Talk:Bulbapedia

The creator section of the infobox says that Archaic created the Pedia. The article says Zhen. Which one should go in the infobox? Cu bo ne King 04:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Relations with other sites

Can Project Pokemon/The PKM Database go here? See here for some of it. Other bits are in the Bulbanews Admin forum, I think. I can't check there to make sure. It may have been in the dev forum. IDK.--immewnitythe mew 18:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First article

Does anyone know it?--Si6x12 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Main Page.--immewnitythe mew 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First Wiki

The article currently says that several other Pokémon wikis predate Bulbapedia, however it does not reference this statement, nor make an example of any specific wiki. Is this subtle vandalism which sneaked in, or does someone have a source? - unsigned comment from Archaic (talk • contribs)

Will Bulbapedia evolve?

I was just wondering, because it sounds kind of cool.

--Infernape12345 18:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No. -- MAG NE DETH 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to properly clarify, BP is always 'evolving' with new information, ease of use, and fancy templates. But "Ivypedia" nor "Venupedia" are in the cards. -- MAG NE DETH 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The references on this page is very misleading. The first two references links to a section of the forums only viewable by staff members, which defeats the purpose of having the citation there, it’s supposed to be so people can look at it. I say either move the original message to a forum where everyone can see it, or just remove the first two references. Thoughts? (Preferably by a staff member). --Pokemaster 97 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? --Pokemaster 97 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We're looking into it. Werdnae (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved! -- MAG NE DETH 22:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :D --Pokemaster 97 22:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Shoot

About my Turkey Shoot edits, which got me blocked and got me an insult from MAGNEDETH that didn't make sense. In case you weren't paying attention, I was basically removing everything about the Great Bulbapedia Turkey Shoot, including information about its deletion. Now, nowhere else on Bulbapedia, not on the main namespace, shipping namespace, appendix namespace, or any other namespace you can think of (except maybe the talk namespace). It is obviously unnecessary, for it is a deleted article and making a big deal about it is asking for trouble to happen. Besides, the point of subject knowledge can also be brought up. After all, all that readers know about the Turkey Shoot (presuming they didn't read the article while it was still existent) is that it was a vandal incident, its name, and that it used to have an article. Is that really relevant?

So, what's the argument for keeping it? Sure, it does show the feelings of Bulbapedia toward vandalism, but it shows the feelings of 2 users. No matter how important those 2 users were to Bulbapedia history, 2 users in no way represent the views of the Bulbapedia network. Is that really a good way to represent Bulbapedia's stance on vandalism? Sure, it was an important part of Bulbapedia history, but the point of subject knowledge can also be brought up, and if it was that important it would still have an article.

In short, the Turkey Shoot information should be removed. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 03:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Turkey Shoot information is unimportant, but your actions (6 attempts to remove it, despite getting 3 edit warring blocks for doing so) are reprehensible and I'd rather it stay than have your edit warring rewarded. It will go by discussion or it will not go at all, and removing it over and over will not solve anything. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)