30,353
edits
Talk:Ash's Charizard: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
→Gender again
(Returning with a clearer head.) |
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
{{indent}}Everyone knows and it is more than proven that Charizard is male. The problem is stubbornness.--[[User:Hikaru Wazana|Hikaru Wazana]] 13:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | {{indent}}Everyone knows and it is more than proven that Charizard is male. The problem is stubbornness.--[[User:Hikaru Wazana|Hikaru Wazana]] 13:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
:If you'd like to be constructive, we're happy to listen. But if that's all you have, please restrain yourself. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | :If you'd like to be constructive, we're happy to listen. But if that's all you have, please restrain yourself. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
::What questions do you have about the above? Minus the Tracey West stuff, which I have explained was a bad example. --[[User:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|BlisseyandtheAquaJets]] ([[User talk:BlisseyandtheAquaJets|talk]]) 22:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::I think my questions were mainly about the Tracey West books and my uncertainty about the connection there, but you've disclaimed that one now. | |||
:::The specific Pokemon mentioned are all just appearances/behaviors, which do not automatically mean anything absolute. You said originally that "bending the rule" (for Charizard here) would "lead to excuses" for those; but those cases are nothing like Charizard because (as far as you've explained, anyway) there is no extra material of any sort stating their gender. Accepting Charizard's gender based on Tomioka's comment in the book won't change anything for them. | |||
:::If your issue with the Attract-Captivate clause perhaps boils down to "it must occur in the anime", that's being just a little too strict. You can consider that "clause" a tool of convenience. It's a very good, very convenient tool, but it doesn't ''necessarily'' account for/preclude ''every'' possiblity. We can't start off '''knowing''' every possibility to guarantee that it accouts for them all satisfactorily. Again, it's still a fine tool; 99% of the time that "clause" conveys exactly what we need to. But that doesn't mean we can never accept something else like, say, a promotional poster somehow, or a book. A discussion divorced from that "clause" is worthwhile when such new cases arise, based on the new source's own merits, and reasonably informed—but not automatically dictated by—past lessons. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
