in a 90K bytes page, and the remainder is 83K. That was the obvious candidate for splitting.
I'm thinking more about a separate Stages page. We could touch on the various areas and even include the blurb descriptions of them, linking to the main article for each one on the Stages page without using the table. It's definitely something that would work after thinking about it that way, though we could still leave the table for quick navigation underneath everything. I'd rather work on such a page in userspace before actually splitting it, however; additionally, this would be its own page, so I would be willing to create it in my userpsace as well once I tackle it (not in my sandbox). CycloneGU (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Victini

It actually is 1,500 now for the XP stage. Magearna started at that, and I played a couple of Victini rounds with it as well after returning. I'm not sure the exact point at which the XP changed, but I might be able to look up old Reddit information to find it. CycloneGU (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

...and I just realized why it was 1,500. I used the 1.5x XP item. That would do it! LOL CycloneGU (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Listing Alternate Forms in Egg Groups

If we're still listing each form as separate in egg groups, what exactly does it mean for other Pokémon with different forms like Deerling, Shellos, Oricorio and the Alola variants? Its a bit odd to list some Pokémon with alternate forms and others are not included. PDL (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In Other Shuffle Page News...

...we now have a mainspace candidate for Disruptions. I didn't expect this kind of expansion on it when the idea was brought to me. Do you have thoughts on it before it goes live? I know when I later thought about the idea of Stages as a page, the idea of removing the table and just listing info about each area came to mind for me, much like this. CycloneGU (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I like it! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
You noted that you didn't understand the order. Let me lay out my thoughts.
I mostly think that the order should be "sensible". And I mostly mean this from, as much as possible, what should be a zero-knowledge or novice point of view. More experienced players can cope, but less familiar readers are, I think, more likely to be confused if sense isn't apparent. (And we really can't/shouldn't expect all our readers to be familiar.)
The previous order on Shuffle didn't seem to have any sense. I'm glad you stated a reason for your ordering, but that too looks mostly just haphazard.
A good part of the reason I think that is that, at the very least, unbreakable block and breakable rock are pretty clearly two peas in a pod, and having them separate is at least a little bit ridiculous. I also think that the barrier and clouds are alike conceptually, insofar as they both just cover a tile; so I think it's good sense for those to be near each other. And non-Support Pokemon IMO are kind of the most unique—but also it's kind of the longest/densest section—so I like it being last.
My total reasoning for the order I made is no small bit subjective, but I really think that, if nothing else, having rocks and blocks "split" is pretty odd for unfamiliar readers. There may not be a perfect solution. (And I don't think "encounter" order is the best option.) But if I had to choose something, I'd suggest a thoroughly objective (and parsable) alphabetical order. (Maybe it goes without saying, but: I'd still prefer something like the order I had, though, something that keeps the rock/block together.)
For now, then: what do you think? Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Alphabetical was my first instinct and I ordered them that way first, but then I second-guessed myself while previewing and ended up going with encounter order instead. I'd be happy with either, or I'd even be happy with a "subjective" order provided it seemed to make sense (like, for example, going roughly in order of frequency — which would put rocks, blocks and barriers at the top). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The change suits me well. Nice/thanks! Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate formes

Regarding the removal of the trivia on Zygarde's form change being the only one to change its base HP, would you be able to word it so that it goes along the lines of Zygarde being the only Pokemon whose form changes can change its base HP> This is because from what I've researched, Zygarde is the only Pokemon whose form differences can change its base HP whilst still remaining as the "same Pokemon" as other form differences such as Gorgeist line and the two Lycanroc with differing base HP requires catching a different Pokemon altogether.Nikuriku (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wishiwashi is the same Pokemon, and its HP changes in battle. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 10:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure Wishiwashi doesn't change HP in battle. However everything else does change.Nikuriku (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, making a distinction between Pokémon whose forms are intrinsic and Pokémon whose forms can change during battle is too picky. When we do "the only one"-type trivia, we try not to allow it if it requires an extra clarifying clause. So if there were something that were "the only Pokémon whose forms have different base HP", that would be notable. But since you have to say "the only Pokémon that can change forms in battle whose forms have different base HP", that isn't notable. No amount of rewording will change that. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

{{User:Pumpkinking0192/Template:TalkArchiveNav}}

How did you make {{:User:Pumpkinking0192/Template:TalkArchiveNav}}? When I tried the same thing with mine (but with my name), all I got was a red link. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a user subpage that gets called as a template, and itself calls the template User:Pumpkinking0192/Template:TalkArchive (which is also a user subpage) to produce the Pokémon modules. If you show me what you're trying, I can help you fix it, if you want. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I basically want to do have a similar template for my archives (once it gets more pages). Why does User:Pumpkinking0192/Template:TalkArchiveNav work, while User:Unowninator/Template:TalkArchiveNav is just a red link? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a user subpage, so you have to create it yourself in your userspace before it will work. If you copy the source code of mine (both the nav template and the module template, each into a separate new page in your userspace) and just change the instances of my username to yours, it should work for you, and then you should be able to edit the colors and things as you desire.
Also, if you're trying to refer to a template by name, it's easier to just use normal wikilinks with [[ ]] than to put nowiki around it every time. If you really want to do nowiki that's fine, but linking is a lot easier. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Type-changing moves

I knew that already. There's just two things that bother me about it: 1) If this is something that should be fixed, I'm not seeing pretty much anyone putting too much effort into it. 2) Why is it, that whenever a Pokémon list on a character's page is edited, almost no one ever remembers to make those same changes to the copy of the template on the page of the location where the battle happens? That's just as important. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)