User talk:Venomoth
Creating pages and templates
Hi Venomoth. When you next create a page or a template, be sure to categorise it so that it can be found later and doesn't end up here. With that said, your recent contribution Template:Pkm was not required. The word Pokémon isn't terribly hard to write using alt-codes (e.g. Alt+130) or the character palette below the screen. It encourages laziness and has been deleted now. —darklordtrom 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Laziness? That's the point of templates: To provide a shortcut. I don't think it should be deleted, although I did create it before I noticed the "Poké" in the Character palette of editing pages. Thanks for the nomination! ...I think. =$ --☯ *Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* ☯ 06:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Kenhorou
...is not a branched evolution, so it should not be treated as such. It evolves into the same Pokemon, it just has a (significant) gender difference. 梅子❀✿ 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- It still needs to be added, in all cases of Pokémon with form differences, such as Meloetta, Rotom and Shellos we always include those in the evolution. I guess when we get a infobox image of the female we can have the page alternate like on the rest of the of them. --☯ *Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* ☯ 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Except it's a gender difference, not a form difference. Please refrain from adding it back to the article. 梅子❀✿ 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- If we do Kenhorou then we have to do these guys too. It's silly to do one gender and not the others just because it's more noticeable. --ケンジのガール 02:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Except it's a gender difference, not a form difference. Please refrain from adding it back to the article. 梅子❀✿ 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Forme switching
All Forme switchers are to be discussed with TTEchidna.--MisterE13 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I can ever message
herhis talk page, that is. By the time I get to itshe'she's usually got it closed. --☯ *Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* ☯ 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)- TTEchidna is a dude. Also, he's taking some time away from Bulbapedia atm; direct those sorts of discussions to whichever member of the Editorial Board or administration team you think is suitably qualified to handle it. —darklordtrom 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus
Two people a consensus does not make. Especially when you have a third person who disagrees. Werdnae (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly it's three now to two. Will comment more @ Your talk page. —Ve№moth ♦ 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy
Hi! evkl here. If you're unhappy with all the pedia staff and me based on the outcome of that thread, that's okay. But I don't appreciate you saying I closed off discussion because I expected to lose the debate. You could continue to post the same sorts of arguments you were posting and I could continue to engage and rebut them in a way I thought reasonable. But that's tedious. I also don't think it would end. And frankly, I don't think you were interested in a reasoned discussion on the issue designed to reach a logical conclusion. I think you wanted (and still want) your way. Which, again, you're entitled to desire and think. But please don't accuse me of impropriety--in this case, that would be closing a thread to stifle debate. Or, if you really think I am just trying to silence dissenters, I'd appreciate if you came to me and talked about it instead of mentioning it in passing on a talk page behind my back.
Thanks.
-- evkl (need to talk?) 05:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)