User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 3

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to 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
774R Archive 6
Feb 2017‑Aug 2017

Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding revision 2029507

I do not see how you ended up at that conclusion please logic. If anything, it's anything but fanon because I was the one who initially added it into the article when I wrote about the B2W2 Zoroark. --The Truth aka Relicant 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that Illusion does anything additional to its explicitly stated effect (in this case, speaking human language is additional to changing its visual appearance) is fanon. It doesn't matter whether you or someone else initially added it; it's fanon nonetheless. Pumpkinking0192(talk) 03:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC
No, it's not fanon, or else I wouldn't have added it in. fanon would be me stating Aroumshipping is canon on Serena's and Ash's articles. adding in an sentencr and adding "arguably" to the beggining isnt. --The Truth aka Relicant 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Anything that is not confirmed does not belong on Bulbapedia. Couching it with "arguably" doesn't make it any less unconfirmed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yet there's fanon speculation here on why some Pokémon in the anome use more than 4 moves in a single battle nobody's removed it or hidden it. --The Truth aka Relicant 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For the trillionth time, Relicant, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. It just means the other stuff is also wrong. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting of Flannery's PWT announcement within Flannery's article

Regarding this edit, I disagree; how does Flannery's PWT announcement not warrant mention on her own page? The announcement is directly related to her, as it is an exclusive piece of dialogue that the PWT announcer reserves for her. Offhand quotes (as in, quotes about Flannery that are not said by Flannery herself) that stem from in-game sources, like Fame Checker and National Gymquirer, are listed on Flannery's page, so I don't see why her own PWT announcement merits exclusion from Flannery's article as well. Fenyx4 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to enhance an understanding of her the way the Fame Checker and Gymquirer quotes do; it's just a silly pun about the Fire type. It's only the slightest bit relevant to her because she happened to be the leader it's attached to, and frankly, I'd say it only belongs on the pop culture references article, not even in any Trivia sections anywhere at all. On top of that, the Reshiram bit is even more irrelevant to her and even if the PWT part is restored, the Reshiram part doesn't belong at all. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
While I admit that the quote is relatively minor, the same could be said for a lot of Gym Leaders' "defeated by player" quotes that attempt to make trivial/minor puns in relation to the Gym Leader's type specialty and/or hobby (although those essentially have to be included by virtue of being actual quotes of Gym Leaders). I still think that the "Flannery PWT announcement" merits mention in individual trivia sections (namely, the PWT page and the Flannery page only), seeing as the "pop culture references" article is essentially one giant trivia page, and it seems to be having difficulty in getting linked to by other articles (which reduces its purpose, if it's only going to become an orphaned article that's hard to find). However, the same could be said (regarding the restriction of the trivia to the "pop culture reference" page) for the numerous anime episodes wherein the title "references something in pop culture/incorporates a pop-culture pun in the title". As for the Reshiram thing, I mainly included it since it was on the PWT page as well, and it seemed to slightly warrant mention in that the identical pop-cultural/punny quote was used in Pokémon White Version and was used again in the Black/White sequels, despite the phrase being used in totally different situations (similar to how various articles mention something like an English item sharing the same Japanese name of a different item). I guess I might bring this issue up on the Flannery article's talk page to see what other users have to say.. Fenyx4 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, bringing it up on the talk page would be a good idea if you want to keep it. Most people are considerably more pro-trivia than I am. As far as I'm concerned, most of what you brought up is just further examples of things we shouldn't have cluttering up our articles. Better to keep things in one place than to sprawl them out over a bunch of different pages, in my opinion. Repetition is both boring for readers and a waste of server space. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Meloetta's item

The notice on the template's page clearly states
"WARNING: To those using this template, please only use this for Pokémon that legitimately appear in the wild in those games. For instance, Lunatone cannot be found in Emerald, so this does not apply to it. The only exception is for those for those in the Battle Pyramid and Battle Pike (Dusclops only). See here for details according to the Battle Pyramid. Please write it in the edit summary and write that it's possible only in the Battle Frontier with the parser Frontier."
Meloetta can't be found in-game, unlike eg. Victini. I am sure this still applies... Uploader (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but considering the example it gives, I'm guessing that was meant to address version exclusives, not event Pokemon. And as you can see on List of Pokémon by wild held item, Meloetta is indeed programmed with a Star Piece... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

?? ?

I've always had an image of at least 1000px on my page. I don't see why u are suddenly raising concern over it. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've grown more and more irritated by it the more you change it. It's just now that it's reached the final straw. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You seemed fine when I had a 7000px image of Siebold on there and even reverted an edit when someone reduced the size of said image. Give me an idea on how to be less annoying, mayhap? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That was because the other person was violating the userspace policy. It had nothing to do with your image. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

is this better?? ? ? --The Truth aka Relicant 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC) ? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Can you answer my question please?