Name is based on Ginseng? In what way? Geosenge really just seems to be based on Geo and Stonehenge.
Erikhogue (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Same way Siebold is derived from sea, mayhap? --The Truth aka Relicant 12:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relicant, that point has nothing to do with this article. Don't bring it up here. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 12:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- My point was... Ginseng is pronounced+spelt similar to Geosenge, similar to how sea is pronounced and spelt similar to the "sie" in Siebold. Stop throwing that stupid accusation around. --The Truth aka Relicant 12:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You should already know that just being pronounced/spelt similarly is not enough; Siebold has "sea" as a name origin because he's a Water-type specialist. However, since Kalos cities and towns seem to have a plant theme (how original...), I think we can keep "ginseng".--電禅Den Zen 12:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- My point was... Ginseng is pronounced+spelt similar to Geosenge, similar to how sea is pronounced and spelt similar to the "sie" in Siebold. Stop throwing that stupid accusation around. --The Truth aka Relicant 12:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relicant, that point has nothing to do with this article. Don't bring it up here. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 12:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Separate article for the ultimate weapon?
I was just about to start one, since this is the closest it has to an article, and its role in the plot and the history of Kalos is enough to warrant one. Additionally, more information can be added while stripping this article of spoilers. But the main reason I ask is... well, since it's never referred to by its proper name, the article's title would have no capitals, which looks a bit silly. Which is a strange reason to consider keeping it as a subsection inside this article, I realize... --Pie ~♪♫ 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it seems notable enough to get its own article, and not having a capitalized name is no reason to avoid making an article. (I'm specifically recalling the capitalization discussions on Talk:Berry fields, although they're not totally relevant here...) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mm, the fields discussion is sorta relevant, but not completely -- a group of fields don't necessarily need a proper noun as a name, whereas a one-of-a-kind ultimate weapon should, but canon still trumps all. Maybe if it's titled "Ultimate weapon" rather than "The ultimate weapon", it'll look less... strange? Even though I believe it always has that article in front in the games. --Pie ~♪♫ 06:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- "The" is not normally used as the beginning of an article title (both here and in general encyclopedias) unless it's part of the title of a book, play, song, etc. For example, our article is Pokémon League even though it's only ever referred to as "the Pokémon League." Just Ultimate weapon would be the most sensible title by encyclopedic norms. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've already talked to the other admins about it. Yes, it's notable enough for an article. Eh, I've been doing a write up of an article, but school has kept me from really finishing it. I just finished my semester, so I can finish it up, but if you want to...I guess go ahead? Ataro (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Forgive me if this sounds critical of me, but... returning to Bulbapedia after all these years, I'm a tad perplexed about the degree that I see people taking the sandbox technique to developing articles. This isn't to say that sandboxes don't have their purpose, such as articles that are of more questionable notability or have been fought due to quality issues, or require a good deal of research before you can even call them a stub. But it also does have its downsides -- for example, when I realized that "signature Pokémon" is a very commonly used phrase on this wiki, my first reaction was "well why has no one made an article for this", and it was only because I read the deleted edits log that I learned the story -- someone had tried starting the article, it was dropped due to questionable notability and the general lack of quality, it was moved to a userspace for development and then abandoned because only the one person was working on it. I realize there's a need to keep the bar high on this wiki, but one of the biggest advantages to having a wiki at all is crowdsourcing. If there's no question about the notability, you just need more time to develop a full article... well, isn't that what the stub system is supposed to be used for? Why not put what you have up as a stub, and let myself and others finish it for you? --Pie ~♪♫ 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've already talked to the other admins about it. Yes, it's notable enough for an article. Eh, I've been doing a write up of an article, but school has kept me from really finishing it. I just finished my semester, so I can finish it up, but if you want to...I guess go ahead? Ataro (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- "The" is not normally used as the beginning of an article title (both here and in general encyclopedias) unless it's part of the title of a book, play, song, etc. For example, our article is Pokémon League even though it's only ever referred to as "the Pokémon League." Just Ultimate weapon would be the most sensible title by encyclopedic norms. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mm, the fields discussion is sorta relevant, but not completely -- a group of fields don't necessarily need a proper noun as a name, whereas a one-of-a-kind ultimate weapon should, but canon still trumps all. Maybe if it's titled "Ultimate weapon" rather than "The ultimate weapon", it'll look less... strange? Even though I believe it always has that article in front in the games. --Pie ~♪♫ 06:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)